Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-09
The Board of General Appraisers Up
hold the Law.

The Board of General Appraisers Up
hold the Law.
SAN Francisco, November Sta,-The
Mckinley administrative bill Of June 10,
1890, which restored the duty en- the cases
and coverings of dutiable goods, has caused
q perfect cloud of protests to be filed with
Collector Phelps, in which the constitu-
tlonality of the Act is challenged. About
600 protests altogether have been fled by
the merchants of this city. The majority
of the protests simply imply that the new
law is unconstitutional, without defining
what particular section of the Constitution
has been violated. Speaker Reed is brought
into the wraDgle by few of the protests
asserting that he counted a silent quorum"
by which means this bill was passed.
Collector Phelps and the Deputy Col
lector, 2. L. Jerome, not being constitu-
tional lawyers, submitted the protests to
the Board of United States General APP
praisers, meanwhile collecting the duties
on the cases and coverings. as the law pro-
vided. The following answer was received
to the Collectors communication trans
uniting the protest:
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF U. 81
GENERAL APPRAISERS,
New YORK, October 27, 1890.
Collector Customs, San FfcAcisco, Cai-S1R: We
are in receipt of your letter of the 9th inst SUBJ
uniting the protests described in the accom-.
panying schedule against the execution OF
duties upon packing charges. cases. etc., which
were included In the entered and invoice
value of merchandise imported in the vessels
named.
These charges, etc., were included in the mar.
ket value of the goods, as we understand, and
under the provisions OF section 10 OF the Act OF
June 10, 1890 commonly known as the NC
Kinley Customs Administrative bill" This
section expressly provides that the market
value OF imported merchandise shall be est1-
mated upon the basis of including in such val
uatiol the value of all cases, crates, boxes,
sacks and coverings of all kinds, and all
other costs, charges and expenses incident to
placing the merchandise in condition, packed
ready for Shipment to the United States.
1t is not denied that the assessment of duty
was properly made under this section of the
law The contention is that the law itself is
void for unconstitutionality, and that being IL
legal and void, the merchandise was dutiable
under the Act of March 8, 1888. Many of these
protests are of the most general character,
merely asserting that the law is ''unconstitu-
tional," without suggesting any particular
clause of the Federal Constitution to which 1t is
supposed 10 be repugnant. or any definite
ground for contention. We have held that a
failed to set forth distinctly and specifically"
the grounds of the objections taken by the APP
pellants, as required by statute. Decision
Board, September 16, 1890, g. A. 32.)
Some of the protests, however, are somewhat
more specific. asserting he-ground of objection
be that "the Speaker of the House Of Repre-
SeQLdtlNeS counted QUORUM. OOuottu-
ing this objection to be the same as the one
more definitely stated in the similar protest
considered in our decision here before made on
the 18th instant mot yet printed, involving the
validity of the Act of May =, 1880, entitled IAN
Act providing for the classification of worsted
cloths as woolens," our opinion is that the OBJ
lection urged to the constitutionality Of the Act
is not well taken. Our reasons for this conclu-
sion will be found fully stated in that decision,
to which we need add nothing more.
Your decision in each of the cases named is
affirmed. Respectfully yours,
CHARLES 81. ham,
HENDERSON NJ. FRANKLIN,
THAD. s. SHARRETT,
Board of General Appraisers.
The decision of September 16, $780, re-
ferred to in the above letter, holds that the
objection that the bill is unconstitutional
is lacking in certainty, and is not sufficiently
specific to authorize its consideration.
In New York City the merchants have
fled over 5000 protests against the law of
June 10 1890