The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-11-09
TARIFF DUTY ON
PACKING CASES.
Several Hundred Protests From
Local Merchants.
They Question the Constitutionality Of the
Law-United States General Appraisers
Rule on the Subject.

Merchants of this city, as we'll as of New
York, evidently think that if they pay
tariff dury on imports it is enough without
the imposition of a duty on the cases or
coverings in which the imported goods are
contained, and several hundred protests
have been filed against such duty.
This duty was made imperative under the
law of June 10. 1890, known as the Mckinley
bill. The protests fled simply imply that
the bill is unconstitutional, while others
base their claims of its unconsiitutionality
on Speaker Reeds rulings, which made the
bill law by counting 'silent" quorum.
To settle the question to their satiSfac-
ton, Collector Of the Port Phelps and
Deputy Collector Jerome submitted the
matter to the Board of United States General
Appraisers, meanwhile collecting the duty
ON cases and coverings. The following let
ter was received in answer from the board:
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF UNIrED)
STATES GENERAL APPRAISERS, 7
NEW YORK, October q, 1890.
Collector Customs, san Frunctsco, Cot.-SIR:
We are in receipt of your letter OF The 9Th inst,
submitting the protests described In the accom-
upon packing charges cases, ETC., which were
included in the entered and invoice value OF mer-
chanuse imported In the vessels named.
These charges, etc., were Included in the mar
ket value OF the goods, as we understand under
the provisions OF Section 10 of the act OF June 10,
1890, commonly known as the mckinley Customs
Administrative BILL" This section expressly pro-
vides that the market value of imported mer-
chandise shall be estimated upon the basis OF
including in such valuation the value OF all car
TONS cases, crates, boxes, sacks and coverings
of all kinds, and all other costs. charges aud ex-
peuses Incident 10 placing the merchandise in
condition. packed ready Tor shipment TO the
United States.
1t is mol 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
unc0nsiiIutionaiy and that being illegal aud
void, the merchandise was duliable under
tie act OF March 3, 1888. Many OF these
protests are OF the most general character,
merely asserting that the law is "unconsiitu-
tional," without suggesting any particular clause
of The Federal Constitution TO which 1t Is sup
posed 10 be repugnant, or any definite ground for
contention. We have held that a protest in this
form was insufficient because It failed to set
forth "distncty and specifically" The grounds OF
the objections taken by the appellants, as re-
CURED by statute. Decision Board, September
16, 1890, 10,254, q. A. 81.
Some of the protests, however, are somewhat
more specific, asserting the ground OF objection
TO be that 1.-The Speaker OF the House OF Repre-
sentaives counted a silent quorum" Constru-
ing This objection to be the same as The one more
definitely stated in the similar protest cousid-
cred in our decision heretofore made on the
18th Inst. mot yet printed. involving The valid
providing for the classification OF worsted cloths
as woolrns," our opinion Is that the objection
urged 10 the constiutionaty OF the act Is not
well taken. Our reasons for this conclusion
win 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 ii. HAM.
HENDERSON NJ. FRANKLIN,
THAD 5. SHARRETr,
Board of United States General Appraisers.
The decision referred to in the above let
ter holds the objection that the bill is un-
constitutional is not sufficiently specific to
be verify of consideration.