New-York tribune., 1891-01-30
AGAINST THE APPRAISERS.
ONE OF THEIR DECISIONS REVERSED.
an INTERESTING QUESTION RAISED, But NOT
DECIpED-GUN STOCKS ARE not GUNS.

Az INTERESTING QUESTION RAISED, But NOT
DECIpED-GUN STOCKS ARE not GUNS.
The question Of whether not cases arising undeF
the Customs Administrative act OF June 10, lo"o
could be tired by jury raised in tho Ohl'cu
states Circuit Court yesterday. 1t had been the gen
era impression that the act abolished trial by jury al
customs cases but while Judge Lacombe did not make
positlve decision the point. he showed that he was
hv no means certain that the idea Of the public was
entirely correct. The proceedings yesterday We a'o
noteworthy because Judge Lacombe again reversed to
decision Of the Board Of General Appraisers.
The case was the application Of Schovcrllng. Day
Gales to review the finding Of the Board relative 10
sone 1n stocks imported by them. The firm made no
secret of the fact that another firm had imported tho
barrels 10 ft the stocks. The Board held that ihe
STOCKS were dutiabe shotgunS, while the trm IN
sisted that they were manufactures Of which metal
was a component material. II the latter view was
correct. the duty 45 per cent ad valorem' II tl9
appraiaers were right the duty was from 60 10 81
per cent.
When the case was called yesterday, inquiry was
made by tho Court Us to whether any issue OF iac''
was presented by the record and the Court expressed
lis willingness to hear argument upon the question:
whether or not jury should be drawn. Henry C'
Platt Assistant United States Attorney argued III DC
half of the Government that In proceedings instituted
under the Customs Administrative Ia" I'D jury was
provided for or contemplated
Albert ComsocS. OF COmst0ck Brown' repre-
sented tic petitioners but he had nothing 10 SIy
about having jury, and Judge Lacombc delivered t'o
following opinion
rhs is thc first case which presents this very I'M
portant question for the consideration ana ue''tHHt
ion Of Inc courts. By section II Of the act ~"
under consideration case 3rsng Hpn aa an tie
Collectors action submitted to the Boiru 81 Ap
praisels They are 70 decide, IN the hr't ll'.a'C .
mon the cons ruction of the law and also on te
facts involved In the case The pr0V,iol IL ulp
i5th section. allowing review in the Cr'uit tour;
/ .f..frf.
cdurt shall hear and determine the questions Of Ia"
and fact involved IN such decision. -., ....,.,.
which provides generally for trials IN the tireu!t
C'uris prc,cribcs that trial Of issues oi iaee
and maritime nrsdctlon. and certain other casr9
excepted IN the next suce' edini SCI se, ~ Ia' AMI n
il may IA rly be conceded that it i presented IN
/ init As far back as Weston V. Tho C.ty Counrll
cr1nncd that tie word suit" IS understood TO appy
70 any proceeding In court Of justice IN Whica Hn m
VIII" IT, %cn the there we're nothing here Int the Nd,
HsTye ; eg ,,q law a6o2c % I Referred 1 TO- should
inclined hold that the issue i, Of ict TT Tt nca Mem
l. not favored IN law. II must bee q very pam Clf -
which vi" ma In1nt AIT SqG9 ~ MI. new VI act may
make It somewhat awkward - present tl ,',r' "I,,H
under it to Jury there Is no inp,, ~ oS a"c con- %
strain to hoi that the ialtct act IA, M Iy pro p,0
,dng new ,yitem Of rr5rGr I'a sclro tIg PRO- TO
,ytIg,rts in thcse courts a ral by jury-a method
Of determning que tlons Of fact which has been 50
'''V Vlaievcr NAV have been the intention Of tho
fr,ucrs Of the act as Il originally Introduced II
/. common knowledge. aud ~ remember rlgIt thrT'
wa a reference in the argument of counsel I" thc
s made I'm the act between It's Introduction and II,
ro,-agc. rc:er TO the Insertion ~ tn very "oN1
change which has brought this very l,Sue "i liri
into this tribunal. where but for such chanSe II
wonn not have come. The act originally cont'm
plated a final decision upon the facts by The Bood
The District Attorney. however. has presented
,cry forcblc and powerful argument drawn ron
the debates q Congress hu the inll io,'' ana enir %
which /, to be given 10 th" Argument con only
lie determined upon IN cNamirafIon of " The Cong~.
sloual Record i'~'li NcrT many ~ the citations
which he .rvc would have less ci""t. a +
lcfor. or aftor The insertion - ~ woriS and h't
IN he p,udInc measure | ,hoHM b. cAtremrh
avcr-c 70 decide point ~ such impo0Hn'r - TN,
without n more careful and clabola'" cNamuai1l ~
The Authorities 9ni of N" references which the ID,
tnctAttorncy ha- colla'"d Ina'much th.r ior'. ..
th, particular case -ccms 70 present. m eXiromrly
is as ! understood it prepared TO waive any clam
that the ssue shall bc determined by jury the case
will bc taken ino constipation by IN tonr Tiihon
n iurv. When the next case ariS"s. I'm which the
petitioner move, for jury. the que< ion Will receive
fuller consideration and final decision.
The case was then argued upon the record S'nt
I'D by the Appraisers. 1t urged In behalf Of the
collector TINT his was an effort 10 cyadc the pay
ment Of duty that the articles imported were really
.hot guns, although tho dihcreu' part, came In df
fcrcnt vessels Mr. Comstock argued tha, The stock,
we're not guns and could not De taxed rs such.
lLdsr Ltcoilbc reversed The decision Of .h' Hoard
rhc n icst one. the entire gun trade of ID"
cry hcng inter isttd in it, prosecution. /: i not
lmown yc whether an appeal Will be taken 10 tac
supreme Court.