New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-01-29
TIE CONOUEROR COMES IN FREE.

JUDGE BROWN SAYS THAT Mr.. NANDEEBlLTs
YACHT WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED.
Judce Addison Brown, of the Urated states District
Court Yesterday handed his decision in the case
OF Frederick ". Vanderbilt against the steam yaoht
Conqueror and J. SlOat Fassett, formerly Collector.
lie decides that the yacht was not subject to the
customs duties levied by Mr. Fassett, for the non
payment Of which the yacht was seized, aud says
that Mr. Vanderbilt 1, entitled to a decree Of posses
sion with costs and damages. on september !, 1871,
Mr. Vanderbilt brought the action against the Col
ector Of the Port recover possession Of his yacht,
tho Conqueror which the Collector held In custody on
the claim that she subject TO customs duties
The authority OF the court 10 proceed I'm the matter
being denied. the marshal under order Of the Court,
took the yacht out Of the possession Of the officers OF
customs into his exclusive custody. and on october 10,
1901 upon an Application Of Collector Fasset 10 the
Supreme Court mn order obtained requiring the
court to show cause WHY It should not be forbidden
from further entertaining the cause. The supreme
Court decided that the District Court hal jurisdiction,
and dcuied the writ Of prohibition. The Collector
Claims no other right the custody Of the Yacht than
for the collection Of Customs duties Mr.. Vanderbilt,
a native born citizen of The United states, and mem
Der Vf the Royal Mc>cy Yacht Club Of England.
bought the yacht in England on May = -9l, from
W. : Bailey. the registered owner, by bill Of sale
I'm the usual form. After cruising In the waters Of
Great Britain and Norway. the yacht was brought 10
Halifax. and then TO New York on July 8, 1871. on
her arrival the yacht entered al the Custom
House. the bill Of sale certified by the American
Consulate az Liverpool being presented 10 the Col.
lec;or for record, and the Collectors certificate
Endorsed thereon. emitting the yacht 10 the pro
lection and flag of the United STATES
but not hitting her to engage in commerce.
An examination of all the tariff acts including that
OF october 1890 showed that in not one q them were
ships named In the schedules Of imports nor t,re
a single phrase under which tn. could be classed
except by strain d aud unnatural construction.
Therefore vessels should be subject only to such duties
imposed under tae special acts dealing with
ships. The opinion reviews in detail the arguments
Of the Collector. Dutl claimed under the acs
of october /. 1890. To fail within this act the
scheduls and fall within the general scope and in
tentOn II the act rather than within other that
provide specially for duties upon ships. Neither If
these condition., tAi,ted d regards the CJuqucrOr.
she was a sea going vessel, which came 10 this
country in the ordinary course Of navigation a
pleasure yacht was duly entered at the Custom House.
and presented the bill Of sale in conformity with
tie Treasury regulations applicable 10 foreign built
vess Is purchased by citizens OF the United states
The yacht was not imported article within the
meaning OF the Tariff law. The opinion closes
In my judgment nothing IN the case remov this
yacht from the domain of tho laws specially enacted
for ships and vessels the dutiabl charges there
on and as by these laws she is released from the pay
ment Of the ordinary duties imposed on ve'se'. with
hDing charged with any utGcr dutcN Oi Uiue
subject the general Tariff law OF imported merchan-
d, her detention for customs dut e. Illegal. and
the brlant is entitled To decree Tor possession with
Iultcd ~tates district Attorney Mitchell does not
know whittier the case Will be app aed or not.