The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-05
OVER TARIFFS,
A Difficult Question Over Rails
Imported Under Former
Laws.
Railroad Material Abandoned in Bond
Causes a Conflict About
Duties.

The "G' rail case, involving an impor-
| tant tariff question, and which the Treas
ury Department won some time ago in the
United States Circuit Court as petitioner,
has been appealed to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals by the respond
ent, the Anglo California Bank. ATTORNEY
Charles A. Garter, for the bank, filed a
petition for an appeal in Clerk Costigan's
office yesterday.
During the spring months of 1887 the
Bank of California, as agent, imported to
San Francisco for the Oregon Pacihc Rail-
road Company 567S tons of steel rails
The Morrison tariff was then in force and
the duty upon such merchandise under
the act of March 3, 1888, was SIT a ton.
The rails were deposited in bonded ware
house ana left there for the time limit of
three years. At the expiration of the
three years the Oregon Pacific represented
to the Treasury Department that it had
storms and foods and desired a postpone
ment of action by the department, which
was granted.
One postponement after another was
allowed, the final one being September 16,
1893, pending a decision OF the Board of
General Appraisers as to the status then
of the rails.
On October 81, 1890, the department de-
cided that 'withdrawals' OF the rails for
consumption could only be made under
the act of 1S90-the Mckinley bill
but at the rate OF duty imposed by
the Morrison bill, with the accrued
penalties of 10 per cent added. Not
wthstanding this decision 1906 tons of
Hraw o11
to the 10 per cent penalties the Collector
OF Customs accepted the payment of duty
on them at the Mckinley rate of $13 "A a
ton, under the act of October l, 1890, then
in force. Eventually the importers offered
to withdraw the remainder at the rate pre-
scrlbed in paragraph III of the Wilson
tariff act Of August, 1894, but the Treasury
Department refused to grant permission
for that, proposing instead that to make a
test case for judicial determination the
Collector be permitted to allow the i'm
porters to withdraw q small portion.
Twenty rails-fve tons in aggregate
weight-were accordingly withdrawn at
the $l7 rate with the 10 per cent penalties
which had accrued.
Against this action the Anglo California
Bank, for the importers, protested, claim
ing that the rate of duty should be that of
the Wilson act OF August, 1894, namely,
seven-twentieths of cent per pound or 81
per ton-the rate of duty then in force.
The Board of General Appraisers at New
York last April sustained the position of
the protestant, holding that the rails were
withdrawals at the Wilson rate of duty.
There are 237O tons still In the warehouse.
Secretary Carlisle contested the decision
in the United States Circuit Court and Sc
cured a favorable decision reversing that
Of the Board of General Appraisers. Re-
Gently the Board of General Appraisers de-
cided in accordance with the Circuit Courts
position.
Mr.. Garter commended in his petition for
an appeal that the court erred in its con-
illusions, which were: First. that the rails
became abandoned to the Government at
the expiration of the three years, within
the law and under section 2917, Revised
Statutes, and that at the date of such eX-
piration they were liable to sale; second,
that the merchandise upon it's withdrawal
from bond was subject to the act in force
at the time of its abandonment, viz: the
act of March 3, 1888, regardless of the
changes in the tariff made by the acts of
October /, 1890, and August 1, 1894, subse-
quent to the abandonment; third, adding
the 10 per cent penalty; and, fourth,
reversing the decision OF the Board Of
General Appraisers.
AS to the courts final Judgment Mr..
Carriers position is that it should have
held that the rails were legally in bond at
the time of their withdrawal, and have
decided that the Secretary of the Treasury
was vested with the authority to allow
their withdrawal. But the main point of
the attorneys contention is that the judg-
ment of tie Circuit Court practically
amounts to declaration that the act of
March 3, 1888, and the penalty section
were not repealed by subsequent legisla-
ton. The few rails were withdrawn for
the test case March Is, 1895.
The petition for an appeal was allowed
by Judge McKenna during the day.