Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-08

shall be adopted for determining the po'
ton OF wearing apparel exempt from. ou'y
under the 500 limit. One OF the PROPOSE
lions under consideration Is 10 peim''
the passenger to make the se'ecuo ",
where he makes voluntary and tru'hiu'
declaration OF his baggage. Inc p.s'
senger would naturally select wooheh
clothing for exemption. because IL 10 SUI
feet to a so much higher rate OF duty
than other articles. The treasury
agents are likely to use their own uiscre-
ton in selecting the articles for eNemp-
ton where the passenger makes no
declaration or is found to make an uh-
truthful one. The question whether an
inventory shall be required OF goods taken
out of the United States has been Prac-
tically decided In the negative ihere
is doubt of the legal power 10 ieuui' {
such an inventory. except by the ihoifeet
method of making It's existence an easier
way of securing the prompt entry OF
goods returned to the United-States. An
inventory would be Of no value IN any
case unless its declarations were verihed
by examination OF the goods taken out
OF the country Otherwise IL wouid only
be necessary for an INSCRIPTIONS person
TO file an inventory covering great
quantity OF foreign goods alleged to have
-
fact II was his intention TO purchase them
abroad. The Treasury officials will rely
for the present upon the declarations or
returning tourists, with such informa-
ton as the inspectors and examiners are
able to obtain by questioning and by
actual examination of the goods brought
in. There is no prohibition upon bringing
In free of duty any amount of foreign
goods which have once entered the
United States. paid duty, and been taken
out of this country. The probabilit-S
of the case and the character of the
returning tourist will govern the accept
ance OF his assertions on this subject,
unless grave abuses are developed by the
practical operation of the rule.
An important legal question has been
raised by the peculiar phraseology OF the
provision regarding wearing apparel. Ar
ticles which are the personal effects or
persons arriving i'm the United states"
are all put upon the free list, subject TO
the restriction that they shall be "neces-
sary and appropriate for the wear and
use Of such persons, for the Immediate
purposes of the journey and present COM
fort and convenience" Then comes the
proviso for the exemption Of 800 of ar
ticles purchased abroad. This exemption
refers to residents of the United States
returning from abroad" The question is
now raised what constitutes a resident
of the United States under this language,
and whether a citizen of the United
States may not become a temporary resi-
dent of Great Britain or France for the
purpose of enjoying the broader privi-
leges accorded to personal effects OF
persons arriving in the United States,
who are not actually residents OF the
United States" 1t is a question which
the Treasury officials have not yet solved,
how long a time 1t requires to make
person a resident Of some other country
than the United States or what condi-
tions II requires. 1t Is generally admitted
that residence Is not synonymous with
domlcle, according TO the declaration or
Chancellor Kent that "a new domicile Is
not acquired by residence unless taken
up with an intention of abandoning the
former domicile." This distinction seems
TO recognize the right to acquire tenn
porary residence abroad and to obtain
the privileges of persons arriving in the
United States" who are not residents. Ii
this view prevails, the transfer of resi-
dence for short periods by travelling
Americans will become very popular, in
order to obtain the privileges denied by
their laws to those who are residents or
the United States" 1t may be somewhat
difficult for tourists without any fixed
abode in Europe to establish such claim
to residence, but there is a disposition to
admit that those who remain in given
community for a year or two, for educa-
ton or similar purposes, may be fairly
entitled to claim upon their return to the
United States that they are entitled to
the free entry of all their personal effects
and are not subject to the narrow limit
Of SEQ imposed upon mere residents or
the United States" 1t would not be sur
prising If a fixed limit of residence abroad
were adopted by the Treasury officials as
one of the means of distinguishing be-
tween persons arriving in the United
States and those who are subject to
different rule as residents of the United
States returning from abroad"