The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-04
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Decisions as to DutiabIe Imports and \.
Z. Lnnd Taxes.

Washington, Jan. 3.-Chief Justice
Fuller of the supreme court to-day de-
livered the opinion Of the court IN the
case Of the United States, appellants,
against Frederick s. Passavant ct al,
in replying TO the following questions
certified from the United States cir
cult court Of appeals for the Second dis
trict court
Frst-In the proceedings brought be-
fore the board of general appraisers by
protests under section IA of the act of
June 10. 1890. to review the collectors
decisions upon the entries in this case,
had the board jurisdiction to inquire
into and impeach the dutiable valua-
tion SO reported to the collector by the
appraiser and upon which the collec-
tor assessed the rate of duty 10 which
the merchandise vas lawfully sub
jected?
Second--If the first question Is an
swered in the affirmative. was the
German duty lawfully included by tbs
appraiser in his estimate of dutiab!e
value2
Both questions were answered in the
affirmative.
The articles involved in the oontr9-
versy was a lot of cotton yclv It's inn
ported into the United States from Ger
many. where II had been in bond. The
German duty referred 10 in tie second
question is a tax Which is imposed by
disc when sold by it's manufacturers for
consumption or sale in the German
markets, but when the merchandise Is
purchased in bond for expectation to
foreign country this duty is remittCd
by the German government and is
called notification tax as distin-
gushed from being refunded as a re-
/ bate
Acting for the supreme court Of the
United states Associate Justice Peck
ham to-day handed down the decision
of the court in reply to questions eetti-
fled to the court from the United States
circuit court Of appeals for the Eighth
circuit in the case of Edwin II. Ms
Henry and others vs.. Lore Afford and
/ others The case involves the right of
the state and county authorities or
North Dakota TO tax the lands en-
braced in the government grant &c the
Northern Pacific Railway company and
grew out of the effort af the authorities
of Richmond county to levy such taA
under the laws in this case. The and
Of the railroad company was sold for
taxes and the railroad company reeeiN-
ers brought suit to set aside the sales
on the ground of irregularity and in
validity of the sales.
There were six questions certified by
the lower court, but the supreme court
held that three of them did not fail
within the rules OF the court. The other
three questions to which the court
made reply were as follows;
Was IL the purpose of chapter 20 of
the laws of Dakota for 1883 to exempt
from taxation the land grants of the
Northern Pacific which are outside OF
its right of way aud are not shown to
be used in it's business as common
carrier? If such was the purpose, was
the act void in whole or in part rs
transgressing the limitations placed
upnn the power of the territorial lessls
laturea Considering the lands in con-
troversy TO have been subject to taxa
ton for 1888, were the appellants, by
reason of any alleged irregularities or
defects In the mode of assessment. en-
titled TO equitable relief without first
Offering to pay the taxes properly
chargeable against said lands?''
The first and third of these questions
were answered In the affirmative and
the second In the negative.