The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-04

states anne,lants va. Frederick Passavant
ct al. In reply to the following questlo ,.ss
Court of Appeals for the Second circuit:
First, in proceedings brought before the
board of general appraisers 0y protests ul Ia
der Section II of the act OF June ~. 1877. 70
review the collectors decision on the entries
in this case, had the board Jurisdiction 70
inquire into and impeach the outlaDls VA a.
uaficn so reported to the collector by the
appraiser and upon which the collector as
sessed the rate of duty TO which the mer-
chandise was lawfully subject2 Secon1 IL
the first question is answered IN the ainr IN
alive. was the German duty iaWfuiiy IN
included by the appraiser in his estimate
of dutiable value? Both questions were an
swered in the affirmative. The article IN
volved in the controversy was "a lot OF COT COT
ton velvets imported into the Cniteo STATS
from Germany. where it had been IN pohu.
The German duty referred to i'll the sec
ond question is a tax which is imposed Dy
the German goVernment on mers ss enT-
when sold by its manufacturers Tor con
sumption or sale in the German MARKERS,
but when the merchandise Is purchased IN
bond for expectation TO a foreign country
eminent and is called bonihcation tax,
distinguished from being refunded as
rebate.
In estimating and appraising the actual
market value and wholesale price or the
merchandise the appraiser decided tnat the
dutiabe value OF such merchandise equaisu
the sum of the net invoice value and the
German duty added together, and reported
to the collector this decision as 10 the gu
table value of the merchandise appraised.
In estimating this dutiabfe value the local
appraiser added as element the amounts
specified in the invoices and entries under
the name of German duty. The collector
accordingly classified the merchandise at
20 per cent ad valorem and Ia cents per
square yard. The importers protested ana
the Board of United States General APP
praisers reversed the decision of the col
lector on the ground that the herman GUY GUY
was not q lawful element of dutiable value.
In rendering the opinion of the court the
chief justice said: "As the question IN TINS
case was What was the general market
value and wholesale price of cotton velvets
as bought and sold in the principal markets
of Germany? the fact that the German duty
was not in fact paid such goods Wnen
exported is immaterial. Exonerated from
its payment was a mere special advantage
extended by the German government IN
promotion of manufactures and commerce
The appraiser found as matter or Iacl
that the market value in Germany was
equal to the invoice plus the home DUTY,
but he did not therefore include that item
as substantive item Independent or the
market value and add 1t thereto to make
dutiabe value though in ascertalning the
market value in Germany he properly rec
ognzed the fact that that duty formed part
of the purchase price in the markets or
that country" The court also stated that
the Board of General Appraisers has the
same power to inquire into the legality or
an assessment as it has to see whether the
valuation is excessive or insuIiclcnt
through error of Judgment Justices brown
and Peckham dissented. Justice Brown ue,
lvered a brief opinion. saying that ne couid
not concede the position that the German
duty was an element of dutiable value on
the velvets or assent to the justice OF the
proposition that the manufacturers or
country should have one price on articles
for home consumption and another on
those for expectation.
Justice White. of the United States SUI
prene Court to-day handed down an opin-
ion in the case af Rafael Meria del Castillo
VS. w t. McConnico. The case involved the
tax title to a block of land in New Orleans.
which had been owned by Castillo. The
land was sold and Castillo sought TO over
throw the sale because the feminine pronoun
her was used instead of the masculine
his on the assessment roll in referring 70
him. The decision in the court below was
against Castillo and this decision was to-day
affirmed on the ground that the court had
no jurisdiction
The Supreme Court sustained the lower
courts refusal to grant the Penn Mutual
Life Insurance Company an injunction TO
restrain the city of Austin Tex, from oper-
ating it's water works.
Practically all of the cases on the United
States Supreme Court docket involving title
to private land grants in the Territory OF
Arizona were to-day reaSSigned to be heard
on the first Monday in March.
Among those admitted to practice in the
Supreme Court of the United States to-day
was Hon VIM. r. Morrison who has been
for so many years, chairman of the Inter-
state-commerce Commission, and will now
resume practice of the law, his term or
Office having expired.