The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-10
81. GALL CASES DECIDED
PROTEST OF IMPORTERS AGAINST
RITE or DUTY SUSTAINED.

Board OF Classification UpboldA Action
of Collector BidwelI - Importers
Will act Back HI5OoOO, which they
rRId In Dutics-Mnny Cases Affected
The Board OF Classification OF the Unit
Ell States General Appraisers has sustain
ed the protest OF the importers in the st.
Gall cases, The protest was against the rate
OF duty charged on certain merchandise i'm
portations by the steamers La Gascogre
and La Brctagnc In February, March, and
April. 1S9S, Judge Somervilo yesterday
made public tho decision OF the board.
Tn" facts of the cases rccited are that
General Appraiser appraised the goods at
a lower figure than Appraiser Wakcmnn.
The Collector was satisfied that the Ge-
neral Appraisers figures were not too low.
Appraiser Wakeman wanted the Collector
to order a reappraisemcnt OF tho goods
by q board OF three General Appraisers.
The Collector declined, and wrote to the
Secretary Of the Treasury, giving his rea-
son for believing that the appratsement
OF the General Appraiser was correct and
said he would stick to 1t unless otherwise
ordered by the department. The depart
ment desired reappraisement. neverthe-
less. and the Collector promptly complied
with the request and ordered it, while not
in any way altering the opinion he had
expressed The decision says:
1T is clear that no one but the Collector
can decide that he. the Collector deems
the apprasement OF any merchandise too
low. unless there be some special statutory
provision which would authorize the discre-
ton or judgment OF the Collector to be
controlled or dominated by the Treasury
Department or some other superior power.
at would seem to follow logically that II
the Secretary Is debarred by law from con-
trolling the judgment and discretion OF
collector in the exercise Of a statutory
power which Is given alternately to each or
them fortiori. he could not legally con-
trol the decision of the Collector as to the
exercise of a power vested exclusively In
him by statute. such as the power or au-
thority to take au appeal in the case under
consideration.
"Our inference. therefore, is that II was
not the intent of Congress to vest the Sec
rotary OF the Treasury with either the au-
thority to order a reappraisement OF mer-
chnndise of the kind here under considera
ton or to control the Collector in the ex-
ercise OF the discretion conferred on him
by statute as to this particular matter.
The power to make such an order In one
case would necessarily and logically involve
the correlative power of compelling the
Collector by instructions to desist from
making like orders whenever this course
might be deemed advisable by the depart
ment No such authority was claimed at
the hearing, nor, in our Judgment, has 1t
any Just foundation in law.
at follows from the foregoing conclu-
sions that the board Of three general APP
praisers acting as n board of review, &C
CURED no jurisdiction to hold the appraise-
ments in question and. being without ju-
risdction. their decision advancing the va
lues ascertaned by the single general APP
praispr would be null and void In such
case. duties must necessarily be levied up
on the basis of the values asCertained by
the single general appraiser, which the law
makes final and conclusive in the absence
OF a valid order for reappraisement under
the provisions of said section 49,
The decision will result in the return of
$50 900 in duties TO the protesting import
ers represented by w. Wickham Smith
There are In all nearly 100 cases affected by
the opinion handed down.