Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-07-08
MUST BE REFUNDED
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page)
! 1860. with reference to a decision of the Su-
| preme Court and as to whether the Secre-
tary was limited to the articles specifically
embraced in such decision, said:
Il have to say that in my opinion you
are not limited to such articles only as are
specifically embraced in the above named
cases. but may properly extend your obi
cial action. regards both the refundIng
of duties already paid and the reversing OF
rulings heretofore made in your depart
ment, to all articles within the principle
governing the above case, wherever the
same is plainly in point
'It seems to me that this Is a correct
general rule of action under such circum-
stances
The De Lima Case.
In the case of De Lima agt. Bidwall,
decided by the Supreme Court May q, 1901
being the Identical case which determined
that Porto Rico was not a foreign country
to the United States in the sense of our
revenue laws, and that goods imported. or
more accurately speaking, brought from
Porto Rico into the United States. during
the period heretofore mentioned were not
imported within the meaning of our tariff
laws, the court said. r
"Conceding that section BOIL, Revised
Statutes has been repealed, and that no
remedy exists under the customs admins
trative act does 1t follow that no action
whatever will lie? If there be an admitted
wrong. the courts will look far to supply
an adequate remedy.
rs it saying too much in view Of this
language OF the Supreme Court and the
liberal Interpretation given to the several
acts of Congress providing for refund
ments as before mentioned. to say that
where it Is admitted that the government,
through it's legally appointed collector, in a
recognized collection district of the United
States, presumably under your instruction
and direction, for l cannot conceive that
the collector acted on his own responsible
ity in exacting these duties, and where
the duties SO collected were covered into
the treasury of the United States and were
exacted as import duties should be
refunded? 1 will not hunt for pure
ly technical reasons upon which to
base a decision that you are not author
ICED to make refund in such case. l do
not understand that the Supreme Court
meant or had in mind your authority to
refund when it used the language just
quoted. Reading back in such decision. it
is seen what the court really meant when
it used the language supra, No remedy
exists under the customs administrative
act
THE effect of the customs administrative
act was considered by this court in Re
Fassett, 142 L. s., 419, So L. ed. 1887. IL
Sup CT. Rep. 295, in which We held that
the decision of the collector that a yacht
was an imported article might be reviewed
on a libel for possession filed by the owner,
nOtWithSt anding the customs admniStra-
tive act 1t was held that the review of
the decision of the board of general APP
praiSerS, provided by section 10 of that act,
was limited to decisions of the board as to
the construction of the law and the facts
respecting the classification of imported
merchandise and the rate Of duty imposed
thereon under such classification, and that
1t did not bring up for review the question
whether an article be imported merchandise
or not, nor, under section 10, is the ascer-
tainment of that fact such decision as is
provided for. Said Mr.. Justice Blatchford:
Nor can the court of review pass upon any
question which the collector has not origf-
nal authority to determine. The collector
has no authority to make any determina-
ton regarding any article which is not i'm
ported merchandise, and If the vessel in
question here is not imported merchandise
the court of review would have no jurfs~
diction to determine any matter regarding
that question. and could not determine the
very fact which is in issue under the libel
in the district court, on which the rights
of the libellant depend.
Under the customs administrative act
the libellant, in order to have the benefit
of proceedings hereunder. must concede
that the vessel is imported merchandise
which is the very question put in conten-
ton under the libel. and must make entry
of her as imported merchandise, with an
invoice and consular certificate to that eff
feet 1t was held that the libel was prop
This Is far from holding that you may or
may not make refundment In such case
as the present The entire purpose of this
argument Is to show that a person of
whom duty is exacted as Import duty by
a collector of customs, when. in fact the
goods are not imported or impOrtabl BILE can
not get this question before the courts for
review by proceeding under the customs
administrative act of June TO- 1890 for the
reasons therein stated, and very correctly
stated.
The Supreme Court was arguing the
question OF It's Jurisdiction and the right Of
the appellee to maintain an action in court
to recover these duties Illegally exacted,
and not the question of refundment
Act of March 3, 1878.
II 1t had been intended by the court to
hold anything more than that under the
customs administrative act Of June 10,
1881, the claimant on a non-importable ar
tfcle could not get that question before the
court by an appeal from the action OF the
appraisers IN such a case 1t is strange that
the refundment act of March 3. 1876 uS
Stat, 4tS). was not adverted to by the
court. The act provides:
mat no moneys collected as duties on
imports in accordance with any decision,
ruling or direction previously made by the
Secretary of the Treasury, shall, except as
hereinbefore provided. be refunded or re-
paid" etc
Without quoting this act in full, I will
state an analysis of It's provisions:
1t empowers the Secretary Of the Treas
ury to refund duties
trict court ta) collected in accordance with
any % decision, or (2) ruling, or GO direc-
ton previously made by him; or
2 Under special appropriation; or.
3. Where collected under an erroneous
view of facts.
II is sufficient to comply with the very
letter of this law that the duties be col
lected as import duties. These duties were
so collected. whether in truth or in fact
they were import duties or these sugars
were imported articles, and. as before
stated. under your directions.
At the time of their exaction as import
duties 1t was claimed by the government In
good faith that these sugars were imported
merchandise and subject to duties as such.
This contention was denied by the claim
ants, and they paid these duties protesting
that their exaction was Illegal. Does it now
lie in the mouth of the government, after
it's contention then made, and under which
IT exacted these duties, to say to these
claimants: Il admit 1 was mistaken but
because / was wrong and you were right
| will now insist that L will not right the
wrong thus perpetrated on you because you
| paid these duties on non-importable articles
upon which had no right to exact import
duties. The law of refund only applies to