The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-07-08
PRICE ONE CENT.
TO REFUND SUGAR DUTIES.
An Opinion by Mr.. TraceweH Af-
fcctiEg the Porto Rican Cases.
Authority for the Reimbursement
FouHd in the Act OF Congress of
IST5-Thc COmptrOIICr7s Letter to-
the Secretary of the Treasury-


1ST5-Thc COmptroIIcr's Letter to
the Secretary of the Treasury
| Robert J TraceyyeH. Comptroller Of the
! Treasury. today forwarded to Secretary
/ Gage his opinion in reEari 10 the claim
| Of n 5. LascelIes * Co. for refund Of
moneys paid TO the Collector of Customs
| OF the Port Of New York as duty upon su-
/ gar from Porto Rico, growing out of the
/ recent decision in the Porto Ricaa cases
| by the Supreme Court of the United
/ States The Comptroller reviews exhaus-
! lively the statutes bearing Upon the re-
/ fund of customs dues err9neousIy paid in
| to the Treasury aad refers to his recent
| decision In the Dcoley case in which du-
! ties were paid under protest upon goods
! shipped from the United States to Porto
7 Rico He finds the Secretary's authority
/ TO refund IN the E-asceIles case in the act
/ Of Congress of 1S5, which Fse says. is in
/ force. notwithstanding his reference to
this statute as obsolete in the DooIey
! case Mr. TraceweH declares that the
+ fact that he held in the previous case
! that this statute was obsolete has no
/ bearing on the LasceHes case
incidentally the Comptroller says that
/ the Government has no more right 20
treat one Of its citizens wrougfuIly than
a citizen has to treat the Government
wrongfuIIy- In Mr. TraceweITs opinion,
which is addressed to the Secretary OF
/ Treasury, ne says:
i am IN receipt of your communication
! OF the 18th ULt!m5, IN which you enclose
. the claim Of a s LascelIes & Co, for
I the refund OF moneys paid by them 10
the Collector Of Customs at the Port Of
New 1OFk- on certain sugars which had
1 been brought into said port by said
Lascelies * Co. from Porto Rico, between
the date OF the taking effect Of the
Treaty of Paris and the going into effect
of the Foraker act. namely. from the
Ith day OF April, 1893, to May !, 1900.
1t appears from your communication
that these moneys were eSacted by said
collector from said LaScelles x Co as du-
ties alleged 10 be due on said sugars as
imported merchandise, and that said Las
eeties q Co paid the said duties under
Formal protest.
You further state that. while claim
ants have brought no suit for the reCOy-
cry OF these moneys, Yet sIe Board OF
General Appraisers at New York, under
instructions of your department, have
returned TIC protests and other papers
10 the Collector Of Customs for the Port
Of New York
You further state that It has been
shown to your satisfaction that these
moneys were exacted under color Of the
tariff act by the collector and by him
paid into the Treasury and that the
amount Of the dvS thus illegally ex-
acted has been asc, Ntained to your sat
by The collector. which You transmit
These statements set forth the vari-
Gus imDortatiOHs Of the sugars and the
dItiCs paid thereon, together with a Ger
Il iicate. under date OF juno IL 1891. Of the
sEeciai deputy collector Of customs
QUESTION OF DUTIES RAISED.
You assume that-JInder the recent de-
cision OF the Supreme Court in De Lima
ct al. IS. BidweH no duties were in point
Of fact due or payable upon said sugars,
inGSmuch such sugars were not I'M
ported from a foreign country in the sense
Of Porto Rico being q foreign c"Uatry 90
the United States, IS regards our revenue :
laws
Under these facts you request M. de
ciSi6n whether yJu are authorized under
section Il OF the Customs Administrative
act Of June 10. 1890 (z6 Stat, 400. OF under
any other statute Of the United States. to
refund the amount Of these duties to these
claimants.
You derive your sole authority to make
refu1dmeGts by force OF statutory pro-
visions IN Ihe absence CT such statutory
jSIOES. however equitable the appeal
may be 10 you to refund moneys wrong
fully collected and taken from claimants
By collectors OF ports you are helpless to
give them relief
In the case OF De Lima vs. BidweH.
decided by the Supreme Court, May 2.
1911 being The Identical case which de-
rermiued that Porto Rico was not for
eign country to the United States in the
sense of our revenue laws, and that
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:
.. 'Conceding that section SO11. Revised
Statutes. has been repealed and that no
remedy exists under the Customs Ad-
miniSJrarive act does II follow that no
action whatever will iie2 If there be
an admitted wrong the courts VIII look
far TO supply an adequate remedy
L. - rFr1rr MN N TlTI nj
language Of the Supreme Court and the
liberal Interpretation given to the several
acts of Congress providing Tor refund
meuIS as before mentioned, to say that
where II IS admitted that the Govern
ment. through its legally appointed col
Iscror. in q recognized collection district
of the United States, presumably under
your instruction and direction for can
not conceive that the collector acted on
his own responsibility IN eNacung these
duties and where the duties 50 collected
were covered into the Treasury OF the
United States and were eNacted as m
port duties. I Will not hunt for purely
technical reasons upon which 10 base
decision that You are not auJnorzed 10
make a refund in such case / do not un-
derStand that the Supreme Court meant
or had in mind your authority 70 refund
when II used the language lust quoted
Reading back in SUcn CtcISlon, II IS seen
wat the court really meant when II used
the language supra, No remedy exists
under the Customs Administrative act
After guoting from the Supreme Courts
opinion on this matter. Air- TracewelI re-
SuneS.
.-'This is far from holding that You may
or may not make a TefuHdment IN such
case rs the present. The entire purpose
Of this argument Is to show that Q person
Of whom duty Is eNacred as import duty
Fy r collector of customs when in TACT
the goods are not imported or ITnportdDle,
cannot get this question before the courts
for review by Il proceeding under the Gus
toms Administration act Of June To- 1850.
for the reasons therein stated. and very
correctly stated.
The Supreme Court was arguing the
question Of its jurisdiction and the rlSht
of she appellee to maintain an action IN
court Il. recover tlt - duties Illegally CN-
acted aud not the question Of refund
MR.. TRACEWELL'S EXPLANATION
II it had been intended by the court
TO hold anything more than that under
the Customs Administrative act OF June
10. 1890 the claimant on a non-importable
article could not get that question before
the court BY an appeal from the action Of
the appraisers in such Il case. II is strange
that the RefuUdment act of March =, $50
as Stat. 4t2'l. was not adverted to by -
the court The act provides That ~
moneys collected Is duties on imports ~
accordance with any decision. ruling. or
raTy OF the Treasury shall except as
hereiubtfcre provided. be refunded or rc-
paid. etc.
without quoting this act in fuH I viii
state an analysis Of its provisions
1t empowers the Secretary OF the
Treasury to refund dutiss-l. under a
Judgment OF a circuit or district court;
tab collected in accordance with any de-
CISiOn. OF ruling OF direction previously
made BY him. or. = under q ST's Ci'l ap-