Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-07-08
Duties on Sugars Brought From
Porto Rico
BEFORE PASSAGE OF FORAKER ACT
Effect of the Recent Supreme
Court Opinion.
CONTROLLERS DECISION

Mr. Tracewen. the controller of the treas
ury, has rendered a decision that the Sec
Tetary of the Treasury can refund the
duties collected goods shipped from
Porto Rico from the cession of that coun-
try to the United States to the passage of
the Foraker act This decision Is based
on that of the Supreme Court that Porto
Rico was not a foreign country between
the periods given and that the United
States had no right to collect duties. MIR.
Tracewelfs decision is addressed to Sec
retary Gage. who sent to Mr.. Tracewell
the claim of A. S. LasceIes & Co for the
refund of about $4,000 paid by them on
sugars brought into the port of New York
from Porto Rico There are other claims
for refund aggregating about S1.5OO,OO0
more. If Secretary Gage follows the opn-
ion of the controller, he will pay back
about S2.Oo.0oO collected on Porto Rican
goods
right 20 make the refund without act
of Congress. but Mr.. Tracewell dispels this
doubt. The controller held in the "DOoley"
case that there could be no refund of du-
ties collected in Porto Rico goods
shipped from this country, there being no
law to cover the case in point.
Mr. Tracewells decision in full is as fol-
lows:
The Text of the Decision.
am in receipt of your communication of
the 2ith ultimo, in which you inclose the
claim of A s. Lasceles & Co. for the re-
fund of moneys paid by them to the collec-
tor of customs at the port of New York on
certain sugars which had been brought
into said port by said Lascelles & 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 viz, from
the 11th day of April. 1899 to May l. 1900
Ii appears from your communication that
these moneys Were exacted by said collec
tor from said Lascelles & Co. duties
alleged to be due on said sugars as I'M
ported merchandise. and that said Lascelles
Co. paid the said duties under formal
protest.
have brought no suit for the recovery of
these moneys. yet the board of general ap-
praisers at New York. under instructions of
your department. have returned the pro-
tests and other papers to the collector of
customs for the port of New York.
You further state that it has been shown
were exacted under color of the tariff act
by the collector. and by him paid into the
treasury" and that the amount of the du-
ties thus Illegally exacted has been ascer
tained to your satisfaction by certified
statements signed by the collector, which
you transmit.
These statements set forth the various
impOrtationS of the sugars and the duties
paid thereon. together with a certificate
under date of June IL, 1901, of the special
deputy collector of customs.
You assume that under the recent deci-
sion of the Supreme Court in De Lima ct
al V. Bidwen no duties were in point of
fact due or payable upon said sugars mas
much as such sugars Were not imported
from foreign country in the sense of
Porto Rico being a foreign country to the
United States. as regards our revenue laws
Under these facts you request my decis-
Ion whether you are authorized, under sec
art
of June 10, 1890 (25 stat, 400, or under any
other statute of the United States, to re-
fund the amount of these duties to these
claimants.
Authority for Refundments.
You derive your sole authority to make
Iefundments by force of statutory provis-
ions. In the absence of such statutory
provisions. however equitable the appeal
may be to you to refund moneys wrong
fully collected and taken from claimants
by collectors of ports, you are helpless to
give them relief
Many and various acts of Congress have
been passed at different periods of the his
tory OF the government authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to make refund
lnents of duties Illegally exacted. or where
the amounts exacted and paid were exces-
sive in amount.
The purposes of these statutes were all
remedial, and when any of them have been
before the courts Attorneys General for
Interpretation they have been given such
liberal construction would accomplish
the main purposes of their enactment
namely. to refund the moneys Illegally ex-
acted of persons by the customs officials of
the United states, provided such persons
had not acquiesced IN such Illegal exaCtions
by falling to protest or in the doing of any
other thing commanded by the law regulat-
Ing refunds as condition precedent to
such refund.
The Attorney General. under date of Oc-
tober a. 1874 "a Att Gen. AID, in a COM
munication to the Secretary of the Treas
ury, constituting section 3O121a Revised Stat
Utes. in a case where the collector of GUS
toms had enacted tonnage duties of
Swedish-Norwegian steamer in violation of a
treaty right. in other words. in violation of
law. where tonnage duties were paw
able at all. said:
ut results from what has been said that
the moneys which have been paid for Iu-
Ties of tonnage. anchorage, buoys and light
houses by the 'NOrse-American line of
steamers to the customs officers of the
nited states have been exacted contrary
TO the stipulations of the treaties above set
forth-contrary, therefore, to law The
amounts in the treasury so collected are
not the moneys of the United States. but
Deions 10 the owners of the said line of
steamers 1t Is money had and received to
their use. and they are entitled to have il
refunded to them"
pass now to the second inquiry. Sec
ton 3ol2i2 Of the Revised Statutes provides.
IN substance. that when. TO the satisfaction
or the Secretary of the Treasury IL shall
appear that more money has been paid to
the customs officers of the government than
the law requires for duties or other
moneys. and protest and appeal to the Sec
retary have been made as required by law
he may refund the overplus. etc.
The facts Of the case under consfdera-
ton in respect to overpayment not ONLY
answer TO the conditions set forth In the
law. but go far beyond them. The lam
guage of the law implies that money is due
to the government in the case provided
Tor. and that there is an overpayment
Here nothing was due. But 1 think the
plain intent of the law is that whenever
money has been collected by the customs
officers Of the government that does not by
law belong to il. and the appeal required
by the statute has been made to the Sec
retary. he shall refund to the party whose
money has been taken without warrant of
law 1t would be monstrous TO hold that
the Secretary may make restitution when
part only was urlawfully received but
cannot where the whole WAS exac,ed