The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-15
OF NTER[:ST
TO HAWAII.
Board of General
| Appraisers
Decision.
|CONCERNING THE
EDWARD MAY
Duty on Yellow Sheathing Meta
Should Not Have Been
Collected.


1897 respectively, for use in the con-
struction or equipment of a vessel en-
ployed in the foreign trade, do not be-
come dutiable when such vessel makes
a coastwise voyage of more than two
months duration after the materials
exempted had become worn out, or had I
ceased to be serviceable or useful for
the purpose for which they were used
Worn Out Metal Sheathing 1t
is shown that the life of imported met I
al sheathing on a vessel, and it's ef- I
feetiveness, does not continue longer I
than from two and one-half to three |
years, duties will not accrue on such |,
sheathing which has been in use for
more than four years at the time the
vessel undertakes coastwise voyage,
Notwithstanding the owner has allowed
it to remain on the vessel
In re Spreckeis & Bros. Co., 104 Fed.
Rep, 879 reversing in re Spreckels &
Bros. Co.. G.. a 3694), followed.
Before the United States General
| Appraisers at New York, April %, 1901.
In the matter of the protest, 7019b,
of Alexander & Baldwin, against the
/
| Honolulu, Hawaii, as to the rate and
amount of duties chargeable on certain
metal sheathing upon the American
| bark Edward May.
Opinion by Somervilie. General APP
praiser.
The material facts in this case are.
as follows: "On April 90 1896, the own
er Of the American bark Edward May
! withdrew from bonded warehouse at
New York certain yellow sheathfng
of said vessel The merchandise was
accorded the privileges of section OF
the tariff act of 1894, which reads, SO
far as applicable, as follows:
Section THAT all materials OF for
eign production which may be neces-
sary for the construction OF vessels
built in the United States FOR foreign
account and ownership or for the pur-
pose of being employed in the foreign
trade including the trade between the
Atlantic and Pacific ports of the Unit
ed States, and all such materials nee
essary for the building of their ma
chinery, and all articles necessary Tor
their outfit and equipment, after the
J passage of this Act, may be Imported
in bond under such regulations as the
Secretary of the Treasury may pre-
scribe; and upon proof that such ma
, terials have been used for such pur-
, poses no duties shall be paid thereon.
But vessels receiving the benefit OF this
} section shall not be allowed to engage
in the coastwise trade of the United
i States more than two months in any
one year except upon the payment TO
? the United States of the duties OF
which a rebate is herein allowed.
Thereafter the vessel was engaged in
the foreign trade for more than four
years. On June 81, 1900, being then In
the port of Honolulu, Hawaii, she ex-
changed her foreign master for coast
wise enrolment, clearing from Homo
!, lulu and continuing in the coaStlng
. trade for.more than two months in the
year 1900. During all this time the
, sheathing remained upon the bark S
hull. On her return to Honolulu the
full duties of the yellow metal in ques-
ton, amounting to 1884. 20, were exact
ed by the collector at that port, under
section IL of the act of 1897, which was
then in force. said section IL cores
ponding exactly to section of the act
of 1894. The protest claims that the
collectors action was unauthorized
In the case in re Spreckels & Bros
Co. GOA Fed Rep, S79), reversing
board decision in re Spreckels & Bros
Co. &c. A. 3694), the circuit court fol
J the northern district of California
! found. upon the testimony of expert
witnesses, that the life and effective
ness of metal sheathing Of this char
acter does not continue longer thar
from two and half to three years
That evidence, as set forth in the opin
ion of the court, being applicable t.
the merchandise before us, IS mad'
part of the record in this case. 1t i
strongly corroborated by the proof
which were filed with this protest.
We find accordingly that. at the tim
the Edward May undertook her coast
wise voyage, the yellow metal on he
hull was worn out and unfit for fur
Their use than to be manufactured.
The Spreckels case cited, supra
which arose under section of the tar
if act of 1890. of which sections Z c
the act of 1894 and II of the presen
act were re-enactments in more lipers
terms, involved precisely the questio
now before the board. We quote til
following remarks from the opinion
o. 1t could hardly have been intende
10 by Congress to permanently exclud
- from the coastwise trade for tie
months in the year vessel built
the United States because it had use
in it's construction or equipment, FIRE
of duty some foreign materials, tt
use or life of which was of short durs
- tion The statute specifically provide
that upon proof that such materia
have been used for such purpose (col
- struction or equipmenD no duties sha
- be paid thereon In what way Is tn
exemption qualified by the provisie
that vessels receiving the benefit
this section shall not be allowed
engage in the coastwise trade of Il
United States for more than tv
months in any one year except upt
payment of the duties?'' Suppose
imported Manila or wire rope mas be,
completely used up on board of a We
sci, must the duties be paid upon su,
. an article, Notwithstanding it's destru
ton, to secure the privilege or enga
ing in the coastwise trade for mo
than two months in the year, The r
quirement of duty on imported mat
rial used in the construction and equi
ment of a vessel appears to be a re
sonable regulation, if the material CO
- tinues to exist in useful conditio
ID But if it is worn out, and it's life h
gone as useful or serv1ceabie art
!. . Gle, the payment Of the duties does n
appear to be a reasonable recurrence