The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-08

| Visions OF paragraph 40 OF the tariff act
Of 1891 Against this assessment this
protest was filed, free entry being claim
ed on the ground that the coal was not
subject 10 any duty.
| The decision of case turns upon ques-
ton whether the Importation Of the coal
was complete. and the custody of the
goods by the government had ceased
before the United States tariff act be-
came operative, on June II 1900. If such
was the case. then the voyage from XII
/ hei TO Honolulu Is to be regarded as
/ mere catsing voyage, and not as a con-
| tinuatfon or extension of the original
voyage Of importation from New Castle.
| IT. on the other hand, the coal must be
held to have been in the custody of the
government until It was finally discharg-
| ed at Honolulu, We think the case pre-
sents the familiar question Of the duti-
ability Of imported articles upon a
change of tariff acts, and must be set
tied upon the principles laid down in
Hartranft W.. Oliver 025 L. s., 525:
Sup. CT. Rep. $3.50; Sherman VS.. Robert
son Q36 u. s., $40; 10 Sup. CT. Rep,
1062): Seeberger VS.. Schweyer Q53 u. s.,
COS; II Sup. CT Rep. Ss1, Ss2); United
States VS.. Goodsell ga Fed. Rep, 439; Is
c. c. A., 45S). affirming in re Goodsen
&c. y. 1888. The doctrine of these cases
is that. as long as goods remain under
the custody and control of officers of the
customs. they are to be regarded as in
a public store" or bonded ware
house." SO as TO be affected by any new
legislation in relation to duties which
Congress may see fit to adopt. To a like
effect IS the case Of United States VS..
Benzon q Cliff. 512; "a Fed Cas-, 1112)
The evidence before does not show
whether there was any customs officer
on board the James Rolph on her voy-
age from Kehei TO Honolulu but this
point is immater!al If the government
had previously turned over the mer-
chandise 10 the importers, and ceased to
exercise control over II. In our judg-
ment this result had in effect. been ac-
complished by the act of the collector
of the Republic of Hawaii in granting |
permit for the free delivery of the coal |
at kilei on the 18th of June, 1900. before |
the United States tariff laws had any |
operation or effect in the Islands. (See |
Sec of the enacting part of the joint |
resolution of July T. 1895, Stat. L., vol. |
d51.) close scrutiny of the decisions |
cited above leads US TO the conclusion |
that the issuance TO the importer of such
a document as would enable him to
his goods without the neces-
sity of making any further application
to the customs officers for permits or
like papers is. in legal effect, q construc-
tive delivery OF the merchandise, AMI
operates as u completion OF the act OF |
Importation, between the government \,
anu the importer, SO rs 10 Tx ana deter 1
mine the rights of both parties. This
seems TO be in harmony with |
the opinion OF the Circuit Court of APP
Deals for the Second Circuit in the re-
cent case of United States VS.. Legg QO5
Fed. Rep, $500. where ii was held that, |
when an importer presented himself be-
ore the collector VIII his necessary pa
iers and with the money, and offered
o make entry of the merchandise while
he tariff act of 1894 was still in force, |
he entry would be considered to have =
zen made at that time (even though y
he collector refused to receive or file
he papers or accept the money!. and the Il
lights of the importer would be saved q
hereby. 50 that he would be unaffected
y new legislation changing the rates
f duty on his goods. I
In the course OF reasoning by which
re have been guided to the above con-
lusion we have not overlooked the fact
hat in Goodselrs case (supra, d G. c.
:. 49, permit of delivery for the
smons in question had been issued. But
his permit was incomplete and ineffec-
lal to put the merchant into possession
{ the fruit until further indorsed by the
hammer. The court says Up. 45D:
ut Is the practice of the port in the
ase of such goods, that the owner has
o control over them until the permit of
elivery has been presented to the ex-
miner and duly Endorsed by him.
This Endorsement was not made till =,
ugust o. 1884, one day after the new
riff law became operative and up to iS
lat time the custody of the government 81
,mained unbroken. The court, there
IRE, held that the lemons were with
-awn for consumption under the new
t. and were dutiable according to it's 81
ties, and not those of its Predecessor. j
hrming like conclusion reached by or
lie Board. In re Goodsell (G. D.. 1899
In closing. only more point need
mentioned. The collector at Homo III
In. in q supplemental report to the or
oard states that he knew of pro- ri
sion of law authorizing the deputy Pl
Hector 1T kahului to grant perm ssion 81
the James Rolph TO proceed to an
her port, and he, therefore, treated the in
rGo as in transit from the time of her co
iginal arrival at Mahukona. AS to 20
is, We need only observe that, if the pr
anting OF such permission was illegal, tic
would probably operate at most to lei
btect the captain or the schooner 10 -
me penalty. but could not affect the
liability of the cargo. q
The Treasury Department. in letter .
the collector at Honolulu, under date -
July q. 1900. reached like conclusion
this case. holding that duties did not
crue on the coal; and the Commission
of Navigation decided that the entry
the schooner prior to June II. 1900.
empted her from a tonnage tax. r
The protest is sustained and the de- |
don of the collector reversed, with in |
auctions to rcliquidate the entry ac- |
rdingly.