The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-11-08
SUSTAINED THE PROTEST


one 0f the most important decisions
affecting th, Importation of goods into
This territory has just been handed
down boy the Board of General Apprai- II
sars at New York under date OF Octo-
Der ~. This decision is 200 the matter
Of the protest of Alexander and Bald II
win against the decision of the local II
collector of customs. as 90 the rate and |
amount of duties chargeable on certain Il
merchandise that was imported per Che II
schooner James Rolph, and entered II
June 23, 1900.
The protest was handled for AleNan-
der and Baldwin by II. j. Johnston. the n
local custom house broker. The deci- .
sion boy the Board of General Appraisers
UN.rrulos the decision of the local COLI I
l,otor. To whom instructions are given
tD rolQuidatc the entry according To I
the Appraisers decision. The case is /
quite an interesting one, and saVors /
bit of the Constitution and the Flag /
controversy The decision is as fol- F.
lows.
This protest was filed against an as
sessmeut of duty by the collector az
Honolulu. Hawaii. and it is shown with I
out conflict that the case arose out OF
the following state of facts:
THE schooner James Rolph brought
$50 tons of coal from New Castle, New
South Wales, to the port Of Mahukona,
Hawaii arriving there on June s, 1900
She was duly entered at the custom
house according To the laws and regu-
lations Of the Republic of Hawaii She
did not discharge the coal at Mahukona,
but, i'm accordance with orders that had
been left for her, she cleared for Kihei
as she was privileged to do under the
regulations Of the Hawaiian Republic,
sailing from Mahukona on June 8 and
arriving al Kihei on June y. The port
Of entry for Kihei is Kahului and the
captain of the schooner accordingly
went to Kahului and entered his vessel
according to the regulations Of the said
! Republic Of Hawaii The coal was al
| so entered by representatives Of the inn
! porters on the 18th day of June, 1900.
under the laws Of the said Hawaiian
| Republic. and the collector Of that Re-
| public granted "A permit for the landing
| Of said coal Under the Hawaiian tariff
coal was on the free list. but whatever
| fees or charges were lawfully due un-
| der the Hawaiian statutes We're paid by
! the importers or their representatives.
Before the coal was discharged further
orders were received by the captain, in
| stucting him to take the coal to Homo
lulu on the l4th Of June, 1900, the GUS
| toms laws and regulations OF the Ha-
waiian Republic ceased TO have effect.
and those Of the United states We're
substituted for them. act Of April 30,
1900. ch. 339 Of first session Of seth Com
gress, vol 81, Stat L., p. IA; y. d.
22l97D on June 20, the captain Of the
James Rolph appeared before the de-
putty collector at &ahului and requested
a temporary cOasting license, as he
wished to take his vessel to Honolulu
to discharge his cargo Of coal The
deputy collector, having no regular
blanks or forms for such a license, gave
the captain an open letter TO the col
lector al Honolulu, stating that the
schooner and cargo had already been
duly entered under the laws Of the Ha-
waiian Republic and allowed the vessel
to proceed. on her arrival al Honolulu
the collector there assessed the coal for
duty at the rate Of 60 cents per ton
under the provisions Of paragraph AIS
Of the tariff act Of 1897 Against that
assessment this protest was fled free
entry being claimed on the ground that
the coal was not subject to any duty.
The decision Of the case turns upon
the question whether the importation
Of coal was complete, and the custody
of the goods by the Government had
ceased, before the United States tariff
act became operative, on June Il, 1900.
If such was the case, then the voyage
from Kihei to Honolulu Is to be regard
ed as a mere coasting voyage, and not
as a continuation 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 discharged at Honolulu, we
think the case presents the familiar
question Of the durability of imported
| articles upon a change Of tariff acts,
a md ha I.I
laid down in Hartranft V. Oliver 025
u s., 525; Sup. CT. Rep, $3.50 Sherman
" Robertson G36 T. s., $40; 10 Sup. Ct.
| Rep, 1862 Seeberger V. Schweyer Q53
II. s., G09; IA Sup. CT. Rep, S81, 1922 /;
| United states V. Goodsell. 81 Fed Rep,
439; % c. A, 453, affirming in re Goodsell
&C. a. 1889 The doctrine Of these
cases is that, as long as goods remain
under the custody and control of off,
GERS Of the customs they are to be re-
garded as in public store" G. bond
ed warehouse" 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 V. Benzon q Cliff., jl2 "a Fed.
Cas-, lll2,
THE evidence before us does not show
whether there was any customs officer
on board of the James Rolph on her
voyage from Kihei to Honolulu; but
this point Is immaterial, If the Govern
ment had previously turned over the
merchandise 70 the importers and ceas-
ed to exercise control over il. In our
judgment. this result had, in effect,
been accomplished by the act of the
collector of the Republic Of Hawaii in
granting a permit for the free delivery
Of the coal at Kihei on the 18th of
June 1900 before the United States ia
riff laws had any operation or effect in
the islands, tSee sec, Of the enacting
part Of the joint resolution OF July Z,
1895 Stat. l., vol. 30, D. 75l) A close
scrutiny Of the decisions cited above
leads US to the conclusion that the is
suance To the importer Of such a dOcu-
ment as would enable him To- withdraw