New-York tribune., 1902-02-25

whose sake Il was made. What he complains
of is not the law, but the regulations. The law
is permssive to examinations, but recently
the department has seemed TO think it was
mandatory. 1t requires impossible things In
the way of minute lists of purchases which not
one traveller in ten can give or ought to be ex-
pected TO give. Mr.. Whitridge says:
The regulations requiring every piece of bag
gage to be opened and searched were not CON
templated by the statute; and such regulations
cannot be, and are not, complied with; ana they
are, moreover. offensive. The statutes under
which these regulations were made are sections
. 100 $500 2S01 and 1904 of the United States
Revised Statutes. The first three of these sec
tions were enacted in 1893. the fourth in 1866.
They clearly permisSiVe statutes only, q
fact which the department apparently did not
discover until last summer. 1 think most law
yers would agree that the department had gone
beyond the intentions entertained by the legis-
latura when these statutes were enacted, re-
spectively, one hundred and forty years ago
The exact phraseology Of these regulations do
not know, but from the statements OF the IN
spectors the docks their orders appear TO be
TO open every piece of a passengers baggage
and to examine everything in it. In fact, that
is not done it cannot be done, and do not see
why it should be pretended that it is done
Take, for instance, ship with 900 passengers
They Will each have, say, five pieces of baggage
300 pieces in all and they will have taken
a least two hours each in their packing. SO
altogether i, will have taken the 500 passengers
LOCO hours to pack. Now, if their trunks 5are
to be unpacked inspected and repacked on the
were a search on an impartial universal and
!neXorable' principle, how long would 1t take
the inspectors to do the job? Moreover, the
mere attempt to make such a search after the
declaration demanded by the departments first
regulation is offensive. We make our afhdavits
rs TO what we have; then the department has
us searched TO see If We have committed per
Jury. and then told that ought not
10 object, because we are only required to do
what importers of merchandise have to do. But
not such importers. There is ground
under the statutes for considering all travellers
INN rtaTG hf flopVa fc cd md
under the statutes for making the distinction
between ordinary travellers and importers which
everybody on earth outside the Treasury In
Washington knows to exist. have said this
regulation is offensive. 1t is; but there be
no argument about such matter. 1t is a ques-
tOn of perception, like color; either a man sees
il or he is color blind
Mr.. Whiridge relates one amusing anecdote
showing the attitude of some customs officials
toward people who commit the crime of going
abroad 10 buy goods The collector al Bangor.
Me, wrote to ask if residents Of the United
States could import duty free personal effects
to the amount of 500. as the law allowed. when
they crossed the border for temporary stays
of two or three days. An Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury answered that the law was
silent 10 the length of time a person must
stay abroad to be entitled to free entry OF his
personal effects, and added;
Each case must be treated it's merits and
no duty levied on goods or a value of 500 or
less. purchased abroad by residents of the
United States. even though their stay abroad
may have been of short duration. unless ii shall
appear that the resident went abroad for the
chief purpose of purchasing articles Of lrcGriHg
apparel at q less price than that N ,rhich the
articles could be procured in the Tnied States. and
that II icGS not his o. her frst offence
The assumption that if the traveller went
abroad for the sake of getting his clothes
cheaper than they were sold at home he was
committing an offence reveals a sDirit foo cam
mon among officials. AS matter of fact it Is not
their business to use the law as n schoomaster
but merely to collect revenue; and so far as the
law allows them discretion they should use II
10 get the greatest revenue with the least fric-
ton and not frame regulations which for the
sake Of trifes cause widespread annoyance and
discomfort