Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-04-25
PRESENT IS DU||ABlt.
APPRAISERS DECISION IS
IMPORTANT TO TRAVELLERS
Gifts Intended for Friends Cannot be
Passed as Personal Baggage
Field Glasses and
Cameras.

tiCation of the United States General
Appraisers in the protest of j. McDon-
aid Peacock
whether presents brought into this
country in passengers baggage were
exempt from duty under paragraph 697,
of the tariff act of 1897.
Judge Henderson NJ Somerville. in
an opinion concurred in by General
Appraisers Fischer and Howell, denies
MIR. Peacock's contention, and holds
that presents intended for friends are
dutiablc.
This decision will probably affec.
all classes Of travellers, although 1t Is
| possible an appeal may be taken to the
United States Circuit Court, AMI the
matter kept in litigation for Ion,
: time.
! The appellant in this case protested
against the payment of duties" on Ger
! tain articles contained in his personal
baggage, which he comedies I'm the pro-
test and in letters to the Board. were
intended for Christmas presents to his
friends. Peacock arrived on the
steamer Lucania on Dec. s. 1900, and
his baggage on Dec. . on the La Dre.
tagnc. This delay. however, being
caused by the failure of French rail.
way to forward the baggage in tirac for
the Lucania, and, through no fault o:
the protestant. Is no dctrmcnt 10 his
rights.
There Is no affirmative request for
relief in the protest, and no paragraph
Is named as supplying n classification
more appropriate than that adopted by
the collector. But If We cOustruc this
protest to have the precision required
by law and refer 1t to paragraph G97
of the Tariff Act of 1897: and II II be
further conceded that the nature of tho
articles would otherwise entitIe them
to free entry; We are of opinion that no
construction can be given to para
graph G97 which would extend It's bene-
fits to articles for distribution as pres
cnts.
THE body of the paragraph Is limit
cd To such articles as are in the use
Of arriving passengers, and. by its oN-
press terms. shall not be held to apply
to merchandise or articles intended fgr
other persons or for sale But, under
doctrine of United States vs.. One PcarI
Necklace an. Fed. Rep. iGD, the
privileges Of returning residents of the
United States. with respect to personal
baggage, must be sought exclusively IN
the prOvisO, which reads, so far Us per-
tincnt, rs follows:
Provided: That in case Of resident,
of the United States returning from
abroad all wearing apparel and other
! personal effects taken by them ont OF
I the United States to foreign countries
shall be admitted free of duty
but no more than one hundred dol
lars in value Of articles purchased
abroad by such residents of the United
States shall be admitted free OF duty
upon their return"
Wearing apparel and other per-
sOnal effects was construed by the
Board in re Wyman to embrace the or
binary baggage Of passengers. But the
accepted definitions of baggage con.
fine the term to that which is per.
Sonal to the passenger and carried for
his use or convenience. and exclude
those things intended FOR larger or
| Interior purposes. As thus stated. it,
meaning will not admit presents in
tended for other persons, and the courts
have 80 held. Otherwise. as WAS said /
on" case, 1T would be- almost impus-
siblc to lay down any rule Of llmita-
lion, either rs 10 quantity or value
THE precise question, however. IL
whether the term articles purchased
abroad In the last clause of the prOyi-
so, has any broader meaning than the
phrase just discussed. We think not.
No different construction could he Civ
en- II without "Xempting any merchant
disc enumerated In the tariff act. 10 the
value Of 800, when brought by resi-
dents. Such Il result Is rcpuguant To
the intent Of the paragraph as a whole.
which was clearly framed for the and
IL not compelled by the language IL We
apply the doctrine of nOscitur sucils
This view aims at Il construction
(which will carry out the spirit ant
intent Of III" entire provision Of the
statute, and, while II COMFORTS with the
ordinary habits Of passengers and ira
velers, will not open the door fOi
fraud"
The protc ST Is oyerrulcd and the col.
lcctor's decision assessing duty under
various paragraphs Is affirmed"
The Board handed down another de-
cision relating to their personal bag
gage of passengers which Is along the
lines of the Peacock ruling. Charles II.
Wyman imported for an unnamed party
iicld-glnssoS and camera, both Of
which were assessed for duty. although
claimed to be free. The Board in sus-
tanning the claims laid down the fol
lowing rules:
Paragraph G97 of the Dingley tariff
Is construed TO exempt from duty such
wearing apparel and other personal
effects rs would be included in the term
baggage according to judicial dehni.
ton.
"A pair Of field glasses and camera
being proper articles of baggage, are
held 10 be personal effects within the
meaning of said paragraph. Personal
States, left in foreign country by
their owner through accident, and for
warded shortly after his return are en-