Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-26
JURISDICTION OF CLASSIFICATION
BOARD ON
GOODS FROM HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
CONTINUED from maze Sd

lack of jurisdiction; IT, on the other
hand, the facts show that the mer.
chandise was imported. then the OBJ.
lection to its jurisdiction not being
well taken, II must decide the case on
the merits. Every tribunal has inhe.
rent power to examine into and deter.
mine the facts necessary to invest 1t
with jurisdiction. True, 1t might err
in the application of the law to those
facts, and assume Jurisdiction where
the law did not warrant, but in such a
case its action in that respect would
be open to review by higher tribunal,
just as would be its action on the
merits of the case.
can see no difference in principle
between this case and case where
an importer of goods from England, in.
terested for some reason of his own, in
ousting the Board of jurisdiction,
should allege in his protest, in add.
ton to making a claim for a different
rate. that the goods had not been i'm
ported from England, but had been
brought from one State to another. No
one would contend that IL was outside
the Boards province to examine into
the facts to determine whether or not
the merchandise was imported from
England. and. having determined that
1t was, should proceed to decide the
question Of rate.
That this view does not conflict in
any way, but in fact follows the deci.
sions of the Supreme Court in the in
sular cases, appears clear to me from
an examination of those cases.
In De Lima VS.. Bidwell GS2 U. s.,
| u, Mr.. Justice Brown, writing the pre-.
vailing opinion, in speaking of cases
where It had been held that the Unit.
cd States Circuit Court had no juris.
lection and that the Board had, said
Up. 170:
THE criticism to be made upon the
applicability of these cases is that
they dealt only with imported mcr
chandse and with the duties collected
thereon. and have no reference what
ever to eXactions made by a collector
| under color of the revenue laws, upon
goods which have never been import
ed at all. With respect to these, the
Conector stands as II, under color Of
his office. he had seized ship or It's
equipment, or any other article MOI
comprehended within the scope of the
tariff laws. Had the sugars involved
In this case been admittedly imported
that is. brought into New York from
a confessedly foreign country--and the
question arisen whether they were du
table, or belonged to the Tree list, the
case would have fallen within the Gus
toms administrative act, since 4
would have turned upon question o
classification"
Clearly, If we find the merchandis,
here concerned has been imported, W,
are within the ruling in this case II
holding we have jurisdiction. As II
that case, however, there was no ques
ton of the classification of the mer
chandise, the court held that the &C
ton was properly brought in the cir
cult court and not before the Board.
: So. In re Fassett (l42 U. s., 479)
where the action was by libel for pos
session of yacht, assessed by thu
collector as imported merchandise, tn,
court said Up. 4S7):
Under the customs administrator,
act, the libelant, In order to have tn,
benefit of proceedings Hereunder
must concede that the vessel is i'm
ported merchandise, which is the YER
question put In contention under tn
libel. and must make entry of her a
imported merchandise. with an invoice
and a consular certificate to that et
feet, and thus estop himself from
maintaining the fact which he alleges
in his libel. that she is not imported
merchandise"
In the case of GoetZe VS.. United
States (1S2 U. s., 22D, Justice Brown
| said:
AS the sole question presented b!
the record in these cases was whether
Porto Rico and the Hawaiian Islands
were foreign countries within tn,
meaning of the tariff laws. we mus
hold, for the reasons stated in De Iii
ma VS.. Bidwell, just decided. that thu
Board of General Appraisers had M
JURISDICTION of the cases"
In Dooley VS.. United States (1S2 U
s., 225), the same learned Justice
writing the prevailing opinion. said:
This remedy under the customi
administrative act) is doubtless exclu
sive as applied to customs cases; bu
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES