Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-26

hear and determine certain customs
cases is created by the customs admin.
istrative act of June 10, 1890 ZIG Stat.
L., D. 131), by which an appeal Is Civ
en- from the decision of any Collector
of Customs as to the rate and amount
of duty chargeable upon imported
merchandise, If such duties were paid
under protest: and their decision is
made final as to "the construction OF
the law and the facts respecting the
Classiflcations of such merchandise.
and the rate of duty imposed thereon
under such classification" (Secs. IA
and 15.)
The Supreme Court of the United
States construed these sections of the
customs administrative act in the va.
rious cases known as the Insular Tar.
if Cases (1S2 U. s., 221; 81 Sup. CT.
Rep, 742), where II was held that the
Board of Classification of the United
States General Appraisers, under the
authority conferred by said section
IA. has no jurisdiction Of cases in
volving the classification of merchan.
disc brought either from Hawaii or
Porto Rico after these Territorial pos.
sessions had been acquired by the
United States. The Dingley Tariff
act of 1897. under which these goods
we're assessed. levies duties only upon
articles imported from foreign coun.
tries" The court accordingly con.
strue1 the words imported merchan
disc" as used in said section IA of the
customs administrative act, 10 have
reference only to merchandise import
ed from foreign countries, and conse.
quently not from territory which had
become appurtenant to. and under the
jurisdiction of, the United States, as
was the case with both Porto Rico and
Hawaii. (GoetZe VS.. United States,
1872 U. s., 221; 81 Sup. CT. Rep, 742
De Lima vs.. Bidwell, 1872 U. s., |; 81
Sup. Ct. Rep, 743)
In Dooley VS.. United States (1S2 U.
s., 225), 1t was said the remedy afford
ed by the customs administrative act
is doubtless exclusive as applied to
customs cases" (sec. Il, act of June
10, 1900. but that il had mo applica.
ton to actions against the collector
| for duties eXacted upon goods which
were not imported at ALL" "Such
cases." 1t was added. although arts.
| ing under the revenue laws, are not
within the purview of the customs ad.
ministrative act, as, for such cases,
| there Is still common law right of &C.
ton against the collector, and we
think also by application to the Court
of Claims" The remedy provided by
law for such cases was held to be that
prescribed by the fourth subdivision oil
section 500 of the Revised Statutes
which confers jurisdiction upon the
circuit courts OF the United States In
"all suits at law or in equity arising
under any act providing for revenue
from imports or tonnage"
In Downes VS.. Bidwell QS2 U. S.
244; 81 Sup. CT. Rep, 770). which IL
no respect seems to be distinguish
able from the present case the rul
settled by the court in the Goethe an
B. De Lima cases was made applicable
so far as concerns questions Of juri;
diction and procedure to merchandis
brought from Porto Rico into tn
United States subsequent to the er
actment of the Foraker At, entitle
IAN Act temporarily to provide reve
nues and a civil government for Port,
Rico, and for other purposes" approx
ed by the President April ~, 1900
which went into effect on the LIST o
May following 81 U. s. Stat, p. ~
This act imposed certain duties
amounting to Is per cent of those lev
led by the Dingley Act, upon merchau
disc brought from Porto Rico into tn
United States. Such goods were new
ertheless held not to be merchandis
imported from foreign countries; an
II was further decided that the rem
edy of the importer was by suit in tn
circuit court of the United States III
der said section 629 or else in tn
] Court of Claims, and not under sal
section IA Of the customs administra
tive act.
/ We may add that the insular dec
sions are commented on and fully e'
planned by Chief Justice Fuller in tn