Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-03
dunno REPLIES 70
COLLECTOR Of PORT.
In Matter Of Seizure of.
Cigars From
SOlaCe.
DECIDED THAT THESE
MUST BE HANDED OVER
As Soon As Necessary Stamps Are
Affixed By Claimant c. H, Brown
Various Points
Reviewed.

reference to the seizure Of lot of one
thousand cigars:
Honolulu, II. T., March 3, 1902.
honorable e. X. Stackable. Collector
Of the Port. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Sir On February 10th last | had
the honor to receive your No. 1873, rela.
tive to a certain demand made upon
you by c. II. Brown and l.. T. Kenake
for the release OF 1000 Manila Ciagrs,
alleged to have been purchased from
a passenger on the U. S. S. Solace,
held under temporary seizure for
violation of Article IL, section 1924.
of the Revised Statutes.
kenake's Cigars Seized.
Your No. 1873 advised me that the
facts of the case are as fonows: Mr..
L. T. Kenake on Saturday afternoon,
February 18th, came from on board the
solace and had 1000 cigars in his pos.
session. Same were seized by lnspec.
tor A. Il. Mitchell and turned over to
this office under temporary seizure for
violation Of the section above refer.
red to. 1t now appears that both of
the parties above named, c. II. Brown
and i. T. Kenake are laying claim to
the same lot of cigars"
StaekabIe's Suggestions.
Your communication then offered
certain suggestions bearing more or
less upon the case; but did not feel
called upon to reply to them for the
reason that. in my opinion, the case
could be disposed of upon different and
less complex grounds. | therefore ad.
ylsed you. under date of February ed.
that in view of there being two claim.
ants for the merchandise, you would
not be justified under any circum.
stances in delivering the property to
either. When they shall have deter
mined their respective rights. the re.
naming questions may be considered
4 hereafter, as appears from your No.
Ol42, all rights have, by assignment,
become vested in the claimant c. II.
Brown; and this gentleman. both upon
his own account and as assignee, now
demands the release of the cigars up.
on payment of the internal revenue
tax.
First Impressions Discarded.
| am perfectly frank to confess that,
at first blush. | was somewhat favor.
ably impressed with your view of this
case; but subsequent and more critical
investigation has compelled me to dis.
card my first impressions. You seek
to justify this seizure upon the
ground that the facts develop a viola.
ton of the twelfth rticle OF section
1924 U. S. Il. s.; but. in my opinion.
this article is irrelevant to the issue
here presented.
From the circumstances, inter ALA,
that you describe these cigars as Ma
Mia cigars" and that you refer me to
I. d. 233S9, | gather that the merchan.
disc in question was brought from the
Philippine Islands; and from your com.
municatiOns, which are my only source
of knowledge, and which do not con.
tradiCt the assertions of the claimant,
gather that the person from whom. at
this port, the cigars were obtained.
was a "passenger''-and there is no
evidence to show that he was a per.
son connected with the Navy" But
these facts, in my opinion, take this
case quite out of article u, section
1924. U. S. r. S. The reasons are OBJ
vious: /. The facts do not establish
any importation; 2. They do not es.
tablish any importation" by any per.
son connected with the Navy; and g.
They do not establish any 'importa.
ton" by any person connected with the
Navy of ANY article which is liable
to the payment Of duty"
No ~mportatlon."
You advise me that the Solace lis a
80 IT..s.
not an Army transport, and article ~
Of section 1924 Revised Statutes pro.
hibits the importation of merchandise
in Navy vessels. Not only, however,
is there no importation" here, but |
am compelled to take the liberty of
saying that your reproduction OF the
article and section is not quite accur-
ale. Section 1924, rtlcle H. as already
limited, prohibits any person connect
ed with the Navy" from importing du-
table goods in public vessels: exDres.
sio unius exclusio alterius Compare
T. d. 2O3S3); and. as already suggest.
ed, no evidence is apparent to me that
this passenger" was a person con.
nected with the Navy" beg leave to
be permitted to observe, moreover that
| am not aware of any statute which
authorizes a Collector of Customs ia
punish infractions of this article. o, to
punish such attractions by seizure OF
non-dutiable goods. In my opinion. as
at present advised violations of this
article, limited as 1t is to persons
connected with the Navy would be
punishable, upon proper report there
of to the Naval authorities, by the
usual method of Naval discipline. tc
wit, by couTt.martial; and it woulC
seem that the jurisdiction Of the court
martial Is exclusive TN re Bogart,
Sawy, 39G; In re White. ID, 49,.
Navy Vessels and Manifest"
T. d. 233S9, to which you direct m!
attention, would seem to indicate tina
no duty is to be collected upon goods
coming into the United States from
the Philippine Islands; and as t,
cigars, the decision directs that the,
J are to be detained until the interna
J revenue stamps shall have been al
tached; and this the present claiman
, proposes to do. find nothing in thi
decision, however, or in T. d. 303S3, o
in Gust. Reg. 1899. Art. 57l, which i'm
peaches the criticism just offered cor
| earning tha non-annlipa hiIity Of saCtinl