Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-01-06
HAMAN0'S SHOES
VALUED AS IRON

QUIZ mere luNVt an Oiutl ulittNlnE inc
Board to return all Of the evidence; al
40 a further order referring the whole
subject to n NJ SOmeryille. n member
uf the Board for the taking of such
urthcr evidence in the matter as
might be offered by the petitioner or
by the United States.
On February 20, 1902. supplement-.
al return was received from the Board
If General Appraisers. which contain
ed an additional exhibit in the form OF
the original analysis of the merchan.
lise in controversy II was stated that
The importer failed to appear at the
hearing either in person or by counsel
and that no evidence was offered by
him. as under the ruling Of the court
he was required to do" Special Ap.
praiser Somerville made a similar re.
port of the non.appearance of the ap.
pehant. and the court comments thus:
There being no testimony offered
in the matter before tho Board of APP.
praisers. and no excuse shown why,
and the burden being on the importer
to show the Collectors action wrong,
II II was wrong, and no effort being
made to show the reason why. the i'm.
porter failed to make out a case
case against the Collector"
The court calls attention to the fact
that in his protest to the Collector the
importer relied upon But one ground of
objection. namely, in effect that the ar.
ticle should have been classed as a
leather shoe or slipper at % p. c. duty
instead OF manufacture OF leather at
IS D. c. duty. Upon the hearing and
upon the application for the order to
the Board, ii appeared that the protest.
ant now bases his case on appeal to
the District Court mainly on the alleg.
ed error OF the Board of General APP.
praisers in failing to consider the 81.
Multitude clause Of the Tariff Act
Judge Estee finds that.it was not pos.
sible, under the language Of the origi'
nal protest, for appellant to do this.
He Is confined to the allegations of
his protest made to the Collector of the
Port, and upon which the Board OF
I'eh'ldl HppIdiS'is dCtcu' hs dulnoI
ity the decision OF the Supreme Court
In Davies VS.. Arthur, 90 u. S. iiS, Is
quoted, thus:
Technical precision is not requir
cd, but the objections must be so dis
tinct and specific as when fairly con
strued, to show that the objection tax
en- at the trial, was al that time in the
mind of the importer, and that II wai
sufficient to notify the Collector of III
true nature and character, to the enc
that he might ascertain the prec$,
facts and have an opportunity to cor
rect the mistake and cure the defect
II II was one which could be thus oh
Waited
Section IA OF an Act of Congress u
June 10. 1890, prescribes that per
son dissatisfied with Collectors deci
sion shall give notice to the Collecto
setting forth therein, distinctly anC
specifically, the reasons for his obiec
tons thereto. That was done by thu
importer in this case" Judge Este'
says, and that must stand as the al
legged error appealed from" In othe
words, the appellant cannot trump NJ
new objections as they may be requir
ed TO make out a case Tor him In thu
progress OF the controversy
Inc circuit court OF Appeal is iur
ther cited as authority, 90 Federal Rep
zee lor the prlhciple that the import
er should De pound o. MS own state
meh' W tue oOjseuons 10 the toilect
OF ueeiSioh'
WIN regard TO the slmilitude clause
nam vs. Erhard'' IS red ozo'oZl ~
u AZ Is quoted where the court says
me similltnde provision Is intend
ed 10 prescflDe tue uu'y 10 "hich ar
lcles are 10 De subject that nave beei
oml'.ed IN the enumeration OF dntlabi'
aruc'es IN the schedules OF the tarii
laws W mas no application wheh I'M
imported articles can De iden'ihe'
WIN any Oh those ar'icies uescriDed u
any OF the scheouies' u the lmporte
asserts IN MS protest that MS mel
chahdiSe belongs 10 inc category O
enumerated articies' ne asserts by III