The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-10-27
IMPORTERS WIN
SAKI DUTY
Continued from mage one.

customs broker. The information came
from two sources, one in New York and
the cablegram read as follows:
NEW YORK, October 27.-Saki case
decided in favor of importer under Sec
tion 6.
The other source of Information was
from Tom Fitch the attorney who has
assisted Johnston in the handling of the
various saki matter. Fitch's cablegram
was as follows:
Los ANGELES oct. 27.-To Johns ton
Honolulu. Won Section 6. FITCH.
Section 6 TO which reference is made
by both cabegrams is Section of the
revised tariff laws Of 1897, known as
the Dingley Act, and read as follows:
THAT there shall be levied, collected
and paid on the Importation of raw or
manufactured articles, not enumerated
or provided for by this act, duty Of
ten per centum ad valorem, and on all
articles manufactured, in whole or in
part, not provided for in this act, a
duty of twenty per centum ad valorum."
The decision which was evidently CIV
en- today was by the Board of General
Appraisers in New York and was on a
special test case taken from the port
of San Francisco. The test case previ-
Gus to that one was taken in New York
and was won by the importer on all
points in every court and tribunal that
heard the evidence. This case was
originally taken before the Board of
General Appraisers which decided in
favor of the importer. An appeal was
taken to the U. S. Circuit Court which
sustained the Board and then the gov
eminent took the case to the u. S. Court
of Appeals at New York which affirmed
the lower court this year. 1t was
thought that the government might APP
peal to the Supreme Court as the last
resort, but subsequently it was decided
to accept the decision of the Court OF
Appeals, but to present a stronger test
case from San Francisco.
The original protest i'm the payment
of duty on saki had come from Homo
lulu, Johnston having instituted the
matter about five years ago. Saki was
charged so cents a gallon duty as wine
but Johnston on behalf of the local i'm
porters, claimed that the duty should
be 20 cents a gallon as sali was beer.
The test case which was taken on a
New York Importation resulted in both
of the claims being disregarded by the
board and court, all of which held that
saki was neither wine nor a beer and
was subject to a duty of 20 per cent ad
valorum, as non-enumerated article
which was covered by Section 6 of the
revised tariff laws. This decision was
in reality better victory for the i'm
porter than had been expected, for il
the beer rate of duty had prevailed II
would have meant that the duty on a
tub of saki containing 9 gallons of SAX
would be $3.50, whereas under the ad
valorum rate a tub of saki is worth
$3.50, 20 per cent of which is only 81
cents.
The test case which has just been de-
cided was begun last May in San Fran
cisco against Komada & Company
p Johnston went up to San Francisco and
helped to work up the evidence and
present the case for the appeal. Cen
eral Appraiser Howell of the general
board came out especially from New
York to hear the case. Government
Counsellor Levitt also came out from
the east to conduct the case for the
government. The government had Sc
cured the cooperation of the wine and
beer men of California and a number of
witnesses gave testimony in favor of
the government, and against the appeal
which Kodama & Company had taken.
The California Wine Growers Associa-
ton and the San Francisco beer men
were greatly interested in the case.
Fourteen witnesses were heard for the
government and only four for tn APP
peal. The evidence was taken east by
Appraiser Howell and the general
board has just rendered a decision
holding that sak pays duty of 20 per
cent valorum under Section instead OF
the 80 cents gallon as charged by the
government.
II do not know" said Broker John
ston, what will be the next step i'm the
case The next move is for the govern
ment. They can appeal to the Circuit
Court tim to the Court of Appeals and
finally to the Supreme Court Of the
United States from this decision which
has just been rendered, but inasmuch
as the government has repeatedly lost,
I do not see upon what grounds it will
take any appeal. This case which has
just been settled, was supposed to be
the strongest case that the government
had thus far presented. We had hard
ly hoped to win before the General
Board of Appraisers, but we have done