El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-12-16
FRANK G. CARPENTERS LETTER.

magnateS whose millions have come
from the tariff protection Of the things
their husbands manufacture. One such
case was as to a pearl necklace and
other jewels brought in BY the wife Of
a millionaire making agricultural ma
chiRery- This was the Adriance affair
OF which something has appeared IN
the newspapers. The madame was
fined $1,000 and the goods she attempt
ed to smuggle were forfeited Upon
this her husband denounced the gov
eminent for prosecuting travellers who
sought to bring in a few petty things
free" As / remember it, among the
petty things" in this case were some
pearls valued at $4,000, which the
lady had hidden in the folds of her
straw hat The milliOnaire's remark
was reported to Mr.. Loeb. whereupOn
Mr.. Loeb said that Mr.. Adriance had
made a big fortune out of the duties
which the United States imposed upon
such machinery as he manufactured,
but that when it came to his paying
any duty himself he objected.
som ewht similar case OF a trust
fortune falling to pay duties was that
connected with the Leeds necklace. This
case came up shortly before collector
Loeb got his appointment. w. p.
Leeds. one of the millionaires of the
tin plate trust had gone to Paris to
live, and while there Mrs Leeds had
bought famous necklace at a cost
Paris. but part of her bargain was
that it was to be delivered to her in
Newport without duty within a certain
time, If she so desired. In order to
escape paying some of the duty the
syndicate took the necklace apart and
shipped 1t in as loose pearls, in which
shape II was inToiced at $4,000 The
tari1f upon loose pearls was 10 percent
and. as I understand It. at that rate
the necklace was passed.
In fine r7n1 n time n0~r-n7-.-- k1,, o-,--a.r
customs spies at Paris cabled New
Y ork that the necklace had been worn
oy Mrs. Leeds before it was shipped
and that 1t should therefora paw DUTY
as necklace Upon this the matter
was again taken up and the duty raised
70 S1Sz,OOe, or $4,000 more than the
original sum. To this the importers
oDlected, and the court then fixed the
Ihls decision was appealed from, and
as understand 1t, the case has gone
TO the United States supreme court
and 1t has adjudged that 1t must be
reconsidered.
Dressmakers Who smuggIe.
In the past much of the petty snug
cling has been done by dressms Iers
and taiors. 1t used to be CUSTOMARY
for English tailors to take orders ia
New York and make clothes to meas
ure; agreeing to deliver them to the
customers free of duty Dressu a1vars'
sample gowns were brought in as per-
sonal effects. and orders for gowns
made in Paris were taken the same
way. This was regular business.
Only last January q dressmakers we're
fined from $500 to $1,000 for being i'm
phcated in it, and one OF the great sur
prlses sprung by the present admins
tration was when it began 10 prosecute
women Of this class. One Of the first
cases mentioned in the list given me by
collector Loeb is that Of Elizabeth Kill
cannon, who had TO pay $4,000 Mrs.
kilgannon and her husband and a man
named White were partners in snug
Cling. Mrs KilgannOn was known as
Nine IOran, mlliner, and her husband
ana White were classed as silk i'm
portera Others were implicated In
the transaction. and when the suit was
brought ii is said that the lawyers Of
fered to pay more than a quarter Of a
million dollars if the government would
dron the matter. That however. is not
the way Uncle Sam is doing business
Mrs. kilgannon was fined $4,000 and
her husband was sent TO prison on
BlackWells Island for a year. White