New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-02
MIR. LOEB CRITICISED
Collector Charged with Misinterpret-
ing the Customs Law.

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: The letter Of Mr.. Smalley on our
custom house, published last Sunday and
the interview with Mr.. Loeb that APP
peared on Monday state only part or the
case ss 1t appears to those OF US who have
occasion to complain Of petty annoyances
to which travellers are subjected. have
never heard any one doubt the honesty OF
purpose of Mr.. Loeb. But in most re-
spects the principles for which he STANDS
deserve condemnation. The trouble with
Mr.. Loeb is that he is q bureaucrat. He
always sees things with the short vision
that characterizes the placeholder. de
interprets DE minimis lex non curat' TO
mean that tho United States government
is particularly anxious about the innni-
teslmal, and that cur country delights In
ANNOYING its citizens over petty anairs
that bring no income worth the collecting
He treats every traveller as IL he were a
smuggler, and says about as much; MS
stan insults US at its pleasure.
Mr. Loeb is generally credited with the
initial misinterpretation OF the law that
was designed to allow a traveller 10
bring In 500 worth OF goods purchased
abroad-eyen Of "baled hay" II he should
wish Il. as was commonly said when the
law was passed. But how does 1t work
out? / may bring in pipe, but not
Baedeker some golf sticks, but no books
10 read on the voyage; 500 worth OF fish
ing tackle, but not s. worth OF souvenirs
OF travel. and so on through the list. IL
y - forhiHdan nlieptl i
must stand In line and await my turn TO
pay perhaps g or "a while I see fellow
traveller with much more valuable mate
rial leaving without this delay and annoy
ance. 1t is not right. and tho American
people never intended that any such nttle
ANNOYANCE should be inflicted upon trav-
ellers.
Last September I submitted a declara-
ton that was correct TO a cent. My vile
had some dresses bought on Fifth avenue
before We went abroad i was compelled
TO make an affidavit to this effect before
my trunks were released, and this IN
spite Of the fact that 1 had the original
New York bills and showed them to the
inspector. That was an insult-poltely
given. TO be sure-but / practically was
called a liar.
And finally Mr.. Loeb assumes to pass
certain importations by mail. There Is
evidently some discretion. But II have
a book sent TO me as a present must go
TO the postoffice to pay 30 cents duty, or
some similar pittance. To pay few cents
of duty / must spend dollars worth or
time. This is an outrage. No one Is pro-
tected. the revenue is not worth the col
lectinC.
Mr.. Loeb may say, and probably does,
that he merely follows the law. But 1t Is
he who more than any other man Is cred
tied with beginning the unjust interpreta-
ton of the law that now obtains on our
docks. Not long ago purchased piece
of cloth abroad at the same shop and the
same time as q friend who made pur-
chase Of exactly the same amount OF the
Identical goods. We came back on the
same steamer and our declarations were
Identical as to this purchase. Neither
piece was cut and each piece was shown
10 the inspector. / paid 50 or 81 on mine
and my friends piece was passed duty
free. OF course Mr.. Loeb's assistants fol-
lowed the law In both cases, but which
was right? No. the law is not followed;
what Is done is to annoy travellers so
that It is. / assure you from experience,
harder for me to enter New York to-day
than II is to enter Russia. ID. Il. >.
New York, Nov. q, 1912.