Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/137/310.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:26:25+00:00

Document:
Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law, brought by Clement A. Auffmordt. John F. Degener, William Degener, and Adolph William von Kessler, composing the firm of C. A. Auffmordt & Co. against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of New York, in the superior court of the city of New York, and removed by the defendant into the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, to recover an alleged excess of duties, paid under protest, on goods imported into the port of New York from Bremen by the steamer Main, and entered at the custom-house at New York on March 13, 1886. After issue joined the case was, on the application of the plaintiffs, separated into two causes of action, the present one covering all questions of law and fact involved in the importation, except those which concerned the rates of duty affecting it, and the trial involved in the case now before us proceeded on that basis. It was had before Judge WHEELER and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for $10, for which amount, with interest and costs, judgment was entered in July, 1887. The plaintiffs brought a writ of error, claiming that the verdict should have been for a larger sum. The valuation of the goods on entry was 7,070 francs, on which a duty of 50 per cent. was paid. Afterwards, the appraisers raised the valuation by adding 440 francs 10 centimes to the 7, 070 francs, making a total valuation of 7,510 francs 10 centimes. On a reappraisement by a merchant appraiser and a general appraiser, under section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, the same result was reached, and, on this valuation of 440 francs 10 centimes, a duty of 50 per cent. was paid, amounting to $42. The controversy in the case relates to this $42. There is no foundation for the suggestion made in the brief for the plaintiffs that they paid any duty upon non-dutiable charges. [137 U.S. 310, 312] Various assignments of error are made which are not especially referred to in the brief for the plaintiffs, and those which are discussed in that brief may be classified under distinct heads. Section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, under which the principal question in the case arose, was as follows: 'If the importer, owner, agent, or consignee of any merchandise shall be dissatisfied with the appraism ent, and shall have complied with the foregoing requisitions, he may forth with give notice to the collector, in writing, of such dissatisfaction, on the receipt of which the collector shall select one discreet and experienced merchant to be associated with one of the general appraisers wherever practicable, or two discreet and experienced merchants, citizens of the United States, familiar with the character and value of the goods in question, to examine and appraise the same, agreeably to the foregoing provisions, and, if they shall disagree, the collector shall decide between them; and the appraisement thus determined shall be final, and be deemed to be the true value, and the duties shall be levied thereon accordingly.' At the trial, the plaintiffs put in evidence the following-named parts of the general regulations under the customs and navigation laws, published by the treasury department in 1884, namely: Chapter 3, pt. 3, arts. 447-506, both inclusive; chapter 5, pt. 8, arts. 1399-1410, both inclusive; and articles 1415-1417, both inclusive; also, extracts from instructions issued for the guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned, by the secretary of the treasury, under date of July 1, 1885, known as 'Treasury Department Document No. 712,' being instruction of June 9, 1885, p. 245, No. 6957; instruction of June 10, 1885, p. 249, No. 6959; and instruction of July 20, 1885, p. 305, No. 7029. Of the general regulations of 1884, above referred to, those which are material in this case are set out at the end of this opinion. [137 U.S. 310, 313] In the present case the plaintiffs filed protests and appeals to the secretary of the treasury on the 29th of April, 1886. [137 U.S. 310, 314] There was no decision by the secretary on the appeals, and this suit was brought. The notice of dissatisfaction with the [137 U.S. 310, 315] first appraisement was dated March 22, 1886, and contained a request for a reappraisement. Mr. McCreery was selected by [137 U.S. 310, 316] the collector to be the merchant appraiser, but the notice to him of his selection was not put in evidence. The oath signed [137 U.S. 310, 317] by him, and sworn to before a deputy-collector, on the 8th of April, 1886, was put in evidence, and was in the following [137 U.S. 310, 318] terms: 'I, the undersigned, appointed by the collector of the district of New York to appraise a lot of manufactures of silk and cotton imported per steamship Main from Bremen, the importer having requested a new appraisement thereof in accordance with law, do hereby solemnly swear diligently and faithfully to examine and inspect said lot of manufactures of silk and cotton, and truly to report, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation of the same to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States, in conformity with the provisions of the several acts of congress providing for and regulating the appraisement of imported merchandise. So help me God.' The plaintiffs were notified by the collector, on the 20th of April, 1886, to pay the additional duty. This was after the reappraisement, and the additional duty was paid, they having previously paid $10 for the merchant appraiser's compensation. [137 U.S. 310, 319] In the course of the trial, the plaintiffs proposed to show by Mr. McCreery that, at the time he acted as merchant appraiser in the present case, he acted as such at the same time in other cases. This testimony being objected to by the defendant as irrelevant, it was excluded, and the plaintiffs excepted. The court, however, admitted in evidence the fact that some other appraisals were going on at the same time with the one in the present case, although it excluded, under the exception of the plaintiffs, testimony as to how many of them there were. The plaintiffs also, for the purpose of raising the point that the merchant appraiser should have been selected by virtu of the classification of employes in the classified customs service, as certified to by the secretary of the treasury under section 882 of the Revised Statutes, being the classification provided for by section 6 of the act of January 16, 1883, c. 27, (22 St. 405,) offered such classification in evidence, but it was excluded by the court under the objection of the defendant, as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered to show that the merchant appraiser was not appointed under the civil service rules under the said act of 1883, but the court excluded the evidence, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered in evidence sundry depositions of witnesses taken before the reappraisers in this case, in regard to market value, but they were excluded by the court on the objection of the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered to show by a witness the true and actual market value and wholesale price of the goods in question, and of goods identical with them, in the principal markets of the country from which they were exported, at the time of their exportation, in March, 1886; but, on the objection of the defendant that the testimony was immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant, it was excluded, and the plaintiffs excepted. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs for the $10 merchant appraiser's fees. The defendant asked for a direction for a verdict for him except as to such $10. The plaintiffs requested the court to submit to the jury, for their finding, [137 U.S. 310, 320] the question whether or not there was any lawful appraisement or reappraisement in the case. The court refused so to do, but directed a verdict for the defendant except as to the $10, to which action of the court the plaintiffs excepted. The plaintiffs then asked the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed beyond the $10, on the ground that the statute under which the merchant appraiser was appointed was unconstitutional and void, under that provision of article 2 , 2, of the constitution of the United States, which reads as follows: 'The congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments,' claiming that the merchant appraiser was an inferior officer, within the meaning of that provision, and was not appointed in accordance therewith. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs excepted. They then requested the court to submit all of the testimony to the jury, with proper instructions as to what constituted an appraisement or a reappraisement, which request was refused, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also requested the court to submit all of the evidence to the jury touching the value upon which the duty was assessed, and the value declared on entry, on the ground that section 2930 of the Revised Statutes was unconstitutional; that the plaintiffs had the right to have submitted to the jury, under proper instructions, on the evidence, all questions touching the imposition of duty; and that, by withholding the evidence from the jury, by virtue of an unconstitutional statute which declared the conclusions of the reappraisers to be final, the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional right to a trial by jury, in a case where, by the common law, it obtained, under article 7 of the amendments of the constitution. This request was denied, and the plaintiffs excepted.
The contention of the plaintiffs is that under the instructions of the treasury department, and the evidence, the question in issue as to the dutiable value of the merchandise could not be reasonably heard at all, on the reappraisement, because (1) the importer or his agent was practically excluded from the reappraisement; (2) was not afforded opportunity to support his oath on entry, or within proper limits to confront the opposing witnesses by testimony in his own behalf; (3) or to sift evidence secretly or openly heard in opposition to him; (4) or to have the aid of counsel, if he desired; and, particularly, that the rule of 'reasonable ways and means' could not exist in a tribunal which proceeded to examine an issuable matter under a rule which excluded We are of opinion that, under the statute, the question of the dutiable value of the merchandise is not to be tried before the appraisers as if it were an issue in a suit in a judicial tribunal. Such is not the intention of the statute, and the practice has been to the contrary from the earliest history of the government. No government could collect its revenues or perform its necessary functions, if the system contended for by the plaintiffs were to prevail. The regulations prescribed in the instructions from the treasury department are reasonable and proper. By section 2949 of the Revised Statutes, the secretary of the treasury has power to establish 'rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, to secure a just, faithful, and impartial appraisement of all merchandise imported into the United States;' and by section 2652 it is made 'the duty of all officers of the customs to execute and carry into effect all instructions of the secretary of the treasury relative to the execution of the revenue laws; and, in case any difficulty shall arise as to the true construction or meaning of any part of the revenue laws, the decision of the secretary of the treasury' is made conclusive and binding. [137 U.S. 310, 324] The proceedings for appraisal must necessarily be to some extent of a summary character. In Cheatham v. U. S., 92 U.S. 85 , 88, it was said by this court, speaking by Mr. Justice MILLER: 'All governments, in all times, have found it necessary to adopt stringent measures for the collection of taxes, and to be rigid in the enforcement of them. These measures are not judicial; nor does the government resort, except in extraordinary cases, to the courts for that purpose. The revenue measures of every civilized government constitute a system which provides for its enforcement by officers commissioned for that purpose. In this country, this system for each state, or for the federal government, provides safeguards of its own against mistake, injustice, or oppression, in the administration of its revenue laws. Such appeals are allowed to specified tribunals as the law- makers deem expedient. Such remedies, also, for recovering back taxes illegally exacted, as may seem wise, are provided. In these respects the United States have, as was said by this court in Nichols v. U. S., 7 Wall. 122, enacted a system of corrective justice, as well as a system of taxation, in both its customs and internal revenue branches. That system is intended to be complete. In the customs department it permits appeals from appraisers to other appraisers, and in proper cases to the secretary of the treasury; and, if dissatisfied with this highest decision of the executive department of the government, the law permits the party on paying the money required, with a protest embodying the grounds of his objection to the tax, to sue the government through its collector, and test in the courts the validity of the tax.' It was said also in that case ( page 89) that the government 'has the right to prescribe the conditions on which it will subject itself to the judgment of the courts in the collection of its revenues.' One of those conditions is, and always has been, that the determination of appraisers as to the dutiable value of goods shall be conclusive and not re-examinable in a suit at law, provided the appraisers are selected in conformity with the statute, and, in appraising, act within the scope of the powers conferred upon them. See, also, State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575 , 613; Snyder v. [137 U.S. 310, 325] Marks, 109 U.S. 189, 193 , 194 S., 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 157; Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U.S. 97 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; Arnson v. Murphy, 115 U.S. 579, 585 , 586 S., 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Oelbermann v. Merritt, 123 U.S. 356, 361 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 151. In Hilton v. Merritt, it was distinctly held that the valuation of merchandise made by the appraisers was, in the absence of fraud, conclusive on the importer; that the right of appeal to the secretary of the treasury, when duties were alleged to have been illegally or erroneously exacted, and the right to a trial by jury in case of an adverse decision by the secretary of the treasury, did not relate to alleged errors in the appraisement of goods, whether by a merchant appraiser or otherwise; and that it was not allowable, in a suit to recover back duties, for the plaintiff to put in evidence the records of the proceedings before the merchant appraiser and the general appraiser, including the testimony and the various documents before the appraisers, or to try before the jury the question as to the actual value of the goods, and whether the appraisers followed the evidence before them or disregarded it. The evidence ruled out in that case was evidence which tended only to show carelessness and irregularity in the discharge of their duties by the appraisers, but not that they had assumed powers not conferred by the statute. Although by section 29 of the act of June 10, 1890, c. 407, entitled 'An act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues,' sections 2902 and 2930 of the Revised Statutes are expressly repealed, section 10 of that act provides that it shall be the duty of the appraisers of the United States, 'by all reasonable ways and means,' to appraise the actual market value and wholesale price of imported goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same have been imported; and section 13 of that act provides that the decision of the appraiser or that of the general appraiser in cases of reappraisement, or that of the board of general appraisers on review, shall be final and conclusive as to the dutiable value of the merchandise, against all parties interested therein. There is nothing in the instructions of the secretary of the treasury, or in any of the regulations prescribed, or in the evidence in this case, which shows that the appraisers were [137 U.S. 310, 326] not free to perform their duties properly, as required by the statute. The reappraisers appraised the goods in the appraisers' room in the public store. On the day before the reappraisement took place, the agent of the plaintiffs received due notice of it, and he attended and was called by the reappraisers before them. The merchant appraiser had then and there samples of the plaintiffs' goods, and the general appraiser asked the agent for his statement in the case, and it was made. The samples were on the table before the merchant appraiser, and the cases of goods were in the adjoining room. The agent made no objection as to the proceedings, and testifies that he was allowed to make a full statement concerning the value of the plaintiffs' goods; and the evidence fails to show that any request was made on behalf of the plaintiffs which was refused, except the request to find the value which th plaintiffs desired to be found.
It is contended for the plaintiffs that the merchant appraiser is an officer, and an inferior officer, who, under article 2, 2, of the constitution could be appointed only by the president, or by a court of law, or by the head of a department. In the present case, the selection of the merchant appraiser, his oath, and the manner in which he and the general appraiser discharged their duties, were in compliance with the statute and with the treasury regulations; but it is urged that the manner of appointing the merchant appraiser was illegal. The merchant appraiser is an expert, selected as an emergency arises, upon the request of the importer for a reappraisal. His appointment is not one to be classified under the civil service law, he is not to be appointed on a competitive examination, nor does he fall within the provisions of the civil service law. He is not a 'clerk,' nor an 'agent,' nor a 'person employed' in the customs department, within the meaning of section 6 of the civil service act, nor is he an officer of the United States, required to be appointed by the president, or a court of law, or the head of a department. He is an expert, selected as such. Section 2930 requires that he shall be a 'discreet and experienced merchant,' 'familiar with the character and value of the goods in question.' He is selected for the special [137 U.S. 310, 327] case. He has no general functions, nor any employment which has any duration as to time, or which extends over any case further than as he is selected to act in that particular case. He is an executive agent, as an expert assistant to aid in ascertaining the value of the goods, selected for the particular case on the request of the importer, and selected for his special knowledge in regard to the character and value of the particular goods in question. He has no claim or right to be designated, or to act except as he may be designated. The statute does not use the word 'appoint,' but uses the owrd 'select.' His position is without tenure, duration, continuing emolument, or continuous duties, and he acts only occasionally and temporarily. Therefore, he is not an 'officer,' within the meaning of the clause of the constitution referred to. U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 102, 103; U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 393; U. S. v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 510 , 511 S.; Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U.S. 5, 8 , 9 S.; U. S. v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 505; U. S. v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 532 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 595. The present question is very much like that considered in U. S. v. Germaine. In that case under section 4777 of the Revised Statutes the commissioner of pensions was empowered to appoint civil surgeons to make a periodical examination of pensioners and to examine applicants for pensions. The question arose whether a surgeon so appointed was an officer of the United States whose appointment was required to be made by the president or a court of law or the head of a department. This court held that he was not, and said, referring to the case of U. S. v. Hartwell: 'If we look to the nature of defendant's employment, we think it equally clear that he is not an officer. In that case the court said, the term embraces the ideas of tenure, duration, emolument, and duties, and that the latter were continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary. In the case before us the duties are not continuing and permanent, and they are occasional and intermittent. The surgeon is only to act when called on by the commissioner of pensions in some special case, as when some pensioner, or claimant of a pension, pre- [137 U.S. 310, 328] sents himself for examination. He may make fifty of these examinations in a year, or none. He is required to keep no place of business for the public use. He gives no bond and takes no oath, unless by some order of the commissioner of pensions of which we are not advised. No regular appropriation is made to pay his compensation, which is two dollars for every certificate of examination, but it i paid out of money appropriated for paying pensions in his district, under regulations to be prescribed by the commissioner. He is but an agent of the commissioner, appointed by him, and removable by him at his pleasure, to procure information needed to aid in the performance of his own official duties. He may appoint one or a dozen persons to do the same thing. The compensation may amount to five dollars or five hundred dollars per annum. There is no penalty for his absence from duty or refusal to perform, except his loss of the fee in the given case. If congress had passed a law requiring the commissioner to appoint a man to furnish each agency with fuel at a price per ton fixed by law high enough to secure the delivery of the coal, he would have as much claim to be an officer of the United States as the surgeons appointed under this statute.' This case does not present any question like that of substituting a new merchant appraiser for one already selected, as in Greely v. Thompson, 10 How. 225; nor is it a case where the appraiser did not see the original packages, as in Greely's Adm'r v. Burgess, 18 How. 413; nor a case where it was offered to show that the merchant appraiser was not a person having the qualification prescribed by the statute, as in Oelbermann v. Merritt, 123 U.S. 356 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151, and in Mustin v. Cadwalader, 123 U.S. 369 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 158; nor a case where it was contended that the appraisers did not open, examine, and appraise the packages designated by the collector, as in Oelbermann v. Merritt; nor a case where to the admitted market value of an importation there was added such additional value as was equal to a reduction made in the valuation of the cases containing the goods, as in Badger v. Cusimano, 130 U.S. 39 , 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431. Those were instances of errors outside of the valuation itself, and outside of the appraisement prescribed by the statute. [137 U.S. 310, 329] Nor is there anything in the objection that section 2930 of the Revised Statutes is unconstitutional in making the decision of the appraisers final, and that the plaintiffs had a right to have the question of the dutiable value of the goods passed upon by a jury. As said before, the government has the right to prescribe the conditions attending the importation of goods, upon which it will permit the collector to be sued. One of those conditions is that the appraisal shall be regarded as final; and it has been held by this court, in Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184, that the right to bring such a suit is exclusively statutory, and is substituted for any and every common-law right. The action is, to all intents and purposes, with the provisions for refunding the money if the importer is successful in the suit, an action against the government for moneys in the treasury. The provision as to the finality of the appraisement is virtually a rule of evidence to be observed in the trial of the suit brought against the collector. The uniform course of legislation and practice, in regard both to the mode of selection of the merchant appraiser and as to the conclusive effect of the appraisal, are entitled to great weight. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299, 309; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 352; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 418, 421; Cooley v. Board, etc., 12 How. 299, 315; Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 57 , 4 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; The Laura, 114 U.S. 411, 416 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 881.
The plaintiffs complain of the exclusion, as evidence, of a paper, Exhibit No. 14, being a report received by the collector at New York from the United States consul at Horgen, in Switzerland, dated February made by one Schmid, a government made by one Schmid, agovernment silk expert, concerning certain under valuations of merchandise covered by invoices of goods to C. A. Auffmordt & Co. which embraced the goods in question. The paper was excluded by the court on the objection of the defendant that it was immaterial and irrelevant, and the plaintiffs excepted. It doe not appear that the paper was used upon either of the appraisals, and, if it had been, it would have been proper to use it, as advising the officers of the government of the cost of the goods in question. It was properly excluded. [137 U.S. 310, 330] The other questions discussed at the bar have been fully considered, but it is not considered necessary to comment on them.
GENERAL REGULATIONS OF 1884, REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
"Importer's Notice to Collector Claiming Reappraisement.
"Sir: As I consider the appraisement made by the United States appraisers TOO HIGH ON _____, imported by _____, in the _____ from _____, i have to request that the same may be reappraised, pursuant to law, with as little delay as your convenience will permit.
'Art. 466. On the receipt of this report, the collector will select one discreet and experienced merchant, a citizen of the United States, familiar with the character and value of the goods in question, to be associated with an appraiser at large, if the attendance of such officer be practicable, to examine and appraise the same according to law. Rev. St. 2930. The selection of merchant appraisers should not be confined exclusively to those connected with foreign imports, but, when the requisite knowledge exists, should be extended so as to embrace domestic manufactures and producers, and other citizens acting as merchants, although not dealing in foreign merchandise. Section 6111. The merchant thus selected will be notified by the collector of his appointment, and of the time and place of the re- examination. The appraiser at large will be notified of the appeal, of the time fixed for reappraisement, and of the name of the merchant appraiser. The importer will be notified of the time and place, but not of the name of the merchant selected to assist in the reapppraisement. If the attendance of an appraiser at large be impracticable, the collector will select an additional merchant, qualified as aforesaid, for the performance of the service.
"Appointment of Merchant Apprase r.
"Sir: You are hereby appointed to appraise _____, which has been entered at this port, the importer having requested a new appraisement thereof in accordance with the provisions of the several acts of congress providing for and regulating the appraisement of imported merchandise and you are requested to appear at _____, at __ o'clock on the ___ day of _____, 18__, to appraise the said goods pursuant to law.
"Before entering upon the duty indicated in the above appointment you will please call at this office to take the requisite oath.
"I, the undersigned, appointed by the collector of _____ to appraise _____, imported per _____, from _____, the importer having requested a new appraisement thereof in accordance with law, do hereby solemnly swear diligently and faithfully to examine and inspect said lot of _____, and truly to report, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the period of the exportation of the same to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States, in conformity with the provisions of the several acts of congress providing for and regulating the appraisement of imported merchandise.
"Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of _____, 18__.
'Samples, etc., to be Sent to Reappraisers.
accordance with the preponderance of testimony on either side, but should be conducted as an investigation by experts, to ascertain whether the local appraiser has reported the true and proper market value of the merchandise in question. Section 2655. Application for copies of proceedings on reappraisements should be made to the general appraiser, who will exercise his discretion in regard to furnishing the same.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.