Year: 1863




reign Goods.


UNITED STATES 0IRoUrr o0vRr.


Before Hon Judge No,soo


REVENUE oAM


Hty,iam H. Hidden ct al. "a. Hiram Barney co1eaor-
NELSON c. Jrhe question in this case arises under the
fourteenth section OF the act OF Congress OF July a.
1862, which Is az follows


That from and after the day and year aforesaid Au.
gust l. 1887 here shall be levied, COLLECTED aud paid
al goods merchandise Of the growth pro.
duce countries beyond the Cape OF Good Hope whom
duty Of ten per cent sd vaiore and IN addition 70 tho
duties imposed any such articles whom imported d.
recy from the place or places OF their growth or produc-
ton


Several shipments have been made by the plaintiffs
since the passage of this act from England OF raw silk
the produce OF Persia and China, upon which this ten
per duty has been imposed and paid under protest
This suit brought to back the ie-
gay exacted II is admitted that at the time OF the pas
sage Of tho silk free Of duty and It Is claimed
the port OF the importers that upon the
on OF the fourteenth section the ten per cent duty
imposed and intended to be imposed only upon such
articles che growth produce Of countries beyond the
Cape OF Good Hope at the time were liable TO the pay
ment Of duties; in other words. intended add
tona duty and did therefore, embrace articles which
duty free The previous sections Of this act
douotedy lend some countenance to this construotion
Many Of them devoted tho imposition OF additional
duties upon articles enumerated. aud which were before
liable to duty and 0thors impose duties in lieu OF those
heretofore imposed, and also son such may DO
exempt from duty. specially enumeratng the articles
ia limited 10 such articles only previously liable
70 duty and whom Intended 10 subject 70 duty art


Is not 70 Ss dsSsH this
section to be construed intended to extend the prn
cpe which seems to have governed Congress in the ad
usment OF the duties IN the previous portion OF the act
TO articles the growth produce OF countries beyond the
Cape OF Good Hope but imported from places this side Of
included, bu. would remain free Of duty. The phrase
oiogy OF this secton however. Ia different, and may
the duty Of ten per Cent in express srms al
goods, &c, the growth or production Of countries
beyond the Cape, when imported from places this side
Of it-and the latter clause does not necessarily
qualify IT, SO as to exclude ako out Of ii the free art
cIes. "And 10 addition to the duties imposed on any
suchartcles when imported directly from the place or
places OF their growth or production. may, think
we'll enough mean that such articles already pay
duty under existing acts Of Congress- the ten per cont
duty imposed by the section shall be in addition The
phrase "any such articles" in the connection found
does not necessarily mean all such articles are covered
by the first clause but may be regarded limited the
class there covered which were already chargeabe with
duty AS to these, the ten per cent shall be addition
with the broad and unlimited terms OF the rst agree
the section Is obscure and Its true meaning matter
iereut conclusions Some light may be reflected upon
this section from an amendment Of by the act Of Sd
March, 1S83 some seven months after it's passage. The
second section OF that act modified this fourteenth
ton $50 to allow cotton and raw silk &C., OF the
growth produce Of countries beyond the Cape Good
Hope. to be exempt from any additional duty when
imported from places" this side Of it. for two years
These two articles were exempt from duty under the
act Of. Of Ma p and were or sS at the me
The duty imposed by the fourteenth section OF
that act therefore, was not an additional duty
to have been supposed by Congress from their amcad
ment 1hey mistaken in supposng that the ton per
cent additional duty but the amendment clearly
duty had been imposed by the fourteenth section the
two acts. being i pi'i ma'rd, help to interpret each
other Wea Inclined therefore, not without some df
hcuty to hold that silk, the article In question was
subject to duty OF ten per cent, under the fourteenth
section OF the act referred to, and the shipments Of
tho plaintiffs occurred before the modification OF the sec
ton, tho duty properly levied notw outstanding this
objection Another objection is taken by tho counsel
the plaintiffs involving the conssitutionaty Of the four
eenth section rounded upon the following position OF the
caseAs We have SEEM the ten per cent duty Is imposed
articles the growth or produce OF countries beyond
the Cape Of Good Hope when shipped from places this
side Of II, as in the present instance, from England
Goods coming from China or Persia, the country Of the
products IN question: to the ports Of the United States
tho Atlantic, whether carried round the Cape OF
Good Hope or across the country by the way Of
@ %0 Ss 70 ps A
the Cape, and chargeabe with the discriminating duty.
in the usual course Of trade, in the opposite direction to
ports on the Pacific coast would not be articles OF the
growth produce Of countries beyond the Cape AS u
these ports the countries OF production would be this
side OF the Cape and hence not within the words Of The
imposing the discrimination. And so, the duties
upon the articles imported into the Atlantic ports would
be per cent greater than when imported into ports
tho Pacific, which would be violation provision
one ssss over that Of another The only that we
need give for the present 10 this objection s will be
90 Ss cos ona
equivalent for east q the Cape Of Good Hope; end
the latter phrase used instead OF the
former and both phrases In the act express
the idea and hence over whatever portion Of the
globe tho goods may be carried whether direct the
Pacific or round tho Cape to the Atlantic ports they are
the produce Of countries east Of the Cape
there subject to the increased duty Judgment for


Ad,,an Iselin It al. u.s. Hiram Barney Collector MIL
c. j. II Is admitted In this case that the duties upon
worsted goods imported by the plaintiffs charged
thirty per cent when the true rate but twenty But
it is insisted that the suit is barred by the Short Lima.
ton act The nth section or the act March 3, 1857 III
Stat at L., p 1859 provided that on the entry Of goods
imported after the lst July 1857 the decision OF
ector as to their Inability TO duty exemption shall be
inal against the importers agent unless within tea
days after such entry he gives notice to the Collector
in writing, OF his dissatisfaction with decision,
&c and SHALL within thirty days after the date Of such
decision appeal TO the eary of the whose
deisen shall be na, unless SUIT shall be brought within
thirty days after such decision for any duties that may
have been paid thereafter paid The goods in this
entered for warehousng by the plaintiffs, July
1S 1881, and an estimate OF the duties made the
s'ss 10: warehouse bond was given on the
same day in the PENALTY Of double the amount,
conditioned for the ,i ,paiyment Of the s7ss 10 J
due. The withdrawal entry was made on the
10Th Of september, lsel and the duties paid day
under protest An appeal was taken to the Secretary Of
Treasury the 1st Of October 1861 and his decision
made and communicated to the Collector the 18th OF
May 1862 This suit on tho 18th OF June
following The ground taken by the government Is that
the entry of the goods mentioned in tho fifth section
the act OF 1851 and from which the merchant has but ten
days 10 give notice OF dissatisfaction, and
appeal from the decision Of the Collector, means the
warehouse entry which in this case was made on the
18TH of July, 1861 aud as the notice Of
not given TIL the 10Th of september and the appeal
not taken till the lst Of October following the ten day
had elapsed and the plaintiff concluded On the Part
or the plaintiff is insisted that the entry referred to as
the period from which the time Is be estimated IL the
entry for withdrawal when By the statute payment #
the duties is required The fourth section OF the
2sth OF March, 1904 provides that al GOODS &C. which
may be hereafter duly entered FOR warehousing,
&c, may continue 10 the warehouse without
payment OF the duties tor the period three years
NOW changed TO one year by act from the
OF the original importation, and may be withdrawn for
consumption On due entry and payment Of the duties.


If this entry the enc to which the dnh section OF the
act Of 1887 rofersand am strongly inclined think 1t
is-then all difficulties and embarrassments attending
these appeals would be at removed The estimate
Of the duties for the purpose OF warehousng the goodss


a rough general estimate in practice at the customs
appears, usually adopting the highest of duty
picabe 10 any Of the articles entered with the
taking OF the warehouse bond The bond Tor the goods
In question illustrates this The penalty Ia n double the
estimated duty and the condition 70 pay that estna
cH he ptpfI