Year: 1875

WAsHINGTON, July l2.-The Treasury
Department recently presented to the
At.orney-Gencral, for his opinion, two
questions arising under an act of July
nth. 1870, as re-enacted in the revised
statues, and under an act of March Sd,
1879, providing for an increase of duties
upon certain GLASSES of merchandise
therein specified. The first queS-
tion WIS whether damage received
during the voyage between a foreign
port and port OF first arrival by mcr.
chandise entered for immediate transpor-
tation to an interior port of destination,
under the above statutory provisions, are
to BE- ascertained at the port of first arrI-
val, or at the port of destination? Ii ut
the port of destination, then whether the
ten days within which proof of damage Is
required TO be lodged in the custom house,
is to be computed from the landing of
such merchandise at the last port after
receiving. The Attorney General is
clearly of the opinion that the damage
received, during the ocean voyage, by
goods entered for immediate transpOrta-
ton, under section 1890 of the revised
statutes, should be asccrtained ut the port
of official destination. Section 2027 pro-
hibits any allowance for damage on
merchandise that has been entered, unless
proof be asCertained such damage shall
be lodged in the Custom House of such
port where such merchandise has been
landed, within ten days after the landing
of such merchandise. The phrase, "Thc
port where such merchandise has been
landed Is not, by its terms. exclusively
applicable 10 the port OF first arrival but
may be applied tp the port of dcstina
ton, and in case of merchandise entered
for immediate transportation it must be
understood To SIGNIFY, "the port of dcsti-
nation since ii WAS ut the Custom House
and of that proof is to be used" The
words, after the loading of such NOR
chandisc was, must bs taken to mean
after landing at port OF destination. The
Attorney General is clear therefore that
the computation OF ten days is to be made
from the landing of the merchandise at
the last port. The next question sub
mitted was whether merchandise i'm.
ported into New York prior to the date
of the act Of March Sd, 1915, but which
arrived at All interior port under an I'M
mediate transportation bond without
appralsement after that date is liable to
the increase OF duties therein provided.
The Attorney General says that severe
verbal construction of the statute would
perhaps make merchandise thus liable,
but the operation of such construction
would be TO impose an increased duty
upon one case of goods, which
arrived IN particular ship at
the port of New York, and 10
exempt another case of the same goods
by the same ship, and arriving ut the
same date. This could not have been
the intent of Congress, thus to dIscrim-
mate between goods which went into the
public store in New York, and those ar
riying at the same date passed on to the
port of final distribution under the
immediate transportation bond, the
a construction which would make
goods in this predicament liza
blr to increased duty would be un-
equal. severely, technical and oppressive.
1t is a sound rule in the construction OF
the statute Of the United States, which
imposes a tax, or rather burden, upon
the citizen, and when there is made
doubt about the true construction, to
resolve the doubt in favor of the
citizen upon whom the burden
is imposed. The Attorney General
therefore decides that the goods are not
liable to increased duty. These conclu-
sious having, after due consideration,
been adopted by the Department, collec-
tors and other officers of the Customs
are instructed to govern themselves ac-
cordinUlV,