The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ANNUAL REPOET OJ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY STATE OF THE FINANCES THE YEA^R 1886. m . T W O VOLUMES. VOLUME II: COLLECTION OF DUTIES, . WASHINGTON: GOVEENMENT P E I N T I N G O F F I C E . 1886. REPORT pF THE 'SECRETARY OF TEE TREASURY ON THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Document No, 883, 3d ed. Secretary. ^ ^so 'COISTTENTS, Page. Invoices .' ". ,. vi Consular Verifications and Certifications of Invoices...... ' xi , Consigned Mercliandise xiii Appraisernent..... , xix Reappraisements xxiii Final Assessment and Collec,tion of Duties ., " x x v Protests and Appeals ' ; ' xxvi Suits against Collectors xxvn Bills of Particulars , xxxiv Restriction against Suits :....; xxxiv Appropriations for the Refunding of Duties Illegally Exacted xxxy Special Agents of the Treasury v.. . x x x v Duties^on Coverings .^...'. xxxvii Duties on Articles sent hither in the Mail-Bags, including Books XL Reform in Methods of Customs Administration XLII Duties on Passengers' Baggage. : '.. X L I I I New Amendments of the Law of 1883 ...." XLVii Suits for Value ^. , XLVIII The Recasting of all our Customs Collection Laws : \,.. X L V I I I Report of IVlr. Fairchild, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury....'.... .^ , Li Appendix— ^ ,. A. —Customs Administration—The Morrison and Randall bills.; 3 B. —Merchandise Requiring Consular Certificates '. , ' 54 C—Refund of Duties made in Fiscal Year 1885-'86 • 57 .. D.—Taxes Collected from Imports '. OQ , E. ^Appeals from Collectors' Decisions and Refunds by the Department; . ,, Proposed Amendments to Lav^ of 1883 68 F.—Schedule of Suits begun in 1885-'86 against the Collector of Customs.at ; » ' New York, and Trials thereof by J u r y ,77 G.—Duties on Coverings....... .....'. 105 H.—Administration of t h e Customs Laws at the four large Seaports in ' • i885r-'86, (Boston, 144; New Yorkj 171; Philadelphia, 228; Balti- • . more, 246) '. 146 ^ L-^Administration of the Customs Laws at Ports of New York, Boston, ( Philadelphia in 18S5-'86 258 J.—Levy of Duties on Articles Coming in Mail-Bags 276 "^ 9^r z- THE..COLLECTION OF DUTIES. TREASURY DEPARTMENT^ . ' Becember 13, 1886. . S I R : My annual report made mention of my purpose to '^prepare and submit to ^Congress a su]3plementary report on the collectionof duties.'' ' . In fulfilment of that purpose, I transmit herewith a report by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fairchild,. to whose intelligence, fidelity, and zeal in this, as in other matters appertaining to this Department I am under personal as well as official obligation. He has had, since late in Marchj 1885, immediate supervision. of_ the, Bureau ofthe Commissioner of Customs, th^ Division of Customs, the Division'of Special Agents, the Division of Mercantile Marine and Internal Eevenue, and the Division of Revenue Marine, .among which five separate organizations the collecting of duties on imports is distributed. •' • / ' I subjoin replies received from those subordinate bureaus and divisipns concerned in the administration of the tariff law, as well as from the chief officers at the four large ports, in answer,to specific iilquiries. > In my annual report for 1885, I was able to place before Congress opinions and suggestions froia alarger number of local officers, but this year circumstances beyond my control preyented me from beginning , needed inquiries earlier * than the first days of October las,t, and have made it impracticable to pursue, as I wished, investigations into the collection districts along the great rivers and lakes, the Canadian and Mexican frontiers, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific coast. I have been able, however, to gather the opinions of the chief officers of the ' four ports of Boston, ¥ew York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore,, at which, out of a total revenue from customs exceeding 190 millions during the last fiscal year, there were collected more than 20 J millions at the first, more than 130,millions at the second, nearly 14J millions at the third, and more than 2 J millions of dollars at the fourth port. The doings by customs officers at those ports may, therefore, be fairly, accepted by Congress as exhibiting the general condition of the customs service throughput the country. VI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. V In many of the suggestions, or opinions respecting the customs serAdce, its present conditiou and needs,, expressed dn these replies, ahvays excepting the report of Mr. Fairchild, I do not concur, but, in a matter of so much importance as the levy and collectioii of abo,ut 190 millions as taxes on imported merchandise out of a sum total of 310 f millions of anhual Federal taxation,: I have deemed it due to Congress that all the suggestions made to me by Government officers, in response to my official inquiries, should be laid before the legislative branch of the Government without suppression, or modification of any. The probl e m pf reforming our existing taxes on consum]3tion, in that most defective branch of the same,—a survival ofthe war,-—which consists ofthe drag-net collection of multifarious duties on more than 4,000 different comniodities, imported for consumption here, is so environed with conflicting theories, purposes, passions, interests, or partisan hopes, that I' ought to fully ahd frankly exhibit to Congress, which has the power and responsibility of achieving all needed reform, everything in my posses,sion which can illuminate the subject, or tend even remotely to show which of th^,existing evils can be fairly deemed capable of executive' remedy, and which will require legislative: treatmenti I am not conscious of any desire to aA^oid such share of responsibility as belongs to the head of this Department for opinions, commitments, or/acts bearing on the causes of existing evils, or the methods of reform, and if I shall > to any one seem to unduly assert, or emphasize, my own opinions, I hope that Congress will kindly believe that my purpose was not contentious, or, tp lay down what is or should be the law, bjit only to clearly express such opinions as the head of this Department^ charged with the supervision of both inland and port collection districts, entertains respecting ^"the improvement and management of the revenue.',' ^ In the communication of my views, and in iny comments on the doc- uments herewith subjoined, I shall follow the order of topics in my annual report for 1885. . \ INVOICES. If any rates of duty are in the future to be ad valorem rates levied upon the foreign value of the merchandise, an invoice, precisely and absolutely true, is indispensable. ' If the merchandise has been obtained ,by purchase, there must be truthfulness in regard to description, quantity, price paid,' the currency used in making piayment, the date and place of the transaction. Those elements ought not to be, and are not,, difficult of presentation, for they are only those which a prudent purchasei\usually seeks,, a;nd obtains from the seller when payment is made. Why is not a i transcript of such abill of sale, which the buyer ordinarily receives, always REPORT OF THE SECRETAEY OF THE TREASURY, ; • , ' \ / , ' • • . . , ; ^ i • - ^ ' • VII • ] • . . presented to our consulair and customs officers? Why is there the contrivance and annoyance of presenting another ahd different account of ' the transaction^ Because our.tariff law either induces and suggests it, or is believed to require it! Whether a law making certain coverings of dutiable, merchandise, exempt from duty should require a niodification of the bill of sale v/hich ordinarily passes between buyer and seller, I shall consider elsewhere in this report, but, apart from that, it will, I think, be safe to affirm that it is the desire to evade the , payment of a portion of the duties known to be payabl^ at our ports, on a lawful entry of merchandise, that prompts the modification. If^ ' therefore, the presentation of invoices untruthful,in respect to those.essential elements is as general in our country as so many insist, and if the motive is the evasioh of the payment of a portion of the duty required by law, and known to be required, then the inference is indisputable that our tariff law has not the support of the moral sense of the entire -community. If a person actually pays one hundred dollars •. for an article; if he knows, as he.is to be presumed to know, that the law requires him to present, or cause to be presented, to our consular and appraising officers an invoice declaring that sum as the price l^aid, but conceals-or withholds the real bill of sale; if he presents, or causes to be presented, an invoice declaring the sum paid to have been only seventy-five dollars, and if the duty is by him known to be fift3^ per centum of the, foreign value of the article, there cannot be much doubt respecting the actual intention with which the change from one hundred to seventy-five was made. The seller would not naturally , make the change unless specially prompted thereto. ' ' , When merchandise has not been procured abroad by purchase, but 'has been obtained by gift or fi!nding, or has been manufactured abroad ' by the importer, there will be a different set of considerations. In such cases our law requires, and has during sixty-three years required, that the invoice shall contain the ^'actual market value thereof at the time and .place when and where the same'was procured or manufactured.'' Over that market value it is possible for two equally intelligent p^nd honest men to differ.. Hence the impediments in the way of ascertaining the invoice value, and the dutiable value, of consigned goods on which ad valorem rates are to be levied. I considered those impediments in my . annnal report of 1885, and in my subsequent special, communication to .^Congress.' . ' ' ' .' ' ' ' . "•.' The law has during more than half a century clearly described what, shall be set forth in the invoices of both classes of importations, whether purchased or consigned. The purchaser must honestly declare the vm REPORT .OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.. . . ' •- ] . . \ - . • ; • •• • price pMd; the manufacturer must honestly declare what he honestly : believes was the market vaiue of his fabric when its manufacture was completed, (not necessarily when the invoice was made,) ai;id at the place where (not necessarily the place ofthe invoice or of exportation) it was manufactured. I have, in my previous communications to Congress, silfficiently indicated my opinion of the pretension that, in respect" to staple articles, or articles largely manufactured, the manufacturer cannot form and express an honest opinion of the the marliet value of his fabric at the time and place when, and where inanufactured. He manufactures the merchandise, and sends it to this country for sale, as a venture on his own account. The transaction is a business transaction by a business man. The time when the value is to be fixed ;is the time ' when the manufacture was completed, and the place is the placeof the manufacture. Is it not an arraignment of one's common sense to be asked to believe that the manufacturer cannot form and express an honest opinion of that value'? But what shall be said of the manufacturer who makes believe that he cannot form and express an honest opinion of the market value, a t t h e time and place of maiiitfacture, of an article for the making, sale, and delivery of which he has contracted with a buyer ? . / " The two classes of importation are, to be sure, somewhat ^unlike, in this, that if the United States prosecutes an invoice of purchased goods for declaring the price ^paid to have been seventy-five when it was one hundred dollars, the proof of ^^actual intention" to defraud is more simple than.when the difference is between the importer and our appraising officers over the market value, at a specified time and place, of an article never actually sold or bought. But simplicity or complexity of proof of ^'actual intention" before a jury cannot vary the " ^iaw, or relieve a shipper or importer of the obligation to obey the law. prescribing what an invoice of each sort shall contain. I have been called upon to listen since I became the head of this. Department, and have, I hope, patiently listened to representafcions of the difficulties that foreign manufacturers and other importers experience, ' or profess to have experienced, in endeavoring to ascertain the real requirements of our invoica law, but I have never- been able to sympathize with the pretended difficulties of a shrewd business man who has carefully read the text of that law. I have.been l^oid that our'law requires, in one sentence in section 2854, ^^the actual cosV- to be inserted in the invoice, and in another sentence requires^^the actual market value^\to be inserted'; that |ihe two may be very unlike on the same day, and at the same place; and so an honest REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, IX importer - becomes confused. When I have answered that ^-^.actual cost" ai^plies only to purchased goods, and"^*actual niarket value" to goods consigned by the maker, the answer-has been received as a novel suggestion,'although i3laiiily set down in the law. Even some of our own consular ofiicers have professed to be thus confused. I am constrained tp believe that, dn the part of foreigii manufacturers who plead the con-, ' fusion, it is only to excuse, or extenuate, the unlawful act of-invoicing their fabrics at ^'the actual cost" of manufacture, instead ofthe value believed by them to have been the '^market value" at the'time and place of manufacture. - . . , It has also' been repeatedly represented to me that as our ^ appraising \ officersare to ascertain and certify the actual market value, or wholesale price, at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the merchandise has been imported; as the collector must levy duty on that value'; as the ^ * actual cost'' paid by the purchaser may differ from that ^'actual,market value;" as the time and place of manufacture will generally differ from the date and place of exportation; as the price of purchase may be unlike the wholesale value on the day of shipment, and as values may have, advanced or receded between the da^^ of purchase, or manufacture,.and the. day of shipment, our law is for those, reasons very ^absurd, ais well as unjust, inasmuch as, no matter what the appraised value, the collector cannot levy duty on less than the invoice or entered value. I have been told that if one, improvident enough to pay tweiity pounds in London for^ a hat, presented a true, invoice to the collector at New York, setting forth that sum, then even if the appraiser rei^orted the . wholesale London price of the hat to have been only one poiind, the duty.must, under our law, be levied on twenty pounds, or $96.8p. That is true under the last clause of section 2900 of the ^Eevised Statutes. I have also been reminded by imxiorters, in extenuation of their ' conduct, that while our law requires an invoice to be presented to consular officers setting forth either the price paid at date of purchase, or niarket value, at time and place of manufacture, of goods consigned by .a manufacturer, the Manual of Consular Eegulations requires consular officers to" declare that the price, or value, in the invoices, ^^at the time oi.exportation^'' is correct and true. But with.all that, the importer, . who is bound to obey the law, has nothing to do, however niueh^it may concern Congress, and it does deeply concern Congress. The law clearly tells every importer and shipper what facts an iiivoice must, •contain, and must contain chiefly for the information of our appraising, officers. . ' . , . , '• ' X • REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. If the information be genuine, true, and honest, the'appraiser's work will be easier; but if false, untriie and dishonest, as.it too often is, our ajppraising system will be poisoned and perverted' at,its fountain. The contents of an invoice and its honesty, must be tested by whatthe law declares that the invoice shall contain, and not by what importers say or think it ought to contain for their own convenience or purposes. Possibly importers could improve our invoice law, but until Congressshall adopt those improvements, importers should obey the law as it is, and not lead b,ur appraising officers to act on the belief that invoices have ^ been made up in one place and on one theory, when, in fact, they have been niade up in another and very different place, and on another and very different theor^^ The law declares that all invoices of purchased goods shall declare the price paid therefor; but if the invoice presents the importer's idea of the fair value, or the price ha ought tohave paid if he had made a good bargain, the appraising officer will be misled. The law also prescribes that a manufacturer shall declare the niarket value when and Avherethe making of the fabric was completed,' , which inay have been in December, 1884, but if he instead declare the value when and where, exportation began, which may have been in Dec(3mber, 1886, an intelligent appraising officer who understands his., business will be misinformed.. I appreciate the conditipn of the im; porter if the value in December, 1884, was one thousand francs, and in December, 1886, was only seven hundred and fifty francs, and tha hardship, inasmuch as, if the appraising officers should report only seven hundred and fifty francs as market value at date of exportation, the collector must, nevertheless, iinder section 2900, > levy duty .on ona. thousand francs. I appreciate, also, that the practical effect of that sectfen. is that when the appraising officers find the invoice value large enough, or even too large, t h e j simply report to the collector '/value correct," and do not report the real value. I have heretofore in my communications to Congress emiDhasized that peculiarity of our law. A careful consideration of the text of our invoice law, our appraising law, the section (2900) which forbids any_ collector to levy duty on less than th<3 invoice or entered value, and the ordinaiy motives of ])usiness, conduct, >vill, I think, enable each niembei: of Congress to decide for himself whether or not all, or even a majority, ofthe great number of invoices annually iiresented at our custom-houses conform to the law. It will be of no availfor Congress to .modify the invoice' law, either for ' the convenience of our consuls, or of importers, if, when modified, it benot toforced, but is to be again evaded or compromised, because importers think it should be different. The appraising officerswilLbe misled REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XI then, as novA If those officers could only have before them suchinvoi(^eS' as the law contemplates and demands, their work would be simplified and made less difficult, but so' long as we attempt to levy ad valorem rate^, and rates in part ad valorem and in part specific, on such a vast number of articles, and so many classes of articles, I am ^ compelled to doubt the probability of making it certain that each and ever}^ invoice will be perfectly legal and truthful. v ^ C0NSUL.4.R VERIFICATIONS AND» CERTIFICATIONS OF INVOICES. : The total cost of our conshlar sj^stem during the last fiscal year : w^as $900,604.90, and of that sum $788,501.75 came through the fees, levied by consular officers for the verification and certification of-in• voices of merchandise destined for importation into the United States. During the last twenty-one years the consumers, in this country, of. imported commodities have paid over 12 millions of dollars as a tax for consular verification and certification of invoices. That sum.=^ ,thus levied by our consular officers was in effect a tariff tax, and, was ultimately paid by the users or consuniers of the articles cov, ered by the invoices, verified and certified. That sum does not include an additional one shilling and six pence, or 36 cents, levied in Lqildon and throughout the United Kingdom for administering an oath,. aniounting in the aggregate, during the last fiscal year, to not less than $30,945.96, which were not ]3aid into our Treasury. That oath, and that tax which does not come into the Treasury, are in my opinion, use- , less, and injurious, and should not be continued, and especially if similar oaths are to be abolished in our custom-houses. In my annual report for 1885, I exposed the levy in London, and in the United Kingdom, of $1.12 for oaths, in addition to $2.50 which is permitted by the stat-' ute. The exposure, then made for the first time, led to a I'efbrm, as will appear in the subjoined Appendix 1, p. 260. • ' .'No merchandise coming "froni Europe valued at $50 ean be admitted to entry without a consular invoice, costing,in London $2.86, which is equivalent to a tax on the^ merchandise of niore than 5 per cent, ad ' valorem, in addition to the tariff tax. I invite the attention of Congress to this severe exaction. The tax in Paris is only $2.50, as against $2.86 in London. ' • ' If the fees which are received by our consular officers are divided' • into official fees which must be. covered into the Treasury, and unofficial fees which those officers may retain, neaiiy all the former are for services in which the Treasury Department is^ more directly concerned ' than any other Department. The chief support of Oxir consular system XII REPORTSOF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. being the fees exacted for verifjdng and certifying invoices, I regret that-the work for which the consumers of imported merchandise pay, ^is so inadequately.dpne. . It is annoying to custom-house officers that a portion of the work of consular officers, which so directly affects the integrity of the customs reyenue, is not always performed by the cbnsul ' in person, but often in a mechanical sort of way, by a clerk, and he ah alien. I dweSlt upon this in my. annual reiDort for 1885, and I again , dwell upon it because of its vital importance to the customs- revenue ' if our present confused and confusing ad valorem rates are not to be abandoned. Our consular system should be forthwith reorganized if tliose rates are to be longer tolerated. I appreciate the difficulty of finding and appointing, under our present scale of salaries, consular officers whb can, and will, correctly appraise in foreign countries, the,value of merchandise destined to the. United States; but if such appraisal be not well done it were better not done at all, so far as the appraising officers ^ at our ports are concerned. / How can it be well done in foreign ports by consular officers, it will naturally be asked, if they do^ not see the nierchandise; and how in London, Paris, Yienna, Berlin, or Eome can they inspect the" merchandise'? Much, however, could be done if consuls would themselves do the work, and not trust so much to oaths and clerks; if the consuls would require the seller or the owner of the merchandise to come before them in person, and not permit.declarations to be made by one not the seller or buyer, and who knows nothing of the transaction; if the consuls woukrexamine, caution, and admonish those presenting invoices, aiid explain to them our invoice law; if consuls would refuse to certify an invoice made by the agent of the owner, selected in order to make up an iiSvoice, and keep the real seller in the background; and if our con; suls, clearly and correctl3i^ comprehending, Avould clearly and correctly explain our invoice and appraising laws to foreign shippers and manufacturers. But it will, indeed, first be necessary that our consular officers, besides being experts in commercial values, alert and conscientious, shall themselves know accurately what the law is which they profess to expound. Ought we to condemn foreigners, or our own citizens,for ignorance of an intricate and chaotic tariff law, on which our own consular officers could not^all pass a successful examination? ,' ;I fully appreciate the services rendered by our consular officers in the collection and transmission to Washington of information concerning commercial and industrial affairs, but it must be remembered that the faculties and exxDerience required for the doing of such work.as the collating and.digest of commercial or industrial news, may be. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE_ TREASURY. XIII and generally are, unlike the special competence, and the practical experience iii trade, n^eeded to enable one to test the accuracy of inyoice values,on a particular da;y, upon which test our appraising officers so largely rely, aiid the integrity of our customs revenue so greatly depends. ^ / . I invite attention to a communication from the Customs Division (Appendix B, p. 52,) in regard to the admission of articles of sniall value without a consular invoice. CONSIGNED MERCHANDISE. In iny annual report of 1885, my subsequent report to Congress of February 16, 1886, and my letter to the Senata sub-committee on undervaluations, of February 25, 1886, there is to be found among the communications to me from the special agents of the DeiDartment, and customs bfficers at the several x3orts, as well as in my own comments; thereon, allusions to what is therein described as the ".consignment system." The same subject was, in Boston, and in March last, brought ' to the attention of the Senate sub-committee on undervaluation, by a committee of merchants and manufacturers at that port.' (See Appendix H, pages 149 6^ seg.) The opinions expressed' by the sxDCcial agents, by customs officers,, and by Boston merchants and manufacturers, were to the effect that in ^ e w York has been, and is now, the warehouse and chief centre in our country of the consignment sj^stem, and that its direct influence has been and is most injurious to our national welfare, and esxiecially to our customs'revenue. A consignment system, such as was known in our xiorts three-quarters . of a century ago, and was described to Congress by Secretary Crawford ^in 1818, (see Ex.-Doc. No. 684, 9th Cong., 1st sessi, p. vii,) whereby European manufacturers sent hither accumulations of fabrics to be sold at- auction or otherwise, on their account and risk,, has been, it is said, largely superseded by a systein whereby enterprising agents. . of fareign manufacturers, or dealers, come hither, solicit and accexit^ orders on samples to deliver their fabrics to bu37ers in our country,, at a x^ie.arranged price, the duties and all charges of every sort to be xiaid by the foreign • seller. From this system results, . say tha Boston committee, and results especiall^?^ in JSTew York, 'Hhe greater Xiart of the ,evils of undervaluations, wrong classifications, and^ other errors oi" customs adniinistration, and for which ^ e comxilain.'' The systeni having, in the oxiinion of so many, grown to such large, and such dangerous proportions, and intimations more or less distinct^hav- <^ . XIV REPO^.T'OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. . ing been made that it had not encountered a vigorous execution of the customs law at our larger ports, I invited the,views thereon of the' collector at Boston and the naval officer at ISTew York. (See Axipendix . H, pages 149-53 and page 193.). ' . ' ' ^ This growth of the consignment system in international trade aiid in relation to our own Consular officers as verifiers and certifiers'. of invoices destined for this country, and to our appraising officers who are to as.certain and rexiort to collectors for.eign dutiable values,— has recently assumed an important significance b y t h e official action during ,the present year of the British Foreign Office, at.London. Early ih Februa,ry last, several British Boards of Trade complained that, owing to the inefficiency of British diplomatic and consular agents, and the inadequate as well as dilatory publication by the Government of information respecting production and trade in foreign countrfeSj British manufacturers and dealers were supxilanted by rivals. This complaint by British manufacturers and merchants that the' functions of British diplomatic and consular agents were too circumscribed in respect to British trade, and that those diplomatic and consular agents were inefficient in doing even the work xirescribed,by t i e existing regulations of the Foreign Office, was transmitted to those agents for exxilanation and report, with the natural result that the arraigned dixilomatic and consular officers told the Foreign Office in rexily what' they thought of British merchants, and of the reasons why competitors are beating them out of the fi,elds where hitherto British traders have been suxireme. The controversy resulted in a Parliament-, ary publication of "corresxiondence resxiecting the question of diplomatic and consular assistance to British trade abroad." In these volumes which contain letters from British ministers and consuls scattered all over the world, who are some of them men of eminence and large ' experience, as well as in the x^nblished rex3orts of the Trade-Depression Comniission, is most valuable information, bearing not only on the growth ofthe "consignment system," but oil what American manufacturers and merchants must sxieedily do, and must insist that their Congress shall > speedily do, • if the^^ would share in the trade of foreign niarkets. This information demonstrates and emxihasizes the fact that in these days of ' railwa3^s, telegraphs, ocean cables, and swift steamships, the foreign trader is abroad with his samxiles and artful solicitations, and everywhere comes into rivalry with his British competitors, and that if England would recover and preserve on the American continent,,in Asia and Africa, the trade which Swiss, Germans, Frenchmen, Belgians,^ and Italians are raxiidly gaining, her manufacturers and merchants must • x^EPORT OF T H E .SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.. XV meekly accept the teaching's of their younger rivals, adapt their wares to the fancy and habits of foreign customei^'S, oj)en in foreign countries, warehouses for the exxiosure of their goods for sale, send out competent, and efficient' ^druinhiers'' who sxieak the languagaof the country to which' they are sent, give foreign buyers the long credit to whicli they may have ' been accustomed, —in a word, that Engiishmen must give up the idea that . American trade, or any other trade, will come to them as it did to their forefathers, inust go abroad and find it, and.when found artfully nurse it. In other words, trade, becoming more and more international and world- ^ wide, has taught merchants the lesson Avhich merchants are slowly learning, that the consumer is the objective point to which the seller must adjust himself. , Taxation anywhere interxiosed in the course of trade/ suggests to legislators and'statesmen a similar lesson whi,ch they as reluctantly learn, that the interests of the consumer are the objective point to which laws for the iiiland or seaport tax-gatherer must beadjusted. The advice of British consuls to British merchants, most em-' Xihasized, is this: . / " Meet the wishes of customers^ and especially hy stating prices in local curr '^^cy, duty-paid, either at the place of delivery of the goods, or at a neighL rzgport.^^ / ' ... . . The facts xiresented in these most interesting documents bear at two lioints on the welfare of the United States; one of which is our present ad valorem war-tariff* tax system, which requires our consular and appraising officers to ascertain and report foreign values thus made under the strife of international competition, and the other is the xiromotion of our own export trade. The facts x^i^ess and push on the question . whether or not we, in the United States, shalL attenixit, by tariff^ legislation^ to xirevent the axiplication'to our country, by foreigners, bf . this> "consignment system," which our own manufacturers and merchants must vigorously axiply in other countries if they would there • successfully compete. . . ' The magnitude and importance of the subject will, I hoxie, justify me in inviting the attention of Congress to extracts from the rexiorts, ' to which I have referred, of British dix)lomatic and consular officc^rs, which bear on our own welfare. " Sir Edward Thornton^So long known in this country as tiie British Minister, who, before coming here, had diplomatic experience in Brazil, , and since leaving Washington has had ox3portunities of observation at - St. Petersburg and Constantinpxile—wrote to the Earl of Eosebery from ' Constantinople on i\iay 1, 1886': "Englishmen comxilain that in Turke^^ Germans are getting the ad> vantage of them in point of trade, and attribute it to the want of . XVI REPORT OF TiEEE SECRETARJ OF THE TREASURY.^ ' assistaiice froni Her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers. For iiian3^ years past, during my residences on the Eiver Plate, Brazil, and the United States, l h a v e been xiainfully imxiressed b y t h e convictioii that English merchants are indeed being driven out of the field by Germans,' but that the latter attain this superiority^, not by protection from their authorities, but b^^ Iheir own unaided and independent energy, by'the greater econoni}^ of their establishments, and by downright hard work on the part of both chiefs and subalterns." ,. Consul Bennett, in Brazil, t^lls the British Foreign Office: ^^ ' "The Eio Grande trade is now xiractically in the hands of Germans, who leave no stone unturned to strengthen the position gradually acquired. .' isTot only are German sample-men more frequently seen here than-English, but they are a superior class to our own, both commercially and socially.'" : ' . Consul Bidwell writes from New Orleans of the chance which the recent Exxiosition in tliat city gave to British traders, of which Britons did not, but Belgians did, avail themselves; and adds: "This is the waj^, in m^^ humble judgment, to make a niarket. It is the wa3' in which we might have kept ahd, increased that which we once had in this.district, but our trades do not seem to understand that tlie.da^^ in which the manufacturer or the wholesale house might wait ait home to be dealt with has passed. The producer must now go out ^ and meet the retailer more,than half-waj^, or he will be intercexited by some more enterxirising rival. An American lock gains a gold medal at the 'inventions," and is sold freely in the city of'Chubb and Bramah I ^Dtiring a recent leave df absence I met a gentlemen who has eight agen-^ ciefe for-the sale of Americaii goods in England, and ha can be met in Long-acre with orders for-^American carriages and carriage niaterials in his pocket. The fact that there is nothing about the jSTew Orleans of V td da}^ to render it imxiervious to foreign goods is xiroved by tha establishment of the Belgian agenc^^, and the success which it has met with; I therefore venture to rexieat what I wrote in March, 1884, on the sub- ' ject of the World's Cotton Centennial Exposition, and which axiplies, I , think, lo the xiresent: ;; ' " ' The intending exhibitor will do well to give iqi xirecpnceived ideas^ as to what will suit the American market. The time in which expense andgaudiness were the principal qualities" looked for has passed. . For eveiy one xierson who had the means and taste to buy objects of decora- . tive art, or Avho appreciated art in the shaxie or coloring of common things ten ^T^ears ago, they iiow are ioo.' * ^ "Writing esxiecially of this city and the South generally, "^I recoinmended disxilay of the following articles in the^best designs-and at all Xirices: China and earthenAvare, table and bed-room services, furniture of all sorts, table decorations, wall paxiers, hangings, carxiets, rugs, ^ house decorations and ornaments, oleographs, prints, &c., and kitchen and dairy utensils; all sorts of printed calicoes, cretonnes, chintz; all sorts of fine cutlery, toilet articles, dressing case and bags (mounted,)' work-boxes and fancy stands, screens and holders; all sorts of sxiorting (shooting and fishing), tackle, garden ornaments, window-gardening,, materials, tents and awnings, stable fittings and utensils, school furni-, ture and appliances; designs for street pavement, cleaning, .and drain- . REPORT: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XVII age, drainage pipes, traps, valves, tanks, &c.; cotton carding, sxiinning, and AY eaving machinery,, machine-tools, hospital furniture, (surgical axipliances, notiDStruments,) and steani cranes and winches for loading and discharging sliixis from the Avliarf." . Consul Merlin says of the trade of the Piraeus in Greece: " • F o r one English commercial traveller in the Levant there are twenty Germans and Frenchmen.' * * .* J^O orders, Mr, Merlin sa^^s, are too insignificant for the German commission houses; th.e German and Austrian manufacturers give long credits, while English firms only do so in isolated cases. 'They are also more careful in executing orders and according credits, and a general s^^stem is established on the continents of obtaining information respecting the means and standing of sniall tradesmen. In fact, judging from Avhat is taking xilace on a small scale in Greece, the trade of the LeA^ant axixiears to have passed from Eiiglishmeil to foreigners. The old Levant houses haA^e disapXieared, and Britisli enterxirise with them. The truth is, the French, Germans, and Italians adapi themselves more easily to their -foreign surroundings than Englishmen, who, as a rule, expect foreigners to submit to them, and be guided by their fixed methods of doing business, without which no transactions are thought xiossible.' -'^ * .^ To sum nil, foreigners have takeii away our Levant trade, says Mr. Merlin in effect, because we have no comniercial traveller^, no organiization for ascertaining, the credit of our customers, no enterxirise, and we exxiect, x3eople to buj^ what Ave sell, not what they want, in our way, not in their OAAQi." Consul Leats Browne, at Genoa, tells the British Foreign Offi ce: " I t is notorious that German and Swiss manufacturers take far more ^ trouble than Ave do in these things; that when they take their holidays they come not to see sights and sxiend their money in buying doubtful antiquities, as man^^^ of our AA^ealthy manufacturers do, but to emxiloy Xiart of their time in niaking the personal acquaintance of their correspondents and looking into business Avith their OAVU eyes. * * * 'The xirevailing impression here is,' pursues Mr. Leats Browne, 'that our xieoxile are too grand for the xiresent times of keen competition, and have the air of rexitying to an^^^ observations in a "take it or leaA^e i t " spirit, AA-hich is far removed from the tone of their rivals and is out of keexiing with the xiresent state of business relations between xiroducers and their customers.' Again, in warning our merchants of the danger of losing the cloth trade altogether, he writes: ' I am often told that Ave seem to make just Avhat best suits ourselves and exxiect the '' foreigners'' to adopt their tastes accordingly. This might do when we held almost a monopoly of caxiital and of undertakings oh a grand scale, but is no longer suitable, now that in all countries there are great ° establishments comxieting, hot only for home, but for the foreign trade also.' We are being suxiplanted in a score of things by the Germans, for 'in all ways they take far more trouble,than Ave do to acquire a thorough knowledge of this niarket and to adaxit themselves to its wants.'" •' ' .' " • ^ • The British consul-general at Shanghai declares: "German and Ahiericain manufacturers have, it has been noticed, been far more alive to the necessity of keeping their agents well supplied with musters or models of the articles they are anxious to suxiply, (2) , XVIII REPORT OF THE SECRIETARY OF THE TREASURY. and giAdng them the fullest information in regard thereto. In scA^eral cases at least the foreign article Avhich could be shown has been accexited in xireference to better and cheaper articles which the British agent AV as onl}^ able to describe. It would, of course, necessitate a certain expenditure to establish and niaintain these show-rooms,- but they Avould, in niy oxiinion, rexia^^ the cost; and the establishment of a museum at' home of articles in common use in China Avould be of equal utility, in that it would enable manufacturers at home to see for themselves what they are ealled on to supxily, or in many cases to supersede." From Eeunidn, in the Southern Ocean, a British consul reminds his countrymen: " A s a inatter of fact, formerly the British trader had only to oxien his mouth for pluDis to drop into it. There is no disguising that HOAV this hapxiy state of things is at an end, and that it behooA^es us to look about and see how other nations are comxieting with us. I find that shopkeepers in these days of competition will not go in search of goods. Samples must be brought to their doors for them to select and give their orders, the same as in England." The British consul at Corunna says that: " ' Some resistance is still observable on the part of English houses to quote prices in currency, duty-paid, placed in inland towns on easy terms of xiayment, all of which tend to transfer business to other hands.' As Mr. CraAvford, the consul at Oporto, xiuts it, ' English manufacturers rely on long traditions of success, and often disregard the fact that to hold their own they must exhibit the same qualities as did those who built up English trade.'" It ma}^ be safel^^ assumed by us in the United States that, if Belgians, Swiss, Italians, Frenchmen, and Germans are thus fiercely competing with Britons, and with one another, in South America, Mexico, Europe^ Asia, and Africa, they are, all combined, pushing their wares into our own markets, establishing here warehouses of their own, and availing themselves of the advantages of our custonis bonded stores. Here are mau}^ millions of enterxirising and wide-aAA^ake men and women AA^ho are , seeking to h u j at the lowest price, the necessities and the luxuries of life, of such character and quality as they require. Even those AVIIO demand the maintenance of our war-tariff taxes are among the numbers whose demand for foreign fabrics is the cause of their imxiortation, and of the modern "consignment system," which has intensified the competition that hammers doAAai xirices. It is from the Eepublic of Switzerland, without seaxiorts, and almost without custom-houses on her frontiers, that come to us ribbons, silks, and other fabrics, Avhich, under the "consignment system,'' so pester our consular and axipraising officers. Can the axiplication of that "consignment system" be prevented, or shall not Congress the rather recognize, accept, and deal Avith it by a more intelligent tariff law*? I respectfully commend to Congress, in that rela- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XIX tion, the letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, on June 14, 1886, b^^ the First Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fairchild. The description of d u t j levied, and the values of the merchandise on which it was levied, during tlie last fiscal 3^ear, were these : Values on which collected. Specific, (simple) A d v a l o r e m , (simple) Compound: Specific Ad valorem ; <= \ J '. Total A m o u n t s of duty. S202,733,702 168,176,052 $99,751,638 58,414,549 42,868,301 14,289,208 16,077,77o 413,778,055 188,533,171 ^The respective amounts of ad valorem and specific duty collected on dutiable merchandise were, therefore, asfollows, making due allowance for immaterial errors of computation: Specific. Ad valorem 1114,040,846 74,492,325 . Total. 188,533,171 APPRAISEMENT. • Whether or not there are UOAV undervaluations of merchandise paying ad valorem rates computed on foreign values, which undervaluation can be fairly described as general, is a question to which I have given much inquiry and consideration. It is the question of questions, if our existing contrivance for levying and collecting our ad valorem rates on such a multitude of enumerated articles, and vast numbers of other articles not specifically enumerated but classified under general terms and xihrases in the law, is to be continued. One hears of the suggestion frequently made to bu^^ers by sellers in the large European cities of articles destined for our ports, that " o / course an invoice containing lower prices will be specially prepared for the custom-house; " and one hears also of commissionaires in those cities who do a thriving business by making purchases for our citizens, xireparing and swearing to false invoices Avhich contain prices less than those actually paid, and sending the articles and invoices to the agents in our ports of those commissionaires, which agents pass false entries through the custom-houses. One also hears that business-men in our ports systematically cause their purchases to be sent to an agent of their own at the centre of shipments, who presents an invoice to the consular officer; What is probable about the existence of such illegal transactions *? XX REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. But on the other hand the record shows that of 319,801 invoices certified abroad h j our consular officers during tihe last year 275,234 were Xiresented at the xiorts of Boston, New York,i Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and by the collectors sent to the xiroxier, appraising officers. Out of the sum total of these last-named invoices 256,369 were by the appraisers reported '' v(ilue correct,'' which does not imxily that the invoice or entered A-alue was absolutel^^ correct as dujbiable value, but Avas suffi-^ cient; only 18,865 were advanced by the appraisers, (by what actual Xiercentage I do not know,) and only 1,740 jrere advanced more than 10 x^er centum. i The record for each of these four ports is this: Boston. I | ^ I New York. j Whole number........ -.1 Advanced by an unknown percentage 1 Advanced h j more than 10 per cent ...! Philadelphia. j Whole number ;.. L Advanced by an unknown percentage; j Advanced by more than 10 per cent .......| , Baltimore. . Whole number ;....'...:....j...;. Advanced by an unknown percentage j Advanced by more than 10 per. cent \ AA^hole number... Advanced by ah unknown percentage • Advanced more than 10 per cent.. 36,371 1, 438 79 220,023 16, 927 1, 587 14,522 346 62 .' ; 4,718 154 12 Out pf the t'otal number at these four xiorts sent to the general axipraiser for reaxix^raisement, the adA^ance was sustained on only 300 iuA^oices. i " . I submit these facts for such inference as Congress, and the business men of our country, may make. j My OAvn inference is, that if the invoice slips unchanged through the scrutiny of the consular officers, it is too likeily to be xiassed by our axDXiraislng officers as "value correct," and that such a general result is inherent in ad A^alorem rates based on foreign value. I do not wish to be understood as condemning our apxiraising officers for inattention, or anything even more culxialile. It is the design of the law to levy ad valorem war taxes iixion so many imported articles that is chiefly to be blamed. The appraiser at tljie port of I^CAV York, Mr. McMullen, has the deserA^ed X3raise of his colleagues of all grades, but he is only the chief suxiervising executive, among the local appraisers, and is not exxiected to xiersonally appraise each Article. Imported articles of the value of more than 412} million dollars were submitted to his supervisipn during the last fiscal year, under circumstances of inadequate rooms, bad light, and altogether insufficient accommoda- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXI tions, to which I earnestly invited the attention of Congress in my annual report for 1885. For jthis colossal labor and responsibility Mr. McMullen's annual salary is only $4,000. Our appraising officers are not x^i'actical experts in foreign values, who have knowledge thereof by personal presence and experience in foreign markets. JSTo matter how selected, or by whatever contrivance of comxietitive exaniination, their knoAvledge of such values must be mere hearsay, if they haA^a never visited foreign markets, or, having long since visited those markets, their lives since then have been continually in our own market. It is foreign values, not home values, they are to ascertain. The facts on Avhich their rexiorts to collectors must be based are by appraising officers to be gathered from abroad. How, and by whom •? iBy our consuls, or by keeping touch of current arriving iuA^oices which may be false, or by inquiry in our ports of importers of similar articles? The attention of Congress, and the country, is invited to the significant fact that so very few, if an^^ invoices, have been presented to district attorneys by collectors at Ii^ew York, or elseAvhere, for prosecution because made with actual intention to defraud the'revenue. What inferences shall be dra^ii therefrom'? Section 2902 of the Eevised Statutes is mandatory that apxiraisers shall "ascertain, estimate, and• axipraise the true and actual market value and wholesale x^i'i°ce, any invoice or affidavit thereto to the contrary notioithstanding, of the merchandise at the time of exxiortation, and in the xirincipal markets ofthe country whence the same has been imported into theUnited States, and the number of yards, x^arcels, or quantities." The theory and purxiose of that section, and all the sections of the laAV, are that the packages sent by the collector to the axipraising warehouse shall be oxiened, their contents all disxilayed, examined, and valued as by a prudent purchaser who xiroposed to invest his money in the purchase thereof. My belief is, that by reason of the great and annual increase of the A/^olume of importations, as well as the inadequacy of the x^reniises wherein that opening, display, examination, and appraisal must now be'^done, and especially at the x^ort of New York, and the mode of selection, the salaries, and competence of the examining and axipraising officers, our axixiraising law is not executed according to its theory and xiurpose, and cannot be apxilied faithfully to so many articles as are now submitted to ad A^alorem or specific rates. The actual situation is, in my opinion, full of serious xieril. My attention has been called to the report presented in March last by the committee on legislation, apxiointed by certain merchants and manufacturers of Boston to the Senate sub-committee on underA^alua- XXII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. tions, which comments on section 2900 of theiEeAdsed Statutes in these terms: t ' " 1 . It will be seen that the laAv at preserit merely permits the apxiraisement. It says: 'The collector may cause such actual marketA^alue or wholesale xirice to be axixiraised.' \ And your committee are informed that in practice, unless there is sonie cause for suspicion, the iiiA^oice is often taken as correct ivithout any investigation. It seems clear that there should be an axixiraisement sexiarate and distinct from the iuA^oice in all cases, and that actually axixiraisement fshould not be, as at xiresent, optional Avith the collector, or the apxiraising officers." • I am at a loss to understand how one wh(| had examined the sixth chapter of the thirty-fourth title of the Eevised Statutes, especially section 2906,^ and the General Treasury Eegulations, could have erected such a suxieratrueture of criticism and arraighment of public functionaries in this Dexiartment, upon' the use of the word "ma?/" in that section. I am equally at a loss to understahd wh^^ those who revised the Federal statutes in 1873 substituted " n i a y " for " s h a l l " as used in the seventh section of the law of 1865, which section 2900 of the Eevised Statutes purports to.reproduce. A vei*3^ cursory and superficial glance at article 478 of the General Treasur;^ Eegulations should have convinced the most captious critics of this iDepartment that the collectors had, and have, no discretion, but are Commanded to require all merchandise paying ad valorem rates to be ^x^praised by an examination of the requisite nuniber of xiackages. ; Many of the criticisms made by local custonis officers, and others, on the practical' efi'ect of the law of June 22, 1^74, (chapter 391,) I look upon as superficial. The real influence of that legislation is set forth in the letter addressed to me by Mr. Justice Blatchford, a cop^^^ of which is giA^en on pages 868-70 of the Appendix to my annual rexiort of 1885 on the "Collection of Duties." Thalj; law is well enough if cus-. toms officers will be vigilant in collecting the facts showing an actual intention, and those facts are sufficient, and seizures are made. An importer should not be deprived of his nierchandise, unless, in the opinion of the jury, he intended to defraud the rcA^enue. Under that part of the customs law which levies an additional tax of 20 per cent., if the appraised A-alue shall exceed the invoice or entered A^^alue by 10 per cent, or more, the importer can be. deprived of one-fifth of the value of his property without any allegation or xiroof of unlawful intention. Is not that sufficient*? The law requires an imxiorter to declare in his invoice the price paid; to enter his merchandise at not less than that price ] to add to that xirice if he deems it not up to the dutiable values; punishes him if he omits to add,- aiid finally forbids the collector to levy duty on less than the entered A-alue, even though the axipraiser may say that A-alue is excessive. j 0 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. XXIII REAPPRAISEMENTS. The belief is quite general that our lawsfor regulating reaxipraisements must be modified, and I share in that belief. I dwelt upon the need of that modification in my annual rexiort for 1885j (x)X3. XXA^ to xxxii,) in my special rexiort to Congress of February 16, 1886, (xi. xxxix,) and in my letter of Februar^^ 25, 1886, to the Senate sub-comniittee on underA^aluations, but no action was takeii hy Congress at its last session. In my sxiecial rexiort to Congress of February 16, 1886, I said : " T h e tendency of my thoughts in respect to reapx'>rai semen ts at the X')ort of New York is to advise approxiriate and xiarticular legislation for that port. The ax)praising system is not now, and ncA^er has. been, the same in all tha collection districts. In those wherein entries are few, and little duty is collected, the collector, or naval officer, as the case may be, is an apxiraising officer.„ EA^en in the larger ports, like Boston, or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, Avhere the business is very much less than at New York, the arrangements of the axipraising force are difi:ereiit from those existing at the last-named port. It Avill be well, I think, to create a reappraising board at the port of NCAV York to consist of three general appraisers, competent for the imxiortant Avork, and with sufiicient salaries. The board should consist of three instead of two, so as to x^rcA^ent probability of disagreement as when the board consists of only two. The decision of this board should be final, so as to relieve the collector of the reax^x^raising Avork which is now thtown upon him. I do not think that abandonment of the x)resent plan of selecting a merchant to be a member of the reaxipraising board will work inj ustice to iniporters or consumers, or to theGovernment. It will be within the discretion of Congress to make the tenure of office of the members of this board such as may be thought best. They can be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as are justices of the Suxireme Court, and judges of all the other Federal courts. Federal judges sitting in admiralty decide mixed questions of law and fact without the interA^ention of a jury, and I see no reason why executiA^e officers may not, as reaxipraisers,. be intrusted with functions not more delicate, or important." I do not deem it necessarj^, or advisable, that the reaxixiraising system now axiplicable at ports, and in collection districts, other than NCAV York, shall UOAV be changed, and a board of reappraisers consisting of a large nuniber pf members shall now be created Avith a jurisdiction covering the whole country. Our reappraising systeni has been the growth of sixtj^-three years. In 1823 the reappraising board consisted of rfour members,—two axixiointed by the United States, and two resxiectable resident merchants, emplo^^ed by the imxiorter " a t his f OAvn exxiense." There could be a second axixieal to the head of this Department. In 1842, the reaxixiraising board Avas made to consist of "two discreet and exxierienced merchants" selected b y t h e Collector. In 1851, general axixiraisers were created, and a t Avas ordained that one of them, and "onediscreet and experienced merchant," selected by the XXIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. collector, should make reaxipraisements, and if they disagreed the collector should make a final decision. It is to be remembered by Congress that, when all the forms of laAv have been comxilied with,_and a dutiable A-alue for ad valoremi;ates has been thus declared, there is not poAver in the GoA^ernment, either in its executiA^e or its judicial dexiartment, to change that value. The classification of merchandise for the axiplication of the rate'xirescribed by Congress, as well as determination of the r a ^ is the Avork xirimarily ofthe collector,' (adAdsed in practice by the axipraiser,) with appeal, under a protest in due form, to the head of this Department, and a judicial trial of questions, of classification, rate, or amount if the imxiorter shall feel aggrieved. Hence, the solicituda and aim of Congress, heretofore, to give to the imxiorter a rexiresentation on the reapxiraising board, Avhich will, under section 2900 of the EcAdsed Statutes, not onl}?^ frsL the sum on AA-hich the rates shall be comxiuted, but may, in efi'ect, confiscate in addition a sum equal to one-fifth the whole A^^alue of the nierchandise thus ascertained. . I can but call the attention of the xiresent Congress'to that aim and solicitude, a,nd to the inquiry whether it Avill not be more xirudent to begin by tentatively applying a difi'erent systeni only at the x^ort of New Y'ork, and A^^hether ,any. x^lan shall be generall}^ applied throughout the country Avhich shall tend vto alienate business men,' and the commercial classes, any more than one, occupying the position which I now occupy, is constrained to feel they are now alienated from our tariff rates, and the rules and regulations for their levy and collection. By business men and commercial classes, I do not merelj^ include thpse who actually make entries at our custom-houses, and are importers in a strict use of that term. My official experience has convinced me that those AA'ho are^actual importers, who pay the duties IcAded, Avho reimburse themseh^^es for duties paid by including them in the xirice xiaid by purchasers, which duties ultimately fall on the users or consumers of the imxiorted articles, do not, as a rule, importune for a reduction of rates, unless it be that the, nierchandise has been sold " t o arriA^e" at a xirice fixed on an estimate of duties which has. been increased on entry. An imxiorter,. xiure'and simple, who is only a middle- 5 man betAveen the producer and consumer for the reception aud sale.of the nierchandise, may, indeed, be benefited b}^ambiguous rates of duty in a tarifi" law if he sells on the basis of the higher rate, and the collector infiicts it, and the Federal courts shall decide a lower rate to haA^e been the legal rate, because in such a case the imxiorter will, as Assistant Secretary Fairchild so pertinently says in his accomxianying rexiort, not only have reimbursed himself from the buyer, but'he will receive REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXV the refund which the judicial xDOAver decrees, and he will not pa^^ it to,the XDurchaser or to the consumer. It is the consumer, and not the imxiorter, who suff'ers from our mercilessly ambiguous tarifi* rates. I concur in the opinion exxiressed by Assistant Secretary Fairchild °to the efi'ect that it is, and hasbeen, the protected manufacturers who, having the benefit of ambiguous language used by Congress in x^re-. scribing rates of duty, come to the Treasury Department, and urge the infiiction of the highest xiossible rate uxion the consumers, thus encouraging custonis officers to exercise the functions of legislators, and thus Xiromoting suits by importers, Avhich, Avhen those suits reach the courts, are generally decided by the setting aside of the highest rate as unlawful. But, meanwhile,. the doniestic manufacturer and the imxiorter are enriched, and the consumer imxioA^erished. I advise the enactment of the following section: SECTION —. There shall be axixiointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, three axipraisers of merchandise iinxiorted into the Xiort of New York, A\^ho shall be called general axix:)raisers, and shall each receiA^e an annual salary of five thousand dollars. It shall be the duty of such apxiraisers to conduct and make, according to laAv, all reaxipraisements of merchandise imxiorted at the port of New York, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe for their gOA^ernment. Their decision on such reaxix^raisement, or that of a majority of them, shall be final and conclusiA^e, and the A-alue thus determined by them shall be deemed to be the true value, and the duties shall be levied thereon accordingly: Frovided, however, That the duties shall not be ICAded on less than the invoice or entered A-alue. .FINAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DUTIES. > For information in regard to that portioii of the customs service at our large Atlantic xiorts Avhich has to do Avith the taking xiossession of arriAdng vessels, the entry ,of the nierchandise conveyed therein, the discharge of cargoes, the warehousing thereof, or cartage to the axixiraising stores, the sexiaration of free from dutiable goods, the Avork of weighers, measurers, and gaugers, the liquidation and xiayment of duties, and final deliA^ery of the merchandise to the owner, I refer the Houses of Congress, to the subjoined docunients. It is gratifying to feel assured that during the last year no defalcation ih the receiving^ and dexiositing in the sub-treasuries of nearly 200 millions of dollars has existed, excexiting. in the item of $6,000 collected as duties on articles brought hither, in tha mail-bags. The exxiense of collectings the customs revenue was,, in comxiarison with the.fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, diminished d u r i n g t h e last fiscal year by nearly $570,000. The nuniber of xiersons emxiloyed at 136 xiorts, or xilaces, has been reduced in the same xieriod fiom 4,527 to 4,347. In the report by the XXVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Division of Sxiecial Agents will be found a comxiarative statement in detail for 1885 and 1886, of the number of persons emxiloyed, and the cost of collecting the customs revenue in each collection district. * PROTESTS AND APPEALS. In my last annual rexiort for 1885, and in the special communication to the House of March 23, 1886, I commented on the unsatisfactory condition of the execution of the law regulating protests, their examination, ahd rexiorts thereon to this Dexiartment. On March 13, 1886, I prexiared and promulgated a new rule, the working of which has been salutary, but like all reforms in rules of procedure, this new rule requires to be enforced by efficient-and conscientious local officers. One of its objects was to bring the naval officer under a larger share of labor and responsibility in' the examining of protests and reporting thereon. Assistant Secretary Fairchild yet finds " a difficulty in the partial presentation of customs questions uxion axipeals." That should not be if local officers are vigilant and Adgorous'in enforcing section 2931 of the EcAdsed Statutes, and especially if it shall be amended as xiroposed by bills X3ending in the House. That section declares that the xirotest shall set forth '^distinctly and specifically^^ the grounds o f t h e importer's objection to the liquidation of the entry. The forms of xirotests given on pages 181 to 190 of the subjoined documents are, one or two ofi them, so,absurdly illegal that one is at a loss to understand AA^hy they haA^e not long ago been suppressed by the proper action of the collector and naval officer. If a protest be not specific and distinctj it does not conform to the law, and should be treated as a nullity, and the circumstances reported to tliis Department. The real difficulty inheres largely in the fact that too many collectors and naval officers do not examine protests, but leaA^e that most important work to subordinates who are unsuited to such responsibility. No work in our custom-houses is UOAV . more imxDortant, even if as imxiortant, and it is now A^eiy imperfectly done. If the collector shall treait as valid none but distinct and specific protests, if he and the iiaA^al offi.cer Avill thereou' carefully revise the liquidation comxilained of, and, should the liq^uidation be sustained, if he will full}^^ present on axipeal all the facts and all the law to this Department, much of the CAdl commented on by Assistant Secretary Fairchild Avill disaxixiear, xirovided the rule be enforced of deciding, in the interest of the consumer, against the highest rate when Congress has spoken in ambiguous language, and the real intention of the lawmakers is fairly in doubt. ' Although no statute change has been made in rates of duty since 1883, the number of xirotests served on the collector at the xiort of New REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXVII York between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, against exactions of money as duties claimed to haA^e been illegal, was 15,123, and between October 1, 1884, and October 1, 1885, Avas 22,441., During the first-named period 4,800 axipeals came to this Dexiartment from the decision of the collector of New York, in which the decision of the collector was reversed on 200, and sustained on 4,600. The character of those xirotests will be found described in Appendix E, p. 67 et seq. SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS. Between October 1, 1884, and October 1, 1885, there were begun by imxiorters 684 suits against the collector at the port of NCAV York for duties illegally exacted, wherein A^as claimed $7,048,894.68, of which it is estimated that only $551,787.52 Avere for excess of duties levied on coverings; but betAveen October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, there were begun against the collector of the same port 1,120 suits, whereof 649 were for excess on coverings. The total sum claimed in all the 1,120 at the port of New York is rexiresented to me to be $4,314,735.67, of which it is conjectured that $1,182,298.15 are for coA^erings. I present in an Apxiendix all the information respecting those suits that I haAT^e been enabled to obtain. In a special communicatioii to the House of Eepresentatives dated March 23, 1886, I gave (xi. 43) .the number of suits then pending in the southern district of New York against the collector, and virtually against the Treasury, as 2,220; the total aniount of princixial claimed therein as over 11^} millions of dollars, and of interest thereon (p. 53) at that date as nearly 3 millions, making, in all, $14,398,085.86. Since December 31, 1885, there has been an addition to the number of suits of 1,161, and to the total sum clainied of about%4,263,430.33. The attention of Congress will, I am' sure, be arrested by the fact that between October 1,1885, and October 1,1886, only 31 days were by all the Federal judges, sitting in the southern district of NCAV York, given to collectors' suits, and only 35 suits disxiosed of. In Axipendix H, pages 225-6, will be found the record as furnished to me by the district attorney. The last-named officer is quite correct in describing this augmented, and annually augmenting, list of untried suits as "appalling," and not the least among the causes of disquietude is the fact that the importer cannot obtain a judicial examinatioii of his claim, as pledged to him by section 3011 of the EcAdsed Statutes, nor can the Treasury j^resent its defence, bring the controversy to an end by discontinuance, or any judicial methods, and stoxi the running of interest at the rate of six per centum at a time when the Treasury could borrow money at even less than one-half that rate. XXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The magnitude of these suits gaA^e me great solicitude when I came to a knowledge of them soon after March, 1885. I caused a thorough inquiry into their condition and the sums iuA^olved. I endeaA^ored by every means in my xiower to cause to be made a vigorous beginning of judicial trials of them, but without results at all satisfactory. The rexilies received from New York, and from the Dexiartment of Justice, were that the resources of the Federal judiciary in the second circuit were inadequate. On March 23, 1886, in reply to a resolution of inquir}^ from the House of EepresentatiA-es, I transmitted a list of the pending suits, estimated the total amount ofthe xirincipal ofthe claims and the interest thereon, and urged the immediate creation pf another circuit judge in the second circuit, who could giA-eallhis time to these vSuits, and new ones of similar character, in aid of the other judges, who should also hold, when xiossible, and at the same time, terms of tha court with a jury for the same xiurpose. On May 6, 1886, the Judiciary Committee of the House apxiroA-ed my recommendation, and submitted a bill Avdth an accomxianying report, in Avhich it was said— " I n a letter of March 23, 1886, to the Sxieaker of the House of EexiresentatiA-es, the Secretary of the Treasury suggested the immediata enactment of a laA7 authorizing the appointment of an additional circuit judge in and for the second judicial circuit. "This recommendation Avas accompanied with statements from officers of the United States which shoAV that the present judicial force in this circuit is entirely inadequate to disx^ose of the business coming before the courts. ' " A concise statenient of the facts Avill demonstrate the necessity of the legislation recommended by the Secretary of. the Treasury in this, regard. "Of the 29,308 suits xiending in all the United States' courts on the 1st day of July last in AA-hich tha United States Avas not a xiarty, 12,810, or about 44 x^er cent., Avere xiending in the second judicial circuit. Of the 3,805 suits in which the United States was a xiarty, xiending, terminated, and apxiealed in all the United States courts during the same time, 879, or about 23 per cent., Avere pending, terminated, and apxiealed in the second judicial circuit. '' Of the suits against collectors of customs of which the United States. circuit court only has jurisdiction,' about 2,300 are now pending in the second judicial circuit which were brought prior to December, 1885, to recover $11,519,258.69 claimed to have been illegally exacted by tha collectors of customs as duties, on imxiorted goods, designated by tha Secretary of the Treasury as.'old suits.' "Of the 825 suits brought against collectors of- custonis during the year ending June 30, 1885, in the courts of tha United States, 645, or about 75 xier cent., A^-ere brought in the second judicial circuit, in which $5,466,020 was clainied asdllegal exactions of duties on imported goods. "Of the 768 suits rexiorted by the United States attorneys as brought against collectors of customs in all United States courts since January 1, 1886, 716 Avere brought in the second judicial circuit. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXIX "While this large number of collectors' suits are thus, being continually brought in this circuit, a rexiort of the clerk of the circuit court made NoA-amber 17, 1885, and accomxianying the Secretary's letter, conclusiA-ely shows the inadequacy of the judicial force in this circuit. In this letter it apxiears that from April, 1882, to Axiril, 1885, the circuit court could allow for the trial of collectors' suits but 105 days, during which time it was only X30ssible to try 58. "The comniittee, recognizing the urgent need of an additional judge and more frequent terms of the circuit court in the^ second circuit, reXiort the accomxianying bill and recommend its passage." The xiressure of other business xircA-ented a consideration by the House of this needed reform. The consequence is exhibited in this rexiort and i n t h e acconipanying docunients. I again most urgently present the subject to the early consideration of Congress, with the suggestion that the bill presented by the Judiciary Committe to the House be amended by striking out all after the first section, in order to rid the proposition of every debatable question excepting the single question, whether or not an additionahcircuit judge shall be created with the same power, jurisdiction, and salary in the second circuit, as the present circuit judge has. The collectors' suits now xiending and those annually begun will for a long time occupy all the resources of the Federal judiciary in that circuit when a new judge has been added, and, axiart from collectors suits, a new judge is needed," as I am told, for other business. If a new judge can be immediately appointed, and immediately begin Avork, the whole customs service will, for reasons set forth in my annual report for 1885, feel the resulting beneficial infiuences. The interest accruing on these untried suits, many of them begun a quarter of a century ago, and since xiending, is very large. For a xiortion of the time the rate of interest recoverable by law on a judgnient in favor of the plaintiff has been seven and is now six per centuni. In the few suits tried, or in which judgnient has been entered, in 1886, the intimation of tha Supreme Court in the case of Eedfield vs. Ystalyfera Iron Co., in respect to interest, has been vigorously urged by the district attorney, but the facts proven have been sufficient in those suits to deny the allegation by the district attorney that the xilaintiffs had been guilty of laches in x^rosecuting their suits, and so not entitled to interest. In a judgment recently recovered by the plaintiffs for an excess of duty IcAded under the tariff laAV of 1857 on mousseline-dedaine, and xiaid by the Department after the opinion of the district attornej- that fur.Jier resistance on the facts Avould be useless, and of the Attorney-General that there was-no fault in the laAV as ruled on the trial by the court, the principal sum was $44,648.35, and interest and costs were $84,390.52. In that suit the Avhole question of laches^and the defendant's liability xxx REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. for interest Avas retried after the A-erdict, and before the entry of judgment. The suggestion made by Assistant Secretary Fairchild that, in collectors' suits, the rate of interest, to be'allowed and recoA-ered as a X3art of the damages for the unlawful exaction and detention of the money, be no longer, or in future suits, left to be decided according to the laAV of the State in\ which the suit shall be begun, but that a national and smaller rate be fixed by Congress, deserA-es immediate consideraation, if Congress Avill provide adequate judicial force for the x^romxit and sxieedy trial of the suits. But if an importer cannot bring his suit to trial because there is no court to try it, it will be unjust to compel him to receiA-e less damages for the detention of money than is given by the law of the State within which it was illegally exacted. The critical question always is this: Was the money illegally exacted'? The subject of claims, or suits, against collectors for money exacted in excess for duties on imports is naturally divisible into two parts. There are the pending suits, and there is the question whether or not new suits of such a character, shall be permitted. The law can say that in the future the rate and amount of duty IcAded by a collector, and approA-ed by the head of this Department, shall not, by anybody or anywhere, be questioned, any more than dutiable value when fixed by the appraising officers. Congress could, probably, take away from the courts jurisdiction of pending collectors' suits, could forbid the head of this Department to pay any final judgments hereafter recovered by plaintiffs. Congress could repeal all laws authorizing the Secretary ofthe Treasury to pay the principal of claims, or judgments, under the recent Supreme Court decision on coverings, and refuse further appropriations to repay money heretofore exacted illegally from importers. All that, in regard to the xiast, is possible for Congress, in the sense of mere power, but is not probable. The customs service is not exempt from the tendency of power, and especially- arbitrary xiower, to increase and intensify itself The aA-erage customs officer will, in the course of tim.e, if not closely supervised by his superiors, fall, insensibly to himself, into the habit, in levjdng taxes, of giA-ing to the Government, and not to the tax-xiayer, the benefit of doubt, as to classification or rate, where Congress has hot spoken distinctl3-, and in the end may become ian unreasoning partisan against the citizen. What is true at the several ports is true at the Treasury Departm.ent, w^here it is imxiracticable for the Secretary-, or the Assistant Secretary assigned to the supervision of customs officers, to critically and personally examine the details of every question presented REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXI by the local officers of 136 collection districts. Eeliance must in some measure be placed on the scrutiny of heads of divisions and their sub- ' ordinates. Hence the iiiA-aluable serA-ice, in the treatment of ambiguous phrases used by Congress in xirescribing our tariff rates, of the calm and imxiartial judgment of courts and juries. I should deem a xiropositiou to make final and conclusive, as against the judicial XDOwer, executiA-e decisions resxiecting the rate and amount of dut}- on imxiorts, unjust to imxiorters, and injurious to the Government because tending to make ^such taxation unpoxiular and odious. One of the reasons Avhy our axixiraising law is so unaccexitable is that the citizen AA-ho feels himself aggrieved has no remedy by executive or judicial • appeal. We IIOAV levy, or attempt to IcA-y, duty on 4,200 different articles, even counting all general classes or grouxis, such as "all other manufactures of iron," or"philosoxihical apparatus and instruments," as one article; we thereby collect about 190 millions of dollars annually, and I can see nothing but benefit and protection for the Government, the people, and the consuniers of those imported articles, in the laws which subject customs officers, and this Department as Avell, to most alert and even contentious scrutiny by importers and their attorneys, carried on in the Federal GoA-ernment's own courts, an essential part of which is a decision of questions of facts by a jury, and questions of law, on needed occasions, by the Supreme Court. In the presence of the large arrear of collectors' suits in the southern district of Naw York, Avhich is rapidly increasing from month to month and year to year, plans of relief haA-e baen suggested, on some of Avhich I have taken advice and have carefully considered the same. One plan Avas formulated by the Tariff Commission, and, with modifications, Avas presented in the House on Axiril 19, 1886, during the last session, and published as " H . E. 7982." It constitutes a "court," to be knoA^-n as the customs court of the United States, to consist of a president judge, and not less than two or more than four associate judges, (at least one of AA-hom shall be a customs exxiert, and shall have had at least ten years' exxierience dn the customs service,) who shall be apxiointed and qualified, and hold their offices in all respects as the otlier judges ofthe courts of the United States, with a jurisdiction extending over all questions arising under the laws of the United States imxiosing customs and tonnage duties which have heretofore been the subject of protest and apXieal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and which shall include all ques. tions of classification and rates of duty on imxiorted goods, wares, and nierchandise, and the mode of determining said rates; and provides that the decision of said court as to all such matters shall be final and conclusive. It provides also that the said court shall, so far as the same XXXII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. may be necessaiy to the exercise of its jurisdiction, haA-e the same power as the circuit courts of the United States to issue writs, processes, and subpoenas, aiid compel the attendance of witnesses; to issue commissions to take testimony; to impose and administer judicial oaths: to comxiel the xiroduction of books or Avritings, in the possession of xiarties or others, which contain, evidence as to any matter xiending before it; to issue attachments and executions to enforce its.judgments and decrees; to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempts of its authority; and to makerules and regulations for the transaction of its business; and that such poAvers shall in all resxiects be subject to the same limitations and restrictions as in the circuit courts. I am advised that the foregoing functions, if giA-en by law to such a customs court, will confer on it "judicial X30wer," and make it one of the "inferior courts" mentioned inthe first section ofthe third article of the Constitution, The second section of the xiroposed bill declares " t h a t whencA-er, in the opinion of the President of the United States, the accumulation of business existing at the date of the xiassage of this act shall haA-e been disposed of, and whenever it shall axipear to him comxiatible with xiublic interest, he shall haA-e X30wer to rcA-oke the axipointment of either one or two of said associate justices, whose term of office shall thereupon cease.'' I am adA-ised that if the proxiosed cpurt is to exercise judicial power under the Constitution, then each of its members, duly appointed, must be permitted to hold his office '' during good behavior," unless there be power to abolish the entire court after it has been created. Another section declares: "That any suit now xiending in any circuit or district court of the United States for the recoA-ery of duties clainied to haA-e been unlawfully exacted or not to have been fully paid as required by laAv, may be removed to the court of customs created by this act, on the motion of the attorney for either party to such suit; and in that CA-ent all xiaxiers and Xileadings relating to said suit shall be transferred and delivered to the clerk of the court of customs hereby^created, and the United States shall be substituted in place of the officer by or against Avhom the suit shall haA-e been brought.'^' If that section Avere enacted, then the district attornej- at New l^ork, or the defendant's attornej-s, could by a motion oust the Federal circuit court of its xiresent jurisdiction of collectors' suits, and transfer them to the new court. But in 1845, and again in 1873 by sectioii 3011 of thfe Eevised Statutes, every person, having done certain things therein set down, '' may maintain an action in the nature of an action at law, which shall he triable by jury, to ascertain the A-alidity of such deniand and paj-ment of duties;" and I am advised that t h e " action / ItEPORT. OP THE .SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.. XXXIII at law," ever since used in these, suits, makes the cPllectors' suits to be the "suits at common law'' specified in the seventh article of the , amendments to the Constitution, wherein, if " t h e value in controversy shall exceed tAvent^- dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre^served,'^' That right to a jury, being fdr the-.benefit of litigating . parties, may be waiA-ed by them, as I am advised, but cannot be taken away iroin them against their Avish and will, nor can Cohgress, or the Federal courts, compel a peremptory non-suit against the will of the plaintiff, or a tidal by a referee against the will of either party, and, furthermore, I amvadvised that it is very doubtful whether or not the Supfehie Court can 'revicAv a decision made, both parties consenting, .-» bA-a referee ih. a collector's suit.. , • •' If I have been correctly advised, the proposed law Avould, if enacted, ' be'unconstitutional. ./ Among the general considerations suggested in my annual report for ^ 1885 on this subject were the following: . .^ > ' "If a UCAV tribunal shall be created, Avhere shall it sit? If there be - more than one, there will be need of a supreme appellate tribunal to Xiroduce uniformity of decision. The larger x^art of the revenue on imxiorts is collected at the Port of New Yjork, and, therefore. New York would naturally be the xilace chosen for'^the sitting of such a tribunal. But if there ds to be one tribunal, and it sit either in New York or in Washington, importers who live in distant parts of the country and on the Pacific coast will be greatly inconvenienced if witnesses must travel so far. The questions cannot alwa^-s be adequately presented on Avritten depositions. On all questions of fact in dispute between an importer, and the Goyernment concerning rates of duty, both parties are entitled , to a trial bj- jury if desired, and a trial by jury at the place where the leA-y was made. The present systeni secures that right,, and it also^ secures the right of the importer and the Government to bring'each and every question of laAv to the Supreme Court at Washington. ''There have "also been suggestions for the creation of an executive ' r board to try and decide the questions concerning commercial designa^ tion, classification, and rates of duty, which are now tried and decided by the Treasury Dexiartment. Tha result of my OAvn limited observa- tion and exxierience in the Dexiarthient is that if the existing system be efficiently wprked, Both by importers.and local customs officers, and by this Department, there is no need of modification. But at several of the ports the system is not at present adequately worked. If the importer be dissatisfied, and file a protest against the liquidation, the collector is to immediately riecpnsider the liquidation in the'light of the protest. In - Xiractice, however, that important work of considering the protest, and of redecision of the question of rate of duty, iseither assigned b^- the . collector to a vSubordinate, or is performed by him in a perfunctory •manner. It is the practice in this Department,^ wh,en an apxieal is re' ceived, to ask a report from.the local' officers where the liquidation was ' made.which is complained of, and if the reply be a thorough and con-. ' scientious One, both in regard to law and facts, this Department will have before it the contention of the importer, Avho is very sure to state his case clearly and strongly, and also the contention ofthe local officers. XXXIV REPORT^ OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS'URY.. Upon such a preparation, of each case, and upon a similar xireparation of similar cases from the scA-eral ports, the Dexiartment ought to be in a.conditioh to make a safe decision. ^. "^ ^'Iam also of the opinion that the decision of these questions should be' . kept'ioi hands where it can be, subject to the suggestion of .the Freside^it, inasmuch . as those questions 'ofte,n involve the consideration of treaties and of the friendly relations of this Government ivith other governments.^ . V" It will be obA-ious that the labor and responsibility of. deciding I questiPns iiiA^olA-ing rates of duty, whicb is now dcA-olved upoh the Secretary of the Treasury, is onerous, and for his own peace and contentment of mind he would wish the respouvSibility placed elsewhere, but it is. difficult for me to .see hoiw any executive commission', or board, can be permitted to decide that class of questions without a certain aniount of responsibility of revision being finally devolved uxion the head 'of ' this Department, in order to secure uniformity at all the ports, and the ^ obedience of each and all of the customs officers.'^ . • .' < '. If there is to ba in the fature any appeal of any kind from the executive to the judicial power in questions of classification, rate, and amount of , duty, my opinion is that no better plan can^be devised than that which distributes j urisdiction thereof o ve,r the country among the Federal circuit courts, Avherein que'stipns of fact can be decided by a jury of the vicinage., Surely if ;the GoA-eri;iment's own cpurt, and a jury of our-countrymen shall say that a duty was illegal, and ought not to have been forced by the strong hand of power from an importer, the Treasury should, till the law'has lieen amended, abstain from a similar enforcement,' and Congress should promptly refund, Avith immediate xiayment of legal damages, what has been illegally exacted. . I do not fear Federal juries; . dr Federal courts, in that execution of our customs laAvs, if our ^district attorneys are alert, vigilant, and comxietent. . . <, s BILLS OF PARTICULARS. In furtherance of the^ suggestion made by Assistant Secretary Fair^ child in his accompanying report, I' adA-ise, that section 3012 of the Eevised Statutes be amended by adding at the end thereof these words : " A n d a bill of particulars, having been served as aforesaid, shall not thereafter be amended by the xilaintiff, or by the court on the xilaintiff's motion, so as to increase the total sum claiined therein as haying been , •.exacted in excesS^." ' . , , ^ • • RESTRICTION AGAINST SUITS. 1 have been informed by the' District Attorney at New York of a ruling, within, a few days made in that circuit, to the (etfect that *: although by section^931 of the EcA-ised Statutes no suit begun.before a decision has been made by this Department on an appeal from the collector (excepting under a condition therein described) "shall be^ maintained," yet, if the suit was begun before the decision, and if a ' decision adverse to the importer,has been afterwards made by the De- REPORT OF THE' SECRETARY ^OF. THE TREASURY.. "XXXV ! partment, and before the suit shall come on for trial, then that suit can be "maintained" by ;the iniporter. That ruling, if ian opxiortunity. Xiresents, will be carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court. It,isin confiict with what this Department belicA-es Avas the intention bf the section, and it makes more necessary a speedy enactment of section 2931 as amended by me in my communication to the House df January 18, 1886, and as xiroxiosed in Mr. Morrison's and Mr. Eandall's bills. " ; ',. APPROPRIATIONS ; • •• . ; THE REFUNDING EXACTED.^ / OF . DUTIES ILLEGALLY •• \ •• •' ., • In Ex. Doc. 43 bf the Forty-ninth Congress, first sessioii, is a, communication from me, dated January 18, 1886, proxiosing certain amend-' ^nients to the existing law in relation to protests, axixieals, and suits, wherein I said: . , , " F r o m the foundation of the Governinent uxi to the present time, ,either by common law or by statute, the law has xiermitted an imxiorter who has been compelled to pay duties on iniports; the exaction of which : he belicA-ed to have been illegal, to begin and niaintain suit to fest the legality of the rate and amount of duty levied on the importation. The . Governnient need not have giA-en to the imxiorter that right to sue, but it did. There are npw OA-er twenty-three hundred such suits xiending in the southern district of New, York, to say nothing of a large nnniber pending in other judicial districts. It is my hope that an immediate arrangement may be made in the southern district of New York, by » which a court may sit continuously for bringing these suits to judgment and enabling theTreasury Department to ascertain the magnitude'pf its liability thereon, I shall do all in my power to make* the defence of these suits thorough and effective, and, before I acquiesce in any judgment entered therein, or in the rule prescribed by said judgment, I shall take care that the law of 1875 is carefully regarded. But, when that has been done, and the obligation of the Governnient to make refunds has been declared by a tria^l and judgment, and conceded by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department, in cases, which are described by the Attorney-General ih his opinibn of July 18,, 1878, (p. 70,) as ''Judgment Gases,''^ this Department should be enabled by a permanent indefinite approxiriation to make immediate payment. To that end, I also respectfully, submit the accomxianying proposed amendment and'enlargement of Section 30124 of the Eevised Statutes." In H. E, 7652 (known as the Morrison Bill) and in H, E, 9702 (known^as the Eandall Bill) my recommendations Vj^ere adoxited, and I respectfully express the hope that Congress also, may adopt them early ill the preserit session. •, , ' • ; ' ^ FOR , • i • . SPECIAL AGENTS OF T H E TREASURY. ^The excellent chief clerk of the customs at New, York makes the following allusion'to the presence there of special agents: • " I can readily understand and appreciate the need which the Head of the Treasury may have for the services of an agent to look into special ^ xxxvi REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TOE. TREASURY. / , matters fijioni time to .tinie at the different ports,; but the c o n s t a t pres' en^ce in the,custom-house of a number of special agents is,, to my,mind, a' hindrance to the public business. Of course it is natural that they ' will labor "to shoAv a necessity for their existence by exerting themselves in the discovery of irregularities; and that they Avill make their efforts in such direction\ by consuming ^the'A-aluable tiriia of. experience'd cusftoms officials whose attention may already have been given to the matter which the special agent may desire to investigate for credit tp hiriiself. There are many excellent men in- the force of special agents, but the cpllector is responsible for the discharge Of the duties of his office -, and if special officers are needed to look into the doings of those under him, they,should be men of experience and training in the service, sub-. ject to his sole, direction, and capable of sifting a riiatter understand' ingly without taking unnecessarily the time of officials whose'constant ' attention is required to current business." ., ' ; . I accept the foregoing as a useful suggestion. In my annual rexiort for 1885, I clearly- indicated my axiprpciation of 'the limitations of such agents: ' ^ :.• " I n thepresentforce of special agents, numbering tAventy-three, (23,) there are useful servants of the rcA-enue Avhose intelligence, zeal, and 'fidelity cannot be justly, or successfully, called in question. Their work, is incessant, resxionsible, delicate in character, and at times most vexing. The best among them are invaluable aids to the head of this Dexiartment, whose services, or tha services oi others like them, it Avould be an anjdiry to the customs revenue to lose. But yet, Avhile I thus fully > and cordially recognize the value of the Sxiecial Agents Division, I also . axipreciate the danger there is that a force of men, so near, the Secretary, and naturally believed by the local officers to represent his Adews and purposes, may, if not most judicious and discreet in conduct,^ and not ^' most.Avatchfully suxiervised, become an injury to the local service at the ^ ports Avhich they frequently Adsit as the esxiecial representatiA-es of this Department, by creating, or encouraging, among the -officers of the Xiorts, a feeling that the latter are relieved in some sense of the resxionsibility which the statute imposes on them," and especially if assigned to Xiermanent Avork therein. I fear that such has already,N and in times : past, been one result, arid that'the Government is now feeling, throughout the country, the unfortunate conse(^uences. The functions of collectors, naval oificers, and sur vey ors,. as Avell as their responsibilities, are ; clearly defined in the law, but yet it is easy for those officers to fall into the habit of thinking that if the Secretary of the Treasuiy does not, by the eyes of his sxiecial agents, see irregularities and needed reforms, then none exist. If such a conditioh of dependence on this Department,' actually and generally exists, as I fear that it does, fbr supervisibri of the local work of a port, or of a place on^the frontier, the xirocess pf restoring a condition of effective and resxionsible local administration, ' , such as, the law contemplates, will necessarily be slow. The average customs officer, Avho has been long in service, cannot be'easily, and . quickly, shunted upon a new track when reform is needed. The fbrce of habit is strong with him." ^ ' On.Npvember 24, 1885, the Collector at New York requested me to apxioint a conimission, cousistingof notless than " five suitable persons, to inquire into ^the orgahization of the various departments lof this • offi'ce, and to ascertain and report whether the present methods of trans- V REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY O F THE. TREASURY. XXXVII actihg its business are the best, and: if not, what changes and improA-ements ,caii be.made therein AVhich will conduce at the same time to tha , accommodation of, merchants and the benefit of the service; what changes'or reductions, if any, should be made in the force emxiloyed ; what offices, if an^-, should be abPlished; and what salaries should be ' increased or reduced." The Department did not feel at liberty to , deny such a request, and on December 31, 1885, I appointed Special Ag:entjS Tingle and Montgomery and Dexiuty Collector Berry, - • The expenses of the Special Agents' Bureau, including inspectors and the fraud-roll, have been diminished by $70,852.30 during the last fiscal ,' 3-ear.' -. , ' - ' DUTIES ON COVERINGS. ' ^ ' AYheii I came to this Department, in March, 1885, the seventh section of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, had receiA-ed an executiA-e interpre-* tation on the advice of the Attorney-General. Had I been disposed to reverse, as to future importations, the decision of a predecessor so emi-' nent in judicial faculties as was Judge Folger, my power A^^^ould have ' been held in check by the law of 1875, which forbids the head of this < Dex')artment to reverse, or modify, adversely to' the United States, a ruling or decision riiade by a predecessor, or'by himself, giving construction to a l^w imposing customs duties, "except in concurrence, , with an opinipn of the Attorney-General," or a decision of a Federal court. The circuit court at New York, oh August 20, 1885, sustained, the decision of the Dexiartment. In my annual reportfor 1885,1 made a bidef review of the controversy, and concluded with these words: " I cbmniend this question to the immediate attention of Congress, t o t h e end that, by legislation, it may be settled definitely for tha future, and so xirevent the continuance of a large number of protests and suits / Avhibh have been begun, or are ifkely to be' begun, on account of the decision of the Department, which decision Avill be adhered to by me in the absence of legislation, unless the question be finally adjudged adversely to the Department by the Supreme Court of the United. States." There was no legislation by Congress, and consequently/the 'rulings and decisions made by my predecess^ors were enforced until the opinion ofthe Supreme Court in Oberteuffer'' se'^^e was announced. Ih my letter to Mr, Hewitt of March 23, 1886, I said: ; /. . >. " T h e tendenc}- and drift of the reasoning in the recent opinipn of the Suxireme Court in Oberteuffer's case are,, it will be incA-itablj- argued by imxiorters, to prevent appraising officers, and this Department, from taking into consideration, or account, any sort of a covering, or bandage,. on an article described in and made dutiable by the tariff." , ' , . No^ difficulties embarrassed the Department in the axiplication of that opinion to. facts like those presented in Oberteuffer's case, but very. XXXVIII REPORT OF-THE SECRETARY OF THE' TREASURY. serious embarrassment came in the apxilication of the opinion to adifferent class of facts,, to whi(3h embarrassment, allusion is made by Assistant Sec- ^ retary Fairchild, The questions which haye already arisen under that' > ojiinion in niaking reliquidation of entries for refunds, a n d t h e questions whichwill present themselves to Congress in' new legislation on, the subject, if new legi^latioif shall be attempted, are so important and complicated that I have caused to be xirepared a very full history of Avhat has been done thereunder in this Department, since the Supreme Court promulgated its oxiinion,. in order that Congress may clearly see . the confusion created by the ambiguities of the law of 1883, the bearing upon that law of the Suxireme Court decision, and also Avhether or not an attemxit shall be made during the .present session to modify- the law . of 1883 as interpreted by the judicial poAvar, Whether or not the con. struction'glA-en by the Suxireme Court to the seventh section of the laAV of 1883; and the interpretation by the Attorney-General of the oxiinion of the court, express the actual intention of the draughtsman of the, section, or.of those who advised it, I have no means of ascertaining. The ox)inioii of the cpurt must, however, be accepted as correctij- expressing the legal effect of the words finally employed in the section, by Congress, in their application to the circumstances of imxiortation that Avere before the court. The history of thaf sectiori may be taken ' as a Avarning of the perils for the revenue which environ tariff legislation if hot' carefully considered in its relation to the whole body of the tariff law. ' ' • ,' . . I t will be borne in mind by Congress that a restoration of the laAv as' it was before the enactment of the seventh section of 1883, and the making of coverings dutiable at the rates IcA-ied on the contents,^ will greatly increase the sum to be received from duties on impbrts,. arid the cost to consumers of the imported articles. Such increased revenue is not now needed by the Government, and the enhanced cost of articles of food, clothing, and shelter would therefpre be noAv unjust to consumers, and especially to the wage-earning classes of the country. This Department is unable to'make a satisfactory estimate of how large will be the refunds at all of the x)orts called for by the oxiinion of the.Su- \ preme Court and the Attorney - General's axiptlication of it to xiast imxiorta- , tions on which protests and appeals were made, but it is to be remembered that the refunds will not be a correct measure of the additional duties levied by a return to the taxatioh of coverings inflicted before March, 1883, and for thareason that it is not to be assumed that on all. or riearly all, of the entries were protests and appeals made, or suits begun, to eiiti^tle the importer to a refund. ,1 commend to Congress a consideration of the suggestions made by Assistant Secretary Fairchild,.Naval.Officer EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIX Burt, and Special Agents Tingle and Tichenor on this iinportant subject. ', There are, no doubt, serious difficulties, iii applying the law as itis,; whether or not they can be overcome by the appraising oificers, time and . exxierience alone can disclose. A new law has been prox)Osed by the Naval Officer at New York and tha special agents, which will befound on page 142 of Axipendix G, an exaniination of which will make axiparent the intrinsic difficulty of the situation. Will each and CA-ery member of Congress agree one with another as tothe meaning arid legal effect of the Avords therein used, and if not then may not the former difficulties,— the xirotests, axipeals, and suits,—return to us if the proxiosal be adopted 1 , J n the body of the new rule the dutiable value is to include the A-alue"in the packed condition in which it is actually put up for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident thereto," but the hr^tproviso ^excludes the value of an outside covering, and of a specified 'Hndividudl lining OL xiacking, " i f specifically declared in the invoice, and a second • proviso requires inquiry by the appraising officers into the, intention and good faith of-the shipper. / i t is obvious that, if the proxiosed xilan be adoxited, a buyer of an article abroad may be unable to present to our consular officers, and to our axixiraising officers, a bill of sale, or iuA-oice, siich as he received from the seller, or a transcript of it, for if after the x^nrchase the buyer makes anywhere else, expenditures to xirepare the artible for shiximent, he must, to xirotect himself, insert those iri^the iuA-oice. The proxiosed , plan naturally suggests the inquiry whether or not a requirement of our ' law Avhich conipels a x^nrdiaser to "make u p " an.invoice ih trial way, and not xiresent to consular officers' a transcrixit of what he gets from the seller, will not open the way for, and CA-en excuse, new falsifications of iuA-oices.. But it is said, rind truly said, that under that scA-enth section our ad valorem system, based on the foreign value of the article at the time and place of importation to this country, cannot be easily worked in its axiplication to a liniited class of articles which are ^enumerated in the subjoined documents. > • •. \ In my letter to Mr. Hewitt, of March 16, 1886, I endeaA-ored to give ^the result of the most careful examination that I could then make of the origin of the seventh section of the law of 1883, its presentation by the Tariff Conimission, and its .effect. To that letter, which will be found in Appendix A, xip. 16 et seq.:, I resxiectfully refer the two Houses . b f Congress. . . ^ . . , , Wh3- shall Ave hot alleviate the difficulty by a general and prudent substitution of sxiecific rates not requiring in the IcA-y by customs offi,cers any ascertainment by them of foreigii values 1 I frankly- confess .that I distrust the ^xiractical working of any vSection of a tariff law so XL ^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE. TREASURY; . elaborate, and comxilicated, as are the requirements of thb-on^ proposed, wherein so much will depend o n t h e ascertainmerit by axipraisers of in'' tentions and good faith-on the part of the shipxiers. My own suggestion of a, safe way,out of the cul-de-saa in.which we are, is tb SAveexi aAvay existihg rates of duty on many finndreds^ of the 4,200 and more articles noA^ dutiable, and enlarge the applicatiori of sxiecific rates, in applying which our customs officer^ need not take thought of foreign values'. . DUTIES' oisr ARTICLES SENT H I T H E R ' ' ' IN THE MAIL-BAGS, INCLUDING- BOOKS. ', - ' '^ : s My attention^ was called in- March last, by a rexiort from, Sxiecial Agent Montgomery, (see Apjpendix. J, xi. 275,) tb the sum.of money. receiA-ed- and exxiended at the port of New York iri collecting duties on ' ^ books coming in the mails, and quite' recentlj- was again called to the . same subject by the discovery, in New York, of a misaxixiropriation of public money collected as dut^- on mail-matter.'. Eeplies to my iiiqui.ries, recently made, .will be found in Appendix J, together Avith a schedule of articles coming in the mail-bags and seized as forfeited during the last fiscal year. That schedule will be found instructive by its exhibition of the character and valueof the articles seized, either because forbidden to be in the mail-bags, or because dutiable and not regularly^ entered at the custonirhouse. .The relation of receipts to expenditurasdn watching the mail-bags for dutiable matter, and collecting the duty thereon, will also be found in the same Appendix. So long as the effort of our tariff' law shall be to sweexi into its net so riiany things if coming from abroad^ and levy duties thereon, we are constrained to forbid the entry of man^- articles in the mail-bags. The, ' law bf March 3, 1879, making axixiropriation for ^the postal service^ declared that "printed matter, other than books, received in the mails from foreign countries un<der the provisions of postal treaties, or conventions^. ; shall be free of customs duty, and books which are a)clmitted to the interna-' tional mails exchanged under the proA-isions of the Universal PostalUnion- Convention may, when subject to customs duty,, be delivered to addresses ioi the United States .under such regulatioiis for the collections of duties as may be agreed^pon by the Secretary of the Treasury and the "Postmaster-General." One effect of this law hasbeen to permit dutiable books, to be in the mail-bags. Thereby all printed inatter^ other than books, placed in the inail-bags abroad under treaty stixiulations^ is exempted froih dut^-, and books thus placed in ,the riiail-bags are to be delivered to the xiersons to ^whom they may be addressed subject, of course, to payment of duty. ' B y t h e tariff law of March 3, 1883, enacted four years afterwards, thare Avas IcA-ied 25 per cent, ad valorem on "books, pamphlets, bound , ^ RIEPORT OF T H E ^SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. XLI ' or unbound, and all xirinted matter not specially enumerated or proYided fov in this act; ehgravings, bound or unbpund; etchings,'illustrated books,'maxis, and.charts." ; , . In the volume of United States Treasury Eegulations issued by my predecessor, Judge^Folger, on July 1, 1884, more than one year after the enactment of the tariff laAv of 1883, the laAA-* of 1879 to which I ^ haA-e referred Avas treated as unrepealed b y t h e law of 1883. Article 310 bf those Eegulations says t h a t ' ' books admitted to the International ' Mail Exchange, and. imported through the mail under the act of March 3, 1879, are dutiable if bound in stiff covers, or if they consist bf such as are usually sp bound.^ * ^ * Other printed matter so iniported is free of duties." Iniportations having been made in the mails, free,, of duty, of chromo-lithographs in large quantities,/07^ sale,as rfierchandise, the opinion of,the Attorney-General was by the Department takeii on the question of the repeal of. the section of the law. of 1879 by the law of 1883. He advised that such, "printed matter" was duti- ' able if coming in the mails for sale as merchandise. I concurred in that yiew, and issued a circular, dated April 15, 1885, a copy of which, with the Attorney-General's opinion, will be found in. Axipendix J, p. 274, wherein it is said that the "rule will not axiply to''xirinted matter' im- ' Xiorted in the riiails fbr personal use, or in quantities which suggest that the articles are for personal use, or not for sale as merchandise." • Thus all "printed matter" coming in the mails for personal use, and . not for sale as merchandise, is exernpt from duty, unless it be a. bound book, or a book usually bound. The growth within comparatively a fcAv years bf the UniA-ersal Postal Union, and the stipulations of postal treaties into which the Government has.entered, have a bearing on the universality of our xiresent tariffs taxation in its application to. so many articles. Of course it was not intended •by this Government, when it entered into those postal treaties', that they should restrain the exercise of its power to IcA-y duty on any or every article coming to our shores, or crossing our frontiers. The Universal Postal-Union Convention prohibits the, sending by mail of xiackets '' containing articles liable to customs duty;'' but those in foreign countries whb are not informed of the minuteness of our tariff taxation, and who live in x)laces abroad where the mail-bags are. more generally used for sending parcels than they are with n s , do most naturally send to'the mails, anil the fbreign post office receives, books, Und printed matter, addressed to those Avho are.in the United. States, ..The parcel arrives, and when it has arrived, it is too late to exclude it from being sent by the mails. ' The ties of family, or pf friendship, now so closely- unite many in tha United States with those who dwell in other lands, that the sending XLII , REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. . in trie^ mail-bags of books and printed publications, used and read,, or, unused and unread,'and other printed publications of little, pecuniary value, must naturally be A-ery frequent. The law of 1879, and the Gen.eral Treasury,Eegulations of 1884 Avere obAdously intended tb provide for such_use of the mails by those not importers or dealers'. Complaint having been hiade to me that in New York, and other large cities,, books were not delivered b}- the letter-carriers as usual Avith mail matter, be-, cause detained h j custbms officers for duties trifiing dn amount, and . that the persons to Avhoni the. xiarcels Avere addressed were comxielled, . by notice sent in the mail, to go a. long distance, and at'great loss of time, to the'custom-house in order to receive the parcel, and pay even so small a'sum asfiA-ecents as duty, I instituted inquiries. The GoA-ernment cannot xierriiit thamail-bags to be used bj-importers and dealers, br anyone else, to evade the payment of duties,—certainly not if the sum of the duties CA-aded be serious in amount. But, on the other hand, if an nnbound book of sinall value, on AA-hich the duty may be five or ten cents, or even more, is sent from abroad in the mail-bag • . to any one in our large cities, it does, seem to be unnecessary to refuse to deliver the book by letter-carrier, the dut}- to be collected b}- him, • and to require the. xierson to whom it has been addressed to be put to the inconvenience, and loss of time of going to the customhouse, or xiost office, making an entry, and paying duty as for aVlarge invoice of' valuable merchandise. When dutiable articles-of other descriptions, large in value, are sent by mail with a clear intent to evade the paymen^ of dut}-, the case will be different, and the treatment should be different. ,. - . Arrangements have been, made in New York, as Appendix j will disclose, by AA-hich a staff of customs officers, necessary for the appraisement bf values, the estimating and collection of .duties on books, \ has been placed inthe post-office building, and I commend to Congress the inquiry whether, if at this point the free list is not to be enlarged, legislation cannot be safely had by which, the duty having been ascertained and indicated on the parcel containing the dutiable book by a stamxi, as is unx::>aid postage, the x)arcel may be committed to the letter' carrier for collection of the nioney as for postage due"? Such an arrange> • ment would, I hoxie, tend to remoA-e the feeling Avhich now exists against , the customs serA-ice for detaiiiing books of such trifling value, and oh which the duty to be xiaid is so petty. . •' REFORM IN METHODS OF CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION. During more than four 3-ears Mr. HcAvitt has dcA-oted himself with intelligent assiduity to accomplish certain greatly iie,eded amendments in the laws to enable this Dexiartment to enforce the quick,' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLIII certain, • uniform, and economical collection of duties on. iinports. ''The aim has been not to change,the rates, or enlarge the free-list, but tp assist the cufstoms officers in the application of the rates as they 'stand. Nearly three years agp the project was commended aiid pro-, moted by my predecessor. Judge Folger, in an elaborate communication addressed to Mr. Morrison, the chairman of the Committee on • ',^ays and Means, and on June 25, 1884, Mr. HcAvitt, from that comihittee, presented a bill to tha House (H. E. 7429) Avhich embodied the suggestions of this Dexiartment Avith others, and accompanied it > by a full and untoimous report from the committee urging its enact; nient. No definite action on this much needed reform was, howcA-er, taken by the House, and two years afterAvards, February 1, 1886, (H. E. 5010,) Mr. Hewitt presented the bill for a second time .with modifications which further inquiries commended. The bill Avas sent to this Dexiartment by a sub-committee of the Wa^-s - aiid. Means , .for its views thereon, and, on March- 16, 1886, I communicated to' the sub-committee the result of riiy examination. There was subsequent comparison of A-iews, from time to time, betAveen the sub,. committee and this Department, which resulted in a comxiletion by the sub-committee, of Avhich Mr. Hewitt was chairman, of a measure of reform of certain parts of the customs laws, Avhich reform was embodied ' in House bill 7652, presented by Mr. Morrison in behalf of a majority -ofthe Ways and Means Committee on Axiril 20, 1886. A great xiart ' ,pf the measures of administrative reform' contained in Mr. Morrison's bill was adopted by Mr. Eandall in the bill presented to the House by him (H. E. 9702) on June 28, 1886.. In order that it may be clearly^ seen how xiatiently Mr. HcAvitt has toiled in this project of reform, how step by stexi this Department has been consulted, and on what points the Conimittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Eandall are agreed, I herewith present in Apxiendix A, coxiies of the official<3orrespoiidence which has passed between the Conimittee of Ways and Means and this-Department. In so much of that correspondence as took place after March 23, 1^86, I was unable to particix3ate. My gen- , aral A-iews bn the subject wei*e, howcA-er, exxiresse^d in my letter of ^ March 16, 1886. ^ , ' . DUTIES ON PASSENGERS' B2VGG:AGE. Ill my annual report for 1885, I dwelt upon the examination of x^as -sengers' baggage, the scandal connected therewith growing out of the N paymerit of monej- by arriving xiassengers to customs inspectors, and ' ;Said: ' ^^^ • •; ' / •_ ' 'From these reports, and from iriformation received from other sources, ' I am couA-inced that the practice still exists, although so caidied on,- dn XLIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. part^ under such circumstances of solicitation by trie insxiector after the passenger has left the wharf, as to make x^revention difficult l^y any agency at present within my control. The large sums that are .often paid, as I am told, by arriA-ing passengers to the inspector who exam- " ines their luggage, oi^ afterAvards to some one who rexiresents him, make itdmpossible to believe that the irioney, is paid merely as a recognition ^ of xiroper civility, or courtesy, or patience, on the part ofthe examinirig\ bfficel".^ ' ^ ' \-,- - -' ^^ • '^The practice of asking aind making such xiayments is one of long, growth, arid therefore well established ;.butthe sums paid are represented to me as yearly increasing in size. ^ How can it be prevented 1. No Bank' would permit its dexiositors, or those in the habit of receiving loans therefrom, to make large " t i p s " toits Cashier, or its Eeceiving Tellers, orr its Paj-ing Tellers, or its Discount Clerks, for services rendered in. ;>the business of thq Bank. Nor Avould.a Avholesale or retail dealer permit custbmers tb make gifts of money to his clerks fpr courtesies ex. tended in tha making of sales, or the fixing bf xDrices. ^ ' v K . '> My fear is that nothing less than sweexiing and scA-ere new criminal, eriactnients Will thoroughly exterminate these practices. I respectfully, ' commend the subject to the attention of Congress with the suggestion that the good effect of new legislatipn Avill' dexiend upon the decision by -Congress of the^question Avhether or not it is wise, in. a xiublic, sense, topunish criminally the giving or taking of a gift made to one in the cits- : toms service without proof that such giA-ing, or taking, Avas accompaiiifed by an illegal intent; or in. other'wor.ds, Avhether or not the receiving by , one in the customs service of any money, or thing of value, not author, ized by law, can well and safely be defined and punished as a crime, if ^ dorie in connection with the importation, storage,- examination or delivery of imported merchandise, Avithout the allegation, or proof, pf an actual intent to A-iolate the law, or injure the revenue." Section 20 of H. E. 7652 seeks to effect a suxixiression of the scandal referred to. It may, however, deserve consideration Avhether or not ^ the xihrase, '-'shall be regarded asj?nma facie CA-idence," is sufficiently-^ explicit. ''' Evidence'' of Avhat % And may not the reference to sections: 15 and 16 be misleading'? The new section is a penal section, deprlA-ing one of his liberty, and should be strictly construed by the courts. ^Mj--thought in 188.5 Avas that no arriving xiassengers, no importer of agents, should be permitted to have any pecuniary transaction with a customs officer, in connection with, any official business, excexiting to pay the duties or fees levied by laAA-, but the proposed section defines tha forbidden receiving of "any money or thing of value" tp be " i n consideration of or for any act or omission, contrary to law, in connection with or pertaiining to,'' &c. Will it be- easy, in all cases, for the Government to establish that the receiving was for such 'ah."act, or omission, ''. unless the section shall more clearly put' upon the receiA-er tha burden of proving the circunistances under which the money, orthing of A-alue, shoAA-n to haA-e been received, was receiA-ed, and that the purpose was an innocent one? I also A-enture to suggest that section 19' REPORT OF <rHE. SE'qRETARY OF TfiE TREASURY, XLV ^should deaLniore severely ;aiid exxDlicitly Avith'the giA-er in resxiect to * burden of proof > - .. . . . .. The habit o f " t i p p i n g " or bribing, in the seA-eral;custom-houses- and elsewhere, has become so x^revalent and has been so denlpraliziiig that I am couA-inced no law AA-HI crush out the xiractice, unless it is extremely stringent and sweexiiug. May not the proposed enactments be in this form?^ ,. \ ' . SEC. ,19. That any person who shall ^give, or' offer tp giA-e, ,or. promise to give, excepting for such duties,^or fees, as haye been levied^ or required, according to, the forms of laAv, any money or thing of' yalue, directly or indirectly, to any officer or servant of the customs, \ or of dhe United States, in connection Avith, or pertaining tb, the importation, or appraisement, or entry, or examination,.or inspection of ; goods, wares, or merchandise, including herein any baggage, or ofthe liquida^tioh pf the entry thereof^ shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned at hard labor not more than two years, or both, at the discretion of the court. And CA-idence of such giA-ing, pr offeririg, of' promising to giA-e, satisfactory to the court in which such trial is had, shall be regarded as _2)Hma/aae evidence that such giving, or offering, or promising was contrary to. laAv,^ and shall x^nt uxion the, accused the brirden of xiroying that such act was innocent and not done with an unlawful intention. , . , . , ' SEC, 20. That any officer or servant of the.customs, or of the United States, who shall,- excepting for such duties or fees as haA-e been levied or required accorliing to the forms of law, deniand, exact, or receiA-e from any person, directly or indirectly, any money or thing of value in connection with or pertaining to the importation, or apxiraise- , ment, or entry, or examination, of insxiection of goods, Avares, of merchandise, including herein any baggage, or liquidation of the entry thereof, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less thaif one hundred . , dollars,' nor more than fiA-e thousand dollars, or be imprisoned at hard labor not more than tAvo years, or both, at trie discretion of the court. An evidence bf such demanding, exacting, or receiving satisfactory to the court in which such trial is riad, shall be regarded as prima facie evidence that such demanding, exacting, or receiA-ing Avas contrary tp . law, ahd shall put uxion the accused the burden of xiroving that such act-was innocent and not Avith an unlawdul intention. The xiroxiosed vSection of Mr. Morrison's Bill H, E. 765'2 which deals .with,the baggage of an arriving passenger is in these words : " Wearing-axiparel, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, oa-. cupation, or emploj-ment, xirofessional books, and other personal efiects not merchandise of persons arriving,in the United States, not exceed- • ing in value five hundred dollars, and not intended for the use of any other person or xiersons, nor for sale; but this exemptioUxShrdl nPt be construed to includamachinery or other articles imported for ase in any manufacturing establishment or for sale: Frovided, however, That/the limitation in value aboA-e specified shhll not apply to wearing-axiparel and other xiersonal effects Avhich may haA-e been taken from the United States to foreigri countries by the persons returning therefrom; and such last-named articles shall, upon production of evidence satisfactory . to the collector and to the naval oificer^(if, any) that they have been . preyiously exported from the United States by such persons, and have XLVI REPORT OF THE' SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.^ < not been adA-anced in valii^-or dmxiroved ih conditipn by any process of manufacture or labor thereon since so expprted, be exemxit ft^oni the payment of duty: And provided further, That all articles of foreign pro-, duction or manufacture which may have beeh once imported into" the Uiiited States and subjected to the payment, of duty shall, upon,reimportation, if nPt imxiroA-ed in condition excexit by repairs, by any means, since their exxiortation from the Unitecl States, be entitled to exemxition from duty^ux^on their identity being established, under such rules and .regulations as may be prescribed by. the Secretary of the • Treasury. "__ • i •' ' • \ ; • ' ..,\ , •' , • " Theatidbal scenery and actors' and actresses' wardrobes brought by theatrical managers and xirpfessional actors and a'ctresses arriving from abroad', for their temporarj- use in the United States-,'wprks of art, drawings, engravings, xihotographic pictures, and philosophical ^ and scientific axiparatus brought by professional, artists, lecturers, or scien, tists arriA-ing frpm abroad, for use by them temporarily fpr exhibition ' and in illustration,/ promotion, and encouragement of art, science, of industry in the UnitedStates; and wearing-apxiarel and otrier'personal effects of tourists from abroad visiting the United States, shall be adadmitted to free entr^-, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and bonds shall be given, whenever required ;by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the payment to the United States , of such duties as may be imposed by laAV uxion an^- and all such articles as shall not be exported Avithin six months after such importation,: Frovided, hotvever, That the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend such period for a further term of six months in cases Avhere application therefor shall be madel" ^^^ , .' / . The X3ertinent section of the law of 1883 reads thus: ' . . "Wearing-apparel in actual use, and othef personal effects, (not merchandise.) professional books, imxilements, instruments, and tools of trade, occuxiation, or employment of persons arriA-ing in the United States. But this exemxitiPn shall not be considered to include machinery or,other articles employed for use in any manufacturing establish-ment, or for'sale," . . ^ The law of' 1799, enacted 87 years ago, declared: ' , " ' " T h e wearing-apparel, and other xiersonal baggage, and the tools or imxilements of a. mechanical trade only, of persons Avho arrivis in the Uni tee States^ shall be free and, exemxited from duty;" It will be obserA-ed that the proxiosed section omits the liuiitation ' " i n actual use," as made in the law of 1883, the meaning of which; phrase was defined by the Suxireme Court in 1884, and substitutes the ' limit and test of $500. It says: " Wearing-apparel, ' * ^ . - ^ ' of persoois arriA-ing in the United States, not exceedihg five hundred dollars." But,of how many '• persons,",arriving as one family and including children! .Shalleach adult and each infant be entitled 'to the $500' limit *? Clothing when it has been taken from our ports by returning xiersons is, under the xiroposed sectibn, to be exempt, in any quantity-, and of any value, if not "imxiroved in condition by any * * * labor since so ' e x p o r t e d ' " which may include mending, dyeing, or .repairing^ A .second proviso, applying expressly to foreign-made articles owned by REPORT' OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLVII ' the arriving persons j but once imported hither a n d d u t y paid thereoh, declares^ that the articles, " their ^identity being established,"' shall be free as baggage " if not improA-ed in condition, except by repairs, by . any means.'' The proposed section also declares that the, weaidngaxix3arel of '-tourists from abroad" visiting the United/States "shall be. entitled to a free entry, on giving a bWd to pay duty on such articles as shall ijiot be exported withiii a specified time,'' but what will happen if the articles' shall be^vorn-out, or lost,, or destroyed by fire? I am aware that this section Avas. prepared in, or apxiroyed by, this Dexiartment, and has been adopted by the Ways and Means Committee*. Therefore, it is Avith great reluctance that I criticise it. / I can, liowever,but think there is no customs machinery at the- port of New York now adequate to a correct ascertainment ofthe $500/limit, the xireparation of the proposed bond, and the execution, on the wharf, of such a section. My opinion is that it will be better to allow the law of 1883, althPugh the phrase '' in' actual use'' has been so generously interpreted by the Supreme Court, to stand until the time shall come for a thorough overhauling of the list of dutiable articles and the rates of duty therfepn, and esxiecially if the scandal of " tipxiing" and bribing, on the Avharves, '. can be staniped out.^ ' . '. NEW AMENDMENTS OF THE LAAV OF 1 8 8 3 . In both the bills now under consideration, presented by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eandall, are sections intended to stop as to the future the holes in the law of 1883 disclosed by protests, apjpeals, and suits. < The failure to enact those sections to be law has kept alive the protests as well as suits. What those sections proposed was to legalize, in t h e ' .future. Department interpretations of the ambiguous lawrif 1883. I wish that a permanent law made it obligatory on this Dexiartment to exhibit to Congress in December of each year, or oftaner, similar defects discovered in our tariff law, and that ^ Congress would be urged to straightway deal with them.. In that way a great quantity of protests, V apxieals, and suits, could be stopped. New ambiguities in the law of . 1883 have come to light in 1886. They are exhibited in.the subjoined Appendix E, and there has been added a sketch of legislation to' remedy them for the future, on, the theory that the decisions of the Dexiartinent express the Avish of Congress in that regard. If these ^ amendments shall be approved, I respectfully suggest that they be inserted in an approxmate place in the bill pending in'the House, which contains the results of Mr. Hewitt's and the Dexiartment's conference •on administratiA-e customs reform, and the decision of the Ways and' . Means Committee" thereon. , XLVIII , ' . . •''' , REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE , •" 1 . ' ' •.•~y---/ ' . " . * . . . ' • TREASURY/ ' ••STILTS F O R V A L U E . ' . • '- ' . ^ • • \ , .'•• "^ - ' In my* annual report for 1885, I alluded to a'decisiohof the Feder,al, district, and circuit courts in the southern district of New York re- . specting suits for; the A-alue of merchandise charged with fraudulent importation, and said: ' , .^ • . -. '^ " The district court for the southern district of New Y.oi;k decided in . March, 1884, (19' Federal'Eexiorter, p. 893,) which decision was affirmed' on appeal by the circuit court, on May 5, 1884, that-the legislation of Junev22, 1874, covered the whole ground of frauds o n t h e revenue by the entry of imported goods at the custom-house embracing punishment of importers cririiinally, as well asdndemnity to the Government,, and, therefore, superseded by implication sectibns 2839 and 2864 ofthe EcAdsed Statutes on the same subject, so that there is at present no law authorizing a suit foi: the value of the merchandise Avhich has been withdraAvn from the custody of the Government, although tfiemerchan- ^ disc has beeh tainted by a fraud in its inixiortation, and would haye been liable to condemnation if the prosecution, had been ioi rem. 1 respectfully suggest to Congress the immediate enactment of legislation to remedy such an interpretation of the law of 1874, which cpuld-not, I assume, have been intended by Congress." The Committee of Ways and Means prepared a needed amendment to cure the blunder in the law of 1874. I resxiectfully suggest its early enactnient. ^ ,. _ THE RECASTING OF ALL OUR CUSTOMS COLLECTION LAWS. . Our statutes regulating the collection of duties, Avh ich have their basis.in thedaAv of 1799, need all'tp be recast in order to adapt them to the growth, and changes in commercial niethods. The law of 1799 . is, ncA-ertheless, at the ripe age of nearly ninety years, a marvel of clearness, conciseness, and accuracy, (our warehousing and appraising S3-stem has been devised since its enactment,) but many of the amendments thereto seem to be absolutely harmful. The recast should a n d e a n , if administratiA-e reforms now pending. in'.the House are ,adPxitedVbe xiostxioned, howcA-ar, till the country comes to a decided coriclusion in resxiect to the future sum and method pf taxation. Duties; on imx)orts will,, as I am firmly convinced, continue to be a chief source of oui? FederarreA-enue, so long as our Federal Constitution continues in its present form. , Whether duties shall be laid on as many articles as now, or pn a few, Avhether the crude materials needed by our manufactures shall pay seaport or frontier taxes, whether the rates shall be chiefiy ad valorem or chiefiy specific, remains to be decided. Until the country has settled down upon the rates and objects of tariff taxation, the perfection of a comxilete code of laws and, regulations, tp enforce and" secure the collection of those rates, can be deferred. The administrative REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, XLIX measures presented in Mr. Morrison's and Mr. Eandall's bills will, if adopted with few amendments, tide us over present difficulties. Our exist ing tariff laws and regulations are not for the promotion and convenience of any foreign trade, certainly not for the xiromotion of our export trade, but any system of taxes on imports, which will secure an annual revenue of 150 millions, will need to be enforced in our country, Avith its 136 ports or collection districts, by strict, unvarying, and uniform rules of procedure at each port. There cannot be indulgence and relaxation, of rules,—what is called " t h e convenience of merchants,"—at one port and not at another, or for one importer and not for all. A customs organization, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and along^ the coasts of both oce'ans, guarded by a fieet of 28 arrned and 10 unarmed revenue cutters, which are manned by more than 995 officers, cadets, and seamen, and enforcing the collection of more than 4 millions of dollars at Chicago, nearly l i millions at New Orleans, over 51 millions at San Francisco, and 130 millions at New York, is very unlike in magnitude the British organization which, in the United Kingdom, is only for the ports of relatively small islands within easy reach of London. To be sure Great Britain at those few island ports collects nearly half as much money as we by duties on imports, but she IcA-ies duties on less than a score of articles. Her collection laws were modified after 1846, when her system of tariff taxation was radically changed. We can easily recast all our laws for the collection of duties when we have definitely settled upon the sum and method of a new and better system of taxation. Eespectfully yours, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary of the To^easury. The Honorable T H E SPEAKER OF T H E H O U S E OF EEPRESENTATIVES. (4) •9 REPORT OF ASSISTANT' SECRETARY FAIRCHILD. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, B. C , November 27, 1886. SIR : In compliance with your request, I herewith transmit a report upon certain matters connected with the business of the Treasury Department. You call especial attention to the laws concerning the collection of the revenue from customs and to the administration of the same. Your various rexiorts and letters upon this subject are so full and exhaustive that there remains but little to be added, either of fact or argument. There are, however, a few details to which it may not be amiss to call attention.- During the last fiscal year, the most imxiortant event affecting the administration of the customs laws was the oxiinion ofthe United States Supreme Court, of January 25, 1886, interpreting section 7 of the tariff act of 1883. That opinion entirely changed the rule which the Dexiartment, under the opinion of Attorney-General Brewster, had theretofore followed, viz: That the "goods" (the market A-alue of which at the time and place of exportation was to be found for the purpose of IcA-ying duty thereon) were such "goods" in a marketable condition. In lieu thereof it became the duty of the appraising officers at more than one hundred and thirty ports to learn the A-alue of the "goods per se"—that is, stripped of all coA-erings and charges whatsocA-er, no matter whether in such condition thie goods had or had not a market value anyAvhere; and that not only as to current importations, but also as to thousands of entries upon which duties had been collected under the old rule, that the same might be reliquidated and the duties erroneously collected refunded, the goods and their coverings having long before gone into consumption. The opinion of the Supreme Court still left many questions for the Treasury Dexiartment to consider, which are the subjects of over forty printed decisions. The chief difficulties were caused by questions as to whether invoices or entries so showed charges and cost of coverings as to permit deductions of the same, as to Avhat charges Avere incurred " i n finishing the goods to their present condition," and as to what coverings were liable to 100 per cent, duty under the proviso of the seventh section of the tariff act of 1883. The Department held that if it could be learned either from the invoice or entry Avhat the nondutiable costs or charges Avere. that they should be deducted from the A-alue of the goods. The questions arising under the proA-iso were more difficult. What coverings ^ve ''designed foo'-'use otherwise thaoi in the booia-fide to^ansportation of goods to the United States V The'cans in which pease are preserved, and in which they would be hermetically sealed as part of the process of xireservation, whether the pease Avere designed to be exported tb the United States or to be finally LII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cooked and eaten in the kitchen or room where they had been canned or preserA-ed'? The leather cases in which oxiera-glasses are carried, lasting the lifetimeof the owner*? ^ The leather cases for pipes, the ornamental boxes for violins, and other musical instruments remaining forever with their contents, protecting them from dust, but too frail, delicate, and costly to be used for the purposes of transxiortation, (except in the hands of the owner,) to theUnited States or anywhere else *? . The box Avhich contains blacking, andls the convenient and necessary instrument to enable the contents to be used at alH Are any of these, coA-erings "designed for use otherwise than in the hona-fide transxiortation of goods to the United States'?" I Avas at first inclined to think that they Avere so designed for use otherwise, and decided accordingly; but that rule seemed so hard and unjust that I finally laid the whole matter before the Attorney-General in a series of letters, and had scA-eral xiersonal conferences with the Solicitor-General, then acting Attorney-General, the result of which Avas a decision by him to the effect that no coverings were dutiable which at the time of exxiortation were designed for no other use than that of coverings, Avithout reference to the question of transportation to the United States. This general decision was followed by others, which sxiecifically held all ofthe above enumerated coverings to be free. The chief reason which led to this result seems to haye been that in doubtful cases the benefit of the doubt is tb be given to the tax-payer. It is doubtful if the laAv-maker intended such coA-eidngs to .be free, still more doubtful if he intended them to be subject to 100 x^er cent, duty; and he had expressly said that the value of no.coverings Avhatever should be included in estimating the A-alue of the contents, hence the decision that such coA-erings are free. The At- . torney-General has, however, giA-en Avithin a few days to the Department an oxiinion that the boxes which cover both safety and other matches, and which have on the outside a surface prepared to scratch the matches upon, are dutiable at 100 per cent. The Department now holds, under the opinion of the Attorney-Gen-^ aral, that all coverings, Avith but few exceptions, are free, and that no charges incurred "after the goods have been finished are to be estimated in ascertaining the dutiable value ofthe same. The questions arising under said section 7 of the tariff act of 1883 seem, therefore, to be finally settled, so far as they can be by the Treasury Department, but the laAv requiring, as it now does, the appraising officers to find the market value of articles at the time and place of exportation, and, at the same time, directing them to find such value in a conditioii in which the articles are not sold at that time and place, or at any tinie or place, presents difficulties which call for an amendment of the law. At present, every advantage is offered to the unscrupulous and every disadvantage to the conscientious iniporter. It will be some years before all of the entries in this class of cases can be reliquidated, and the monej- collected under the decision of the Department refunded. No one knows the sum of these duties, and the total cost to the Government will be increased by the interest upon it b3- the costs of suits, and the salaries of clerks emploj-ed upon the reliquidation, . . Ofthe questions now before the Dexiartment, I regard that of "hattrimmings," under paragraph 448 of the tariff act of 1883, as one of the REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. LIII most important, TheDepartment holds that the goods must be generally used for the trimming of hats, and commercially known as hattrimmings, to be dutiable at 20 per cent, ad A-alorem, and in this it is sustained by the Attorney--General in a recent opinion; but iniporters constaiitly protest and appeal on the ground that they intend such a piece of silk or of velvet to be used for the trimming of hats; that it can be and is sometimes so used, although generally used for gowns or other purposes. If the views of these importers were adopted, all goods, of whatever material composed, which could possibly be used to trim a hat, might never be subject to a rate of duty greater than 20 xier cent, ad valorem. Whether or not the duty should be greater, would, in every instance, depend uxion the good faith of the importer. And this leads me to call attention to the unwisdom of laws which fix the rate of duty according to the use to Avhich it is intended to xiut the article imxiorted. The intention of the imxiorter at the time of importation is known bnly to himself; there is no law to comxiel him to carry out that intention or to compel the final consumer to put the article to the use,for Avhich the imxiorter shall have declared that it was imported. As an example, take paragraph 641 of the tariff act, "Animals specially imxiorted for breeding purxioses shall be admitted free upon proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury," What proof can he have other than the declaration of the importer'? Under this decision thousands of rams and CAves have been brought from Mexico free,.. sheared on this side of the line, and sent back again. All sheexi are sheared, all rams and ewes breed. The Secretary of the Treasury must not say that a man shall 011I3- import such and such breeds for breeding purposes, or in such and such numbers. No law forbids, or ought to forbid, the exportation of iniported animals. In practice it is necessary to leaA-e the execution of this law to the arbitrary will of each collector, thus leaA-ing a door open for partiality. Non-uniformity of adininistration also arises from such laAvs, For example, the collector at one „ port believes'that a certain ribbon is a hat-trimming, and IcA-ies a duty of 20 per cent, upon it. At another Xiort the collector belicA-es the same ribbon to be an iniportation of silk, and levies a duty of 50 per cent. The same difficulties constantly occur upon the importatioil of horses and cattle. The same criticism applies to other proA-isions of the tariff act. notably paragraph 699, "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption," free,'while paragraph 280 imxioses a duty of fifty cents a hundred xiounds on fresh fish. Paragraph 712, "grease, for use as soaxi-stock only, not specially enumerated or provided for," free, Avhile various ratesof duty are imxiosed upon substances which may be used for soap-stock, and yet a court has declared them to be free because entered as soap-stock. Paragraph 130, "paving-tile,",tAventy x^er centum ad valorem, while another paragraph imxioses a duty as high as fifty-five per cent,, which would be the rate of duty of certain kinds of tile that, upon importation, are declared to be intended for paving-tile. I mention the foregoing because, in my experience, they have, among very many others, xiresented difficulties. Constant irritation, exists at the princixial xiorts because of difficulties growing out of apxiraisement and reapxiraisement. There are charges of the incapacity of officers, and counter-charges of the bad faith of imxiorters, a wrangle at the most important stage of the process of collecting the customs reyenue, Avhen LIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' there should be the most orderly administration of laAV- The number of reappraisements is much increased by a late decision, at New York, by Judge Brown, that the collection of the money to pay the fee (five dollars day) of the merchant appraiser Avas an illegal exaction of a fee, and a subjected the collector receiving, the same to a fine of two hundred dollars, under section 2636, Eevised States. The Department has directed an appeal upon this question, but pending the same has suspended the collection of such moneys from importers. Yalues and classifications are not so uniform at the various ports as. they should be, and this difficulty is likely to increase as the numberof ports and the use of'the xirivileges of the immediate-transxiortation act increases with .the country's growth. Amendments to existing lawsmight perhaps be devised to ameliorate some of the difficulties attending axixiraisement and reappraisement, but, at the best, I apprehend that there will be unending trouble, dissatisfaction, and.demoralization in this dexiartment of the Government business so long as we have a. comxilicated high ad valorem tariff. The Department has arranged for periodical meetings of the appraisers of the princixial ports, in the hoxie that by conferring together they may make classification and apxiraisement more uniform throughout the country. As a further aid to this, I adA-ise that one of the general apx')raisers be located near the centre of the country. I find a difficulty in the partial presentation of customs questions upon appeals before the Dexiartment. Often but one A-iew is given, either that of the domestic manufacturer Avho wishes a higher rate of duty exacted, that his business may be further protected, or that of the imxiorter, who Avishes the loAver rate. It Avould seem, too, that the latter sometimes presents his case feebly before the Dexiartment, especially when he believes that he has a good case, reserving his strength for a trial in court. Ancl he acts wisely, for the more duties the Government exacts erroneously from an importer, the better for the importer. In most instances, he sells ohis goods plus the erroneousduties. By and by, generally years after xiayment, he gets a judgment, which entitles him to the repayment of all tha duties, together Avith interest from the date of xiayment, at the rate laAvful in the State where he resides, besides the costs of suit; all a clear gain to him, while the general public, which has* really- paid the duties, is taxed to x^ay them a second time, together with interest. This maj- helxi toexplain the fact that.the Government is defeated in a large majority of its customs cases Avhen they once come before a court and jury. I belicA-e that much of this difficulty would be cured if the rate of interest in such cases were made very low and uniform throughout tha countrj-, or bettef if it were done away with altogether. Then importers AA-OUM have more motive to strongly xiresent their cases; before the Dexiartment and to hasten their trial in court. The courtsAvould be relicA-ed of a vast mass of business, the peoxile saved a larga amount of money, and, on the whole, more substantial justice done than under the law as it UOAV stands, A practice has grown up in the courts of permitting the amendment of the bill of xiarticulars prescribed by section 3012, Eevised Statutes, This practice has gone to such an extent as to amount to a repeal of that proA-ision of law, or at least to throw down all the safeguardswhich Congress must have had in vicAv when it enacted the law, A recent order of court allows amendment of the bills of particulars in REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. LV 771 suits, so that the amounts therein stated shall be changed to the amounts Avhich may be found due by the liquidating officers at the custom-house when they have finished their work. In accordant?e with a protest of the present collector at New York, made in consequence of this order ancl in pursuance of the opinion of the Attorney-General and the -Solicitor of the Treasury, an apxieal will be takeii to test the jurisdiction of the court to grant such amendments. The Secretary of the Treasury acts in a xiurely judicial caxiacity ih the determination of customs appeals, but many of the citizens who come before him in such cases forget this and are too apt to base their arguments upon all sorts of considerations of policy and general fairness. A favorite argument of the domestic producers is, that the case should be decided against the importer, as then only can it get into court and be decided by judges. I fear that this argument has often had too much weight with the Dexiartment, with ultimate loss to Government and damage to. a domestic business built up in reliance upon unlawful protection. The only proxier rule for the Secretary to follow is entirely to disregard the fact that the question goes to a court after his decision, neither leaning the one Avay, because he knows how apt a jury is to find the facts against the Government, nor the other, because he wishes to shirk the responsibility of a final decision and to put it upon a court. I think it may be said that upon the whole the customs business was well administered during the last fiscal year, when all the difficulties which surround it are taken into consideration. The officers as a rule were alert and attentive to their duties; of this the fact that it cost $490,608 less to collect $194,189,356 of duties during the fiscal year 1886 than it did to collect $183,116,808 duidng that of 1885, is gratifying evidence. Eespectfully yours, CHAELES S. FAIECHILD, Assistant Secretary. The Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. APPENDIX. H . E x . 2—VOL II 1 A P P E N D I X AO CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION, AND A-COMPARISON OF SECTIONS IN H. R. 7652; INTRODUCED APRIL 12, 1886, KNOWN AS THE ^^MORRISON BILL," AND H. R. 9702, INTRODUCED JUNE 28, 1886, KNOWN AS THE "RANDALL B I L L , " W H I C H PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AND IMPROVEMENTOF LAWS RELATING TO CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION. No. 1. A comparison of,House bills 7652 and 9702, known respectively as the Morrison and Eandall tariff bills, for the purpose of ascertaining in what particulars the two bills correspond or differ so far as they relate to the administration of the customs laws, discloses— (1) Section 3 of the Morrison bill, p. IO, lines 23 to 29, reads, after the word '' materials," line 23: •'^ The duty shall be assessed at th<p. rate at which the (dutiable) component material of chief value may be chargeable; and the words ^component material of chief A-alue^ wherever used in this title, shall be held to mean that (dutiable) component material which shall exceed in \^alue any other component material found in the article." In the Eandall bill, p. 19, lines 25 to 31, the language is as follows: " T h e duty shall be assessed at the highest rate at which the same would be chargeable if composed wholly of the component material thereof of chief value; and the Avords ^component material of chief value' wherever used in this title, shall be held to mean that component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material found in the article." (2) The provision in section 3 of the Morrison bill (Schedule G, pp. 13 and 14), relating to rice-flour, &c. (lines 106 to 121), is incorporated in section' 2 of the Eandall bill (p. 7, lines 118 to 123), and the rate of duty fixed at 20 per cent, ad valorem, no rate being provided in the Morrison bill. On page 16 of the Morrison bill (lines 172 and 173) occur the words: '^ Without having been advanced in A-alue by any process of manufacture or by labor thereon." In the Eandall bill (pp. 24 and 25, lines 157 and 158) the corresponding provisionals asfollows: ^^ Without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means." (4) On page 18 of the Morrison bill (line 212) tha provision is made applicable to all articles of foreign production, whereas in the Eandall bill (p. 26, line 197) the word ^^such" limits the application to the articles previously described. (5) In the same clause of the Morrison bill (line 216) the, words ^^ except by rep^aiy'§"p{?^ur5 which are omitted from the Eandall bill (line 20lj p. 26)/ ^^' ' • " s5 4 R E P O R T O P T H E SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY. (6) That part of the Morrison bill providing for the free admission of ">' theatrical scenery and actors, and actresses, wardrobes,'' &c. (lines 221-224, p. 18), is omitted from the Eandall bill. (7) The words ^^declarations herein provided for" ih section 6 of the Morrison bill (p. 26, lines 2 and 3) are changed in the Eandall bill (p. 34, lines 2 and 3) to read, ^^ declarations provided for in the preceding sectiouo" (8) Section 7 of the Morrison bill, p. 27, providing for the extension of the bonded period for imported merchandise, &Cc, is omitted from the Eandall bill. (9) Section 7 of the Eandall bill (pp. 35,36) provides for the withdrawal from bonded warehouse, free of internal-revenue tax, of domestic alcohol or distilled spirits for use in industrial pursuits. ~ The Morrison bill contains no such proA-ision. (10) Section 11 is the same in both bills, except that in the Eandall bill (pp. 38 and 39, lines 13 to 21) there is inserted a proviso between the word ^^ cents" and the word "and," occurring in line 13, p. 31 ofthe Morrison bill, in regard to the ascertainment of the drawback on sugar and molasseSo (11) The words "section fifteen and sixteen of this act" in section 20 of the Morrison bill (p. 39, line 11) are changed in the Eandall bill (p. 47., line 11) to read, "this and the preceding section." (12) Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Eandall bill (pp. 49 to 51) provide for the repeal of internal-revenue tax on tobacco, snuff, cigars, cigarettes, &Co, and upon fruit distillations. No such provisions are contained in the Morrison bill. There are other diff'erences in the text of the administrative sections of the two bills, but they are not essential, as they relate only to the phraseology of the introductory parts of certain clauses and provisions. The following parts of the administrative sections of the two bills are identical: Morrison Mil. Bandall hill. Lines 39 to 44, p . 11. Lines 49 to 62 and 66 to 78, pp. 11 and 12. Lines 79 to 105, pp, 12 and 13, Lines 122 to 164, pp. 14, 15, and 16. Lines 187 to 190, p. 17. ' • Line 224 (beginning with the words *'works of a r t " ) to line 240, pp. 18 and 19. Lines 242 to 247, p, 19. Sections 4 and 5, pp. 19 to 26. Sections 8, 9, and 10, pp. 28 to 30. Sections 12 to 19, pp. 31 to 38. Sections 21 and 22, pp. 39 and 40. Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines 41 to 46, p. 20. 51 to 64 and 68 to 80, pp. 20 and 21. 81 to 107, pp, 21 and 22. 108 to 149, pp. 23 and 24. 172 to 175, p. 25. 205 to 221, pp. 26 and 37. Lines 222 to 227, p, 27. Sections 4 and 5, pp. 27 to 34. Sections 8, 9, and 10, pp. 36 to 38. Sections 12 to 19, pp. 39 to 47. Sections 21 and 22, pp. 47 to 49. Th'e other administrative sections, including schedule admendments, beginning with section 3 of each bill, are substantially alike. N0o2o The following sections of House bill 7652, known as the Morrison tariff bill which embodied the administrative measures known as the Hewitt bill, were prepared in the Department, upon the dates noted below: (1) That part of section 3 '(pp. 10,11) substituted fo? seotioi^ ^499, Bo S. (preparea M^?ell g2j 1886), REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •5 (2) The clause in the same section relating to " metals unwrought," &c., included in lines 92 to 97 (p. 13) (prepared March 31, 1886). (3) The clause under Schedule G (hues 106 to 121,pp. 13,14) relating to "riceflour," &c. (prepared March 29, 1886). (4) The clause relating to "wearing apparel, personal effects," &c. (lines 191 to 247, pp. 17-19) (prepared March 31 and April 5, 1886). (5) Section 4, relating to coverings, &c, (pp. 19-21) (prepared March 27,1886). (6) That part of section 5 relating to declarations, which provides for the authentication of such declarations by notaries (lines 11-19, p. 22) (piepared March 25, 1886). (7) Section 6, prescribing punishment for false declarations (pp. 26-27) (prepare^l March 25, 1886). (8) Section 10, that part following the word "abolished," in line 6, p. 29, to the word "section," in line 12, p. 30 (prepared March 26,1886). (9) Section 12, amending section 2900, E. S. (pp. 31, 32) (prepared April 3, 1886). . (10) Sections 13, 14, 15, and 16, amending sections 2931, 3012, and 3012^', E. S. (px). 32-37). These sections Avere taken from the draft of a bill accompanying the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the Speaker of .the House, January 18, 1886 (Ex. Doc, 43, H. E.). The Department, under date of April 17, proposed certain modifications of section 13 so as to harmonize this section with the act of July 15, 1884. (11) Section 18, relating to the unlading of cargoes in bulk in certain cases (p. 38) (prepared March 27, 1886). (12) Sections 19 and 20, prescribing penalties for receiving or giving bribes in certain cases (pp. 38, 39) (prepared March 27, 1886). (13) Section 21, amending section 12 of the act of June 22, 1874 (pp. 39, 40) (prepared April 9, 1886). The following changes in the amendments proposed by the Department to the so-called Hewitt bill appear to have been made by the Committee on Ways and Means: (1) In section 3, page 10, the word "dutiable," in parenthesis, was inserted in lines 24 and 27. (2) In the same section, under Schedule G, relating to " rice flour," &c., the gauge of the brass-wire seive suggested was changed from No. 12 to No, 10 (p. 14). (3) In the same section, in the clause relating to articles of the growth, produce, or ni an ufacture of the United States returned (p. 16), the words " or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or by any other means," which the Department suggested shoij-d be inserted between the word "value," in line 172, and the word "casks," in line 173, were omitted by the committee. (4) In the same section, relating to "wearing apparel," &c. (p. 17), the words " if the same shall have been in the actual use of the x3crson for a period of not less than one month," were, in the draft, prepared in the Department between the word "dollars" and the word "and," in line 198, but were omitted by the committee. (5) Lines 210 and 211, page 18, as prepared in the Department, were changed by the committee by the insertion of the words " by any process of manufacture or labor thereon." On the same page (line 215), after the word "not," the words "advanced in value or" were stricken out of the Department draft, and in line 216 the words "except by rexiairs" were inserted by the committee. 6 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (6) Section 10, as prepared in the Department, contained after the word " a c t " (line 15, page 30) the following: "A sum equal to the amount which he would have been otherwise entitled to collect as fees for serA-ices in relation to such entries to be alloAved to him upon rendition of proper accounts therefor." This provision was not adoxited by the committee. (7) In section 20, as prepared in the Department, there was a provision for the dismissal of an officer guilty of bribery, which was omitted by the committee. No. 3. Hon. W. R. MORRISON, TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , Fehruary 7, 1 '^ Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : SIR : I am in receipt of a letter fiom the clerk of your committee, dated the 5th instant, inclosing a copy of a resolution adopted by the .committee, requesting me to make such suggestions as I may deem necessary in order tq improve the administration of the customs department, and to furnish such facts in regard thereto as the committee ought to have, in order to perfect suitable amendments to existing laws looking to their better administration. I understand the resolution to refer more particularly to the tariff than to the machinery of administration of the customs laws. I shall therefore confine the remarks which I have to offer to the practical operation of the tariff act of March 3,1883, and endeavor to point out some of the difficulties of administration connected therewith. Two prominent points have, arisen which involve- matters of administration. First as t o the order in which the various provisions of sectipn 2499, Revised Statutes, as amended by t h a t act shall be applied. It has been decided to apply them iu the order in which they stand in the statute, as will be seen by the inclosed copy of letter to the collector of customs at New York dated the 12th ultimo. It is contended, however, by some of the customs officers t h a t if an article made of a material which is named in one o f t h e residuary clauses, as, for instance, a manufacture of iron, and is not specified in the tariff by its trade name, it is an enumerated article, and hence the first clause in said section 2499 cannot be applied to subject it to any other rate of duty t h a n t h a t appropriate to the materials of which it is made. The rule adopted is believed to be a proper construction of the law, but it may lead to litigation ; and it would be well, if occasion should arise, for Congress to declare the order in which the various parts of said section 2499 shall be applied. The second point of controversy has been the correct meaning of section 7 of said act. For ready reference I insert the section here: *^SEC. 7. That sections twenty-nine hundred and seven and twenty-nine hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and section fourteen of the act entitled 'An act to amend the customs revenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen hundred and. seventy-four, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections or any other provisions of existing law shall be estimated in ascertaining the value uf goods to -be imported, nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering of any kind be estimated as part of their value in determining t h e amount of duties for which they are liable: Provided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material or form designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of one hundred x'>er centum ad valorem upon the actual value of the same." A vast number of appeals from the assessments of duty made by collectors of customs have been filed in this Department, growing out of disputes as to the meaning of said section. I t is contended by importers, and by some of the cnstoms officers, that by virtue of said section duties were chargeable only on the value of the naked merchandise itself, wifchour reference to any items of expense for placing the merchandise in a marketable condition. Thus, for instance, tliat shoe-blacking which is held for sale in small tin boxes, matches which are commonly p u t up for sale in small wooden or paper boxes,-are dutiable only on the value o f t h e contents of such boxes. Many instances of t h e same character might be cited. The inclosed copies of circulars of this Department, reports o f a commission of customs officers appoiuted to consider the matter, the members of which it will be seen did not agree, and an opinion of the Attorney-General ofthe l l t h ultimo, will show the various stages ofthe discussion. The Attorney-General's opinion takes the ground t h a t the value of goods subject to a duty ad valorem is to be taken in the usual merchantable condition of the article as exposed for sale in the foreign country, and t h a t the intent of said section 7 was to REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 7 remove only the duties on the items of expense or value, which are incident to the putting up, packing, transportation for shipment, and any other charges which by section 2907, Revised Statutes, were added to t h e foreign market value of t h e goods to make dutiable value. This opinion has been concurred in by this Department, b u t sits enforcement is likely to increase rather t h a n diminish the number of protests from importers who will seek to enforce in the courts their own view of the law. Other matters more directly affecting rates of duty, b u t not seriously affecting the revenue, deserve attention. I will refer to the various provisions of law, as they are fonnd in the numbered paragraphs of the Treasury edition of the tariff. 94. TMs paragraph is in Schedule A, which is headed *'.chemical products." A scrutiny of the list will show t h a t many articles named therein have, or may have, no relation to chemical products. This provision is for articles which have been advanced in value or condition by a process of manufacture. A corresponding provision for similar articles not manufactured is found in the free list, paragraph 636, which, however, begins with*" drugs." But it is held t h a t the word drugs does not qualify the paragraph, as some have contended, and t h a t the articles following the word drugs are to be admitted free without reference to the question whether they are drugs or chemical products. Thus, for instance, palm leaves for the manufacture of hats are admitted free tnder the term *' leaves" in said paragraph. Another provision difficult to administer is x)aragraph 790, in the free list, for soapstocks. Many articles are claimed to be soap-stocks which, b u t for this provision, would fall into other clauses of the tariff, such as paragraph 92, for rendered or expressed oil, &c. The rule adopted is, t h a t only such articles as are fit exclusively for soap-stocks shall be admitted as such. But articles fit for other purposes are largely used in the manufacture of soaps. The rate of duty, or exemption from duty, however, must be decided while the merchandise is in the hands of t h e customs officers, and the ultimate use of the article cannot control its classification. I t is suggested t h a t Congress define clearly the class of articles which shall be admitted under the provision for soap-stocks. Paragraph 101 provides for distilled spirits containing 50 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol at $1 -per gallon, and paragraph 102 provides for alcohol containing 94 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol at $2 per gallon. Distilled spirits containing 50 per cent. of anhydrous alcohol are simply proof spirits which, under paragraph 311, are subject to duty at $2 per gallon, w i t h a corresponding advance in duty for each degree above proof. It is suggested t h a t paragraphs 101 and 102 be stricken out. Paragraph 32^ places a duty of 35 per cent, on cotton s^oockings, and other articles of cotton therein narned, made on knitting machines or frames, while paragraph 323 fixes a d u t y of 40 per cent, on the same class of articles when fashioned, narrowed, or shaped, wholly or in part, by knitting machines or frames. Thus there appears to be two rates of duty for the same goods, as articles made on frames are understopd to be fashioned by t h e machine on which they are made. 334. This fixes a duty of 35 per cent, on non-enumeratedmanufacturesof flax, jute, or hemx3, and 336 puts 40 per cent, on non-enumerated manufactures of flax. The Department places the duty of 35 per cent, on textile fabrics, as 334 embraces generally fabrics of t h a t class, leaving articles of flax, not textile fabrics, subject to duty under 336. 133. This clause imposes a duty of one cent per pound on certain descriptions of glass bottles, b u t when filled, and not otherwise provided for, such articles are subject to 30 per cent, duty in addition to the duty on t h e contents. I t is not clear whether the words ''' not otherwise provided for" refer to the bottles or to tho articles forming their contents. The construction adopted is, however, t h a t the words refer to the bottles, so t h a t bottles not subject to_a separate duty eo nomine when filled, pay the duty of 30 per cent. See paragraph 310 for one class of filled bottles provid'ed for. This rule creates difficulty of administration, as some classes of merchandise, such as toilet preparations, which, under paragraph 99, are liable to a duty of 50 per cent., are always imported in bottles, and the rule would require a division of the value, first, of the bottles dutiable as 30 per cent, ad valorem, and then t h e contents dutiable at 50 per cent., and thus two appraisements become necessary. The law on this point should bo reformed, and it would seem better t h a t in such cases the articles should be appraised and classified as an entirety, and that the bottles should be free from a separate duty. See, also, paragraph 136. At first a difficulty was experienced in construing some of t h e provisions of Schedule C relating to metals. Paragraph 150 imposes on round iron in coils or rods less t h a n ^ ^ of an inch in diameter, l-i%of one cent per pound. Paragraph 180 imposes on the same class of metals, when valued at 3^ cents or less per pound, -ft- of one cent per pound, when within the denomination of rivet, screw, nail, or fence-wire rods in coils or loops. The class of iron mentioned in 150 is generally available for the purposes mentioned 180, and the Department has held t h a t when of the size and value specified in 180, it is to be classified for duty thereunder, without reference to the uses to which t h e merchandise is ultimately applied. This is not stated as a diffi- 8 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cully ill administration, but only to explain the position taken by the Dexiartment on the subject. 182. This clause regulates the duty on iron and steel ware of certain dimensions, but makes no provision for wire larger than No. 5, wire gauge. Wire of that size is therefore remanded to t h e classification of articles of iron or steel not enumerated dutiable a t 45 per cent., which rate is not in harmony wiih the duty on the specified sizes of wire. 246. This relates to leaf tobacco, and imposes a duty of 75 cents a pound on leaf tobacco, of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and of the necessary fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more t h a n one hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound. At once the question arose, to w h a t unit of quantity does t h e 85 per cent, relate? The choice seerded to be the quantity stated in the invoice, or the quantity in the package. The Dejiartment decided in favor of the latter standard, but this has resulted in an evasion of the law, as it has been found that packages containing tobacco belonging to the class k7aown as wrapper tdbacco, produced in Sumatra, are shipped to Amsterdam, where t h e packages are opened aad a quantity o f t h e wrapper tobacco is taken out a u d i t s place supplied by an equal quan tity of tiller tobacco, so t h a t the whole package, as thus manipulated, does not contain 85 per cent, of tobacco fit for wrappers, and then claim is made t h a t tbe ^rhole package is dutiable under 247 at 35 cents a pound. To remedy this difficulty it is suggested that Congress define more clearly the meaning of said paragraph 246. The last proviso to paragraph 318 declares t h a t there shall be no allowance for breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits. So far as concerns leakage or breakage, the Department holds t h a t it extends only to the arbitrary allowances which the prior law provided in lieu of the actual loss sustained, but as there was not established any arbitrary allowance in lieu of damage, the pro hibition is regarded as absolute so far as concerns damage. No reason, however, is ]Derceived why the class of merchandise named should not receive, equally with other classes of merchandise, an abatement of duties on accouiit of damage sustained on the voyage of importation. 400. This is in Schedule M, and provides for bonnets, hats, and hoods for men, w^omen, and children, composed of certain substances therein named or other material not specially enumerated or provided for, a t a duty of 30 percent, ad valorem. 448 provides for materials for hats, naming certain articles composed of certain designated materials, and adding *^or any other substance or material not specially enumerated or provided for," at a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. I t is not clear whether the term ' ' n o t specially enumerated or provided f o r " in these x)aragraphs refer to the substance or materials or back to t h e articles named in said paragraphs. For instance, claim is made t h a t silk hats and silk bonnets are dutiable under paragraph 400, because silk hats and silk bonnets are not specially named in the act. Claim is also made t h a t materials for hats, such as are named in paragraph 448, when made of silk are dutiable at 20 per cent., because articles of the character thereiu named, were made of silk, are not specially enumerated otherwise in the act. The Department has held t h a t Schedule L is exhaustive of all classes of silk goods, and hence t h a t neither of said claims are w^ell founded. Still, this decision will provoke litigation, and it would be well for Congress to state in more precise terms the proper construction ot said provisions. 429 provides for feathers and artificial flowers for millinery use at a duty of 50 per cent., but does not cover these articles when for other uses. I t is suggested t h a t the terms " f o r millinery ornaments" and " f o r millinery u s e " in said paragraph be stricken out, so as to make the clause exhaustive o f t h e articles without regard to use. A very annoying question has arisen under paragraphs 465 and 760 and 286, which provide for vegetables. Take, for instance, the articles of peas and beans. If imported as vegetables for consumption they are subject to duty a t 10 percent., under ~ 286. If imported for use as seieds, the question comes whether they are garden seeds dutiable a t 20 per cent, under 465, because if not, they are free under 760, as seeds not otherwise provided for. Congress should impose fixed rates of duty on vegetable products, such as barley, beets, peas, beans, and other like articles, and p u t one rate of duty on seeds, not edible, whether for garden or agricultural purposes. To show the present position of the Department on t h e question of garden seeds, I inclose a copv of decision 6046, dated No vember 27 1883. . 186 imposes a duty of 35 percent, on all manufactures of copper or of which copper shall be a component material of chief value, while 216 puts a duty of 45 per cent, on manufactures, articles or wares not specially enumerated or provided for, composed wholly or in p a r t of x copper. The ruling of the Department in an endeavor to give force to both of these provisions will be found in decision 5899. Paragraph 366 provides for " clothing, ready-made, and wearing apparel of every description, and not specially enumerated or provided for," while paragraph 367 provides at a different rate of duty for " cloaks, dolmans," &c., " o r other outside garments for ladies' and children's apparel and goods of similar description, or used REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 9 or like purposes." The question arose as to which.of these paragraphs should control the description of ladies' shawls. They are wearing apparel, and they are, in a certain sense, outside garments, and so the law was not easy of interpretation. It was finally decided, however, t h a t they were not garments of t h e character named in paragraph 367, which were made of cloth which had been woven and afterwards made up by a seamstress or manufacturer, and t h a t therefore they fell into paragrajDh 36(). Paragraph 366 provides for "women's and children's dress'goods, coat linings, Italian cloths, and goods of like description, composed in p a r t of wool," &c. The words "goods of like description" are very vague. The question came up whether lastings for the manufacture of shoes were "goods of like description" to Italian cloths, which are generally used for coat linings. TheDepartment decided t h a t they were not " goods of like description" to Italian cloths, and against the claim of the American manufacturers, who desired to place them in paragraph 365. The law in both o f t h e respects mentioned should be made clear. I transmit copies of t h e more important decisions made by the Department under t h e new tariff*, from which you will see more in detail the questions of administration which have arisen. Very respectfully, CHAS. J . FOLGER, Secretary. No. 4. House Eeport No. 1971, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.! MODIFYING EXISTING LAWS RELATING TO DUTIES ON IMPORTS AND THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE. JUNE 25, 1884.—Coinmitted to the Committee of the Whole Honse on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. A. S. H E W I T T , from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the followi n g report, to accompany bill H. R. 7429: The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom ivas referred hill JS. B. 7429, heg leave tosuhmit the following'report: On the 5th of February, 1884, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted a resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to make such suggestions as he might deem necessary in order to improve the administration of the Customs Department, and to furnish such facts in regard thereto as the committee ought to have in order to perfect suitable amendments to existing laws, looking to their better administration. On the 7th of February the Secretary of t h e Treasury addressed to t h e chairman of the committee a letter, a coj^y of which is hereto appended, marked A. I t will be observed t h a t the Secretary understood the resolution to refer more particularly to the tariff t h a n to the macliinery of the administration of the customs laws. He therefore confined his statements to the practical operation of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, and pointed out some of the conflicting provisions thereof. Based upon this information in part, and in part upon complaints which have been brought to the notice of the committee by officers of the customs and by merchants and others engaged in the importation of foreign goods, t h e bill herewith submitted and recommended for favorable action has been framed. For convenience of reference the paragraphs have been numbered from 1 to 34, and will be explained in this report in the order of their numbers. For convenience of comparison, at the close ofeach paragrax)h has been placed the nuinber of the corresponding provision in the official copy, published by the Treasury Department, of t h e tariff of March 3, 1883. No. 1 changes section 2491 of the Revised Statutes in one respect only. As the law now stands the whole invoice is forfeited provided it contains any article of an immoral nature. By t h e xiroposed change the forfeiture is limited to such immoral articles, provided it be shown, to the satisfaction of the officers of the customs, t h a t the prohibited articles were put into the x->ackages by accident or innocent design. This change meets with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. No. 2 relates to w h a t is known as the "similitude" clause of the existing tariff, which has been found to produce confusion and has led to many controversies in regard to the proper rate of duty. The proposed change simplifies the rule, and, it is believed by the officers of the customs, will be easy of application both by themselves and by the importer. No. 3 relates to the duty upon distilled spirits aud upon alcohol, which were also Xirovided for under paragraph 311 of the existing tariff. The Secretary therefore recomnaends t h a t sections 101 and 102 be stricken out, to avoid duplication. 10 R E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. No. 4 is intended to correct the'difficulty which arises from the different rates of = duty upon glass bottles, and t h e contents for such bottles ; and, under t h e advice of tho Secretary of the Treasury, the duty is made to follow t h e contents, so far as practicable. No. 5 is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury because t h e law, as it now stands, causes an apparent conflict between t h e duty of 35 per cent, upon manufactures of copper, or of which copper shall be a component material of chief value; whereas paragraph 216 imposes a duty of 45 per cent, on articles or wares composed wholly or in part of copper. The proposed clause removes this conflict, and carries out the ruling of the Department made in decision 5890. No. 6 relates to paragraph 246 ofthe existing tariff, which imposes a duty of 75 cents a pound ou leaf tobacco, of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and o f t h e necessary fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, of which more than one hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound. Difficulties having arisen in t h e construction of this paragraph, the Secretary of the Treasury recommends the removal of the restriction of 85 per cent., so t h a t the higher duty shail attach only to the quantity of tobacco in any invoice which is suitable for wrappers. No. 7 relates to the duty on vegetables, in regard to which the Secretary of the Treasury makes t h e following remarks: , " A very annoying question has arisen under paragraphs 465, 760, and 286, which provide for vegetables. Take, for instance, the articles of peas and beans. If imported as vegetables for consumption, they are subject to a duty of 10 per cent, under 286. If imported for use as seeds, the question arises whether they are garden seeds, dutiable at 20 per cent, under 465; because, if not, they are free under 760, as seeds not otherwise provided for." The bill as reported classifies the seeds so as to have but one duty, t h a t of 10 per cent., upon vegetables and garden seeds, leaving agricultural seeds to come in free, as now provided by law. No. 8 relates to textile fabrics of flax, jute, and hemp. This is intended to correct a conflict in the existing tariff duties of 35 per cent, and 40 per cent, upon textile fabrics which cannot well be distinguished from each other. In accordance with the recommendations of t h e Dexiartment, one rate of duty is placed upon these articles. No. 9 relates to paragraph 365, which it corrects by omitting the words "goods of like description," in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury. No. 10 is intended to correct a conflict between 366 and 367, and make the law conform to the present ruling of the Department. No. 11 relates to paragraph 448, and limits t h a t paragraph to vegetable materials in order to correct a conflict between paragraphs 400 and 448, and conforms the law to the decision of t h e Department. The same remark apphes to paragraph No. 12. No.. 13 is rendered necessary by t h e change made in No. 7 in regard to vegetables and seeds. No. 14 allows a drawback upon t h e exportation of oil-cake manufactured from linseed or flax-seed. This was formerly t h e law, and no good reason exists why a drawback should not be paid upon this article as well as'upon other articles made from imported materials when re-exported. This provision has the approval of t h e Secretary of t h e Treasur3^ No. 15 simplifies the law in regard to the materials for watches, and classifies them under one general head and makes them subject to one general rate of duty, thus avoiding the claim which is made t h a t they are subject to different rates of duty imposed by law upon materials of which they are composed. No. 16 conforms the duty on webbing to that imposed by law upon other manufactures of cotton or flax. No. 17 is intended to correct a complaint made by business men t h a t the language of the existing law requires articles which are t h e growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States to be returned in precisely the condition in which they were exported, in order to be relieved from duty. As a rule, such articles are usually impaired in value by having been thus exported. Technically, therefore, they are no't in the same condition as w^hen exported. The proposed change will make such articles free, unless they have been advanced in value by some process of manufacture or by labor, in which case only will they be subjected to duty. No. 18 is a mere change of pliraseology defining the substances which may be properly classeci as "soap-stocks," which in paragraph 790 of the existing tariff are not properly defined. No. 19 is perhaps the most important feature in the proposed law. The effect of the change in the tariff" in regard to the duty upon packages has been to produce the greatest confusion in business, and has filled the Department with appeals from the assessments of duty under this secti^on. I t is said t h a t 18,000 protests are now on file in the Department. A commissibn of the most experienced officers of t h e REPORf OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 11 customs has been sitting, the opinion of the Attorney-Gen eral has been taken, and the courts have been encumbered with suits for the recovery of duties alleged to have been unlawfully assessed. The clause recommended by the conimittee meets with the approval of the Department, and is believed to be so clear and explicit t h a t disputes will hereafter be impossible. I t is claimed t h a t a deduction of 1 per cent, from the dutiable value which is provided for in this section is.not sufficient to com- ' pensate for the increase of duty w^hich will arise from t h e ' a d d i t i o n of inner packages to the cost of the goods. The Treasury Department are opposed to any deduction whatever, because of the clerical labor which the computations will involve ; but your committee are of opinion t h a t a reasonable allowance shpuld be made in order to avoid the possibility of any increase of duty not intended by the law of 1883. No. 20 substitutes "declarations" for " s w o r n invoices." In this respect it conforms to the practice of all civilized nations, who have long since abandoned the annoyance caused by custom-house oaths. No. 21 -applies the same penalties, however, to false declarations which are now applicable to false invoices made under oath. The business interests of t h e country will welcome this change with great satisfaction. No. 22 relieves goods placed in bonded warehouses from the additional duty of 10 per cent, which by section 2970 is imposed upon them if they remain more than one year in the warehouse. No gOod reason can be urged why this penalty should be exacted. I t is a relic of a false principle which regards the deposit of merchandise in bonded warehouses as an injury and not a benefit to commerce; whereas, in fact, consumers are greatly benefited by the presence of a large stock of goods, and the producers of the domestic article are thus protected against any serious fluctuations in the market price. Bonded warehouses operate as a safety-valve to commerce, and relieve merchants from the necessity of paying the duties before the goods enter upon consumption. In the present state of the Treasury this is a w4se concession to the demands of business... No. 23 changes existing law by assessing duty upon the goods withdrawn from bonded warehouses^ thus giving to t h e merchant the benefit of deduction for loss or damage. The principle of imposing duties upon merchandise which has no existence cannot be defended. No. 24 allows the collector of customs to permit cargoes in bulk to be discharged at any point in his collection district. This will save lighterage and other unnecessary expenses now incurred by reason of the requirement of lavr t h a t goods shall be landed only upon certain-wharves. There are many factories which now import whole cargoes, and in w^hose behalf this relief is invoked, and to which it will be a great benefit. Nos. 25, 26, and 27 conform the law to the present practice in regard to the entries of wearing apparel and personal baggage of persons arriving in the United States. I t ^vas recommended by the tariff commission, and has the approval of the officers of the cUvStoms. In addition to these provisions a new clause is framed to meet the case of charitable donations of w^earing apparel. I t is found t h a t immigrants to this country often receiA-e contributions from their friends abroad of old clothes which are very valuable to them, especially in their first stages of residence in this country, upon which the law now requires the full duty on new clothing to be imposed. This provision is also recommended by the officers of the customs, who are very much embarrassed . by the law as it now stands. No. 28 is intended to permit all baggage and persor al effects which come to this country in transitu to any foreign country to be forwarded to the collector of the port from which they are to be finally exported to the place of destination. Much inconvenience will be thus avoided. No. 29 is intended to provide for the entry of go^ds by persons holding indorsed bills of lading, and by the underwriters in case of the abandonment of goods which they may have insured. Great embarrassment is found to exist from the present limitations of the law t h a t entries shall be made only by the consignee named in the bill of lading. No. 30 allows the Secretary of the Treasury to dispense with triplicate invoices and consular certificates in any case where they are not required for the determination of the dutiable value of goods. Triplicate invoices and consular certificates in cases where the value o f t h e merchandise does not exceed $100 are abolished. Authority is given to the^ Secretary o f t h e Treasury to regulate such invoices and certificates in such manner as the public interest may require. No. 31 abolishes what are known as custom-house oaths, and all fees which are exacted for the transaction of custom-house business. These have long been the subject of complaint. There is no reason why they should be preserved as a source of revenue, and their abolition will be a great saving of time and comfort to the business interests of the country. This reform is demanded b y t h e leading commercial 12 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. organizations, and will be welcomed with great satisfaction by all who have to deal with t h e Government. No. 32 extends the drawback now allowed by law on articles wholly manufactured of imported materials, so as to cover t h e whole amount of d u t y p a i d . As t h e law now stands, m some cases, 90 per cent, is returned, and in other cases 99 per cent. There is a general demand, however, for relief from these duties, and as w^e.desire to encourage the exportation of goods manufactured in this country, and as t h e cost of refunding t h e duties is slight, t h e committee have finally concluded'to recommend repayment in full, by way,of drawback, of all such duties. ^ No. .33 is intended to provide against j u s t complaints under existing law in regard to t h e final liquidation and payment of duties. As t h e law now stands, cases may be reopened a t any time within one year, and the merchant finds himself compelled to make payments to t h e Government long after t h e goods have been sold and gone into consumption. The proposed legislation limits the reopenijig to cases of fraud and of error pointed out at the timie of t h e final liquidation of the entry. No. 34 deals with the allowance for damage to imported merchandise in t h e course of transportation. The Department recommends the abolition of all damage allowances. The merchants have called for t h e same legislation. There are difficulties, however, in framing a section which will meet all cases. T h e committee propose a compromise which will relieve t h e difficulties arising out of damages to perishable wares and merchandise, by t h e total abolition of such allowances, giving, however, to t h e importer t h e right to abandon to t h e Governmient all, or any portion, exceeding 10 per cent., of such goods, wares, and merchandise. The effect of this provision will be to prevent great annoyance and entirely to bring to an end t h e frauds which i t is alleged are perpetrated, even with the most rigid oversight, by unjust allowances in t h e nature of damage to imported goods. The committee have, by no means exhausted the catalogue of difficulties arising out o f t h e operations o f t h e tariff act ofMarch 3, 1883; but.the measure now proposed, if promptlv enacted, will relieve much o f t h e embarrassment of administration, and d i minish t h e litigation which is now impending and promises to encumber t h e courts of law for many years to come. . The committee therefore recommend the passage of t h e bill herewith submitted. (Enclosure No. 1.) [H. E. 7429, Forty-eighth Congress, first sessional I N T H E H O U S E OF REPRKSENTATIVES, J U N E 25, 1884.—Read twice, committed to the Committee ofthe Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. • " ^ • • Mr. ABRAM S . H E W I T T , from t h e Committee on Ways and Means, reported the followiug bill: A BILL to modify existing la^ws relating to duties on iraports and the collection of the revenne. Be it enacted hy the Senate a'^^d'Houseof Bepresentatives of the Uiiited Slates of America m Congress assemhled, That on and after the passage and approval of this act the following amendments, to and provisions for existing laws shall take effect as follows : Section six of t h e act of March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled "An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation, and other purposes," providing a substitute for title thirty-three of t h e Revised Statutes of t h e United States, is hereby amended as to certain ofthe sections and parts of sections or schedules iu substituted title so t h a t they shall be as follows, respectfully : (1.) " S E C . 2491. All persons are prohibited from importing into t h e Uni'ed States from any foreign country any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, adverLisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure or image on or of paper or other material, or auy cast, instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, forthe prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion. No invoice or package whatever, or auy p a r t of one, in which any such articles are contained, shall be admitted to entry ; and all invoices and packages whereof any such articles shallcompose a part are liable to be proceeded against, seized, and forfeited by due course of law. All such prohibited articles in t h e course of importation shall be detained b y the officer of customs, and proceedings taken against t h e same as prescribed in the foUowing section : Provided, That the drugs hereinbefore mentioned, when imported in bulk and uot p u t up for any of the purposes hereinbefore specified, are excepted fromthe operation of this sectiou : And provided further, That i f i t be shown to t h e satisfaction of t h e collector of customs and the naval officer (if there be one) t h a t such prohibited articles were put intp such packages by accident or innocent design, t h e remaining portion of t h o goods covered by t h e invoice shall be admitted to entry." REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 13 (2.) " SEC. 2499. On all articles manufactured from two or more materials, not otherwise enumerated or provided for in the schedules of duties in this title, the duty shall be assessed at the hiefhest rate at AA-hich t h e component material of chief value may be chargeable; and t h e words 'component material of chief v a l u e ' shall mean the component of principal cost in t h e article ; and if any nourenumerated articles resemble those ou t h e 'free-list,' and in the manufacture of such articles no dutiable materials are used, they shall be free of duty." (3.) SEC. 2502. SCHEDULE A—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS.—Strike out from this schedule the words "distilled spirits containing fifty per centum of anhydrous alcohol, one dollar per gallon;" also strike out t h e words "alcohol containing ninety-four per centum anhydrous alcohol, two dollars per gallon."—[Tariff, paragraphs 101,102,103.] SCHEDULE B—EARTHENWARE AND GLASSWARE.—The t e n t h clause of this schedule, relating to " green and colored glass bottles," and so forth, is hereby amended so t h a t it shall be as follows :• (4.) "Green and colored glass bottles, vials, demijohns, and carboys (covered or uncovered), pickle or preserve jars, and other plain, molded, or pressed green and colored bottle glass, not cut, engraved, or painted, and not especially enumerated or provided for in this act, one cent per p o u n d ; if tilled, and not otherwise in this act provided for, and the contents are subject to an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty based on their value, t h e value of such bottles, vials, or other vessels shall be added to the value of the contents for t h e ascertainment of t h e dutiable value of t h e latter; but if filled, and not otherwise provided for, and t h e contents are not subject to an ad valorem duty or to a rate of duty based on their value, they shall pay a duty of one cent perpound in addition to the duty, if any, on their contents."—[Tariff, paragraph 133. ] The eleventh clause of this schedule, relating to "flint and lime glass bottles," and so forth, is hereby amended so t h a t i t shall be as follows:—[Tariff', paragraph 134.] " F l i n t and lime glass bottles and vials, and other plain, molded, or pressed flint or lime glassware, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, forty per centum ad valorem; if filled, and not otherwise in this act providedfor, a n d t h e contents are subject to an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty based on their value, the value of such flint or lime glass bottles or vials, or other vessels of like material above provided for, shall be added to t h e value o f t h e contents for the ascertainment of the dutiable value of t h e l a t t e r ; b u t if filled, and not otherwise provided for, and t h e contents are not subject t o an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty based on their value, they shall pay a duty of forty per centum ad valorem in addition to t h e duty, if any, on their contents." SCHEDULE C—METALS.—Strike out the last clause of this schedule, relating to "manufactures, articles, or wares not specially enumerated or provided for," and insert in lieu thereof t h e following: (5.) ''Manufactures, articles, or wares not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in p a r t of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other inetal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem: Provided, That nothing in this clause shall afiect the rate of duty hereinbefore provided for manufactures of copper, or of which copper shall be the component of chief value."—[Tariff, paragraphs 186,216.] SCHEDULE F—TOBACCO.—Strike out from this schedule the second clause, relating to " leaf-tobacco," and in lieu thereof insert the following: {6.) " Leaf-tobacco, of t h e requisite size and of the necessary fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more than one hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound, if not stemmed, seventy-five cents per pound; if stemmed, one dollar per p o u n d : Provided, That so much of any package of such tobacco as may be so broken as not to be suitable for wrappers shall pay a duty of thirty-five cents per ^ pound."—[Tariff, paragraph 246.] SCHEDULE G — P R O V I S I O N S . — s t r i k e out t h e clause in this schedule relating t o " vegetables in their n a t u r a l state or in salt or brine," and insert in lieu thereof the following: (7.) " Vegetables, such as beets, peas, beans, and t h e like, in their natural state, * whether green or dried or in salt or brine, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, and garden seeds, not edible, except seed of t h e sugar-beet, t e n per "^ centum ad valorem.'?—[Tariff, paragraphs 286, 465, 760.] SCHEDULE J — H E M P , J U T E , AND F L A X GOODS.—Strike out t h e eighth clause in this schedule, commencing with the words "brown-and bleached linens," and insert in lieu thereof t h e following : (8.) " Textile fabrics of flax, j u t e , or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp shall be t h e component material of chief value, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraph 334.] SCHEDULE K.—Strike out t h e fourteenth clause of this schedule, relating to "women's and children's dress goods," and in lieu thereof insert t h e following : (9.)" Women's and children's dress goods, coat linings, and Italian cloths, composed iu part of wQpij woystocl, tk^ Wn' ol tb^ alpg-ca^ goat^ pf otjioy animals^ valii^ft ^t 14 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. not exceeding twenty cents per square yard, ^ve cents per square yard, a n d i n addition thereto thirty-five per centum ad valorem; valued at above twenty cents per square yard, seven cents per square yard, and forty per centum ad valorem; if composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of a mixture of them, niue cents per square yard and forty per centum ad valorem; but all such goods with selvedges, made wholly or in part of other materials, or with threads of other materials introduced for the purpose of changing the classification, shall be dutiable at nine cents per square yard and forty per centum ad valorem: Provided, That all such goods weighing over four ounces per square yard shall pay a duty of thirty-five cents per pound and forty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraphs 365a to 365f. ] (10.) Strike out from tliis schedule the sixteenth clause, relating to "cloaks, dolmans, jackets, talmas, ulsters," and so forth, whicn clause is hereby repealed.—[Tariff, paragraphs 366, 367.] SCHEDULE N.—Strike out the seventh clause of this schedule, relating to " bonnets, h a t s , and hoods," and so forth, and insert in lieu thereof the following: (11.) "Bonnets, hats, and hoods for men, women, and children, composed of hair, whalebone, or any vegetable material, and not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraph 406.] Strike out the clause of this schedule, commencing with the words " h a t s , and so forth, materials for," and insert in lieu thereof the following: (12.) " H a t s , materials for: Braids, plaits, flats, willow sheets and squares, for use in making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, hair, whalebone, or any vegetable material, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff", paragraph 448.] (13.) Strike out the clause of this schedule commencing with the words " g a r d e n seeds," which clause is hereby repealed.—[Tarifi", paragraph 465.] Strike out the clause of this scbedule relating to " linseed or flaxseed," and insert in lieu thereof the following: (14.) " Linseed or flaxseed, twentj^ cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds; and a drawback on linseed-cake mauufactured wholly from imported seed shall be allowed, uuder such regulations as shall be prescribed b}^ the Secretary of the Treasury."—[Tariff", paragraph 466.] (15.) Strike oht the last clause b u t one of this schedule, relating to " watches," and so forth, and insert in lieu thereof the following:—[Tariff, paragraph 494.] " W a t c h e s , watch-cases, watch-movements, parts of watches, watch-glasses, and watch-keys, whether separately packed or otherwise, and watch materials not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem." (lb.) Strike out the last clause in this schedule, relating to "webbing,", and insert in lieu .thereof the following: " W e b b i n g composed of cotton or flax, or of a mixture of these materials, and not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem."— [Tariff, paragraph 495.] THE FREE LIST. (17.) SEC. 2503. [Substituted for sec. 2505, R. S.] Strike out the clause in this section commencing with t h e words "articles the growth, produce, and manufacture of t h e United States," and insert in lieu thereof, the following: "Articles t h e growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States, when returned after having been exported. Without having been advanced in value by any process of manufacture or by labor thereon. Casks, barrels, carboys, bags, and other vessels of American manufacture exported filled with American products, or exported empty and returned filled with foreign products, including shooks when returned as barrels or boxes; b u t proof of the identity of such articles shall be made, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and if any of such articles are subject to internal t a x at t h e time of exportation, such t a x shall be proved to havebeen paid before exportation, aud not refunded: Provided, T h a t this clause shall * not include any article upon which an allowance of drawback has been made."— [Tarifi", paragraphs 649a to 649d.] (18.) Add to t h e clause in this section relating to "soap-stocks" so t h a t the clause as amended will read as follows: "Soap-stocks, fit only for use as such."—[Tariff, paragraph 790.] (19.) SEC. 2. Thatsection seven o f t h e act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled "An act to reduce jnternal-revenue taxation, and for other purposes/' is hereby amended so t h a t it shall be as follows: " S E C . 7. That sections twenty-nine huudred and seven and twenty-nine hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes ofthe United States, and section fourteen of the act eni!itled 'An act to amend the customs-rovenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, be, and the same are thereby, repealed; and hereafter none of xih^ charges imposed by said sections shall REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 15 be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported, but the dutiable value of imported goods shall be their actual market value or wholesale price, in t h e condition i n which they are ready to be packed for shipment to the United States in the principal markets of the country whose markets determine the dutiable value ; a n d from the dutiable value thus determined there shallbe a deduction of one per centum to cover the cost of transportation and p a c k i n g : " Provided, however, That if there be used for covering or holding imported merchandise any material or article which, if imported separately would be subject t o a higher rate of duty t h a n the merchandise contained therein, the whole invoice shall be subject to t h e higher rate of duty, unless the dutiable value of t h e merchandise, and of the article or inaterial wherein i t is contained, shall b e separately stated, i n which case the duties shall be assessed and collected on each separately a t t h e rates prescribed by l a w ; and in order to determine the comparative rates of duty specific duties shaU, whenever necessary, be converted into the corresponding ad valorem rates by calculation: And provided further, That nothing in this act, except as provided in section eleven of this act, shall impair or affect existing provisions of law in regard to allowances for damage on merchandise on t h e voyage of importation, and that, subject t o t h e restrictive provisions of this section and of section eleven, duties shall n o t be assessed upon an amount less t h a n the invoice or entered value of the merchandise." (20.)' SEC. 3. T h a t section eight of the act of March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled " A n act to reduce internal-revenue taxation, and for other purp o ^ s , " amending section twenty-eight hundred and forty-one o f t h e Revised Statutes of t h e United States, is hereby further amended so t h a t said section of t h e Revised Statutes shall be as follows: " SEC. 2841. Whenever merchandise imported into the United States is entered by invoice, one of thefollowing declarations, according to the nature of the case, shall be filed with t h e collector of the port, a t the time of entry, by the owner, importer, consignee, or agent: Provided, T h a t if any of the invoices or bills of lading of any merchandise imported in any one vessel, which should otherwise be embraced in said entry,, have not been received a t the date of the entry, the declaration may state the fact, and thereupon such merchandise of which the invoices or bills of lading are not produced shall not be included in such entry, b u t may be entered subsequently: " D E C L A R A T I O N O F C O N S I G N E E , IMPORTER, OR AGENT. u j^ -_—^ ^Q solemnly and truly declare t h a t the invoice and bill of lading now presented b y me to t h e collector of are the true and only invoice and bill of lading by me received of all the goods, wares, and merchandise imported in t h e — , whereof -.— is master, from , for account of any person whomsoever for whom I am authorized t o enter t h e same; t h a t the said invoice and bill of lading are in the state in which they were actually received by me, and t h a t I do not know nor believe in the existence of any other invoice or bill of lading of the said goods, wares, and merchandise; t h a t the entry now delivered to the collector contaihs a j u s t and true account of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, according to t h e said invoice and bill of lading; t h a t nothing has been, on my part, nor, to my knowledge, on the p a r t of any other person, concealed or suppressed, wherel)y the United States may be defrauded of any part of the duty lawfully due on t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise; t h a t t h e said invoice and the declaration therein are in all respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purportsfcohave been made, .and t h a t if a t any time hereafter I discover any error in t h e said invoice, or in the account now rendered of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive a n y other invoice of t h e same, I will immediately make the same known to the collector of this district. And I do further solemnly and truly declare t h a t t o the best of my knowledge and belief [insert the name and residence of the owner or owners] is [or are] the owner [or owners] of t h e goods, wares, and merchandise mentioned i n the annexed e n t r y ; t h a t the invoice now produced by me exhibits t h e actual cost [if purchased] or fair market value [if otherwise obtained], a t t h e time or times a n d place or places when or where procured [as the case may be], of t h e said goods, wares, anB merchandise, including all cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition, and no other or different discount, bounty, or drawback b u t such as has been actually allowed on t h e same. "DECLARATION OP OWNER I N CASES W H E R E MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PURCHASED. " I, , do solemnly and truly declare t h a t t h e entry now delivered by me to t h e collector of contains a just and t r u e account of all t h e goods, wares, and merchandise imported by or consigned to me, in t h e ;, whereof is master, fron^ j t h a t the invoice wJ4ch I now produce contains a just and f aittj.- 16 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ful account of the actual cost of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, including aU cost of finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition, and no other discount, drawback, or bounty but such as has been actually allowedon the same ; t h a t I do not know or believe in t h e existence of any invoice or bill of lading other t h a n those now produced by me, and t h a t they are in the state in which I actually received them. And I further solemnly and truly declare t h a t I have not in t h e said entry or invoice concealed or suppressed anything whereby the United States may be defrauded'of any part of t h e duty lawfully due on the said goods, wares, and merchandise; that the said invoice and the declaration thereon are in all respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purports to have been made, and t h a t if at any time hereafter I discover any error in the said invoice or in t h e account now produced of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive any other invoice of the same, I will immediately inake t h e same known to t h e collector of this district. " D E C L A R A T I O N O F M A N U F A C T U R E R O R O W N E R I N CASES WHERE MERCHANDISE HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY PURCHASED. " I, — , , do solemnly and truly declare t h a t the entry now delivered by me to the collector of contains a just and true account of all the goods, wares, and merchandise imported by or consigned to me in the , whereof ^ is master, from ; t h a t the said goods, wares, and merchandise were not actually bought by me, or by my agent, in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, but t h a t nevertheless the invoice which I now produce contains a j u s t and faithful valuation of the same, at their fair market-value, at the time or times and place or places when and where procured for my accouut [or for account of myself or partners] ; t h a t the said invoice contains also a just and faithful account of all the cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition, and no other discount, drawback, or bounty but such as has been actually allowed on the said goods, wares, and merchandise; t h a t the said invoice and the declaration thereon are in all respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purports to have been made ; t h a t I do not know nor believe in the existence of any invoice or bill of lading other t h a n those now produced by me, and t h a t they are in the state in which I actually received them. And I do further solemnly and truly declare t h a t I have not in the said entry or invoice concealed or suppressed anything whereby the United States may be defrauded of any part ofthe duty lawfully due on the said goods, wares, and merchandise, and t h a t if at any time hereafter I discover any error in the said invoice, or in the account now produced of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive any other invoice of the same, I will immediately make t h e same knowii to t h e collector of this district," ^ . (21.) SEC. 4. That any person who shall knowingly make any false or untrue statement in the declarations herein provided for, or shall a i d e r procure the making of any such false statement as to any matter material thereto, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be xjonished by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more t h a n fiveyears. SEC. 5. That sections twenty-nine hundred and seventy and twenty-nine hundred and eighty-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby amended so t h a t the same shall be, respectively, as follows: (22.) " S E C . 2970. Any merchandise deposited in bond in any public or private bonded warehouse may be withdrawn for consumption within three years from the date of original importation, on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law a t the time of such withdrawal: Provided, That nothing herein shall affect or impair existing provisions of law in regard to the disposal of perishable or explosive articles." " / ' (23.) " SEC. 2983. I n no case shall there be any abatement of the duties or allowance made for any injury, damage, or deterioration sustained by any merchandise while deposited in a n j public or private bonded warehouse: Provided, That the duty assessed on merchandise withdrawn from any such warehouse shall be assessed oii the quantity withdrawn therefrom at t h e time of such w i t h d r a w a l ; b u t no greater allowance for leakage or evaporation of wines, liquors, and distilled spirits shall be made t h a n is or may be allowed by law on doniestic spirits or wines iia b o n d : And provided further, T h a t nothing in this section as amended shall restrict or in any way affect the liability of the proprietors of bonded warehouses on their bonds : And provided further. That nothing herein shall restrain or limit the exercise of t h e authority conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury by section twenty-nine hundred and eighty-four of the Revised Statutes." SEC. 6. That sections twenty-seven hundred and seventy, twenty-seven hundred ^ud ninety-^ine^ twe^ty-'^ight I;i;n(^4^9d^ tiW^nty-eight hundred an4 one, twenty-eight REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 17 hundred and three, and three thousand and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes be amended to read as follows: (24.) " S E C . 2770. I t shall n o t b e lawful to make entry of any vessel which shall arrive within the United States from any foreign port, or of the cargo on board! such vessel, elsewhere t h a n at one of the ports of entry designated in chapter one of this title, nor to unlade the cargo, or any part thereof, elsewhere than at one ofthe ports of delivery therein designated, except t h a t in cases of cargoes in bulk tbe collector may, by special permit, allows the same to be unladed at any point in his collection district, to be designated, under the supervision of an inspector of customs, on payment by the importer ofthe necessary expenses of such inspector, and the United States appraiser and gauger or measurer, as the case may b e : Provided, That every port of entry shall be also a port of delivery. This section shall not prevent the master or commander of any vessel from making entry with the collector of any district in which such vessel may be owned, or from which she may have sailed on the voyage from which she shall then have returned. ^ (25.) " SEC. 2799. In order to ascertain what ariicles ought to be exempted as the wearing apparel, personal and household efiects, libraries and parts of libraries in use, professional books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or employment, and other personal baggage of persons who arrive in the United States, due entry or declaration thereof as of merchandise, but separate and distinct from t h a t of any other merchandise imported from a foreign port, shall be made with the collector of the district in which the articles are intended to be landed, b y t h e owner thereof or his agent, specifying the persons by whom or for whom such entry is made, and particularizing the several packages and their contents, with their marks and numbers; and the person who shall make t h e entry or declaration shall take and subscribe an oath before the collector, declaring t h a t the entry subscribed by him, and to which t h e oath is annexed, contains, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a just and true account of the contents of the several packages mentioned in the entry, specifying the name of the vessel, of her master, and of the port from which she has arrived, and that such packages contain no merchandise whatever other than the articles.which are free from duty as specified above; that they are all the property of a person named, who has arrived or is expected to arrive in the United States within one year, and are not directly or indirectly imported for any other or intended for sale. (26.) " SEC. 2800. Whenever the person making entry of any a,rticles free from duty,. as specified in the preceding section, is not t h e owner of them, he shall give bond, with one or more sureties, to t h e satisfaction of the collector, in a sum equal to the duties on like articles imported subject to duty, upon t h e condition t h a t t h e owner of the articles shall, within one year (but within three months of his arrival in the TJnited States), personally made an oath such as is prescribed in the preceding sec tion. (27.) " S E C . 2801. On compliance with the two preceding sections, and not otherwise, a permit shall be granted for landing such articles. But whenever the collectoi thinks proper he may direct the bagga.ge of any person arriving within the United States to be examined by the surveyor o f t h e port, or by au inspector of the^customs, who shall make a return o f t h e same, and if any articles are contained therein which in the opinion o f t h e collector ought not to be exempted from duty, due entry of them shall be made, and the duties thereon paid : Provided, That charitable donations ol wearing apparel shall be exempt from duty on production of.evidence satisfactory to the collector and to the nayal officer (if any) t h a t the same are in good faith imported for the relief or aid of indigent or needy persons Who are residents o f t h e United States, and not for sale ;~but this exemption shall apply only when such donated wearing apparel is old and worn, and the value thereof in any one importation does not, in the judgment of the United States appraiser, exceed''one hundred dollars. (28.) " SEC. 2803. Any baggage or personal effects arriving in the United States in transit to any foreign country may be delivered by the parties having it in charge to the collector of the proper district, to be by him retained, without the payment or exaction of any import duty, or to be forwarded by such collector to the collector of the port of departure, and to be delivered to such parties on their departure for their foreign destination, under such rules, regulations, and fees as t h e Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. (29.) " S E C . 3058. All merchandise imported into the United States shall, for the purpose of this title, be deemed and held to be the property of the person to whom the merchandise may be consigned; but the holder of any bill of lading consigned to order and propej^ly indorsed sball be deemed the consignee thereof; and in case of the abandonment of any merchandise to the underwriters, the latter shall be held to be the consignee." ' (30.) SEC. 7. That authority is hereby given to the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, to dispense whenever expedient with the triplicate invoices and consular certificates now required by sections tw^enty-eight hundred and fifty-three, H . E x . 2—VOL 11 2 18 R E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. twenty-eight hundred and fifty-four, and twenty-eight hundred and fifty-five of the Revised Statutes of the United States; and triplicate invoices and consular certificates shall in no case be required wh' n the value of the merchandise included in the invoice does not exceed one hundred dollars; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and reqt^ested to make- such regulations in-regard to invoices and consular certificates as in his judgm;^nt the public interest may require. (.31.) SEC. 8. That all fees exacted and oaths administered by officers of the customs, under or by virtue of existing laws of the United States, upon the entry of imported goods and the passing thereof through the customs, and also upon all entries of domestic goods, wares, and merchandise for exporta.tion, be, and the same are hereby, abolished: Provided, T h a t where such fees, under existing laws, constitute, in wliole or in part, the Compensation of any officer, such officer shall receive, from and" after the passage of this act, a fixed sum for each year equal to the amount of such compensation received by him for the fiscal year ended J u n e thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, or a proportionate amount for any part of a year. SEC. 9. That section three tho'Usand and nineteen of the Revised Statutes be amended so that it will read : (32.) " S E C . 3019. There shall be allowed on all articles wholly manufactured of materials imported, on which duties have been paid, when exported, a drawback equal in amourit to the duty paid on such inaterials, and no more, to be ascertained under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and all provisions of law inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." (33.) SEC. 10. That after entries of goods shall be finally passed the decision of a collector of customs fixing the rate and amount of duty on any given importation of merchandise shall be final and conclusive upon the (Government, except in case of fraud, and upon all others beneficially interested therein, unless protest and appeal are taken and suit is commenced in t h e manner and under the conditions prescribed by section twenty-nine hundred and thirty-one o f t h e Revised Statutes ofthe United States: Provided, however, That the final ascertainment and statement of duties on t h e import entry, and not the payment thereof, shall be regarded as the liquidation, and t h a t after protest or appeal in any case the entry may be reliquidated by the collectdr for error; and all protests lodged before liquidation shall be void. (34.) SEC. 11. That section twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended by the addition o f t h e following words thereto : " N o allowances for damage to fruits or other perishable goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the-United States shall hereafter be allowed in the estimation of duties thereon, except as to seeds, and such other commodities as in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury do not admit of convenient separation by package or piece ; but the imx3orter thereof may abandon to the Government all or any portion of goods, wares, and merchandise of the character last mentioned included in any invoice, and be-relieved from the paymentof the duties on the portion so abandoned: Provided, That the portion so abandoned shall amount to ten per centum or over of . the total value of the invoice." No. 5. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , March 16,1886. S I R : The iucessant pressure of the current business of this Department, as well as antecedent applications from committees of one or the other of the two Houses of Congress, have prevented an earlier reply to your communication of February 13,1886, covering House bill No. 5010. There has also been delay growing out of a more or less complete examination of the statutes which bill Ko'. 5010 proposes to modify or repeal. That bill is similar to H. E. 7429, reported by you to the House on June 25,1884, and accompanied by a letter of suggestions from my predecessor, Mr. Folger, dated February 7,1884, in respect to the proposed legislation. Your own clear and concise report then made has left little to be said in explanation of the legislative policy embodied ih the measure. Since, however, you have asked my views thereon, I will frankly express them. If they shall differ from those presented to you by my learned predecessor on February 7, 1884, the difference will be referable to changed conditions of administration and fresh difficulties encountered by this Department. - REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURYO 19 I will with your permission refer to the bill (5010) in the order of the aiiK^ndments proposed therein, designating them by sections, and then offer the additional suggestions in regard t o t h e immediate need of a thorough tariff revision to which you do me the honor to invite me. SECTION 2491. 0 The purpose of the amendment to section 2491 seems to be the addition of the proviso contained in the last five lines of the section. All of the previous portion of the section is a transcript of the existing law, aud will it not prevent an encumbering of the statute-book to simply declare that the new matter shall be an amendment of section 24911 I have no ineans of measuring any apparent necessity which exists for this amendment. I am not informed of any injustice inflicted by the existing law. Is it intended that ^^ such prohibited articles^^ shall refer to all the articles now prohibited by section 2491, or only to the '-' drugs" described in the proviso of the existing section % Will it not prevent misinterpretation of the new proviso to say ^"-any of such prohibited articles" instead of ^^ such prohibited articles^''? As the articles must be imported articles, ahd must have been put into packages in a foreign country, and presumably with the intention of sending them hither, it is difficult to imagine circumstances'under which the prohibited articles could be putinpackages *'by accident or innocent desi^n,'^ unless it shall be that the prohibited articles were put in packages with the intention of sending them elsewhere than to the IJnited States. If the prohibited articles are exhibited on an invoice, neither the invoice nor the package can, by the body of the section, be admitted to entry, and if not contained on the invoice, a fair inference would be that the oniission must have been intentional and guilty. If serious injustice and injury to legitimate trade have been the result of section 2491 as it now stands, it should of course be amended, even though the amendment shall put upon the collector and naval officer the inconvenient and embarrassing work of deciding questions of intention. SECTION 2499. The effect of the amendment of section 2499 will be to repeal what is known as the ^^ Similitude section,^^ first enacted in the protective tariff of 1842, and substitute therefor the section contained in the proposed bill. I see no reason why Congress may not limit the plan of 1842 as is suggested by the obvious purpose of the amendment. Does the phrase ^'not otherwise enumerated or provided,^^ in the first two lines of the amen<lment, refer to the first substantive, which is^^ materials," or to the substantive next removed, which is ^^ articles^^% Why shall the law say, in the fourth line of the amendment, ^^ the highest rate," instead of '^the rate"? Is it intended that a distinction shall be made by the customs officers between ^^ chief values^^ and ^^ principal cbst^^^ in line 41?^ There.has been embarrassment in ascertaining the meaning of '^similar." (See Schmeider vs. Barney, Yol. 113, U. S. Eeports, 645.) I fear a like embarrassment in applying the word '^ resemble," in line 42. Eesemblance in wliati The existing section 2499 declares ^^ a similitude either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied." Unless a positive and material advantage is to be thereby gained by the Government, sections like the original 2491 ard inexpedient, inasmuch as they largely increase the l^bor of appraising officers ^nd proniote extremely vexipg questionSo 20 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. SECTION 2502, The opinions expressed by this Department and yourself two years ago in respect to section 2503 hold good now. I do, however, think it most imjjortant, if Congress shall not, during the present session, enact a law creating new schedules covering the ambiguities in the existing law suggested in my communication to the House of Eepresentatives of February 10, 1886, then that ainendatory legislation shall so deal with those ambiguities as to put a stop to protests, appeals, and suits. SECTION 2503, AND DUTIES ON COVERINGS. No criticism of amendments proposed in lines 194 to 219, inclusive, occurs to me. In respect to the perplexities created by the unfortunate seventh section of the law of 1883, I desire tq say that I am more and more impressed every day with the importance of simplifying the things to be done by customs officers, and diminishing as far as possible the estimates and calculations to be made by them in ascertaining market value or dutiable value. The chief object of the G-overnment in arranging and framing the tariff* schedules is, or should be, as I take it, to. obtaiii a certain amount of revenue therefrom. To levy duties upon the foreign value of the coverings of imported merchandise, as coverings, is to increase the duty upon the articles covered. Of course the Government ^ must take care that, under the pretext of " coverings," merchandise is not, as salable merchandise^ brought in free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than that to which it would be liable if invoiced and imported as merchandise. To prevent such evasion of the law is one of the chief difficulties in the way of dealing satisfactorily with ''coverings." Disorder and confusion have come in executing the seventh section of- the law of 1883, because the draughtsman of that section, either nOt being familiar with the statute history and language of the subject, or else intending a radical change, went beyond the mere reduction of duties, and interfered with the pre-existing system for ascertaining dutiable Value. The opinion in Oberteuffer^s case is a pertinent illustration ofthe tendency ofthe courts, when interpreting an ambiguous section of a tariff' law, to examine previous laws in pari materia in order to^^'ascertain the intention of Congress when enacting the section on which the controversy turns. This endeavor to treat laws for the collection of duties as a continuous system, makes apparent the importance of accurate knowledge of that system when making modifications of it. I refer now to the recent opinion in Oberteuff'er's case, because it throws light on framing a new law to meet the difficulties created by the legislation of 1883. We may also be aided, I think, by a brief review of previous legislation to increase the rate and sum oi' duty on an article by declaring that other items besides the foreign value of the article per se shall be dutiable. The fourth section of the law of Aoril 20, 1818, declared: That the ad valorem rates of duty upon goods, wares, and merchandise shall be estimated by adding 20 per cent, to the actual cost thereof if imported from the Cape of Good Hope or from any island, port, or place beyond t h e same, and 10 per cent, on the actual cost thereof if imported from any other place or country, including all charges except commissions, outside paclcages, and insurance. The fifth section of the law of March 1, 1823, declared that— The ad valorem rates of duty upon goods, wares, and merchandise shall be estimated in the manner following: To the actual cost, if the same shall have been actually purcnased, or the actual value, if the same shall have been procured otherwise than by purchase, at the time and place when an^ where purchased or otherwise procured, or to the appraised value, if appraised, shall be added all charges except insurance. * * * And t h e s^id »ates of duty shall b^ estinbated oii such aggregate airiount. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 21 The fifteenth section of the law of July 14, 1832, repeated literally the x)revious section, and it will be observed that the two last-named laws omitted the items "commissions, outside packages," sfjecified in thelaw of 1818. The law of 1832 levied "on salt 10 cents per 56 pounds"; and the question was presented to Chief-Justice Taney (Karthaus vs. Frick Taney's C. C. Decisions, p. 94) whether or not the sacks in which salt was imported were subject to an additional ad valorem duty. It waS/ in evidence that salt was sometimes imported in bulk and some times in sacks. At first, the Treasury Department decided that the bags were merely used as receptacles, like bags containing coffee, or barrels containing liquors, and were not dutiable; but subsequently an ad valorem duty was levied on the bags as manufactures of hemp, in addition to the specific duty charged upon the salt. Chief-Justice Taney ndecided that the sacks were not dutiable, and said that— The material in which merchandise is usually packed for the purpose of secure and convenient transportion has not in general been the subject of a separate impost. When the vessel containing the article is also a subject of commerce the specific duty has been made higher upon the merchandise thus imported in consideration of the valiie of the vessel t h a t contains i t ; but we are not aware of any instance in which a separate ad valorem duty has been levied upon the vessel or receptacle in which it is contained when a specific duty is laid upon the merchandise. i(- • If •» * * * ** If there was any reason for supposing t h a t the salt was packed in bags in order to introduce them as an article of commerce duty free, it would present a very different question. But nothing of t h a t sort is suggested, nor is there t h e least evidence to create a suspicion t h a t anything unfair is intended in this mode of importation. The protective tariff of 1842 declared in the sixteenth section that there— Shall be added all costs and charges Except insurance, and including, in every case, a charge for commissions at the usual rates, as the true value at the port where the same may be entered upon which duties shall be assessed. This law, it will be observed, required "all costs and charges" to be added to the market value excepting the one item of insurance. In this statute the word " costs," as an element of dutiable value, first appears in our tariff' legislation. The eighth section of the revenue tariff law of 1846 enabled the owner to make such additions in the entry to the cost or vaiue given in the invoice as will raise the same to the true market value of such imports in the principal markets of the country whence imported or where produced, which value the appraisers are to ascertain. I t also declared that the person making entry may add " a l l costs and charges which, under existing laws, would form part of the true value at the port where the same may be entered, upon which the duties^shall be assessed," thereby emphasizing the distinction between the market value, which appraising officers are to ascertain, and dutiable value, which the collector is to ascertain by the addition of items to the appraised value which the importer has failed to add on making entry. On November 25, 1846, my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Walker, in a circular letter to customs officers, enumerated and described the costs and charges to be added to market value in order to make dutiable value. It is to be borne in mind that, under the law of 1846, the value of the merchandise at the time of procureonentw2is to be ascertained by the appraisers, and not the value at the time of exportation, as now. The law of March 3, 1851, declared that all merchandise liable to any ad valorem rate of duty shall be appraised at the period of the exportation to the United States, " and to such value, or price, shall be 22 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. added all costs and charges except insurance, and including in every case a charge for commissions at the usual rate." This law gave birth to many most vexing questions, and to so much scandal in administration, that Congress has repeatedly declared, in recent laws appropriating money for the refund of duties illegally exacted, that no payments shall be made in cases known as "charges'and commission cases," unless there be a specific appropriation therefor. . No material change was madeby Congress in respect to additions of items of costs, or charges, to market value, in order to make dutiable value, until the protective tariff* law of 1864, wherein it is declared in the twenty-fourth section— In determining the valuation of goods imported into the United States from foreign countries, except as hereinbefore provided, upon which duties imposed by any existing laws are to be assessed, the actual value of such goods on shiphoard at the last place Of shipment to the United States shall be deemed dutiable value, and such value shall be ascertained by adding to the value of such goods at the place of growth, production, or manufacture (1) thecost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all t h e expenses included from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the Unitecl States, (2) the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained, (3) commission at the usual rate, in no case less than 2^ per centum, (4) brokerage, and (5) all export duties, together with (6) all costs and charges, paid or incurred for placing said goods on shipboard, and (7) all other proper charges specified by law. In this section first appears the phrase "sack, box, or covering of any kind." This section levies the rate fixed for the, article, whether ^ 0 or 75 or 100 per cent., on the package on inland freight, as, for example, from Basle to Havre, and on all the other items specified in that iaw. By the tariff law of March 3, 1865, all of these items mentioned in the previous law of 1864 as eleoaents of dutiable value were swept away, and Congress declared that ad valorem rates shall be levied only on " the actual market value or wholesale price of the merchandise at the period of the exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported." That law of 1865 distinctly declares that " the appraised value shall be considered the value upon which duty shall be assessed." On July 28, 1866, Congress returned to the rule of 1864, when it declared— That in determining the dutiable value of merchandise hereafter imported, there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value a t the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country from whence the same shall have been imported into the United States (1) the cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, wath all the expenses included from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the place in which shipment is made to the United States, (2) the value of the sack, bags, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained, (3) commission at t h e usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half per centum, (4) brokerage, (5) export duty, (6) and all other actual or unusual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment. That law of 1866, making the before-mentioned items a part of the dutiable value, was carried into the Eevised Statntes as sections 2907 and 2908. In the legislation of 1874 known as " t h e anti-moiety law," the fourteenth section dealt with a proviso in this law of 1866 which declared— That all additions made to the entered value of merchandise for charges, shall be regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such addition shall exceed by ten per centum the value so declared in the entry, in addition to the duties imposed b y l a w there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of twenty per centum on such value. \ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 23 I infer that previous to 1874, if an importer had failed to make an addition to his entry in order to cover certain items of dutiable value not set forth in the invoice, proceedings had been taken to forfeit the entry, upon the allegation, under the law of 1863, that the omission to add the items w^asvwith intent to defraud the revenue. Therefore the law of 1874 declared that such omission, unless intentional, shall not be a cause of forfeiture, " b u t in all cases w^here the same, or any part thereof, are omitted it shall be the duty of the collector or appraiser to add the same for the purpose of duty to such invoice or entry, either in items or in gross, at such price or amount as he shall deem just and reasonable, which price or amount shall, in the absence of protest, be conclusive, and to impose and add thereto the further sum of one hundred per centum of the price or amount added, which addition shall constitute a part of the dutiable value of such goods, wares, and merchandise as sball be collectible as provided by law in respect to duties on imports." In other words, if the importer failed to make the addition to his entry the collector or appraiser could add a sum equal to double the amount. Thus the law stood till 1883^ which repealed the laws of 1866^ and 1874, which I have collated, and declared that— ^ Hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections, or any other provisions of existing law, shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods t o b e imported, nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering of any kind be estimated as part of their value in determining the amount of duties for which they are liable. What is the history of this seventh section of the law of 1883, and why was it enacted ^ Its origin can be found in the doings of the Tariff* Commission of 1882. The Commissioners interrogated assistant appraisers and examiners at the port of New York in respect to the practical working of sections 2907 and 2908 of the Eevised Statutes. Mr. McMullen, who is now the appraiser at New York, testified: I would like to say something in regard to charges and commissions. That is a very annoying thing in regard to t h e invoice. I.think it would be better to abandon the items altogether, or add a charge for them to the duty. I think 3 per cent, would about cover the present charges and commissions as they average. Assistant Appraiser Headley testified: I would strike out all charges and commissions. Duties are assessed upon merchandise, and the charges and commissions are claimed to be necessary expenses. So a man's trip to Europe to purchase the goods is a necessary expense, and a great many other things are iiecessary expenses in connection with t h a t purchase which would affect the value of the merchandise. I t strikes me t h a t t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f duty would be collected, and t h e revenue protected just as well, by adding a little more to th6 rate of duty and leave out the commissions and charges. Assistant Appraiser Hoyt testified: The amount of charges is subject to our appraisement as well as the intrinsic value of the articles themselves. Some of the goods in my line (worsted dress-goods) are purchased in paper boxes, and t h e appraisers of these difi'erent classes of merchandise know when they are included in the price of the goods themselves. If you buy a dozen pairs of stockings here in a carton, you pay for the carton when you pay for t h e stockings, and take i t with you. Throughout Europe t h a t is t h e usual way of buying these goods. I n England they usually make an additional charge for t h e carton. Parties may put F . 0. B. on their invoices ivhen the facts donH warrant it, and that is another point ive cannot always determine. I would recommend an additional 5 per cent, to be p u t on to cover all charges and commissions. Assistant Appraiser Auerbach testified: We experience great difficulty in t h e niatter of determining the charges to be added in making up the dutiable value of goods. I remember one case where an invoice of Japanese goods could not be ^liquidated for some months, because it was impossible to determine the question in regard to an insurance item on the invoice, whether i t meant marine insurance or fire insurance. 24 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Mr. Marshall Field, an importer residing in Chicago, testified : I am of the opinion t h a t the duty should be entirely abolished on all packing charges, shipping charges, brokerages, and commissions. In other words, I believe that the dutiable value should be the wholesale price of the goods at the actual market in which they are purchased. The compulsory addition of these petty charges yields no cousiderable revenue and entails incessant annoyance on the importers. Mr. Hall, collector at Milwaukee, testified: The revenue derived from the duty on these charges is very slight, but it costs more to collect it t h a n it is worth. I should be in favor of abolishing the whole thing. Let the man pay on what his goods cost him, and do away with all fictitious costs and charges. A careful examination of the rejjort made to the House by the Tariff Commission on December 4, 1882, will throw additional light on this subject. On page 9 the Commissioners said: Perhaps t h e most important and radical change recommended is the repeal of the sections of the existing law requiring the addition of inland transportation, costs, and charges to the basis of an ad valorem duty. Although the repeal of these sections will efi'ect a large reduction in duties, especially on bulky goods, such repeal was strongly recommended both by custom-house experts and importers as a measure, of relief from the greatest source of annoyance in the liquidation of duties on imported merchandise. On page 13 the subject is again referred to in especial relation to the rate of duty on earthenware, and the Commission say that it has not advised any change of the rate on earthenware and common stoneware, because^— Notwithstanding the proposed abolition of the duties on packages,, charges and commissions, it is believed t h a t the old rates will afi'ord a reasonable 'protection to the manufacture here. On more expensive earthenware, and on porcelain, the Commission did, however, recommend an increase of duty, but extenuated the increase by saying that it would be— ^ ' Largely more apparent t h a n real, as it will be observed that the proposed abolition of duties upon packages, inland freights, charges and commissions, afi'ects this species of earthenware in general use perhaps more seriously than any other article embraced in the tariff* schedules. In allusion (page 41) to its proposed repeal of sections 2907 and 2908, of the Eevised Statutes, the Tariff Commission say: The result of the repeal of these sections would be a reduction, especially on t h e coarser and more bulky fabrics, of a considerable portion of the present duties, amounting, as we believe, in some instances, to nearly if not quite one-fourth; while on the finer and more highly priced goods the reduction will be much less. In the projet of a law submitted to Congress by the Commission, it will be seen (page 91) that the Commission contented itself with a simple recommendation that sections 2907 and 2908 ofthe Eevised Statutes be repealed. No allusion was there made to section 14 of the law of 1874. Perhaps it was a perception of this omission of a repeal of the lastnamed section which inspired the declaration by Congress in 1883 not only that ''none of the charges imposed by said sections, or auy other provisions of existing law, shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported," but that " t h e value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind" shall not be considered by the appraisers in determining the amount of duties for which the goods contained therein shall be liable. I do not now express an opinion whether or not the legal effect of the language finally used in 1883 has been different from the policy intended by the advice given to the Tariff Commission by the apprais- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 25 ing officers at New^'York, qr frjom the advice which the Tariff Commission gave to Congress. I t is, however, plain to see that it will be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for appraising officers to ascertain, as a fact, the foreign market value of an article in a condition in which, as a fact it is seldom, or never sold, or bought in the market. If the final controlling purpose in 1883, in dealing with coverings, was to adjust the tariff to the one industry in New Jersey of earthenware, the lesson has been a severe and should be a healthy one. It was most natural that my learned x^i'edecessor, Mr. Folger, when called on to execute that law, should have felt that Oongress having, as the Supreme Court concedes, left section 2706 of the Eevised Statutes standing and untouched, did not intend to require appraising officers in ascertaining the market value of a paper of pins to separate the value of the pins from the value of the labor of sticking the pins into paper, and of the value of the paper* But, as 1 have already said, the severe lesson will not have been in vain if we shall be thereby taught that we cannot safely, in legislating on the tariff*, and in framing a section touching every industry as does this seventli section, fix our eyes too intently on one industry. If the consumers, for whom prices have been enhanced by the duties unlawfully levied on coverings, could have the refunds paid to them, the evil would be more tolerable, but the protected industry got the benefit of the duties levied, the importer was reimbursed by the consumer, and now the refund will entirely go to the importer, or foreign manufacturer, and their custom-house brokers and attorneys at law, in this country, to say nothing of the labor and expense thrown on this Government. And yet I am far from advising, or wishing, that the revising hand of the courts shall be removed from decisions' of customs officers and this Department in respect, to commercial designations and rates. The law of 1883 makes no specific allusion to 'appraisements, except in the ninth section, whereby it is clearly implied: "That the true and actual market value and wholesale price shall be ascertainedjby appraising officers as provided by previous laws." Indeed in that section it is distinctly said that in ascertaining the value of merchandise whereof there do not appear to have been sales in open market, "it sliall then be lawful to appraise the same by ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of maniifacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise / o r shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and mercha,ndise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained.^'' It may be said that this clause contains a provision for an exceptional case, which is where market value cannot be otherwise ascertained„but it cannot be denied that, in such a case, all the expense of preparing the merchandise "for shipment" is to be included iai order to make dutiable value. It will be observed .that the Supreme Court in its opinion in Oberteuff'er^s case distinctly declared that section 2906 of the Eevjsed Statutes stands unrepealed and untouched by the law of 1883. This section declared that when an ad valorem rate of duty is imposed the collector shall cause the actual market value or wholesale . price thereof at the period of the exportation to be appraised, and such appraised value shall be considered the value upon which duty shall be assessed. •^ When I came to the Department the effect of the seventh section of the law of 1883 on all this antecedent legislation to which I have referred had been decided by my predecessors. The common law 26 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. of departmental administration, and the law of March 3, 1875, saying " that no ruling or decision once made by the Secretary of the Treasury giving construction to any law imposing customs duties shall be reversed or modified adversely to the United States by the same or a succeeding Secretary, excepting in concurrence with an opinion ofthe Attorney-General recommending the same, or a judicial decision of a circuit or district court of the United States conflicting with such ruling or decision and from which the Attorney-General shall certify that no appeal will be taken by the United States," had placed a restraint on the free exercise of my discretion in giving an interpretation to the law of 1883 diff'ering from that which had been given. A different decision by me even in regard to current importations would necessarily have had a bearing on questions which had gone into litigation. We have been warned by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court that a reference to these laws to which I have called attention is necessary in the preparation of a substitute for the seventh section of the law of 1883, if the substitute is not to plunge importers, this Department, the courts, and Congress into still greater perplexity. Under all the laws previous to 1864 the market value was first ascertained by the appraisers, and then an addition to the market value was made either h j the appraising officer, or by the collector, of the specified, items. And if by the appraiser, then the inclusion of the items was made not in the ascertainment of market value, but as an arithmetical addition of certain specified items to the market value. Does not the, law of March 3, 1865, yield light for guidance now if Congress shall decide that none of ihe items for commissions, brokerage, cost of transportation, coverings, or other charges specified in the laws of 1864 and 1866 shall hereafter be dutiable^ That law of 1865 was cou^prehensive in sweeping away all such additions to market value. That law of 1865 was carefully considered by Mr, Justice Clifford (1868) in Cobb vs. Hamlin (Internal Eevenue Eecord, vol. 8, I). 128). The question in that case was whether or not oranges and lemons having been purchased in the foreign market in bulk, but subsequently put into boxes for preservation and convenience in shipping, the actual market value thereof, within the meaning of the law of 1865, included the cost of the boxes, or only the cost of the merchandise in bulk. Mr. Justice Clifford declared that he entertained no doubt that the words "actual market value" included the cost of the box, package, or covering in all cases where the merchandise in question was actually purchased and was usually purchased in the box and sold for shipment in the foreign market, and where the price included the box, package, or covering, as well as the goods mentioned therein. But he decided that, as in the case in question, the oranges had been purchased in bulk, the boxes were not dutiable. I commend the language used in the act of 1865 and the decision of Mr. Justice Clifford to your consideration -as one way out of our present difficulty. If Congress shall decide to adopt the policy there outlined, then administration will be for the appraising officers much easier, inasmuch as market value will be ascertained by them as an article in the condition, as to.covering, in which it is usually purchased and sold in the foreign market, inclucling such covering as well as the article therein contained. One illustration of the difficulty of ascertaining market value of an article per se and in bulk will be sufficient. Blacking for boots and shoes is ordinarily bougnt and sold either in boxes if paste blacking, or in bottlesvor jugs if liquid blacking. The tin box for paste black REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 27 ing may be a large element in the market value of a box of blacking, and yet the appraiser may find it difficult to ascertain the market value of the blacking in bulk and without the box, if not bought and sold in that condition. A glimpse of auother difficulty in the way of ascertaining the foreign market value and executing an ad valorem law can be had by considering the diff'ering habits of trade in Germany, on the one hand, and England and France on the other hand, in gloves and hosiery like those in controversy int he Oberteuffer case, wherein it was testified that our countrymen are the only buyers in Germany of those articles in cartons. In Germany, if a German, or a Frenchman, or an Englishman be a buyer of gloves or hosiery, the price named does not include any form of packing. A price named in Germany to an American dealer includes the carton, but if named to a German, Frenchman, or Englishman, does not include the carton. In Bngiand or France on the other hand, the price named is for those articles unpacked, or in the loose condition, and an extra charge is made for the carton or bandage. One witness testified in the trial court that if he had contracted in Germany for gloves, or hosiery, at a fixed price, he would not consider the articles if delivered in bundles, and not in cartons, as a good delivery. Another witness testified that in Germany gloves and hosiery are as a rule put in cartons, not 'for the purpose oftransportatioHj but because the purchasers for our (American) markets prefer them to be put up in that form." This diff'erence in the habits of trade in gloves and hosiery as between Germany, on the one side, and England and France, on the other side, is of course embarrassing for our appraising officers, inasmuch as the selling price in Germany may include cartons, but in France or England many not include them. The pecuUarities of our ad valorem system become even more apparent by a more critical examination of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Oberteicffer case. There were in the suit three invoices covered by one entry. One invoice was of gloves, and two invoices were of cotton hosiery. The gloves and one invoice of hosiery were actnaily purchased, but the other invoice of hosiery was consigned to the plaintiff's for sale in NewYork. The invoice of purchased hosiery declared the price thereof by the dozen, from which price there was a 3 per cent, cash discount, and then there were added items for " boxes," " packing," "case?," and "packing charges," and thjen another cash discount of 3 per cent, from those items. But on the invoice of consigned hosiery the prices therefor were first given in the invoice by the dozen, and then, instead of adding items, as in the previous invoice, there were deducted items for "case," "freight from Hohenstein to Bremen," "freight to New York," "consul fees," "insurance," a total sum of 137 marks for those items. In o^^her words, on an invoice of purchased hosiery a price was first given, less a discount for cash, and then an addition for items of charges, but on the consigned invoice the price was first given, with a deduction for cash discount, and then a deduction for items of charges. ^ It is to be observed that up to June 30, 1864, the additions to be made to the market value, in order to make dutiable value, were additions which could as a rule be correctly ascertained and applied by the collector; but when in that year and in the year 1866 the law required that " t h e value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which^such goods are contained" be added, and especially when in the last-named year the law required "all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment," 28 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP' THE TREASURY. those items could not all of them be well ascertained by the collector, inasmuch as he has no facilities for ascertaining the "'yaZ^y-e" of anything, as ascertaining value is the work of appraising officers. Warned by what has happened to the seventh section of the law of 1883, I now come to deal specifically with the substitute therefor contained in bill 5010, Of course the substitute is only intended to cover ad valorem rates or duties in some way based on value. But how would "coverings" be dealt with by you, if those rates, or duties, were transformed into purely specific rates'? Lines 5 to 13, including the word " imported" on the last-named line, are a transcript of the language used in the existing seventh section of the law of 1883, excepting that the phrase "or any other provisions of existing laws" is omitted. May it not be argued that the phrase retained in your substitute, "hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported," is in conflict with the isubsequent requirement that the dutiable value shall be their market value "in the condition in which they are ready for shipment to the United States," inasmuch as a condition of readiness for shipment may include charges which it has previously been said shall not be estimated'? Will it not be better to omit the word "dutiable" in lines 13 and 17, and also to omit the phrase "to cover the cost of transportation and packing" on page 19'? Congress may make, of course, a deduction of 1, or 5, or 10 per cent, from the market value in the condition of readiness for shipment, and it is not necessary to declare ,the reason. Also, will it not be better to omit the first proviso, in lines 20 tp 23, on page 11, inasmuch as that declaration by law of what shall be held to be a true invoice may interfere with a prosecution for forfeiture for intentionally presenting a false invoice % And may not the second proviso on page 11 be liable to misinterpretation'? Where and by whom shall " t h e dutiable value of the merchandise, and of the article or material wherein it is contained," be "separately stated'?" Does not the second proviso imply that under certain circumstances duty shall be assessed on items which have been excluded by the body of the section "? I t may be, as in case of an article bought in a naked condition and the covering applied by some one not the seller, that the true invoice from the seller could not declare the value of the article in a condition of readiness for shipment. The person making entry could declare on entry the additional items necessary to make dutiable value of "the article or material wherein it is contained." The second proviso appears to be drawn with an eye to merchandise sent hither by a manufacturer for sale at his account and risk, rather than to merchandise bought by one not a regular dealer, who carries the merchandise elsewhere to be covered and packed for shipment. I t is important, I think, to bear in mind that our tariff system implies an ioivoice value to be ascertained and declared by the maker of the invoice, a market ^ value to be ascertained and declared by the appraising officers, and a ' dutiable value to be declared by the collector. As the dutiable value is to be ascertained after arrival, will it not be better to erase the words in line 15, page 10, "are ready for shipment" and insert " were shipped"*? In any new legislation it will be well to keep in mind the last clause of section 2900 of the Eevised Statutes, and clearly declare whether or not the invoice value shall, under all ciccumstances, be a minimum value, no matter what it contains. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 29 I fear that my comments on your substitute may be deemed too elaborate and critical, but they have been made with a purpose to assist your committee in devising a method of dealing with this difficult subject which shall be as simple and clear for our appraising officers as possible. SECTION 2841. The purpose of the amendment of section 2841 is, I take it, to make unnecessary the administration of an oath at the time of making an entry, and to substitute therefor a declaration. I heartily approve ofthe change. Is it not, however, expedient to require that the declaration shall be signed by the proper person, and also signed in the presence of a witness'? I assume that your committee has considered the propriety^ of inflicting the forfeiture of the merchandise, or any part thereof, in addition to a criminal punishment if thefalse declarations shall be proved, on proper judicial proceedings for forfeiture, tohave been made with an intention to evade or defraud the revenue. SECTION 2970. I can see no objection to section 2970 as it stands in the proposed bill. SECTION 2983, AND DUTIES ON WAREHOUSED GOODS. Section 2983 as it now is ih the Eevised Statutes, reads: , In no case shall there be an abatement of the duties or allowance made for the injury, damage, deterioration, lessor leakage, sustained by any merchandise while deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse. This requirement was not contained, I think, in the original warehouse law of 1846, or its amendment of 1852, but was first apijlied in the fourth section of the. law of March 28, 1854, and has been in force ever since. The amendment proposed by bill 5010, omits the words "loss or leakage^^^ and adds thereto immediately after, this proviso: That the duty assessed on merchandise withtlrawn from auy such warehouse shall be assessed o n t h e quantity withdrawn therefrom a t t h e time of such withdrawal; but no greater allowance for leakage or evaporation of wines, liqu,ors, and'distilled spirits shall be made t h a n is dr may be allowed by law on domestic spirits or wines in bond. The declaration contained in the foregoing proviso will be novel in our tariff legislation if adopted. If a new rule shall be adopted that an allowance is to be made for diminution of the quantity of imported merchandise while in warehouse, no sound reason in principle occurs to me why the same rule shall not be applied to imported spirits or wine in bond as the law applies to doonestic spirits or wines in bond. But the proviso will in practical application cover a very much larger class of articles than spirits or wines. It will embrace every description of bonded merchandise. The tirst warehouse enactment, as I do not need to inform you, was adopted in 1846. Its object was to do away with a credit for duties in the form in which credit existed up to that date, and to require all duties to be paid in cash, but, at the same time, to facilitate and encourage commerce by exempting the importer from the payment of duties until, within a limited specified period, ready to bring his merchandise into market. Customs warehouses existed before 1846, ' but imported merchandise could be deposited therein only when an entry at the custom-house was imperfedt for want of proper documents, 30 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 'v. or where the goods were damaged in the voyage and the duties could not be immediately ascertaiued, or the cash duties were not paid after the forms of entry had been complied with. Under such circumstances the collector was directed by laws existing before 1846 to take possession of such merchandise and place it in public stores, and retain it until the duties were paid. The warehouse act of 1846, so far as the landing and storing of goods are concerned, places goods entered for warehousing upon the same footing with goods upon which duties had not been paid. Up to 1886 the general theory of our warehouse law has been, subject only to a few special exceptions, that the duties accrued wben the merchandise arrived within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined by law as a port of entry, with indent to unload the same5 and that when goods have been placed in warehouse the rate and amount of duty to be paid thereon shall be fixed and determined by the law in force, and by the condition of the merchandise, a t t h e time of such importation. The general theory ofthe law has always been to levy duty on the quantity which actually arrived as ascertained by the proper customs officers at the time of arrival. The law of 1846 declares that the proper duties and expenses on warehoused merchandise " be ascertained on due entry thereof for warehousing, and be secured by a bond of the owner, importer, or consignee, with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the collector in double the amaiint of said duties and in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe," By the law of 1846 the merchandise could remain in Avarehouse one year. In 1852 the time was extended to two years. In 1854 the time was again extended to three years. But in 1866 the period of withdrawal was limited so that unless the merchandise was withdrawn fpr consumption within one year from the date of the original importation an additional duty "of ten per cent, of the amount of such duties and charges" must be levied, and none could remain in warehouse longer than three years. I certainly have no reason or wish to interfere with or attempt to control, even if I could, any disposition that may ^xist on the part of the Committee of Ways and Means or of the House to change^he rule in this matter, which has existed from 1846 to the present day. I only deem it my duty, in response to your invitation, to lay before you any suggestions that may occur to me regarding the practical application of the law if it shall be amended in the terms proposed by bill 5010. As at present the " q u a n t i t y " on which duty must be paid is fixed by the final liquidation of tiie original warehouse entry, so under the proposed bill the "quantity" must be again ascertained on each withdrawal for consumption, how many soever there may be. That, will of course catt for additional labor and for reliquidation, which need not be decisive as regards the propriety of the proposed change. ^ I t must be remembered that the Governmeut by its warehouse system gives in effect to an importer not only the protection of Government custody of the merchandise, but also gives to the importer in effect a credit for duties: The amount of duty chargeable on the importation is, under the existing system, liquidated and fixed on impottation, and for the payraent of that sum the bond of the importer with sufficient sureties is given. If the merchandise naturally shrinks by evaporation, or any other cause, while in the warehouse, that has been considered to be no more a loss of the Governm<Bnt than if the merchandise were duty paid, and in the warehouse of the importer. The proposed legislo-tion, if adopted, will assess duty upon the quantity withdrawn instead REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 31 of the quantity ionported. It certainly does in one sense seem unreasonable that an importer should be required to pay duty upon a quantity larger than that which actually and finally comes into his possession, but all duties levied upon imports are in one sense unreasonable. It may be that the value of the merchandise will be very much less at the end of three years than it was at the time of the importation, and if the rate be an ad valorem rate it may not seem to be likewise unreasonable that the importer should be required to pay an ad valorem rate upon a valuation greater than the real valuation when the importation is withdrawn. ^ , My attention has been called to a report contained in the New York Journal of Commerce, of February 24, 1886, of a public ^meeting in the city of New York, called to consider this proposed measure, wherein it was said that our existing warehousing law is unjust and unreasonable; and that Congress should imitate the present English law in order to increase the w^elfare of the United States, and the better to encounter British competition. One speaker seemed t o desire it to.be inferred that in England there is no limit to the time during which imported merchandise can remain in bonded warehouse without payment of duty, and that under similar circumstances the British Government is more considerate of commerce than the United States are. The tariff system of the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is for relatively small islands, while ours is for a^ continent. The former is for 36,000,000 of people, while the latter is for nearly 60,000,000. The customs administration of the former concerns but a few ports near to one another and within easy reach of the minister, while the head of this Department must deal with one hundred and sixteen ports, or collection districts, some of them separated from one another by thousands of miles.^ The former levies only specific duties upon articles so fe^ that all the legislative specifications therefor can easily be xirinted on less than a page of our Eevised Statutes, while our specifications include some four thousand articles, covering a great number of printed pages in our Eevised Statutes. During the last year there was collected in Great Britain and Ireland, from imports, the equivalent of about a hundred millions of dollars, while we collected nearly twice that sum. Before we adoiJt the Britisli warehousing system it may be well to realize what are the chief articles on which the United Kingdom levied duties during the last year. The following are the principal sums collected, stated in pounds sterling: Tobacco and snuff* Rum Brandy Wine... Geneva Tea Currants Coffee Raisins..-. Cocoa Chicory . . I Figs ,.: '. , -•-.. .--: ...-• --, -.. ^ £9,376,093 2,084,256 1,520,971 1,235,200 708,610 4,795,843 341,463 209,952 155,587 67,955 66,342 49,916 You and I may be permitted, perhaps, to think with envy of those in official positions in London, relatively similar to ours, who have such a simple and comf^act tariff' system as that to deal with and administer. I have examined '"-An act to consolidate the customs laio''^ of the United Kingdom, dated July 24, 1876, and the subsequent amendments dowu to and iucluding 1883, and believe theni to set forth tbe 32 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. latest British legislation on the subject. Therein I find that by British law warehoused goods, if not cleared for home use or exportation within hv^e years, must be rewarehoused, and if rewarehoused "the duties due upon any deficiency or difference between the quantity ascertained on landing and the quantity found to exist on such examination, together with the necessary expense attendant thereon, shall, subject to such allowances as are by law permitted in respect thereof^ be paid down. The quantity so found shall be rewarehoused in the name of the then owner or proprietor thereof, in the same manner as on the first importation." If goods in warehouse be not cleared, or rewarehoused, or duties paid on such deficiencies, after five years, the goods are to be sold, and, after deduction of the duties, the proceeds placed to the Crown's account, to abide the claim of the owner or proprietor. The present British law does, however, provide that on the entry of any goods to be cleared from the warehouse for home use, there shall be paid " to the proper officer of the customs the full duties payable thereouj not being less in amount than according to the account of the quantity taken by the proper officer on the first entry and la.nding tliereof except as to the following goods, viz, tobacco, wine, spirits, figs, currants, and raisins." The duties when the goods are cleared from the warehouse for home use are chargeable upon the quantity of those enumerated articles ascertained, by weight,.measure, or strength, at the time of actual delivery thereof, unless there is reasonable ground to suppose that any portion of the deficiency or diff'erence between the weight, measure, or strength ascertained on landing and first examination of any such last-mentioned goods, and that ascertained at thetime of actual delivery, has been caused by illegal or improper means, in which case the proper officer of customs shall make such allowance only for losses he may consider fairly to have arisen from natural evaporation or other legitimate cause. Thus it will be eeen that in England the general rule is the same as now in this country, and duty must be paid upon the quantity entered by the importer into the warehouse, excepting as to six articles, which are tobacco, wine, spirits, figs, currants, and raisins. I t is to be observed that in England no duty is levied on sugars, and it is also to be observed that the English rates of duty on tobacco depend upon the moisture contained therein. Unmanufactured tobacco, containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof, pays'three shillings a j)ound; and ifit contains less than ten pounds of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof, the rate of duty is three shillings and six pence a pound; bul no tobacco packed and prized shall on the importation thereof be examined as to quantity and measure contained therein except by special order of the commissioner of customs; and manufactured tobacco shall, on the entry thereof, be distinguished as stemmed or unstemmed, as the case may be. But on warehoused tobacco withdrawn for home consumption there is chargeable two and six pence per hundred pounds, in addition to the duties on the original consumption entry. SECTION 2770. ' The proposed change in section 2770, as it stands in the existing law, is to insert these words : "Except that in cases of cargoes in bulk the collector may by special permit allow the same to be unladed at any point in his collection district to be designated, under the supervision of an inspector of customs, on payment by an importer of the necessary REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 33 expenses of such inspe,ctor, appraiser and gauger, or measurer, as the case may be." No objection to that amendment occurs to me if the supervision of this Department be retained. SECTION 2799. The general purpose of the amendment to existing section 2799 appears to be to do away with an oath, and also to place upon the free list the articles included in the following specification: Personal and household effects, libraries and parts of libraries in use, professional books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or eniployment. At the end of the section the word " shortly," referring to an owner "expected to arrive in the United States," is stricken out, and the phrase " within one year" inserted instead. I do not desire to be understood as interposing any objection to this enlargement of the freelist. My only suggestion relates to administration and execution. The amendment does not declare how long the " personal and household effects, libraries and parts of libraries " must have been in use in order to entitle them to free entry. Ought there not to be a limitation and a plain definition of the limitation "^ SECTION 2800. I can see no objection to this amendment. SECTION 2801. This amendment of section 2801 of the Eevised Statutes appears to contemplate the omission of the naval officer. The present law requires him and the collector to unite in directing the baggage of an arriving passenger to be examined by the surveyor or an inspector. I see no objection to this amendment; and yet it will be observed that the section as amended does require the co-operation of the naval officer with the collector in deciding whether any article in the baggage of an arriving passenger ought or ought not to be exempt from duty. To the last proviso of the amendment of this section there does not appear to me to be objection; nor to the next amendment to section 2^03 of the Eevised Statutes. May 1 here be permitted to suggest to the committee the need of new legislation making more certain the punishment of any arriving passenger, or his agents, who shall give, or offer to give, or promise to give, any money, or thing of value, to any customs officer in connection with, or for any act growing out of, the inspection of baggage'? I wish that scandal could be prevented. The present law is inadequate, as I have said in my annual report on the collection o duties. I would respectfully suggest that in case of any such payment or offer, or promise, the person making the same shall be liable to in dictment, and adequate criminal punishment; and that the factof such payment, or off'er, or promise, being established, the burden of jjroof shall be upon the person so paying, or off'ering,. or promising, to show that the act was innocent and proper. And also that the customs officer receiving any such payment, or gift of money, or thing of value, shall be liable to indictment, and adequate criminal punishment, and that proof of the reception as aforesaid shall throw upon him the burden of satisfying the court and jury that such reception was innocent and lawful. HoEx. 2—VOLII^ 3 34 REPORT O F TPIE SECRETARY OF T H E SECTION TREASURY, 3058. I cannot see any objection to the proposed amendment of section 3058 of the Eevised Statutes, provided adequate limitations are, or shall be interposed, so that the existing provisions of law punishing a false invoice, or a false certificate of a consul, or a false entry, shall not be evaded.' SECTION 7. The seventh section of the proposed bill, page 22, appears to be an amendment of sections 2853, 2854, and 2855 of the Eevised Statutes. I can see no objection to the exercise by the Secretary of the Treasury of the discretion confided to him by the first part of the section; nor to the forbidding of the requirement of triplicate invoices and consular certificates when the value of the merchandise does not exceed one hundred dollars. The last part of the section, however, which authorizes and requests the Secretary of the Treasury to make such regulations in regard to invoices and consular certificates, as in his judgment the public interest may require, may, if taken in its broadest sense, interfere with the authority in regard to such matters that is now vested in the Secretary of State. Although it is true that the money which at present maintains Our consular service is chiefly obtained by a tax levied by consular officers for the verification or au, thentication of invoices of imported merchandise, and that such authentication and verification chiefly concern the Treasury Department, I am nevertheless doubtful whether it would, in practical administration, be well to take the supervision of such consular services out of the hands of the Department of State. SECTION 8. The fees and oaths abolished by the seventh section of the proposed bill, as prescribed by existing laws, are very numerous; but I assume that the committee have carefully examined the subject and are satisfied that the proposed arrangement is preferable. SECTION 9. The ninth section of the proposed bill will amend sections 3019,3020, 3021 of the Eevised Statutes, and the tenth section of the existing law of February 8, 1875. I can see no objection to the proposed amendment provided adequate security is taken that the articles are actually shipped, and actually leave the country and are actually landed abroad. SECTION lOo Section 10 of the proposed bill is an amendment of the 21st section of the law of June 22, 1874. To this amendment you particularly call my attention and wish to be informed whether in my judgment its provisions will meet the difficulties referred to in my special report to Congress of January 18, 1886, on the subject of protests, appeals, and suits. The proposed amendment will not adequately meet the difficulties of administration w^hich the bill that accompanies my special report was intended to deal with, I have, in a note to Mr. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 35 Morrison, called his attention to one or two verbal amendments in the first section as proposed by me. I consider that proposed legislation of great and immediate 1/nportance. New evidence of its immediate need has been presented to me since the date of my special report, which I shall be glad to lay before you in an informal way, but which it would be inconvenient perha[)S to make public. I shall be gratified if the measure proposed by me can be reported by your committee, and subuiitted to the House, unaccompanied by any other proposed legislation, and in that form sent to the Senate. One object of the legislation proposed by me is to perfect section 2931 of the Eevised Statutes, to which your proposed tenth section refers. And if my proposed measure shall be adopted, it will tend, I think, to increase the efficiency of your proposed tenth section if it shall be adopted. That proposed tenth section is, however, as I think, open to the criticism that " the decision of a collector of customs fixing the rate and amount of duties" «^ * ^ «'as ascertained by the liquidation of the entry," is to be after the entry ^'shall be finally adjusted," which caunot well be, inasmuch as the final liquidation is the final adjustment. The amendment also leaves open to dispute what shall be considered the "final" adjustment or liquidation which is to be conclusive upon the Government and the importer. There may have been an arithmetical error in the first adjustment to the disadvantage of the Government, or the collector may have erred in thQ. rate levied, or in classification, to the injury of the Government. If the error has been to the injury of the importer, he will protest, appeal, and bring suit. But the Go vernment,may be remediless to collect the full amount of duty if the first liquidation and adjustment, which would have been final if it had been correct, cannot be revised by direction of the Secretary ofthe Treasury, or by the' collector upon his own motion, "except in case of fraud." I think a time should be fixed beyond which a reliquidation should notbe made even in the interest of the Government, Perhaps a limitation of time should exist within which a reliquidation cannot be made in the interest of the Government even " i n case of fraud." The proviso to the second section declares " t h a t the final ascertainment and statement of duties on the import entry shall be regarded as a liquidation," but does not define the meaning and limitation of the word "final." The proviso also authorizes reliquidation "for clerical error," but does not appear to provide for reliquidation when there has been ah error in the rate of duty, or in the classification which might involve the rate of duty. I have touched these questions in my special report to Congress on the subject of protests, appeals, and suits, and probably do not need to refer to them again, except to suggest that one or two of the local Federal judges (see Uc S. -^5. Leng, 18 Fed. Eep., 15) have intimated that liquidation of entries has by law been placed in the sole control of collectors of customs, so that even the head of this Department, under the large power given to him by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, has not authority to direct and control a reliquidation unless the importer shall, under section 2931 of the Eevised Statutes, protest and appeal in his own interest. Or, in other words, the intimation is that the head of this Department can only by the protest and appeal of an importer acquire jurisdiction over classifications, and the rate and amount of ducy levied by the one hundred and sixteen collectors of customs, and thereby make rates of duty uniform. I need not say that I do not assent^ to tbe correctness of the proposition involved in such an intimation. 36 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY, ^SECTIONS 12 AND 13. These sections are entirely new legislation, in respect to the practical working of which I do not feiel competent to the expression of an opinion. I regret extremely that there has not been time to ask opinions of bill 5010 from the more experienced and intelligent of the appraising or other local officers at the large ports. It is upon them that the work and responsibility of initiating the execution of new tariff'laws really fall. They stand daily and hourly in the midst of the business of importation, and have a clearer perception of what importers, their brokers and lawyers, are likely to say and do about new legislation. I distrust my own appreciation, as well as that of the excellent expert in this Departmeut, of the effect of an amendment of the tariff law, even when the Department has participated in its preparation, so true is it that the draughtsman of a law is the less capable of interpreting his own work by reason of his tendency to think of his own ioitention rather than the possible legal eff'ect of his language when studied by others. . GENERAL SUGGESTIONS. Has your attention been especially called to the opinion recently announced by the Supreme Court in Boyd vs. The Uoiited States? Is not the drift of it menacing to the right and power of Congress to enable the Executive to enforce a penalty as a punishment for an act done, or omitted, by an importer in making an entry of rnerchandise paying ad yalorem rates'? If it be that, under the Constitution, the Executive cannot be authorized to exact money from an importer, as penalty or punishment, and if Congress cannot empower executive officers, in collecting the revenue, to demand the production of truthful documents (as by section 2923 of the Eevised Statutes) which are in the possession of importers and withheld, or the making of truthful entries (as by section 2900), or inflict penalty, or punishment, or the forfeiture of a right, and if all penalties must be recovered, or enforced, by suits in court, it will deserve consideration whether or not the working of our existing system of ad valorem rates has not received a serious blow. If I shall seem in my annual report, or in my recent special report to Congress, or in my replies to inquiries addressed to rne by committeeij of either House respecting the tariff, to have dwelt on the executive aspect of the subject, such pressure and urgency on my part have been because my observation and experience in this Department convince me that, since the war period, the natural limitations ofthe Executive in collecting duties on imports have too much dropped out of legislative consideration. While the w^ar raged a great necessity existed w^hich now fortunately does not exist, but the theories and methods of the half dozen war tariff's from and including that of August 5, 1861, up to and including that of March 3,1865, have not been essentially changed. I do not mention the law of March 2, 1801, as a " war tariff" because its schedules were arranged and adopted by the House during the sessions of 1859 and 1860, before war came, and were partly to make good a deficit, although not adopted by the Senate till the next session. It was affirmed by those most intimately and directly concerned in that legislation that their intention was to return to the rates of 1846, Avhich had beeu reduced in 1857, and substitute, where feasible, specific i'or ad valorem rates. As often happens, the substitution was availed of as an opportunity to increase the round sum of duties, which opportunity, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 37 always present, has done so much to create the belief that there is a real tie between protective aud specific rates which does not exist between protective and ad valorem rates. But the law of March 2, 1861, did no dciubt openly and largely increase duties before the firing on Fort Sumter. Then came the abnormal and unprecedented legislation of 1862 and 1864, under the perplexing influence of which, preserved in 1883, this .Department is now working. I do not need to remind you of the unsuccessful efforts made in Congress, in 1867, with the warm approval and co operation of my predecessor, Mr. McCulloch, to modify the war rates. The Senate and this Department were in substantial accord, as is indicated by the adoption in the Senate of the Treasury measure by a vote of 27 to 10. And so likewise, it would seem was the House in sympathy with the Treasury project, but the artificial requirement, at the moment, of a two-thirds vote in that body defeated even the partial reform attempted in 1857. When 1870 caine another eff'ort was made to reduce customs taxation which was more successful than was the eff'ort three years before, but the diminution of rates then accomplished did not interfere with, or alleviate for consumers, the protective rates of the war period on a large class of articles, inasmuch as the rates on such purely revenue articles as coffee, molasses, sugar, spices, and tea were reduced, nor did the modification made in 1870 give relief to this Department in executive administration, which is the aspect in w^hich I am now looking upon the subject. Nor did any help come, in an executive sense, for the ten per cent, horizontal reduction in 1872, which was repealed in 1875. To be sure the duties on tea and coffee were taken off'in the year 1872, but the removal of that tax levied "for revenue only" tended to promote the continuance of the cunningly-devised, confusing, and perplexing protective rates, whereby, and so often, a combineid specific and ad valorem rate is prescribed for one article. By the tariff legislation of 1883 the situation, either as regards the protective system or the collectiug system, was left unchanged for the better. In many most essential particulars, as in the matter of packages and coverings, the difficulties in administration by the local customs officers and of this Department were increased by the law of 1883, which actually increased the rates of duty on many articles. In many instances lower figures and percentages were placed on the statute-book, but in actual administration it has been found that the figures and percentages^ when taken in connection with other elements of the law, worked an increase of the sum of duty to be paid on the article and an increase of perjdexity for appraising officers, already perplexed too much. It is, as I have already said, this perplexity with which I am now concerned. There is a limit to appraising work. There is a line beyond which the correct and honest ascertainment of dutiable values by customs officers, under an ad valorem system, cannot be carried. I t is with great deference that I venture to suggest the inquiry by your committee whether or not the executive department, and the primal purpose of a tariff' law, have not been lost sight of in solicitude to frame tariff schedules which shall satisfy or harmonize manufacturing industries in our country which clamor for State aid. It was not long ago that tb a most intelligent representative of an industry greatly protected by the tariff of 1883, who urged an interpretation of that law which would still further benefit tbat industry, it was said by-one of the officers of this Department that the arguments and considerations he urged in favor of a contention for the highest rates were for Congress to co i 38 liEPORT OF TiiE SECRETARY O F THE TREAStJRY. sider, but not for the Treasury Department. protected industry replied: The representative of the That may once have heen the true rule, hut not in recent years. The effect and intention of much of the modern ambiguous legislation on the tariff has heen to send us to the Treasury Department to arrange a workable schedule of rates. It is important to remember that the tariff laws of 1862 and 1864 were not advocated and defended by their authors as a remedy for the alleged evil of defective home production, or to equalize conditions of foreign and domestic labor, or to allure capital into neglected industries, or to diversify the industrial function in the several States ofthe Union, but in order to compensate domestic manufacturers for the increased cost of production created by internal taxation which the civil war compelled. Mr. Morrill, in presenting to the House the tariff bill of 1862, said (Cong. Globe, 1861-^62, p. 1196): I t will be in dispensable for us to revise the tariff' on foreign imports so far as it may be seriously disturbed by any internal duties and to make proper reparation. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said (p. 2979): We intend to impose an additional duty on imports equal to the t a x which had been put on the domestic articles. In 1863 there culminated the most widespreading and penetrating system of internal taxation that this nation or perhaps any nation ever felt. Under that system every finished industrial product of the country paid a tax varying from eight to twenty per cent. In 1866 the internal taxes reached the prodigious sum of $309,226,813.42, and customs taxation was not less than $179,046,651.58. In 1868 the sum of internal taxes had, by repealing laws, been reduced to $191,087,589.41, and in 1885 to $116,000,000, levied chiefly on tobacco and spirits. In 1870 Mr. Morrill remarked (Cong. Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295): For revenue purposes, and not solely for protection, 50 per cent., in mauy instanceshas been added to the tariff' to enable our home trade to bear t h e new but indispensable burdens of internal taxation. Already we have relinquished most of such taxes. Whatever percentage of duties was imposed on foreign goods to cover internal taxa, tion on home manufactures should not now be claimed as the lawful prise of protection when such taxes have been repealed. There is no longer an equivalent. ^ But those war duties have, nevertheless, been insisted upon and maintained as the "laivful prize of protection.^^ In 1869 the total sum of duties on imports was $180,048„426, In 1885 it was $181,471,939. The failure since the end of the civil war to reduce the sum total of taxation levied at the custom-houses is, from the point of view of this Department, by no means the worst of the evil. The disorderly, vexing, and demoralizing system^ or rather want of system, has not been changed. The tariff* laws of 1846 and 1857 were at least orderly and logical. In a recent communication to,Congress I have endeavored to set forth my reasons for believing that the ad valorem rates cannot now be satisfactorily workecl. The war rates of the last quarter of a century have inspired and encouraged here and there dishonest foreign consignors to the invention of devices to evade the revenue, which are in effect, w^hen in violation of an unambiguous law, thefts practiced on the Government, the community, and importers who do not practice them. In the scramble for revenue between 1861 and 1865 there was no time for the patient elaboration of tariff laws by this Department and Cohgress, Each new tariff law was in eff'ect an amendment of its predecessor, in order to collect more duties. The successive tariff' laws from 1861 to 1883 have been so interlaced that the true interpretation of the latest REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 39 depends on the language of its predecessors if one would ascertain the intention of the law-makers. A striking instance of that is to be seen in the opinions delivered by the Supreme Court on tariff questions within the last ten years, and under the law of 1864, which is so generally the key of the law of 1883. Especially is th?t notable in the recent opinion against the decision of my predecessor on the question of coverings and cartons. One reason why the disorderly, illogical, arid confusing character of this jumble of tariff' legislation since 1861 has not been more apparent has grown out of the fact that either because of inadequate judicial force in New York or inefficiency in the district attorney's office and the collector's office, or of some unexplained reason, suits that have arisen during the last quarter of a century have not been brought to trial and now encumber the docket of the circuit court in New York, to the scandal of the Government and the injury of private suitors. When these suits shall be tried I look for other demands upon the Treasury as startling, it may be, as the recent carton decision. These claims and suits should be tried, or disposed of, for if allowed to linger they will become as stale as " T h e French spoliation claims!" The pressure for the highest rate, brought to bear on the Department by interested domestic producers when Congress has not spoken decisively, could not fair to result in lawsuits of the class that now crowd the calendar of the district attorney at New York. It has not been my purpose in this communication to consider the object of tariff schedules—whether, on the one hand, they shall be for the single object of obtaining a sum of money needed for the maintenance of the Federal Government, or, on the other hand, shall be framed' in order to diversify industries, or adjust domestic production to domestic demand, or equalize the unequal conditions of domestic and foreign labor. What I have sought to enforce is the need of a tariff law which, no matter what theories of political economy may underlie it, shall be so clear, definite, and precise that it can be easily and srrely, administered, and that the excuse for executive or judicial discretion in administering it shall be unnecessary and unlawful. Eespectfully, yours, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary o Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Gommittee of Ways and Means, No. 6o COMMITTEE ON W A Y S AND, MEANS, H O U S E OF E E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , Washington, B. C, March 18,1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your printed letter of the 16th instant, in reply to my letter asking for your views in regard to H. E, 5010. I have submitted your communication to the subcommittee in charge of the bill, and am instructed to request that you will direct the proper officer of the Department to formulate the views submitted in the form of distinct amendments to the bill, or of new sections to be added thereto. 40 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. I am also instructed to say that the subcommittee will at once proceed to the consideration of the draft of the bill attached to your letter of January 18th, in reference to protests and appeals. The Committee of Ways and Means see no objection whatever to the publication of the letter in regard to H, E. ,5010. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, ABEAM S. HEWITT, Chairman Subcommittee. No, 7. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washioigton, B. C, March 23, 1886, S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your letter of the 18th instant, wherein you express the desire of the subcommittee of the Committee of Ways and Means that this Department will formulate as distinct amendments to H. E. 5010, or as new sections to be added thereto, the views submitted in my communication of the 16th instant. I assume that the request refers especially to the seventh section of tbe law of 1883 and the recent interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court. My suggestions in regard to protests, appeals, suits, aud payments of refundSoWere distinctly formulated in my communication of January 18,1886, In regard to the other sections of H. E. 5010, I have no suggestions to formulate more explicitly than was done in my letter ofthe 16th instant, excepting, perhaps, what is referred to in my communication to the House of February 10,1886. But in regard to tbe last named, and to the seventh section of 1883, this Department cannot proceed intelligently in formulating a law until told by the Committee on Ways and Means, or by the House, what rates of duty, if any, it proposes to levy on the articles referred to. When the rates, whether ad valorem or specific, and the size of the rates, and whether or not to be Applied to " coverings of any kind," or bandages of any kind, have been given to the Department, I will immediately see to it that the view^s of tbe committee or ofthe House are formulated in statute phraseology. The tendency and drift of the reasoning in the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Oberteuff'er's case are, it w^ill be inevitably argued by importers, to prevent appraising officers, and this Department, from taking into consideration or account any sort of a covering, or bandage, on an article described in and made dutiable by the tariff. Do the Committee of Ways and Means or the House wish to change the law as thus interpreted by tbe court, or allow it to standi If, to be changed, then which covering or costs or charges shall be dutiable, and at what rates? Those are questions in respect to wbich my opinion cpuld not be intelligently expressed in the absence of definite information in regard to the proposed general plan of tariff revision. Eespectfully yours, • • D. MANNING, Secretary. Hon. ABRAM S . HEW^ITT, Souse of Bepresentatives, Washington, B. 0, . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. • • ^ 41 N o . 8. H O U S E OF E E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , U . S., Washioigton, B . C, March i^4, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury: S I R : I am directed by the subcommittee of tbe Committee of Ways and Means, having in charge H. E. 5010, to acknowledge the receipt of your lette^^ of the 23d instant, informing them tbat you are not prepared to comply with the request contained in my letter df the 18th instant until you are advised as to the wishes of tbe committee in regard to the duties to be imposed on coverings and tbe various items of charges aff'ected by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court iu Oberteuff'er's case. There is evidently a misapprehension in your mind as to the object which the subcommittee had in view in submitting for your consideration H. E. 5010. It is the duty of the Treasury Department to administer the customs laws. In the course of this administration difficulties arise, and complicated questions are presented which your predecessor informed the committee caused great embarrassment, and in view of which I had the honor to report to the House in the Fortyeighth Congress a bill which is the basis on which H. E. 5010 has been framed. In your annual report, and in a subsequent commpnication to the House, additional difficulties were pointed out, and the action of Congress was invoked to provide adequate legislation to meet these difficulties. The committee have honestly tried to arrive at your views in reference to these questious, and not finding a sufficient explanation in your letter of the 16th instant, the committee ask for a definite sub mission of your opinions in the form either of amendments to the bill or of new sections to be incorporated therein. The committee supposed that the Department had arrived at certain conclusions in these matters which it would be proper for them to consider. You were not asked to make a law, but to submit to the com mittee the kind of legislation which you thought would rneet the difficulties of the situation. So far as I am advised, it has been usual for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Committee of Ways and Means, to co-operate with each other whenever it was felt tbat the law should be amended, and it' is more convenient certainly, that the committee should proceed to consider your views, when formulated into a bill, than to endeavor to put in shape general statements pointing out the difficulties to be overcome. 1 therefore respectfully renew the request that you will put the subcommittee in possession of such definite suggestions in due legal form as, in your opinion, will conduce to the easy conduct of business, and relieve tbe embarrassments caused by the recent decision, and the other doubtful or conflicting provisions of law of which you have knowledge, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, ABEAM S. HEWITT, Chairman Subcommittee. 42 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. J.G.M.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C,^March 2^, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman of Sub-Committee of Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : SIR : In response to your letter of the 18th instant, I have the honor to suggest the following modifications of and amendments to House bill No. 5010 : Strike from the bill t h e proposed substitute for section 2499, Revised Statutes, and in lieu thereof insert the following : ^' SEC. 2499. Each and every imported article not enumerated or provided for in any schedule in this title which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, TO any article enumerated in this title as^chargeable with duty, shall pay the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any o f t h e particulars before mentioned ; andif any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied on such non-enumerated article the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it resembles, paying the highest rate of duty ; and on articles, not otherwise provided tor, manufactured from two or rbOxe inaterials the duty shall be assessed at the rate at which the component material of chief value may be chargeable; a n d ' t h e words 'component raaterial^of chief value,' whenever used in this title, shall be held to mean t h a t component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material found in the article ; and the value of each component material shall be determined by the ascertained value of such material in its last forni and condition before it became a component material of such article. If two or more rates of duty shall be applicable to auy imported article, it shall pay duty at the highest of such rates. Provided, That auy non-enumerated article similar in material and quality and texture, and the use to which it may be applied to any article on the free list, and in , the manufacture of which no dutiable materials are used, shall be free of duty.'' SECTION 2502, R E V I S E D STATUTES. Schedule C—Metals.—Insevt in next to the last clause of this schedule (Tariff, paragraph 215), after the word ' ' m i n e r a l s " and before the word " substances," the word '' metallic," so t h a t the clause shall read as follows : '^Mineral metallic substances in a crude state, and metals unwrought, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 20 per centuni ad valorem." Schedule D—Wood arid wooden wares.—Strike out of the clause relating to *^ sawed boards, plank," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 219), the word ^^ articles," and insert in lieu thereof the word *' varieties," so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows: '' Sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, white wood, sycamore, and bass wood, one dollar per one thousand feet, board measure; all other varieties of sawed lumber, two dollars per one thousand feet, board measure." ScheduleG-^-Provisions.—Amend the clause relating to *'rice flour," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 172), by adding, after the word "rice meal," the words " and broken rice which will pass through a sieve known commercially as number 12 brass wire sieve, twelve meshes to the running inch, or one hundred and forty-four meshes to the square inch ; the space within the wires shall not exceed in length or width 0.0654 inch; " so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows: ''Rice flour, rice meal, and broken r i c e ; which will pass through a sieve known commercially as No. 12 brass wire sieve, twelve meshes to the ruuning inch, or one hundred and forty-four meshes to the square inch; the space within the wires shall not exceed in length or width 0.0654 inch." Schedule J—Juie and flax goods.—Amend the clause concerning ''seines and seine and gilling t w i n e " (Tariff, paragraph 347) by inserting, after the word " seine," the words " salmon n e t ; " so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows: " Seines and seine and salmon uet and gilling twine, 20 per cent, ad valorem." Schedule K.—Amend the proposed amendment in the bill concerning women's and children's dress goods, &c., by striking out, in the proviso, the word " such," and inserting, after the word ''goods," the words " o f t h e character specified in this paragraph ; " so t h a t the proviso shall read as follows: ^^ Provided, That all goods of the character specified in this paragraph, weighingover 4 ounces per square yard, shall pay a duty of 35 cents per pound an'd ^0 per centum ad valorem." Schedule N.—In lieu o f t h e amendment proposed by the bill concerning linseed and flaxseed (Tariff, paragraph 466), amend by striking out the last sentence ; so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows : "Linseed or flaxseed, 20 cents x>er bushel of 56 pounds." EEPORT OlF THE SECRETARY OF T S E TIIEASURY. 43 Schedule N.—Amend the clause concerning " hair cloth," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 445), by inserting, after the word " other," and before the word " manufactures," the word '' like; " so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows: " H a i r cloth, known as * crinoline cloth,' and all other like manufactures of hair not specifically enumerated or provided for in this act, 30 per centum ad valorem." SECTION 2503, R E V I S E D STATUTES. Insert, after the word " value," in line 200 of the bill, the words " or improved in condition by any xirocess of manufacture or by any other means." Amend.th# clause relating to " wearing apparel," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 815), so t h a t it shall read as follows: " Wearing apparel not exceeding |1,000 in value, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or employment, not exceeding |500 in value, professional books and other personal effects, not merchandise, of persons arriving in t h e United States, if the same shall have been in the actual use of such persons for a period of not less than one month, and not intended for the use of any other person or persons, nor for sale. But this exemption shall not be construed to include machinery or other articles imported for use in any manufacturing establishment." Insert a new paragraph as follows: " Wearing apparel, old and worn, not exceeding one hundred dollars in value ; upon production of evidence satisfactory to the collector aud naval officer (if any) t h a t t h e same has been donated and imported in good faith for t h e relief or aid of indigent or needy persons residing in the United States, and not for sale." SEC. 2. Amend section 2 o f t h e bill by striking out all after the word " follows," in t h e fourth line, and insert in lieu thereof the following : " In all cases where imported merchandise is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof, the duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value or wholesale price of such merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from whence imported, and in the finished condition in which such merchandise is there bought and sold for exportation to the United States, and in which it is prepared and put up for shipment when so bought and sold, or when consigned to the United States for sale, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the same in such condition : Provided, however, Thsit in determining the. dutiable value of imported merchandise no estimate shall be made of the cost or value of such outside sacks, crates, cases, or other outer coverings as are used, and as are designed to be used, only in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, nor of t h e actual and necessary expenses incident to the transportation of the merchandise from the place of purchase or consignment to the vessel or other vehicle in which exported t o t h e United States, nor of commissions, marine insurance, export duties, or fees for authentication by consular ofi&cers of the Uuited States: Provided, The same shall be severally stated in the invoice, and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoicevalue shall be allowed: And provided further, That> if there be used for covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be free of duty auy material or article designed for use other t h a n in the bona fide transportation of such nierchandise to the United States, duty shall be assessed thereon at the rate to which such material or article would be subject if imported separately; and if these be used for covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be subject to duty any material or article designed for use other t h a n in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, and which if imported separately would be subject to a higher rate of duty than the merchandise contained therein, the whole invoice shall be subject to such higher rate of duty, unless the value ofthe merchandise and of the article or material covering or holding the same shall be separately stated in the invoice, in which case the duties shall be assessed and collected on each separately at t h e rates prescribed by l a w : And provided further. That except as provided in tliis section and in section l i of this act, duties shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice value of the merchandise." SEC. 3. Amend this section of the bill by inserting after the word " agent," and before the word "provided," in line 11, the following: " W h i c h declaration so filed shall be duly signed by the owner, importer, consignee, or agent, before the collector, or before a notary public or other officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, who may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to receive such declarations,.and to certify to the identity of the persons making t h e m ; and every officer so designated shall file with the collector of the port a copy bf his official signature and seal." S E C 4. Amend this section of the bill by striking out all after the word," thereto," in the fourth line, and inserting*the following: "ShaU,on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of hot less than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at h a r d 44 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. labor not more thau five years; and the merchandise to which such false statement relates sliall be forfeited." SEC. 6. Amend this section by striking out all in relation to section 2770, and insert in lieu thereof the following: " Section 29 of the act entitled ' Au act to remove certain burdens on the AmeYican merchant marine, and encourage the American foreign carrying trade, aud for other purposes,' approved J u n e 26, 1884, is hereby amended by striking out, in the first line thereof, the word "seventy-six" and inserting in lieu thereof the \Vord " s e v e n t y ; " so that t h a t part of said section preceding the word "provided " shall read: ' Section 2770 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended by adding thereto the following : Also amend this sectipn (6) by striking out the words " ought to be exempted," in lines 25 and 26, and inserting instead the words " are entitled to exemption from duty uuder any provision of law ; " and strike out, in line 46, the words " are free," and in lieu thereof insert the words " m a y be entitled to exemj^tion." Also insert, after the word " o t h e r , " i n line 49, the word " p e r s o n ; " and add, after the word " s a l e , " in line 50, the words ^'Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed as exempting any of the articles herein named 5 o m duty, except as elsewhere provided by law." Also amend section 6 by striking out the words "from line 61 to 79, inclusive," relating to section 2801 of the Revised Statutes; the proposed amendment to tbis section as to the naval officer not being deemed advisable, aud the purpose of the proviso relating to donated wearing apparel being covered by an amendment hereinbefore suggested to section 2503, Revised Statues. SEC. 8. Insert, after the word "abolished," in line 6 of this section, the folloAving: " and in case of entry ofmerchandise for exportation a declaration, in lieu ol'auoath, shall be filed in such form aud under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary o f t h e Treasury, and the penalties for false statements in such declaration provided in the fourth sectiou of this act shall be applicable to declarations made under this sectiou." Also strike out all after the word " act," in line 9 of this section, and insert' as follows: " a sum equal to t h e a m o u u t which be would have been otherwise entitled to collect as fees for services in relation to such entries, to be allowed to him upon rendition of XDroper accounts therefor." Amend the bill by adding thereto the following sections : " SEC. 15. Any person who shall give, or offer to give, or promise to give, any money or thing of value,directly or indirectly, to auy customs ofBcer, iu consideration of or for auy act or omission contrary to law in connection with or pertaining to the importation, appraisement, entry, examination, or inspection of goods, wares, or merchandise, includiug herein any baggage, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than $100 nor more than $5,000, or be imprisoned at hard labor uot more than two years, or both." . " S E C . 16. Auy officer of the customs who shall demand, exact, or receive from any person, directly or indirectly, auy money or thing of value in consideration of, or for au3" act or omission contrary to law in connection with or pertaining to the importation, appraisement, entry, examination, or inspection of goods, wares, or merchandise, including herein any baggage, shallbe dismissed from office, aud on conviction thereof thall be fined not less than $100 nor more t h a n $5,000, or be imx3risoned at hard labor not more than two years, or both ; and for the xiurpose of constituting an oifense under sections 15 and 16 of this act,, the giving or offering to give, and the receiving of any money or thing of value, shall be regarded as prima facie evidence." Respectfully, vours, , ^ C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretarg. J . G. M.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , March 31, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman of sub commit lee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : SIR : In accordauce with the suggestions, made by you at our interview this morning concerning the amendments to House bill 5010, advised iu my letter to you o f t h e 29th instant, I submit the following further amendments for tiie consideration of your committee: SECTION 2502, R E V I S E D STATUTES. Schedule C—Metals.—In lieu of the amendment suggested to this schedule, on pag;? 3 of my letter, strike out, in nest to the last clause of this schedule (Tariff, paragraph 215), the words " mineral substances in a crude state," so that the clause, sliall read as follows: "Metals unwrought, uot speciaUy enumerated or x^i'ovidied for i n t h i s act, twenty (20) per centum ad valorem." REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 45 SECTION 2503, R E V I S E D STATUTES. Substitute for the last paragraph on page 7 of said letter the following: " Amend t h e clause relating to wearing apparel, &c. (Tariff', paragraph '815), so t h a t it shall read as follows: " W e a r i n g apparel, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or einployment, professional books, and other xiersonal effects (not merchandise) of persons arriving in the United States, not exceeding in value $500, if the same shall have been iu the actual use ofthe person for a period of not less than one month and not intendedfor the use of any other person or xiersons, nor for sale; but this exemption shall notbe construed to include machinery or other articles imported for use iu any manufacturing establishment or for sale : Provided, hoivever, That the limitation in value above specified shall not apply to wearing apparel aud other personal effects which may have been taken from the United States to foreign couutries by the persous returning therefrom, and such last-named articles shall, upon productionof evidence satisfactory to the collector and to the naval officer (if any) that they have been previously exported from the United States by such persons, and have not been advanced in value or improved in condition siuce so exported, be exempt from the payment of d u t y : And provided further^ That all articles of foreign production or manufacture which may have been once imported into the United States and subjected to the paymentof duty shall, upon reimportation, if not advanced in value or improved in condition by any means since their exportation from the United States, be entitled to exemption from duty upon their identity being established, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." ' " Insert a new paragraph as follows : "Theatrical scenery, and actors and actresses' wardrobes brought by theatrical managers and professional actors a n d actresses arriving in t h e United States, for temporary use, shall be admitted to free entry under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, and a bond shall be given for t h e payment to t h e United States of such duties as may be imposed by law upon any, or all, of such articles as shall not be re-exported within six (6) months after such importation." In case the committee should think best to adopt sieve " N o . 10" for fixing the standard of "broken rice," as suggested on page 5 of my letter, i t should be described in the bill as follows: '* No. 10 brass wire sieve, with space between the wires not exceeding in length or width 0.0887 inch." Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. J . G. M.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , April 3, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , . Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : S I R : The proposed amendments to House bill 5010, which you on yesterday submitted to the Department, have been duly considered, and I now have the honor to make the following suggestions in relation thereto: SEC. 4. I n lieu of t h e amendment reading " a n d the merchandise to which such false statement relates shall be forfeited," suggested in my letter of t h e 29th ultimo, insert the following: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve imported merchandise from forfeiture for any cause elsewhere provided by law." SECTION 2900, R E V I S E D STATUTES. Amend this section so t h a t it shall read as follows : " T h e owner, consignee, or agent of imported merchandise which has been obtained by actual purchase only, may a t the time, and not afterward, when h e shall produce his original invoice to the collector and make and verify his written entry of his merchandise, make such addition in the entry to the cost or value given in the invoice, as in his opinion may raise the same to the actual market value or wholesale price of such merchandise a t the period of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from which the same has been imported. The collector within whose district any merchandise, whether obtained by actual purchase or procured otherwise than by purchase, may be imported or entered shalLcause t h e actual market value' or wholesale xirice thereof to be appraised, acd if such appraised value shall exceed by 10 per centum the entered value thereof, then in addition t o t h e 46 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. duties imposed by law on the same there shall be levied and collected a duty of 20 per centum ad valorem ou such appraised value. The duty shall not, however, be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value." W i t h regard to your suggestion that the law be so modified as to authorize the Secretary o f t h e Treasurj^ to remit the additional duty imposed by the above section in certain cases, I feel constrained to say thafc I seriously doubt the expediency of such legislation. I fear it would cause importers to be less guarded, perhaps less scrupulous, than now with respect to their invoices and entries, and also tend to make appraising officers less diligent and careful in making appraisals. To ascertain correctly whether the additional duty has been wrongfully imposed would necessitate a revision o f t h e appraisement proceedings, in each case where remission was claimed, and a decisiou o f t h e case would involve a determination o f t h e question of the market value of the merchandise, in fact would amount to a reappraisement of the merchaudise b.y this Departmeut. This would involve radical changes in t h e existing laws respecting axipraisement and would materially increase the ^labors and responsibilities o f t h e Secretary o f t h e Treasury. Even if practicable for this Department to "examine, estimate, aud appraise" the merchaudise a t all the ports of t h e country, in cases where the additioual duty was imposed and its remission asked, the work would involve increased delay and expense. While I do not doubt there have been instances where the additional duty has been wrongfully imposed, I am satisfied these instances have been infrequent as compared with those where it ought to have been imposed and was not. I n either case a wronghas been done which should have been corrected. I think there should be such active and competent supervision of appraisements at all the ports of the country as would prevent and correct such administrative wrongs in t h e future. I am not now prepared, however, to suggest any definite legislation in t h a t direction. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Seci-etary. J.R.L.] T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY, Washi7igton, JD. C , April 3, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives: . S I R : I omitted to mention i n t h e letter I had the honor to transmit to you this morning that I. entertain grave doubt whether the proposed amendment to section 2900, Revised Statutes, will effectually accomplish its purpose. I am inforraed t h a t certain rexircsentatives in this country of foreign houses not infrequently claim how t h a t their importations have been actually purchased from or through their houses abroad. • Will not t h e American agents or representatives, generally, of foreign consigning houses, in order to avail themselves o f t h e xirivilege of "advancing their invoice values on entry, claim that thegoods have been actually purchased by them from or through their houses abroad ? Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. J. G. M.] T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E O F THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , April 5, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means, Rouse of Bepresentatives: S I R : Referring to the suggestions made by you at our interview this morning, respecti'ng House bill No. 5010, I have to submit the following: I t is thought t h a t the followiug substitute for the x)«'ira/graph embraced in pages 5 and 6 of my letter^of the 31st ultimo, concerning "theatrical scenery," &c., wMlmeet your suggestion with regard to articles for temporary exhibition by lecturers on the arts, &c., and also xiersonal effects of tourists visiting the United States. " Theatrical'scenery and actors and actresses wardrobes brought by theatrical managers and professional actors aud actresses, arriving from abroad, for their tempprary use in the United States; works of art, drawings, engraviugs, photographic pictures, and philosophical a-nd scientLfic apparatus, brought by professional artists, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 47 lecturers, or scientists arriving from abroad, for use by them temx3orarily for exhibition and iu illustration, promotion, and encouragement of art, science, or industry, in the United States; and wearing apparel and other xiersonal effects of tourists from abroad visiting the United States, shall be admitted to free entry under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and bonds shall be given for the payment to the United Sfcates of such duties as may be imposed by law upon any and all such articles as shall not be exported within six months after such importation : Provided, however. T h a t the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend such period for a further term of six months, in cases where application therefor shall be made." SEC. 2499. The word " dutiable," in parentheses, in lines 26 and '29 of this section of the bill, as last printed, should be stricken out. SEC. 2. Should not the comma on line 20 of this section follow the word " o n l y " instead of the word " u s e d " ? , Would n o t ' t h e meaning be more clearly expressed if the words "Provided, That," in line 27 of this section, were stricken out, and the words " in case " inserted in lieu thereof; also, if commas were inserted, instead of the present x^uuctuatiou marks, after the word " States," on line 27, and after the word-"invoice," on line28, and the comma after the word "stated," on line 28, was stricken out? I am of the opinion t h a t the words " o r entered" should be inserted between t h e words '' invoice and value," on line 48 of this section. If the last x^roviso of this sectiou (liues 49 to 54, inclusive) teas so amended as to make the additional duty of 20 per cent. ax3plicable to the merchandise whether entered ux3on a certified invoice apro formainvoice, or astatementinformof an invoice, it would still include only such merchandise as had been procured otherwise than by actual purchase, and we should have the same difficulty as now with regard to purchased goods entered uxion other than a certified or " original" invoice, unless section 2900, Revised Statutes, were so amended as to harmonize with this proviso. Would it not, therefore, be better to strike this proviso from the bill, and amend section 2900 to read as follows: " T h e owner, consignee, or agent of any imported merchandise which has been actually purchased may, at the time, and not afterward, wheu he shall make and verify his written entry of his merchandise, make such addition in the entry to the cost or value given in the invoice, or x^ro forma invoice, or statement in form of an invoice which he shall produce with his entry, as iu his. opinion inay raise the same to the actual market value or wholesale price Of such merchandise, at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same has been imported; and the collector within whose district any merchandise, whether the same has been actually purchased or procured otherwise than by purchase, may be imported, or entered shall cause such actual market value or wholesale price thereof to be ax^XDraised, and if such appraised value shall exceed by ten per centum or more the entered value, then, in addition to the duties imposed by law on the same, there shall be levied and collected a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem on such appraised value. Tbo duty shall not, however, be assessed upon an amount less t h a n the invoice or entered value, except as elsewhere specially provided in this act." Should you not be inclined to adopt this suggestion, and prefer to retain the proviso in t h e bill, then it is suggested t h a t the proviso be amended to read as follows: " And proviUed further, That in all cases where the appraised value shall exceed by ten per centum or more the value stated in the invoice, or pro forma invoice, or statement in form, of an invoice upon which entry m a y b e made of any imported merchandise which shall have been x>rocured otherwise than by actual xiurchase, then, in addition to the duties imposed by law ou the same, there shall be levied and collected a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem on such appraised value." SEC. 10. The x)rovisions of this seciion making the decision of the collector as to the rate and amount of duties ascertained upon liqu;idation final and conclusive upon the Government, do not appear to be in harmony with the eleventh section (lines 50 to 61) of the bill, wherein the validity of amended liquidations or reliquidations are recognized, subject to the limitation fixed by the twenty-first section of the act of June 22, 1874, which section provides t h a t the liquidation shall be final and conclusive upon all parties after the expiration of one year from the time of entry, in the abseuce of fraud and in the absence of protest by the owner, imx:)orter, agent, or consignee. In vicAv of the inconsistency of these two sections, and for the reasons set forth in t h e letter of Secretary Manning addressed to you ou the 16th ultimo, I suggest t h a t this (tenth) section be stricken from the bill. SECS. 11 to 14. In a letter addressed to the Hon. William R. Morrison on the 29th of January last the Secretary suggested certain verbal corrections in the bill xiroposed 'h'^r him, which corrections do not all appear in these sections. The following changes are therefore suggested: In section 11, line 41, strike out the words " trans- 48 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. c r i p t " aud " r e c o r d " and insert the word "notice,"so t h a t it will read " a noticeof such ascertainment," &c., and in line 48 of same section strikeout the words " s u c h " and " t h e transcript of the record," and insert " t h e " and " such notice," so that the line will read " the posting of such notice shall be." &c. As stated in the letter of Secretary Manning addressed to the Speaker of the House un the 18th of January last, there has been a conflict of opinion between Federal judges on the question whether or not, in case the Government sues an importer for duties after the merchandise has allbeen withdrawn from thecustody of thb collector, a n d t h e defendant hasnotx^rotestedand appealed according to section 2931, Revised Statutes he can set up as a defense illegality in the liquidation. A xirotest and apxieal should be required to enable an importer to test.judicially thelegality of a liquidation in t h a t case, as well as in'tJie case when the suit has been begun by himself. A provision to t h a t effect is contained in the bill as xiroposed by the Secretary, but is omitted from bill 5010. It is therefore suggested tliat this provision be addecl to section 11, so t h a t it will read, affcer the word " s u i t , " iu line 61, as follows,: "And when a suit shall be brought by the UAited States to recover the additional duties found due ou any ascertainment and liquidation thereof, and not paid, the defendant or defendants shall not be permitted to set up any plea or matter in defense excexiting such as shall have been set lorth in a protest and appeal made as herein prescribed." Respectfully, yours, ' C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. J. G. M.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washington, H. C , April 9,1SS6. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives: S I R : In accordance with your suggestion at our interview this morning t h a t I recommend such specific legislatiou as would, in my opinion, remedy the interpretation of the law of 1874 with respect to merchandise fraudulently imported which has gone from the possession o f t h e Government, and to which sxiecial reference was made on page 14 of the Secretary's annual report, I respectfully suggest the following : That section 12 of the. act entitled " A n a c t to amend the customs-revenue laws and to repeal moieties," approved June 22, 1874, be amended so t h a t it shall read as follows : " S E C . 12. That any owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other xierson who shall, with intent to defraud the revenue, make, or attempfc to make, any entry of imported merchandise, by meansof auy fraudulent or false invoice, affidavit/letter, or paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or Avho shall be guilty of any willful act or omission by means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the lawful duties,,or auy portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise, or any portion thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected by such act or mission, shall for each offense be fined in any sum not exceediug $5,000 nor less than $50, or be imprisoned for a^y time uot exceeding two years, or b o t h ; and, in addition to such fiue, such merc'CTandise, or the value thereof. shall be forfeited, which forfeiture shall only apply to the whole of the merchandise i n t h e case or xiackage containing the particular article or articles of merchaudise to which such fraud or alleged fraud relates; and anything contained in any act which provides for the forfeiture or confiscation of an entire invoice, in consequence of any item or items contained in the same being undervalued, be, and the same is hereby, repealed." You will observe t h a t the amendment consists only of the addition of the underlined words " o r the value thereof" on next to the last line of the preceding sheet. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , Washington, D. C , April 15, 1886. Hon. C H A R L E S S. FAIRCHILD., Acting Secretary of the Treasury : SIR: iim not quite sure whether in re-enacting section 2931 ofthe Revised Statutes, in section 13 of the tariff" bill just reported, we do not come in conflict with the provisions of the act of July 5, 1^'^4, entitled "An act to constitute a Bureau of Navioption in the Treasury Departmenfc." By that act it is xirovided that the decision of the Commissioner of Navigation on all questious. growing out o f t h e execution o f t h e nav- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 49 igation laws, and relating to the collection of the tonnage act, and to the refunding of such t a x when collected erroneously or illegally, shall be final. I think it will be well to examine this matter, and, if necessary, to make such amendment in section 13 as will save the provisions of the act above referred to. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, ABRAM S. HEWITT, Chairman Sub-Committee. H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , Washington, D. C , April \6, 1886. /Hon. C H A R L E S S: F A I R C H I L D , Acting Secretary of the Treasury : • SIR : I am instructed by t h e Committee of Ways aud Means to request you, at your early convenience, to make an approximative estimate of the effect o f t h e administrative provisions of t h e new tariff bill (H. R. 7652) upon the revenue. These provisions begin with section 3, on page 9, of the bill. The committee are aware that this estimate must be of a very general character, but as the House will expect to be iuformed uxion this xioint, the committee will be obliged to you for such information as you may be able to give, after making a careful examination of the eff'ect of the chauges proposed by the various sections of the bill following the first, and sections which deal directly with rates of duty. . • I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, ABRAM S. H E W I T T , Chairmccn Sub-Committee. J . G. M.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , April 17, 1886, Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives: S I R : In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, I have to inform you t h a t certain of the amendments of section 2931, Rev. Stat., proposed by House bill 7652, are in conflict with the xirovisions of the act of July 5, 1884, which make the decisiou of the Commissioner of Navigation final as regards the t a x on tonnage. ' Being satisfied t h a t this fact escaped the attention of Secretary Manning wheu he drafted the proposed amendments to section 2931, and t h a t it was not his purxiose to modify the provisions of the act of July 5, 1884, I respectfully suggest t h a t section 13 of the bill be amended by striking therefrom the words foliowing : In lines 6 aud 7, page 32, the words " o n the tonnage'*of any A^essel"; in line.9, same page, tbe words "vessel o r " ; in. lines 10 and 11, same page, tbe words " t h e owner, master, commander, or consignee of such vessel in the case of duties levied on t o n n a g e " ; in line 29, page 33, the words "vessel-or"; and in lines 33 and 34, same page, the words " on such vessel or.'^ Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. J.G.M,] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , April 22, 1886, Hon: A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : . SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter bf the 16th instant, requesting me to make au axiproximativo estimate of the effect uxion the revenue of the administrajiive provisions of House bill 7652. I have examined the several provisions referred to, and beg leave to reply as foln ows: SEC. 3, page 9. This section is a reproduction, in substance, o f t h e so-called "similitude section" of the present law, with the addition of a clause explaining the mean ing ofthe phrase " component material of chief value," and xirescribing a rule whereby the same is to be determined. The absence of such a rule heretofore has been fruitful of difficulties in administration and has led to litigation. Tho effect of this amendment upon the revenue cannot be foreseen, but it is thought that its tendency AV ill be to prevent loss of duties> H . E x , 2—VOL 11-^—-1 50 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Schedule A—Chemical products.—^The provisions proposed t o be stricken from this schedule are inconsistent with Schedule H ofthe tariff (paragraph 311), which makes all distilled spirits dutiable at $2 per proof gallon. The amendment is in the line of simplification and would affect the revenue but slightly. The duties collected on distilled spirits containing 50 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol amounted to only |257 in 1884, and none was apparently imported in 1885, while on the same article containiug 94 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol there was collected in 1884 $12,115, and in 1885 only $1,185. There would therefore be but a small increase of revenue under this amendment. ' Schedule B—Earthenware and glassware.—The changes proposed in this schedule would simplify the work of administra,tion. The duties collected on bottles intended to be affected by these amendments ardounted in 1885 to $124,005. I t is thought t h a t the change making such bottles subject to duty at the same rates as their contents, when dutiable ad valorem, will not make any appreciable difference in the revenue from this source. I t may be worthy of consideration whether the words " i n this act," in lines 53, 54, 68, and 69, might not be construed as referring to the new act rather thanfcothe original law, and the new provisions be thus made applicable to bottles containing sparkling wines, which, under paragraph 310 of Schedule H, are dutiable at 3 cents each. Schedule C—Metals.—The effect of the first amendment to this schedule would be to give the rate of duty on all manufactures of coxiper, or of which copper is a component of chief value, at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as provided in tariff paragraph 186. Heretofore the rate imposed has been 45 per cent., in accordance with the rule prescribed by section 2499, Rev. Stat., t h a t " w h e r e two or more rates of duty are applicable to any imported articles it shall be classified for duty at the highest of such rates. The average value of manufactures of copper, not otherwise specified, imported during the years 1884 and 1885, upon which duties were collected at 45 per cent, ad valorem, was $58,148. Upon this basis the reduction of revenue resulting from the proposed change would be $5,814.80 per annum. The second amendment to this schedule would have the effect to remit all mineral substances in a crude state not elsewhere specitied to paragraph 638 of the free list, which xirovides for crude minerals not advanced in value or condition by refiuing or grinding or by other process of manufacture. The Department has held t h a t the provision in Schedule C for mineral substances in a crude state applied to such substances of a metallic nature, and t h a t other crude minerals were included under the provision in the tree list above mentioned. The duties collected at 20 per cent, ad valorem upon crude minerals during the years 1884 and 1885 amounted to $9,686, an average of $4,843, which approximates the amount of the reduction under the proposed amendment. Schedule P—Tohacco.—If this amendment should accomplish its understood purpose, viz, the prevention of evasions of the higher rate of duty levied on tobacco suitable for wrappers, and the importations of the class of tobacco intended to be effected should equal those of 1885, it is estimated t h a t the annual revenue from this source would be increased about $700,000, Judging from the enormous increase of the importations since the act of 1883 went iuto etfect, and resort was had to the methods intended to be prevented, the effectual suppression of such methods and the enforcement of the collection of the higher rate would tend to reduce the volume df importations, so t h a t it is doubtful whether there would be any actual increase of revenue. ' Schedule G—Provisions.—The purpose of the first amendment to this schedule is to prevent the introduction at twenty per centum ad valorem of so-called " granulated" or " broken" rice, not considered entitled to classification as " r i c e flour" or " r i c e meal," but dutiable as cleaned rice. During the lasfc fiscal year the quantity entered at 20 per cent, ad valorem was 38,246,302 pounds, valued at $672,092, upon which the dufcies amounted to $134,418. A large proportion of this was doubtless dutiable as cleaned rice and would be so classified under the proposed amendment, which conforms to the late rulings of this Department. The effect, therefore, would be to secure an increase of revenue on this article of, say, $400,000 to $500,000 per annum, provided the importations should continue in the same quantities as heretofore. The effect of the second amendment to this schedule, and of the amendment to Schedule N, relating to "gardeu seeds" (page 15), making all vegetable aud garden seeds not specially provided for dutiable at the uniform rate of 10 per cent, ad valorem, would be to reduce the revenue therefrom about $40,000 per annum, taking D the importations of the last fiscal year as a basis. It is probable, however, t h a t increased importations would make up this loss. Schedule N.—It is estimated that the two amendments to this schedule relating to bonnets, hats, hat materials, &c., would produce an increase of revenue of fully $600,000 per anuum, possibly much more. The effect would be to prevent the admission of large and consfcanth^ increasing quantities of silk goods of various kinds, including ribbons, piece silks, plushes, Spe, properly dutiable und^r Schedule L, ^t REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 51 50 per cent, ad valorem, but which, because susceptible of use as h a t trimmings, &c., are claimed to be dutiable as such at 20 per cent, ad valorem. The amendment to the same schedule relatiug to watches, &c., makes the duty on watch glasses (or crystals) and watch keys uniform with t h a t imposed upou watches, watch movements, parts of watches, and watch materials, whereas watch glasses (or. crystals) when imported separately have been held to be dutiable at 45 per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of glass, and watch keys have been classified according to ' the niaterial of which composed. The eff'ect of the amendment, therefore, will be a slight but not material reduction of the revenue. The amendment relating to webbing,will not appreciably affect the revenue. The free list.—It is not perceived t h a t the amendment to section 2503 regarding articles the growth, produce, and manufacture of the United Sfcates returned after having been exported will atfect the re'venue to any considerable extent. I t is suggested, however, t h a t the word " g e n e r a l , " in line 178, page 16, be stricken out, as it may be found desirable and necessary to issue sxiecial regulations from time to time to meet particular cases. The provision limiting the free importation of "soap stock" to such as is fit only for t h a t use would prevent evasions, which have been practical to some extent, and would therefore tend to a slight increase of revenue. The provisions relating to wearing apparel, personal effects, implements, tools of trade, theatrical scenery, &c., would tend greatly to simplify administration and to increase the revenue upon articles imported by persons of wealth, who on returning from abroad, may, under the present law aud decisions ofthe courts, bring in unlimited quantities of wearing apparel and personal eff'ects. There is no basis for estimating the amount of such increase. It is thought, however, t h a t it would not fall short of $500,000 per annum. I t is suggested t h a t the words "except by repairs" in line 216 (page 18) be stricken out. Otherwise the provision would exempt from duty upon reimportation articles, such, for example, as watches and machinery which had been repaired abroad to such an extent as to be practically useful as new merchandise. SEC. 4. This section I regard as the most important of the administrative features of the bill so far as relates to the revenue, and as essential to the fair and orderly administration of the tariff'. Its purpose is to secure the assessment of duties upon substantially the same bases as it is believed was intended to be established by the section t h a t it repeals, and upon which the Government had levied duties prior to'the decision of the Supreme Court in the Obertauffer case. I believe that if it "shall become a law it will accomplish this result, and will afford a just, safe, aud uniform rule for the assessment of duties on all " p a c k e d " merchandise, save vast trouble to all concerned, prevent litigation, and secure the revenue from immense loss consequent upon the decision mentioned. The effect of this decision is to reduce materially, but in an irregular and uncertain manner, the duties upon all mer9hand!ise subject to ad avlorem rates and to afford advantage to those importers who are least scrupulous. I t is impossible to make other than an approximate estimate of such reduct>ion of revenue. The estimates of experienced customs officers of the amount of refunds to be paid under the decision are between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000. This amount would be much greater had all importers protested and appealed against the imposition of duties on cartons, &c. I t is estimated by those most competent to judge t h a t the reduction o f t h e revenue in the future under the operation of the decision will be from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 per annum. This estimate is based upon the valuation for the last fiscal year. How far this depletion might be repaired by increased importations resulting from lower taxation, and the ability thereby of foreign manufacturers to more successfully compete with domestic productions, it is difficult to forecast. SECS. 5 and 6. These sections are calculated to promote orderly administration and the convenience of imxiorters, but it is not thought t h a t they will produce any positive effect upon the revenue. SEC. 7. The effect of the amendment to section 2970 would be to abolish the additional duty of ten per centum accruing on merchandise remaining in bond more than one year. The ajnount of these duties collected during the last fiscal year was about $36,000. The amendment to section 2983, in so far as it provides for the assessment of duties on the quantity of merchandise withdrawn from warehouse, is a radical departure from the ]iresent law, which requires t h a t the duties shall be assessed upon t h e ascertained quantity as originally imported. The necessary eff'ect of the proposed change would be to reduce the revenue. The amount of such reduction cannot be approximately estimated. I t would certainly be considerable, nnd raight be very large. The tendency of both provisions would be to incn-iuse the volume of goods held in bond and t h e liability of loss of duties thereon. 3|]CS, 8 and 9. I t is not seen tbfVt tliese.septio^s woul4 a^ect tjie veve^ue, 52 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. SEC. 10. The fees proposed to be abolished by this sectiou are those now collectible upon entry of merchandise upon importation or exportation. The total amount of all fees collected by customs officers throughout the United States during the last fiscal year was $495,612.77. Of this amount $301,375.20 was collected in districts where the cusfcoms officers are paid fixed salaries, and the fees are paid into the Treasury. The remainder, $194,237.57, was collected in districts where' the fees form part of the collectors' emoluments. There is no means at hand for determining the xirecise proxiortion of t h e fees derived from entries of merchandise. I t is assumed, however, t h a t they will amount to three-fourths of the whole, which would represent a reduction of revenue of, say $375,000 per annum. SEC. 11. The amount retained from drawbacks on all classes of merchandise during the last fiscal year w a s $270,857.20; which indicates the eff'ect this amendment would have upon the revenue. The theory upon which a percentage of drawbacks is retained under existing law is t h a t the Governmeut may be reimbursed for the expense incurred in the ascertainment, payment, &c., of the drawback, which expense sometimes exceeds the drawback paid. SEC. 12. The etfect of this, amendment would be to increase the revenue, but to what extent cannot be approximated. One result would be to reduce the number of entries h j pro forma invoices, since the additional duty of twenty per centum would apply to entries so made as well as to those made ou certified or " o r i g i n a l " invoices, w^here t h e entered value is advanced ten per cent, by the appraiser. SECS. 13 to 16, inclusive. I t is thought that the general effect of these sections would be to secure uniformity and certainty in proceedings to recover duties illegally exacted, or duties improperly withheld, and thereby protect the revenue from loss. SEC. 17. There being doubt as to the interpretation which might be placed upon this amendment, I am not prepared to estimate its effect npon the revenue. If ifc is desired to exclude certain articles from the benefit of allowance, for damage, it is suggested that they should be specifically named or their character definitely indicated. The principal articles upon which dama.ge allowance is made are fire-crackers, nuts, green, dried, and preserved fruits, sugar and molasses, rice, chicory, glass and glassware, earthenware, leaf tobacco, Chinese.^matting, and tin plates. I t is estim^ifced t h a t the total amount of duties remitted on account of damage will approximate $500,000 per annum, a large proportion of which is allowed uxion fruits and other perishable articles. SECS. 19, 20, and 21. The tendency of these sections would be to give increased protection t o the revenue and therefore to augment the amount of duties collected. It is suggested t h a t the words " sections 15 and 16 of this a c t " be stricken out of line 11, section 20, a n d t h e words " t h i s a n d t h e preceding section" be substituted therefor. . • N Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COMMITTEE O F W A Y S AND M E A N S , H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , Washington, D. C , April 29, 1886. S I R : I inclose a letter from Mr. Charles Curie, Avhich raises a question which appears to be worthy of consideration. Take a cask of crockery for example—the mer''chandise is always purchased uupacked and the packages are charged separately, and yet the crockery is always shipped in casks. Are they dutiable or not under the proposed section? In my original draft I used the words " ready for shipment," which woukVclearly have made the packages dutiable. Is this the effect of the language recommended by you and adopted by the committee? I confess I am in doubt. Please consider the matter and let me have your views. Truly, yours, ABRAM S. HEWITT. Hon. C. S. F A I R C H I L D , Acting Secretary, ^ c . o COMMITTEE OF W A Y S AND MEANS, H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , - Washington, D. C, April 29, 1886. S I R : I have the honor to inclose herewith H. R. 7860, referred to this committee, I beg leave to ask fche opinion of t h e Department as to the provisions of the bill, and whether the legislation proxiosed is desirable in the public interest. I am, very respectfullv. your obedient servant, ABRAM S. HEWITT, Chairman Subcommittee. Hon. C. S. F A I R C H I L D , Acting Secretary of the Treasury. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^ 53 TREASURY DEPARTMICNT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , May 1, 1886. Hon. A. S. H E W I T T , Chairman subcommittee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives: S I R : I-have duly received and considered your letter of the 29th ultimo, with inclosure from Mr. Charles Curie, relating to section 4 of House bill 7652, and have the honor to reply as follows: The section mentioned expressly exempts from duty such sacks, crates, cases, or other outside coverings as are used and as are designed to be used only in the hona Me transportation of the merchandise to the United States in case the cost or value thereof is sexiarately stated in the invoice. These are the only coverings exempted, or t h a t are intended to be exempted, and it raakes no diff'erence whether they are or are not the only coverings about the merchandise, or whether they were put about it before or after purchase, provided theyowere put about it for the purpose solely aud only of its transportation to the United States, were designed only for that use, and were purchased and invoiced separately from the merchandise in its finished condition as bought and sold in the foreign market for exportation to the United States. If the coverings are such as form part of the merchandise as it is bought and sold in the foreign market for exportation to the United States, and in which it is prepared and p u t up for shipment when so bought and sold, or are designed for any use other than in the hona fide transportation of the merchaudise to the United States, they would not be exempt from duty even though in the form of sacks, crates, casks, barrels, or boxes, and were the outer and only coverings of the merchaudise. Mr. Curie's letter is herewith returned. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , May 1, 1886. Hon. ABRAM S . H E W I T T , Chairman Subcommittee of Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives: S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 29th ultimo, inclosing House bill 7860, to extend the privileges of the immediate transportation act, and asking the opinion of this Department as to the provisions of said bill, and whether or not the legislation proposed is desirable in the public interest. The bill providesthat merchandise liable to specific duties only may be transported to any of tlie ports mentioned in t h e seventh section of the immediate transportation act, although such merchandise may not appear by the invoice, bill of lading, or manifest of t h e importing vessel, to be consigned to or destined for either of said ports. As the provisions of this bill relate to goods paying specific duties ouly, it is uot perceived t h a t its passage would operate to t h e detriment of the revenue. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. APPENDIX B . MERCHANDISE REQUIRING CONSULAR CERTIFICATES. ^ Ko.L ' TREASURY.DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y , Washington, B . C, Noveonber 16, 1886. S I R : I desire to be informed whether, in your opinion, it would be safe now to revive the regulation, changed by me, which fixed $100 as the limit of value of merchandise which could be imported without a consular certificate. Eespectfully, yours^ DANIEL MANNING, Secretary^ C H I E F OF T H E CUSTOMS DIVISION. No. 2. J . E. L.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 17,1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury: I have the honor to acknowledege the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, in which you desire to be informed whether, in my opinion, it would be safe now to revive the regulation which fixed $100 as the limit of value of merchandise which could be imported without a consular certificate. The regulation referred to by you is as follows: DEAR SIR: Article 328 bf the General Regulations of 1884.] When t h e value of an importation does not exceed $100, t h e collector may, in his discretion, admit the same to entry by appraisement, without an invoice or t h e giving of bond therefor, if satisfied t h a t the importation and t h e neglect to produce invoice are free from t h e intention of fraud. The regulation is based upon section 2859 of the Eevised Statutes, which is almost in the same words. In reply I would inform you that, in my opinion, it would be unwise to take from collectors of customs the discretionary power, vested in them 54 Mt>ORt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY. 55 by the said law and regulations, of determining whether importations of merchaudise of less than $100 in value are made in good faith or not, it having been ascertained that many shippers of merchandise, especially in contiguous foreign countries, are in the habit of purposely breaking up their importations in order to evade the requirement of law concerning the* production of duly authenticated consular invoices. As an instance of this last-mentioned practice, it may be mentioned that the United States consul at London, Ontario, in a late dispatch to the Secretary of State, complains of numerous evasions and infractions in his consular district of the law requiring production of consular certificates, it being represented that certain shippers habitually break up consignments, say of ten car-loads of goods valued at $500, into ten different memorandum invoices, with a view of evading the payment of the consular fee for an invoice, and enabling them to obtain entry at the custom-house in the United States without the production of such consular invoicfe. So far, however, as my observation goes, I can see no objection whatever to allowing all entries of merchandise valued at $100 and less (or even to the extent of $200) to be made without the production of a certified invoice, but, in my opinion, the existing law ought to be amended so as to clearly permit of such practice. I think that, as a rule, and more particularly^ with regard to such importations of small value from the Dominion of Canada and Mexico, consular certificates to such invoices are of little or no value to officers of customs who receive the entries. In most cases along the frontier officers of customs are better informed as to dutiable value than consular officers. This is owing to the well-known facts that consular officers make no actual inspection whatever of small (or any) shipments of merchandise, and merely affix their certificates to invoices as matters of form, and for the purpose of the exaction of the consular fees. It may be stated, in connection with this subject, that, in accordance with a communication received from the Secretary of State dated the 4th of February last, which is as follows: For a long period no uniformity has existed in the authentication of invoices of small value. Consuls have been uncertain as to their proper course, when the authentication was declined by the shipper, which frequently happens. The principal cause of complaint on the part of shipxiers is the payment of the consular fee, which on minor shipments is excessive. In your letter of the 15th ultimo it was held t h a t ** the question of admitting goods valued at less than one nundred dollars to entry without the production of a consular invoice is to be determined by the collector of customs at the time of entry, who - alone has discretionary power in the premises under the provisions of^section 2859 of the Revised Statutes." I have the honor, therefore, to suggest as a means of settling this question definitely, t h a t collectors of customs be instructed as follows : Shipments of goods valued at less than $50 may be admitted without consular invoices. Shipments of more than $50 and less t h a n $100 in value, shall require a consular invoice, the fee for authenticating which shall be 50 cents. Shipments of $100 and upwards in value shall be treated as heretofore. If these suggestions accord with your views, I will undertake to have an executive order issued changing the consular fee accordingly. The Department issued a circular, No. 14, dated February 8,1886, the text of which is as follows: Referring to xirevious correspondence with regard to entries of imported merchandise of less than flOO in value, you are informed t h a t the Department is in receix)t of a communication from the Secretary of State, in which he suggests that hereafter shipments of goods valued at less than $50 may be admitted to entry at the customhouse without the production of consular invoices. The Secretary also states t h a t an 56 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURV. executive order will shortly be issued changing the consular fee for authenticating invoices of goods valued at over $50 and less t h a n $100, so t n a t such fee shall be 50 cents. You are requested, subject to the provisions of section 2859 o f t h e Revised St£:fiutes, to carry out the suggestion of the Secretary of State, in which I concur, Avith regard to entries of goods valued at less than $50, in all cases where you are satisfied t h a t t h e importer acted in good faith, and where impcntations are not. pnr})()sely broken up with a view to evade the requirements of the statute. The practice under this circular is now to admit to entry, without the production of a consular invoice, all shipments of goods valued at less than $50, where the collector of customs at the time of importation is satisfied that the importer acted in good faith and that the importations were not purposely broken ux;) with a view to evade the requirement of the statute. The circular also proposed to reduce the consular fee for authenticating invoices of goods valued at over $50 and less than $100 to the sum of 50 cents, but the Secretary of State has informed this Departraent that, owing to the existing statutes, it had no authority to reduce such fee without further legislation authorizing him to do so. I understand that there is a bill i3euding before the present Congress Avhich is intended to give the Secretary of State the requisite power to carry out the said suggestion. Eespectfully submitted. JOHN G. MACCEEGOE, i CMef of Customs Bivision, APPENDIX 0. REFUND OF DUTIES MADE IN FISCAL YEAR 1885-'86. No. 1. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washingtooi, B. C, October 21, 1886. S I R : Please prepare and submit to me, at your earliest convenience and before November 1, a full list of all refunds made under the carton decision, classifying them by ports, and giving {a) names of importers; (b) names of attorneys; (c) chief articles; (5) principal sum, and {e) interest and costs. Eespectfully, yours, ^ DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. The COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Treasury Bepartonent. No.2. H. A. L.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Washington, B. C, October 27, 1886. S I R : I have the honor to submit a statement, arranged by ports, of the sums paid to the several importers on account of duties collected in excess on charges and coverings, that appear from the accounts to fall under your circular of February 2,1886. This statement has been carefully collated from the accounts settled in favor of the various parties and is believed to be correct. The papers with the accounts fail in many cases to show the kind of goods on which the refund was made andin cases of suit, who were the plaintiffs attorneys. Whenever they were shown they have been in^ sorted. I t is possible that the data wherein this is defective might be procured from the files in the customs division of your office. If not, there does not seem to be any office in the Department from which the information could be obtained. The only resort to complete it would be to the custom-houses in which the accounts were prepared. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JOHN S. McCALMONT, ^ Commissioner of Customs. The S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y . 57 68 REPORT OP tHE SECRETARY Oi' THE TREASURE. [Inclosure No. 1.1 . Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Februai-y 2,1886. Importer. "^ Attomey. Articles. Interest Principal. and costs. Total. BALTIMORE. n . fl.Wolff& Co. (limited) No s u i t . Baetzer & Meyerstein ...do... Dix & Wilkins ,..:do... Cement. ...do... Fruit . . . TotaL, $14 67 39 80 2,229 04 $14 67 39 80 2,229 04 2,283 51 2,283 51 BOSTON. R. G. 2Torris & Co Young,Walton & Co . Waldo Bros Do Do S. S. Pierce & Co . . . . . Coleman, Mead & Co. Brine & Norcross . Linder & Meyer Howard Pleming Do Brown, Durell & Co.. Estabrook & Eaton . . W. W. & C. K. Noyes . C. E. Perkins Conant & Bean Estabrook & Eaton . . S. S. Pierce & Co W.a.Nash Simons, Hatcb &Whitten Hyneman Bros D.lr.TuUy&Co..Hawley, Folsom & Martin. Raymond & Fox. Laily & Collins 0. B. Perkins Seavey, Foster & Bowman. Lally, Lynch & Collins,. Simons, Hatch & Whitten. A.H.Hardy & Co Do Do Hawley, Folsom & Martin. March Bros., Pierce & Co. W.W. & C . R. Noyes . . . Estabrook & Eaton Claflin, Larabee & Co . . . Bradford, Thomas & Co. Charles B. Perkins Bradford, Thomas & Co. Henry W. Peabody & Co S. S. Pierce & Co Nathan Samuel Coleman, Mead & Co. Brown, Durell & Co . . No suit - No suit ...do... No suit ,...do... No s u i t . No s u i t . Grrease.. Bark extract. Cement ...do ...do Cigars Hosiery Hosiery, & c . . Ammonia Cement .. ...do Gloves, &c i.. Cigars Fruit Cigars .... Grasses Cigars ...do Plaster Various Cigars Fruit Gloves, &o — 9 29 65 230 83 30 23 36 51 59 94 03 64 63 90 98 2 17 168 52 151 11 34 54 02 62 1,102 97 85 29 37 00 148 83 204 50 416 23 1, 798 91 . 87 75 3 20 34 00 426 79 695 88 40 25 748 63 35 25 146 20 600 98 14 92 176 20 2,446 14 294 79 2, 395 62 126 92 33 746 248 296 75 15 75 40 51 00 52 05 33 75 809 43 299 75 . 348 45 Gloves Undressed goods . Oranges Fmit ...do Hosiery &c . 74 10 344 20 26 04 68 95 100 14 403 15 67 193 63 22 22 36 21 17 89 229 84 39 Gloves, &c.. Total. $80 47 8 29 Cigars Hosiery, &c .. Cigars Linen thread . Fruit . . . : J . P . Tucker. Cigars C.G. C h i c k . . Hosiery and gloves Dress goods Charles G. Chick . . . Cigars Dress goods Cement, &c Cigars Lewis D. Brandeis.. ...do Hosiery do Woodbury & Chick The Hamburger Garrity No s u i t . Company. William Cochrane .do. Grommes & Ullrich .do. E.Hofi&nan .do. George Luerssen & Co... -do . A. Shire -do. Thorwart & Roehling . . . -do. Best & Russell ..do . Chapin & Gore .do . Kantzler & Harges .do . Sprague, Warner & Co.. .do. Marshall, Field & C o . . . . ..do. 1,022 50 77 00 37 00 " 139 00 175 20 351 00 1, 568 55 87 75 3 20 34 00 375 20 601 85 40 25 684 00 35 25 146 20 510 00 12 75 176 20 2,277 80 242 25 2, 244 60 115 30 Cigar-boxes Musical tnstmments Cigars ....do ...do ....do.'........--. ....do Cigar-boxes do ...:do ....do 00 20 60 20 66 05 617 00 2, 226 25 7, 258 48 622 20 1,133 50 1,142 45 86 45 1, 276 75 186 25 7,453 35 5; 118 30 63 28 13 54 22 56 23 42 48 08 226 64 730 58 121 59 130 41 94 64 7 44 156 56 43 40 888 96 634 14 13 74 82 76 79 47 665 08 2,452 89 7,989 06 743 79 1, 263 91 1, 237 09 93 89 1, 433 31 229 65 8, 341 91 5, 752 44 40,223 23 4, 564 63 44, 787 i 8 50 8 50 8 75 278 00 24 75 23 50 109 00 15 25 290 25 94 75 164 25 468 25 591 30 8 75 278 00 24 75 23 50 109 00 15 25 290 25 94 75 164 25 468 25 591 30 REPORt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 59 Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1866—Continued. Importer. Attomey. Articles. Interest PrincipaL and costs. Total. t CEICAGO—continued. John V. Farwell & C o . . . No suit. ....do... A. S. Gage & Co ...do... Cutter & Crosette ....do... G. H. Foster & Co Farwell, Ruling & C o . . . . . . . d o . . . ....do... Julius Bauer & Co ...do... Edson, Keith & Co Carson, Pirie Scott &Co. . . . . d o . . . ...do... Burley & Tyrrell John'W. (ioetz & Co . . . . ...do . . . ...do... Lyon & Healey ...do... William Cochrane ...do... Mandel Bros Newman, Sulzbacher & ...do . . . W. ..do. Schweitzer & Beer .do . Storm &Hill .do. Verge, Ruhling & Co James H. Walker & Co.. -do . .do . Wilson Bros .do . Bestf. Kussell & Co -do Burley & Tyrrell -doBurley & Co .do. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. -do . Chapin & Gore ..do . William Cochrane .do. Grommes «fc Ullrich .do . Gibson, Parish & Co .do A. S. Gage & Co .doKantzler &, H a r g i s . . . . . . .do . J. BL Lesher & Co .do . Locke, Hulcatt & Co .doLowenthal, Kaufman & Co. . do. George Luerssen .do. E. N. Hurlbut & Co .do. Hamburger Garrity Com-I pany. ...do. E.Hoffman ...do. Lord, Owen & Co ...do. Mandel Bros ...do. G. W. Sheldon & Co A. Shire , ...do. W. H. Schimpferman & . . d o . , Son. ...do Schweitzer & Beer Sprague, Warner & Co . ...do Thorwart & Roehling... ...do Vergho, Ruhling & Co . . . . d o ...do Wilson Bros J. H. Walker & Co . . . . . ..-do Marshall Field & Co . . . . ...do Percy L. Shuman . . •Best & Russell Chapin & Gore . ...do ...do Do ...do : Do Kantzler & Hargis . ..-do ...do Adolph Shire ...do -. Do W. H. Schimpferman & Shumam &Defrees. Son. Sprague, Warner & Co . Percy L. Shuman.. Locke, Hulcatt & Co - . . No suit o Merriam, Collins & Co.. ...do Marshall Field & C o . . . . . . d o . . . o,. Cutler & Crosette . ...do Lyon & Healy . ...do Root & Sons Music Com- ....do pany. .do. Schlesinger & Mayer do. J . H . Willets .do. Best, Russell & Co . .do. Chapin &. Gore — .do. William Cochrane. .do. Grommes & Ullrich .do. E.Hoffman -do. Kantzler & Hargis — , .do. George Luerssen & Co .. .do. A,SoWr©....., Cigars. Earthenware . . . China Hosiery, &c Cigars ...do ...do Silks Handkerchiefs. Cigars Italian cloth — Handkerchiefs. Cigars ...do Italian cloth. Cigars .do . Hosiery. Burlaps. Cigars ... ...do . . . Toys and dolls. Cigars ...do Toys. Hosiery, &c Velvets, & c . . . . Hosiery, &c Cigars • ... d o \ ...do ...do ...do. ...do..-. ...do ...do ...do Handkerchiefs... Anchovies Hosiery Handkerchiefs... Musical instruments! ...do Hosiery . ...do — Cigars ... —do ...do .... ...do.... ....do-... ...do.... ....do.... ....do.... $523 75 23 60 51 10 40 40 8 40 5 00 12 25 69 15 15 30 62 55 46 00 19 00 70 30 53 20 $523 75 • 23 60 51 10 40 40 8 40 5 00 12 25 69 15 15 30 62 55 46 00 19 00 70 30 53 20 15 45 11 65 106 70 46 90 388 45 335 50 41 95 11 40 83 95 197 25 21 75 486 25 15 00 5 60 206 75 4 40 14 00 26 75 15 45 11 65 106 70 46 90 388 45 335 50 41 95 11 40 83 95 197 25 21 75 486 25 15 00 5 60 206 75 4 40 14 00 26 75 17 50 2 70 8 25 17 50 2 70 8 25 45 16 95 22 83 29 75 40 10 40 25 25 45 16 95 22 83 29 75 40 10 40 25 25 47 698 14 50 107 16 708 718 217 588 43 142 171 59 176 40 00 25 45 95 80 80 75 50 25 75 00 50 50 50 47 698 14 50 107 16 708 842 271 669 73 181 217 90 218 40 00 25 45 95 80 80 9499 13 45 03 54 94 88 75 25 21 70 1 60 23 20 8 40 69 25 3 75 3 60 11 60 197 25 75 00 20 25 367 50 33 25 176 25 65 00 80 25 $124 54 80 29 39 46 31 42 19 49 88 70 03 04 44 38 35 43 110 68 21 70 1 60 23 20 8 40 A 69 25 3 75 3 60 11 60 197 25 75 00 29 25 367 50 33 25 176 25 65 00 80 25 60 REFORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Coutinued. Importer. Attomey. Articles. Interest Principal. and costs. CHICAGO—continued. W. H. Schimpferman &, Son. G. H. Foster & Co Gerts. Lumbard & Co ... • E. N. Hurlbut & Co Kahn, Nussbaum & Co.. Edson, Keith & Co Locke, Hulcatt & Co .. . Lyon & Healy Jacob Meyer & Bros . . . Schweitzer & Beer , Storra & Hill Vergho, Ruhling & Co .. J.B.'Walkcr<feCo . . . . . Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. John V. Farwell & C o . - . Marshall Field & C o . . . Edson, Keith & Co Mandel Bros G.W. Sheldon & Co J . H . Walker & Co Wilson Bros Marshall Field & Co . . . . No s u i t . Cigars. $33 75 8 40 Linen thread 10 20 Brushes 4 50 Dress goods 2 80 Hosiery 5 20 Embroideries 49 20 ....do 51 50 Musical instruments 120 00 Hosiery 10 15 Toys 20 30' Worsted goods... 8 75 do Toys 53 60 do Erabroideries 302 45 Hosiery do 98 80 do ....do 537 50 ...do ....do 12 95 ...do .--.do 58 80 Embroideries — ...do 49 60 ....do Burlaps 247 20 ....do Hcsieiy 226 95 .-..do do .-N. W. Bliss & F . P . Dress goods 1, 266 90 $213 13 Leffingwell. Do. 921 75 No suit Hosiery and gloves Lilienfield Bros. & Mayer ....do 13 75 Cigars Sprauue, Warner & Co 481 50 ...do —do Do 123 26 Shuman & Defrees. ...do 1, 741 50 Do 1, 445 75 156 84 .-'l.do .-- d o - . . . Do' 116 00 Percy L. Shuman .. Cigars and olive oil 38 48 Best, Russell & Co -- do 113 75 37 88 Cigars A. S. Gage & Co Shuman & Defrees. Hosiery and hand42 92 164 80 kerchiefs. P. L. Shuman . Grommes & Ullrich 12^5 00 38 55 Cigars ' 102 75 E.N.Hurlbut 36 12 ...do Dress goods Kantzler & Hargis 932 00 413 38 ...do Cigars Lindauer Bros. &> Co ...do 50 64 193 60 Hosiery, & o . . . -. William H. Schimpfer- ...do 107 00 39 94 Cigars man & Son. Stephen Paddon & Co. .- No suit 43 80 Salt cake . 1, 602 25 175 89 Grommes & Ullrich Shuman & Defrees. Cigars Chapin & Gore ...do 391 00 47 72 do . . . . . Adolph Shire ...do •. 280 00 41 06 ...do . . . d o . . . . Hamburger Bros. & Co. 199 00 44 28 ...do W. H. Shimpferman & ...do ...do 117 75 32 14 Son. Stephen Paddon & Co . . . . . . d o . 107 60 33 74 Salt cake Lindauer .Eros. & Co ...do 90 95 Hosiery, &c ... 31 75 William Cochrane ...do 61 60 Cigars 28 90 Charles Gossage & Co... ...do : . . . . . . Thread, &c 63 15 34 67 Mandel Bros P. L. Shuman 36 80 Hosiery, &c 29 41 Wilson Bros Shuman & Defrees. Woolen goods, &c 1, 834 30 141 23 Root & Sons' Music Com- P. L. Shuman 55 50 Musical instruments 33 00 pany. Do Shuman & Defrees. ---do .-... 53 75 30 52 James H. Walker & Co.. . . . d o . . . . " 706 75 Hosiery, &c 68 67 Kantzler & iiargis ...do 707 75 61 42 Cigars Lehman & Kinsman ...do 194 25 Musical instru42 65 ments, &c. Do. P. L. Shuman 34 40 30 11 .-..do Best, Russell & Co Shuman & Defrees. Cigars 1, 038 00 130 50 A. Shire. 1 ...do 447 75 —do 69 31 Lindauer Bros. & Co ... d o . 67 20 Hosiery.' , 30 67 Marshall Field & Co . . . . Bliss & Lefl&ngwell. Dress goods, &c 7, 694 60 1,167 78 John Girmscheed Shuman & Defrees. Clay pipes 294 35 40 73 Mandel Bros . . do 382 15 65 76 Handkerchiefs, &c.. Po ...do 437 15 ...do 88 48 Jacob Meyer & Bros 434 35 ...do 62 54 Hosiery Wilson Bros ...do 987 90 Gloves, &c 166 06 Vergho, Enhling & Co .. ...do 277 20 Dolls, &c 53 43 Marshall Field & Co . . . . N. W. Bliss 16, 453 80 1, 353 28 Merchandise Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. Shuman & Defrees. Dress goods 1, 248 60 153 10 Do • , 657 10 66 44 ...do ...do 706 05 Burley & Tyrrell Toys 72 14 William Cochrane 26 40 Shuman & Defrees. Cigars, ink, chalk . . . 27 77 38 60 Do P. L. Shuman Brushes and toys . . . 30 36 Burke, Walker & Co . . . . ...do 40 80 Dress goods 31 27 A.S. Gage «fc Co ...do 197 20 Gloves and hosiery.. 52 43 Hosiery,.....,.,.,,, 72 15 i)o 30 19 ...40 .., ..do . .do . -do . .do . . do . -do.do . .do . . do . -do . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 61 Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Continued Importer. Attoiney. Articles. Principal. Interest and costs. Total. CHICAGO—continued. John W. Goetz & Co . . . . Lyon & Healy Do C. W. & E. Pardridge &Co. Vergho, Ruhling & Co .. Wilson Bros Baughart Bros John V. Farwell & Co.Best, Russell & Co Edson, Keith & Co Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co Vergho, Ruhling & Co-. P. L. ShumanP. L. Shuman. ...do ...do No suit .. -• P. L. Shuraan Shuman &JJefrees. . . . d o -.-P. L. Shuman ...do P. L. Shuman Grommes & Ullrich Shuman & Defrees. Wilson Brothers No suit J. B. Taylor <fe Co G.H.Foster & Co Burke, Walker & Co . . . . P. L. Shuman Shuman &. Defrees. J. H. Walker & Co John V. Farwell & Co... . . . d o P. L. Shuman Do Hewman, Sulzbaker & Shuman & Defrees. Wedeler. ....do Kantzler & Hargis . John V. Farwell & Co. - . . . . d o Franklin McVeagh & Co No suit Best, Russell & Co . . . . . . . . . . d o Lilienfield Bros. & Mayeri . . . d o ..-.do •.-... Chas. H. Slack ....do A.Shire ....'.Sprague, Warner & C o -...do -...do F. H. Clarke & Co ..-.do Boughart Bros Lilienfield Bros. & Mayei . . . d o . ..do .--. Fuller & Fuller Co Shuman & Defrees. Burke, Walker «fe Co i*. L. Shuman Gromraes & Ullrich Root & Sons Music Co.. . Shuman & DefreesMarshall, Field & Co . . . . No suit do L; H. Flusheim .do . • Kantzler &• Hargis .do . Metzler, Rothschild .& Co. .do . C. D. Peacock .do. G. W. Sheldon & Co .do . Schweitzer & Beer . . . . . . Vergho, Ruhling & C o . . . ..do-do. J. H. Walker & Co .-do Fuller & Fuller Co Lord, Owen & Co Louis Manasse Lyon &. Healy G. W. Sheldon & Co . ..do . ..do. -do. -do. Gloves and hosiery Musical instruments ...do Hosierj^ Brushes, &c Hosiery, &c. Ci.iiars Hosiery, &c Cigars Hosiery Dry goods Musical instruments, <fcc. Cigars Hosiery, &c Handkerchiefs $397 269 481 98 25 75 30 00 119,75 117 40 2 50 1, 054 65 1,055 50 452 25 1,155 80 196 30 $61 69 40 57 72.25 38 51 $458 310 553 136 94 32 55 51 30 94 39 01 150 156 2 1,222 1,146 517 1,343 250 69 41 50 18 00 12 77 56 167'53 90 .50 64 87 187 97 54-26 139 61 258 10 Gloves General merchandise Dress goods Hosiery ...do .' 817 25 2, 088 20 4 65 9 60 506 95 402 65 1, 553 80 77 15 471 95 Cigars •. Dress goods Piepared vegetables Cigars ..• ...do do. .do . .do . do . ..do . .do. Medicinal water. Dl ess goods Cigars Musical instruments Earthenware, &c . . . Trial glasses Cigars Smokers' articles .. 1, 304 50 1,248 75 98 40 16 75 15 00 2 25 5 75 1 25 4 75 •1 50 1 25 17 75 365 80 1, 280 25 24 75 814 60 10 00 6 00 48 00 150 69 160 84 Opera glasses.... Glass eyes ... Musical instruments Violins and t o y s . . . Toothpowder, &c .. . Boxes contaiuing meat extract. ..-.do Opera glasses, Musical instruments Burlaps 95 59 132 34 56 65 37 43 01 49 69 20 98 59 26 31 956 86 2, 346 30 4 65 9 60 602 60 462 02 1, 686 23 111 16 528 44 1.455 19 1, 409 59 98 40 10 75 15 00 2 25 5 75 1 25 4 75 1 50 1 25 17 75 435 00 1, 378 84 51 06 814 60 10 00 6 00 48 00 20 00 6 00 91 00 59 00 62 00 15,40 20 6 91 59 62 15 18 00 69 65 7 00 .17 10 18 00 69 65 7 00 17 10 00 00 00 00 00 40 75, 098 0;" 8, 403 51 83, 501 56 CINCINNATI. Alms & Doepke Bohn Bros. & Co Knost Bros. & Co Do LoAvman's Sons & Co The John Shillito Co . . . . Do Do Knost Bros. & Co The John Shillito Co . . . . Do Do : Kleine, Detmer & Co Strobel & Wilken Kno«t Bros Stiobel & Wilken Do The .John Shillito C o . . . . H. & S . Pogue ]Bart <fe Hickox No snit. ...do... ...do... ...do... ...do... ...do... ...do... ...do . . . ...do . . . ...do ... ...do-.. No s u i t . No s u i t . Handkerchiefs.. Hosiery , Toys.." , ...do Hosiery Toys Gloves I Cotton apparel . Embroideries, & c . Buttons. Suitings . Buttons Hosiery and j;loves Gloves, &c... 15 05 72 20 12 10 24 65 23 20 26 10 38 65 69 65 446 75 31 25 9 50 63 60 80 83 90 28 25 134 50 1*7 40 17 70 351 40 29 35 14 79 18 43 15 05 72 20 12 10 24 65 23 20 26 10 38 65 69 65 540 90 31 25 9 50 100 01 80 98 69 46 68 73 22 225 12 17 70 351 40 29 35 62 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Statement of amounts refunded to importers -under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Continued Importer. Attorney. Articles. Principal. Interest and costs. Handkerchiefs, &c.Mu.sical i n s t r u m e n t s do $50 589 520 • 13 418 7 1 546 $21 91 75 16 77 Total. CINCINNATI—continued. Haas & Weiss Strobel & Wilken K n o s t B r o s & Co Haas & Weiss Alms & Doepke No suit L o w m a n ' s S o n s & Co T h e J o h n Shillito C o . . . . . . d o Do Total .. Cotton goods Corsets 40 40 70 80 40 70 4080 3, 644 60 . 00 85 65 04 46 129 42 $71 681 596 29 495 7 1 676 40 25 35 84 86 70 40 22 648 42 4, 293 02 CLEVELAND. Root & McBride Bros Hosiery and gloves . No suit 105 20 105 20 DETROIT. Hosiery Brushes ....do Beans E d s o n , M o o r e St Co No suit do J a m e s E . D a v i s & Co T . H . H i n c h m a n & Sons . . . . . d o ....do W e l t o n & Allison - 57 4 4 26 40 80 20 40 . ........ 92 80 Total 57 4 4 26 40 80 20 40 92 80 DENVER. S. M. Siinpson .'. No suit '.. C i g a r s 136 13 -!.. 136 13 MILWAUKEE. Leo Roth C l a v ninea 66 15 66 15 Meat jars 104 50 104 50 MIDDLETOWN, CONN. No suit T a l c o t t F r i s b i e & Co NEW YORK. Howard Fleming A . C. B a b s o n . . . J a m e s Brand Howard Fleming Do .. . Sinclair & Babson . . . A . C. B a b s o n C. V o n P u s t a n Gabriel & Schall Do Gustav Grawitz. A . C. B a b s o n J a m e s Brand H o w a r d Flerain"' Do G a b r i e l & Schall H. Herraan Sternbach Co. M a r c i a l & Co Sinclair & Babson H. Herraan Sternbach Co. F . Gottschalk Gustav Grawitz A . C. B a b s o n J a m e s B rand .. H. Herman Sternbach Co. Do Do Do.. H e a l e y & Co H. Herraan Sternbach Co. C. J . S t e v e n s David Wylie Charles J. Stevens H . R . K e l l y & Co H. Herman Sternbach Co, & & . & & & Dudley & Phelps ... . . . do do . .do ....do ...do ; ....do Araoux, Ritch & Woodford. Dudley & P h e l p s . . . . do H a r t l e y & Coleman do . . .. Dudley & Phelps ... do . do . . . . do Stanlev, Clarke & Smith. Dudley & P h e l p s .. do Stanley, Clarke & Smith. H a r t l e y ds C o l e m a n . - do Dudley & Phelps ... do Stanley, C l a r k e & Smith, do . . do .. . . . . do Charles Currie Stanlev, Clarke & Smitii. Charles Currie ...-.do Stanley, Clarke Swith, Cement barrels ....do ....do ..do ...... ...:do ....do ....do Firecrackers 242 222 5, 428 1,974 1, 787 1, 855 3, 528 106 60 60 60 20 60 40 20 00 Cement barrels ....do . . do ....do ...do .do ....do ....do Woolens 538 411 1,120 130 722 986 283 198 46 70 98 55 82 87 89 10 43 293 266 5, 950 2 151 1,996 2, 040 3, 868 171 30 r>8 15 02 47 29 30 43 40 35 60 00 80 20 60 60 25 71 41 49 72 • 135 89 24 60 49 03 78 09 27 20 30 88 12 55 609 461 1, 256 154 771 1, 064 310 229 58 81 07 49 60 83 29 80 48 80 Cement barrels . . . do .• Woolens 359 80 1, 522 60 365 50 35 04 112 46 34 22 394 84 1, 635 06 399 72 Cement barrels ....do . .. . .-..do ...do •48 314 1, 789 1, 606 280 60 00 20 80 45 13 30 135 123 38 33 06 94 02 18 61 344 1, 925 1, 729 318 9.i 06 14 ?2 63 152 206 719 37 170 85 75 45 60 48 22 11 26 75 106 25 • 7 96 24.05 174 233 825 45 194 96 50 70 56 53 1, 867 191 786 2, 909 1,167 42 20 00 71 80 2,120 225 854 3, 247 1, 352 40 28 28 09 74 Cement barrels ....do . . . do Cigars . . ' - . & W o r s t e d goods 50 43 521 176 208 184 340 65 2.52 34 68 337 184 98 08 28 38 94 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 63 Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1888—Continued. Importer. Attomey. Articles. Principal. Interest and costs. Total. NEW YORK—continued. Binney & Smith W.H.'Tailer&Co Howard Ives Purdy & Nichols Do E. Thiele Do Do Lesher, Whitman <fe Co.. T. R.Keator & Co Do Do Otto Heinze & Co Lesher, Whitman & Co.. Do.: L. Strauss & Co Healy «fe Co Do H . R . Kelly & Co R. H.Wolff&Co John Lowitz U. C. Hawthorne C. Haussman Waentig... Hazens, Todds & Co Oberteuffer, Abegg & Daeniker. Gutwilleg & Schiff A. Steinhardt & Bro J S.Johnson... Do Do Thomas Deeming & Co.. Do Michaelis & Lindermann S. L. Prager& Co Thomas Leeming & Co.. Lozano, Pendas & C o — Belloni & Co Howard Fleming G abriell & Schall Hall &Ruckel Gutman Bros James Brand Cement barrels Hosiery and gloves. Cigars ...do --.do Cement barrels ...do ...do Dress goods Cement barrels —do ..^ ...do ...do Dress goods -..do Barrels Cotton, lace, &c Cotton , Cigars Barrels ' Trimmings . Handkerchiefs .,. Linens Dress goods, &c" Hosiery, &c Tin cans ....do ...do ....do .--.do: Cigars Artificial flowers. Tin cans Cigars Cement barrels .. .-. do Dry-goods Cement barrels . $398 70 $63 23 $461 93 1, 899 45 339 81 2,239 26 1,728 50 241 88 1, 970 38 12,607 70 1, 593 98 14,201 68 1, 625 25 110 27 1,735 52 133 60 18 70 152 3o 1,792 40 154 60 1, 947 00 3, 886 00 514 32 4,400 32 392 90 36 05 428 95 372 20 29 68 401 88 794 80 70 46 865 26 956 40 149 25 1,105 66 11,787 85 1,815 39 13, 603 24 1,145 15 183 13 1,328 28 1,382 15 137 20 1, 519 35 835 71 88 59 924 30 - 570 50 114 49 684 99 10 80 8 88 19 68 911 00 166 05 1, 077 05 280 40 35 26 315 66 115 00 31 37 146 37 49 40 14 72 64 12 23 40 12 84 36 24 • 182 40 32 92 215 32 140 80 151 60 292 40 3, 547 85 125 65 2,793 15 823 80 4. 700 10 i; 115 20 3, 925 70 1, 048 00 362 25 461 60 28 50 873 60 175 80 121 20 234 15 6, 514 45 213 80 538 97 33 11 461 44 57 34 417 12 72 05 498 68 174 68 79 62 43 94 7 47 107 53 33 04 20 95 39 96 972 54 56 54 4, 086 82 158 76' 3, 254 59 881 14 5,117 22 1,187 25 4,424 38 1,222 68 441 87 505 54 35 97 981 13 208 84 142 15 274 11 7, 486 99 270 34 105,166 47 13,388 39 N E W ORLEANS. Bradley, Kurtz & Co . . . Do!"!!!!!]!!!!!!! U. Keen & Co Do Do Do Do Edmond Dubois Bassetti & Xiques Bradley, Kurtz & Co . . . U. Keen & Co Do Do No suit ...do ...do ...do ....do ....do ...do ....do .--.do .--do .--.do Rouse & Grant. No s-ait Jute bags do 1 ....do Cigar boxes ....do .--.do ....do ...do Brandied cherries . ....do Jute bags Cigars Cigar boxes. 31 60 292 00 146 00 9 25 23 75 22 50 19 25 5 50 244 15 102 55 72 80 1, 999 75 4 75 67 90 349 99 "303 3, 041 75 31 60 292 00 146 00 9 25 23 75 22 50 19 25 5 50 244 15 • 102 55 72 80 2, 349 74 4 75 70 93 3,394 77 PHILADELPHIA. E. Thiehle Belloni & Co Camm <fe Thomas Morris Ebert Howard Fleming George V. Morey Mercial & Co Max Von Angem T. R. Keator & Co Churchman & Co Geo. B. Woodman & Co. Alb^rge^, Stoer & Qo . . . Pyle & Kingston . Edw. L. Perkins .. .do .do . .do . .do. .do . .do . .do . No suit . ...40... Cement barrels. ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do -. do Salt cake Olive oil Press goods 826 00 177 00 167 00 17 20 506 60 126 60 292 00 65 40 45 40 181 40 9 00 62 15 56 52 21 03 23 86 13 21 49 92 20 53 26 45 18 48 14 90 24 30 882 52 198 03 190 86 30 41 556 52 147 13 318 45 83 88 60 30 205 70 9 00 62 15 64 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 0 Siaiement of amounts refunded io importers under circular, February 2, 1886—Con tin ued Importer. Attorney. Articles. Principal. No suit ...do... ...do Pyle & Kingston . . . . do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do . ..do ...g ...do H e n r v C. D e w y . . . ...do •.-.. ...do Pyle & Kingston . -.'.do A. M. Beveridge .. do ...do ....do Pyle & Kingston . do . . ' ..•..do '. ....do ....do ...do J. A. Brown Pyle & Kingston.. D r e s s goods, & c . . . . T o y s , &c L i n e n s , &c , Cigars do Gloves..: Dress goods Cigars Hosiery H o s i e r y , &c Cigars ...do Cutlery do ....do Gloves ....do ,.Clears .... ...:do .-..do ....do D r e s s goods do H o s i e r y a n d gloves G l o v e s , &c H o s i e r y , &c do Cigars Gloves, &c $101 75 46 595 59 198 210 593 772 146 74 14 322 182 38 87 302 167 126 256 48 622 289 537 551 397 813 25 935 70 60 80 75 50 45 10 50 25 05 00 00 35 15 25 40 35 50 25 75 00 94. 75 65 45 95 40 50 86 B u t t o n s , &c Woolen goods... Cla.y p i p e s H o s i e r y , &c do .'. Silk goods Hosiery R i b b o n s , &c . . . . Hosiery ...do 402 228 81 41 115 72 44 381 31 39 35 19 90 70 65 00 40 15 20 40 Ribbons L a c e s a n d embroideries. B u t t o n s , &c D r e s s goods T o y s , &.C H o s i e r y a n d gloves F a n c y articles Meat* c a n s Hosiery Buttons 44 20 779 95 Interest a n d costs. PHILADELPHIA—cont'd. Joel J. Baily & C o . Harrin.iiton <fe G o o d m a n . H o m e r L e B o u t i l l i e r & Co. S. F a q u e t & Sons A . F I ohraann &. Co Wil.son & B r a d b u r y R . W i l l i a m s o n & Co S. F u q u e t & Sons J o e l J-. Baily & C o C o o p e r & Con a r d T. & W . C o c h r a n e . . Do Alexander Cappel Do. Do , Langfield, L i c h t e n & Co . Do M. E . M c D o w e l l & Co . . . Do Do John Wagner A l b u r g e r , S t o e r & Co . . . H a r r i n g t o n <fe G o o d m a n . Strawbridge & Clothier . Do.:... Cooper & C o n a r d John Wanamaker E . B r a d f o r d C l a r k e &-Co. W m . H. H o r s t m a n n & Son.s. J o h n T h o r n t o n & Co . . . . E . T. Steel & Co Geo. Z o r n &. Co 11 F . D e w e e s Do Brown, De T u r c k & C o . . Cook & Bro's M. S. S h a p l e i g h & Co . O. G. H e m p s t e a d & S o n . . Stewart, Wallace Atkinson & Co. H e n r y Tilge<fe C o . . . . . . . . P e t e r W r i g h t & Sons . . . ..do . A. B r o w n . ..do .do. .do. .do . .do . .do. ,Jno. A. B r o w n Harrington & Goodman Pyle & Kingston . F o i well B r o s . & Co Meyer & Schoenemann. Yoiing, S m y t h , F i e l d & Co C. F . K u m p p G othen s & R e x a m e r . A. A. McCown & C o . Oetheimer B r o t h e r s . . 203 51 161 1, 984 43 53 53 3, 305 05 20 45 25 10 45 90 50 19,186 94 . ROCHESTER. Sibley, L i n d s a y & C u r r . Do No s u i t . C o t t o n a n d wool . Hosiery 11 65 5 20 Olive o i l . ...do .... Buttons.. 10 50 89 25 16 00 SAN FRANCISCO. Pascal, Dubedat & C o . . . J a m e s de F r e m e r y & Co. Sweitzer, S a c h s & Co . . . SAINT JOSEPH. W i l l i a m H . F l o y d & Son No s u i t . Tea baskets . $56 96 23 39 46 13 48 70 109 70 70 21 37 67 25 91 10 08 65.75 34 38 18 67 2b 67 63 72 37 77 33 23 44 32 21 50 108 38 48 38 93 97 60 63 47 48 1.50 17 16 66 162 21 33 50 22 18 33 25 20 83 18 19 23 37 66 02 21 90 38 76 26 73 20 14 165 03 28 21 37 324 20 22 24 577 35 50 49 63 10 28 57 78 3, 305 29 "•R13P0ET OF t H E SteCRBTAEY O F THE 65 TREASUKY. Statement of amou'nts'p^efunded to importers under circular, February 2j 18S6—Continned, • \ •' ' ^ 'RECAPITULATION; _ " PrincipaL N a m e of port." < Baltimore •.' :•. Bo.ston . ^ Ohica<^o . . ' Cincinnati...'..-...' '. •....i Cleveland . . . ' .•. i . . ^ Detroit •. Denver .\ ' MilWaukeie' .f .'. .• Middletown . ^ NewYork .. ... . N e w Orleans 1 •..- ..• -Philadelphia .'. ' San F r a n c i s c o S a i n t Jo.senh j . . - . . $2,283 51 40,223.23, 75,098 05 3j 644 60 L-. i 305 20 92-80 ;..... 136 13 .• 66 15 • 104 50 ... 105,166 47, 3, 041 75 .:..-... ...1 19,186 94 .. 16 85 115.75 53'90 . . . . . ." '.: : . . . . ' . Total 249, 335 83 -• Interest and costs. , ' Total. . $2j'283 51 44,787-86 ,83, 501 ^56 4, 293 02 105 20, - 92 80' 136 13" y_ _ _' ' 66 15 104 30 118,554 86 i3,388'39 353 02 3,394 77 3,305 29 ' 22, 492 23/ 16 85 i l 5 75 53 90 $4,564 63 8,403 51 648 42 30, 663 26 279, 999 09- TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T J ^' ,. O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, - , . Washington, B . C, October 16, 1886^^ The COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS: S I R : . You will please prepare i'or me, as speedily as possible, a statement showing—\ ' (1) What is the total sum of money refuu ded to importers by tlie ^ Treasury between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, under protests and appeals, or suits, and what portion thereof was for interest a;nd 'costs. ' ' , ' " • ' . (2) What sum has been refunded under the Oberteuffer decision, and what is the total amount of claims thereunder now pending aud unpaid which have been certified and ascertained. ^ , ' .Eespectfully, yours,' '•.''• • . ;^ ' ' ' DANIEL MANMISTG, ,• : Secretary^ - ./ TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, V , . ' , ' - , Washioigton Citij, B . C, October 20,18S6.\ MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY. ^ T o t a l anjount of refunds passed from October 1,' 1885, to October 1, 1886. Protests, appeals, and suits. . . . ^ ,...617,634 48 Cierical errors, damages, &c. (no p r o t e s t ) . . - - . . 12,263 09 Miscellaneous—special acts, fees, & c . . .'..•. 15,512 80 ^ J _ Interest and costs paid . . . . . o, -. . 135,259 66 Attorneys'^and marshals^ fees (fees, costs,&c.) .y..... 3,447 97 Pri ncipal on (iases over two years old ' 20,851 14 . > L--_ : .Amount refunded under Oberteuffer decision Amount pending under Oberteuffer decision Very respectfully, . ; . • ^ ^' ^ / H, E:s:. 2 - ^ V O L n — 5 ' , ^ $645,410 37 _ . .^ ' 645,410 37 , 159,558 77 239,871 96 15,335 89 v ' " MAIJEICE F. HOLAHAK, Office Comiuissioner of Ciistomso ' . • , .. ^ . . APPEI^DIX D . W.] TAXES COLLECTED FROM IMPORTS. Values oJ thepi'incipal and all other articles of dutiable imported merchandise entered for ' consumption, including withdrawals from warehouses in ihe United States, during the year ending June W, iSS6. " ' ^ ' • Articles dutiable. Values. Sugar, molasses,', sugar-candy, and confectionery . Wool and manufactures of: Wool,.raw ..' Manufactures of '" Total . Iron and steel, and manufactures of: Iron ore Pig-iron .' Manufactures of iron and steel... Total . Flax, hemp, jute, &c., and manufactures of: UnmanufacturedFlax i... Hemp, jute, sisal-grass, and otlier vegetable substances Manufactures of ., Total . Cotton, manufactures of , Silk, manufactures of Fruits, including nuts .'. Chemicals, drugs, dyes, and medicines . Leather, and manufactures of...: Tobacco, and manufactures of, . 11 Liquors, spirituous and malt, and wines: Malt liquors ,. Spirits; distilled Wines ^....., Total. Jewelry and precious stones .'-. Wood, and manufactures of .• Breadstuifs G-lass and glassware ^ 'Fancj' articles 1 Eartlien, stone, and china ware Hats, bonnets, and boods, and materials for c Furs, and manufactures of Buttons and button materials ,.'. Animals ." ........1 .:.... Coal and coke -' ' Books, maps, engravings, etchings, &c. ^. Vegetables '. .;,..•'... ...^... Metals, metal compositions, and manufactures of.' Fish Provisions, comprising meat and dairy products . Seeds '. .' 66 Ordinary duties. Aver- , age ad valorem rate of dutyL $76, 746,461 25 $51, 778, 948 34 13, 794, 212 97 40, 536, 509 38 5,126,108 35 27,278,527 54 54,330,722 35 32,404,635 89 1, 312, 322 37 . 532,956 26 4, 041, 366 62 1, 737, 658 19 33, 278, 088 35 12, 3C1, 261 30 38, 631, 777 34 Per ct. 67.47 37.16 67.29 59.62 40. 61 43. 00' 37.16 14, 631, 875 75 1, 548, 800 00 113,138 88. ,7. 30 8, 693, 317 66 21,370,523 02 1,728, 587 36 7, 406, 089 86 19. 88 34.66 31,612,640 68 9, 247, 816 10 11, 752, 206 89 29,236,071 18 .28, 055, 854 94 13, 938, 096 -61 3, 498, 569 39 12, 973, 307 98 12,796,387 52 , 4, 347, 626 05 3, 262,232 87 11, 466, 414 29 8, 311,114 45 lb, 315, 311 00 1, 206, 257 11 1, 826,.059 27 6, 753,471 97 585,102 26 2, 834, 696 25 3, 774, 348 93 9,785,788 35 8, 367,838 14 . • 900, 474 36 7, 772,442 49. 1, 423,301 44 7,164, 361 56 1, 042,404 08 6,341, 057 62 3, 694,923 69 5, 934,379 61 2,456, 398 59 4, 992,214 81 2, 829,539 75 4, 866,345 32 1, 028,091.86 4,193, 576 04 855, 729 99 3, 843,549 78 889, 005 80 3, 613,472 69 722, 694 56 2, 624,990 70 610, 375.32 2, 516,773 48 ' 629,191 87 2, 340,998 04 637, 545 ,67 2, 34,0,639 49 771, 886 42 2,266, 304 09. 502, 287 54 2,050, 914 53 478, 969 67 1,805, 298 4 0 404, 757 87 29. 25 40: 20 , 49. 68 26. 97 33. 97 28.45 80.57 48. 52 1.55. 56 55.91 73. 58 10.76 18. 31 14.55 ' 55.40 41.40 56. 68 21.18 20.43 23.11 20.03 23.20 25. 00 27.23 32.98 22.16 23.3,6 22.42 , . ^ REPORT OF THE' SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' ! 67 • Values ofthe pr.in.cipal and all other articles of dutiable imported merchandise, ^c—Cont'd. Articles dutiable; Values. Ordinary duties. . a^ Paper, and manufactures of Sait^^^"]-"X?""'*''"!]"!!!!^!!"!!" Musical instruments Clocks and watches, and parts of.... — Paints and colors .. -. '. Oils,animal,'mineral, and vegetable Hay Bristles : Corsets and corset cloth Art works, paintings and statuary Marble and stone, and manufactures of . Cement, Roman, Portland, and all other . Gold and silver, manufactures of 1.. Copper and raanufactures of: Unmanufactured Maiiufactures of Total. Average ad valorem rate of .duty. Per. ct. $1, 802,482 .82 1, 611,524 71 1, 493,397 17 1, 432,375 56 1, 362,540 81 1,270, 223 72 1, 079,979 91 i; 035,408 75 1, 029,975 00 957, 256 00 916, 777'21 • 898,194 47 '734, 394 60 612, 787 62 $392, 469 7721.77 1,184, 138'24 73. 53 706, 324 34 51. m 6 358, 093 87 25.00 356, 504 72 < 26. 16 419, 962 66 33.12, • • 278, 643 41 • 2.5.' 84' 184, 350 72 .17.80 . 149, 981 -63 14.56 335. 039 60 35.00 275, 033 16 , 30. 00 ^ 368, 957 70 41: 08 146, 878 91 20. 00' 167, 575' 86 • 27.85 430,885 00. 100, 409 46 110,867 87 9, 055 22 25.70 41.47 531,294 46 119, 923 09 26. 49 Brushes of all kinds ..'. Matting and mats for floors..... Hops '. Soap...... G-lue.. '... Brass, and manufactures df .......... Grunpowder and all explosive substances. Grease .'...' ^ Carriages,) and parts of 522, 209 54 462, 627 08 540, 216 82 436, 728 54 433,718 71 394,101 30 356, 301 79 336, 67z 80 256, 367 00 Hair, and manufactures of: Manufackired Un manufactures of . . . . 111,726 75 128, 875 51 . 27,646 14 40,447 87 240, 602 26 234, 207 00 231,876 88 . 170,491 45 150, 712 24 147, 693 28 127, 539 92 3, 081, 481 53 68; 094 01 71,986^93 67, 356 79 88, 899 97 17,299 35 29, 538 66 50, 848 05 1, 030, 268 32 Total Clay or earths . . . . . India-rubber and gutta-percha, manufactures of .• Zinc, and manufactures of Cocoa, prepared, and cocoa butter Ginger ale or ginger beer : Umbrellas, parasols, shades, and parts of All other dutiable articles Total dutiable . . Additional duty. 'Total duty collected. 413,778,054 63 156,662 88 • 30. 00 92, .525 41 • 20: 00 , 217, 517 68^ 49. 50 .. 116,451 33 ' 26. 66' • 86, 743 75 ,20.00 42 22' 166, 402 43 81. 61 290, 774 26 14.60 49, 272 88 35.00 89, 728 45 18,8,379,397 09 1, 031, 051 08 24.74 31.39 28. 03 30. 73 29. 05 • 52.14 11:48 20. 00 39. 85 33.'43 * 45,55 189,410,448 17 WM. F. SWITZLER, Chief of Buo'-eau. 'AppE:SDix^ A P P E A L S FBOM COLLECTOBS' DECISIONS A N D B E F U N D S B T T H E DEP A B T M E N T ; ALSO PBOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO T H E LAW OF 1&83.FOB , T H E COBBECTION O F A M B I G U I T I E S T H E B E I N <. ; ' \ STATEMENT IN '• ' NOo 1. .•.. , • , . • . RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES ADDRESSED TO CUSTOMS DIVISION, OCTOBER 18, 1886. ' / (1) .How many appeals from'decision pf collector at New York, levying customs^duties, were presented at the Treasury between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, exclusive of carton protests'? In how maiiy . ,was the decision of the collector sustained, and in how many reversed? . • ' • • • . ' ^" ,. ' • • ANSWERo ' ' . • ^ ' ' Erom O'ctober 1,1885, to October 1,1886, the Department has affirmed the, decision of the collector of customs at New York on 4,600 appeals . (in round.numbers), and reversed his decision.on 200 appeals submitted by him 5 also affirmed in part and reversed in part 100 appeals, none of which appeals embrac'e the question of charges under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883. . * (2) Make a statement of each judgment or statement certified by a collector of customs as due and payable, aud which has not been paid, giving (a) the name or title, (b) the collector certifying, (c) the date of certificate, (^) the Treasury office in whose present possession the claim is^ held, (6). the reasons in full for non-payment other than want of appro-' priation, and (/) the total amount of such unpaid claims. . . ' • ' . _ •' ' . ANS-WER. * , • ' Certified statements for refund of duties, wlien received in this office' frbm collectors, are only examined with the view of. ascertaining whether I there is any appropriation available from which they may he paid, and whei/her the requirements of law as to filing protest and appeal a'nd commencing suit have been complied with. Such items as.appear to be defective in any of these respects are either stricken out or the state-'-' ments are returned to the collector for correction; after which they are referred to the First Auditor for examination and settlement under section 3012J, R. S. . ' Barring the few statements which have been returned to collectors for correction in some minor particulars, no certified statements for^eJ'und of duty are pending in this office. , ' ' "• . . " .' J, Go MACG-EEGOE,' .• Chief of Customs Bivision. • C U S T O M S D.IVISION, Qc;^o&6r 2 0 , 1 8 8 6 . ' , . No, 2. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , November 29, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING-, ^^ - . . . Secretary of the Treasury: \ , -^ , S I R : In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, requesting that th© information contained in a memoranda submitted by me on the 20tb . 6 8 • . ' ' • ' • " • s ,' ', " V. ^ - .; ''^^ \. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. \^ 69 ' ultimo be brought down^o^tlate, I have the,honor to submit the foliow• i " g • ^ . • •' ' r -, ^- . ' - ^ : •"-' •''/• ';,••.• ••'.,.-. From Oetober 1, 1886, tp. November 23, 1886, the Department has •affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at Ne\Y York on 625^ ; appeals and reversed his decision on 12 appeals,*and thei:e remain's un- - . decided in this bffice (Novembei; 23) 141 appeals. .. ' . None of the foregoing embrace the question bf charges under section V 7, act of March 3, 1883. These, added to the numbers given in' my for- . mer'report, show 5,225 affirmances from October,1, 1885, to November 23,, 1886, and 212 reversals during the same period, , In reply to your further request fora scatement covering the point laid down in the first inquiry respecting the period betweeh O^ctober I,, 1884, and October 1, 1885, I have to state that during that period the . Department affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at New jYork on 5,672'Bppeals, and reversed his decision on 761, none of which embrace the question of charges under seetion 7, act of March 3, 1883. Xoii also ask for a specification of the questions presented by tlfe protests in 1886, in which the decision of the collector of customs'.(New, ^ York) has been affirmed. .. , In reply I' submit the following list of questions on which five opmore -appeals have been affirmed during the current calendar year: ' , H a t materials '...... ~ 631 ' "Cottons, manufactures of , . ^ . . . . 490 ' Breakage,liquors, uon-allowance for -. .. ..J... 2Si 'Stiir wine, in c a s k s . . . i . . '..1 --..--: -.--• -- 241 . Linen, manufactures of •-.^. . . . . . . . ' . .. ..' 169. Sugar, duty on (favored-nation clause) : ' 16L .Silk and cotton goods ' .. ....1 ,"......... ........> '139 • Tiies, paving, 1 - . ^ . . . . ..\ 86 Tomatoes (fruits_or vegetables) .. 84 India-rubber fabrics : J 76 Linen embroideries .' . . . . . . .' , .' .^1.: .•. 75 ^ Metal buttons . . : ....:.. . .' 65 Imitation jewelry • 57 Worsted'and cotton cloth ' ..-• . 55 Pins .. ,„ . . . J.. 55 > Gilling twine ...'...... .^.-L, : 53 Linen handkerchiefs,, embroidered 51 Philosophical instruments 50 ' Albums, (manufacturers of paper, cotton, sllkj leather, &c.) .... . 48 Penal duty (section 2900, Revised Statutes) ...:.... 45 ' Paper,-'manufactures of i . . . - 42 Silk seals (silk, cotton, and worsted) \ 42 • Burlaps, baggiug or not, &c. . . . . . . . : .37. Worsted and cotton, dress goods.. '. ' ..:.... ,36 Opera glasses, manufactures metal, glass, pearl, shell, &c 30 Matelass6 cFoth...". 23 Paper, photographic .' 22 Rosalic'acid, coal-tar preparation or chemical c o m p o u n d ' . . . . . . . . . . / . . 22 -^ Liuen braid . 21 * .- Periodicals (what constitutes)., ,.. .' .....21 India-rubber balloons (toys under T. I. 425, or articles of india-rubber 454) 20 Hair.curlers, k i d : . . . . . . . - , . . . 19 <^ . Church statuary i ." 18 Ginger-ale bottles ...'. •'. ^ . . . . . . . . lb Cotton-caps.... .'. , .^.'~ 17 . Cotton nets ; ' 1 46 , Silk arid cotton plush : 15 -Bichromate soda ^ 15 Lentils ,..'.:..!. , 15 L:pn nails .' .^ 1^,.. 15 Wool, siik,\and cotton plusli (v^ot for ha.rs^) :' '. 14 Wool lace . . . . . . : '. .c . . . . . . : . : . . . : . . . • . . . : 1.3 Qleate of soda . . . . ' . . ......: '.., 13 . Paintings on pQrcelain (decorated earthenware).. . . : . ...o 13 . Sjboneware,glazed . , , , . , , , , , .\,,.,-, . „ , , . . \ ^ , . . . . . . » - ..,,/o- =. . . , . , o . 1 3 70- , ^ ,REPORT O F . ' T H E SECREa^ARY OF THE TEEASURY. K 1 \ • Linen t a p e s . . . . . . : . ' . - . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . -.i..:..'....'.^.. ^ . . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . 12 I India rubber, in. sheets . . . - ' - . . . . . . ......^ -i...... . . . . . . . . . . . 12 , Rosaries, beads, or regalia .....•._.'..... .. 1^. ..........I.......'. 12^ ' Toys............................:.C * .:..:...........\...........-.:. 12 Cot,ton and metal webbing . . . : . . . ':. ..... ........ ... . . . . 11 / Ivory piano keys ...<... ' :... .>... i 11 '' ^ 'I. S e ^ d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ - . . / . . . ! - . ............-....:.... ,11^ . Hair-pins "(pir'S or manufact'ures of metal), ' . . . ; . . . . ^ . . . ' : . . . . . . • . . . . IV ^ American grain bags ^ f..... 10 Beans, edible,vegetables ..• . i .......,''.) Feather trimmings .' . . . . .v.^... . 9 Irou ore (moisture in) ^..."" ...' ........-....',. 9 Jute, upholstery goods ., ,9 A n t i - p y r i n e . . . . . . .• : ,. -r--- -'-•' ,8, ' India-rubber pouches '. 'S ?,Medicinal preparations L ............ 8 . Turkey-red, goods , 8, Scrap-books. '.. 7 Cotton rob^s..... ...........' ,. ,...'..: .; 7 Ea.rthen ware J -. 1 ' 7 ' Glass be'ads. .^... . ^ 1.. : .,: .'..'• 7 J u t e and metal thread c u r t a i n s . . -' '7 Linen and cottou l a c e . . . . . , . ' . ^ ..'........ 7. Manufactures of leather ...'.. -.,. 1 7 Mklt extract ..........^ ^. . . . i 7 Pipe-stems..-.' i ^. i 7 Silk and cotton (taffeta) gloves ..• , 7 Anchovy p a s t e . . , . i j . ...1 ..'..: J . . . . . . 6 Glassware '...-..:............. ^ 6' Plated ware ,. .'..'...:. 6 Wool b o n n e t s . . . ..,,............,..• 6 Aniline colors..' . i ..^^.. 5 Dye-wood e x t r a c t s . . . . . . '.. ...-..-'.'. 5 Bone, manufactures of ; .. 1 5 Downs i: , 5 ,' Chbcolate 5 Pickled fish .:.. :.... , 5 Goat's hair ...i.. ...' 5 J u t e , manufactures o f . . . . 5 Metal laces '........ ,.. 5, Picric acid.-. '. ., 1... 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Silk and worsted goods .... .' . 5 , Skins, tanned '. :... 5' Shells, manufactures of .1 ^ 1 5 Si'eel, manufactures of ...: ..\....... 5 Tricotine '. 1 ./. 5 , Toy tea-sets ^ .•-...' .. 5 Of these appeals by far the greater number concern textile fabrics Among these are the-questious concerning hat raaterials (631 appeals) and num erous questions under the silk, worsted, and cotton schedules • •• . • * • T H E COTTON SCHEDULE. . 0 , , / Under the cotton schedule appeals have been received and affirmed under various^names in the foregoing list, to wit: ' ; , .Cotton c l o t h s . . ,. Silk a n d cotton goods . i -.: 1 AVorsted and cotton cloths Worsted and cotton dress goods ' Cotton caps. ..".' .i Cotton nets. ...... Silk and cotton plushes Wool, silk,and cotton plushes Turkey-redgoods Cotton robes Linen and cotton laces , ,., " ..' Silk £ind cotton gloves (taffeta?) Down pillow^s with cottou cases . . . . . ^ . . . .• .^ ^ .'.v.... Appeals'. : \ 490» ^ . . . . . . . ' . 1 . . . , . ' . . 1)39 ^ ^ :.....-... ^ v . . . . . ' . . . . . . 1... ........ . ' , ^ I.. '.. : ' 55 36 17 16' 15 14^ 8 ^^ .' 7, .... 6 7 o. 5 J , REPORT OF T H E ' SECRETARY OF THE TREAOTRY. ' . "^ . / - • • - .;, ; •'• ' ' •;, • .WOOL SCHEDULE. .• ^ 71' \ '-- .'. . . ' '/. ^\ • Under the wool schedule will be found decisions pri-—' ' ^ ' . Worsted and cotton cloths . . . . ! . . . . . ' , ' . : ' . . . • . . . . . . r . . ...•.:.. . : . . . : . — y 55 - . Silk seals (worsted and silk) ......,-.,...*". c . • . . . . , . . . ' . . . " i . . . . - . . : . . ,,42 i \ Worsted and cotton dress'gpods : .........'.. . ' . . . . . . . . . . t....,, 36 ; \Matela,ss6 cloth .'. . /: ,..:.,..-. •. .' . ' . . / . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ,'23 Wool, silk, 'and cotton plushes .'..: ' , '.-... ' 14 Wool laces.-,..: , ./.. .. ...'. '.'. . . 13. Wool bonnefs.1 ...........' ........: .\.. .,..i... ' 6 • Goat^s hair .......... j 1 ^ ; ............... 5' ' Silk and woolen goods .:. '.. '....'.. ' 5 , • Wool tenuis balls . . . . . . . . . ^ . 1 . .^ . .. „ 5 Worsted braids . . . . ..!..,..; i. .:.. 5 . LINENS, ETC. ' ^ ^ . . -• '• The hemp, jute, and flax schedule embrace questions on— Linen,,inanufactures of .; = ->..Linen, embroidered Gilling twine' . . . . , Linen handkerchiefs, embroidered B,urlaps.... Linen braids ....../. Linen t a p e s . . . i . . . . . — J u t e upholstery goods Linen and cotton laces : .......: ,..'.... ..\. i.. ...i . : '. ....' . '.. ..... 1 ...• ..-.., ,......' . ^ . . . . 1... "..... — •-.-.'. j ^.. The metal schedule shows decisions on— Metal buttonsImitation j e w e l r y . . . , Pins Philosophical i n s t r u m e n t s . . . . ^ Opera-glasses , Hair-curlers... i ' Iron n a i l s . - - - . . Hair-pins ..'. ,. Iron o r e < . - . . . , J u t e and metal c u r t a i n s . . • Plated ware*,.'.. ' Metal laces . ^ i Steel manufactures • Tricotine..'..... l..-. ..... • ' 165/ , .57 i .' -...' 55 50 ........:... 30, ^..... ^ . . . 19 , 15 . . . . . . . ' . . . . . 11 ...!._' 9 -j .....I... 7 . ...„.. ..-.'..' .6 .!..... - -j. ,5 ; .\.... -......,. 5 ..^ .,--...• 5 '...-. ---...., .' _. Appeals on so-Called paving tiles . . . On so-called church statuary ...^ On ginger ale in. bottles , ", Paintings on porcelain .' On glazed stoneware' .'Glassware ...•. ' Ahd on so-called toy tea sets ,. " ..i..'. ... •. .": ..^... P A P E R , BOOKS, ETC. • 86 . . . . . . . . ,18 ' —. . . . . 18 : • . J . . . . . . 13 . v. ......'.-•--.. ,13 . '-'-.....'....... 6 ........'. „.,/..:., 5 • ^ The paper schedule shows:' App.eals on albums On manufactures of paper On photog.rai)hic pai^er On periodicals ^ Arid scrap-bqoks 1., 169 ' 75 53 51 -37 21' , 12 '9 7• ........: The earthenware and glassware schedule shows— > . '; , i ".......... ^, '. / 1 '. .' J 48 42 22 21 7 The remainder of the appeals embraced in the foregoing list are" ^.scattered through'the several schedules.' ; A large number of appeals are ofa strictly legal aspect and present no question of faqt. The question as to whether the act of March 3, 1883, is restricted in itsi provisions to a mere substitute for title 33 of the Eevised Statutes;, , and is without effect as to legislation after date of said revision, is ^ersented in 281 cases involving the non-allowance tor damage or break- > , age of liquors, and in 241 cases, on the assessment of duty on still wine , 72i , REPORT OF THE- SE€RETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^ v - in casks, both of,which are provided for.in the act of February 8, 1875,V in manner different to that found in the act of March' 3,' 1883. (See Opinion Attorney-General,,S. 5974.) / : , ; , • !. ^ • The application of the most-favored-nation clause in foi'eign treaties, is miade the subject of 161 appeals, involving theassessmentof duty oii sugars from oth^r countries, which would be free under the Hawaiian ' treaty if imported from the Sandwich Islands (see S. 62^2). , The asj ses.sment of duty under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, forms the subject of 45 appeals. ' As requested in the last paragraph of your letter, I inclose herewith sucli "pertinent sections of new laws to be proposed to Gbngress'^ as would, in my opinion, if passed, definitely settle the points pi^sented in the more numerous classes of appeals above mentioned. ^ " ' . / Eespectfully submitted. ' . ; . - • / ^ Jo G. MACGEEGOE, '' • / . • '• . ' Chief Gustoms Bivision. [Enclosure.! Amend "section 2500 of the Eevised Statutes aS'contained in the act, of March 3,1883, by adding thereto the following, " and imported merchandise subject to duty under this section shall be subject to the privileges , and requirements of the warehousing laws^ of the United States.^' ; Ameridrnents to section 2502, Eevised Statutes. ;, SCHEDULE A.—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS. Amend the clause (paragraph 49) for '^ bichromate'of potash," by adding the words,;" and bichromate of soda,^^ so that the clause shall read .• [ ^'Bichromate of potash, and bichromate of soda, three cents per pound." , Amend paragraph Ko. 81, commencing '^ CoaL tar, products of," by inserting, after the word "pitch;," the following: ^^ including toluidine, xyii- ' dine, and mixed crude and fuel or gas oil;^^ so that the paragraph will read as follows: ' , ' ." Coal-tar, products of, such as naphtha, benzine, benzole, dead oil,' and pitch, including^ toluidine, xylidine, dnd rmxed crude aoid fuel or gas^ oiJZ, twenty per centum ad valoi:em." ' * Amend paragraph ]Sro.-92, commencing "All' preparations kno\yn as essentia!.l oils," by inserting,after the words, "not specially enumerated -or provided for in this act," the words ''including^alizarine assistant or S0M6Z6 o^?;" so that the paragraph shaH read as follows: ' • '"All preparations known as essential oils, expressed oils, distilled oils, rendered oils, alkalis, alkaloids, and all combinations of any of the fore going, and; all chemical compounds and salts, by whatever name known, and not specially enumerated or provided for ^n this act, including dli- ^ zdrihe assistant or soluble oil, twenty-five per centuni ad yalorem." Amend paragraph ISTo. 120, commencing " Opium,, crude," by adding^ 'at the end of the paragraph, the words '^aoid aoiy opium which has been once imported and cooideonned shall, upon reimportation, be subject to forfeiture and destruction ; " so that the paragraph shall read as follows: ' ' " Opium, crude,'containing nine per cent, and over of morphia, one dollar per pound., The impprtation of opium contamiug less than nine per cent, morphia is hereby prohibited 5 dnd aoiy opiuon which Jias been once imported and condemned shall, upon reimportation, be subject to forfeiture jand destruction.^^ V ; REPORT OF 'THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' ,73 ,".'•. • S C H E D U L E B.--EARTHENWARE-AND "GLASSAYARE; .' ' '• ^ '. \ Amend paragraph i^To. 125, comm^encing " China,, porcelain, pariaiv and bi^s(ine, enVthen, stoiie, and crockery ware," byjii ser ting, after the , word " ornaments," the words " tiles.; " so that the paragraph shall read . as follows :^ : . ' . . . . , 0 '^Cbinn, porcelain,-parian, and bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery • . ware,*including'plaqnes, ornaments, tiles, charms, vases, and statuettes, painted, X) lin ted, or gilded, or otherwise decorated or ornamented in any manner, sixty per centam ad valorem." ^ ^ • /\ ' Amend ]>ara.graph Bo. 127, commencing''All other earthen, stone, and crorkeryware," by inserting, after the w^ords "not specially enu-, " merated or provided for in this act," the W'Ords 'H'ncliidioig tilesj^^ s o . ; that the paragraph shall read as lollows: ^ - • - • "All other earthern, stone,and crockery ware, white, glazed, or edged composed of earthy or n)ineral substances, not specially enumerated.or provided for iu this act, including tiles, fifty-five per centum ad valorem." i Amend paragraph No. 143, commencing "Porcelain and Bohemian glas.s," by adding, after the words "stained glass," the words •'^ sonall glass mirrors, includioig those, frcm ed as icell as those uoifraoned f so that the paragraph shall read as follows : • ' ' . , "Porcelain and Bohemian glass, chemical glasswaiv, painted glassware, stained glass, sonall glass onvr rors, ioicluding those framed as^wellas,' those, unfraoned, and all Other mannfactures of glass or of which glass , shall be the (Component material of chief value, not spiecially enumerated' or j)rovided for in this act, Ibrty-five per centum ad valorem." SCHEDULE C.—METALS. \ ' [' .' Amend paragraph ITo. 144, commencing "Iron ore,"by adding, at;the end. of the paragraph, the words ^^And provided, also. That the dutiable " iveight of iron ore shall be asceo^taioied by suhjecti7ig the ore td a temper ature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit;^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows: ; ' " Iron ore, including^ inanganiferons iron ore, also the dross .or r e s i - / duum from burnt pyrites, 75 cents per ton. Sulphur ore, as pyrites,' or sulphuret'of iron in its natural state, OOJItaining not more than 3J " per centum of copper, 75 pents per ton : Provided, That ore'containing more th ari 2 per centum of copper sliall pay,-in addition thereto,'2^ ^ cents per pound for the copi)er contained ther em i.Aoidpo^ovided also, : Thatthe dutiable iveight of iron ore shall he ascertained hy subjecting the : ore to a teonperature of 212 dego'ees^Fahreoiheit.'^'^' . ' . Amend paragraph No. 209, commencing with the word "Pins,'.M:)y adding theieto, after the word " other," the w^ords "-including hair-pins^ safety pins, and hat, bonnet, shaivl, and belt-pins ;" so that the paragraph shall read as lollows: ' v " P i n s , solid head or othei', includioig hair piiis, safety pins, and hat, bonoxet, shawl, aoidhelt-piois, thirty per eentum ad. valorem." * • Amend pariigraph No. 210, commencing ''Britannia ware," by inserting, afrer the word "gilt," the words " and bronzed;'^'''^otXva>t the paragraph shall read as. folio ws :, \ : ' ' ".Britannia ware, and plated and gilt and hronz'^d articles, and Wares of all kinds, thirty-five per centnm ad valorem." ^ , . •' . •' ; , ' SCHEDULE .E.^-SUG-AR, ' ' < , Amend paragraph No. 243, by adding, after the word "adulterated," ' the y^'or(k^,'-''includioig chocolate^ confectioneo'^y;^^ so that the paragraplL ^•Bhll read as follows: ^'Xll other gonf^Gtionerj^'ioiclipding chocolate confectionery, jiot sp§? 74 ^ ' REPORT O F TIlE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' cially ehumerated or provide^d for in^this act, made wholly or in part of 'sugar, and on sugars after being refined, when tinctured', colored, or in any way adulterated, valued at thirty cents per pound or less; ten cents^ per pound." • , Amend paragraph (No. 244) commencing with the word "confe'ctionery," by adding after 'that word tlae words '^inchiding chocolate confec-^ tionery,^'' so t h a t t h e paragraph shall read as follows: ' > , ".Confectionery, including chocolate confectiooiery, valued above thirty cents per pound,.or when sold by the box, package, or otherwise than ,'by the poundj fifty per centuin ad valorem." ' SCHEDULE G.—PROYISIONS. Amend paragraph (No.269) commencing "potato or corn starch,"by adding, after the words "other starch," the words ''including alt substances f)roduced from the root of the Jatropha onaoiihut, coonononly hioivoi as Chinese starch,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows: "Potato or corn starch, two cents per pound; rice starch, two and a half cents per pound; other starch, including all substaoicesproduced \fo\mi ihe root of the Jatropha onanihut, commonly Icnoion as Chioiese starch, tivo and one-half cents per pound.V ^ ' .'Amend the clause in paragraph, 291 for "chocolate," by inserting therein the words, ''other thaoi, chocolate cooifectionery,^^ so that the clause '^shall read as follows: • "Chocolate other thaoi chocolate confectionery, two cents per pound." Amend paragraph No. 301, relatingto "fruits, preserved in their ow^n juices and fruit juice," by inserting therein afters the words "fruit juice" the words ^'Provided, hoivever, that any fo^uit juice ionported; omto the TJnited States, which shall contain more than fifteen per cent, of alcohol, shall be subj ect., in addition to the rate herein prescribed, to a duty of two - dollars -per proof gallon for the quantity of alcohol contained thereih,^^ so; ^that the paragraph shall read as follows: ''Fruits/preservedintheirpwn juices, and fruit juice^ twenty per centuni MlNolorem: ^Provided, hoivever, that any fruit juice ionported ioito theTJo%ited\ States, which shall contaioi onore than fifteen per cent, of alcohol, shall be subject,'pt addition, to the rate hereioi presco-ihed, to a duty of two dollars' per proof gallon for the quaoitity of alcohol contained therein)^ ' S C H E D U L E H . — L I Q U O R S . ('".. V Amend pa-ragraph No. 308 commencing "Still wines in casks," by inserting in the second proviso, between the word "no'? and the w^ord " allowance,", the word "constructive;^^ and by adding afurther proviso, as follows: . "Aoid provided further, that the iprovisions of the act of February 8, 1875, as to still wioies, whjch are in effect superseded by the act of March 3, i8,S3, are herehy repealed,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows: "Still wines, in casks, fifty cents per gallon; in bottles, one dollar and sixty cents per case of one dozen bottles containing each npt more than one quart and more than one pint, or twenty-four bottles containing each not more than one pint; and any excess beyond these quanti, ties found in such bottles shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint or fractional part thereof; but no separate or additional duty shall be ^collected on the bottles: Provided, Thatany wines imported containing /more than twenty-four per centum of alcohol shall be forfeitedii>to the ^i\it^.()i^t?^ie^: Provided foirther^. That .there shall b e n o constructive allowance for breakage, leakage, or dan;iage on wines, liquors, cordials, ^ REPORT GiF THE SECRETARY OF TJIE TREASURY. , d5 , or distilled spirits, d7id provided further that the provisions ofthe act of. February 8, 1875, as to still wines, which are in effect superseded by.thc_ act of Jlarch 3, 1SS3, are heo^eby repealed.^^ ; . Amend paragraph No. 317, commencing " Ginger-ale or giiiger-beer;" by inserting at the end of the paragraph the words"'buti the rate of duty ^hereioi p'rescribed sHall be assessed^ upon the value of the comonodity in its bottled coouliiion,^'' so that the paragraph shall read as follow-s: "Ginger-ale or ginger-beer, tw^euty per centum ad valorem, but no 'separate or additional duty shall be collected on bottles or jugs containing the same: hut the rate of duty herein prescribed shatl be assessed upon the value of the commodity in its bottled condition.'''^ \ • \ ' " ." ^ " -, • ' . ' • SCHEDULE M . — B O O K S , P A P E R S , ETC. . Amend paragraph No. 384, commencing "Books, pamphlets," by in; serting after the word "charts"' the words "•ioicluding albums of all, Mnds,^^ so that the paragraph .shall read as follows: . ' "Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound or un]bound, etchings, illustrated books, maps,'and eh2irt^, including albums o/'a^ZM?i(^s, twenty fiye per centum ad valorem." ' / ^ Amend paragraph No. 392, commencing with the words " paperhangings," by inserting after the word "note," and before the words , " a n d all other paper," the words "photographic^ letter-press copyioig,^^< so that the paragraph will read: ^ . , " Paper-hangings and paper for screens or fire-boarils, paper antiquarian, demy, drawing, elephant, foolscap, imperial, lettei;, note, photographic, letter-press copying, and all other paper not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem." : . ^ ' - • ' '^ ^ Sci-IEDULE N . — S U N D R I E S . ^ -^ . Amend paragraph Np. 396, commencing with the word "beads," by inserting after the word " kinds," and before the word "except,'- the Wyords "strung or not strung,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows: ?•'Beads and bead ornaments of all kinds, strung or not strung, except amber, fifty per centum ad valorem." . ; / Amend xiaragraph No. 400, commencing " Buttons and button-molds,", by inserting between the word "including" and " b r a s s " the words "those comonercially hioicn as," so that the paragraph" shall read as 'follows: . ' ^ , " B u t t o n s and ^button-molds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, not including those comonercially Unown as brass,, gilt, or silk buttons, twenty-five per centum ad valorem " ' Amend the clause (paragraph 425) for '^ dolls and toys," by adding thereto the following words: "Provided that the word 'toys^ shall noi be considered as applyingtochiria,porcelain, parian aoid bisque,earthen,stooie, andcroclceo'-y ivare of aoiy Moid herein otherwise eoiuoyierated or provided for .'^^, Amend paragraph No. 445,"commencing with the words " H a i r cloth," by inserting after the word " other," and before the word " man-. ufactures,'/ the word ^' sim^kr,"'s6 that the paragraph will read as, foLlows; ,, .' !., . ^ ,, •' •• : ^ " Hair cloth, known as ' crinoline cloth,' and all other sionilar manufactures of hair not specially enumerated or provided forin this act, thirty X3er centum ad valorem." . • ' ^ Strike out the clause (paragraph .475) for "Philosophical apparatus, .^and instruments, thirty-five per ceutum ad valorem,?' aud the tsaiue is hereby repealed, , • . . 76 REPORT OF 'THE^ SECRETARY OF 'THE TREASURY. • Amend -paragraph NO./476, commencing with the'words "Pipes, pip'e-'bovvls," by adding, after the words "'or provided for'in this act," ' •; the words " includioig cigarette hooks; cigarette-booh covers,~and cigarettepaper in all forms'^."^^ so th^it the ^^rtigr'<h\}\ishdi\\i^^^^ ^''Pipes, pipe-bowls, and all smokers' articles .whatsoever, not spe-* 'cially enumerated or provided for in tliis act, including cigarette-hoohs, cigaretteboqk covers, and cigarette-paper in allfooins., seventy per centum ad valorem; all common pipes of clay, thirty-five per centum ad valorem.'! \ * ^ ' ' •' / • •' • THE F R E E L I S J . ' . • Amend paragrajjh NOo 642, comniencing with the words "Animals spjecially imported for breeding purposes," by inserting, after the word . "'Animals," in the first lin^e, the words " blooded, designed to ionjjrqve the stock in the IJ oiited States and,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follow-s: . • . ^ ' . ' I , . ' ,• • • • ," Animals, of superior race and blood, designed to ionprove the stock ioi' ^ the United States, and specially imported for breeding purposes, shall be admitted free upon proof thereof satisfactory to' the Secretary of the Treasury, and under such regulations as'he may prescribe;. and teams of animals, including their harness and tackle and the vehicles or wag'• ons actually owned by persons emigrating from foreign countries to the' tlnited States with their families, and in actual use for the purpose of ' such emigration, shall also be admitted free of duty, under such regu, lations a s the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe." '< ./ ^ Annrnd paragraph (No. 743) relating to " models of invention," so that it shall read as follows: Patterns for machioiery aoid' models of ioiventions and, of other ionprom' ments ioi the arts; b,ut no article or ariiples shall be deemed a,pattern or onodel which can be fitted for use otherwise. , Amend clause in paragraph 772 for '^root-flour," by adding thereto the words "provided that nothing shall be passed"free of ditty under this clause which is fit for use as starch,^^ so that tiie paragra[)h shall read as follows: "Eoot-flour, provided, that nothing shall he passed free of duty , \under this claoise which is fit for use as starch.^^ Amend clause in paragraph 774 for " Sago, sago crude, and sago -four," by addiug.thereto tlie words, "provided that nothing shall be passed, free of duty under this clause which is fit for use as starch.^^\ Amend clause in paragraph 800 for " Fapioca, cassava, or cassada," by adding thereto the words, "provided that nothing shall he_passedfree of duty under this clause ivhich is fit for use as starch.'''^ Amend paragraph 819, commencing with the worcis " works of art,'^ , by striking out the following: " B u t tbe fact of such profluction must be verified by the certificate of a consul or minister of the IJnited S t a t e s / / indorsed upon the written declaration of the' artist," so that the paragraph shall read as follows: " W o r k s of art, i>ainting, statuary, fount- ' ains, and other works of art,^the«production of American artists, paintings, statuary-, fountains, and other works of art, imported expressly" ' for the presentation to national institutions, or to any State, or to any"^ , jiiunicipal corporation, or religious corporation or society." ^ , APPENDIX '¥.- SCHEDULE OF SUITS* BEGUN IN 1885-'86 AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF' CUSTOMS AT NEV7 YORK. •' • • ,^ N O . • " . • L Suits legun at Neio York letiveen Octoher 1,1885, and Oetober 1,1886, for causes on account ^ of ivhich similar suits had not heen hegun prior to October 1,1HS^. • Subject of action, Series number. (New series.) ' 1. Antipyrenej .2. Carmine Extract of Persian berries. 4. Polisliing p o w d e r . . . . . . 5. Curry-combs ^.,.«. - $1,285 20 *3, 4.53 57 10990 Walter F. Svkes vs. .E. L. Hedden . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 11044 Chas. F. Zentgraf vs. E. L. Hedden A.... 11055 Zucker and Leavitt Cbemical Company vs. E. L. 201 m 424 40. 168 65 10978 3. Extract of dyewood . . . • Amount involved: ^ Title of suit. Louis Lutz vs. E. L. Hedden Aug. Klipstein vs, E. L. Hedden Hedden. , , ' 10216 J. F. McCoy et al. vs. W. H. Eobertson 10974 J". E. McCoy et al. vs. E. L. Hedden tlOlOl AV. Peckhardt et.aL vs. E. L. Hedden tl0102 do 110103 .do. 110104 .do 110105 .do. tlOlOl) .do . .' <j. Oleate of soda tlOlOT 10111 110142 110143 110144 110278 110279 110280 1109^2 110933 11105 111D6 10109 v7i Clay pipes'.. 8. Mobairs.... 10328 10329 10806 10092 10177 .10196 10212 10213 10217 10265 10848 10972 10975 10985 10986 10988 •9. Paving tiles : ...... -do. W. Peckbardt et al. vs. W. H. Robertson.. W. Peckhardt et al. vs. E. L. Hedden, do. do .: ....do,. ....do. ....do. ....do. ....do. ....do. ..-..do. Harriet A. Batzer' and another vs. W.t H. Robertson. ^ . Joseph M. Goddard vs. E. L. Hedden do .; .. .. - - d o 1 George C. Miller vs. W. H. Robertson George AV. Sheldon et al. vs. W. H. Robertson .. Alfred Boote vs. W. H. Robertson Adolph Rossman vs. W. H.Robertson . / . . . . R. F. Downing and another vs. W. H. Robertson Henry C. Aspenwall vs. W. H. R o b e r t s o n . . . . . . . James S. Conover et al. vs. W. H. Robertson William W. Jackson et al. vs..W. H. Robertson.. Alfred Boote vs. E. L. Hedden ..'. Adolf Rossman vs. E. L. Heddenv Henry C. Aspinwall vs. E. L. Hedden...T James S. Conover and others vs. E. L. Hedden .. George C. Miller vs.. E. L. Hedden 1...... • 23 00 . r72 75 . 155 35 • 656 3'5 845 55 842 80 573 18 ~ 154 40 681 00 5,939 05 681 00 705 85 272 20 241 90 336 30 ' , 339 40 i;537 50 61 65 830 85 682 40 239 60 *9 30 *100 48 *520 10780 80 186 00 447 50 118 65 148'85 ' 222-30 ' 160 79 992.80 ^ 1, 502 90 3,120 00 ^ 1, 306 70 333 10 2, 043 70 Totalnumber of suits, 42. ^ x ' \ ' * As this'case contains other questions, the exact amount involved i n this issue is uncertain, t Consolidated with 10101. ' • 7 7 ; V • -^ • • • . •- ^ - : ' / •-•. • '. . " . • 'l^To. 2 ; . _: ' . ' . ' • _ ^ .... V. - ;, - , •00 Schedule shoiving tlie nuniber of .suifs against tlie collector of theport of N6xv Yorh, begun between Octoher 1,.1885, and Octoher 1^ 1SS6, and the amounts and . ,'-issues involved thereb\.' -" ' • ' • . . ^No. .of suit.- Name of plaintiff. 10088 F. J. C. Ferris et al. 10089 L. W. Levy et a l . . . 10090 O. Oelschlager et al 10091 L. Sussfeld et al 10092- G.C. Miller.^.. 10093 B. Levy et al 10094 A. S t(vi n hardfcet al.. ..-.. 10095 A. Klipstein ~ 10096 H. H. Schwietering et al . 10097 L. Fl iedbergcr: 10098 10099 10100 10101 10102 ' 10103 10104 10105 10106 10107 10108 10109 10110 10111 10112 10113 10114 10115 10110 10117 10118 10119 10120 ^10121 10122 10123 FRASER 10124 B. Rubens A. H. Frederick.'... H HOT r 111 an et al . . W. Pickhardt e t a l . Description ofmerchandise. Charges, manufactures rubber, manufactures cotton; hair-pins, . •• Optical and philosophical instruments T... Philosophical instruments.... Optical and philosophical instruments Glazed earthenware (claimed as tiles) . . . . Citron, soap, chicory, lemon peel, &c Buttons, pins, ,je,welry Bichromate ol soda." .'. .. Woolen, silk, aud worsted goods ..'. Cotton embroidery (reapj)raisement case). Damages (in law and equity court) . This suit has been discontinued Charges Oleate of soda .....'.. . d o .'•. do ..-...do ...do . do . .. do .do : ...do . .do . .:.do . . do . .do . H. G. McFadden ot al.. Glass globes and lamp-chimneys .. H. A. Bat jer e t a l Charges Zacl-ier and L. Chemical Co (jxide of irou, polishing powder AV. Pickhardt et al . . . . . Oleate of soda .AV. E. Remy e t a l < Table covers and linen embroidery .... H. Nordlinger et al Millet-seed H. B. Claflin e t a l . . : . . . . Cotton-lace net, doilies, -&c H. Herrman et,al ... Cbarses . . . . R.-Acosta. Sugar fiom St. Domingo^ K. G. Glendinning et al. Linen erabroideries 7.. A. Gnmpert do ...._: H. Matier et al Linen embroideries aud charges Joseph Morgan . . . . . J. B. Locke et al ,' LuKM). embroideries A. D. Napier et al Handkerchiefs (claimed to be embroideries) . S-t). Pullman Linen ern broideries .-. -. M. C. Warron ; . . . . . . . — Digitized for Rate of duty claimed. Amount claimed. $117 50 Various. -35 and 25. 475 72 2, 036 60 780 80 •*3,360 91 .279 10 694 30 1,969 59 2, 745 40 None , 25..... 25. 25 25.......... 25 25 25 40-. None . . . . . . 20 25.... 30... None Various None-. ...do 338 90 155 35 656 35 845 55 842 80 - 573 10 154 40 . 681 00 305 10 337 60 • 210 70 5, 939 05, 193 85 -. 117 60 669 85 52 80 3, 606 90 G03 85 30 % 2, 360 25 1,-570 30 - 785 60 ' 201 50 747 10 ' 3,-354 80 Under what s'ection of the^tariff . claimed. - O. Various.' Schedule N, act Mar. 3,1885; T. L Rev., 475. :, . Do. Do. T . L 130. T. L 704, or T. 1.301. Various. T. L 92, T. L 383, 363; ss. 6134. '' . Claimed illegal appraisement; sectioii ,2930, Revised Statutes. 934 55 35 35 20 Free' or 20 Various '25..-.:..-.... Various 30 ...^ 3u and free. do 30.-":. 30. 30 30... Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. Refunded. ' T. I. 92. . • Do.' Do. .^ Do. Do. Do. . . Do. ^ T. 1.134. 337 60 Section 7' act March 3, 1883. T. L 479 or 215, or section 2513, ^R. S. T. I. 92. T. I. 337. Sec. 2503, R. S. Various. ' . .. Sec. 7 act March-3,1883. Treaty stipulation." T.L 337. ."^ ~ , Do. . 1, 341 90 T. IT and sec. 7 act March 3,1883. ' ^ 852 85 , , Do. i '. ' T.L 3.37. ' - . Do.^ - ^ . Do. - Do.^ ^ - Q W O 338 90 K3 O 'a • a2-> a' , . » • 10125 10126 10127 10128 10129 ' 10130 10131. 10132 10133 . .10134 10135 10136 10137 10138 10139 10140 10141 10142 10143 10144 10145 10146 10147 1014810149 10l50 10151 10152 10153 101.54 10155 10156 10157 10158 10159 10160 10161 10162 10163 10164 -10165 10166 10167 3 0168 10169 10170 10171 10172 10173. 10174 E. Goldberg >Herman-Wolff et a l - . . . . . . . A,M.Bull lv. A c o s t a N . A r n o l d e t al J . B e r n h e i m e r e t al A. S. R o b b i n s :.--.-.. A. AVeinberg .'..'.'.. William Dick et al ;.....do. :..: F . O. M a t t h i e s e n e t a l . . . . . S. R o t h f e l d e t ' a l W . Schroeder et al M. G u g g e n h e i m e t al OttoAn"dre?e D . W . M c L e o d e t al G. F . V i c t o r c t al W . P i c k h a r d t et al . . . . . : . do -. .-.-.doC. A . A u f f m o r d t e t al R. S. R o b e r t s e t a l . . . . . . . . . L. RothschiM et a l . -. .' L . T o p l i t z ' e t al C. J . T a g l i a b u e Jobn Thompson S. E . B l o c h e t al AVH. Do Forest H. Fleitmann et al. ... W. S . Graef e t a l W.E.Iselin etal L. M e g r o z e t al W . O p e n h e y m e t al R. S. . R o b e r t s e t al . . . -. B. F . W e n d t e t al L. W i n d m u l l e r e t al T. O'Donoghue J . G. C u r t i s . ^ E . Dieckerhoff'et a l W , G p e n h y m e t al •: W . H . Schieffelin e t al . - -. C O . Abel e t a l B. L e v v e t a l . -•... ^ J o h n AVakeman e t al . B. H e c h t e t al H. Passavant et al' Otto A n d r e a e . . . :*E . L u c k e m e y e r e t al M a r x Held et al . . . . . . . . . . E . Dieckerhoff'et a l . - ^ . . : . . J e w e l r y , u n s e t stones,. &c - - . . . . : . . . . . . . C h a r g e s , h a i r - p i n s , b u t t o n s , &c .'... Beans.-.^.'.^...... ^ S u g a r from' St. D o m i n g o Charges ...'.-..., Charges and worsted-back cloths.. - -\. Charges, linen braids, buttons, pins, &c. C h a r g e s , h a t t r i m i n i n g s , m e t a l lace, &c.. S u g a r from D a n z i g S u g a r from v a r i o u s p o r t s do . ; - 330.65 Various 455 50 .:..do .-:.... 12, 636 09 Free 18, 828 53 ....do 583 55 ...do 3, 055 79 Free'&35c.40rg| -4,068 45 Various 5, .572 45 ....do . 17, 084 70 Free 49, 243 93 ....do 69, 391 38 ....do . . . . . . . S n k and cotton goods..-. C h a r g e s , c o t t o n e m b r o i d e r i e s , &c Silk a n d c o t t o n v e l v e t s ( r e a p p r a i s e m e n t ) . Burlaps "...... : P l u s h e s , laces, c h a r g e s , &c O l e a t e of s o d a do 30 or 40 Various 50 30.Various . 25 25 --.. 25...,. -Various 20 F r e e and 25. 30 35. • Various F r e e a n d 20. 20 20 -.... 20 Various...... ...do . . - do ...do ...do . . . do 20.. Free. 35 50 20.... Free Various Free : do . F r e e a n d 20 . Vaiious - ... 50 None 45.... :ao. W o r s t e d s , c o t t o n s , c h a r g e s , &c Hat trimmings Charges and buttons °.. B o n n e t s for m e n : Philosophical instruments H a t b a n d s , m e t a l lace, c h a r g e s , &p Charges and h a t materials .' H a t materials ......do .:..... .' :....".... '. :.... H a t i n a t e r i a l s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e s of silk, &c do do. /: ...; H a t m a t e r i a l s , m a n u f a c t u r e s of silk, &c., a n d c h a r g e s , do . .do.. H a t materials Charges and damage allowance. L i n e n b r a i d s , t a p e s , &c Silk i n t h e p i e c e . . . Dog soap -.. Seeds. C h a r g e s , b e a n s , c i t r o n , &o Seeds -:. Charges — Charges and h a t materials H a t materials, silk a n d cotton velvets . Silk a n d c o t t o n v e l v e t s a n d p l i i s h e s . . i Charges . Hair-pins . . . . . . : . . . - - . '. 209 *190 1,036 173 2, 230 681 . 705 272 7,022 5, 323 2,957 583 1,184 ,2,717 645 55 8680 75 2,113 85 953 560 .*1,329 *498 3, 438 8,611 3,669 28, 785 1,292 740 *6, 825 *76, 385 90 4,133 *729 106 1, 208 . 509 1,100 *1, 300 420 - 157 33,123 • 884 362 2,229 ^ 560 "^ C h a r g e s claimed, b u t n p t .specified a s t o a m o u n t . 157 35 4,120 20 2^229 84 Various. Do. ' • T . L , 636. Treaty stipulation.S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Section 7 a c t Mar'. 3,1883, a n d T . I., 363 Various. ' . ~ Do. -• ; T r e a t y stipulation. ' V Do. . . Do. <. N o b i l l of p a r t i c u l a r s s e r v e d . Illegal reappraisement. .Various. . Hlegal reappraisement. T . L , 338,339. Various. . ' T . L , 92. • '• Do. . - ' . . . Do. ^ Various. ., T . L , 448. "^ . ' Section 7 a c t M a r . .3,1883, a n d T. I . , 407. T . L 400. ~ ' , T. L 475.' Various. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.^ T. L 4 4 8 / ; " , Do. .. ; Do. Vaiious. Do. Do. Do. ' . Do. ' Do. T . L 448. Section.7 a c t M a r c h 3.1883. T . L 336. , . . . ' . Illegal reappraisement. Refunded. . , . v T . L 760. " ' Various. ' T . L 760. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Sectioii 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 448. Various. . . . Illegal reappraisement. \ Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883-. • . T . L 216. ' ~ . -^ -o m \^ o • • > < o {>.- ct •CTJ Schedule shoiving the iiumber of ^uits against the collector of the port of New Yorlc, begun hetween October 1, 188^,: and Octoher 1, 1886, '^^c—Continued. Ko.of suit. N a m e of plaintiff. ^ - Description,of merchandise. R a t e of d u t y claimed. Amount claimed. Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. 10175 I . L e v i e t al 10176 E . ' P . M a s o n e t a l ..10177 G. W . S h e l d o n e t a k 10178 G. W . F a b e r e t al 10180 H . B a c h a r a c h e t al ... 10179 E . M a t e r n e e t a l 10181 G e o r g e L'egg 10182 A . K l i p s t e i n 10183 AA'^illiam D e m u t h 10184 J . B e c k e l 10185 N . Bloom 10186 J . H . B r o w n 10187 A . K o h n e t a l 10188 J . P . B a r n e t t . . . 10189 AVilliam C l a r k . . : 10190 D. M . D e m o r e a t e t a l ' ,. 10191 E . H e r e 10192 B . V e i t o t a l -.. 10193. W . O p e n h y m e t al 10194 E . L u c k e n i e y e r e t a l 10195 G. A . B e a r d s l e y e t a l , 10196 A . B o o t e 10197 W . K i n g e t a l . . . . 10198 A . H o f f s t a d t e t a l 10199 H . H . R o t h e e t a l 10200 W . J . M a t h e s o n e t a l 1. 10201 A . S. R o b b i n s ©t a l 10202 P . S c h u l z e - B e r g e e t al 10203 A . R . T i t u s e t - a l 10204 J . S . W h i t e 10205 J . M e y e r e t a l :... 10206 P . B a r n a r d e t a l 10207 H . L e w i s e t a l , 10208 J . L o e b e t a l 10209 E . A . M o r r i s o n ^-. 10210 J . W . B r o w n e t al 10211 A . E . B e n a r y e t a l . . ' 10212 A . R o s s n i a n 10213 R. F . D P w n i n g e t a l . . - . • . . . . 10214 W ^ C . B a n n i n g e t a l 10215 O t t o B a e r l i n : '. 10216 J . F . M c C o y e t a l .... FRASER Digitized for Buttons ..-:... B i c h r o m a t e of s o d a '. Glazed e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles) . Charges .....do do...-: . . . do :.... B i c h r o m a t e of soda, p i c r i c acid, &c Charges .~. .do. .do. Charges and hat materials Rosolio acid L.. .'...-... Gilling twino 1-.: ......do Rosolic aoid Jewelry and metal laces -. R e a p p r a i s e m e n t of s i l k s M a n u f a c t u r e s of s i l k ^., Charges ..... G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e ( c l a i m e d a s tiles) . Rosolic acid Charges E g g yolks Rosalic acid Jewelry R o s o l i c acid a n d a n i l i n e oil -. Charges '... Gilling twine '. W o o l e n s , h o s i e r y , s i l k s , &c .. Charges Charsres a n d h a t m a t e r i a l s , silks, &c do.--'-...t .....do.-...--..:..,.C h a r g e s a n d h o s i e r y , &o ... 'Glazed e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed as tiles) . Rosolio a c i d - - . . . - .• J Rosolic acid a n d picric a c i d . ; Charges and curry-combs.; 25 .'... 25.--. 20....: Free .-.do ...do ...-.'-. ...do .Various Free. ... ...do ...do ...do F r e e a n d 20. Free 25.', 25Frce 25 a n d 2 5 . . 50 50 Free: 20 Free ....do..... ...do ...do 25Free ...do 25....: Various...:. Free: Various ...do F r e e and 20. Various Free 20 : 35 a n d 25 . . . F r e e : . . . . . :. ...do F r e e and 30. $26 80 364 27 186 00 494 62 1, 000 ;00 9b "80 1, 460 00 1,699 72 84 00 2,142 10 1,229 72 212 53 *47, 817 45 1,046 15 520 10 205 75 ,373 45 394 40 954 85 2, 384 87 71 00 447 60 303 80 437 95 581 80 1,351 00 86 20 1, 261 35 398 30 343 70 796 35 6,. 926 20 *65, 646 55 *26, 350 80 *634 20 *202 85 1, 039 71 148 85 118 65 55 65 .222 60 *28 00 o 00 U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff clairaed. > - • $494 1, 000 - 96 1,460 62 00 80 00 84 2,142 1, 229 212 00 10 72 53 71 00 437 95 398 30 1, 039 71 T . L 407. ' . ^ T . L 92. T . 1.130. • Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. ; Dor . Do. ' . DQ. ^ Various. ^ Section 7 a c t M a r c l i 3, 1883. Do. . '; Do.' * Do. . _ Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448. T. I . 594. . T. 1.347.- Do. T . I . 59f. ^' T. 1.427 a n d 459. , /" I l l e g a l r e a p p r a i s e m e n t . :-^ Do. , ' . '^' Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.. ^ . ' - T . L 130. T . L 594. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. ' :' ^ Refunded.' " T . 1.594. • ^ ,T.L459. T. T. 594 a n d 559.' -' „ ^ S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. T . L 347. Various. . - Section 7 a c t M a r e h 3,1883. Vaiious. ~ ' Do. , ^ Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d ' T . I i , 448. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . Do. - . ' • V T . L 130. '" . : T. 1.129 a n d 124: -' ' . " , . - T . L 594. . ' . / Do. , , Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. L 419. O ^ • H:. -O>^- ^ ; •tn- a ^. ^. >. > , .' • w • or = >-9-- • 10217 10218 10219 10220 10221 10222 10223 10224 10225 102i:6 fco 10^7" 10ii28 10229 102.30 10231 10232 10233 10234 10235 10236 10237 10238 10239 10240 10241 10242 10243 10244 10245 10246 10247 10£48 10249 10250 10252 10251 10253 10254 10255 10256 10257 102ij8 10259 102G0 10261 10262 10263 10364 H . C. A s p i n w a l l L. H . M a c e e t al E. A n t h o n y e t al L Beyer- e t al J o h n Glendinning et al 11. Dou.gliis e t al E . I )iec k e r b off" c t al R. F . D o w n i n g e t a l do ..^ F. J . C. F e r r i s e t al R G. G l e n d i n n i n g e t al H. Hot"heimer e t a l J. B. Heard et al J . A. J u d g e I). K n o w l t o n e t al W . K n i s e l y e t al P . K leeburg A . Manlove et al G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles) India-rubber balloons .' Paper Charges - ;. L i n e n h a n d k e r c h i e f s (claimed e m b r o i d e r i e s ) . Linen embroideries and charges H a t m a t e r i a l s , b r a i d s , b u c k l e s , <fec Charges .' .. . . ^do Charges and wearing apparel, &c Charges do . - . -do . .do . -do . do . do C h a r g e s , c o t t o n l a c e s , m e t a l lace, & c 20 a n d 35 . . 25 20 Free 30 30 a n d f r e e . Vaiious Free --.do Various Free -..do ...do ..do ...do ...do ...do --.-.. Various 222 30 13 00 1,615 10 40 50 80.80 226 54 2, 071 50 237 98 1,101 03 541 00 2,351 31 454 30 55 17 374 94 2, 409 15 354 90 319 25 978 35 J o h n Mills Samuel M a r x J o h u M c C a n n e t al G. A . M o r r i s o n e t a l W.M.Newman J a m e s O ' C o n n o r e t ai E. Regensberg AV. E . " R e m y e t a l J. W, Rosenstein et al — G. S i d e n b e r e e t a l G e o r g e D. S w e e t s e r e t a l . J o s e p h S t r a u s s e t al R. S t r u t h e r s H. Sonntig T h e Scoville M a n u f a c t u r ing Company. William Taylor C. H . T e n u e y e t al M. T h o m p k m s B. I J l m a n e t a l E . Dieckerhoff" e t al ... J.H.Duke etal J . S. J o h n s o n G. W . T. L o r d e t al G t . W e s t . Dis. Co H. Irwin T . L i n i n g t o n e t al E. Dieckerhoff et al R. D. J a c k s o n e t al J . G. J o h n s o n E. La Montague C h a r g e s , l i n e n e m b r o i d e r i e s , c o t t o n n e t s , &o . Charges : . . . do - - . . . . . C h a r g e s , c o t t o n n e t s , e m b r o i d e r i e s , &c Charges --.do Free - . do Various Free . . . do ...do ...do ^ cent ner lb . Various .. Free F r e e and 50-. 79 491 214 145 92 485 1, 567 1, 374 36 1,155 706 1, 956 2, 743 4, 773 762 85 35 20 75 20 72 25 85 82 58 73 95 45 48 00 T. L 129,130.T. I . 454. T. I . 386 o r 388 40 50 Sectiou 7 a c t M a t c h 3, 1883. T. L 337: 113 20 T . I. 337 a n d s e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Vaiious. 237 98 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. 1,101 03 Do. 146 10 V a r i o u s . 2,351 31 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1S83. 454 30 Do. 55 17 Do. 374 94 Do. 2,409 15 Do. 354 90 Do. 319 25 Do. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . I . 324,427, 448. 21 60 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3.1883,and v a r i o u s . 491 35 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 214 20 Do. 125 30 V a r i o u s . 92 20 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 485 72 1 Do. 1, 567 25 1 Do. 1,121 20 Do. T . L 278. . . . Various. 766 73 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 1, 576 10 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d 883. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448. ""4,"773'48" Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. T . L 386 o r 388. 112 4,624 277 1,185 9,432 2, 750 4,615 1,221 1,180 10,463 457 344 810 196 3,106 60 68 05 84 37 00 80 80 40 79 40 10 85 90 20 Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 337. T . I . 400. Do. 93714 V a r i o u s . Do. "2,'756" 66' Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 4, 615 80 R e f u n d e d . 1, 221 80 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 1,180 40 Do. 10,463 79 Do. 457 40 Do. T . L 334. Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 756. i96 90 Do. Do. 3,106 20. 1 .'.'.'.'..do . ! ] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! - ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ] ! ! ! ! ! " ! • ! ! ! - ! .. do P r e p a r e d fish M a n u f a c t u r e s cotton, h a t m a t e r i a l s , &c Charges C h a r g e s and silk p l u s h e s Charges and h a t materials Charges Paper Charges and embroidered linens , B o n n e t s for m e n Charges and linen embroideries — ChargiBS a n d c o t t o n c a n v a s a n d e m b r o i d e r i e s , &o. Braids, buttons, webbing, &c Charges .' do .do . .do. .do. .do . B r a i d s a n d c o r d s (linen) C h a r g e s a n d m o t h e r of p e a r l . Charges Free. 20.... Free and 30.... 30 Free Various .--do Free . . . do , ....do.-.: ....do ....do ....do 35 Free ...do ...do ,* C h a r g e s claimed, b u t n o t specified a s t o a m o u n t . (*) PS'. ^\ o PS Hi o m .cc^ • o W H. o W' Ul- 00- Schedule showing" the number of suits against the collector of the port of New Yorlc, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued. N o . of suit. N a m e of plaintiff. 10265 J . S. C o n o v e r e t al 10266 S. R o t h f e l d e t al 10267 H . C . S y l v e s t e r e t al 10268 D . ' D . A c k e r e t a l 10269 W i l l i a m O p e n h y m e t a l . . . 10270 J . P a r k e t al 10271 J . A . S i e v e r s ;. 10272 E . D i e c k e r h o f f e t a l 10273 C. B e n z i g e r e t a l 10274 J . R u s z i t z 10275 C. P . S t i r n e t a l 10276 C. J . A ; K a s k e l e t a l 10277 J o h n T h o r n t o n e t a l 10278 W . W . P i c k h a r d t e t a l . . . 10279 do 10280 . - . . , . d o : 10281 M . ' A r o n s t e n e t al 10282 F . R . A r n o l d e t el 10283 W . H . A r n s t a e d t e t al 10284 N . A l b e r t e t al R a t e of d u t y claimed. D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . 20 Free.. ,...do . ...do , F r e e a n d 35. Free ...do , ...do Various Free ...do . . . . . . . .--.do 45 25 25 .--. 25 Free , .-..do ...do F r e e a n d 35. G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles) Charges " " " d o "!-!!• ! ! ! ! ! " ! ^ ! ! ! ; i ! ! " " " " ! Charges and embroideries Charges do do Beads and statuary Charges do ......do Hair-pins O l e a t e of s o d a ; do do Charges do do Charges and cotton embroideries , 10285 10286 10287 10288 10289 R. F . A u s t i n e t al ., N . A r n o l d e t al L. N . A s i e l e t al do J . Berbecker et a l . Charges do : do Charges apd hat trimmings C h a r g e s a n d n a i l s ( b r a s s head).. 10290 10201 10292 10293 10294 J . B i s t e r e t al B. D . B r i g g e t a l . •" B l a c k . Thoraas Black J . Bernheimer et al. Silk a n d w o r s t e d : Charges do do Charges and cotton-back worsted 10295 10296 10297 10298 S. A . J. H. M. J . I. D. C h a r g e s a u d fabrics i n p a r t r u b b e r Charges and fabrics p a r t r u b b e r and b u t t o n s . Charges and fabrics in p a r t r u b b e r Charges, cotton-nets and various — 10299 F. J. 0. Ferris Castle-etal.... D u n h a m e t al Drucker Einstein et al . 10300 A . F r i e d l a u d e r e t 10301 A . F i e d l e r e t a l . al . Charges and fabrics in p a r t r u b b e r Seal p l u s h e s Buttons -. Free --.do do F r e e a n d 20. - . F r e e a n d various. 50 Free .--.do .--. ....do F r e e a n d 40,35, a n d 7. F r e e a n d 30 - - Various F r e e a n d 30 . - F r e e a n d various. F r e e a n d 30 . - 50 25 a n d 35 Amount claimed. $160 227 445 108 6,425 5,134 170 210 .350 10. 086 1,156 143 74 241 336 339 3,130 1, 344 282 3,746 70 25 30 00 00 60 50 00 40 52 30 10 45 90 30 40 61 56 52 90. 4, 309 312 252 5, 891 2,193 Claimed on c a r t o o n s , packing, &c. $227 25 445 30 108 00 (*) 5,134 60 170 50 210 00 10, 086 52 1,156 30 243 10 U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff claimed. T . L 130. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. . Do. . Do. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do. Do. Various. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. Do. Do. T . I . 209 T . L 92. Do. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do. Do. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, T . I . 324, a n d ob.ject t o a d d i t i o n of 10 p e r c e n t , m a n u f a c t u r e r s ' profit. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448. T . L 168,210,186. • 3,130 1, 3^4 282 709 61 56 52 80 45 55 40 28 68 4, 309 312 252 4, 505 45 55 40 08 96 65 462 287 2,467 39 00 92 05 24 65 462 287 700 00 92 05 80 T . I . 383. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do. Do. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 363. 157 260 123 4, 917 85 05 45 36 126 171 7 2, 733 00 05 00 65 Section Section Section Section 177 25 427 25 58 20 (*) 122 00 00 IN3 7 act Mar. 7 act Mar. 7 act Mar. 7 actMar. 3,1883, a n d 3,1883, a n d 3,1883, a n d 3,1883, a n d T . 1.453. various. T. 1,453. various. • Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. I . 453. T . L 383. T . I . 407, 210. o •H w fei w o O ;^ 10302 10303 10304 10305 10306 H Fleitmann et al. H . M. Giles e t a l . . . O. G e r d a n E..Hardt e t a l . . . . . . P. Jeselsohn 10307 M . J o n a s s e n e t a l 10308 C o p e l a n d K e l l 10309 A . K l i p s t e i n 10310 J . K o n i g s b e r g e r c t a l . 1031L A . L i e b e u r o t h . e t al... 10312 10313 10314 10315 10316 10317 10318 10319 10320 10321 10322 10323 10324 10325 10.326 10327 10328 10329 10330 1^331 10332 10333 10-334 10335 10336 10337 10338 10339 10340 10341 10342 10343 10344 • 10345 10346 10347 .10348 10349 F . W . Muser e t a l . do H . M e v e r e t al da. D. M c L e o d et al H . P a s s a v a n t e t al B . Salomon e t al Robert Shaw B . Salomon e t a l do , G. M . T h u r n a u e r C. M . Vom B a u r G.F. Victoretal.. L. A¥eddigeii e t al M. W a s s e r m a n : A. W a l t e r c t a l J . W. Goddard et al do J. W . A i t k e n :.-. J . L. R i k e r e t al F . Carapiglia W . H . F o r b e s e t al P . S g o b e l e t al R. L a m b e t al E. Neuss e t a l J . G. S m i t h e t a l .. do L. K. Wilmerding et al. do do - do D . D . A c k e r e t al J o s . P a r k e t al do S.W. Thomas e t a l D. D. Acker et al. S. W . T h o m a s e t a l D . D . A c k e r e t al Charges Ch.irges and hair pins . I v o r y c u t for p i a n o k e y s Matelass6 cloth Albums and charges Charges and plushes. do Charges Matelijss6 c l o t h Albums and charges. C h a r g e s , c o t t o n n e t s , &c -----do Char.ges a n d s i l k p l u s h e s do M a n u f o c t u r e s of flax (claimed b u r l a p s ) Charges, metal-laces, and b u t t o n s C h a r g e s , w e b b i n g s , m a n u f a c t u r e s of l e a t h e r , & c . Seal p l u s h e s W o r s t e d and silk : do L a v a tips : C h a r g e s a n d b u t t o n s , b u c k l e s , &c Matelass.6 c l o t h Charges, buttons, and buckles Charges O p e r a g l a s s e s (claim P h i l a d e l p h i a i n s t i t u t i o n s ) . . Charges do Charges and h a t materials Charges Beans : R e a p p r a i s e m e n t of fire-crackers. Charges C a n v a s p a d d i n g s (claim b u r l a p s ) Cotton damasks and pins Cotton d a m a s k s and paddings do M a n u f a c t u r e s of flax (claimed a s b u r l a p s ) do ......do do ,. Charges .do . -do. .do . .do. .do. Free-F r e e a n d 45 25 50. 15 or 20 o r 25 a n d free. F r e e and 50.--do Free , 50 15 or 20 o r 25 and free. Various ...do F r e e a n d 50 — ...do 30 Free and 2 5 . . . . Free & various 50 50. 50.... 20 Various 50 Free & various Free 35 a n d 25 Free .-..do , Free and 2 0 . . . Free .--.do Free 30 35 a n d 30 . 35 a n d 30-. 35 a n d 3 0 . . 30 30 30 -... 30 Free ...do ...do -..do :..do -..do . . . d o .---- ^ C l a i m c h a r g e s , b u t do n o t specify a m o u n t . 15, 468" 80 2, 563 80 90 60 139 00 135 00 176 161 286 486 552 98 55 50 82 55 4,493 56 1, 073 44 2, 308 85 962 65 359 15 110, 040 55 159 40 87 70 160 05 93 00 377 94 3, 036 36 784 95 881 45 201 70 68 10 9 80 100 48 2, 603 05 3, 730 60 25 85 1,391 00 88 00 34 00 232 20 241 15 433 70 141 70 96 60 176 60 109 90 1, 085 50 818 25 '59 75 13, 970 25 Section 7 act March 3. ISai. 2, 544 90 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I. 209. T. I. 469. T. I. 383. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I . 388, 385, 384. Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 383. 135 15 Do. 286 50 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. T I 383. O Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I . 388, 385, 384. Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s . Do. Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. I . 383. Do. T . L 338. H 108,437 65 Sec. 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. 1.448-407. Sec.7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.461-453. T . L 383. Do. Do. Refunded. 2, 613 46 V a r i o u s . td . T . I . 383. 611 85 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s . 201 70 Do. T. L 475-486. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do. S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1886, a n d T. 1.448. Do. T. L 760. O Claim on dama.ge. S e c t i o u 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. T. L 338. T. L 324 a n d 209. T . I. 324 a n d 328. Do. T. L 338. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. u> Do. Do. Do. Kt Do. Do Do 00 o w o ^ Schedule showing the number of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between Octoher 1,1885, and October 1,1886, ^"O.—Continued. N o . of suit. N a m e of plaintiff. 10350 S. W . T h o m a s e t a l 10351 J o s . P a r k e t al 10352 P . A . F r a s s e e t a l 10353 J . W'. M o n t g o m e r y e t a l . . . 10354 F . A . B o k e r 10355 E . F . B u r k e e t al .... 10356 W . C. B u r k i n s h a w 10359 A . W e i l l e r e t al f 10358 J . W . B i n n e y e t a l 10359 G. W . F a b e r e t al 10360 E . I . H o r a m a n 10361 F . P a t u r e l 10i562 C. L. Tiffany 10363 R . A r n o l d e t a l 10364 H . B a c h a r a c h e t a l 10365 G e o r g e L e g g e t al 10366 E B e h r e n s 10367 . . . do 10368 W . C. B o w e r s e t a l 10369 B . B l u m e n t h a l e t a l 10370 do 10371 . . . : . do 10372 do . . 10373 W . C. B o w e r s e t al 10374 E . B l u m e n t h a l e t a l . . . . . . . . 10375 do J0376 W . Ballin e t a l : 10677 do 10378 L . M B a t e s e t a l 10379 dc 10380 F B i a n c h i e t a l 10381 do . . . 10382 R. K . D a v i e s e t al 10383 do 10384 10385 do 103S7 D . G o l d s c h m i d t e t a l 10386 do 10388 A . G u t w i l l i g e t al 10389 C E H e r l t e i n e t a l 10390 FRASER 10391 E . S. J a f f r a y e t a L Digitized for R a t e of d u t y claimed. D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . Charges do Steel rods do Charges . d.0 '. do Buttons,braids,paper, toys, &c Charges do India-rubber balloons do S t a t u a r y (bronze) Charges d o . .: do do do do Charges and buttons Charges : do do do do do ; do -.-.. do do do , do do do do do do do do .do do do do.... Free ..do Free do do Various Free 25 25 . . 30 Free do ..do do do ..do Free and 20.... ." : . ..do do . . do ....do ....do -^... ....do ...do ....do do . . . . . do ....do ....do . do ....do ...do ..do ....do ....do ..do ....do ....do Amount claimed. $6,152 16,134 "287 490 2,724 2,432 3, 725 746 1,660 1, 304 29 185 213 67,100 584 1,174 52 71 108 1, 020 1, 065 144 5, 018 77 58 1, 359 1, 234 131 '10, 278 57 464 102 312 1, 811 358 2, 463 7, 821 78 614 1,497 37 11,121 25 00 18 64 97' 60 00 20 53 75 60 60 00 00 70 47 65 50 80 54 50 30 96 30 85 60 21 70 13 20 00 50 60 50 70 70 60 95 76 28 45 57 Claimed on c a r t o o n s , packing, &c. $67,100 00 408 75 144-30 5, 018 96 77 30' 58 85 1, 359 60 1, 234 2 1 131 70 10,278 13 57 20 464 00 102 50 312 60 1,811 50 358 70 2,463 70 • 7, 821 60 78 95 614 76 1,497 28 37 45 11,121 57 U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff claimed. CO pi w. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3 1883 Do. Refunded. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do Do. Various. Refunded. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. T . 1.454. Do. T. 1.470. , Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . L 407. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. . Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. &d o 1-3 « o tei >Kj; a ^^: m u> K| 10392 10393 10394 10395 10396 J 0397 10398 10399 10400 10401 10102 10403 10404 10405 10400 10407 10408 10409 10410 10411 10412 10413 10414 10415 10416 10417 10418 10419 10420 10421 10422 10423 10424 10425 10426 10427 10428 10429 10430 10431 10432 10433 10434 10435 10436 10437 10438 10439 10440 10441 10442 10443 -do . S. Kauffman et al .do . do -do . E. Keller e t a l .do . J. Lehman et al Linen handkerchiefs (cla;imed embroideries) J. B. Locke et al do Charges --P. L. Mills et al do .do. ......do .do . R. W . N e s b i t t e t a l . . . . . . . do . E: A. Price .do . Wiiliara Demuth .dodo Vel vets for hat trimmings W. E. Iselin et al G. Borgfeldt et al Charges • : A. D. Napier et al do A. E. Person ct al do do: H. Ro.gers do L. Stcincr : do A, Steinhardt et al H. H. Schwietering et a l . do H. Schiff e t a l ...do J. G. Smith et al do : G. Borgfeldt et al ....:.do do : R; Foulds do John Nix et al do H. Nordlinger et al A. D. Napier et al do C. Von Bernuth et al do - . - : A. E. Person do H. Rogers '. do L. Steiner et al do A. Steinhardt et al do H. H. Schwietering et a l . ....--do :.... M. Seckel et al i ......do H. Schiff e t a l -•-.6^0 M. L. Sfcieglita et al do J. G. Smith et al . do do do G.Ballinetal Cotton doilies and damasks J. Claflin et al Cotton lace,, damask, jewelry, &o. M. 0. Warren Charges R. AVater house. .do . W. VVesendonck et al -do . G. F. Vietor e t a l -doW. H. Tailer et al -do . B. F. W c n d t e t a l -do . W.H. Tailer e t a l .do: G. F. Vietor e t a l .do . W. Wesendonck et al .do. W. Walke -do. R. Waterhouse et al .do . B. F. Wendt et al .do. .--.do ....do ... do . . . . . . ...do 30.per cent. Free , ...do do do -' do do do 20 percent.. Free ...do ....do ....do ....do ....do ..-.do .....do ...do. ...do ....do ....do ...do ....do .. ....do ....do ....do ....do . . . . . . . ...do ....do ....do . . . . . . .-..do .. ...do ....do ....do 35 per cent.. Various Free ....do ...do ...do . . . . . . . ...do ...do....... ...do ...do ...do Free ...do ...do .: 193 41 193 41 Do. 478 25 478 25 Do. 454 58 454 58 Do. 239 67 1, 239 67 Do. 226 60 T. L 337. 519 18 1,519 18 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. 576 00 6, 576 00 Do. 211 02 58, 211 02 Do. 912 45 912 45 Do. 23, 263 72 23, 263 72 Do. 74 20 74 20 Do. 203 35 203 35 Do. 157 10 T. L 448. 376 09 1,376 09 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 215 05 215 05 Do. 853 34 25, 853 34 Do. 121 00 121 00 Do. 208 50 208 .50 Do. 990 00 990 00 Do. 528 10 1, 528 10. Do. 503 08 503 08' Do. 642 80 642 80 Do. 377 48 33, 377 48 Do. 197 30 1,197 30 • Do. 141 40 1,141 40 Do. 305 52 3, 305 52 Do. 343 00 343 00 Do. 969 07 969 07. Do. 449 53 ] 10, 449 53 Do. 616 75 2, 616 75 Do. 158 00 4,158 00 1 Do. 254 80 5, 254 80 Do. 287 85 8, 287 85 Do. 456 75 456 75 Do. 895 86 895 86 Do. 475 54 475 54 Do. 115 75 115 75 Do. 288 15 1, 288 15 Do. 14 30 T.L, 324. 604 35 Various. 58 70 58 70 Section 7 act Maroh 3, 1883. 36 05 36 05 Do. 553 20 1,553 20 Do. 986 00 1, 986 00 Do. 408 05 408 05 Do. 936 07 3, 936 07 Do. 830 45 10,830 45 Do. 735 93 , 52, 735 93 Do. 677 50 1, 677 50 Do. 865 50 865 50 Do. 643 35 4,643 35 Do. 252 86 11,252 86 1 Do. P^ H h3 O W H O ^ S H ^ H t> W Kj o ^ >-2 w td H fd fcd P > Ul aw •^ 00 Ol Schedule showing the numher of suits against the coUector of the port of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c—Continued. N o . of suit. 10444 10445 10446 10447 10448 10449 10450 20451 10452 10453 10454 10455 10156 10457 10458 10460 10461 10162 10463 10464 10406 10467 10468 10169 10470 10459 10465 10471 10472 10473 10474 10475 10176 10477 10478 14079 10480 10481 10482 10483 10484 10485 N a m e of plaintiff. C M . Becker e t a l J . S. J o h n s o n . - . . . . . . - - . Thomas Leeming do . J . Z i m m e r m a n e t al J.AVittuer .. M . W e r t h e i m e r e t al — A.AVood... A . W i n pf h e i m e r T. Wilson J . G. W i t t e A. Wiedman P. Wiederer P . AVMrlbacher e t a l . . . . . J. J. Wysong.: T. P . Wallace A .sline W a r d R. Vora C l c f f e t a l C. M. V o m B a u r C. Voii B a r m u t h e t a l . . . :Max T o k l a r AV^ W . T h o m a s et a l . . . . . AV. T o n k , j r . , c t a l C. G. I ' a y l o r e t a l E . T. Toift e t al : A. J . AVoodruff S.S. T a l l m a n e t a l H S i e g m a n e t al D. S c h e i t l i n c t al W . F . Sykes e t a l E. S t e m C J. Stevens :... H.B. Sham etal F. A. 0. Schwarz J . S t e t t h e i m e r . j r . , e t al . I. S t e m c t a l ^ A. Straus et al G. S t e l l w a g : L S t r a u s s e t al C. S a c k r e u t e r J . Strau.s e t al FRASER R. S t r u t h e r s Digitized for D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . Charges do •.. do do do :do do ..---Qdo - . - . - . . ......do ..:...do ......do --..... do ......do do , do .....do do -----do Hat materials. Charges . . . . . . do do . : do do do . . . . . . do do -do . .do . .do . -do . .do . -do . .do . do . do . .do . .do . do . .do . do . .do . R a t e of d u t y claimed. F r e e -. ....do . ..-.do . ....do . ....do . ...do . ..-.do . ...do . ....do . ...do . ....do . ....do . ....do . .-.:do . ....do . ....do . ....do . . . . do . ...do . ...do ...do . ...do ...do . . . . do ...do ...do . . . do . ... d o : ...do . ...do . ...do ....do . ...do .-..do . . . do . . . . do . ...do . ...do. . - do ...do . ...do ...do . Amount claimed. $13 00 3,332 90 461 60 1,115 20 848 94 650 35 4,404 38 665 49 433 95 264 70 128 80 536 12 5, 935 80 87 86 122 44 150 30 1,120 80 141 65 7,145 29 141 05 185 38 133 30 212 65 85 55 4,838 98 144 91 1, 697 25 380 70 4, 384 51 160 97 4, 508 22 1,205 80 453 15 1, 573 80 103 40 363 40 483 20 526 90 1,407 65 U 6 10 627 00 1,030 95 Claimed on c a r t o o n s , packing. &c. U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff claimed. $13 00 S e c t i o n 7 a c t 3, 332 90 R e f u n d e d . 461 60 Do. 1,115 20. Do. 848 94 S e c t i o n 7 a c t 650 35 Do. 4, 464 38 Do. 665 44 Do. 433 95 Do. 264 70 Do. 128 80 Do. 536 12 Do. 5, 935 80 Do. 87 86 Do. 122 44 Do. 150 30 Do. 1, 120 80 Do. 141 65 Do. T . L 448. 141 05. Section 7 a c t 185 38 Do. 133 3,0x Do. 212 65 Do. 85 55 Do.. 4, 838 98 Do. 144 91 Do. 1,697 25 Do. 380 70 Do. 4,384 51 Do. 163 97 Do. 4, £08 22 Do. 1, 205 80 R e f u n d e d . 453 15 Section 7 a c t Do. 1,573 80 103 40 Do. 303 40 Do. 483 20 Do. 526 90 Do. 1,407 65 Do. 176 10 Do. 627 00 Do. 1, 030 95 Do. M a r c h 3,1883. M a r c h 3, 1883. OO Pi td •n o >^ o Ul td o td M a r c h 3, 1888. td Kl w td M a r c h 3,1883. td GO d K) 10486 10487 10488 10489 10490 10491 10492 10493 . 10494 10495 10496 10497 10498 10499 10500 10501 10502 10503 10504 10505 10506 10507 10508 10509 10510 10511 10512 10513 10514 10515 10516 10517 16518 105.19 10520 10521 10522 10523 10524 10525 10526 10527 .10528 i0529 10530 10531 10582 10533 10534 10535 10536 S. R o t h k o p f J . R o s e n t h a l e t al W . A . M. R a y m o l d e t a l - . H . R i c e e t al S. C P u l l m a n F. S. P i n k u s W.C.Peet etal J. H. P r a t t et al :.... A. Pollman J . Oberndorf et al .... E. Oelbermann et al E. Oppe S. Otttenheim-et a l R. M . Oberteuffer e t a l . . . H. Neustadter et al J . !Nagel H. Newman do E . M o m m e r et al J; E. McCrae et al P . L. Mills e t a l . : John Mathew Otto Meyer M . Mansell et al L. H. Mace e t a l E . N a u m b e r g et al S. M e y e i h e i n i e t a l E . M u e l l e r e t al Max Marx B. Mostyn D. A . L i n d s a y E . S. L e v i G. L a s k e r e t a l J . L e h m a n e t al C. L o c k w o o d W . H. Lyons et al C. W . L a u t e r b a c h e t a l . . . Leon L e v y et al. P . R. L e t s o n e t a l Charles Koch A. K o h n et al — W . K e r o p n e r e t al A. K l i n g e a b e r g H . R. K e l l y e t a l P . J . K e a i ' y e t al •lohn J o h n s t o n e t a l E. 1. H o r s m a n E. H a r d t e t a l J a m e s A . H e a r n e t al B. llecht, e t a l H . C. H o w e l l s e t al .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. Cotton doilers a n d d a m a s k s . Charges .do. .do . .do. .do. .do . C h a r g e s a n d h a t m a t e r i a l s , &o . .do. .do.do. -do. Cotton laces and nets Charges do do do do Charges C o t t o n e m b r o i d e r i e s -. Charges -do . Cotton laces and n e t s . Charges do .do . .do. .do. -do. .do. .do . .do. Charges and hat materials C h a r g e s a n d laces, t r i m m i n g s , &o . Charges .do. .do . .do . -do. .do. .do . .do . ....do ....do : . . do . . . do .--.do 35 p e r c e n t Free ....do ..-.do . . . do ....do , ....do .-..do F r e e & various Free ...-do ....do ....do ....do 35 p e r c e n t Free ....do ....do ....do ...do Free 35 Free ...do, ...do 35.. Free ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do , ...do ...do --.do F r e e a n d 20. --.do Free do .do. .do . .do. do . .do. .do. .do . 190 65 4, 672 22 136 55 278 70 1,181 95 188 52 288 24 324 80 372 20 932 45 11, 489 40 885 10 5, 000 72 27, 523 83 576 15 58 45 422 40 184 00 5,377 70 74 50 589 55 75 50 2, 000 00 55 00 841 65 100 80 76 06 14^ 40 420 25 140 40 31 60 323 10 72 80 811 37 221 80 523 60 335 65 5, 628 05 297 84 27,5 00 24,033 15 301 36 391 50 578 75 1, 335 50 114 10 919 60 1,651 15 319 59 507 74 264 85 190 65 4, 672 22 136 55 278 70 1,181 95 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. T . I . 324, a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 288 24 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 124 30 Do. 372 20 Do. 932 45 ' Do. 11, 489 40 Do. •885 10 Do. 5, 000 72 Do. 10, 603 36 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d r a r i o u s . 576 :L5 { Do. 58 45 Do. 422 40 Do. 184 )0 Do. 5, 377 70 Do. T . I . 324. 589 55 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3; 1883. 75 50 Do. 2, 000 00 Do. Do. 55 00 841 35 Do. 100 80 1S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. T . L 324. i42 40 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 420 25 Do. 140 40 Do. T . I . 324. 323 io S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 72 50 Do. 811 37 Do. 221 80 Do. 523 60 Do. 335 65 Do. 5, 628 05 Do. Do, Do. 275 66 1 4, 091 35 S e e t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.448, 91 50 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.324. 391 50 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 578 75 Do. 1, 335 50 Do. Do. 114 :i.o 919 60 Do. 1, 651 15 Do. 319 59 Do. 507 74 .Do. 264 85 1 Do. td O H I O W td m •H O Pi td Pi KJ o a 1-5 Pi td > Ul d Kl oo Schedule shoiving ihe numher of suits against the collector of theport of Neiu York, begun betioeen October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, 4'C.—Continued. 00 oo N o . of «uit. N a m e of plaintiff. 10537 Simon H a a s 10538 10539 G. H o u s t o n 10540 E H i l l 10541 10542 H H a h l o e t a l 10543 10544 30545 A . G o h r i n g 10547 10546 W G r i b b o n S0548 G R G i b s o n W549 E (xropff ot al 10.550 L G o l d m a n e t al 10551 10552 T h o m a s G a r d n o r e t al 10553 10554 M a x G e r s t e n d o r f e r e t a l , . 10555 W H G r a e f o t al 10556 105.57 P Gold-^tcin e t al 10558 M A F r a n k 10559 P h i l i p F r a n k e t al -.. 10.500 A Flpsli e t al 10501 W A H a l l e t al J 0562 10503 L . F r i e d b e r g e r 10564 R. L. F e r g u s o n e t a l . 10565 10566 N E l i a n •'•er 10567 10508 M Erlan<*"or e t al 10569 S B D o w n e s e t al . . . 10570 A . l3in""elstedt e t al . . 10571 A . I Dc'nnv e t a l 10572 H . D n d en e t al 10573 C. H , M e y e r e t a l 10574 H E D r e s s e r e t a l 10576 S. H . C o h e n e t al 10577 R o b e r t C r o w l e y 10579 W . Call e n d e r e t a l 10575 W . H . D e F o r e s t FRASER Digitized for D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . Cotton damasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . do Charfires .... , ...... ... ... do ..:...do . . . do do do .. . . . . do do . . . . do do do ... do do . . do do do . . . . do do do do ^ do . do do - - . do . . . do . . . . do ...:.. do do ......do do . do do do . . . . do do . ...do . . . . . . no . . ................................... do do do R a t e of d u t y claimed. ^ 35 35 Free ....do ....do ....do ....do . ..do ....do ....do ^...do ....do . do ....do ....do . . . do •....do . .do ....do ....do ....do do ..do da ....do do . . . d o --'. : ....do .-: ....do do : ....do . do do ....do do r ..do ...do do ...... ..do ....do . do ...do Amount claimed. $29 14 546 343 290 72 33 59 1, 073 6, 576 672 2, 047 601 18 367 1, 560 72 2,103 7, 682 549 246 172 771 99 295 193 1, 762 110 . 271 590 60 233 38 1, 209 86 1, 273 313 310 13 698 1, 334 3, 009 70 45 45 04 80 50 40 80 90 49 20 55 80 35 90 65 70 03 81 94 79 75 25 35 10 40 95 ;0 50 80 28 05 50 22 70 71 77 00 20 75 40 40 Claimed on c a r t o n s , packing, &c. $546 343 290 72 33 59 1,073 6, 576 672 2, 047 601 18 367 1, 560 72 2,103 7, 082 549 246 172 771 99 295 - 193 1, 762 119 271 590 • 60 233 38 1, 209 86 1, 273 313 310 13 658 1, :'34 3, 009 U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff claimed. T . I 324 Do. 45 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3 1883 04 Do. 80 Do. 50 Do 40 Do 80 Do ' 90 Do 49 Do. 20 Do 55 Do 80 Do 35 Do 90 Do. 65 Do 70 Do 03 Do Do' 81 94 Do 79 Do 75 Do 25 Do 35 Do 10 Do 40 Do 95 Do Do. 30 50 Do. 80 Do 28 Do, 05 Po 50 Do. 22 Do 70. Do 71 Do 77 Do. 00 Do 20 Do. 75. Do. 40 Do. 40 - Do. td O. Pi H o w td QC td o Pi td H ^ Pi Kj o ^. H W - td H fed fej Ul 10578 10580 10581 10582 10583 R. T.Cook -do . John Campbell et a l . . . .do. C.E Cochrane Cotton embroideries W. H. Clendinning et a l . . - Charges E. Bredt e t a l Charges and alizarine oil. 10584 10585 10586 10587 10588 10589 10590 10591 10592 10593 10594 10595 10596 10597 10598 10599 10600 10601 10602 10603 10601 10605 106UO 106u7 C. Bergenstein J. J. Baily et al B. Bernhard et al C.Beck G.Ballinetal S. Baum et al I. V. Brokaw et al J. T. Burns et al A. Benjamin et al S. Bierman et a l . . . . . . . M. Arnold et al Geo. F.Arnold P. A l a r t e t a l -. B. Altman et al C. Weisker John AVy gaud J. G. Witte et al Paul AVeilbacher A. Weidman Thomas Wilson M. Wertheimer et a l . . L. Weddisen et al A. Winipheimer et a l . C. M. Vom Baur 10608 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613 10614 10615 10616 10617 10618 10619 10620 10621 10622 10623 10624 10625 10G26 16627 10628 B. IJlmann, et al M. Tompkins et al . S. S. Tallman et a l , . E. T. Tefft et al . . . L. Stras et al H. Seigmann e t a l . . E. Scheitlin e t a l . . . W . F . Sykes H. B. Shacn, et a l . . . J.K.StiefeletaL... G. D. Sweetser et al. F. A. O. Schwarz . . . G. Sidenberg et al . . E. Stern , A. S. Robbins et al.., W. E. Remy et al c.. L. Rothschild et al.'. J.B.Ryeretal S. Rosenberg et al ... L. Rheims S.C.Pullman Charges .'.'.'.'..do.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.. do do do do do . . . . . . d o -...--. do Worsted coatings.. Hat materials Charges do do. do .\ do do ......do Cotton laces Charges ......do do Charges, laces, rubber, &cCharges Charges and linen handkerchiefs . Charges Charges and metal buttons Charges '.'.'.'.'.'.do . . [ \ ' . ' . ' . l " . . [ V . . ' . [ [ \ [ ' . [ [ [ ] l do Charges and linen handkerchiefs . Charges and hat materials Charges do .do do do Cotton damasks and linens Charges and metal buttons Cotton lace curtains and charges . Charges Charges and hat materials Charges ...do ...do 35 Free , Free and 25. Do. Do. T. I. 324. 33 25 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 24 90 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I. 92, or section 2513 Revised Statutes. 130 20 130 20 Do. Free 1, 204 14 1, 204 14 -...do . . . . . . . Do. Do. ....do 59 85 59 J5 63 LO 63 10 ...do Do. ' 156 00 156 00 Do. _ ....do 410 80 410 80 Do. :...do . . . . . . . 105 90 105 90 Do. ..-.do 665 40 665 40 Do. ....do 17 75 17 75 . . . d o ..' Do. 244 36 244 36 Do. ...do 951 31 T . L 363. ^ ^ 35 perct. and 34 c I 1, 374 80 T.L 448. 20 49 10 49 io Section 7 act March 3,1883. Free 152 20 152 20 Do. ....do 85 00 85 00 Do. ....do 185 05 185 05 Do. ....do 70 35 70 35 Do. ...do 44 30 44 30 Do. ...do.. . 104 LO 104 10 Do. ...do 213 70 T . L 324. 35 34i 15 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 341 15 Free 690 15 690 15 Do. ...do 86 00 86 00 Do. ....do 1, 023 75 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I . I r e e and various! 5, 822 90 324-453. 556 20 556 20 Do. Free 270 69 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. L 337. 731 65 irree and 30 . 524 25 524 25 Do. Free 1, 245 80 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.407. 1,268 80 Free and 2 5 . 293 95 293 95 Do. Free 432 25 432 25 Do. ...do 411 50 411 50 Do. ...do 23 35 23 35 Do. . . do 253 L5 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.837. 295 40 Free and 30. 352 65 137 65 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448. Free and 20. 467 20 467 20 Do. Free 156 70 156 70 Do. ...do 422 )0 932 50 Do. ...do 808 50 808 50 . Do. ...do 900 00 900 M) Do. ...do 444 40 T. I 324-337. 2, iii 50 Section 7, act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.407. 3, 223 30 Free and 25. 61 55 T. 1.324, and section 7 act Mar. 3.1883. 85. 90 70 1 266 45 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 266 45 Free 157 60 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448. 11,978 48 Free and 20. 1,115 30 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 1,115 30 Free.816 754 116 33 1,103 00 1 50 60 25 70 816 00 754 50 o pi H O w td Ul td o W td H \> Pi Kj o fej W td I Ul d 00 Schedule showing the numher of suits against the collector ofthejyort of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and Ocfober .1, 1886, 4^c.—Continued. Ko.of suit. N a m e of plaintiff'. 10629 H. Passavant et al... 10630 S. Ottenheimer etal.. 10631 E . O p p e 10632 R . Oberteuffer e t a l . . 10633 E . O e l b e r m a n n e t a l . 10634 H . Neuinan._ 10635 M . N e u b e r g e r e t a l . . 10636 G. A . M o r r i s o n e t a l . . 10637 J o h n M i l l s . 10638 A. M a n l o v e 10639 J o s e p b M o r g a n e t a l . 10640 L. H . M a c e e t a l 10641 S . M a r x 10642 H . M a t i e r e t a l 10643 H . W . T. M a l i c t al . . 20644 R . L a w s o u 10045 L. L e h m a i e r e t al 10646 E . S . L e v i e t a l 10047 P . R. L e t s o n e t a l 10648 A . L i e b e n r o t h e t a l . . . 10649 A . K o h n e t al 106.50 C o p e l a n d K e l l 10651 H . R. K e l l y e t al I00.>2 A . K l i p s t e i n 30653 A . K l i n g e n b e r g 10654 P . J . K e a i y e t al 10055 B . H e c h t e t a l 10656 G. H o u s t o n . - - 10657 E . H i l l 10658 E . I . H o r s m a n 10659 AV. A . H a r a t e t a l 106G0 S. H e i l n e r e t a l 10661 W . G r i b b o n 10662 S. G i n t e r m a n e t al 10663 A . G o h r i n g 10664 -E. G r e e t e t a l 10665 S. G o l d e n b e r g e t al 10666 E . G r a d l e r . . - . 30667 G . R . G i b s o n 10668 M . A . F r a n k .10669 H . F l e i t m a n e t al http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 40670 P . F r a n k Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . Charges and hat materials Charges do Charges and hat materials Charges ^ do.. do Charges and cotton lace and linens "do Charges and hat materials C h a r g e s a n d linen h a n d k e r c h i e f s C h a r g e s a n d r u b b e r balls, &c Charges Charges and linen handkerchiefs Charges Charges and cotton nets and embroideries. Charges do do Charges and various do Charges do do . .do . .do do. .do. .do . .do. -do . :do . .do.do . .do . .do . Charges and cotton and metal laces. Charges .....do do do do R a t e of d u t y claimed. Amount claimed. $62, 207 23 F r e e a n d 20 473 20 Free ' 678 10 .--.do 9, 895 85 F r e e and 2 0 . . . . 2,486 30 Free 350 20 ...do 178 35 ...do 955 60 F r e e & 30 & 35 385 00 do 825 70 F r e e a n d 20 659 00 F r e e and 30..-. 352 45 F r e e a n d 25 250 35 Free 693 48 F r e e a h d 30 98 45 Free 884 25 F r e e a n d 30 . . . . 124 10 Free 269 75 --.do 50 30 -..do 1,001 40 F r e e and various 49,485 70 -- do 1, 220 62 Free 477 20 --.do 89 60 709 45 ...do 229 55 --.do 393 50 .:..do . 39 00 . - do 100 22 --.do 206 85 -..do 419 70 --.do -..do 87 90 149 10 --.do 440 25 --.do 154 20 --.do 257 00 - . do 923 06 F r e e and 25158 00 Free 237 80 --.do 30 00 . . do 7, 888 35 --.do . - do 223 25 Claimed on c a r t o o n s , packing, &c. U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff c l a i m d. $12, 452 78 Seetion 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448. 473 20 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. 678 10 Do. 3. 900 25 S e c t i o n ? a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.448. 2, 486 30 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 350 20 Do. .178 35 Do. 810 85 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, a n d T. I . 337-324. 107 75 Do. 12 30 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 448. 365 45 Sectiou 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.337. 321 85 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 454. 250 35 Do. 329 65 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.337. 98 45 Do. 884 25 •Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 324. • 124 10 Do. 269 75 Do. 50 30 Do. 91 40 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s . 2, 373 50 Do. 1, 220 62 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 477 20 Do. 89 60 Do. 709 45 Do. 229 55 Do. 393 50 Do. 39 00 Do. 100 22 Do. 206 85 Do. 419 70 Do. 87 90 Do. 149 10 Do. 440 25 Do. 154 20 Do. 257 00 Do. 474 51 Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . , 40L 158 00 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. 237 80 Do. 30 00 Do. Do. 7. 888 35 Do. '223 25 O Pi td O Pi H O fej w. td Ul fej o pi td H >• ^ O fej H w td td f> cc C Pi Kl .10671 10072 10673 10674 10676 10086 10677 a0678 10679 10680 10681 10682 1(;683 10684 L0685 10086 10687 30688 10689 10690 10691 10092 10693 10601 10695 1U690 1009, 10698 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703 10701 10705 20706 10707 10708 10709 10710 . 10711 .10712 10713 10715 10716 10717 10718 10714 10719 I. S. Erdmann et a l . . I. D. Einstein et a l . N. Erlauirer A. J. Denny et a l . .. E. DieckerhoffetalW. H. De Forest -. H. Douglas et al J. H. Dunham et alJ. Berbecker et al . . S. Biermau e t a l J . H. Brown et a l . . . I. V Brokaw et al. N. Bloom. T. Block et al G. T. Arnold et a l . . R. T. Austin et al .. C. AUhofetal M. Arnold et al M. Aronstein et al -. AV. A. Thorn . . . . . . . L. Lehman . S. Harris et al I J . L. Sraith e t a l . - . . ! T. R. Keator e t a l .. 1 E. Thiele A. Whvte ..H. AVolff J. L.Riker et al. H. Fleming E. F. Burke et al J . D . Cutter J. M. Mencke et aL-. Jos. Park ct al , A. B. Purdy et al S. R. Lesher et al E. La Monta.gue Thomas Ta.ylor A. Schoverling et al. G. G. Mooroetal H. E. Frankenberg.. O.K.Krause James Brand E. Thiele ., Joseph Wild... R H. Wolff ebal . . . . S. Harris C. T. Raynolds et al. Ignatz Fisher L.Frank e t a l , do do -. do do , Cotton braids Charges Charges and linens. Charges do . . : do -do -do . -do . -do-do . do. .do. Charges and cotton and worsted . Charges do .do. -do . .do . do . .do . • do . Charges and buttons and pins . Charges and bichrom. soda . .do . .do. -do -do . -do . -do . .do . .do . .do . .do . .do . .do . .do . .do. -do . .do . .do. -do . ..do . .do . --.do .--do --.do ----..... --.do --.do --.do Free and 30 .. Free and 30 .. --.do --.do -. do --.do --.do -..do .-.do --.do Free --.do -..do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do Free & 25 & 30 70 393 384 147 2,814 1, 9J3 482 2,163 2,178 515 41 99 135 57 278 522 678 749 120 67 88 119 28 484 133 79 439 58 15 23 70 25 90. 65 00 13 80 09 65 38 50 00 75 10 69 70 00 60 00 26 60 58 45 90 3, 275 42 00 00 50 00 00 25 60 00 00 70 70 50 25 00 54 80 98 40 00 40 75 1 Free. 448 ;.-.do . 1, 895 .-..do . 523 ....do . 483 .---.do 1, 643 .--.do . 1, 552 .-..do. 423 ..-.do. 841 . . . do . 944 ....do . 734 ....do . 282 ..-.do . 572 .-..do . 647 ...do . 728 ..-.do . 1,797 .--.do . 112 .-..do . 288 .-..do . 463 .-..do . 25 .--.do . 301 ....do . 582 • Charges claimed, but not specified as to amounts. 70 393 - 384 147 Do. Do. Do. Do. T . I . 324. i , 923 90 Do. 104 50 T . L 324 a n d T . I . 337. 1, 584 00 Do. 2,178 13 Do. Do. 515 80 Do. 41 09 Do. 99 65 Do. 135 38 57 50 Do. Do. 278 00 Do. 522 75 678 10 Do. Do. 56 05 Do. 120 70 Do. 67 00 88 60 Do. 119 00 Do. 28 2 3 Do. 484 60 R e f u n d e d . 133 58 Do. 79 45 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. Seciion 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I . 407-201. Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, & T . 1.92. (*) 448 00 R e f u n d e d . 1, 895 60 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 523 50 Do. 483 0 0 , Do. Do. 1,643 0) 1, 552 25 R e f u n d e d . 423 60 Do. 841 00 Section 7, a c t M a r c h 3,1883. 944 00 Do. 734 70 Do. 282 70 Do. 572 5) Do. 647 25 Do. 728 00 R e f u n d e d . 1, 797 54 Do. 112 80 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. 288 98 R e f u n d e d . 463 40 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883. 25 00 Do. 301 40 Do. 582 75 Do. n 58 1 15 23 7) 1 Pi td O n ^ i Ul •fel O fej fel H >- 1 fel Kj o^, H HI fel Ha W fej ' > Ul d td Kl c<: Schedule showing the numher of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, 4'C.—Continued. Ko. of suit. Name of plaintiff. Description of merchandise. 10720 A.Wh.yte Charges and various 10721 E. M. Benjamin et al :i0722 J . L . S m i t h "*'"'do!!""l"!Ili!!l!!!!]!"l!!I"'i;!!!!! 10723 L, Johnson et al do ...: 10724 T. R. Keater et al do 10725 J. E. S. Hadden et al do 10726 A. AVallach et al .do 10727 G. Grawitz do 10728 A. Frank et al do 20729 A. Imhorst do 10730 W. H. Thorne et al do 10731 L. Lehman do 10732 H. Sch ores tene et al Hat materials 10733 P. L. Mills et al do 10735 E . L . Graef Charges 10736 I. A. Lahey et al Charges and hat materials 10734 W. Ohenhym et al Charges 10737 R. Arnold e t a l do 10738 W. Stens et al Charges and hat materials 10739 10740 F. O. do Charges Horstmann et al 10741 J. C. Conroy 10742 !!"! do!!!!!!]!!!;!!!"]!!!'""!!I*!!!]I''!!] do 10743 George Campbell do ,. 10744 B. Silberberg Cotton embroideries 10745 H. Brenker etetalal Charges 10746 D. Klauber et al Cotton embroideries and hat materials 10747 A. Weiller et al jewelry, laces, &c 10748 C. A, Aufimordt et al . . . Buttons, Charges and various 10749 A. Weiller et al Buttons, jewelry, embroideries, &c 10750 Metal buttons 10751 E. Stahel. E. D. Compte do 107G2 Buttons, laces, and linen handkerchiefs, & c . 10753 A. Weiller et al Charges........". 10754 J. Pollack do a0755 R. Blankenberg et al do. w S . Ullman a0756 do. t0757 H. AVolff do. 10758 S. Ullman do. 10759 AV. Clark F. Gottschalk . . : . do. 10760 Seeds -.. 10761 R. F . Downing et al Lentils..J. W. Rosenstein http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Rate of duty claimed. Free & various ...do... ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do 20 Free Free and 2 0 . . . Free ...do: Free and 2 0 . . . ....do Free ...do.... ...do ...do 35.-..: Free 35 and 20 Various Free & various 25 and 30 25 , 25 , 25,30,35, (fee... Free do .do. .do. do . .do. .do . •do. .do. Amount claimed. $156 50 1, 703 50 90 33 160 00. 1,017 42 239 20 73 30 314 65 52 45 93 00 49 00 107 70 410 00 2,723 70 374 00 1,463 00 5,175 40 5,161 03 4,131 00 3, 058 00 1,484 20 52 70 473 72 880 07 473 72 408 03 150 40 1, 257 60 4, 042 45 1, 958 45 172 60 104 80 766 60 60 00 2, 045 30 28 75 138 00 136 95 7, 662 87 48 60 143 40 853 93 Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. (*) CO IN5 Under what section of the tariff claimed. Section 7 actMarch 3,1883, and various. Do. $1, 703 50 Do. 90 33 Do. 160 00 1,017 42 Refunded. 239 20 Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. 73 30 314 55 Refunded. 52 45 ^Section 7 act March 3, 1883. Do. 93 00 Do. 49 00 107 70 Do. T. I. 448. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. L, 448. ( *) 40 374 00 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 5,175 Do. 5,161 03 Section7 actMar. 3,1883, and T. I., 448. (*) Do. (*) 20 Section 1,484 7 act March 3,1883. Do. 52 70 473 72 Do. 880 07 Do. T . L 324. 408 03 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. T. I. 324,448. T. I. 407,210, and various. Section 7 act March 3,1883, & various. (*) T. I. 407, 210,337, &C. T. I. 407, 210. Do. T. I. 407, 210,324,337, &c. 56"66* Section 7 act March 3, 1883. 2, 045 30 Do. 28 75 Do. 138 00 Do. 136 95 Do. 7, 662 87 Do. 48 60 Refunded. T. L 760. Do. td fej O H O fej wfej Ul td o Pi td H Pi Kj O •^ H w td H td^ > Ul a Kj 10762 10763 10764 10765 107C6 10767 10768 10769 10770 10771 10772 10773 10774 10775 10776 10777 10778 10779 10780 10781 10782 10783 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793 10794 10795 10796 10797 10798 10799 10800 10801 10802 10803 10804 10805 10806 10807 108C8 10809 J . F. Brigg e f c a l . . . . . . . . H. H. Schwietering fet alA. Strauss ©t al Seal plush Matelassi cloth Charges, pins, cottons. Rosolic acid L. Lutz et al Charges L. Schreiber do G. Schmobe do J- Wygand do P. Weilbacher Metal, lace, and hat materials . A. Veith Hat materials B.Veit Charges L. Schreiber do : S. Rosenberg . . . . . . . Charges and pins, braids, &c .. PA. S. Robbins et al do J. B. Ryer et al do V. Loewi — do M. Isaacs et al do S. Isaacs ot al do I. Heasty do T. A. Hartion do C. Haussman et al do H. Gottschalk do E. Gradler Charges W. J . E hrick e t a l do D. Duncan et al do : J. Adler ct al Hat materials L. Metzger et al H. H. Schwietering et al .. Hat materials and braids T.H.Wood e t a l . . . Charges B. Ill felder e t a l , do B. lllfelder et al , Charges J. Freund et al do .-...do F. Booss do John Claflin et al Charges and hat materials S.M.Cohen e t a l . . do W . H . De Forest do F. Hoeninghaus et al do A. E. Person et al M. E. Warren do Charges, buttons, &c S. Rothfeld e t a l M. Wimpfheimer et al L. S. Friedberger et al H. C. Sylvester et al S. M. Cohen et al H. Nordlinger et al J. W. Goddard et a l . . . . . . . S. Wormser et al T.O'Donohue E. S. Jaffray et el Charges and hat materials. (Charges . do Charges and hat materials. Charges do do 50 , 50 Free & 45 & 35. 1,914 30 3,137 45 53 25 Free ....do ...do ...do..... ..-do 25 and 20.,. 20 Free .-..do F i e e & various. Free ...do ....do ....do ....do ....do ....do ...do ...do Free Charges .-- do 20 20 and 35 Free ...do Free ...do ...do --.do Free and 2 0 . . . . ...do ...do ...do ...do Free, 25, &c 262 50 471 55 893 08 191 00 39 40 1, 894 45 2, 895 39 1, 287 15 619 35 115 70 72 50 150 80 18 20 48 00 15 75 52 05 41 50 87 50 30 90 , 30 95 223 35 27 70 57 80 3, 773 95 1,389 20 3, 325 65 3, 325 65 50 55 1, 462 00 16, 627 60 407 00 20, 907 20 31, 796 00 22, 525 00 203 10 210 86 Free and 20. Free , ...do Free and 20. Free . . do ...do 29, 007 85 4. 586 07 1, 576 60 120 00 916 40 520 10 842 62 T.L 383. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I. 209,324. T. I. 594. 471 55 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. 893 08 Do. 191 00 Do. 39 40 Do. T. I. 401, 448. T. L 448." i, 287 15 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 619 35 Do. 107 65 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and various. 72 50 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 150 80 Do. 18 20 Do. 48 00 1 Do. 15 75 Do. 52 05 Do. 41 50 Do. Do. 87 50 1 30 90 Do. 30 95 Do. 223 35 Do. 27 70 Do. T. L 448. T. I. 448 and 324. 1,389 20 Section 7 act March 3,1883. 3,325 65 Do. 3, 325 65 Do. 50 55 Do. 1,462 00 Do. 16, 627 60 Do. Section 7 actMarch3,1883, andT. 1.448. (*) Do. (*) Do. ( *) Do. C) Do. (*) Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I. 407-210,, &c. Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448. 4, 586 07 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. 1,576 60 Do. Act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448. 9i6 46 Do. 520.10 Do. 842 62 Do. No bill of particulars served. Pi' fei O Pi ^•. o fejfej Ul otdPi td > Pi Kj O fej Hi td Hi pi fei n Pi K; 325 40 * Charges claimed, but not speciflc as to amount. CD 00 Schedule showing ihe number of suits against the collector of the port of New York, begun between October 1, 1885, and Octoher 1,*1886, cfc.—Continued. N o . of • suit. D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e . N a m e of plaintiff. R a t e of d u t y claimed. Amount claimed. Claimed on cartoons. packing. &c. Under what section of the tariff claimed. CO Pi fej ^ 10810 10811 10812 10813 10814 10815 10816 10817 10818 10819 10820 10821 1082il 10823 10824 10825 10826 10827 10828 10829 10830 10831 10832 H. H e r r m a n e t al do . H . C. S y l v e s t e r e t a l . . R. A c o s t a H . C. d e R i v e r a A. Lucdor do M. N e u b e r g e r e t a l — A. T. Suilivau. R. S t r u t h e r s E. A . P ) i c e c t al J o h n Hills et al do :..-, H. Fleming M. G a b r i e l e t a l H . A . Bat.jer c t a l d o .'. P. Schulze Berce et al . A. Klipstein G.F. A.Hiurichs . - . . . J . M. T o u n g e t a l R.S. Roberts e t a l M . G u g g e n h e i m e t a l .. Seal p l u s h e s , m a n u f a c t u r e s w o r s t e d , c o t t o n . do Charges Sugar i do : do . do Charges — Dress goods,linings, &c ^ Charges do do -..- do do . . - . do do .-.--do C r u d e a n i l i n e oil do-. Charges do do Charges a n d cotton embroideries 10833 B. Printing paper. 10834 10835 10836 10837 10838 10839 10840* 10841 10842 10843 10844 10845 10846 10847 Lawrence Stationery Company. H . C. S j i v e s t e r e t a l E.Greeff'etal oJ- M a m r a e l s d o r f et. a l E.Levy H . F l e i t m a n n e t al W . H . Graef e t a l F. Hoeninahaus et al W . E . I s e l i n e t al M. Luckerac.\ e r e t a l Oito Meyer L. M e g r o z e t a l B . F . W e n d t e t al L. W i n d m u l l e r e t a l H. F l e i t m a n n e t al 10848 W . H . J a c k s o n et al Various. . . . d o .-Free ...do ... ...do ... ...do . . . ...do . . . do . Various Free ....do ...do .--.do . . . . . . . ....do ...do ....do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do --.do Free and 35. $6, 240 63 962 35 4, 651 ] 5 30, 856 68 78, 451 87 20, 024 10 31,793 02 61 80 746 28 1,935 15 3,172 35 684 25 1, 600 55 307 00 244 80 125 30 105 70 8! 00 390 20 1, 309 85 1,445 25 1,422 30 3,134 50 $4,651 15 1, 935 15 3,172 35 684 25 1,600 55 307 00 244 80 125 30 105 70 81 00 390 20 1, 309 85 1, 445 25 1,422 30 (*) . 1,076 80 Charges H a t materials H a t materials a n d metal lace . Hat materials H a t materials and charges . . . do do . -do . .do . .do . -do . .do . -do . Free 20.-: 20 a n d 2 5 . . . 20 20 a n d f r e e . ....do ...do ....'.. ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do P a v i n g tiles 20. 665 20 200 90, 852 63 38 40 36,188 90 13, 0 4 1 0 0 109 50 39,145 00 8, 989 60 3, 033 40 1,593 50 1, 084 00 392 40200 OQ, 952 80 665 20 (*) r) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) ' (*) (*) ; Various Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. Treaty stipulation. Do. Do Do. Sectiou 7 act March 3, 1883. VariouiS. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. Do. Do. Do. Refunded. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. - Do. T. I. 559. . Do. Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1880, and T. I. 324. T. I. 392-388-386. Section 7 act March 3,1883. T. 1.448.T . L 448-427. Do. T. I., and section 7 act March 3, 1883. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Penalty for exaction of $10 reappraisement fee. T. L, 130. O Pi Hi o fej w td m td o fej f> Pi Kl •O fej •W td H td. Ul' d td K} 10849 10850 •10851 10852 10853 16854 10855 10856 108.57 108.58 10859 10860 10861 10862 10863 10864 10865 10806 10867 10868 10869 10870 10871 10872 10873 10874 10875 10870 10^^77 10878 10879 10880 10881 ' 10882 10883 10884 10885 10886 10887 10888 10889 10890 Charges do do : do do . ...... do do .. Charges and silk a n d cotton -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charo'es ... ............... do I do --do . : do Sugar ' . . do do do Charges '. ... do do do do Gillingtwine :......... ...--. Charges do . do J . N . B a l c h e t al do do J. J. Kittel et al.; S. E B l o c h e t al do . '. A . D o u g a n e t al do do H . D r e y f u s e t al W . J . E h r i c k e t al do : E, N e u s s e t al ..do do E. Robei t P e t e r s C. S p i e l m a n n e t al do .. ..do do W . D i c k e t al Sugar do :.. Brooklvn Sugar Refining . Company. B H . H o w e l l e t al do H u g h Kelly do F 0 Matthieson et al do ' . . . . J M o l l e r e t al .do '... E. Dieckerhoff et al C h a r g e s a n d b u t t o n s , b r a i d s , &o 10891 10892 10893 10894 10895 10806 J. Palme J . G. B a i n b r i d g e J C. Colwell H . F l e i t m a n n e t al J. Einstein S. J a c o b s o n C Bruns ir J . Daniell et al J . A . Tudge P L MilU e t al G. J . M u l l e r Georae Scbmolze .. J Straus.s et al Tv. L a m e t a l C. B e c k n a g e l e t a l do - . . ' H. Zimmern . Thomas Wilson.T. W . Bartrq,m e t al do do do . W. Irvin"-Clark J. J. K i t t e l et al -. C. Spielraann e t a l do . P. W o l t e t al ; J . S. W h i t e Charges do . . . . do do do ... do ' Free do . . . do ....do . . do . . . do ....do F r e e a n d 50 Free....do ....do ....do . . . do . . do . . . . do ....do . . . do . . . do ....do . . . do ....do . . . do 25 Free . do ....do . . . do . - . : . . . do ....do . . . . do ....do ...do ....do . . . do ....do ....do ....do ... 124 143 189 680 2, 344 1.35 510 1,016 135 275 64 60 85 8 792 2, 940 7,446 5,373 400 1, 429 4, 479 4, 641 319 312 3, 957 7, 544 104 2, 587 422 1, 261 628 157 1. 993 430 3, 738 3,117 17, 749 39, 379 80 75 90 02 63 50 41 05 70 60 10 00 69 20 69 75 87 50 75 88 50 80 05 03 10 60 90 20 45 75 65 35 20 90 55. 97 99 ....do ....do ....do ....do IFree a n d 25-35. 20,616 315 97,331 14,168 38, 572 78 16 97 19 11 53 2,123 • 10 350 • 69 69 90 90 50 00 75 70 Free -...do ....do ....do .--.do do ... :-.. '' Charges claimed, but not specified as to araount. 124 143 ISa 680 2, 344 135 510 460 135 275 64 60 85 80 Seetion 7 act March 3, 1883. 75 Do. 90 Do. 02 Doo 03 Do. Do. 50 Do. 41 95 70 1 Do. 60 1 Do. . 10 Do. 00 Do. 60 Do. Treaty stipulation. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 act March 4, 1883. 466 56 1,429 75 Do. Do. 4, 479 88 Do. 4, 641 50 Do. 319 80 T. I, 347. 3, 957 63 Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. 7,544 10 Do. 104 60 2, 587 90 Do. Do. 422 20 1, 261 45 Do. Do. 628 75 157 65 Do. 1,993 35 Do. Do. 430 20 3, 738 90 Do. Do. 3,117 55 Treaty stipulation. Do. ' • {*) 53 2,123 10 350 69 69 Do. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I. 407-324, &c. Do. 90 Do. 90 1 Do. 50 Do. 00 Do. 75 Do. . 70 1 td ^ O fej H. o fej t-3 td Ul td o Pi td Hi ^> Pi Kj O fej Hi w td •-i Pi td > Ul .fej Kj Schedule shoiving the number of suits against the collecior of theport of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and Octoher 1, 1886,^c.—Continued. No. of suit. Description of merchandise. Name of plaintiff. Rate of duty claimed. 10897 C. F.Rumpff. Charges . Free 10898 10899 10900 E. Rejall et. al R. F. Downing et al . do -do . -do . Charges, albums, &o . F. J . C . F e r r i s P. AViederer W. H. Graef et al M. Gerstendorfer et a l . . E. Mommer et al F . B . Thurber e t a l William Demult T.P.Conway W.H.Chipman J. M. Young C. F. A. Hinrichs. - G.W.Faber J. F. Decker Isaac Cooper et al I. Einstein et al M.Eisner Great Westem Dis. Co . I. Fellheimer A. Forbes J . Freedman A. Forster et al A. Fiedler et al E.Ludwig J . Meyer et al A. Flesh let al M.Steiglitz W. E. Iselin et al W.Figgis W . B . Fox etal M. Guffgenheim et a l . . . H.G. McFadden AV. Pickhardt et al do C. Spielmann et al John Claflin et al W. E. Iselin e t a l . . . . . . . Charges and various Charges do do Charges, buttons, and cotton.. Charges do .do . .do . -do.do. .do-do. -do . .do . .do . .do. ..do. .do . .do . .do . -do . .do . .do , .do . Charges and hat materials do Charges ..-.do .-..do Free and 15-2025. Free and various Free ...do ...do Free and various Free ...do ....do ....do . . . do ....do ....do ....do . . . do ....do . . . . . . . . . ...do ...do ...do..... ....do ....do . . : ....do ...do ....do ....do ....do Free and 20 . . . ....do......... Free ... d o . . Free and 35 . . . Free 25 25.... 25. 35,30 10901 10902 10903 10904 10905 10906 10907 10908 10909 10910 10911 10912 10913 10914 10915 10916 10917 10918 10919 10920 10921 10922 10923 10924 10925 10926 10927 10928 10929 10930 10931 10932 10933 10934 10935 10936 FRASER Digitized for Charges and cotton embroideries Charges Oleate of soda do do Cotton damasks, linen handkerchiefs, <fec. Amount claimed. Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. $618 50 $18 50 997 10 434 96 446 65 997 10 434 96 195 70 1,004 71 752 00 1,752 30 1, 863 00 5, 503 66 531 85 253 42 736 30 25 90 952 90 669 60 2, 962 50 525 00 241 88 509 00 44 00 123 00 24 10 45 90 51 20 8 70 71 00 918 30 93 25 998 05 158 40 350 00 137 42 50 60 4, 563 05 15 60 1, 537 50 61 55 3, 501 25 337 55 200 00 752 00 1, 7§2 30 1, 863 00 5, 449 01 531 85 253 42 736 30 25 90 952 90 669 60 2, 962 50 *241 ) •( 88 509 00 44 90 133 00 24 10 45 90 51 20 8 70 71 00 918 30 93 25 998 05 C) ( *) 137 42 50 60 (*16 ) 60 1, 537 50 3, 501 25 Under what section of the tariff claimed. fer Section 7 act of March 3, 1883, and T. L 407-r324, &c. Do. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I. 388-385-384. Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. Do. Do. Act March 3,1883, and various. Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. , Do. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and rarioas. T. I. 92. Do. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. T. L 324-387. Penalty for exacting reappraisement fee. fej Id o fej Hi o fej H. w td Ul fet o fej fel Hi. Pi o ^. H W td. H^ fet fej t> m nfej- ^ ta t^3 O 3 ^ 3 Cotton damasks, linen handkerchiefs, &c. . . ^ - . . . i0937 E. Hardt et al do : 10938 C. Spielmann et al Hat materials 10939 L. Weddigen ot a.l Manui'actures of paper 10940 E Anthony et al Silk and cotton goods, s. c. v 10941 John Bester et al Charges and rubber fabrics 10942 M. J. Drucker 10943 R. G. Glendinning et a l . . Charges and linens Opera glasses (claim philosophical instruments)10944 L. Hammond et al 10945 A. Kohn et al Charges and hat materials, &c 10946 J. Konigsberger et al -. - - Silk and cotton goods, s. c. v Opera glasses, &c 10947 L. W. Levy et al do do . . 1 10948 : Fabrics in part india-rubber F. Livingston 10949 , Albums 10950 A. Liebenroth et al -. i D. W. McLeod et al 10953 Duck, canvas, padding, &c ._. 10952 F. W. Muser et al Charges, cotton net, &c 10951 J. Meyer et al Seal plushes 10^)55 O. Oelschlager et al Telescopes, barometers, &c 10954 R. M. Oberteuffer et a l . . . Charges and hat materials 10956 L. Rheims Hat materials 10957 S. W. Richardson Linen handkerchiefs.. -10958 J . W. Rosenstein et al — Preserved fish Opera glasses, &c 10959 L. Sussfeld et al do 10960 do Charges and silk, raetal braid 10961 S. B. Solomon et al 10962 B. J . Salomon et al Webbings, shoe-vamps, and charges 10963 Scoville . Manufacturing Paper 18964 10965 -10966 10967 10968 10969 10970 10971 10972 10973 10974 10975 10976 10977 10978 10979 10980 10981 - 10982 Com any, G. F. Vietor et al do...~ A. Walter et al H. Fleitmann et al W. Demuth G.Ballinetal N. Bloom B. Blumenthal et al A. Boote W. Clark et al J. F. McCoy et al A. Roseman F. Robe. A. Dougan L. Lutz et al R. S. Roberts et al C. S. Bates et al do J. Bronheimer et al Seal plushes and charges do Opera glasses Hat materials and charges Charges Cottons and jute, cotton and metal... M etal manufactures, books, &c - . . . . Brass buttons , Decorated earthenware Linen thread Currycombs, cottons, charges, &c DecoVated earthenware (claim tiles) . Paintings on porcelain Linen thread Antipyrene -Hat materials do : do Charges and worsteds 35,30.. 35,30 20 20 50 , Free and 30 .. ...do 35 Free, 20, &c . . 50 35 and 25 35 30 15 or 20 or 2530 50. Free and 2 0 . . . . 20 :..-. 30 1 c. per lb 35 35 Free & various. Various &free. 20 *3,608 51 736 30 2, 328 10 3, 930 50 558 72 482 60 1, 227 40 644 28 73, 906 35 402 95 1,304 78 172 45 19 95 290 65 264 67 3, 097 04 817 00 262 20 12, 481 43 9, 634 09 92 75 589 00 4,050 00 163 65 608 60 532 35 1, 336 90 50 and free 4,29155 60 943 20 35 or 25 175 50 20 1,222 50 Free 74 03 30 and 35 1,398 66 35 and 15 146 78 25 159 50 20 1,502 90 25 388 65 Various & free. 72 75 20 3120 30 75 60 25 3,324 20 20.... 1,285 20 20.. 16,447 00 20.. 8,16100 20 3,506 60 Free and 18 c. and 35 p. c , or 24 c. and 35 p.c. * Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount. Do. Do. T. I. 448. T. I. 386. T. L 383. 14 80 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.453. 397 03 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. I. 337. T.L 475. 4, 067 90 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448. T. 1.383. T. L 475-486. Do. T. L 453. T. I. 388-385-384. T. L 338. Section 7, act Mar. 3,1883, and T. I. 324. T.L 383. T. 1.475. 4, 642 53 Section 7actMar. 3,1883, and T.I.448. T. I. 448. T. L 337. T. I: 278. T. I. 478. Do. Section 7actMar. 3,1883, and T. I. Various and section act Mar. 3,1883; T. I. 386 or 388. T. I. 383 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. T. L 383. T. I. 475-486. T. L 448. 74 03 Section 7, act March 3,1883. T. I. 324-334. T. L 210-388. T. L 407-210. T. L 130. T. L 347. Various, and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. T. L 130. T. 1.470. T. L 347. T. 1.92-93 or 83. T. L 448. Do. Do. 35 45 T. 1.363 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. fej ^Cd fej O fej H O fej H w td Ul td o fel fej Hi \> Pi K! o fej H3 m td H Ul d fej Kj CO Schedule showing the number of suits against the collector of the port of New'York, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued. CO 00 No. of suit. Name of plaintiff. Description of merchandise. Bate of duty oladmed. Amount claimed. Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. 10983 W. H. Forbes et a l . Fire-crackers - Damage . 10984 10985 10986 10987 do H. C. Aspinwall J. S. Conover et al . A. Klipstein -do . Decorated earthenware (tiles ?) ......do Charges and various, do.... 20 20 Free and various George E. MUler M. Stern W. F . Sykes B. Lawrence Stationery Company. W . B . Bird e t a l L. Lehmann F. Paturel H. H. Schwietering et al , Decorated earthenware (tiles ?). Charges : Carmine of Persian berries .. Paper 20.... Free. 10.... 15.... 2,043 70 58 75 201 60 383 10 $58 75 Bichromate of soda. Charges 1 Rubber balloons Matelassi cloths 25 Free 25 18 cents and 35 per cent. -do 60 or 7 cents and 40 per cent. Free and 30-20. ...do Free and 40 20 25 .--. 20 and free 20..... 20 and 25 20 25 30 :.... 35 20 and free 20 and 25 30 35 Free and 20 30 25 Free 2,499 49 149 75 761 90 1, 516 51 149 75 10990 10991 10992 10993 10994 10995 10996 10997 .do., -do. 10998 J. M. Constable et al 10999 do --11000 W. Haasker Company . -. 11001 John Claflin et al 11002 B.Veit :. 11003 A. Friedman 11004 E. Greetf et al . - - -, 11005 J. Mamraelsdorf et al 11006 do 11007 L. Metzger et al 11008 S. C. Pullman et al 11009 B. Silberberg et al 11010 L. Toplitz et al 11011 11012 L. K. AVilmeffding 11013 M. C. Warren 11014 E. S. Jaffray et al 11015 A. D. Napier et al 11016 J. S. White 11017 American Lens ManufactFRASER Digitized for uring Company. do. Wool or worsted and silk and cotton. Charges and linens, hat materials, &c . Charges and sardines Hat materials Jewelry .' Hat trimmings and charges Hat materials Hat materials and metal lace do..-. Manufactures metal, silk, and cotton. Embroideries (linen handkerchiefs).. Cotton collars, trimmings, &CHat materials and charges do --Canvas, &c. claimed burlaps Linen handkerchiefs Charges and hat materials Linen handkerchiefs Linen thread Unpolished cylinder glass apd chalk - Section 2929 R. S., art. 45&-471 Treas. -Reg.'84, S. 3774. $328 00 650 1,306 333 *3,453 00 70 10 57 2, 919 35 2, 636 48 *7,154 00 *7, 468 75 *1,101 80 3, 323 55 1, 535 00 198 30 133 20 1, 009 00 ' 506 73 136 75 659 95 46 85 195 91 67 25 646 10 622 05 10, 503 32 188 95 958.25 527 03 Under what section of the tariff claimed. T. L 130! Do. Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883, and T. I. 694-92-84-94, &c. T. 1.130. Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883. T. L 84. T. L 387. T. L 92. Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883. T. 1.464. T. L 383, S. S. 6134, T. 1.363. fej fej fej otd 6 fej w td CQ td o w td H Do. T. L 383, S. S. 6134, T. L 365. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and various. Do. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. L 281. T. L 448. T. I. 459. T. L 459 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1883. T. I. 459. T. L 459 and 427. T. L 459. T. I. 427. T. I. 337 T. I. 324. T. I. 448 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1883. T. I . 448 or 427; T. L 338. T. 1.337. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448. T. L 337. T. L 347. T.L 708^611 (?}. O fej •H W td fe) td CO Kj 11018 M. Arnold et al Charges and cotton-back worsteds. 11019 C. Bergenstein 11020 J. Freund e t a l 11021 Otto Gerdan 11022 S. Haas 11023 M. Jonasson et a l . . 11024 Copeland Kell 11025 P . Kleebnrg 11026 George Legg 11027 J. E. McCrea et al . 11028 Hugo Meyer 11029 O. Oelschlager 11030 H. Passavant 11031 Robert Shaw 11032 C. J. Tagliabue . . . 11033 B.Veit 11034 A. Veith et al 11035 R. F. Downing et al 11036 W. H. Graef et al 11037 do 11038 E. Mommer et al 11039 H. Schorestene et al 11040 . . . . . . d o 11041 J . Reshower et al 11042 B. Hecht e t a l 11043 J . McCreery et al 11044 C. F. Zeutgiaf 11045 H. Herrman et al 11046 do 11047 do 11048 S. Wormser 11049 A. Stein et al 11050 E. L Horsman ,.....-:. 11051 E. Dieckerhoff et al. 11052 E. Jaautet 11053 J . Loewenthal et al 11054 J. L. Riker et al 11065 Zucker & L. Chem. Co Cotton collars and embroideries Cotton doiliei; and damasks Ivory for piano keys Cotton damasks Seal plushes do Charges and hat materials Feather trimmings Cotton-lace curtains .Manufactures silk and cotton, s. c. v . Opera glasses, &c Hat materials and buttons Manufactures silk and cotton, s. c. v . Spy-glasses, &c . - Hat trimmings, metal lace, &c ... , do --. , Hat trimmings '... do do do Hat trimmings and charges .----.do ^ Hat trimmings Jewelry .' Hat materials Colors (lakes) Cotton velvets Seal plushes Worsted coatings ., Charges Tanned skins LaWn-tennis balls Linen tapes and braids Iron-wire hair-pins Metal buttons Chemicals and charges Charges and bi-carbonate of soda 11056 H. F. Barnett, executor . . 11057 E. Goldberg 11058 W. Pickhardt et al 11059 A. Steinhardt et al 11060 E. Neuss ©t al 11061 J . G. Smith et al 11062 E. Dieckerhoff et al 11063 . . . - - d o 11064 W. P. WiUett et al Rosalic acid . Hat materials and various Bromofluorescic acid and charges . -. Buttons and pins Cotton damasks and pins Cotton damasks and manufactures of j u t e . Hair-pins . Sugar --. .r Free and 24 c. and 35 p. o. 35. 35 , 25 35 60 60 Free and 20 Various 35 50 35 20 and 25 60 35 20,25 20,25 20 20 20 20 20 and free -..do 20 25 20 10 35 50 24 c.and 35p.c. Free 10 25.. 35 30 25 Free and 25 Free and 20 324 21 61 85 397 95 610 98 442 50 5, 598 95 194 50 579 2711,159 60 41 80 1, 622 65 - 768 55 76, 871 10 2, 060 80 732 20 2, 846 65 6,325 58 436 45 3, 459 95 .103 50 2, 030 75 *31 00 *91 40 30 75 132 10 3, 449 91 424 40 309 80 3, 080 .92 917 96 9,109 87 191 80 258 65 53 60 31 05 609 20 3,201 37 168 66 2, 881 20 Free 1, 648 79 20 and various"^ Free *1,138 90 25-35-30 267 55 35 and 30 205 10 30 and 35 1,052 85 30.. 348 15 30. 44 85 1 | and 2 and 25 1,703 11 -r -• per cent. * Charges claimed but not specified as to amount. Section 7 act M a r . 3,1883, and T. L 363. T.L 324. Do. T. L 469. T. L 324. T. L 383. Do. Section 7 actMar. 3,1883, arid T.L 448. Various ; claim under several sections. T. L 324. T. I. 383. T. I. 475. T. I. 448-407. T. L 383. T. L 475. T. L 448-427. Do. T. L 448. Do. Do. Do. T. L 448 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. „ Do. T. L 448. T. L 459. T. 1.448. T. L 84. T. 1.324. T. 1.383. T I. 363. 9,109 87 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. T. L 462. T.L 454. T;L 324. T.L .809. T. 1.407. T. 1.92 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1888. T. 1.479-215 and section 7, act Mar. 3, 1883. T. L'594. T. L 448 and various. T. 1.694 and section 7, act Mar. 3, 1883. T. L 407-210-209. T. L 324-209. T.L 338-324. T.L 209. Do. Against use of polariscope. fej td Hd O Pi Hi o fel g c© td o Pi td Hi > • Pi ><. o fej Hi w td:. Hi pi td > m d CO Schedule showing the number of suits against the collecior of the pori of New York, begun between Octoher 1, 1885, ccnd October i, 1886, ^c.—Continned, No. of suit. Name of plaintiff. Rate of duty claimed. Description of merchandise. Amount claimed. Claimed on cartoons, packing, &c. o o Under what section of the tariff claimed. fe) td 11065 W . E . L^ftlin fit al 11066 do..-. 11067 H. Dreyfus et al , ,. Silks, &c do s> Perfumery, &c., and charges 11068 B. Levy et al 11069 11070 11071 11072 11073 J. Loeb et al Cotton embroideries do do.A. Flesh et al Metal buttons and jewelry E. Stahel 1 do H. H. Schwietering et a l . . Charges and mohair braids $2 and 50 per cent, and free. 20 or free Lemon peel, &c., and charges ^ ^ 11074 Henry Lewis et al Charges 11075 E. Oelbermann et al :. Hat materials 11076 John Turgis Beads 11077 C. Benziger et al Plaster casts and beads 11078 Brooklyn Sugar Refining Sugar • Company. 11079 W. Dick et al do 11080 B ; H. Howell et al do 11081 F. 0. Matthiessen et al.. -. . . . . . . d o 11082 L. Hartwig et al Lentils 11083 R. Acosta Sugar 11084 C. H. Dunham et al Buttons, pins, <fec . , 11085 E. Dieckerhoff et al Hat materials and various 11086 H. Eggers et al Lentils 11087 H. Juuge et al Articles composed of rubber 11088 A. Liebenroth et al .. Albums 11089 P. L. Mills et al Cotton nets and curtains.. 11090 A. S. Robbins et al Linen handkerchiefs, &c 11091 J . B . R y e r e t a l | Manufactures of jute, &c 11092 ! W. Robertson j Manufactures of cotton and metal and various 11093 L. Toplitz Bonnets for men 11094 E. T. Tefft et al Metal buttons 11095 G.F. Vietor e t a l . -. Seal plushes 11096 L. J. Simons Beans 11097 B. Levy et al Beans and preserved fruits 11098 J. F. Brigg et al Seal plusher 11099 C. Spielmann et al Charges '. .^ .'. 11100 W. W. Thoraas et al Soluble oil (castor-oil) 11102 G.W.Faber Charges 11103 1S. Rothfeld et al ..-..| do http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $302 25 1,426 10 685 75 4, 525 70 35 270 16 ""35 . . 104 04 25 620 25 459 00 25 882 25 Free, and 40 c. and 35 p. c. 1,490 60 Free 7, 721 10 20 773 94 30,35,45 697 90 30 and various. 166,407 14 Free . . do ...do ....do.. ...do Free. 25,30,35 20 and various . Free 20 15, 20,25..." 35 30 30 ;.. 35,25 30 25 50 Free Free and 2 0 . . . . 50 Free 25 and 20 Free '..* - - . . d o . . . 105, 851 11 1,744 92 192, 377 59 176 10 8, 899 40 352 50 3,471 67 102 30 166 74 847 20 1, 438 45 1,135 70 556 10 752 37 6, 896 06 47 20 33 20 2,484 50 1, 305 15 514 75 ' 2,334 40 . 351 71 559 25 621 29 Against reappraisement. y Do. T. L100 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. o T. I. 301-704 and section 7, act Mar. 3, 1883. T. I. 324. Do. T. 1.407-210-459. T. 1.407-210. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.366. O fej Pi »^ w td Ul $1,490 50 2,334 40 559 26 521 29 Do. T. 1.448. T.I. 233-399-143-216. T. 1.470 and various. Treaty stipulation. Do. Do. Do. T. X. 730. Treaty stipulation. T. I. 407-210-453-209-337. T. 1.448 and various. T. 1.730. Section 2613 or 2499 R. S. T. 1.338-385-384. T. I. 324. T. 1.337. T. 1.338. T. 1.320-321-324-401, and other. T. 1.400. T 1.407-210 T. 1.383.' T. 1.760. T 1.760 and 636-704-301. T. I. 383. Section 7 act March 3,1883. T. 1.82, section 2513 R. S. Section 7 act March 3,1883. Do. td o Pi td H^ Pi O •^ H^ w td fe) td ;> Ul d PO H<J G.W.Faber W. Pickhardt et al do -.: H. Herrman et al ».do J. McCann H. C. de Rivera , F. F . Sargent, assignee. do Oleate of soda , do Silks, plushes, &c . Charges --.do . 25 25 50 Free.. 407 00 830 85 682 40 1, 802 35 1, 852 56 Sugar-.. . do . Free.. ...do. 995 48 995 48 11112 11113 11114 11115 C. W. Lord E. Pouquet et a l . . Otto Baerlin John Claflin et a l . Seeds-. Woolens Rosolic acid Charges and silks, &c .do. 3, 743 70 731 20 945 20 5, 785 70 11116 11117 11118 11119 11120 11121 11122 11123 11124 11125 11126 11127 11128 11129 11130 11131 11132 11133 11134 W. J . Matheson C. L. Tiffany H. Fleitmann et al H. Albert e t a l E. Anthony et al J. Clendinning S. Cohen et al F. J. C. Ferris et al P. Jeselsohn A. E:ohn G. A. Morrison W. E. Remy et al S. W. Richardson G. Sidenberg et al., -.. M. Tompkins C. Vom Baur C. A. Auffmordt et a l . E. S. Jaffray et al C. A. Auffmordt et al. Rosolic acid Statuary Hat materials, and silk and cotton Charges .-. Paper Linens (handkerchiefs) Cotton lace and damask Pins and fabrics in part rubber Albums Hat materials and metal lace Linen handkerchiefs and cotton laces, &c. do Linen handkerchiefs Charges Linen handkerchiefs Hat materials and various Hat materials and charges Hat materials and linens Exaction of reappraisement fee 11135 11135 11137 11138 11139 11140 11101 11141 E. Oelbermann et al , H. Fleitmann et al do O. K. Krause et al W . B . Bird e t a l W. H. Walmsley H. E. Frankenburg et a l . W. E. Iselin et al do do do Charges Bichrom. soda Philosophical instruments Charges Exaction of reappraisement fee. 11142 11143 11144 11145 11146 11147 H. Herman et al , do do H. B. Shaen et al A. Dougom et al F. Hoeninghaus et al. Charges 11104 11105 11106 11107 11108 11109 11110 • Illll Charges and hat materials '..• Linen thread do Exaction of reappraisement fee.. Free Free and various. ' Free^ , 30 20,50... Free , 15,20,25 30 35 -.. 30... 15,20,25 20,25 , 30,35 30,35 30 Free 30... 20 and various. 20 and free 20 and 30 Free.. 25 35 ...do. 2,781 80 1, 078 05 48,141 27 889 06 2, 816 20 389 70 171 00 273 45 544 30 53,137 54 186 15 366 06 440 00 731 54 1, 018 00 7, 696 66 3, 859 20' 6, 329 70 22,200 00 8, 000 00 4, 600 00 4, 600 00 25,964 65 688 25 672 54 3, 371 25 2,400 00 Free ...do Free, and 20 -.. 25 25 * Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount. 241 85 206 30 4,937 05* 303 25 773 85 1. 800 00 1,852 56 731 64 25, 964 65 241 85 206 30 Do. T.L 92. Do. T. 1.383. Section 7 act March 3,1883. No bill of particulars served. Treaty stipulation. Treaty stipulation (this suit embraces ^ the same cause as 11110). T.I. 636-760. Illegal reappraisement. T.L 694. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and various. T. L 594.. T. L 470. T. 1.448-383. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. T.L.388-386. T . L 337. T. I. 324. T. I. 209,463. T. I. 388, 386,384; section 2499 R. S. T. I. 448,427. T. I. 337, 324. Do. T. I. 337. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. T. I. 337. T. 1.448 and various. T. 1.448 and section 7, act March 3,1883. T. 1.448 and T. 1.337. Penalty for exaction of reappraisement fee. Do. Do. Do. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. T. L 92. T. L 475. Section 7 act March 3, 1883. Penalty for exaction of reappraisement fee. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883. Do. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448. T. L 347. Do. Penalty for exaction of reappraisement fee. •fei td *ii O fe) H O fel w fel Ul td^ o fel td H > fe) Kl o fel @ fel H^ Pi td > CQ pi Kj Schedule shoioing the number of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between Octoher 1, 18S5, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued. No. of suit. Name of plaintiff Description of merchandise. Rate of duty, claimed. Amount claimed Claimed |0n cartoons, packing, &c. O Under what section of the tariff claimed. •fe) ;td I. E. Dreyfus et al . Penalty for exaction of reappraisement fee. Do. Do. Do. Do. T. I. 337. T.L 336. Treaty stipulation. Do. Do. Exaction of reappraisement fee. $14,400 00 11149 G. W. Sutton et al 11150 E. Luckemeyer et al 11151 R. M. Oberteuffer et al — 11152 ....do :.. 11163 M. C. W^arren 11164 E. Dieckerhoff et al 11155 F. C. Havemeyer et al. -... 11156 W.Dick e t a l 11157 Brooklyn Sugar Refining 30 40 Free - ....do. .-..do- 2, 000 000 000 000 200 71 667 282 53, 230, 940 11158 Company. J. Berbecker et al -do . .do . .do . .do. Linen handkerchiefs Linen braids, tapes, &c Sugar .: do do .-...Gilt nails . Various- 4, 786 61 11159 J. Bernheimer et a l . Cotton-back worsteds . 1, 771 63 11160 11161 11162 11163 11164 11165 11166 J. Bi.sler et al - - - -. E. Dieckerhoff e t a l H. Douglas Otto Gerdan R. G. Glendinning et al . B. Hecht et al Copeland Kell - -... Manufactures of silk. Hat materials. LinensIvory for piano ke^ys Manufactures of linen embroideries . Willow-ware, purses, &o Cotton-back worsteds 18 c. or 24 c. and 40 per cent. 50 20 Various (manufactures copper, plated ware, &c.). T. L 363. 302 323 830 214 190 55 1,144 T.L 383. T.L 448. T.L 337. T.L 469. T. L 337. Various. T. L 363. 11167 11168 11169 11170 11171 11172 11173 11174 Sugar Linens, handkerchiefs Manufactures, silk and cotton . do --... Cotton nets, embroideries, &o . Cotton doilies and damasks Manufactures, cotton, &c Paper 11175 11176 11177 A. Lueder H. Matier et al H. Meyer , J . Meyer F. W. Muser et al F.Pinkus , S. B. Solomon et al Seovill M a n u f a c t u r i n g Company. G. F. Vietor et al S.H. Wilson M. Wimpheimer et al Hat materials Linens Charges and hat materials. 20 30. Free and 20 . . . 8,612 925 849 11178 11179 M. L. Stieglitz et al. Henry Lewis et al .. Hat inaterials Hat materials and charges Manufactures silk and cotton and various . Hat materials .....do 20 20 and free. 50 and various 1,208 9,529 11148 11180 H. Lewis e t a l . . . . 11181 H. Fleitman et a l . http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 11182 L. Megroz et a l . . . Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 25 30 Various 18 or 24 c., and 35 per cent. Free 20. 20 00 .00 00 00 00 40 62 36 86 72 00 10 65 85 10 80 32, 662 50 1,458 45 416 40 298,25 1,336 25 723 85 261 85 901 20 1,1.32 15, 229 503 Treaty stipulation. T. 1.337. T. L 383. Do. T . I . 324. Do. Do. Schedule M. T. L 448.. T. L 337. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I . 448. T.L 448. Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I. 448. T. I. 383, and various. T. L 448. Do. ^ O Pi . H O fel H wfel Ul td o fe) td > .fel O fel w td Ul d 11183 .11184 11185 11186 11187 11188 11189 11190 11191 11192 11193 11194 11195 11196 11197 11198 11199 11200 11201 11202 11203 11204 11205 11206 11207 W. B. Iselin et al W. H. Graef et al F. C. Havemeyer e t a l . J. B. Locke et al J . H. Duke et al L. Toplitz G. W. Sutton et al ......do do Sugar Linen handkerchiefs. Charges Hat materials Silk and cotton A. Origet H. Herrman et a l . -. T.O.Hague H. Hohenstein W. F. Sykes A. Strauss et al George C. Miller B.Veit.-: W.H.Fletcher G.Ballinetal W. H. Jackson et al. F. Rosaler A. Dingelstedt et al. H. Herrman et al — O. K. Krause et a l — W. Openhym et a l . . J . P a r k et al P. Sgobel et al Woolens Worsted coatings, cotton-velvets, &c., various . J u t e matting Paper lamp- shades Carmine of Persian berries Charges and hairpins Decorated earthenware (tiles ?) : Jewelry 20.-.. 20 ... Free. 30-... Free. 20.... 12, 713 20 \19, 251 70 23, 386 36 1, 0.53 85 3,300 00 946 80 1, 306 70 4,065 14 9,446 61 117 82 217 25 274 65 254 92 740 35 1, 687 04 Various 30... 15 10 Free and 30. 20 25 Cotton damasks Decorated earthenware (tiles ?). Crude aniline oil Necklaces 35 20 Free.. 25 50 Free.. ...do. ...do. ...do. Manufactures of silk (mohair).. Charges r !"!!!do!!l'"l!.!]!!!!"^'*'!!!i!l do 193 50 676 90 116 20 200 00 250 25 18, 762 30 730 90 275 00 789 80 t)o. Do. Treaty stipulation. T. L 337. $3,300 00 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. T. L 448. Claim reappraisement to have been illegal. Illegal appraisement (?). Various. T. L 338. Schedule M. T. 1.84. Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, andlT, 1.209,. T. L 130, 129. T.L 459. No bill of particulars served. T. 1.324. T. L 130,129. T. I. 559. T.L459(?). T. I. 383. 18, 762 30 Section 7 act March 3, 1883. 730 90 Do. 275.00 Do. 789 80 Do. fel td o fel Q- fel H GQ td o fej td * Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount. Total number of suits Number including claim on cartons, &c Amount claimed in all the suits Amount claimed on cartons (so far as ascertainable) *- , '- .*...... - --- * 1,120 649 $4,314,735 67 1,182,298 15 ofel w td H fed Ul O 09 104 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Trials by jury between Octoher 1, 1885, and Octoher 1, 1886. Title of suit. Series No. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.s: N.S. N:s. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. O.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. O.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.'S. N.,S. O.S. N.S. O.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. August Giese vs. William H. Robertson Franklin Roefe vs. same Henry R. Bradbury vs. same Fred. S. Pinkus vs. same , John T. Sherman et al. vs. same Gustav Falk and another vs. same J . H. Mapleson vs. same W. R. Woodward and another vs. same L. Toplitz and other vs. same R. G. Glendinning et al. vs. same Donald McLeod and another vs. same L. Kaufmann et al. vs. same 0. Oelchlaeger vs. same Louis Lutz and another ve. same P. Schultze, Berge, and another vs. same J. Rosenthal and another vs. same The New Haven Clock Company vs. same P. A. Frasse and another vs. same Otto Gerdan vs. same George S. Atterberg vs. same Henry Herman et al. vs. same L. Weddegen et al. vs. same. J. O. Carleton and another vs. same E. Luckemeyer and another vs. same Otto W. Pollitze t al. vs. Schell ^ Jacob Bosch et al. vs. Robertson Frederick Beck and another vs. same .". William Baumgarten and another vs. same E. P; Gleason Manufacttu^ing (IJompany vs. same. E. A. Oelricks and another vs. Barney H. Passavant et al. vs. Merritt " 6872 G. Collamore and another vs. same 9252 8723 8809 9571 9133 9431 9564 9441 9558 9610 9444 9382 9677 9577 9563 9610 9735 9657 9623 8092 8570 8580 9959 9960 458 8650 8611 7982 9422 7304 5971 7519 7128 9449 ,7606 9431 9613 6935 1585 9985 8676 7837 6807 9965 317 10092 1804 9063 10038 2824 10064 Verdict for- Plaintiffs :. Split verdict Plaintiffs Plaintiff , Defendant Plaintiffs (first trial).. Plaintiff do Defendant Plaintiff Defendant do-.-Split verdict Plaintiffs , do do. , do , do do Split verdict Plaintiffs do Defendan t ......do Plaintiffs Defendant Plaintiffs do . - - - . do , do do Plaintiffs by direction of the court. Defendant Edward Hill and another vs. same J . Kurtz et *al. vs. same Plaintiffs , do Charles L. Tiffany vs. same J . Kurtz et al. vs. same , do L. A. Solomon et al. vs. Robertson do Defendant Dwight & Co., late Waterman, vs. Merritt Defendant, 2d trial Gustav Falk and another vs. Robertson W. H. Perego and another vs. same Split verdict D. Cameron and another vs. Merritt Plaintiffs C. Meletta vs. Schell Defendant , C. von Pustan vs. Robertson Plaintiff , do , L. Fleischmann vs. same Abi Wallach and another vs. same Split verdict John F . Brigg et al. vs. MeiTitt Plaintiffs William H. Schieffelin et al. vs. Robertson do Fewster Wilkinson et al. vs. J. E. Parsons & Co- . . . . . d o do George C. Miller vs. Robertson Defendant — J . W. Smith & Co. vs. Robert ScheU & Co Charles A. Edelhoff et al. vs. Robertson .' Split verdict do Philo L. Mills and another vs. same Plaintiff , Philip Nettre vs. C. A. Arthur Defendant .' Thomas K. Cummings vs. Robertson Joseph Netherclift et al. vs. same do Total number of suits Total number of days occupied by trials. j u d g e before whom tried. Wheeler. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Shipman. Do. *Do. Wheeler. Shipman. Do. Do. Do. Wheeler. Do. Shipman.. Do. Do. Do. iDo. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Coxe. Do.. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. 505&< * Between January 13 and 18 Judge Wheeler aud Judge Shipman held separate terms at the same time for the trial of collectors' cases. APPENDIX G. T H E SEVENTH SECTION OF THE LAW OF MARCH 3, 1883, AND DUTIES ON COVERINGS. ' No. 1. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OP T H E SECRETARY, Washington^ D. C, October 18, 1886. Mr. J. C. MACGREGOR, Chief of Customs Division : S I R : Please prepare, and present to me, as speedily as possible, a clear, concise, and full exhibition of all that has been done under the Oberteuffer decision, including the questions thereunder that have perplexed the Department; the decisions thereon that have been made^ the questions now indicated, and the difficulties thereof. Eespectfully, • DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. No. 2. J. E. L.] TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C, October 19', 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treas.ury : S I R : In reply to your request of the 18th instant, for '' a clear, concise, and full e2&hibition of all that has been done under the Oberteuffer decision, including the questions thereunder that h£ive perplexed the Department, the decisions thereon that have been made, the questions now indicated, and the difficulties thereof," I have the honor to state that on February 1, 1886, the following telegram was sent to the chief customs officer at 38 ports: Advance proofs of Supreme Court decision in Oberteuffer case received; court decides t h a t cost of cartons and all inside coverings and packing does not constitute element of dutiable value under existing law. Instruct appraiser accordingly. ' Instructions by mail shortly. D. MANNING, Secretary. And on the next day (February 2) a circular promulgating said decisioB was published and copies sent to all ports (S. 7387). 105 106 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' INSTRUCTIONS TO COLLECTORS. Authority was therein given to collectors to apply,the rule laid down in said decision " to all future importations and iinliquidated entries, and also to all entries where the requirements of Taw as to protest, appeal, institution of suit, &c., have been fully complied with.'' (7387.) Cartons and other inside coverings. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , February 2, 1886. Appenderl hereto will be found a copy o f t h e decision o f t h e United States Supreme \ Court in the suit of Oberteuffer et. al. vs. Robertson, which involved t h e question as to t h e liability to duty of cartons and .other inside coverings of imported merchandise, and the cost of p o k i n g the same in t h e outside packages. The merchandise which was tbe subject of the suit consisted of gloves and hosiery p u t u p in cartons or paper hoxes bf one-half dozen and one dozen pairs each. Tbe importers (plaintiffs) on making entry at the custom-bouse excluded t h e cost of such cartons and packing charges, while t h e appraiser in returning t h e dutiable value of the goods added to such entered value t h e cost of t h e cartons and packing, whereupon duty was assessed hy t h e collector on the addition thus made. It will be seen t h a t the Supreme Court now decides t h a t such action on the part of the appraiser and collector was erroneous, and t h a t under t h e provisions of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, neither the cost of the cartons, and other inside coverings, nor the charges incident to the packing of goods for shipment are elements of dutiable value. The rule thus laid down in this decision will he applied to all future importations .find unliquidated entries, and also to all entries where t h e requirements of law as t o protest, appeal, institution of suit, &c., have been fully complied with. C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. To COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS. I Suprerae Court of the IJnited Statea. No. 1192.—October term, 1885. Eeece M. Oberteuffer et al. plaintiffs in error, vs. William H. Eobertson, collector of the port of New York. In error to the circuit court of the Dnited States for the southern district of New York. January 25, 1886.] Mr. J U S T I C E BLATCHFORD delivered t h e opinion of t h e court. TMs is an action brought in a State court in New York, b y Reece M. Oherteuffer, Henry Abegg, and Henry H . Daeniker, composing the mei^cantile firm of Oberteuffer, Abegg &, Daeniker, against William H. Robertson, collector o f t h e port of New York, to recover $140.80 as an excess of duties, paid on coverings and putting up charges on hosiery and gloves, on which ad valorem duties were imposed b y law. I t was removed into t h e circuit court of the United States b y t h e defendant. At the trial t b e jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, by direction of t h e court, and there was a judgment for him, for costs, to review which the plaintiff's have brought a writ of error. In July, 1883, the plaintiffs imported from Bremen 2 cases of wool gloves, Nos. 4836, 4837; 21 cases ofj cotton hosiery, Nos. 4852 to 4872; and one other case of cotton hosiery, No. 168. Tbere were three invoices covered by one entry. The invoice ofthe two cases of gloves was dated a t Leipzig and Chemnitz, in Saxony, J u n e 29, 1883, and was of goods purchased by t h e plaintiffs. I t covered 500 dozen of gloves, in 5 items, t h e prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted to 2,415 marks. There was a deduction of 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 72 marks, 45 pfennigs, leaving 2,342 marks, 55 pfennigs. There was then added, under the item of " p a c k i n g charges," 25marks ^^for cases," 220 marks " b o x e s , " and 5 marks " p a c k ing," being a total of 250 marks, less 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 7 marks, 50 pfennigs, leaving 242 marks, 50 pfennigs, which added made 2,585 marks, 05 pfennigs. In t h e entry, the value was stated a t 2,34.2 marks, 55 pfennigs. The invoice of the 21 cases of hosiery was dated a t Leipzig and Chemnitz, in Saxony, J u l y 5, 1883, and was of goods purchased hy the plaintiffs. I t covered 2,949 dozen of hose, in 21 items, the prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted to 13,530 marks, 70 pfennigs. There was a deduction of 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 405 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 107 marks, 95 pfennigs, leaving 13,124 marks, 75 pfennigs. There was then added, under the item of " packing charges^" 420 marks "for cases," 1,204 marks, 50 pfennigs "boxes,'^ and 42 marks "v packing," being a total of 1,666 marks, 50 pfennigs, less 3 per cent. disi30unt for cash, or 50 marks, leaving 1,616 marks, 50 pfennigs, which added made 14,741 marks, 25 pfennigs. In the entry the value was stated at 13,124 marks, 75 pfennigs. The invoice ofthe one case of hosiery was dated at Hohenstein, Ernsthal, in Saxony,^ ^ J u l y 4, 18S3, and was of goods consigned to the plaintiffs for sale. It covered 178' dozen of hose, in 6 items, the prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted to 1,629 marks, 20 pfennigs. There was a deduction of 4 per cent, discount for cash, or •65 marks, 20 pfennigs, leaving 1,564 marks. There was then deducted, for "case," 10.marks; "freight from Hohenstein to Bremen," 15 marks; " a n d to New York," 29 •marks; " consul fees," 10 marks, 75 pfennigs; and "insurance," 10 marks, 25 pfennigs; 'being a total of 75 marks, less 4 per cent, discount for cash, or 3 marks, leaviag 72 'marks, which deducted left 1,492 marks; which was the A-alue stated in the entry. On the invoice ofthe 2 cases of gloves the report of the appraiser was that 225 mai'ks i(being the 220 marks for " b o x e s " and the 5 marks for " p a c k i n g " ) , less importer's •discount, should be added " t o make market value in marketable condition." This was done, and the duty paid on t h e added amount was $20.80. On the invoice of the 21 cases of hosiery the report of the appraiser was t h a t 1,246 marks, 50 pfennigs (being the 1,204 marks, 50 pfennigs, for "boxes," and the 42 marks for " p a c k i n g " ) , less importer's*discount, should be added " t o make market value in marketable condition." ' This was done, and the d u t y p a i d on the added amount was $114.80. On the invoice of the one case of hosiery the report of the appraiser was t h a t 30 pfennigs per dozen should be adde'd " t o make market value in marketable condition." This was done, and the duty paid on the added amount was |5.20. The importers filed a protest with the collector in due time, and duly appealed to tbe Secretary of the Treasury and brought suit in due time. The protest covered the entry in this case and was as follows: " We protest against the liquidation as made by you of our entries of merchandise below referred to, and against the payment of the duties exacted thereon, and exacted on the charges, of whatever nature, thereon, on the following grounds, and upon each and every one of them : ** First. That under the act of March 3, 1883, the cost or market value of said merchandise is alone dutiable, whereas in ascertaining the dutiable value thereof there has been illegally estimated and included, as a p a r t of such value, cbarges expressly declared by section 7 of said act to be non-dutiable. "Second. That under the act of March 3, 1883, only the value of said cotton hose . or other merchandise is dutiable, whereas the value o f t h e usual and necessary sacks, '<jrates, boxes, and other coverings have been estimated as part of the value of said ^oods in determining the amount of duties for which they should be liable, contrary to the provisions of section 7, act March 3,1883. " T h i r d . By the act ofMarch 3, 1883, all duties heretofore exacted upon charges incurred in the importation of merchandise are repealed, b u t there has been included, in estimating t h e dutiable value of said goods, actual,'usual, and necessary charges for p u t t i n g up, preparing, and packing said merchandise, and we hereby separately and distinctly protest against all duties assessed by reason of such additions to the actual cost or market value of the actual merchandise imported. " F o u r t h . That under the act of March 3, 1883, said cotton hose or other merchandise are only dutiable at their first cost or net market value in principal markets of countries whence exported, whereas the appraiser, in fixing the dutiable value of said merchandise, has illegally estimated and included as a part of such value the charges for finishing and putting up said merchandise, or oue or more of said charges. " Fifth. That the dutiable value of said merchandise is its cost or true market value, at the date of its exportation, in the principal markets ofthe country whence it was exported, free of charges, but you have assessed a duty thereon upon a valuation in excess of such net cost or value. " Sixth. We further protest against the duty assessed hereon, claiming that, for reasons heretofore set forth, t h e net invoice or entered value is the true legal value upon which the duties should have been assessed, and t h a t t h e additions made to such value are made contrary to the statutes of the United States, in t h a t non-dutiable charges have been reckoned as a part of the dutiable yalue of said goods. " A n d we give notice t h a t we x)ay all higher duties or rates than is claimed above as t h e legal duty under compulsion, and to obtain and keep quiet possession of our goods; and we also give notice t h a t we do not intend by this protest to relinquish or waive any right we may have to a refund of the difference between the duty exacted of us and any less duty which may hereafter be adjudged the legal duty upon said goods, intending this protest to be made against the present duty charged upon said , goods, claiming t h a t said duty is not the legal duty to which said goods are charge- 108 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. able, holding you and t h e Govemment responsible for all excess of duty exacted by yoii upon said goods above the legal: duty, ahd protesting" against all illegal exactions of duty thereon, and hereby give notice t h a t we intend this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend the duplicate protest'here with submitted for transmission by you to the Secretary of the Treasury, under the rules of your office, to l>e an appeal to him from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future similar importations by us." The main question involved in the case is as to whether it was lawful to impose duties on the items for " boxes" and " j)^cking " in t h e invoices of the two cases and the twenty-one cases, and on the item added to the invoice of t h e one case, which item^ was one for like boxes and packing. There was no duty charged on the outside packing calse. The " b o x e s " in question were paper boxes or cartons, which contained the goods, and were themselves packed in the outside case,,and the item'for " packing "^ was for packing t h e goods in t h e cartons and lining the outside case and packing t h e cartons in it. The cartons contained some of them a dozen and some a half dozen pairs of the articles. The outside case had a lining of heavy paper or oil-cloth, to protect t h e goods from sea-water. Some of the cartons had a partition runningthrough the middle, with half a dozen pairs of the articles on each side of t h e p a r t i t i o n ; some had a dozen pairs in each carton ; and sorpe had half a dozen pairs in each carton. The prices affixed to the gloves and hosiery bought, in the invoices of them, represent the prices of t h e goods, without case or cartons or packing. The plaintiffs paid not,only for the goods, but for the cases, the cartons, and the packing, paying a price per dozen of thegoods, which covered the cases, the cartons, and t h e packing, which price was 50 pfennigs higher per dozen of the goods than if there had been no cartons. In the invoice of t h e one case the prices affixed are the prices for the goods, including, in fact, the items deducted on the invoice, and also the charge for cartons, which charge was not deducted on the invoice, although there is nothing on the invoicr to show t h a t t h a t charge was part of the price. The cartons are for the convenience of the trade in transporting the goods, and preserving them, and handling them, and counting t h e m ; and the cartons go with the goods in them, u n t i l they become empty through the sale of their contents in the United States to consumers who buy at retail, for use. The cartons have labels on, showingthe article, and the style, and the size, and the quantity. The contention of the plaintiffs is that, by virtue of. section 7 of the act of Marcb 3, 1883 (22 Stat.,, 523), referred to in the protest, it was unlawful to exact duty on the value of the cartons and the packing ; that, in respect to the invoice of the one case, the addition made was lor cartons already included in the entered value; and t h a t it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. Before examining the provisions o f t h e act of 1883, it willserve to make a determination of their meaning more easy if it is distinctly seen what were the enactments in force on the subject at the time t h a t act was passed. By section 7 o f t h e act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stats., 493), it was provided as follows: " T h a t in all cases where there is or shall be imposed any ad valorem rate of duty on any goods, wares, or merchandise imported into the United States, and,iu all cases where the duty imposed by law shall be regulated by, or directed to be estimated or based upon, the value of t h e square yard, or of any specitied quantity or parcel of such goods, wares, or merchandise, it shall be the duty of the collector within whose district the same shall be imported or entered to cause the actual maiket value or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported into the United States, to be appraised, and such appraised value shall be considered the value upon which duty shall be assessed." The same section then provided for an .addition, on entry, by the importer, to the invoice value, to make such actual market value or wholesale price, and for a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the appraised value, in addition to other lawful duties, if. the appraised value should exceed by 10 . per cent, or more the value so declared in the entry. It also provided that the duty should " n o t be assessed ou an amount less than the invoice or entered v a l u e " ; and then repealed sections 23 ahd 24 ofthe act of J u n e 30, 1864 (13 Stats., 216, 217), ' ' a n d all acts and parts of acts requiring duties to be assessed upon commissions, brokerage, costs of transportation, shipment, transshipment, and other like costs and charges incurred in placing any goods, wares, or raerchandise on shipboard, and all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act." Section 24 of the act of 1864, thus repealed, was in these words: " T h a t in determining the valuation of goods imported into the United States from foreign countries, except as hereinbefore provided, upon which duties imposed by any existing laws are to be assessed, the actual value of such goods oh shipboard at the last place of shipment to the United States shall be deemed the dutiable value. And such value shall be ascertained by adding to t h e value of such goods at the place of growth, production, or manufacture t h e cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the expenses included, from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 109 the vessel in which such shipment is made to the-United States; the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained; commission at the usual rate, in no case less than 2-^ per cent.; brokerage, and all export duties^ together with all costs and charges paid or incurred ior placing said goods on shipboard, and all other proper charges specitied by law." The effect of the legislation thus embodied in section 7 of the act of 1865, as applicable to goods subject to ad valorem duty, was to fix as their dutiable value their actual market value or wholesale price, at the period of their exportation to the Uiuted States, in the principal markets of the country from which they were imported into the United States, instead of their actual value on shipboard at their last place of shipment to the United States. The provision in the act of 1864 for adding, as part of the dutiable value, to the value of the goods themselves, the value of any sack, box, or covering containing the goods, was repealed, and under the act of 1865 the dutiable value was such actual market value or wholesale price abroad of the goods themselves, without sack, box, or covering, and the value of the sack, box, or coveriug was not to be added and was not dutiable. So much of section 7 o f t h e act of 1865 as related to additions by the importer on entry, and to the duty not being assessed on an amount less than the invoice or entered value, was re-enacted as section 2900 of the Revised Statutes. So much of the same section as related to the rule for appraisement was re-enacted as section 2906, in these word's: " When an ad valorem rate of duty is imposed on any imported merchandise, or when the duty imposed shall be regulated by, or be directed to be estimated or based upon, the value of the square yard, or of any specified quantity or parcel of such merchandise, the collector within whose district the same shall be imported or entered shall cause the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to tbe United States, in the principal markets of the country ^ from which the same has been imported, to be appraised, and such appraised value shall be considered the ^alue upon which duty shall be assessed." After the act of 1865 followed the act of July 8, 1866, the ninth section of which (14 Stat., 330) provided as follows: " T h a t in determining the dutiable value of merchandise hereafter imported there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value, at the time of exportation, in the principal markets of the country from whence the same shall have been imported into the United States, the cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the expenses included, from the place of production, growth, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United S t a t e ; the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained; , commission at the usual rates, but in no case less than 2-^ per cent.; brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment. And all charges o f a general character incurred in the purchase of a general invoice shall be distributed pro rata among all parts of such invoice; and every part thereof charged with duties based on value shall be advanced accordng to its proportion ; and all wines or other articles paying specific duty by grades shall be graded an4 pay duty according to the actual value so, determined': frovided. That all additions made to the entered value of merchandise for charges shall be regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such addition shall exceed by 10 per cent, the value so declared in the entry, in addition to the duties imposed by law, there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of 20 per cent, on such value." These provisions of section 9 of the act of 1866 were re-enacted as sections 2097 and 2908 o f t h e Revised Statutes in these words: "Sec 2907. In.determining the dutiable v^alue of merchandise, there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country from whence the same has been imported into the United States, the cost of transportation, shipment and transshipment, with all the expenses included, from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United States; the value of the sack, box, or covering of any krud in which such merchandise is contained; commission at the usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half per centum; and brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment. All charges of a general character incurred in the purchase of a general invoice shall be distributed pro rata among all parts of such invoice; and every part thereof charged with duties based on value shall be advanced according to its proportion, and all wines or other articles paying specific duties by grades shall be graded and pay duty according to. the actual value- so determined. Sec. 2908. All additions made to the entered value of merchandise for charges shall be regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such addition shall exceed by ten per centum the value declared in the entry, in addition to the duties imposed bylaw, there shall be cbllected a duty of twenty per centum on such value." Then followed section 14 of the act of June 22d, 1874 (18 Stat., 188), which pro- 110 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. vides as follows: " That wherever any statute requires t h a t to the cost or market value of any goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States there shall be added to t h e invoice thereof, or, upon the entry of such goods, wares, aud merchandise, charges for inland transportation, commissions, port duties, expenses of shipping, export duties, cost of packages, boxes, or other articles containing sucb goods, wares, and merchaudise, or any other incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation thereof from the country or place where purchased or manufactured, the omission, without intent thereby to defraud the revenue, to add and state the same on such invoice or entry shall not be a cause of a forfeiture of such goods, wares, and merchandise, or of the value thereof; b u t iu all cases where t h e same, or any part thereof, are omitted it shall be the duty of the collector or appraiser to add the same, for the purposes of dRty, to Such invoice or entry, either in items or in gross, at such price or amount as he shall deem just and' reasonable (which price or amount shall, in the absence of protest, be conclusive), and to impose' and add thereto the further sum of one hundred per centum of the price or amount so added; which addition shall constitute a part of the dutiable value of such goodSy wares, and merchandise, and shall be collectible as provided b y l a w in respect to duties on imports." Section 26 of the same act repealed all prior inconsistent provisions. Such were the enactments in force when the act of 1883 was passed. When the duty was ad valorem, or based on the value of a given quantity or parcel of goods^ there was, by section 2906 of the Revised Statutes, to be an appraisement here of t h e actual market value or wholesale price of the goods, at the period of exportation, in the principal markets of the country from which they were imported, and such a p praised value was to be the dutiable value of the goods, as merchandise, without reference to any of the items required by section 2907 to be added as charges to such actual market value or wholesale price of the goods. All those items so required to be added • were charges, and not part of the appraised value of the goods. By section 2908, if the items added for charges, after entry, exceeded by 10 per cent, the entered value of the goods,* a duty of 20 per cent., in addition to t h e duties imposed by law, was required to be collected " on such value." This additional duty did not depend on an intent to defraud, but was imposed for the mere omission of the charges from t h e entry. By section 14 of the act of 1874, the omission to add the charges, without intent to defraud, was declared not to be a cause of forfeiture, but when they were omitted, it was made the duty of the public officers to add them for the purposes of duty, and to add the further sum of 100 per cent, of the amount so added, such additions to be a part of the dutiable value. Then followed the 7th section of the act of 1883, in these words: " T h a t sections twenty-nine hundred and seven and twenty-nine hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and section fourteen of the act entitled 'An act to amend t h e customs revenue-laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, be, artd the same are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none ofthe charges imposed by said sections, or any other provisions of existing law, shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported, nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, be estimated as p a r t of their value in determining the amount of duties for which they are liable: Frovided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings, of any kind, shall be of any material or form designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the actual value of the same." By this section 7 of the act of 1883, in the first place, sections 2907 and 2908 of tile Revised Statutes, and section 14 of the act of 1874, are repealed. This repeals tbe provision of section 2907, that, in determining t h e dutiable value of the merchandise, there shall be added to its appraised market value (to be ascertained under section 2906, which is left unrepealed) the expenses and charges mention'ed Jn section 2907, among which are " t h e value of the sack, box, or covering, of any kind, in which such merchandise is contained," " a n d all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment." I t also repeals the provision of section 2908 for t h e additional duty of 20 per cent, when the addition for the charges mentioned in section 2907 exceeds by 10 per cent, the entered value. It also repeals the provisions of section 14 o f t h e act of 1874, for the addition of double the charges omitted, among which charges are specified "cost of packages, boxes,, or other articles containing such goods, Wares, and merchandise, and any other incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation thereof from thecountry or place where purchased or manufactured." The items thus specified in section 2907 of the Revised Statutes, and in section 14. o f t h e act of 1874, being charges, and being eliminated as part of the dutiable value of goods, and section 2906 remaining for the appraisement of the goods ^er se, without^ E E P O R T OP T H E SECRETARY OP T H E TEEASUEY. Ill the addition of any of t h e charges so abolished, i t would seem t h a t the ineaning of section 7 of the act of 1883 was plain. . . . But t h a t section goes on to say : " A n d hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections or any other provisions of existing law shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported." Nothing is imposed by, section 2907 of the Revised Statutes but the addition to the appraised market value, provided for by section 2906, of the items specified in section 2907, all of which are thus declared by section 7 of the act of 1883 to have been " c h a r g e s . " Those charges are no longer tobe added or estimated, as before, in determining the dutiable value of the goods. So,.. the repealed section 14 of the act of 1867 imposed nothing except in 'respect of the items it specified, which were items to be added to appraised market value, and are,, therefore, declared by section 7 of the act of 1883 to have been "charges." But t h a t section goes on still further to s a y : " Nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, be estimated as part of theirvalue in determining t h e amount of duties for which they are liable." This means t h a t not only, as the section had declared, shall none of the charges provided for in the repealed sections be added or estimated in ascertaining dutiable value, b u t the value of the sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, shall not be estimated aspart o f t h e value, or included in the value, of the goods, but shall be omitted, leaving,, the value of the goods to be appraised per se, under section 2906, without estimating,, or including the value of the sack, crate,.box, or covering, of any*kind, and, therefore, requiring such latter value to be deducted, if the entry or invoice includes it,, either separately, or as part of a price or value affixed to the goods, if it is capableof separation and deduction, unless the effect is to reduce the dutiable value below the inyoice or entered value. For, by section 2907'of the Revised Statutes, " the value of the sack, box, or covering, of any kind, in which^such merchandise is contained," was required to be added, t h a t is, estimated, " i n determining the dutiable value of merc h a n d i s e ; " and the items required by section 14 o f t h e act of 1874 to be added to the market value of goods, for the purposes of duty, cover the "cost of packages, boxes, or other articles containing" the goods, and the expenses of packing. The last clause of section 7 of the act of 1883 adds force to the foregoing views. It. is t h i s : ^^Frovided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings, of any kind, shall be of any material or form designed* to evade duties thereon, or designed, for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the actual value of t h e same." This implies t h a t if the boxes or coverings of any kind are not of a material or form designed to evade duties thereon, and are designed tobe used in the bona fide transportation o f t h e goods t o t h e United States, they are not subject to duty. If either of these things occurs they are subject to 100 per cent, duty. There is not, in the present case, any suggestion t h a t the cartons were of a. form or material designed to evade duties thereon. They were of the usual kind" known to the trade before the law was passed, as customarily used for the same purpose. T h e y w^ere designed to be used in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the. United States, not only because they were and had been a customary article iu thetrade for covering and transporting these goods, but because they were intended to accouipany t h e goods and remain with them in t h e hands of t h e retail dealer, until; the goods should be sold to the consumer. The change made by section 8 of the act of 1883 in the oaths required on entry, is in consonance with the above interpretation of the effect of section 7. Section 8' amends section 2841 of the Revised Statutes, as to the forms of the three several oaths, in the following manner, the particular parts referred to of the old forms and the new ones being placed side by side, and the parts in each which differ from theother being in italic: , Oath of consignee, imxiorter, or agent. OLD OATH. " t h a t the invoice now produced by me exhibits the actual cost) if purchased), or fair market value (if otherwise obtained), at the time or times, and place or places, when or where procured (as the case may be), of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, all the charges thereon, and no other or different discount," &c. NEW OATH. " t h a t the invoice now produced by me exhibits the actual cost (if purchased), or fair market value (if otherwise obtained), at the time or times, and place or places, when or where procured (as the case may be), of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, including all costs for finishing' said goods, wares, and merchandise- io theirpresent condition, and no other or different > discount," &c. 112 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Oath of owner in cases where merchandise has heen actuaUy purchased. OLD O A T H . N E W OATH. " t h a t the invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful account ofthe actual cost of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, of all charges thereon, includ ing charges of j^'^^rchasing, carriages, bleaching, dyeing, dressing, finishing, putting up, and packing, and no other discount," &c. " t h a t the invoice which I now produce contains a j u s t and faithful account of the actual cost of the said goods,-^ wares, and merchandise, including all cost of finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise io their present condition, and no other discount," &o. " Oath of manufacturer or owner in cases where merchandise has^not heen actually purchased. OLD O A T H . N E W OATH. " t h e invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful valuation of the same, at their fair market value, including charges of purchasing, carriages, bleaching, dyeing, dressing, finishing, xintting up, and packing, at the time," &c.' " t h a t the said invoice contains also a just and faithful account of all charges actually paid, and no other discount," &c. " t h e invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful valuation of the same at their fair market value, at the time," &c. " t h a t the said invoice contains also a just and faithful account of all the cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their xiresent condiiion, and no other discount," &c. It is apparent that these new forms of oath leave out " c h a r g e s " entirely, because t h e statute leaves them out as dutiable items. The "cost of finishing the goods to tlieir present condition" is part of the value o f t h e goods abroad outside of the abolished " c h a r g e s . " Goods may be boyght abroad unfinished, and then caused to be finished; b u t in no case can the cost of finishing be left out of their value, however they have been obtained. So, the new oaths embrace only the value of the goods joer se, and there is no oath as to any item before called "charges." The item of "finishing'f is broad enough to include bleaching, dyeing, and dressing, but does not include any of the other charges specifically named in the old oaths. The contention on the part of the Government is that section 7 of t h e act of 1883 repeals only so much of the prior statutes as added to t h e market value abroad t h e charges which were incident to the shipment of the goods, after they were p u t in a condition for the market abroad, as usually scild; that the expense of t h e cartons was necessary to p u t them into t h a t conditipn; t h a t the value of the cartons was part of t h e market value o f t h e goods abroad'; and that, therefore, it must enter iuto the dutiable value. I t is urged that the carton is not incident to the transportation of the goods, b u t is part of their preparation for sale abroad; t h a t it is au integral p a r t of the value o f t h e whole, carton and goods, as a u n i t ; that, in valuing such unit, nothing more is done than valuing the goods, ready for sale; and that, although, in one sense, the carton is a charge, it is a charge incurred in putting t h e merchandise iuto the condition in which it is sold abroad, and it becomes p a r t of the goods, and its value is merged in the value o f t h e filled carton. The sufficient answer to these suggestions is, t h a t they allow no weight to the declaration of the statute t h a t the value of t h e usual and necessar^^ box or covering, of any kind, shall not be estimated as part of the value of t h e goods, in determining the amount of duties for which the goods are liable. The carton is a usual box or covering. I t is a necessary box or covering, within the meaning of the law, on the facts shown in the bill of exceptions. I t was a box or covering in which the goods were contained, and so was a cliarge specifically imposed by section 2907 of the Revised Statutes; and section 7 of the act of 1883 says t h a t no charge imposed by section 2907 shall be estimated iu ascertaining the value of the goods. The bill of exceptions shows, that, after the enactment of section 14 of the act of 1874, and prior to March 3, 1883, it was the practice of t h e custom-house at New York, where there were cartons with the goods, and the cartons were not set forth in the invoice, to treat the value of the cartons as a charge, under t h a t section, and add such value, aud 100 per cent, thereon, to make dutiable value. No statute is referred to which ever recognized tho value of cartons as other t h a n a charge, and no such practice appears to have obtained before March 3, 1883. As the action of the collector in this case appears to have been founded on a circular issued by the.Treasury Department on May 15, 1883, and was sanctioned by the opinion of the Attorney-General, Mr. Brewster, given to the Secretary of the Treasury on J a n u a r y l l , 1884, and as there have been decisions of circuit courts in accordance REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 113 with those views (although there have been some to the contrary), the question involved has been carefully considered by this court, and the judges are unanimously of opinion t h a t the true view of the statute' in force at the time the goods in this case were entered is that announced in this opinion. I t appears that, after verdict and before judgment, there was a motion made for a new trial in this case, in deciding which (Oberteuffer vs. Robertson,24 Fed. Rep., 852) the court stated that the verdict for the defendant was directed on the ground t h a t the plaintiff's protest " w a s insufficient to present the objections relied upon by them to the exaction ofthe duties in controversy," but t h a t the motion for a new trial was denied on the ground t h a t the duties were not iUegally exacted. I t is contended for the Government t h a t a reappraisement should have been applied for by the plaintiffs, under section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, and t h a t they mistook their remedy. We are of opinion that this is not a sound view. They wore not dissatisfied with the appraisement of the value of the goods per se. That value \Nas left at the value stated in the invoice. The addition of the items for cartons and packing was no part o f t h e duty or function of the appraiser, acting uuder section 2906, to appraise the foreign market value of the goods. Although, in form, the appraiser added the items for cartons and packing, the action of the custom-house was only a decision of the collector, under section 2931, t h a t the cartons and packing were dutiable c®sts and charges. Those items appeared distinctly, as to two of the invoices, on them and on the entry, as charges for boxes and packing, and being deducted as such on t h e face of the entry, were again added as such by the appraiser. As to the third invoice, the .value of the cartons and packing, being included in the invoice value, was left in in the entered value, and a sum was added which in fact represented a second time the value o f t h e cartons and packing as a dutiable charge. We are of opinion t h a t the first, second, and third paragraphs of the protest in this case are sufficient to raise the points relied ou by the plaintiffs, and t h a t to protest was the proper way to raise those points. The exaction of duty'on the packing, whether packing the goods in the cartons, or the cartons in the outer case, or lining the outer case, was not warranted by law. These were " c h a r g e s " under the former statutes and were abolished as charges by the act of 1883. As to the one case of hosiery, the addition to the entered value of 30 pfennigs per dozen for the cartons and packing was unauthorized, and the goods were dutiable at only the entered value of 1,492 marks. As, under section 2900 of the Revised Statutes, duty cannot, as t o t h e goods, " b e assessed upon an amount lens than the invoice or entered value," whatever is i)ut down in the invoice and-entry as the value of the goods jper se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included in such value the cost of cartons and packing, unless t h e invoice or entry, shows distinctly what such cost was and t h a t it was included. In fact the cartons and packing were included twice, as to the one case of hosiery, in exacting duties, but only t h a t which the appraiser added for them can be deducted, although their cost would not properly have been p a r t of the dutiable value if the invoice and entrj^ had not stated the value o f t h e goods at a price which in fact included the cost of the cartons and packing. I t results, from these views, t h a t the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the case be remanded to that court, with a direction to grant a new trial. INSTRUCTIONS TO UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, NEW YORK. Instructions to United States district attorney at Kew York, bearing on suits of a similar character, were issued April 9, 1886, in which he was directed to move the consolidation of all such suits as had not been in effect disposed of by the Oberteuffer case. (S. 7456.) (7456.) Suits involving questions of charges. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 9, 1886. S I R : The Department assumes t h a t there are pending in your district suits the issues in which have been decided adversely to tlie defendant by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, and t h a t the plaintiffs desire a speedy refund of the money claimed. The Department has not in its possession the facts to enable it to decide which of the suits to recover money levied on wbat is claimed to be an erroneous interpretation of the seventh section of the law of 1883 have been in eftect disposed of by that judgment, aud in which there are no other issues of law or fact. If the plaintiffs shall preseut to you an application ih writing, eitber for t h e H. Ex, 2 ^ Y 0 L I I - — 8 114 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. taking of verdicts by consent; subject to an adjustment o f t h e amount at the customhouse, or for a discontinuance of the suits by the plaintiffs, on the undertaking by tbis Department t h a t the entries covered thereby shall be reliquidated according to law, and the sum found due refunded out of any available appropriation therefor, and the application shall give t h e titles of the suits and all other required particulars, you are requested to carefully examine the same and transmit it to this Department, with your report thereon. ' It Avill, of course, be understood t h a t no refund will be made in any suit unless the law regulating protests and appeals aud the bringiug of the suit, as^iow interpreted by the Department, has been complied with. I t i s t o be,assumed t h a t the plaintiffs will correctly declare in their apijlicatious the cbaracter of the commodities, and give a true description of the sort of coverings or charges on which duty was levied in excess, and whether or not such last-named items were exhibited iu the invoice or entry, and if on examination you shall be in doubt whether such items have been covered by tbe judgment in the Oberteuffer case, you will fully report the facts to the Department for its decision. All suits of the above-mentioned character the issues in which have not been in effect disposed of by the Oberteuffer case must be judicially examined by trial in court, and you are requesjbed to move the consolidation of such suits as are within t h e statute regulating consolidations. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. Hon. S. A. W A L K E R , United Staies Attorney, New York City. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSULAR OFFICERS. On the 3d of June (S. 7557) the honorable Secretary of State was requested to instruct United States consular officers to require makers of invoices to declare explicitly whether charges inscribed on such invoices were included in the prices of the merchandise. (7557.) Charges in invoice—Eow (hey should be stated. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , June 3, 1886. S I R : I am in receipt of information to the effect t h a t serious and vexatious embarrassments to the cbief customs officers exist by reasou of the piactice indulged iu by shippers ofmerchandise in specifying items of charges in their invoices, but without a distinct statemeut as to whether such items of charges are or are not included in the price of the goods as set ibrth in the invoice. An instance of this character may be mentioned where the invoice value of the goods pe?" se was given at £69 7s. 'Sd., with a statement of charges underneath amounting to £ 3 7s. 4d. In this instance the importers claimed t h a t the charges were included in the invoice price of the goods, and their claim miglit have been allowed but for the fiict that the consular certificate attached to the invoice specified the gross sum to be £72 14s. 7d., whioh was the aggregate of both t h e value of the goods and the items of charges. To prevent a continuance of this practice on the part of shippers, I have the honor to request that the United States consular officers be instructed to require every exporter, shipper, or maker of an invoice of merchandise subject to ad valorem duties, or to duties based upon the value of the square yard or other amouut, to make au explicit declaration on each invoice whether or not the charges inscribed thereon are included in the fjrices of tbe merchandise. If such instructions are carried out, the face ofthe invoice would clearly show the treatment to be ado^jted on the entry, appraisement, and liquidation of the merchandise, aud the invoice would thereby Ibe liable to but one interpretation in the appraising and Uquidating departments of the customs. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretai'y. The Hon. THE SECRETARY OF STATE. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPRAISERS. Appraisers were informed ou the 10th of April (S. 7458) (the Solicitor concurring in the view) that their action in returning the dutiable value of the merchaudise need have no reference to the cost of non-dutiable REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. 115 coverings, but should simply include the value 8f the merchandise per se, and these instructions were repeated June 3, 1886 (S. 7558), when appraisers wer6 directed to separately return the values of the merchandise jper se and the amount of alleged charges, leaving the collector to decide as to the dutiable or non-dutiable character of the latter, (7458). Additional duty accrues on undervaluation of mercliandise per se in invoice or entry. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 10, 1886. S I R : Referring to your letter ofthe Sth ultirao, asking instructious as to the assessment of duty on sixty cases mushrooms iraported byMessrs. Gabain & Co. a t your port, concerning which i t appears t h a t a difference existed between the value of certain coverings as stated in the entry and t h e value as returned by the appraiser, it appears t h a t t h e value of .said coverings, as stated iu t h e entry, was 600 francs greater than t h e value thereof as returned by the appraiser, and t h a t the value of the merchandise per se was reduced in the entry to t h a t extent, the sum total of the values o f t h e coverings and merchandise as returned by the appraiser and as stated in the entry being the same. The matter has been referred to t h e Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion,.and his reply, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, confirms the views of the Department t h a t t h e action of the appraiser in returning the dutiable value of the mercliandise need have no reference to t h e cost of non-dutiable coverings, b u t simply applies to the value of the merchandise per se. The Solicitor being of the opinion that;, as t h e appraised value of the dutiable goods exceeded by more than 10 per cent, the value declared in t h e entry, the 20 per cent, additional duty imposed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, duly accrues and should be assessed. You will be governed accordingly. ^ * * * -Sf * « Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Chicago, III. (7558.) Coverings which are dutiable—Additional duty under section 2900, Bevised Statutes, not applicable. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , June 3, 1886. SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo (received on the 1st instant) concerning Department's ruling of t h e 21st ultimo in t h e case of Messrs. Lutz & Movius, wherein it was held t h a t if t h e additions made by the appraiser to the entered values of certain merchandise imported, per " L e s s i n g " aud " E m s , " in March last were for charges specified in the invoices, the additional (penal) duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem prescribed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, did not accrue on the merchandise. The papers in the case showed that the additions consisted o f t h e precise amounts which appeared on the invoices, and were deducted b y t h e importers on the entries as/^charges," and i t was inferred, by reason of such coincidence, t h a t the additions were for " charges," and not to make dutiable value o f t h e goods j^er se. ' If you have any doubt on t h e question, you should call upon the appraiser for explanatorj^ reports; and in case it then appear that t h e additions were for charges which are non-dutiable under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, and the decision in the Oberteuffer case, the duties should be remitted on the additions, aud the entries should be liquidated upon t h e basis o^ the market value of t h e goods per se. Should, however, the additions be for coverings which are liable to duty und^^r the said provision ot law and decision, you should then assess duty thereon. As estimated in the Department's letter o f t h e 21st ultimo, the appraiser should be directed, in cases where he is of opinion t h a t items of charges deducted on entry are dutiable, to return the dutiable value of the goods ^.^er se a;nd the value of the items of charges separately, whereupon i t can then be determined by you whether such items of charges are dutiable or not. My opinion is that, under the said deci.don iu the Oberteuffer case, all cartons, coverings, &c., are exempt from duty except such 116 REPORT OF T H E SECRLTARY OF T H L TRExiSURY. as are " o f auy material or lorm designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use other t h a n in the hona fide transportation of goods to the United States/' The instructions of March 13 last, to which you refer, and which were intended as a temporary measure, will be considered as modified iu the jjarticulars mentioned. Respectfully yours, ' C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. STATEMENTS F O R REFUND. Oa the 7th of May a circular was issued relative to the preparation of statements for refund, which though not specifically referring to the Oberteuffer decision, had reference to the refunds which were occasioned thereby (S. 7505). (7505.) Eefunds of duties erroneously exacted. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 7, 1886. Section 3012 of tbe Revised Statutes provides t h a t the plaintiff' in a suit to recover duties alleged to have been erroneously or illegally exacted shall serve on the defendant or his attorney a bill of particulars, giving, among other things, t h e precise amount of d u t y claimed t o have been exacted in excess. I t has come to the knowledge of the Department that, in making up statements for refunds of duties illegally exacted, allowances have been made in excess of t h e amounts claimed in the bills of particulars. In t h e adjustment of duties to be refunded in cases where suit has been commenced, the bills of particulars and protests relating t o such suits will be carefully examined by the clerks and officers in the collector's office and naval office making such adjustments, and no allowance will be made in excess of the original claim of the importer as set forth in the bill of particulars, nor upon any item not fully covered by protest, appeal, and suit. Refunds by means of certified statements will be confined a t ports where naval officers are stationed to cases where suits have been commenced. I n other cases where refunds are authorized by t h e Department, and in which i t has been the practice t o prepare certified statements a t ports where there are naval officers, the entries will be reliquidated, and the excess of duties found due refunded as in ordinary liquidation upon items fully covered by protests: Frovided, All t h e provisions of section 2931 o f t h e Revised Statutes have been complied with. Collectors a t such ports will render t o t h e Department a monthly report, countersigned by the naval officer, of refunds upon reliquidation under these instructious. At ports where no naval officers are stationed, refunds, when authorized by the Department,will be continued to be made by means of certified statements, as prescribed by article 616 of the Customs Regulations of 1884. C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. To COLLECTORS AND OTHER O F F I C E R S O F T H E CUSTOMS. CHARGES STATED IN INVOICE OR ENTRY. The question of reliquidating entries iu cases where the invoices and entries differed, in the respect that one showed the cost of the coverings while the other did not, was early raised, and was decided in favor of the claimant in either case on the 6th of February (S. 7354). and subsequently repeatedly affirmed (S. S. 7391, 7422, 7453, 7507). (7354.) Reliquidation by Collector—When to be Made. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , February 6, 1886. SIR : The Department- is in receipt of a letter, dated the 3d instant, from Messrs. Arnold, Constable & Co., in which they ask that certain entries at your port, where, as alleged, they were " compelled" by you to add t h e cost of cartons, tillots, &c., REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,, ll? may be liquidated by the exclusion of such cost of cartons, &c., in accordance with the late decision of t h e United States Supreme Court iu the case of Oberteuffer et al. vs. Robertson. By reference to said decision,'which is embraced in the Department's circular o f t h e 2d instant (No. 12), you will find, in the next to t h e last paragraph of such decision, t h a t i t is held t h a t " whatever is p u t down in t h e invoice and entry as t h e value of the goods ^er se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included in such value t h e cost of cartons and packing, unless the invoice or entry shows distinctly what such cost was and t h a t i t was included." In cases, therefore, where i t is found t h a t t h e invoices or entries in question show t h e cost of such cartons, &c., separate and distinct from t h e market value of t h e goods, t h e applicants are entitled to t h e relief requested. If, however, t h e invoices and entries simply state the value of the goods, without any specification of cost of cartons, &c., no relief can be granted. Of course this letter will be construed as applying only to unliquidated entries or liquidated entries where t h e requirements of law as to protests, &c., have been complied with. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. (7391.) Cost of cartons, ^ c , when not appearing in invoice, may be specified on entry. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 3,1866. SIR : The Department is in receiiJt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, in which you ask whether you are authorized to separate t h e value of boxes containing imported cigars "v^hen the invoice does not specify the values of the cigars and of the boxes separately, but where the entry lodged by t h e importer specifies the cost of the boxes, and claims a deduction thereof from the invoice price of the cigars. In cases where the invoice specifies t h e value of t h e goods free on board,, or where it gives t h e gross value of the goods, iucluding t h e cost of boxes, &c., you are authorized, until further instructions, to allow importers a t their option to specify in their entries the value of t h e merchandise per se, and the cost of the boxes, cartons, &c., separately, subject, of course, to t h e requirement of law concerning appraisements. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Milwaukee, Wis. (7422.) Cartons or coverings—not dutiable when specified in either invoice or entry. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 19, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 12th instant, transmitting the appeal (4454 o) of Frederick Malleson from your decision assessing duty on the cost of boxes containing fish-hooks imported, per " Baltic," in December, 1885 (entry No. 164,501). I t appears from your report t h a t the cost o f t h e said boxes is specified as a separate item on the invoice of the goods, and t h a t such boxes are of a character t o entitle them to exemption from duty under Department's circular of the 2d ultimo (No. 12). The language of the decision of the court appended to such circular indicates t h a t where either t h e invoice or entry specifies t h e vaiue of the cartons or coverings separately from the value of the goods jper se, the cartons or coverings are not liable to duty. The Department, therefore, decides that the appeal is well taken, and that t h e entry is entitled to reliquidation under t h e said circular. You will take action accordingly. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Seeretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. 118 REPORT OF THE S E C I ^ E T A R Y OP T H E TREASURY. (7453.) Non-dutiable charges, appearing on invoice, hut not included in invoice value, and ignored by importers on making entry, should not he deducted in assessing duty. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, AjMl 7, 1886. S I R : The Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, reporting^on the communication of Messrs. Megroz, Portier, Grose & Co., dated t h e 17th ultimo, concerning t h e liquidation of their entry of two cases plush imported by them into your port, per "Belgenland," Jauuary 14 last, entry No. 13,215. I t appears t h a t t h e value of the goods was specified in t h e invoice at R. M. 2,.892.95, w i t h a statement a t the foot t h a t such value included non-dutiable charges amounting to R. M. .57.10; t h a t t h e importers on entry disregarded and waived such charges (it being presumed t h a t they were of opinion t h a t t h e charges were not included in the invoice price), and entered t h e goods a t the full invoice value; t h a t t h e appraiser advanced t h e viilue of the goods, whereupon a reappraisement was had, b y which such advance was sustained to t h e extent of les^ t h a n 10 per cent, oyer t h e entered value, and t h a t you propose to liquidate t h e entry*by deducting t h e said charges (R. M. 57.10) from t h e entered value, which will have the effect of making the reappraised value appear more t h a n 10 per cent, above such entered value, and thus subjecc the merchandise to the payment o f t h e additional (penal) duty prescribed by section 2900, Revised Statutes. The appraiser in his report substantiates t h e representations of the importers, and states t h a t " i t was discovered t h a t t h e amount of t h e charges stated on invoice to be iucluded in the price of t h e merchandise was not included in fact, and that, not having been deducted by them on making their entry, it was assumed t h a t said sum was waived." After due consideration, the Department is satisfied t h a t t h e importers did, in fact, ignore the said charges in making their entry, and t h a t such item should not be considered as a factor in any sense in t h e liquidation of t h e entry. In otlier words, the invoice and entered value in this case is R. M. 2,892.95, and if the reappraisement advance is not 10 per cent, or more greater t h a n such sum, the entry should be liquidated without t h e assessment of t h e said additional (i^enal) duty. You will be governed accordingly. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. (7507.) Non-dutiable charges, when included in invoice value, must he separately sipecified, either on invoice or entry, in order to be deducted, under the Oherteuffer decision. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 7; 1886. GENTLEMEN : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 5th instant, concerning t h e decision of t h e 4th instant on your appeal (2076 o), whereby i t was held t h a t t h e invoice and entered value of certain goods imported by you into Philadelphia, per " L o r d Clive," on the 14th of January last, could not be reduced by t h e deduction of certain items of charges which did not appear either in the invoice or in t h e entry. Such ruling of t h e Department conforms to the decision of t h e United States Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, wherein i t w a s enunciated t h a t " w h a t e v e r is p u t down in the invoice and entry as t h e value of the goods per se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included in such value the cost of cartons aud packing, unless t h e invoice or entry shows distinctly what such cost was, and t h a t it was included." The claim you make t h a t the failure of the shipper to deduct the cost of such charges on t h e invoice was a clerical error cannot be admitted, and no reason is perceived for taking further action in the case. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary, Messrs. STEPHENSON & C O . , 214 Chestnut Street, Fhiladelphia, Fa. felat^ORt OP I H E Sl^Ct^EtARY OF THE TREASUllY. Il9 FINISHING YS. MAKING U P . The distinction betvTcen charges, so called, accruing prior to and including the finishing of the goods and those accruing afterwards, as laid down in the Oberteuffer decision, has been applied in the following published decisions: April 12 (S. 7460). Cost of carding buttons, not dutiable. April 12 (Sl 7461). Cost of making up gloves, not dutiable. A p r i r i 2 (S. 7464). Cost of labels and blocks on hat-bands, not dutiable. April 12 (S. 7465). Cost of corks, caps, and labels on olive oil, not dutiable. May 19 (S. 7528). Cost of boards on which dress goods are rolled, not dutiable. * May 20 (S. 7529) Spools for thread, dutiable. May 21 (S. 7533). "Skeining" yarn, dutiable. July 2 (S. 7615). Cutting and jjutting together cotton robes^ imported in that condition without further manufacture, dutiable. July 10 (7625). "Making u p " certain textiles, not dutiable. (7460.) Dutiable value, cost of ^^carding buttons'^ not to be included. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 12, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the IOth ultimo, submitting t h e appeal (4293o) of t h e John Shillito Company from your assessment of duty on t h e cost of carding certain buttons imported by them at your port, entry No. 269, February 19, 1886. The Department is. of opinion that, under the decision of t h e United States Supreme Court in the case of Oberteuffer et al. vs. Robertson, t h e charge for carding buttons is not an element of their dutiable value. You are, therefore, authorized to readjust t h e entry and to take measures for refunding the diJty levied on t h e value of such charge, which it appears is separately specified in the invoice. > Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, ' Acting Secretary. SURVEYOR O F CUSTOMS, Cincinnati, Ohio. (7461.) Dutiable valued-Cost of making up not to be included. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 12,1886. SIR : Referring to your letters pf February 16 and March 2 last, iu regard to a refund to Messrs. Lowman's Sons & Co. of duty levied ou charges for cartons aud making up on certain gloves imported by them, entry No. 122, January 26,1886,1 have to inform you that,upon investigation,it is ascertained t h a t the term " m a k i n g up," as applied to co.tton gloves, covers the assorting in colors and sizes, x)lacing one-half to one dozen pairs on a card, banding and ticketing with size and numbers, and tying at each end with a ribbon, in Which condition they are ready for sale or casing for transportation or shipment. This charge is incurred after the gloves are finished, aud t h e Department holds t h a t it is not an element of their dutiable value under the Oberteuffer decision. The certified statement in favor of Messrs. Lowman's Sons' & Co. has been referred to t h e First Auditor for examination and settlement. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secreiary. SURVEYOR OF CVSTOMS, Cinciimati, Ohio. * Subsequently reversed (see Supra Decision, November 1 (II6O0), page — ) . 120 REiPORT OF T H E ^ E C t l E T A t l t Oi" TflE tREASURt. (7464.) Non-dutiable charges—Labels and blocks on hat-bands. T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, April 14, 1886. S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 6th ultimo, submitting the appeal (4105o) of Messrs. Henry Tilge & Co. from your assessment of duty on charges for putting up labels and blocks on certain hat-bands imported by them, per "Geueral Werder," February 16, 1886. The cbarges, i t appears, are incurred'after the completion and finishing of the hatbands, and consist of the cost of cylindrical wooden blocks upon which the hat-bands, with paper ribbons, are rolled, with a gilt label a t each end inclosing the bands and blocks, and showing the quantity and style of the goods. These bolts are then placed in cartons for shiiiment, and t h e charges therefore are similar to t h e charges for packing t h e goods in t h e cartons, which were held by the Supreme Court to be not dutiable under tbe law. You are tberefore authorized to readj ust the entry and t o forward a certified statemen t for a refuud of the excess of duty. You are also authorized to pursue tlie same course with respect to all similar entries not in suit in which t h e requirements of section 2931, Revised Statutes, have been complied with. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a . (7465.) Non-dutiable charges—Cost of corks, caps, and labels on olive oil in bottles. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 15, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, submitting the appeal (4624o) of Messrs. Geo. B. Woodman & Co. from your assessment of duty on the value of caps, corks, and labels on certain olive oil in bottles imported by them, per " B r i t i s h King," J a n u a r y 3, 1883. These charges are incurred in putting up and preparing the oil for transportation or shipment (as specified in section 2907, Revised Statutes), after its complete manufacture. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in t h e Oberteuffer case, the Department decides t h a t they do not properly form an element of the dutiable value of the goods. You are therefore authorized to readjust the entry and to forward a certified statement for a relund of the excess of duty. You are also authorized to pursue tbe same course in other like cases in which the requirements of section 2931, Revised Statutes, have been complied w^ith. Respectfully yours, C, S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a . (7528.) Charges incurred after ''finishing'^ dress-goods—Not dutiable. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 19, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e l 7 t h instant, in which you request instructions as to whether or not the cost of boards upon which woolen dress goods are rolled should be included i n estimating the dutiable value of such goods. In reply, I have to state that, as the cost of such boards is incurred after thegoods are finished in putting them up for shipment, t h e Department is of opinion t h a t their cost doe^ not properly form an element of the dutiable value of the goods. Your attention is invited to the Department's decision of April 14, 1886 (Synopsis, 7464), as to wooden blocks upon whicii hat-bands are rolled. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD. Acting Secretary^ COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Baltimore, Md. J^EPOt^T OF THE SECRETARY OF TtiE TKEAStJRt. 121 r7529.) ^"^ Charges, spools wound with thread—Dutiable. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 20, 1886. SIR : The Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, in which you request to be informed concerning the dutiable value of linen thread on spools, which you'state, as imported at your port, is invoiced at separate prices for the thread per se and the spools. Under sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes, which were in force prior to March 3 , 1883, the cost of spools for thread was not one of the " a c t u a l or usual charges for putting up, xireparing, aud packing for transportation or s h i p m e n t " therein mentioned. Neither cau spools be conside'red in any sense of the term as coverings for the thread. It is also a fact that thread is not tinished until it is wound on t h e spool, and t h a t the spools go to the consumer, and more particularly, in the case of machine-thread, that the thread is useless without the spools. , g The Department is of opinion t h a t the cost of the spools forms an element of dutiable value of spool-thread. 3 . Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secreiary. Mr. C H A S . H . H A M , United States Appraiser, Chicago, HI. (7533.) Charges, cost of skeining yarn—Dutiable. . T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 21, 1886. S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 19th instant, in which you submit the appeal (5442o) of Messrs. B,rown, Durrell & Co. from your assessment of duty on charges for skeining on certain worsted yarns imported by them, per " D u r ham City," J a n u a r y 26, 1886. The appraiser reports that the yarn is invoiced at stated prices per kilo., with additions for commissions, cases, and hooping ; t h a t the following statement appears at t h e foot o f t h e invoice, viz : " I n t h e above prices are included, for putting up of kilos. 495,600, for skeining, 30 pfennigs; for packing and wrapping in paper, 20 pfennigs—together 50 pfennigs, or a t o t a l sum of marks 247,80"; t h a t t h e importers deducted this amount upon entry, and t h a t he restored the amount deducted for skeining, only 30 pfennigs per kilo., in fixing the dutiable value. The appraiser reports further t h a t t h e yarn is divided into skeins, each of which weighs a certain iDart of an ounce; t h a t i t is sold by the retailer by the skein, and that, in his opinion,'the skeining o f t h e yarn is p a r t o f t h e finishing process. In this opinion the Department concurs, and your assessment of duty on such charges is hereby affirmed. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (7615.) Charges—Cost of cutting and putting togetlier embroidered cotton robes-^Dutiable. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 2, 1886. S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 1st ultimo, submitting the appeal (5657o) of Messrs. Shoninger, Moses & Co. from your assessment of duty on charges for " m a k i n g up, box, and figurine" on certain embroidered cotton robes imported by them, pe;r "Cephalonia," April 24, 1886. The appellants state, and it is conceded by the appraiser, t h a t the cost of " m a k i n g up, box, and figurine" is specitied iu the invoice at M. 1.20, and that the appraiser made an addition to the value of the robes per se, on the ground t h a t the value of such charges as expressed in the invoice is too high, and sbould be M. 0.90 only. 122 REPOM O F THE SEfiRl^TAliY OF T H E TREASUI^i^ The appraiser reports t h a t the robes in question consist of three separate pieces, to wit, teu or twelve yards of plain material aud four and one-half yards each of narrow and wide embroiderT, which are folded in such a manner as to show each material, and to nicely fit the cartons into wbich they are placed; t h a t the invoice price is fixed per robe, including carton for each, and t h a t a t t h e foot of the invoice is a statement of the cost of " making up, box, and figurine," the latter being a figure on paper designed to show t h e style of the dress when completed. He further states that the combined value of the separate pieces, taken at a price per yard in t h e piece as woven aud embroidered, is not the value o f t h e robe,> but that whatever expense is incurred by the manufacturer in cutting and putting together the pieces which form the robe constitutes an expense for finishing the goods, and is an element of the dutiable value. In this opinion, which is sustained by the decision in the Oberteuffer case, the Department concurs, .inasmuch as the robes are not finished as robes until the materials are cut and combined, ready to be placed in the cartons, and your assessment of duty on their value in that condition is hereby affirmed. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, , Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. Boston, Mass. 1 (7625.) Charges—Cost of making up—Not dutiable. • ' ' o T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , July 10, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 23d ultimo, submitting t h e appeals (6303o, 6304o, and 6305oj of Messrs. Mackintire, Lawrie & Co. from your assessment of du^y on charges for " making u p " on certain elastic duck imported by them, per Calatonia, April 19, Pavonia, March29, and Kansas, April 23,1886. The appraiser reports t h a t the " m a k i n g u p " consists in folding and pressing the goods into compact form for the market, stitching and tying the ends to retain the shape, and stamping upon the outer fold the quality, number, trademark, number of yards, or other design to give beauty to the completed piece, and states that in his opinion the goods are not tinished for the market uutil this has been done. Referring to the Department's decisions of April 12,1886 (Synopsis, 7460 and 74.61), April 14, 1886 (Synopsis, 7464), April 15,1886 (Synopsis, 7465), and May 19, 1886 (Synopsis, 7528), 1 have to state that the charges for " m a k i n g u p " the goods in question do not constitute an element of their dutiable value, aud you are therefore authorized to readjust the entry in accordance with said decisions, and to take measures for refunding the excess of duty. KesiDcctfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. ' COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, . Boston, Mass. (11600, «fec.) Non-dutiable cliarges.—Cost of spool blocks for linen thread. O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C , November 1, 1886. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a . : SIR : In reply to your letter ofthe 22d ultimo, asking whether the recent decisions of the Department on non-dutiable charges and coverings included the cost of spiool blocks on which linen thread is wound, and which by Department's decision of May 20, 1886 (S., 7529), were held to be included in t h e "finishing" of said thread and accordingly dutiable, I inclose herewith copy of an opinion dated the 29th ultimo, received from the Attorney-General of the United States, in which he expresses the opinion t h a t the spools on which the linen thread is wound seem to be the usual manner of packing the thread for transportation or shipment, and that under the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, they are non-dutiable. REPORT OF Tfl^ SECRETARY Of' THE i^RtiASURt. 12S . t n pursuance of this opinion t h e decision above referred to (S.,7529) is modified so as to harmonize with t h e more recent rulings of t h e 21st and 29th of September last, aud t h e 2d ultimo (S.S., 7766,7779, and circular October 2, No. 138), and you are instructed to take action accordingly. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Secreiary. Opinion of Attorney-General. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, October 29,1886^. The SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY : SIR : Your communication of the 26th instant submits the question whether t h e spools on which linen thread is wound are subject to taxation separately as spools, or whether they are free from taxation under t h e provisions of t h e seventh section of t h e act of March 3, 1883. That section repeals, among others, all t h e charges imposed by section 2907 of the Revised Statutes. Among those charges thus repealed are included " all t h e actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, or packing for transportation or shipment.'^ In the case of Oberteuffer v. Robertson (116 U. S. 499), the Supreme Court of the United States, in considering the seventh section of t h e act of March 3, 1883, declares, " The exaction of duty on the packing, whether packing goods in a carton or the cartons in the outer case, or lining t h e outer case, was not warranted by law," The spools on which t h e linen thread is wound seems to be t h e usual manner of packing the thread referred to in yours for trausportation or shipment. The t a x as to such spools as packing or preparation for shipment is, under t h e ruling in Oberteuffer V. Robertson, therefore, repealed, and in accordance with the view expressed in the opinion rendered on September 17, 188.6, it should not be levied on the spools. The Department rulings referred to in your letter should be modified to harmonize them with t h e opinion referred to, and the views now expressed. I am, sir, verv respectfully, A. H. GARLAND,. ^ Attorney-General. ADDITIONAL DUTY UNDER SECTION 2900, REVISED STATUTES. By a decision of the 21st of May (S., 7534), wherein these instructions to appraisers were repeated, the Department held that an addition for charges does not carry with it additional duty under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, such addition not being an advance on appraisement of the value of merchandise jper se. (7534.) Additional duty—Does not apply io undervaluation of charges. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 21, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 23d ultimo, reporting on t h e application of Lutz & Movius, per C. R. French, attorney, for relief from the payment of additional (penal) duty on certain merchandise imported into your port, per Lessing aud Ems, in March last (entries Nos. 31667 and 38088). It is understood t h a t on entering the merchandise t h e importers deducted from t h e invoice values certain items of charges, and that on appraisement the dutiable values were returned by the appraiser at sums greater than t h e entered values to t h e extent exactly of t h e items deducted by the importers on the entries, which advance, being, more than 10 per cent., subjected the merchandise, in your opinion, to the 20per ceiit. additional duty prescribed by section 2900, Revised Statutes. If this understanding 'is correct, it would seem t h a t the additions made by the appraiser were not to make market value of the goods per se, b u t for items of charges which he considered to be liable to duty.. In the opinion of the Department, t h e addition for charges does not carry with it the imposition of such additional duty, inasmuch as section 2900, in view of section 7 o f t h e act of. March 3, 1883, must be considered as ouly prescribing such duty when the value of the merchandise x^er se is advanced on appraisement to the extent of 10 per cent, or more. 124 REPORT OF THE SECRRTARY OF THE TREASURY. You will be governed accordingly in this instance, and also with regard to the similar cases of C. C. Abel & Co., B. lllfelder & Co., T. B. Gurney, Charles and Felix Fournier, and George F . Noe, which were the subject of Department's communications to you of the 13th, 15th, and 16th ultimo, respectively. The appraiser should be directed in cases of this character, when he is of opinion t h a t charges deducted on entry are dutiable, to return the dutiable value o f t h e goods per se and of such charges separately, so as to leave t h e question as to whether the charges are liable to duty or not to be determined by t h e collector on the liquidation of t h e entry. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. This subject of additional duty on charges was also incidentally considered in S., 7458 and S,, 7558. {Vide ante, pages —.) The first difficulty encountered under the Oberteuffer decision is indicated in Department's circular of March 13, 1866 (S., 7408), wherein collectors were instructed that said decisiou applied to cartons and like envelopes generally containing goods in plurality, such as hosiery, gloves, laces, &c., and papers or other envelopes of single packages, such as tillots, &c., which coverings do not pass into the handsof the consumer, and simply serve as temporary protection of the goods, and , which clearly come within the purview of said decision. In other cases, such as boxes of blacking, matches, preserved meats, fruits, &c., cases containing meerschaum pipes, opera-glasses, and musical instruments, they were instructed to assess duty in the manner in vogue prior to the Oberteuffer decision. (This last instruction was modified June 3 (S. 7558 ante, page—), when appraisers were directed to return the value of all merchandise' and charges separately, leaving the collector to determine the character of the charges.) (7408.) Application of Circular of February 2, 1886. , TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 13,1886. S I R : Until otherwise instructed, you are directed to apply t h e circular of t h e 2d ultimo, in the Oberteuffer case, only to cartons and like envelopes generally containing goods in plurality, such as hosiery, gloves, laces, &c., and to paper or other envelopes of single packages, such as tillots, &c., which coverings do not pass into the hands of consumers, b u t simply serve as temporary protection for goods, and which clearly come within the purview of said decision. In other cases, such as boxes of blacking, matches, preserved meats, fruits, &c., cases containing meerschaum pipes, opera-glasses, musical instruments, <fec., you should assess d u t y as heretofore, leaving importers t h e privilege of raising the question by protest and appeal. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR O P CUSTOMS, New York. On the 10th of April, 1886 (S. 7457), the Department decided that Japanned tin boxes containing water-colors were dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso in section 7, as coverings designed for use otherwise than iu the bona fide transportation of the merchandise they contained to the United States, and on the 3d of June, 1886 (S. S. 7553, 7555,7556), similar rulings were made as to boxes containing zithers, piccolos, and other musical instruments ] boxes containing pins, and jars containing extracts of meato REPORT OF THE SECRETARY .OF THE TREASURY. 125 (7457. J Japanned tin boxes containing water-colors—dutiable at 100 per cent, as coverings designed for use otherwise tha^i in the bona fide transx) or tation of goods. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 10, 1886. S I R : The Department duly received your letter of.the 9th ultimo, transmitting the appeal (4304o) of Messrs. Thayer & Chandler from your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on certain metal boxes containing water-colors impoited per Germain, a difference existed between the value of certain coverings as stated in the entry and tbe value as returned by the appraiser. I t appears t h a t the value of said coverings, as stated in the entry, was 600 francs greater than the value thereof as returned by t h e appraiser, and t h a t the value ofthe merchaudise per se was reduced iu the entry to t h a t extent, the sum total of the values of the coverings and merchandise as returned by the appraiser and as stated in t h e eutry being the same. The matter has been referred to the Solicitor of t h e Treasury for his opinion, and his reply, a copy of wbich is herewith inclosed, confirms the views of the Dei.)artment t h a t the actiou of the appraiser in returning t h e dutiable value of the merchaudise need have no reference to tbe cost of non-dutiable coverings, b u t simply applies to the value o f t h e merchaudise x^er se. The Solicitor being o f t h e opinion that, as the appraised value of the dutiable g09ds exceeded by more t h a n 10 per cent, the value declared in the entry, the 20 per ce'ut. additional duty imposed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, duly accrues and should be assessed. You will be governed accordingly. # -f ,f ** <* *• * # Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Chicago, III. (7553.) Coverings, certain hoxes for zilJie^-s, trial-glasses, x^^^^^^^^t ^^^ cornets—dutiable at 100 per cent. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 3, 1886. SIR : The Departrnent is iu receipt of your letter of t h e 28th ultimo, submitting a further report from the appraiser on the following appeals from your assessment of duty a t the rate of lUO per cent, ad valorem on certain cases containing zithers, trialglasses, piccolos, and cornets, embraced therein: # i¥ * * . . * Jf * Th eappraiser reports, that tbe boxes containing the zithers were composed of wood and lined with cotton plush ; those containiug the piccolos and cornets were composed of wood, covered with leather and lined with cotton j)lush, and those containing the trial-glasses were composed of wood, covered with leather, with a glass top, and lined with silk plush ; and t h a t the boxes are intended for use as permanent receptacles for the instruraents. These cases, being intended " f o r use otherwise than i n t h e bona fide transportation of goods to the United States,"are dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso of section 7. act of March 3, 1883, as construed by the Department iu its decisions of April 10, 1886 (Synopsis, 7457), ou boxes containing water-color paints, and of April 30, 1886 (uot published), on cartons containing toy tea-sets. Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Chicago, III. (7555.) Coverings—hooks containing pins, dutiable at 100 per cent. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , June 3, 1886. SIR : Tbo Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, submitting the followiug appeals from your assessraent of dnty at the rate of 30 per ceut. ad valorem 126 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ou certain books containing pins embraced therein and claimed to be exempt from duty, under sectiou 7, act of March 3, 1883. # * ¥ * Vf # * Froni an inspection of the sample submitted, it is ascertained that t h e books in. question are composed of paper folded aud sewed together in such a manuer as lo hold a number of rows of pins of assorted sizes, which are inclosed in a paper wrapper tirmly attached to the paper m which the pins are inserted, t h e whole constituting Avhat is known as a pin-book, or book of pins, Avhich are bought and sold as entireties, and used as receptacles for the pins until they are emptied. This form of covering is similar in cbaracter and use to the papers used for needles, Avhich were held by the Departmeut, undei- date of April 30 last (not published), to be dutiable a t tbe rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso to section 7, act of March 3, 1883. You are therefore directed to readjust the entries at that rate, and to collect t h e balance of duties due. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a . (7556.) Coverings^ Jars containing extract of meai. dutiable at IQO per cent. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 3, 1886. S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, submitting the appeal (5638o) of Messrs. Eisner & Meudelson from your assessment of duty at t h e rate of 20 per cent, ad valorera on cbarges for jars containing extract of meat imported by them, per Zeeland, Marcb 20, 1886, and also for corks, capsules, and labels. The jars iu question are sraall earthenware jars, which are used as receptacles for the extract of meat until their^contents are consuraed, and under the proviso to s'ection 7, act ofMarch 3,1883, as construed by the Department's decision of April 10,.1886 (Synopsis, 74r)7), aud April 30,1886 (uot published), they are dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem. Under the Department's decision of April 15, 1886 (Synopsis, 7465), the charges for corks, capsules, and labels are not dutiable. You are herel)y directed to readjust the eutry in accordance with their decision, and to collect the balance of duty, if auy, found to be due. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, Fa. Oth er decisions followed of the same character, the Department being of the opinion that these coverings were for use beyond the period of the transportation to the United States, in many cases remaining with the goods while in the hands of the consumer. See section 7468 on lacquered boxes containing handkerchiefs; 7576, opera-glasses; section 7690, leather cases containing xiipes; section 7692, brass boxes containing pins, and section 7716, razor-cases. (7468.) Lacquered handkerchief-hoxes—Unusual coveri\igp, 100 per cent. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , April 20, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, transmitting the appeal (4904o) of A. Schilling & Co. from your decision assessing duty a t t h e rate of 100 p«r cent, ad valorem ou sixteen lacquered handkerchief-boxes, valued, at 24 Mexicau dollars, imported into your port per steamer City of Sidney on the l l t h ultirao, which the appellants claim to be either exempt from duty or to be dutiable at the rate of 35 per ceut ad valorera only. You report that t h e appellants raade eutry of 1,507 packages of tea, and added thereto V W o packages of samples without value," which latter were found upon ex.- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 127 amination t o contain the said lacquered boxes, a portion of which covered silk handkerchiefs. You also state t h a t these boxes are designed for use otherwise thau t h e bona fide transportation of the goods, and that the value of t h e boxes and handkerchiefs was not deciared eithe-v ou tbe entry or invoice. In the opinion of the Department, such boxes were properly subjected to duty a t the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under section 7 of the act of March 3,1883, which prescribes *' t h a t if any packages, * ** * boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material or form designed ^^ * •^ for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to t h e United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem," &c. Your decision is therefore affirmed. . Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. (7576.) Coverings—Leather and wooden cases for opera-glasses, marine-glasses, and telescoxjes, dutiable at 100 per cent. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 11,1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, submitting the appeal (5698o) of Messrs. S. Thaxter & Soil from your assessment of duty a t t h e rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on certain leather and wooden cases containing operaglasses, marine-glasses, and telescopes imported by them per Pavonia, May 10, 1886, and claimed to be exempt from dutv, under t h e provisious of sections 7 and 10, act of March 3, 1883. v The cases in question, i t appears, are such as are ordinarily used t o hold operaglasses, field-glasses, a n d telescopes, and are sold with t h e instruments and permanently used as receptacles therefor. Under the Department's decision of t h e 3d instant (Circular No. 6ii, paragraphs 2 and 6), these cases, being designed for use otherwise than in t h e bona tide transportation of goods to t h e United States, are properly dutiable at t h e rate assessied, and your decision is hereby affirmed. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (7690.) Coverings, 100x:)er cent.—Leather cases for pipes. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 10, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your l e t t e r of March 29 last, submitting t h e appeal (4733o) of Messrs. George Zorn & C)o. from your assessment of duty on the value of certain leather cases containing pipes imported by them per Gen. Werder, February 15,1886. In view of your statement t h a t t h e value o f t h e cases was included in t h e entered value o f t h e pipes and returned by the appraiser as dutiable, t h e Department infers t h a t the same rate of duty was assessed on the cases aud the pipes. Under its rulings of J u n e 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553), and Julie 11, 1866 (Synopsis, 7.576), on boxes and cases for zithers, piccolos, cornets, trial-glasses, opera-glasses, marine-glasses, and telescopes, t h e leather cases in question are dutiable in this instance a t t h e rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, and you are therefore directed to adjust t h e entry a t t h a t rate, and t o take measures for collecting t h e balance of duties fouud to be due, . , \ Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary, COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a , 128 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. (7692.) Coverings, 100 per cent.—Brass boxes containing pins. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , August 10, 1886. SIR : The Department duly received your letter of March 23 last, submitting the appeal (4637o) of Messrs. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr from your assessment of duty on certain small boxes and papers containing pins imported by them per Moravia, February 22, 1886. The boxes, i t appears, are composed of brass, with sliding covers, each containing sixty mourning-pins, and t h e papers are t h e ordinary papers into which pins are stuck in rows and rolled so as to form what is usually linown as '^ as a paper of pins." Under the Department's decisio]i of June 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7555), i t was held t h a t books containing X)ins were dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, and this decision is applicable to the boxes and papers covered by the present case. You are tberefore directed to adjust t h e entry a t t h a t rate, and t o take measures for collecting the balance of duty found to be due. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Rochester, N . Y. (7716.) Coverings—Bazor-cases dutiable. • T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 24, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo, submitting t h e appeal (6976o) of Messrs. Dame, Stoddard &> Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on certain cases containing razors imported by them per Venetian, J u n e 19, 1886. The appraiser reports t h a t the cases in question, which pass into the hands of the consumers, are used otherwise than for the bona fide transportation of t h e goods. Your assessment of duty thereon, being in harmony with the Department's decision of J u n e 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553), on cases containing zithers, piccolos, cornets, and trial-glasses, is hereby affirmed. » •» # -ff # » * Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. As samples of free coverings, under these rulings, see S., 7353, on cigar-boxes; S., 7463, tin cases containing tagger's iron ; S., 7626, pasteboard boxes containing mouth harmonicas; and S., 7715, wooden boxes containing gelatine. (7353.) Boxes containing cigars—Free of duty. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Fehruary 6, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated t h e 4tli instant^ from Messrs. Bendheim Bros. &, Co., in which they report t h a t a difference of opinion exists between the officers of the customs at your port as to whether boxes containing imported cigars are liable to duty or not. These boxes are inside coverings, in the nature of cartons, and they seem to be covered by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Oberteufier t^t al. vs. Robertson, which is appended to Department circular of the 2d instant (No. 12.) Under such decisiou, the cigars should be returned for duty a t their value^e?- se, without the addition of any charge for cost of boxes or otherwise. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Secretary.. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Baltimore, Md. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 129 (7463 Coverings, tin cases containing blaik tagger^s iron—Non-dutiable. T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, April 13, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 5th instant, reporting on the appeal (2735 o) of Messrs. Phelps. Dodge & Co. from your assessment of duty on the valueof tin cases containing black tagger's iron imported by them, per Warwick, November 2 0 ; Egypt, November 10; City of Berlin, November 2 1 ; Brooklyn City, November 10, and Republic, November 16, 1885. The cases in question being outside coverings of the goods, and their cost being specified in the invoices, you are authorized to readjust the entries in accordance with the Department's decisions of February 2, 1886 (circular No. 12), and March 13 and March 29,1886 (not published), and t o forward a certified statement for t h e refund of the excess of duty. Respectfullv, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. (7620.) Coverings—Fasteboard Cartons f o r Harmonicas not Dutiable. . . T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , July 8, 1886. S I R : The Department duly received your letter of t h e 30th ultimo, transmitting t h e protest and appeal (6494o) of Oliver Ditson & Co., from your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per cent ad valorem on certain harmonica covers imported per Borderer, May 29, 1886. It appears t h a t duty was assessed a t this rate under t h e provisions of section 7, act of March 3, 1883, for covers designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to t h e United States, and in pursuance of the rule laid down in Department's decisions of April 20, 1886 (Synopsis, 7468), and J u n e 3, 1886 (imprinted) see weekly circular No. 66, paragraph 6. By Department's decision of April 13 last, i t was held t h a t pasteboard boxes or cartons which go as coverings with these mouth-harmonicas, or are intended rather for t h e protection of t h e goods in their bona fide transportation than for subsequent use in connection with t h e instruments, should be excluded in ascertaining the dutiable valu'e of t h e goods. ' , They would, therefore, not be dutiable as coverings " for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of t h e goods," and your assessment of such duty on similar goods iu t h e present case cannot, accordingly, be sustained. " You are authorized to reliquidate the entry and to t a k e the necessary steps for refunding the duty exacted on these coverings. Respectfuily, yours, , C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secreiary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (7715.) Coverings—Boxes containing gelatine not dutiable. T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, August 23,1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of July 17 last, transmitting the appeals (6726o and 6727o) of Messrs. James A. Hayes & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on tbe boxes containing gelatine imported by them per Scythia, May 14, 1886, and April 12, 1886, and claimed to be non-dutiable. It appears that the boxes iu question are small, of thin wood, and covered with paper and printed labels, and; iu the opinion of t h e Department, are too frail to be of use otherwise t h a n as a protection to t h e gelatine in t h e bona fide transportation thereof. Tbey appear, also, to be the usual aud necessary coverings of such goQ4''5, 130 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY. These coverings fall withiu the principle laid down iu Department's decision of July 8, 1886 (Synopsis, 7620). The claim of the appellants is sustained, and you are authorized to reliquidate t h e entries and to take measures for a refund of the duty exacted on said coverings. Rspeectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, .Mass. Collectors were accordingly instructed that in all cases where the appraisers should so return the coverings as intended for use otherwise than iu the bona fide transportation of the goods to the United States the 100 per cent, duty should be collected unless importers should elect to treat such coverings as in4ependent commodities aside from their contents, and dutiable at the respective rates provided therefor under the tariff, as manufactures of wood, metal, fancy boxes, &c., in which case duty might be assessed at the rates applicable. In Department's decision of June 21, 1886 (S., 7592), and August 3,1886 (S., 7675). (7592.) Coverings— When dutiable at 100 per cent. T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, June 21, 1886. SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of t h e 17th instant, further concerning t h e assessment of duties on coverings (earthen jars) designed for use otherwise than in tbe bona fide transportation of merchandise. As intimated in my letter o f t h e 16th instant, where such coverings of merchandise are imported as independent commodities aside from their contents, they may be classified under the appropriate provision in the tariff act relating thereto, as, for instance, decorated earthenware, vases, aud jars should be classified as such, under Schedule B. The rule in such instances should be,, as suggested by you, to treat all such coverings as independent commodities whenever t h e importer at tbe time of entry shall expressly declare t h a t they are intended as independent commodities, and are not imported as coverings of or charges incidejit to the goods they contain. This rule corresponds with t h a t set forth in Department's previous decisions (Synopses, 5770, 7264, <fec.), to which you refer. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York. (7675.) .^ Extraordinary coverings. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 3, 1886. SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, in which you state t h a t an impbrter a t Chicago desires to be informed as to whether he can import extraordinary coverings, such as violin boxes and other boxes for use in transporting and preserving musical instruments, and have them classified according to the materials of which they are composed, as independent importations aside from their contents. This question was, t o some extent, the subject of Department's ruling of June 21 last (Synopsis, 7592), wherein i t was held t h a t coverings might be considered as independent commodities wbenever the importer at the time of entry shall expressly declare t b a t they are imported as such, and are not intended merely as coverings of or charges incident to the goods they contain. I n the case of the boxes mentioned by you, i t is understoo.d t h a t such articles are frequently imported as such commodities without containing the articles for which they may be intended, and no objection is perceived, when an importer shall declare at the tirae of entry that boxes of tbis chai'a-cter are imported as such and not as coverings intended for bona |i?de trfinspoi.'- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 131 tation ofthe goods to tbe United States or otherwise, to their being classified according to the materials of which they are constituted, it beiug understood, however, that the appraiser sball report t b a t such declaration is true. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, * Acting Secretai'y. CHAS. H . H A M , Esq., -^ United States Axixiraiser, Chicago, III. Many importers availed themselves of this privilege and entered their goods and the coyerings therefor separatelj^, and duty was assessed on each at the rates respectively applicable. This practice, however, gave rise to the question in the mind of the Acting Secretary as to whether such coverings had ever lost their dutiable character as independent commodities in view of the peculiar wording of section 7, which merely prohibits theadditionof their costto the dutiable value of their contents, hut does not exempt them from the duty which would have been applicable had they been imported separately and in the absence of any other provision of law exonerating them from duty. In the mean time the appraisers at the several ports found great difiiculty iu reconciling their practice to the interpretation placed by the Department on the proviso in section 7, as to the use of the coverings beyond the mere trausportation to the IJnited States, and their returns were accordingly made in such an ambiguous form as to involve collectors ill doubt, and to necessitate the decision ofthe Department in numerous cases, such as tin boxes containing peas, mushrooms, fish, and all the other varieties of canned goods, all of which the appraisers returned as the usual and necessary coverings for the merchandise they contained, but which passing into the hands of the consumer were for use (in accordance with the Departmt^nt's rulings) otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States. It was also found about this time that the collector at New York, acting under the general instructions contained in Department's circular of February 2, 1886, promulgating the Oberteuffer decision (see S., 7387,1.). —), was passing free of duty, without reference to the Department, coverings, which, on protest and appeal from other ports, the De liartment had held to be dutiable at 100 per cent. This naturally gave rise to complaints of unjust disci'i min ation from importers from otber ports, and the Department, realizing that the assessment of duty at 100 per cent, on all coverings similar to those which had been already held to be dutiable at that rate would involve the publication of multitudinous decisions, decided, before going further, to obtain from the. Attorney-General a statement of his views as to the interpretation of said proviso, and at the sarae time to submit the othen questions which had arisen as above indicated. Copies of the Department's letter to the Attorney-General and his reply thereto are herewith inclosed. (777M.) TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T . O F F I C E OP THE S E RETARY, Washington, D. C , Sex:)temher2, 1886. The Hon. tbe U. S. ATTORNEY-GENERAL: S I R : I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of circular issued by this Department, under date of February 2, 1886, embodying tho decision of the Supreme Court of the United States iu the case of Oberteuffer?;. Robertson as to the proper coustruction of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, and to ask your opinion OQ the questions hereinafter presented, 132 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Sections 2907 and 2908 of tbe Revised Statutes of the United States and section 14 of the act of J u n e 22, 1874, established rules' for tbe ascertainment of the duiiable value of imported merchandise, by which certain additions to the cost of the actual wholesale price of the merchandise in th«i foreign country should be made. Tbese additions represented, among other things, the value ofthe boxes, sacks, or coverings in which such mercbandise was contained. Section 7 of tbe act of March 3, 1883, repealed sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes and section 14 of t h a act of J u n e 22, 1874, and provided that thereafter the value of t h e usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind should not be estimated as part of the value of the imported merchaudise. As sacks, boxes, and other receptacles which are ordinarily used in the importation of merchandise would, if iraported separately, be dutiable uuder the respective provisions o f t h e tariff applicable thereto, the question presents itself whether they lose their dutiable cbaracter by being filled with or used for the transportation of such goods. This question does not appear to have been presented to the court in the Oberteufier case, but from a statement fouud on page 6 of the inclosed circular it appears t h a t the court indulged in some reraarks t h a t might be considered as applicable. I t is tbere stated, referring to a further provision of section 7 authorizing tbe assessment of 100 i)er cent, duty in certain cases on the value of the coverings if designed to evade duties or for use otherwise than in a bona fide transportation of the goods to tbe United States, t h a t ^'this implied t h a t if boxes or coverings of any kind are not of a material or form designed to evade duties thereon, aud are designed to be used in tbe bona fide transportation ofthe goods to the United States', they are not subject to duty.'' Bottles if filled, except those containing ginger ale (paragraph 317) are dutiable at 30 or 40 per cent, ad valorera (see paragraphs 133 and 134). " F a n c y boxes" and manufactures of wood, manufactures of pai^er, manufactures of leather, and manufactures of other materials from which receptacles or coverings for mercbandise afe usually made, are provided for in the tariff under their respective provisions. In view of the apparent absence of any legislation exempting boxes, sacks, and otber receptacles (except ginger-ale bottles as above) wben filled from the duty which would be applicable uuder the various provisions of the tariffs if empty, I will thank you for an expression of your opinion as to whether the stateraent of the Supreme Court aforesaid, t h a t such coverings are uot subject to duty, should be considered as mere dictum used in the process of argument e r a s an authoritive expression of the views ofthe court. The furtber provision in said section 7, by which a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem is authorized in certain cases, as above referred to, is also submitted for your consideration, and in connection therewith I transmit copies of same of the Department's decisions rendered thereon since the decision in the Oberteuffer case. , An attempt has been made to confine the exemptions in the Oberteuffer decision to such coverings as do not pass into the hands of the consumers, but siraply serve for the temporary protection o f t h e goods, and thus clearly come within the purview of said decisiou, such as cartons for hosiery, gloves, laces, &c. In other cases, such as boxes of blacking, raatcbes, preserved meats, fruits, &c., cases containing meerschaum pipes, opera-glasses, musical instruments, &c., collectors were instructed to assess duty as heretofore. (See decision March 13 last, S., 7408.) Tbe question in each case was left imder the rule tbus established to be decided by the appraiser at t h e port of importation, the collector being authorized to assess duty at 100 per cent, ad valorem in all cases where the appraiser should report t h a t the boxes or other coverings were for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the Uuited States. Considerable confusion has resulted from the conflicting views of the appraising officers at the several ports, and their inability to harinooize their views as to the uses of coverings in given cases with those expressed by the Department in similar cases through its printed decisions. Thus, the .Department baving decided that earthenware jars contaiuing meat (S., 7556) and books containing pins (S., 7555) were dutiable ab coverings for use otherwise than in the bona tide transportation of goods to the United States, the appraisers at Boston and elsewbere have extended the assessment of duty under the said provisious to tin cans containing mackerel and other tish, papers contaiuing polishing powder, and numerous otber coverings concerning which tbere is good ground for doubting the validity of such assessment. The question, therefore, of the proper interpretation of said proviso in section 7 is also submitted for your consideration. Under a recent case tried in the United States district court for the southern district of New York, and found iu volunie 28, No. 1 (United States v. Thurber) Federal Reporter, it was held tbat the transportation referred to in such proviso extended lo the purchaser; or, in the language of tbe court; to the vest pocket ofthe consuraerp REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 133 This is apparently in conflict with t h e limitation in the proviso, which reads, "transportation of goods to the United States." Recently importers have been permitted to state the value or cost of coverings separately iu their entry, for t h e purpose of haviug duty assessed thereon under t h e respective provisions in the tariff applicable t o their componeut materials. This, of course, is upon the theory that the coverings have never lost their dutiable character, and that the exemptions of said section 7 only prohibited the inclusion of their cost, in the dutiable value of the merchandise wbich they contain. Should this view be finally adopted, consistent action on t h e part of t h e Department would require t h a t noue of tlie coverings should be ivholly exempted from duty, but should be assessed either at the rate applicable under the tariff'to their component materials, or at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorera if the failure to state t h e cost thereof separately in the entry should indicate an atterapt to evade the duty thereon. Reports from the appraiser at Boston and from the general appraiser at Baltimore are submitted, which I will thank you to return with your reply. Respectfully, yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Seci-etary. (7766.) . Dutiable value of imported merchandise and. classification of coverings. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , September 21, 1886. The subjoined opinion of the Hon. G. A. Jenks, Acting United States AttorneyGeneral, dated t h e 17th instant, concerning t h e "dutiable v a l u e " of imported merchandise and the classification of coverings containing imported merchandise, under the existing statutes, in which the Department concurs, is published for the inforraation and guidance of officers of the customs and others interested. C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. T o COLLECTORS AND OTHER O F F I C E R S O F T H E CUSTOMS. D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E , Septemher 17, 1886. S I R : Your communication of t h e 2d instant submits for consideration four subjects : First. "As sacks, boxes, and other receptacles, which are ordinarily used in t h e importation ofmerchandise would, if imported separately, be dutiable under the respective provisions of t h e tariff applicable thereto, the question presents itself whether tbey lose their dutiable character by being filled with or used for the transportation of such goods." Second. I n the case of Oberteuffer vs. Robertson, No. 1192 of October term, 1885, in tbe Supreme Court, iu considering the seventh section of t h e a c t ofthe 3d of March, 1883, the following lauguage is used: " This implied t h a t if boxes or coverings of any kind are not of material or form designed to evade the duties thereon, and are designed to be used in the bona fide transportatioii of the goods to t h e United States, they are not subject to duty;'' with reference to .which you state, " I will thank you for an expression of your opinion as to whether tlie statement o f t h e Supreme Court t h a t such coverings are not subject to duty should be considered as mere dictum used in t h e process of argument, or as an authoritative expression of the views of t h e court." Third. " The further provision iu said section 7, by which a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem is authorized in certain cases, as above referred to, is also for your consideration." Fourth. " T h e question of the proper interpretation of t h e proviso in section-7 is also subniitted for your consideration." Tbe solution ofthe questions submitted depends upon the true interpretation of the seventh section of the act of the 3d of March, 1883. That section provides ^' t h a t sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes ofthe United States, and section 14 of tbe act entitled 'An act to amend the customs-revenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved June 22,1874, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none of the cbarges imposed by said sections, or auy other provisions of existing laws, shall be estirnared in ascertaining the value of go»jds to be imported, nor sball the value of tho usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of auy kind be estimated as part of their value in deterrniniug the amount of duties for which they are liable : Frovided^ T h a t 134 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material or form designated to evade duties thereou, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same sball be subject to a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the actnal value of the same." By tbis sectiou, whatever,in sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes and the fourteenth sectiou of the act of June 22, 1874, was included as charges, is excluded from the estimate ill fixing the dutiable value o f t h e goods to be'iraported. The three sections repealed by tbe section quoted erabrace ascharges—" The cost of trans^ portation, shipment, and transsbipraeut, with all expenses included from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to tbe vessel in which shipraent is made to the United States, the value ofthe sack, box, or covering of any kind in which merchandise is contained, commission at the usual rate, but in no case less than two and one-half per centum, and brokerage, export duties, and all bther a c t u a t o r usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment." When these cbarges are excluded, the goods to be imported are left to be' valued " a t the actual market value or wholesale price tbereof at the period o f t h e exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from which the same has been exported." Takeu in connection with the iprovisions of sectiou 2906, Revised Statutes, which reraain unrepealed, the effect of sectiou 7 of the act o f t h e 3d of March, 1883, is to make the dutiable value the same as " the actual and raarket value or wholesale price" in the principal inarkets of the country frora which the goods were exported at the tirae ofthe exportation. Hence the market value of tbe goods to be irax>orted as above stated, as the law now stands, is identical with the dutiable value. Nor cau any of the charges above stated be added to that value for the purpose of charging duties thereon. Sacks, boxes, and coverings of any kind in which raerchandise is contained are erabraced araong the charges which are not to be iucluded with the value of the gO(|ds. As the statute in the broadest terras excludes all these, it is not perraissible to add to its terms either the words " i n s i d e " or "outside." Th'e exemption extends alike,and with equal force to both inside and outside sacks, boxes, or coverings of the merchandise. But the sarae sacks, boxes, or coverings, if imported sexiarately, would be subject to duty. The inquiry arises whether each is not to be cbarged v^'ith a duty wben used as the covering to other dutiable merchandise as though separately imported? Did the leg-/ islative power so intend it? The revenue act of 1883, of which section 7 is a part, was intended to reduce the revenue of the Government, which had become excessive^. To reduce taxation on imports was the means adopted. The increased dutiable value ofthe importations occasioned by adding the value of coverings, &c., under section 2907, if stricken off" entirely, would be a large reduction, b u t if the coveriugs were only to be separated for purposes of duty frora the value of the goods, and then taxed at separate rates, whether such a raeasure would increase or diminish the actual t a x would be very uncertain. It is nn likely Congress would intend a reduction and pass an act which was subject to sucb uncertain ty as to results. Simplicity in administration is an important element of a judicious tax bill. The collection of duties under section 2907, which was repealed, would be more easily administered than uuder the act of 1883, if the duties on the coverings were only intended to be changed as to rates and be levied. The coverings were ndt by former laws subject to taxation, except as charges on the goods, imported. Yet under the former law they Avould have been liable to taxation if separately imx)orted. The raere repeal of t h e charge cannot be considered as an enactment of a duty on t h a t which before the repeal w^ould not have been subject to duty. The proviso to the section uuder consideration suggests beyond mistake that a separate levy of the duty repealed was not contemplated by Congress. That proviso is, " T b a t if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of auy kind shall be of auy material or forra designed to evade duties thereou, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject 10 a duty of one hundred per centum ad volorem upon tbe actual value o f t h e same." If the same tax was intended to be irajiosed upou a given article, whether it was used as a covering for other goods or imported separately, it is not possible t h a t Con<::ress would have iraposed a penalty for an evasion which under such an interpretation ofthe law could not occur; but if when used as a covering it came in free frora duty, and wheu separately imported i t w a s subject to duty, there would be a temptation for a colorable and fraudulent use as a covering, in order to evade duty. The proviso was intended to prevent such an evasion. That the charges repealed by this section are not subject to a separate t a x is distinctly ruled in the case of Oberteuffer vs. Robertson, in the followiug language, as quoted in your letter: " This implies t h a t if the boxes or coverings of any kind are not of a raaterial or form designed to evade duties thereon, and are designed to be nsed in the bona fide transpoi'tation ofthe goods t o t h e United States, tbey are not subject to duty," RtiPORT OF ll-lE S E C R M A R Y OF T H E TREASURY. 135 Tbat this is not dictum is well established by the fact tbat it is a distinct answer to wbat the court in the opening of the opinion says is the main point in the case, as follows: " The main question left iu the case is, whether it was lawful io impose duties on the items for boxes and packing in the invoices on the two cases and the twenty-one cases, and o n t h e items added to the invoices of the one case,, which item was one for like boxes aud packing." The brief submitted in the case by Solicitor-General Goode, on the part of t h e Government, declares: " It will be seen that the plaintiff's protest stated substantially but a single ground ' of obiectiouto the collector's liquidation, which was that the cartons were not liable to diity." , . The court again, after a discussion of au objection raised by the Solicitor-Geueral that, the plaintiffs in the case had mistaken their remedy, in that they had not demanded a reappraisement under section 2930, rules the objection not well founded, aud concludes the discussion of t h a t branch of the subject by saying: " The exaction of the duty on the packing, whetber packing goods in a carton, or the cartons in the outer case, or lining the outer case, was not warranted by law.'' Hence it would seem the very subject was distinctly before the court, considered by it as esseutial to a proper decision of the case, was formally ruled upon, aud thus became an authoritative interpretation of the section under consideration. But, while section 7 does not permit a separate assessment of t h e boxes, coverings, &c., uor an assessment as p a r t of the valiie of the goods, in order t h a t this freedom from duty raay not be fraudulent!j'^ or wrongfully used to imx:)ort dutiable goods free the proviso to the section was added by Avhich a penalty of 100 per Centura ad valorem is iraposed whenever such an invasion is attempted. Tbis penalty is only incurred, Iirst, when the coverJcUgs, &c., " s h a l l be of any material or form designed to evade duties t h e r e o n ; " second, " w h e n designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the United Sta.tes." The first cause for the imposition of the penalty commits to the officer cbarged with, t h e administration of the law the duty of determining from tbe character, value, form, and material whether the purpose and design of the covering Avas an evasion of duty or a good-faith covering. If the covering in either material or form is unusual and dutiable under other x>rovisions of law, he is allowed to infer, when its character is tbns extraordinary, t h a t evasion is designed. The second ground lor the imposition of the penalty requires the officer to determine whether the covering was designed at the time of its applicaiion to t h a t use to be used again for the same or sorae other use. of substantial commercial value, for which, if separately imported,.it would be subject to duty, or whether its utility wiil be substantially exhausted as soon as it shall have subserved the use to whicli as a covering it is then devoted. In the former event, the penalty of 100 per centum sbould be collected; in the latter, it should not. Tbe mere fact t h a t it is continned after importation as a covering for the same raerchandise calls for uo xienalty. Tbe law does not contenix:)late t h a t as soon as the merchandise reaches the x>ort and x^^ys t h e duty it shall then be denuded and new covering, either inside or outside, be Xirovided to protect it either in handling or sale ; neither is there any time or xilace after the imxiortation t h a t tbe same coveriug, used for tbe same merchandise as covering from which or in which to make sale of tbe merchandise, would show t h a t it was designed for use for importation, so as to subject the covering to a duty at the rate iraposed as a penalty in the proviso, nor would t h e fact tbat a box raight xiossibly afterwards be used for fuel or the covering for some other use subject the box or covering to a x^eff^lty, unless there is reason to believe such use was designed and contemxilated at or before the time of inixiortation. . From this general consideration o f t h e subject, the conclusions follow: 1. That the sacks, boxes, and coverings of any kind the duty on which was repealed as charges by the seveuth section o f t h e act ofthe 3d of March, 1883, are not subject to duty, neither as a p a r t o f t h e value ofthe goods nor separately, except when they come under the proviso to t h a t section or some special provision of law. 2. That the xiortion o f t h e oxiinion in t h e case of Oberteuffer^. Robertson quoted iu your letter is not dictum, but an authoritative interpretation of the law on the subject referred to therein. 3. Tbat the 100 per centum ad valorem can be imposed upon coveriugs only when tbeir material or form justifies the conclusion that they were used as such to evade duties, or when they were designed or cqntemxjlated to be ax:)X)lied to sorae use other than to t h a t of coverings for transportation to the United States of the mercbandise they then inclose, even though that use as a covering only should continue after the goods had xiassed beyond the custom-bouse to the market or consumer. 4. The mere fact t h a t tbe boxes, sacks, crates, or coverings of any kiud might possibly be used after iniportation for other uses, if such uses were not designed at or before the time of iraportation, and there was not at t h e t i m e a design to evade duty by 136 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. their use as coverings, will uot subject such coverings to tbe 100 per centum ad valorem duty prescribed as a penalty. Tbe 100 per centum duty in the proviso, although not in terms a penalty, is an unusually high duty. The section uuder consideration clearly excludes the coverings from valuation as a part of the goods. The second element in the proviso to the section implies no turpitude ou the x^art of the importer. In balanced cases iu a customs act the doubt is to be resolvied in favor of the iraporter. Hence, although the coverings after the port is reached might by a literal interpretation be construed, if intended for use thereafter as a cover to the-same goods, to be designed " for use otherwise thau in the liona fide transportation of goods to the United States," yet such an interpretation, while within the letter, would be a violation of the spirit of the act. The inclosures transmitted with yours are herewith returned. . I am, sir, respectfully, G. A. JENKS, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF THE T R E A S U R Y . I t will be seen that the Attorney-Gen eral is of the opinion that while the independent dutiable character of the coveriii,£>s is not specifically abrogated by any xirovision of law, the proviso to section 7 and the general intent of the revenue act of 1883 accomplish this efi'ect by implication; also, that in liis oi)inion the transportation to the United States, referred to in the proTifeo, extended beyond the precincts of the custom-bouse to the liands of the consumer, and that unless the material and form of such coverings justify the conclusion that they were designed or contemplated to be applied to some use other than to.tbat of coverings, they were not dutiable. In order that the Department might not err in its application of the views of the Attorney-General, with which it was deemed expedient to acquiesce, he was specifically interrogated in subsequent letters as to the dutiable character of boxes containing musical instruments, tin cases containing canned goods, earthenware jars containing extracts of meat, &c., aud similar coverings which had been the subject of decision by the Department, and as his rephes (S. S. 7781 and 7791) specifically stated that in his opinion these coverings were to be exempted from duty under the Oberteuffer decision, the practice has been changed accordingly. (7781.) Coverings non-dutiable^—Opinion of Attorney-General. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , September 29, 1886. S I R : I inclose herewith a coxiy of an opinion, dated the 27th iu'^taut, frora Hou. G. A. Jenks, Acting Attorney-General, relative to the assessment of duty on tin cans containiug French peas, prepared meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, and milk food, from which you will see t h a t tbe officer advises t h a t such tin cans are not liable to tlie duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem under section 7 of the actof March 3, 1883, inasmuch as they are neither designed to evade duties nor for use otherwise than in tiie hona fide transportation of the contents, ahd t h a t tbis opinion is in harmony with the principles enunciated in his communication o f t h e 17th instant, ou coveriugs, which is the subject of Department's circular o f t h e 21st instant (No. 130). The Department accordingly modifies its decisions of April 30, 1886 (uuprinted), on papers contaiuing needles and cartons containing chiua tea-sets ; June 3, 18~6 (synopses 7555 and 7556), on books containing pins and earthenware jurs containing meats; June 25, 1886 (uuprinted), on tin cans containing French peas, and all otber decisions whicb may conflict with the views expressed in the accompanying opinion, and directs t h a t coverings similar to those in question be hereafter x:)assed free of duty. The appeals hereinafter described, which were received with your letters of various dates, covering assessments of duty at 100 x'ler cent, on tin boxes containing .fish, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 137 truffles, peas, mushrooms, and meats; wooden boxes containing pills, and face and tooth powders; jars coutaining ointments, cold cream, extract of meat, and x^otted m e a t s ; metal tubes containing shaving-soap ; pasteboard boxes coutaining corn and bunion plasters ; papers containing needles and polisbing-powder ; and cartons containing toy tea-sets, are accordingly sustained, and the entries may be reliquidated and duties refunded in the usual manner. The same course may be followed with regard to previous importations of such goods where duty has been exacted on the coverings, and the requiremeuts of the law as to protest, appeal, and suit have been duly complied with. (See section 2931, Revised Statutes, and Dexiartment's instructions of May 7, 1886, synopsis 7505.) Respectfully, yours, . C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E , Washington, Sex^ttmbtr 27, 1886. SIR : I received yours of the 23d of September instant, in which you s t a t e : " I have to inform you t h a t uuder date of June 25, 1886, tbe Department decided t h a t tin cans coutaining French peas were subject to duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the x^toviso of section 7, act March 3, 1883. ^ * * In view of the xirovisions of section 2, act ofMarch 3, 1875 (U. S. Statutes, vol xviii, page 469), I will t h a n k you to inform t h e D e p a r t m e n t whether such tin cans, and similar tin cans containing prepared meats, fish, fruit, and vegetables and milk food, are properly dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem." Tbe cans referred to in yours are neither of material nor forra designed to evade the duties thereon ; nor are they designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the IJnited States, except as a covering to the very goods im-. ported, after wbich they are not adapted to any further or additional use. In accordance with the views expressed in a letter transmitted to your Department on the 17th instant, tbe cans would not be subject to the 100 per cent, ad valorem duty prescribed by tbe proviso to tbe seventh section of t b e act of the 3d of March, 1883. The inclosure referred to, with yours, is herewith returned. Very, respectfullv, G. A. JENKS, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF T H E T R E A S U R Y . (7791.) Coverings, non-dutiable—Boxes containing musical instruments—Opinion of AttorneyGeneral. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , Octoher 2, 1886. SIR : The Department duly received your letter of August 7 last, reporting on t h e ' appeal (6396 o) of Messrs. Kohler & Chase from your actiou in assessing duty on certain cases containing flutes imxiorted by them, per rail from New York, under inward foreign entry No. 4875, on the 13th of May last. I t appears t h a t the value of the flutes on which duty was assessed in this case included the cost of certain boxes or cases coutaining the same, and described by the ' axipraiser at your x^ort as being handsomely made of wood and leatber, and divided into several compartments, to receive the different xiarts of the flute when taken apart. He furtber reports that in his opiuion they were designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide trausportation of the goods to the United States. The question of the dutiable cliaracter of boxes and cases containing musical instruraents was subraitted to the United States Attorney-General, and I herewith inclose a coxiy of his opinion thereou. You Avill perceive t h a t boxes of tbis character, and also leather and wooden cases for opera and marine glasses and telescopes, leather cases for pipes, razOr-cases. violinboxes, aud cases for clarionets, zithers, cornets, and trial-glasses, are, in his opinion, (jlearly not intended to evade duty, as they are the usual and ordinary coverings for 138 R E P O R T OF T i l E SEClJEtARY OF, T l l E TREASURY. such instruments, and that, although tbey may be intended for coverings for tbe same after they shall have been imported, yet there is no reason to believe t h a t they were designed for auy further use or for sale separately as commodities. Under this view, in which the Dexiartment concurs, these boxes, as coverings, are eutitled to free entry, u n d e r t h e decision ofthe Supreme Court in Oberteuffer vs. Robertson (Synopsis, 7387), and tbe recent opinion, of the Acting Attorney-General thereou (see Circular 21st ultim^, No. 130), in all cases Avbere the invoice or entry specified the value thereof separately from the value o f t h e goods (Synopsis, 7422). Department's decision of June 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553) is modified accordingly, and you are authorized to reliquidate the entries and take the necessary stexis for refunding the duties which have been exacted on coverings, either in the manner followed in this case, as part of the value of their contents, or at the rate of 100 xier cent., under section 7, act of March 3,\1883, in all cases where the xirovisions of section 2931, Revised Statntes, as to protest, appeal, and suit, bave been complied with, and the invoice or entry shows distinctly what the cost of such coverings was, aud t h a t it was included in the value ofthe goods. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. [Opinion of the Attorney-General.] DEPARTMP:NT OF J U S T I C E , Washington, Septemher 27, 1886. S I R : In your communication of the 24th of September instant you state : " Referringto tbe letter ofthe Acting Attorney-General, dated the 17th instant, in relation to the construction of section 7, act of March 3,1883, I have the honor to inform you t h a t under date of June 3, 1886, (Synopsis, 7553, hereininclosed), the Department decided t b a t certain boxes or cases containing zitliers, piccolos, cornets, and trialglasses were subject to duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso to said sectiou. " The boxes containing the zithers were described as wooden boxes lined with cotton plush, those containing the x>iccolos and cornets as wooden boxes covered with leather and lined with cotton x:>lush, and those containing the trial-glasses as wooden boxes covered with leather, witb a glass top, and lined with silk plush. ^'These boxes conform in shape to, and are specially made-as xJernianent receptacles for, t h e various instruments iraported in tbem, and in some cases are held for sale as separate commodities, both the instruments and the boxes being iinported stqiarately or together. " The Department held t h a t the boxes were dutiable at the rate aforesaid, because they were 'desiged for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States.' "Similar decisions have been made in relation to leather and wooden cases for opera and marine glasses and telescoxies, leather cases for pixies, razor-cases, and violin-boxes, which are similar in character and uses to those above described, as are also the cases containing flutes, clarionets, and a great variety of other instruments and articles. " In view ofthe provisions of section 2, act ofMarch 3,1875 (U. S. Stat., vol. xviii, page 469), I will t h a n k you for an expression of your views as to tbe correctness of such assessment of duty." The several coverings referred to in yours were clearly not intended to evade duty, as they are the usual and ordinary coverings for such instruments. Although t;hey may be intended for coverings for the same after tbey shall havebeen imported, there is no reason to believe they were designed for any further use or for sale separately as coramodities. Hence, for the reasons set forth in tbe opinion transmitted to your Department on the 17th instant, the boxes and coveriugs referred to in yours are not subject to t h e 100 per cent, duty ad valorem prescribed in t h e proviso to the seventh section o f t h e act of March.3, 1883. Very respectfully, G. A. JENKS, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF T H E T R E A S U R Y . The question involving the application of this decision to boxes containing Swedish matches w^hich light on tbe box, aud also other boxes coutaining matches, which is involved in cases now pending before the REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 139 tJnited States Supreme Oourt, is now awaiting further report from the Attorney-General. Beyond this there do not seem to be any difficult questions pending nnder the Oberteufier decision. Eecently (S. 7786) certain casks which are dutiable at 30 per cent, ad valorem when imported empty (T. I., new, 231), \vere held to be dutiable a t t h e rate of 100 x^er cent, under section 7 wlaen imported filled with canary seed, a non-dutiable article for w^hich casks are not the usual and necessary coverings. (7786.) Coverings—Unusual, casks filled with canary-seed—dutiable at 100 x^er cent. TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , Ociober 1, 1886. S I R : The Dexiartment is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo., transraitting the appeal (7923 o) of Messrs. Eugene Thonias & Co. frora your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per ceut. a d valorem on certain wine-casks iraported filled wath canaryseed, per " P a o l i n a Zino," August 16 last. I t appears t h a t the casks were neither invoiced uor entered sexiarately, b u t t b a t their value was ascertained by t h e axipraiser. Such casks when iraported separately are subject to duty at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem, under T. I., "new, 231, which is the rate clainied by the appellants to be apxilicable to this case, and which would have been properly assessable thereon, provided the casks had been duly invoiced and entered. The facts, however, t h a t they were imxiorted filled with canary-seed, which is entitled to free eutry, and t h a t no statement of their value was made on the invoice aud entry, would indicate t h a t they were imported in this'manner in order to evade the payraent of duty thereon, and t h a t they thus clearly fall withiu the xirovision of section 7, act ofMarch 3, 1883. Your assessraent of duty is accordingly affirmed. Respectfully yours, C. S. FAIRCHILD, ^ Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. As in this case the report of the collector indicated that these casks were intended to be used in this country as receptacles for wine, the iustice of this decision can hardly be questioned. Eespectfully submitted. J. G. MAOGEEGOE, Chief Customs Division. No. 3. O F F I C E OF S P E C I A L A G E N T T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , New Yorh, Novemher 4,' 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury: SIR : In accordance with your instructions of the 27th ultimo, we have obtained the opinions of the best examiners, appraisers, and other customs officers at the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and ISTew York upon the following points: (1) Whether customs administration is feasible in respect to the coverings of imported goods under the law as expounded b y t h e Attorney-General (S. S. 7760, 7781). (2) Whether administration would be more feasible under the section proposed by the Department and adopted in the Hewitt bill than under the law interpreted by the Attorney General, as above stated. 140 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THll TREASURY. Upon the first proposition the officers consulted substantially concurred in the opinion that it is not feasible to administer the law as construed by the Attorney-Gen eral—that is to say, to appraise and classify merchandise in accordance with the ruling which requires appraisers to ascertain and api)raise the actual market value of the merchandise I)er se, divested of all coverings and of all costs for folding, packing*, ticketing, papering, cartons, boxes, &Co, all of which are incident to and part of the cost of putting the merchandise into the condition in which it is bought and sold. In most cases merchandise is never bought and sold in its naked condition. Its market value ^er se, as now construed, cannot therefore be ascertained, because at has no market value in that condition. The best the appraiser can do is to seek to ascertain the cost of the various processes and items necessary to place the goods ^^r se in marketable condition and deduct such cost from the value of the goods as bought and sold. To do this is practically impossible in most cases, and therefore recourse is had to arbitrary methods and estimates, adopted by each examiner or appraiser, which are naturally difierent at difi'erent ports. To obtain uniform bases for such estimates is imX)racticable, because the cost of putting goods into marketable condition varies in every locality and with every manufacturer. The result is that two imi)orters will often pay a difierent amount of duty npon goods of precisely the same character and value, imported at the same time from the saaie place. The method and cost of preparing and putting up may be and often is different as to the same goods sold to difierent buyers. They also A^ary at difierent seasons for the same buyers. Goods, such as gloves, handkerchiefs, hosiery, and various other articles, are frequently put np in expensive ornamental cartons or boxes, costingmore than the merchandise they contain. The covering is intended to make the article attractive and salable, and the gross price for the whole constitutes the value of the thing bought and sold. At the same time goods of the same character and value may be put up in cartons costing a mere trifle, and yet the merchandise pays the same duty as in the previous case, although costing but half as much. The law, as interpreted by the Attorney-General and the courts, has added infinitely to the. difficulties of the appraising officers, and has multiplied the inconsistencies and inequalities of the tarifi* to such an extent that regularity and nniformity in administration are impossible. It reduces the duties collected upon almost all imported merchandise subject to rates based upon value, but in.irregular, varia^ble, and eccentric ways, the largest reductions being often upon goods dutiable at the lower rates. For instance, upon dress silks, dutiable at 50 per cent., the reduction in value for coverings would be not more than 1 per cent., while upon blacking, dutiable at 25 per cent., the reductions allowed for coverings would be from 50 to 75 per cent, of the total A-alue. In the one case 49J per cent, duty is collected, and in the other from 6J to 12^ per cent, duty is collected upon the value ofthe article as actually purchased. ^ The reduction is not uniform throughout the tarifi* schedules, nor is it uniform as to the same goods included in the same schedule. I t may be said that owing to the unknow^n and uncertain conditions attaching to every invoice no two importers pay the same duty upon the^same article. An appraiser passing regularly the same goods may endeavor to make his own action uniform in this regard, but there can be no uniformity among all the appraisers at the several ports. When the appraising officer is deprived of the fundamental guide in appraisements, viz, the value of the goods in the condition in which REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 141 they are bought and sold, he is at sea without charter compass. Under present instructions, in order to determine the value of what are called the good^per se, heis required to find the value of non-dutiable items which have no market value apart from the goods to which they belong and of which they are a part, which value cannot therefore be ascertained by any satisfactory method. The following examples present some of the difficulties in the administration of the law under existing rulings and instructions: Olive oil in earthenware bottles costs, say 450 francs per kilogram, the bottles being valued at 50 francs. The same article in glass bottles costs 420 francs, the bottles being valued at 20 francs. In the first case the bottles are non-dutiable; in the second they are dutiable at 40 per cent, under the special provisions for glass bottles filled. The value of the merchandise j?er se is the same in both cases, dutiable at 25 per cent. In one case the importer pays upon the merchandise as bought at the rate of 22.2 per cent., and in the other at the rate of 25.7 per cent.—the higher duty being exacted upon the article of lower value. Ink is imported in both earthen and glass bottles. In one case the bottles are free-and in the other they are dutiable. The same inequality is found as to numerous articles prepared and jjut up in bottles of earthenware or glass, such as sweetmeats, fruits, comfits, pickles, &c. A noticeable illustration is furnished in the case of jams or pre^serves of trifling value _2^er se, and dutiable at'35 percent., but put up in decorated porcelain or china vessels, fit for other uses, which if imported separately would be subject to duty at 60 per cent. While it is manifest that' the real valueof the importation is in the covering rather than its contents, yet i t i s non-dutiable if it is a usual covering for that class of merchandise, while a cheap glass bottle inclosing the same article is dutiable at a higher rate than is exacted upon its contents. Small sets of decorated chinaware, called ''toy sets," when put up in cartons, are held to be dutiable as toys at 35 per cent., the value of the cartons, from 20 to 50 per cent., being deducted as non-dutiable, the duty collected being from 17J to 28 per cent, upon the value of the merchandise as bought. The same articles w^hen imported in crates or other packages, and not in cartons, are classified as decorated china, at 60 per cent. duty. About 7^ per cent, is deducted from this value for nondutiable charges, so that the rate upon the merchandise as bought is 55^ per cent. A discrimination is thus made in favor of the article as put up in the more expensive manner. Candies are imported in fancy boxes, the value of which is three times that of the candy itself. These boxes cannot, however, be said to be an unusual covering, because certain shippers put up candies regularly iu/ that way. Certain cotton yarn or thread pays a specific duty according to its value per pound. The expense of putting up is greater or less according to the size of the skein. Allowances are made for charges in putting up, papering, &c. It is found that the same quality of thread is dutiable in one case at 36 cents per pound and in another at 48 cents per pound, uot on account of any real difierence in value, but because of charges deducted in one case and not in the other. Paints and water-colors are imported in boxes of mahogany or metal, of elaborate and expensive workmanship, containing, besides the colors, pencils, palettes, spatchels, &c., all adjuncts necessary for tbe conveu-' 142 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. o ience of the artist. The value'of the colors themselves is but a small part of the value of the merchandise as an entirety. The cost ofthe case largely exceeds the value of the paints, and yet itis held to be non.dutiable, being the usual covering. Clay tobacco pipes are a common article of import and are dutiable at 35 per cent. They are uniformly bought and sold packed in boxes. The deductions from the value claimed for packing and coverings range from 30 to 50 per cent, of the value of the merchandise, so that the duty collected on this article is really only from 17J per cent, to 24J per cent. Safety matches are imported in boxes made especially with an outside surface upon which alone the match can be ignited. Deduction is claimed for boxes and putting up amounting to 50 per cent, of the value, • thus reducing the duty from 35 to 17^ per cent. This claim has been sustained upon suit, but the Department has not acquiesced in the decision. Large quantities of matches are imported from Sweden. They cost, per case of 2,500 gross, £142 Is. Sd. The following deductions are claimed and allowed for non-dutiable charges: Inside coverings and packing Paper labels and putting up in dozens 1 Outside case aud label zinc-lined Inland transx:)ortation Total deductions.. Leaving as dutiable £ 54 7 15 4 s. d. 11 8 12 1 2 1 13 81 7 1 60 14 1 the duty collected upon the real value of thegoods in their marketable condition being only about 15 per cent, instead of 35 per cent. Blacking is dutiable at 25 per cent. In an invoice of 11,000 francs the charges claimed and deducted amounted to 7,000 francs, leaving but 4,000 fraucs as dutiable. This reduced the duty upon the value of merchaudise as purchased to less than 10 per cent. Malaga grapes are packed iu kegs with cork dust and are shipped by the producers to Liverpool, where they are sold t o t h e markets of the world. The kegs and conteiyts are uniformly sold as an entirety, and there is no market value either at Liverpool or in the country of xiroduction for the grapes per se. Neither buyer nor seller in Liverpool, nor the appraiser in'New York, can separate the difi'erent elements of value in a keg of grapes, except by arbitrary methods of calculation. The exemptions claimed for chargesand coverings, and generally allowed on this article, amount to more than half the valueof the merchandise, then reducing the duty from 20 per cent, to less than 10 per cent, upon the value of the goods bought. Harmonicas are imported in leather-covered boxes valued at 1.10 marks, while the contents are valued at .90 pfennings, reducing the duty from 25 per cent, to less than 12 per cent, on the merchandise as bought and sold. French violins, w^orth 5 francs, are imported in boxes worth 7 francs, the latter being exempt from duty. Certain glass beads are uniformly imported upon strings and are sold in that condition only. Claims are now made for deductions on account of stringing and putting up, amountingto from 1 percent, to 5 per cent. It is iai possible for the ax)praiser to ascertain the value of the goods 2^er se. Imitation meerschaum x')ipes, valued, at2 florins xier dozen, areimported in leather boxes valued at 3 florins per dozen, the latter being exempt from duty, . ' REPORT OF THE SECREIARY OF THE TREASURY. 143 On mock jewelry the deduction allowed for coverings is sometimes as high as 25 per cent. • On bonnet pins the reductions reach 15 per cent. Instances of this kind might be multiplied to embrace ajmost every article in the tarifi* schedules subject to ad valorem rates, each of them varying in the x)erceutage of reductions for coverings, &c., such reductions difi'eiing widely in invoices of the same article both as to items and amounts. • . The general tendency is to an increase of the deductions claimed and to overstate the value of non-dutiable items, especiallj^ in invoices of consigned goods and among the less scrupulous importers, all tending to the disadvantage of the lionest trader. For instance, cartons covering Crefeld velvets, formerly stated in the invoice at 5 marks, are now charged at 40 marks. In one invoice of purchased velvets from Lyons the cartons were charged at 1.25 francs, while in another invoice from the same shipper of consigned velvets received at the same time the valueof the same kind of cartons was stated at 2.50 francs. In an invoice of consigned ribbons the value of the whole invoice was stated at 8,957 francs, from which the following deductions were claimed: Praucs. Blocking charges Rolls, xiaper, and tickets Boxes and wrax)pers Cases aud packing Carriage to shipxiing port Freight to Philadelxihia Insurance ~ ...» 122.10 304. 80 170. 80 85.40 97. 60 158.60 40.85 980.15 The above represents generally claims made upon invoices of consigned goods, although they may vary as to items and amounts with difi'erent importers, and are largely fictitious. In invoicesof goods actually purrchased in the same markets the charges usually stated are for such legitimate items as pacjking cases, &c. Thus'the regular purchaser invoicing his goods honestly as the transaction occurred, makes no claim for other items contributing to the value of the goods as bought, and deductions therefor cannot be allowed him, as in the case of his sharp competitor who makes such claims. Upon the second inquiry in 3^our letter, there was substantial agreement in the oxunions expressed by all the officers consulted, that administration would be more feasible under the section proposed by the • Department and adopted in House bill 7652, known as the Morrison tarifi* bill, than under the present law as interpreted by the AttorneyGeneral. Some criticisms w ere made, however, upon the phraseology ofthe section and changes w^ere suggested which it was thought would make the meaning more easilj^ understood and prevent possible litigatipn. ' These suggestions, so far as they are deemed important, are as follows: (1) To strike out after the word ^'commissions" in line 25 the words "marine insurance, export duties or fees for authentication by consular officers of the United States," and to insert in lieu thereof the words, '' brokerage export duty, nor any other actual or usual charge incidental to the exportation thereof." (2) The insertion after the word ^'all" in line 15 the words 'Mnside boxes, coverings," so that tlie claqse willread, ^'including all inside 144 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. boxes, coverings, costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the same in such condition." (3) To strike out the w^ords ^^bona fide" in lines 20, 32, and 37. (4) To strike out the words ''marine insurance" in line 25, and the words, '' or fees for authentication by consular officers of the United States" ill lines 26 and 27. (5) To strike out all after the word ' ' a n d " in line 11 down to and including the word '' allowed " in line 29, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ^ In the condition in which such merchandise is there bought and sold for exportation to the United Stales, or consigned to the United States for sale, and in which it is prepared and x^ut uxi for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident to xilacing the same iu such condition : Froi^ided, however, that in determining the dutiable value ot imxiorted merchandise no estiraate shall be made of tbe cost or value o f t h e outer case, crate, sack, or other outer covering, in which such merchandise may be packed or inclosed for trausportation to the United States, and which is designed to be used solely for sucb transportation, in case tbe same shall be specifically stated in the invoice, and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoice value shall be allowed. (6) Another suggestion was to substitute the inclosed draft for the entire section. All of the officers concurred in the view that, while the adoption of the section proposed in the Hewitt bill would afford substantial relief from present difiiculties, the best plan to simplify administration and to do justice to all concerned would be to assess duty upon the value of merchandise in the precise condition in which it is i)ut on board the vessel for exportation to the United States, including all costs and expenses of placing it in that condition. Thelaw in respect to coverings is not exceptional as a fruitful source of trouble iu administration, although at the present time it is the cause of the greatest embarrassment to customs officers. In the revision ofthe statutes in 1874, the various provisions of law relating to the entry and appraisement of merchandise and the liquidation of duties w^ere arranged in an illogical and disconnected manner. Some of these provisions are defective, and some are inoperative. In our judgment all the laws relating to the subjects mentioned should be carefully rearranged and revised. Eespectfully, yours, A. K. TINGLE, GEO. C. TICHENOE, Special Agents. [Enclosure No. 1.] I n all cases where imported mercbandise is subject to a specific rate of duty based upon or regulated, in any manner, by the value thereof, or to an ad valorem rate of duty, such value shall be the actual market value or wholesale xirice of such merchandise in the xirincipal markets of the country from whence imported, at the time of exportation to the IJnited States, and in the X)acked condition in which it is actually p u t up for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident thereto, whether t h e same has been actually purchased or procured otherwise than by xiurchase, or whether consigned to the United States for sale : Frovided, however. T h a t in determining the dutiable values of such merchandise no estimate shall be made of t h e cost or value of such outside shixDping sack, crate, case, or other similar outside covering used and aesigned to be used only in the bona fifle transportation of such merchandise to the United States, together with its individual lining or packing of zinc, paper, or other material, nor of tlie actual or necessary expenses incident to t h e transportation of the merchandise from the place of purchase or consignment, to the yes^ej or other vehicle in which exported to the United States, nor of com- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 145 missions, marine or fire insurance, export duties, or fees for authentication by consular officers o f t h e United States, in case the same shall be severally and specifically stated in amounts in the invoice and to he includedin the cost or value of the invoice, and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoice value shall be allowed, either on the invoice or the e n t r y : And provided further, That if there be used for covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be provided for in the free list, any article or material designed for use other than the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, duty shall be assessed on such article or material at the rate to which it would be subject if imported separately; and if there be used for covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be subject to duty, any article or material designed for use other than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, and which article or material if imported separately would be subject to a higher rate of duty tha,u the merchandise contained therein, the whole invoice value of such merchandise shall be subject to such higher rate of duty, unless the value of the merchandise and of the article or material covering or holding the same shall be separately stated in the invoice, in which case t h e duties shall be assessed and collected on each separately, at the rates prescribed by l a w : And provided further. That,, excexit as provided in this section and in section 17 of this act, duties shall hot be assessed upon an amount less t h a n the invoice value, or t h e invoice value with such addition as the owner, consignee, or agent may make, as provided in section 2900, Revised Statutes. No. 4. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 29, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : S I R : In accordance with your desire of this date, I have the honor to state that it is utterly impossible at this time, in the absence of any reliable data, to give anything like a correct, or even an approximately correct, estimate of the amount of money needed to refund duties, interest, and costs, under the decisiou of the United States Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, as interpreted by the United States AttorneyGeneral. Shortly after the decision of the court was rendered, I made a rough estimate of $1,500,000, and I have no reason since to change my opinion. I t may be more than that amount, but will not exceed $2,000,000. The late opinions of the United States Attorney-General have had but little eff'ect, and they will not increase the amount, say, mbre than $25,000. Eespectfully yours, • . J O H N G. MACGEEGOE, Chief of Customs Division. H. Bx. 2—voLn 10 APPENDIX H , A D M I N I S T R A T I O N O F THE CUSTOMS LAWS AT THE FOUR LARGE SEAPORTS (BOSTON, NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA, AND BALTIMORE), IN ' 1885-'86. No. 1. [Copies of the appended letter of the Secretary were, on October 15, addressed to the collectors, naval officers, surveyors, general appraisers, and appraisers at the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 1 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, ^ Washington^ J>. C, October 15, 1886. SIR I You are hereby requested to prepare and send to me at your very earliest convenience, and before the 1st proximo, a full and detailed exhibition of whatever reforms in the administration of your office have been made by you this year, or have beeri made at your port, together with the consequences of such reforms as far as they have to you become apparent. You are also requested at the same time to acquaint me with any other reforms in your office which you have in contemplation, or which you advise, at your port, and especially such as are, within your knowledge, called for by those among importers who transact considerable>business with the custom-house, and which will require a change either in the law or its administration. Will you also, in the same communication to me, set forth the chief complaints, if any (including causes of such complaints), which are now made to you by importers, in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at your port, and declare in what particulars the execution of those laws, in your opinion, has been improved during the present year. Eespectfully, yours, DANIEL MANNING. Collector of Customs, POET OF BOSTONo No.2. L E V E R E T T SALTONSTALL—Appointed collector of customs for the district of Boston and Charlestown, Massachusetts, November 10th, 1885. CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, Octoher 25, 1886. SIR : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, wherein I am requested to prepare and send at my earliest convenience, and before the ist proximo, a full and detailed exhibition of 146 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 147 whatever reforms in the administration of this office have been made by me this year, or have been made at this port, together with the consequences of such reforms as far as they have to me become apparent. In reply, I have the honor to state that upon my accession to office I found that the cbanges suggested by the special commission created by you, and who visited tbis port in September, 1885, and which changes mainly had reference to the internal administration, so to speak, of this office, had been substantially carried out and are now in operation. The commission, I am informed, made a very careful and thorough examination into the methods and practices prevailing at this port in the collection ofthe revenue, and submitted an exhaustive reportof its doings and recommendations. To the report of that commission, in this connection, I beg leave respectfully to refer. The reforms instituted as above were in the direction of a better administration of the customs at this port, and are, so far as my experience extends, satisfactory in their operation. During my term of office there has been, by direction ofthe Department, in letters of August 3, August 9, and October 4, 1886, the abrogation of what is known as the "48-houT privilege", under article 1016 of the Eegulations, which, under Department letter of authority of June 28,1877, was extended to the importer, but which now is confined to the " master, agent, or owner of the vessel" (vide Department circular of May 5,1877). The change of the practice in this regard has created more or less friction, but it is hoped that the various steamship lines through their agents will conform to the requirements of said circular, and thus relieve all parties in interest in the various importations by said steamers from the embarrassment they allege they are undergoing. The question as to when protests and appeals, under section 2931, Eevised Statutes, must be presented by the aggrieved party, which in the past has been a mooted one (vide S. S., 2389, 3730, 4079), has been at length definitely determined (vide S. S., 7886, 7409), and the instructions therein set forth are strictly enforced at this port. The reform in this direction I regard as a substantial and practical one, and is satisfactory in its operation. The practice prevailed here to issue a general order,to discharge steam vessels in advance of entry. This practice has been discontinued. As regards the inquiry " W h a t are the chief complaints, if any, * * * ^ which are now made to you by importers in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port," I would state that there is, at this port, considerable trade, by sea, with the adjacent British Provinces. The articles usually impoited are the products thereof. There has been in the past, and there is now, frequent complaint made by importers regarding the enforcement of the regulations concerning consular invoices. ^ Their complaints have, from time to time, been laid before the Department, and various circulars on the subject have been promulgated. I beg leave to cite that of May 9, 1866, S. S. 3775, 4380, 4622,7099, and circulars of July 24, 1880, February 19, 1884, and Februaiy 8,1886. I t is respectfully suggested, with a due regard for the interests of the revenue, that a modification of section 2859, Eevised Statutes, by legislative action, would relieve importers from the annoyance and embarrassment to which they are now subject. In this connection I beg leave to refer to Department letter (H.B.J.) of April 25,1884, and reply thereto of May 6 following. Section 2971, E. S., as construed by the Attorney-General (vide S. S. 6170), requires the sale of goods which remain in bonded warehouse be 148 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. yond three years from the date of importation, and even though the duties, have been paid thereon in full. The enforcement of this requirement has caused much inconvenience and expense to importers who, prior to the promulgation of said decision, enjoyed the privilege which prevailed, as I understand, at all the principal ports, of removing their goods at any time to suit their convenience. Under the regulation issued in pursuance of the act of June 30,1880 (vide S. S. 4582, and Article 775, Eegulations of 1884), entry is not allowed until the arrival of all the merchandise embraced in the invoice and bill of lading. It frequently happens that a portion only of the shipment is received by the transporting vessel or vehicle. I beg leave to suggest whether the Eegulations may not properly be amended in this regard, so that on receipt of the I. T. entry and bill of lading, and arrival ofa portion of the goods, entry may be received of the entire importation specified in the invoice and bill of lading. I think this would be a measure of relief, and the Government sufi'er no detriment. As regards the boud of importer for delivery of unexamined packages (Form 86, General Eegulations, Art. 335), it has seemed to me that it contains a condition not warranted by the law. I t will be perceived that section 2899, on which the bond is based, imposes forfeiture in case the packages delivered " shall be opened without the consent of the collector," * * * or "if the package is not delivered to the order of the collector according to the condition of the bond." The bond, however, contains the provision for the payment of " whatever excess of duties or, charges may be assessed or ascertained and found to be due upon the final liquidation of the entry." =* * * This condition, so far as I am aware, appears for the first time in the Eegulations of ^84. It does npt appear either in the Eegulations of 57 or of ^74 (vide Form No. 77, Eegulations of ^57, p. 146, and Form No. 86, Eegulations of '74, p. 17.5). To harmonize section 2899 and the form of bond prescribed by the Department, as found in the Eegulations of '84, additional legislation would seemingly be required. As regards the fees of merchant appraisers in reappraisement cases, if the interpretation of section 2725, Eevised Statutes, by Brown, J., as reported in Federal Eeports, vol. 28, No. 7, in the. case of Iselin et aL vs. Hedden, collector, be regarded as sound in law, I should favor some legislative action changing the statutes in this respect. In my judgment, in all cases where the importer claims a reappraisement, the compensation of the merchant appraiser should be paid by him whenever the finding of the appellate board is adverse to him; when in his favor, by the Government, thus applying what is understood to be the general principle in cases of arbitration. I consider $10 per diem a reasonable compensation for such service. Judge Brown held in the Iselin case, referred to above, that under section 2636, Eevised Statutes, the collector was liable to the penalty therein prescribed when he demands or receives any other or greater fee, compensation, or reward than is allowed by law; and that, although the exaction was in pursuance of a regulation of the Treasury Department, still that constituted no legal defense. In myjudgment that section calls for amendment. The question of intent should constitute the gravamen of the charge. If the collector in good faith enforces a Treasury regulation, issued Xiresumably in pursuance of law, and based thereon, he should not be subjected to any personal liability for so doingj neither should his acts subject him to any penalty. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 149 To meet such a contingency there ought to be some statutory provision that, in the event of such liability iucurred or penalty imposed, ^the Government should indemnify and save harmless the collector. Before closing this report I may be permitted Driefly to refer to the eff'ect of the civil service reform law, upon the efficiency of the service. I have endeavored to be true to the spirit and letter of the law; and, without enlarging upon the difficulties attending my effbrt to explain to the vast number of applicants for office the impossibility of making appointments, except through the examinations, I ta.ke great satisfaction in stating that in all respects the condition of the customs service at this port has been greatly improved through the wholesome influence of this reform. I have recommended changes only in those cases where I believed they would add to the efficiency of the service, endeavoring to inspire the officers and employes with proper self-respect and ambition to succeed through merit alone; to make them feel that the custom house is no longer to be a political, but a business, institution, and to be administered on purely business principles, so that hereafter they may all manfully maintain their own opinions and act according to their own convictions, so long as they take no active part in politics. The result, thus far, is most encouraging, and it would be greatly to be deplored should this grand experiment fail through want of support on the part of the legislative or executive branches of the Government. I inclose communications from deputies Munroe and Preston, submitting various suggestions which I regard worthy of consideration. I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant, L. SALTONSTALL, Collector. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington^ D. 0. [Enclosure ISo. 1.] W A R E H O U S E D I V I S I O N , CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, October 23, 1886. 'Hon. L. SALTONSTALL, / . Collector of Customs, Fort of Boston : , S I R : With reference to Department letter (confidential) of the 15th inst., the subject matter referred by you to this division has received due aud careful consideration; concerning which I respectfully submit the following report: (1) *'As to whatever reforms have been made." The comparatively recent advent ofthe deputy in cbarge necessitates conciseness, and in this connection, as the present condition of the division as a whole may be considered satisfactory, I would report progress and ask further time. ^ (2) '' Contemplated reforms, or those which may be advised." Referring to synoptical decision No. 7116, it appears t h a t a protest must be lodged within ten days from the time of the liquidation of the transportation entry made at the port of importation. It frequently bappens t h a t tbe ten days have elapsed before the consignee at the port of destination makes entry, or before the appraiser at the last-named port has completed his examination, and should 'he return a different classification from t b a t reported by the appraiser at the port of importation, and be sustained in such action by the latter office, the merchant thus debarred from the right ot protest is without redress. To illustrate: On t h e 15th June, 1885, an entry for ^'warehouse and immediate transportation " was received at this' office from the port of New York, bearing date of June 3, 1885, covering t w o cases containing merchandise of various classifications. 150 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Rewarehousing entry was duly made b y t h e consignee, and a prompt examination made by the appraiser. Owing to a difference between the appraising officers at the two ports in the classificatiou of certain articles embraced in the invoice, the entry was returned to the port of New York under date of June 30, 1885, for readjustment. This port was notified by the collector at the port of New York, under date of October 24, 1H85, to the effect ' H h a t as the corrections sought by this office would result in a reduction of the duty, and in view of Department instructions contained in S. S. 7116, he was unable to reliquidate t h e entry." (3) " Such as are called for by importers, and which will require a change in the law or its administration." In addition t o t h e requirement of article 359, paragraph 2, Customs Regulations of 1884, '' t h a t a notice of tbe liquidation of entries be posted in some conspicuous place accessible to the public," aud (paragraph 3) " the posting of the transcript will be deemed and taken to be a full notice to all parties interested," I would suggest t h a t a copy ofthe ^'bulletin notice" of bis liquidation be forwarded to theimporter, thus obviating numercms complaints of lack of notice and the necessity of frequent examination of the files of this office for such information. '' The enforcement of the order to sell bouded goods wbich have been in warehouse three years, despite tbe fact of the payment of the duties, causes great complaint from merchants for obvious reasons. After all claims of the Government have been satisfied the merchant naturally looks upon the matter as one which concerns only himself and the warehouse proprietors ; and the attempted euforcement of the order has in every case aroused great opposition. It ];)romises to be a source of constant friction and much confusion, aud I am constrained to include it under the head of merchants' complaints. I regret t h a t the limit of time at my disposal does not permit an addendum fromthe superintendent of warehouses, and t h a t my report is thus bereaved of t h a t which must have proved instructive and unique. A suggestion of his, however, in regard to the sale of goods remaining in bondedw^arebouse beyond three years from date of importation, and upon which duties have been paid, is not.ed under question three. Very respectfully, W. PRESTON, Deputy Collector. fEnclosure No. 2.J. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Offiice, October 21,1886. Hon. L E V E R E T T SALTONSTALL, Collector of Customs : S I R : In compliance with your request for a report of the reforms or improvements t h a t have been made in my division during the paist year, and for such suggestions as will, in my opinion, without impairing t h e efficiency of the service, prevent annoyances to the importers, I have respectfully to submit the following: The changes suggested by the special agents who visited this port in September, 1885, were mostly of a routine character, and were, with few exceptions, immediately adopted. The abohtion of the 48-hour list, so called, which gave the privilege to the importers who signed it of having their importations remain on the wharf for a limited time, was a change recently inaugurated. The custom which had prevailed for some years of granting general orders in advance of the entry of the steamers has also been discontinued. The order of the hono^'able Secretary of the Treasury, dated May 6,1886 (S. S. 7501), ^supplemented by your letter of August 4, last, has had a good effect, and more attention to work is now given by those clerks who were neglectful than formerly. I would respectfully submit t h a t in my opinion the second paragraph of article 295, general regulations of 1884, wbich directs t h a t the bill ot lading and uot tbe invoice must ordinarily govern as to who is'the cousiguee, is in direct contradiction to the intent and spirit of the law, so far as having the entry made in the name of such consignee is concerned. I t would be better to deal withxthe owner or importer direct, rather than with the consignee, who frequently is a custom-house broker, and knows nothing whatever about the merchandise. Sec. 2859, Revised Statutes, allows the collector to admit to entrj^ merchandise not exceeding pOO in value without the production of a consular invoice; S. S. 7356, dated February 8, 1886, reduces the limit to |50. This action has caused a great deal of annoyance to our importeis, particularly those who import from the British Provinces, and I would suggest t h a t |100, as the law provides, is a fair limit. EEPORT OF THE SECBBTAHY OF THE TREASURY. 151 Sec. 2844, Revised Statutes, permits the authentication of invoices in the absence of a consul by two respectable merchants residing in the port from which the merchandise shall have been imported^ This section is practically inoperative as it is now, for the reason t h a t there are no importations into this port from any country where there is no consul. I would suggest t h a t the section be amended by prescribing some limit of distance—say 20 miles—that the shipper shall travel to obtain consular verification. This suggestion is made because I hear frequent complaints from our importers of merchandise from the provinces, that the shippers are many miles from the consular office, very often several days'journey, and to require them to go such long distances to procure verified invoices must be a great burden to them. Complaints are being made by importers of merchandise from Europe of the requirements of sec. 2854, Revised Statutes, t h a t invoices shall be produced to the consular officer nearest the'place of shipment. I t is the practice for our large importing houses to employ a commission merchant in a large city—such as Berlin—and they have been in the habit of having their goods from the districts in the vicinity all included by their commissioners in one invoice. Now the invoices from the districts outside of the large city must be verified by the consular officer nearest the shipper. This requires separate invoices for small shipments, and entails vexatious annoyances to the importers, which might be avoided if invoices were verified a t the last port. Section 2901, Revised Statutes, requires the collector to designate the packages to be sent for examination. I would suggest t h a t this section be amended by having the entry clerk, under t h e direction o f t h e deputy collector, designate these packSection 2921, Revised Statutes, provides for an allowance of duties when a deficiency is found on examination by the appraiser. The practice at the present time is to assess duty on the missing articles, unless the appraiser reports the case *' full and in good order," or the importer submits positive proof t h a t the articles in question were not landed in this country, something which in most cases it is impossible to do. I t seems to me t h a t the law clearly intends to aff'ord relief to, t h e importer, and it certainly must be a hardship to oblige him, at considerable expense, to seek redress in court. If the packages have been robbed duriug the voyage of importation, on proper proof being furnished, allowance should also be made. Powers of attorney are now required to be signed by all the members of the firm (S.S.5580). I t would greatly facilitate business if this rule was amended to allow the powers to be executed by those members of the firm who reside in the United States. Article 775 of the regulations, third paragraph, requires all goods embraced in t h e I. T. entry to be entered within twenty-four hours after their arrival; and, if by reason of the non-arrival of any part of t h e goode, the portion which has arrived must he sent on storage as unclaimed. This should be amended, as by reason of the non-arrival of p a r t of a consignment the portion already here rhust be sent to store, thus causing an expense to consignees which it is entirely put of their power to avoid. I would suggest t h a t it would be proper to accept an entry on arrival of the first portion, covering the whole importation, and the subsequent arrivals to be treated as of this entry. Articles 829 to 834, inclusive, should be amended as set forth in letter from this office to the Department under date of October 7. I am, sir, very respectfully, ^ M, A. MUNROE, Deputy Collector, First Division. N O . 3O . . ^ - . NOVEMBER 13. S I R : In a printed statement of the representations made on March 4, 1886, by merchants and manufacturers of Boston to a subcommittee of the Ilnited States Senate Committee on Finances, I find a report made by the '^Committee on Testimony" of facts in behalf of those merchants and manufacturers " as to undervaluations of imported merchandise entered for customs duties," in which there is a severe arraignment of this Department previous to March 4, 1885, and of the importers and customs officers at the port of New York, wherein it is said, among other things, '^ that the custom-house in this port of Boston is free from those evils may be due to its exemption from the consignment system of which New York is the center.'' 152 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASTRY. I fiitd also in the same document a report in behalf of the same mer chants and manufacturers, made by a '^committee on legislation," to which are appended the names of ten well-known citizens of Massachusetts, and among them that of Mr. Worthington, yoiir immediate predecessor in the office of collector of customs at Boston, who reported to me on September 15, 1885, that he neither had, or had been able to procure, any evidence t h a t ' ' duties have not within the last few years been levied and collected, as the law requires," or '^Hhat the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected," wherein it is said, among other things, that *^ in practice, unless there is some cause for suspicion, the invoice is often taken as correct without any investigation." . I desire you to make diligent inquiry, and report to me immediately, of any invoice which has ever, by the ap»praising officer, or the collector, at Boston, been thus taken as the basis of duty ^'without any investigation," or without adequate investigation. In a report made to me by Appraiser Stearns, under date of October 23,1886, I am told that between October 1,1885, and October 1, 1886, there were in Boston sent to the appraiser 36,371 invoices; that 34,933 were reported to the collector by the appraiser as ^^' value correct"; that 1,438 were advanced in value by him; that 79 were advanced more than 10 per cent.; that 45 were appealed for reappraisement; and that on 10 the advance was sustained. You are requested to forthwith inform me: ^ (1) What nuinber of all .the invoices thus advanced by the appraiser were of purchased, and what number of consigned, merchandise. (2) What number of those advanced by the appraiser above 10 per cent, were of purchased, and what number were consigned. (3) What number of those advanced on reappraisement above 10 per cent, were purchased,.and what number were consigned. (4) Of those finally advanced on reappraisement by any percentage whatever, and especially those advanced more than 10 per cent., what examination was made in the collector's office or by the naval officer to ascertain whether or not,there was undervaluation when the invoice was made, and whether or not the undervaluation was made '^ with an actual intention to defraud the United States." (5) Who actually made the examination, and what is now the rule and habit of your office and the naval office in regard to the examination of fraud in invoices. (6) If any examination was made in regard to fraud in the invoices referred to, was any discovered or suspected; and, if so, was either of the invoices presented by you to the district attorney for prosecution; and, if not, you will fully explain to me why not. (7) You are requested also to inform me whether or not, in your opinion, the provisions of the existing law of June 22, 1874, requiring the United States to prove, affirmatively, on a prosecution for forfeiture on account of undervaluation in an invoice, ^^ an actual intention to defraud the United States," and to obtain a special finding of the jury or the court on the allegation of ^^ actual intention," is inj urious to the revenue and an undue protection of importers and their property from seizure and condemnation. (8) I also desire you to carefully examine the printed reports of the two committees of merchants and manufacturers, to which I have referred, and tell me whether or not, in your opinion, the conduct of importers or customs officers at the port of Bostou, has been such during REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 153 the present year as to justify or warrant criticism or condemnation, similar in any particular to that applied therein to the importers and customs officials at the port of New Yorko Eespectfully yours, DANIEL MANNING. Secretary. Hon. L E V E R E T T S . SALTONSTALL, Collector of Customs, Boston, Mass. N O . 4O . ' CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, December 1, 1886. Hon. DANIEL MANNING, Secretary of the Treasuryj Washington, D . C : S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th ultimo, and in reply have the honor to state—however true it may be at other ports, which does not seem hardly credible—that '^unless there is some cause for suspicion the invoice is often taken as correct without any investigation." I know of no instance here where any invoice has been taken as the basis of duty i^ without any investigation," o r ' ' without adequate investigation." So far as I am aware, the appraising officers at this port endeavor faithfully to live up to the requirements of Section 2902, E. S.; and there have been instances—though not of frequent occurrence—where the collecter has exercised his prerogative under Section 2929. In reply to your ^ r s ^ inquiry, I would state that the number of all the invoices advanced by the appraisers between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, was 1,185, of which 1,120 were of purchased and 65 of consigned merchandise. Of this latter number (65), 46 were of merchandise consigned to commission merchants at this port, and 19 were consignments to agents of the foreign shippers. In reply to interrogatory No. 2, I would state that 79 invoices were advanced above 10 per cent., of which number 54 were purchased goods, and 25 consignments. Of the 25, 22 were consignments to resident commission houses at this port, and 3 were consignments by the foreign shippers to representative agents here. In reply to inquiry No. 3, I would state that of the 79 inyoices which had been advanced by the local appraiser above 10 per cent., 58 were appealed to the Board of Eeappraisement, and of which number 11 were purchased and 7 consigned, which latter included 4 consignments to commission merchants and 3 to agents of the foreign houses. Of the 18 so appealed, the advance made by the local appraiser was sustained in 15 instanceSg while in 3 cases the advance, although less than that reported by the local appraiser, exceeded 10 per cent, ofthe value declared in the invoice. The advances made by the local appraiser on the 1,185 invoices above referred' to were not additions to the value of the merchandise per se alone, but included charges which, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, were required by the Department to be added to make dutiable value. (Vide S. 6296.) 154 ^ REPORT OF THE SECRETAEY OF THE TREASURY, I t is thought that of the additions so made by the appraiser, 75 per cent, were for charges which had been deducted by the importer at the time of entry. In reply to inquiries Nos. 4,5, and 6,1 would state that in the absence of any intimation made by the appellate Board that their iuvc^tigatiou had led them to suspect that the transaction was tainted with fraud, tbe valuation ascertained and reported by said Board would be regarded ns final and binding, as well upou the importer as ui)on the Goverumeut. Iu General Instructions No. 7, of July 30,1853, theDepartment held that an undervaluation to the extent of 20 per cent, was presumptive evidence of fraud, which would justify a seizure on the ground of fraud. In 1884 there were large advances made by the appraiser to invoices of bicycles and tricycles, representing some 22 importations. Seizures were made for undervaluation, and proceedings were instituted through the United States attorney, which resulted in a settlement by way of compromise authorized by the Department. ' Since then there have been, as far as I am aware, no seizures made for undervaluation, nor prosecutions therefor. In reply to inquiry No. 7, I have tp state that in myjudgment so exacting are the provisions of section 16 of the anti-moiety act of June 22, 1874, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the great liiMJority of instances for the Government to prevail in litigated cases. It may, therefore, be regarded as ^^ injurious to therevenue, and an undue protection of importers and their property from seizure and condemnation." The law, therefore, is defective in this regard. The Government in the collection of its revenue is often thwarted by the exacting terms of said section. Eemedial legislation I consider important, by which a full iucfiiiry iuto the intent and purpose of all parties interested in the importation ofthe goods would be open to the Government. The chief class of fraudulent importations has been that of goods consigned by foreign manufacturers and owners, and it is against this ^' consignment" system that legislation should be directed. The breaking up or checking this system would greatly enhance the revenue; the i^nterests of the honest importer would be materially benefited; whilcithe only parties who would suffer detriment would be the foreign manfacturer or owner anfl the unscrupulous importer. In reply to inquiry No. 8, I would-say that, so far as my knowledge extends, neither importers nor customs officers at the port of Boston during the present year haye, by their conduct, subjected themselves to criticism or condemnation similar to that applied to the importers * and customs officials at the port of New York in the printed reports referred to. I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant, L. SALTONSTALL, Collector. No. 5. P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS., Naval Office, December 2, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury: S I R : I regret exceedingly that the opinion and answer of this office, relative to your letter of November J3, did not accompany the reply which I learn to-day was forwarded yesterday by the collector. REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 155 Collector Saltonstall showed me your letter of November 13. He then informed me that he w^ould consider the matter and advise me when he was ready to reply, that we might confer about the matter, and that my. answer might accbmpany his. Since then this office has had no information on the subject, until I learned to-day, on inquiry, that the collector's answer had been forwarded, and that it was largely based upon a new statement of appraisements, referred to from Washington, of which corrected statement this office had no knpwledge, and concerning which it can now answer only in general terms, as no time exists for a new examination. I deem this explanation proper to excuse any apparent remissness on the part of this office. We were delaying for inlormation wliich was not furnished us. The inquiries of the letter of November 13 seem to be addressed to the collector solely, save Nos. 4 and 5, on the third page, and I confine my replies therefore to the inquiries thus referred to. '^ Inquiry No. 4 is, substantially: " What examination was made by the collector or naval officer of those invoices reported on by Appraiser Stearns, October 23, 1886, advanced, by any percentage, but especially more than 10 per cent., to ascertain as to undervaluation at making ot invoice, and whether or not such undervaluation was made with actual intention to defraud the United States""? Inquiry No. 5 asks who made the examination, and what is now the rule here in regard to the examination of fraud in invoices. My reply is: All invoices are carefully scrutinized at the time of liquidation. If there appears any indication of error, or any informality or irregularity in the invoice itself, or in any ofthe accompanying returns from the surveyors' or appraisers' departments the entry is held until all doubt is removed. This examination is always made by the deputy naval officei', who consults with the naval officer if any questions arise before the entry is liquidated. We^. have not believed that there was any systematic attempted undervaluation of invoices of goods entered at this port, and therefore we have had no extraordinary system to investigate invoices, intending to carefully scrutinize each entry on its process through liquidation to discover any errors or irregularity, believing this to be sufficient. We have seen nothing to take the entries referred toSby Appraiser^Stearns but of the usual category, wherein goods are not always invoiced at the value deemed fitting by the appraisers. This statement, it seems to me, covers both inquiries Nos.' 4 and 5. With careful examination of the papers accompanying each entry, we^ think we should quickly observe any attempted fraud other than p e r ' taining to values, in which case this office would delay liquidation, and take such decisive steps as, in its opinion, the case warranted to protect the Government and punish the aggressors. I t seems to me that the matter of undervaluation rests with the appraisers' department, and that, if the forms of law are complied with, and in the absence of evidence of fraud, the naval office has no option but to accept, in liquidation, the values attested by the appraiser. In suppprt of this opinion, I respectfully refer to the decisions of the Department relative to the functions of appraisers. Synopsis Nos. 7235 and 7800, which to me seem conclusive. I am sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, HENEY O. KENT, Navalofficer. 156 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, No. 6. • TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C, December 6, 1886. S I R : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, and to the naval officer's letter of the next day, in respect to the legislation of June 22,1874, I desire to say, that the law referred to has not diminished your responsibility, or that of the naval officer, for a vigilant scrutiny of each invoice and entry in order to ascertain if either was made with an actual intention to defraud the revenue. The report of the appraiser cannot relieve either of you from the obligation and labor of such vigilance. Before that law was enacted customs officers would not havebeen justified in making seizures, or the collector in requiring district attorneys to begin prosecutions for forfeiture, unless satisfied that prima facie evidence existed, and could be obtained, of an actual intention to defraud the reveuue. Because the law of 1874 made new rules for the conduct of trials in court, the obligation of collectors to make seizures, w^hen they have reasonable ground to believe the existence of an actual intention to defraud, has not been changed. Sections 2922, 2923, and 2924 of the Eevised Statutes confer Mrge powers on collectors aud naval officers to discover and prove frauds in the revenue, and henceforth they will be held by the President to strict personal responsibility for the faithful execution of those sections. Chapter 10 of title 34 of the Eevised Statutes, and especially section 3072, defines with perfect clearness the powers,to be held and -the work to be performed by collectors in making seizures and instituting proceedings for forfeiture. This Department and the good repute of the chief customs officers at the several ports suffer in the estimation of Congress and the country by the insinuations, more or less distinctly put about in Boston and elsewhere, that great frauds are committed against the revenue by false invoices or. false entries, and especially in New York, and that such frauds are not vigorously dealt with for the reason that the antemoiety law of 1874 deprived collectors, naval officers, and surveyors of a large and clearly defined share of the proceeds of seizures and forfeitures. TheDepartment is at a loss to understand how customs officers can be convinced of large and repeated and persistent undervaluations in invoices or entries, and not be Ciuabled by the powers given to them by law and especially by sections 2922, 2923, and 2924, to discover and present to the district attorneys the evidence of an actual intention to cdefraud, if such undervaluations were actually made in the invoice. The law is well settled that the reportof an appraiser declaring ''value correct" does not protect an invoice from forfeiture if proved to have been intentionally fal-se in order to defraud the revenue. Eespectfully yours, D. MANNING, Secretary. Hon. L E V E R E T T S . SALTONSTALL, CoUector of Gustoms, Boston, Mass. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 157 No. 7. H E N R Y 0 . KENT.—Appointed Naval-Officer of Customs in t h e District of Boston and Cliarlestown, Massachusetts, December 4, 1885. P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS., Naval Office, October 27, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : S I R : I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, in which you request me to send to you prior to November 1 a statement of all reforms in the administration of this office made by me during the present year, of all other reforms in contemplation, and to communicate knowledge of any complaints made by importers relative to the execution of the customs laws, and to state how, in my opinion, the execution of those laws has been improved duriug the present year. In reply I have the honor to submit the following specified list of changes in administration inaugurated in this office since January 1, 1886, which changes I regard as '' reforms" in administration. I. Under Department circular of May 6, 1886, the time of employ6s has been carefully k e p t ; consequently they are prompt at their desks at 9 a. ra., remaining to the clbse of the day, with only the authorized 30 minutes for lunch, to avoid being marked and reported as " l a t e " or "absent without lea^ye." No newspaper reading or unnecessary noise occurs during office hours. II. Admission behind the counters or among the clerks is not granted to outsiders, and especially to custom-house brokers. Visitors are not allowed. III. Inspectors are not allowed to see the Naval Office copy of ships' manifests under any conditions whatever. IV. This office insists on the seizure of all smuggled merehandise, instead of allowing it to be subsequently entered and delivered on payment of duty, as has sometimes been, proposed, V. Under Department orders all protests and appeals filed with the collector are examined and entered in a register specially prepared by us for that purpose in the Naval Office. VI. At the suggestion of this office declarations are now made by incoming intermediate and second-cabin passengers, as well as by firstcabin passengers, first-cabin passengers only being formerly required to make said declarations. VII. At the suggestion of this office, concurred in by the surveyor, arrangements havebeen made on several docks for the exclusion of the public from the space designated for discharged cargoes and baggage. VIII. More careful supervision in the posting of warehouse liquidations is required. IX. The record of ships' manifests and of the entering and cleariug of vessels has been placed under one head, and greater attention is paid to this branch of the customs work. It is the intention to liquidate the entire cargo of a vessel before her clearance is granted, so far as it is possible to do so without possession of actual returns from inspectors, on all articles contained therein, instead of clearing on sur vey or's clearance tickets furnished that office by the Department, and by the surveyor declared to be sometimes essential. X'. By arrangement with the surveyor an agreed schedule has been made of the percentage of packages of all weighable merchandise which 158 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. shall be tared, thus securing a uniform rule and greatly accelerating liquidations. I t is proper to state that all the changes recorded in this letter when proposed by this office have met the cordial concurrence of the other departments of the customs service at this port, and that conferences have of late been frequent to secure improved efficiency in details and in routine work. In compliance with the further requests of said letter I venture to submit the following specified suggestions. I. I t seems to this office that weighers should not see invoices. These invoices are not in our custody, and consequently we have no responsibility in the matter. II. We have been of opinion that weighers should not return net weight or tare when they, for any cause, do not actually tare the goods, but take this tare and net from the invoices; but rather that they should return the gross weight only, leaving to the liquidating clerks the ascertainment of such net weights. The surveyor is of opinion that his duty requires the addition to the dock-books of such tare and net to complete his returns. It seems desirable that this point be authoritatively determined—whether tare should be entered upon the dock-books ' unless it is ascertained by actual weighing. III. We think the inspectors should not be allowed to see the ship's manifests. ' IV. This office suggests the advisability of a monthly abstract, to be made by the collector, of all " free orders," covering description and value of the articles so admitted, said abstract to be countersigned by the naval officer. V. Should not arrangement be made, by increase of force or otherwise, so the cargoes of steam vessels can be fully accounted for, by inspector's returns, within the time allowed, so the naval office will not be obliged to clear on a general certificate or " ticket" from the surveyor's office, or, by declining to accept such ticket, delay the ship, which may be ready to leave with favoring tide or weather f Sailing vessels already account for their cargoes, as do small steamers, per inspector's returns; but the surveyor is now unable to complete such returns of cargoes of large steam vessels. The regulations,.however, contemplate such returns in all cases, as we understand them in this office. I am unaware of any complaints by impbrters in regard to the execution of the customs laws at this port, aside from trivial matters of detail that occasionally arise, and which are amicably adjusted. Such complaints, if any there are, would come more frequently under the knowledge of the collector. My belief is that the execution of the laws has been improved by the changes hereinbefore recited and numbered from I to X. All of which is respectfully submitted. Your obedient servant, H E N E Y O. KENT, Naval Officer. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 159 No. 8. J E R E M I A H W . COVENEY.—Appointed for a term of four years to the office of Surveyor Castoms for the District of Boston and Charlestown, in the State of Massachusetts, August 7, 1886. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Surveyor's Office, October 27, 1886. S I R : In reply to your communication dated October 15, 1886, I have the honor to rex)ly that on August 21,1886,1 assumed the duties of surveyor of the port of Boston and Charlestown, and have instituted the following reforms iii the administration of the department: In the inspector'is force, consisting of 79 men, I have .established a more prompt manner of reporting for duty than had heretofore existed. I have directed and enforced a regular and prompt manner of making returns of vessels discharged. Communications with other departments, relating to matters of the smallest details affecting %he business of the outdoor force, are required to be made through the surveyor's office. By this means the surveyor is enabled to be kept informed upon the entire business transacted through and by his department. The constant wearing,of uniforms by officers while on duty is now exacted, and a uniform cap, heretofore not worn, is being made for use of outdoor officers. The examination of passengers' baggage has been improved in this, that 2 inspectors have been appointed acting deputy collectors, without additional pay, to take declarations and administer oaths to passengers. The former inspectress, incapacitated by age and infirmities, has been removed, and a more active person appointed, who attends personally on all steamers arriving in port carrying passengers. An entirely new system of locating and working inspectors on xhe arrival of the steamers at Cunard wharf has been adopted, by which passengers are .afforded greater facilities for dispatch and the interests of the Government are more carefully guarded. The examination of sea stores is being carefully looked after, and the unlading of excess of coals in the sea stores without permit, which has been heretofore allowed, has been stopped. I have detailed 2 inspectors as searchers. Whose duty is to thoroughly examine vessels of all kinds, even after the examination is made by the officer making return of the vesseL A daily report of inspectors is now furnished, showing the stations of and work done by inspectors. A consolidated weekly report is also made. Heretofore goods Trans. Ex. in bond were allowed to pass from railroads to steamers, or vice versa, across the city without pass. This has been remedied, and inspectors are now ordered to send passes to officers at the final point of departure of the goods in transit. NIGHT I N S P E C T O R S . In this department, consisting of 30 men, officered by an acting captain and 2 sergeants (inclusive), I have made some changes in minor details of value to the working of the force and remedied a longstanding neglect by the detail of 2 night inspectors for duty each night at the barge office. Heretofore, in the event of the arrival of a vessel after dark, which is liable to occur every night, there was no officer at the 160 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, barge office to assist the boarding officer, and vessels were allowed to remain in the stream without an officer. By the change made the 2 night men are reaviy to be [)ut on board on the arrival of incoming vessels and there remain until relieved in the morning. By this detail a longstanding neglect to properly protect the revenue is remedied. THE W E I G H E R S . The weighers' department consists of a United States weigher and 27 assistant weighers. This force has been reformed to a great extent since my assumption of the duties of this office, August 21. I was com^pelled to ask the collector to call for the resignation of Mr. Thomas C. Parks, the former United States weigher, as, after sufficient trial, I satisfied myself that he was not competent to fill the position to the full benefit of the Government. There seemed to^be a lack of discipline; errors were constantly occurring in weighing, necessitating the frequent amendment of returns; dock-books and returns were improperly and carelessly made. Since the appointment of Mr: Andrew Hall, whow^as promoted from the line of assistant weighers, a great improvement has taken place, and the change has been of benefit tothe Government, to the importers, and to the force of assistant weighers, in the improvementof returns, greater correctness in weighing, and stricter attention to duty by the entire force in the weighers' department. Consolidated district daily reports are now sent to the surveyor's office, showing the location of and work done by each assistant weigher during the day. The measuring of lumber as now done at this port is performed by Mr. John W. Wiggin, surveyor-general of lumber for the Stateof Massachusetts, at a contract price of 16 cents per M. This work is done under the immediate direction of the United States weigher, and has been improved in the manner of keeping the books, showing the measurement and disposition of foreign lumber. Th6 measurement of coal, salt, and other merchandise has been and is being done by the weigher's department. Previous to the change of United States weigher this work was done very carelessly, and gross irregularities occurred, notably one measurement where, through the carelessness of a measurer, an excess of 23 tons of coal was caused by the use of a 400pound beam instead of a 500 pound beam. This has alT been improved, and but little difficult^ iii measuring is now had. The gauger and assistant guagers, three in number, with an inspector detailed as marker and prover, gauge, mark, and prove all the gaugeable goods impprted int"© this port. A daily report showing the work done and where performed has been ordered to be made, thus showing the time and place of eniployment of this force'every day. The reforms here suggested have been made with a view to correct looseness in details, and to prevent irregularities heretofore existing, which have grown out of a too careless attention to business, and by means of which the efficiency of the department w^as greatly impaired. The effect of these reforms has been to greatly improve the service, in requiring every officer in the surveyor's department to live fully up to the Treasury rules and regulations, and exacting from them a full and complete service, and I think that the collector ofthe port, the naval officer, and the importers will join in saying that the improvements made in the surveyor's department since August 21,1886, have been of REPORT OF T H E SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY. 161 positive and substantial benefit to a business-like and effective administration of the duties of this department of the custom-house. In reply to your request to acquaint you with any other reforms which I would advise in this office, I desire to respectfully submit the following changes that might be made in this department: The necessity for a uniform overcoat by the out-door officers of this department is acknowledged by all persons familar with the service. I would ask that the Treasury Department order the wearing of such a coat, and that style and texture of the goods be prescribed by the Department. This, with the cap now being made, would insure a complete uniformity of uniform, and would prevent the irregular and unsightly spectacle of a half-uniformed customs officer, now so frequently met with here. The necessity for quartering of the inspectors in the same building with the Barge Office is demanded in the interest of a quick dispatch of business, and I would ask that provision be made to accomplish this desirable improvement. As before stated, all lumber imported into this port is measured under the direction of the United States weigher, by a sworn weigher of the State of Massachusetts, styled a surveyor-general, at a contract price of 16 cents per M. It seems to me advisable that a person thoroughly familiar with lumber of various kinds should be appointed by the Government with the pay of a day inspector, to supervise, and, if need be, resurvey and inspect measurements made by the surveyor-general. This contract of the surveyor-general of lumber has contmued in force with the Treasury Department since 1878, and while I have no doubt of the accuracy of the State survey, prudence demands a careful scrutiny of lumber surveying under a United States officero In the exainination of baggage—of cabin passengers' in particular—the inspector, after examining the trunks, satchels, or bundles of the passenger, puts upon each piece of baggage a chalk mark with his initials and number, signifying that the several pieces have been properly examined, aud the owner is at liberty to remove them from the wharf. This manner of marking seems to me entirely inadequate, and, from its liability to be counterfeited, its easiness of erasure and difficulty of distinctly marking on the various pieces of baggage, suggests that a tag or poster of a distinctive pattern be devised to make the record of an officer's inspection of baggage something definite and lasting. The night inspector's force is now consolidated into two (2) districts, covering seven European steamers, at least "two tramp steamers a week, and a water-front of some 7 miles. The duties demanded of this force are very arduous; and, when the details for barge and steamer duty and the special detail of four (4) men to count the passengers on pleasure steamers in the summer are made, the^ force is greatly reduced. 1 would recommend that an increase of'the force be made as follows: A captain, to be appointed with pay of a day inspector, $4 per day ; two lieutenants, to be appointed with pay at $3.50 per d a y ; five additional night inspectors, to be appointed at $3 per day. This increase of the force of night inspectors and the creation of three officers with increased pay will be of great advantage to the discipline of a force whose duties require constant and faithful servicein all seasons, and under whose care are intrusted, not only the guarding of the water front, but the custody ofthe several important bonded warehouses in the several districts. The weigher's force, so important to the conduct of the business of the H . E x . 2--VOL I I — - 1 1 162 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. department, requires constant and watchful care, and with a view to its efficiency I would recommend that in the future special examinations be made to determine the qualifications and fitness of assistant weighers, and among the requirements should be one that the applicant should be 5 feet 7 inches in height. This height is necessaiy, that a full aud complete control of the beani should be had by the person handling it. An assistant weigher is now detailed to weigh cigars, tobacco, and opium, aind also to attend to general weighing at the appraisers' stores. The importation of cigars having increased from 67,264 boxes in 1882 to 135,948 boxes in 1886, fully 100 per cent., and the imports of tobacco haying also increased proportionately, in view of the importanceof the duties performed by this assistant weigher, I would recommend that his pay be fixed at $1,600 per year instead of $4 per day, as at present established. The general complaint made by importers through this department is in regard to the allowance of tare. ParticuLMy in the articles of tin, glass, wool, and sugar, the need of a uniform manner of taring is apparent. In connection with the naval office, consultations are now being held to remedy this complaint, and I have no doubt a result saticsfactory to the Government and the importer will be speedily arrived at. In conclusion I beg respectfully to say tbat I have endeavored to fully cover all the points embraced in your letter. Very respectfully, J E E E M I A H W. COVENEY, Surveyor. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING-, Secretary of the Treasury. ^ No. 9. ALBERT B . STEARNS.—^Appointed Appraiser of Merchandise, District of Boston and Charlestown, Massachusetts, J a n u a r y 22, 1886. P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS., Appraiser's Office, October 22,1886. S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of tbe 15th instant, noted confidential, requesting a detailed exhibit of reforms instituted by me in the administration of this office during the past year, together with the consequences of such reforms, &c. I would premise by saying* that my incumbency of the office of principal appraiser has fallen short of the described time by nearly three months ; that during the period immediately preceding my assumption of the duties of this office the care and direction of aff'airs devolved upon Assistant Appraisers Joslin and Jones. The health of my predecessor was such that he was precluded from giving his valuable direction to the business of the office fbr several mouths, and as Assistant Appraiser Jones was a notoriously inefficient officer3 there was considerable demoralization so far as relates to the division under his charge. In this I cast no reflection upon the majority employed under his direction, for injustice I will say I could have selected the least among thein and shown by comparison a marked superiority in qualifications over those possessed by his official superior. Assistant Appraiser Joslin, it gives me pleasure to say, is a most energetic and competent officer, the division under his charge being in a REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 163 most excellent state of discipline and faithful in the performance of its duty to the Government. In the report of the examination of the customs service and business at this, port by the Treasury agents, in September, 1885, which is embodied in your last report to Congress, on pa?ges 117 and 118, they were pleased to advise against the appointment of two appraisers of equal and concurrent authority, as likeiy to lead to conflict, want of harmony, and possible injury to the interests of the Government. Up to this time the appointing pow.er has seemed to concur in this view, and I can unreservedly state that an undivided responsibility'and direction has resulted in great improvement in the work and dispipline of the force. The officers have felt a larger confidence and greater incentive to perform their several duties, because of the knowledge that their work and records would uot be the subject of dispute between two executives, and certainly the work requisite for an exact carrying out of tbe regulations does not involve labor beyond the capacity of one chief appraiser. By this has been saved to the Government the past year the sum of $3,000, the salary of one appraiser, and improvement of the force been attained. The act of April 20, 1820, section 9 of the United States Statutes at Large, provided that 2 appraisers should be appointed for all the principal ports from Boston to New Orleans, these of&cers being appointed by reason of their skill as experts, for the purpose of making all the examinations of imported merchandise. The act of May 28, 1830, provided for an additional appraiser at New York, making 3 for this service, because of the increase of business, and 2 assistant appraisers at Boston and Philadelphia. July 27, 1866, the law was amended, under pressure of an increased tariff schedule, to the extent of substituting one appraiser and 10 assistant appraisers at New York in place of 3 appraisers of equal authority; but this change in character was not applied at any of the other ports above mentioned. To all business minds it seems imperative that this anomalous condition should be repeatedly and forcibly broughtto the attention of Congress. The first evil that occupied my attention was the necessity of instituting a reform in the manner of ascertaining damage allowances. Importers were dissatisfied and the collector's office discouraged because of the wretched condition to which this branch of the service had degenerated. I found improvement impossible so long as Assistant Appraiser Jones held his commission in this service. Whereupon I suggested his resignation and consequent retirement. So gross had become the abuses in his division, I was compelled to take this work entirely out of his hands pending the confirmation of his successor. From that date to the present time I am happy to report that no complaint has been preferred touching this matter. No book containing details of examinations of damaged merchandise, such as time, place, and conditiou, from which the appraiser might judge for himself of the corrections of his returns, had been kept by Mr. Jones, It was customary for the warrants to lie in the appraisi^r's office for months after their issue, before allowance or return was made to the collector, thus completely obstructing the adjustment of accounts. This practice unquestionably involved a loss to the Government in most cases, while in a few injustice was done the importer, for the reason that the appraiser was obliged to make his allowance largely upon guess, as the subject of appraisement was removed. The Treasury regulation requiring stenciling of damaged packages I found had been wholly ignored by the damage appraiser. 164 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. No surprise which our return to legal methods has caused has been more striking than this, so far as the importation of glass is concerned, the oldest importers of that commodity hardly believing it possible that such requirement existed. I am of opinion the Government has heretofore allowed more than one rebate upon the same importation of glass. Assistant Appraiser Kitfield has given this matter prompt and intelligent action, and in the management of his division, in all other respects, shows a first-class ability. ^ As regards the personnel of this office, I found that in many instances this department was a place of refuge for political dependents and clever do-nothings who were a burden to their friends. Examiners, clerks, a^nd packers in some instances were decrepit and unable to do anything like adequate return for their wages, and other branches of the service were suffering for want of proper attention. Notable reforms have been made in the examination of merchandise upon the wharf by the officers of this department. I found three officers provided to make examination of goods, but no opener and packer to display and repack the merchandise for the examiner's classification. Upon investigation of this matter, it came to my knowledge that the examiners, were in the habit of requesting the assistance of employes upon the wharf to perform this work, which only should be executed by sworn officers commissioned b y t h e Governmenfc. In this respect the officers of this department were putting to a severe £est the good nature of the employes of importers and steamship companies, and sometimes coerced them into its performance by refusing to pass the goods if such work was not forthcoming. I immediately called the Department's attention to this state of affairs, upon which, I believe, you requested the special agent of this district to report, and, the finding being in accordance with the above statement, I was authorized to appoint two openers and packers for this work. As this service is now executed, it has become apparent that this reform has resulted in great good to importers, steamship companies, and Government examiners, and all concerned. Previous to this year, and my assuming the functions of this office, the force was as widely separated, so far as the business of this department was concerned, as if situated in different towns. Indeed, there was a distinct and clearly marked division of the officers themselves, whose business relations seemed to have nothing in commo»n. This gave rise to vexatious delay in certain cases. I reformed this mischief by causing the force to be brought under one method and discipline. By reason of having sole control, I have been able to cause the current internal aff'airs to conform to a correct system of CO operative work, which has been admirably efi'ective, as it has more clearly defined the relations ofthe subordinate officers to the assistant appraisers and left me free to attend to the more important matter coming within the province of the appraiser. The amount of merchandise that was allowed to be examined upon the docks, by inspectors of customs at thi« port, previous to the present year, was far greater than could be intrusted to them with safety to the revenue. It had come to be a very general practice for this office to report upon invoices of free goods without knowledge even of their whereabouts, or the mark of an inspector to denote that he had verified the marks. Under such a system, proceeding without proof that the goods were not of a dutiable character, the Gov-erument was dependent solely upon the integrity of the importers, deriving no security from the action of its own agexucies. • REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 165 As the standing list of goods for wharf examination has now been abolished, I find that a vast volume of work has pressed upon us Therefore, in obedience to your request that I acquaint you with whatever reforms T may have in contemplation, I recommend that a limited number of sugar samplers, who are acquainted with wharf work, be commissioned as '^'examiners and samplers," so that at times when their services happen not to be needed for their specific duty, I can transfer them to assist in the examination of goods upon the wharf. By this means no extra expense will be incurred and the Government bill for training will remain without increase. Otherwise I apprehend that it will be necessary to appoint one or two examiners to handle this work. ' ^ With reference to the reforms in the force employed, I have to report that I have abolished two positions, each salaried at $1,600, reduced others, and increased some salaries, in accordance with business principles. I have also added to the force two persons in the lower grades, as before mentioned, and increased the force in efficiency and number, at less expense than before. Although the law provides for an examiner of drugs and chemicals, the laboratory was without appliances to carry on the work required. How this important work had been transacted in the past is incomprehensible. At my request the Department has furnished the necessary supplies, so that now the Government obtains correct results. In the above-named office was located a person whose duty was to serve in several capacities (such as sampler of drugs, then turned over to the examiner of liquors, at times), but who was not possessed of the knowledge requisite to serve in either. I immediately transferred this officer to the position made vacant by the discharge of an unreliable man in the sugar force, and subsequently obtained the services of an educated and trained person as sampler of drugs and chemicals by examination under the civil service rules. Great and numerous complaints by importers and merchants flood this office, caused by the ambiguities and obscurities of the tariff*. In this respect it is only perplexing, if not amusing, to be harangued day after day by parties whose interests lie in opposite directions, all quoting the several conflicting paragraphs in the same schedule to sustain their position. Customs officers are constantly reminded, after this manner, that the present tariff* law is a work which covers as many theories as the Bible sustains theologies. I am of the opinion that this evil could be mitigated to a large degree if you would provide for a quarterly'conference, at New York, of the appraisers of the larger ports. I am confident that by this system, if adopted, a radical reform in classification would be attained. Eevised Statutes 2608, and article 1399 of the General Eegulations, devolves this duty upon the general appraisers, but the fact is established that the success contemplated by the law has not been achieved, and caunot be effective under the present system. I think I may properly close this communication by stating, without fear of contradiction, that among the chief complaints now made to me by importers are, that the present execution of the customs laws at this port are enforced too rigidly, as to the letter and spirit of the same. In this respect I propose to continue to reform the work of this office so far as it lies within my province. ; Very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. B. STEAENlS, Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Appraiser. Secretary ofthe Treasury. 166 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. No. 10. H E N R Y S, BRIGGS—Appointed United States General Appraiser April 11, 1872. O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D STATES G E N E R A L APPRAISER, Port of Boston, Mass., October 28, 1886. Hon. DANIEL MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : S I R : I respectfully submit the following response to the several requests contained in j our letter dated October 15,1886: First. To the request for a full and detailed exhibition of whatever reforms in the administration of my office have been made by me, and have been made at this port this year, I have to remark that tliere have been no material changes in the manner in which the duties ofthe general appraiser have been performed, so far as proceedings at this port have been concerned, and that my attention has not been called to any particular complaints or demands for reforms. The instructions of the Department relating to the mode of procedure on reappraisements, promulgated by the circular of June 9, 1885 (S. S. 6957), did not require any material change in the practice already existing except the exclusion of professional legal counsel employed by importers from the reappraisement hearings. It may be proper, however, to note another exception, with respect to a practice which in the circular cited appears to have been considered by the Department as a a, departure from the methods contemplated by the law and regulations, viz, the practice of hearing two or more reappraisement appeals, by two or more merchant appraisers sitting with the general appraiser, in certain cases where the merchandise in question is the same and exported at about the same period from the same markets. The practice seemed to me so unobjectionable that, after .having expressed my views and stated my practice in a communication to the Department, in reply to the argument of Mr. F . L. Stetson, in August, 1885 (the press copy of which communication fails to preserve the precise date thereof), the practice has been continued whenever the circumstances of the case seemed to make it advisable. Inasmuch as the views expressed by me were not expressly disapproved by theDepartment, I have been led to believe that they were acquiesced in. There can be no doubt that the practice facilitates proceedings and promotes thoroughness in the investigations. I believe it is adopted by all the general appraisers in the reappraisements held by them respectively in New York. There is seldom occasion to resort to it at this port. The letter of the honorable Secretary is addressed to me as " general appraiser at New Yorh," but I have understood that the inquiries relating to the administration ^' at your port" refer to the port of Boston. This suggests a reference to the fact that a very considerable part of the current year has been employed in holding reappraisements at New York, under special instructions from the Department. I do not consider, however, that the inquiries addressed to me invite an extended and detailed expression of views respecting the administration of the general appraiser-s office at that port. The methods of reappraisement at that port are somewhat peculiar, and diff'erent from the forms prescribed by regulations. Whether a stricter observance of such forms, or other changes, would tend in any degree tb relief from existing evils cannot be satisfactorily tested except by experiment. Eecurring to that part of the inquiry which relates to the administration of the duties of my office, I have endeavored to observe the instruc REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 167 I tions found in the Treasury Eegulations (articles 1399-1407), both iu respect to action at this port and in visiting other ports and collection districts within the general appraiser's division assigned to me. Eeferring to the third paragraph of Department circular of June 27, 1877 (S. S. 3281), in which it is declared that— The principalduty of the general appraisers, under the law," is to visit the various ports for the purpose of supervising the method of appraiseraent of dutiable goods, and securing uniformity in their values and classifications— I remark that the° authority to visit ports others than those at which they regularly reside is not altogether clear. I have hitherto acted under the authority conferred by a special letter of instructions addressed to G^iueral Appraiser Heyl and myself, dated September 20, 1877, directing visits to several specified ports, in which occurs the following paragraph, viz: The Department does not desire that, after your performance of the work herein assigned, your visits shall be restricted to ports specially desiguated; but deems it proper t h a t you should at auy time visit ports at which your services may be specially needed, and authority for such visits is hereby given. Article 1399 of the Eegulations prescribes as a duty of the general appraisers— ^ . to supervise the appraisement of merchandise within their assigned jurisdiction, by visiting and inspecting the several ports therein as often as, from time to time, may be designated by the Secretary of tlie Treasury. Questions of valuation and classification arising in the supervision of these subjects at the ports within my division, and more particularly questions of valuation arising on reappraisements, make it desirable to make frequent visits to the port of New York to confer with appraising officers there. I have during the month of August visited several ports on the northeastern frontier. The more attention that is given to this duty, the more I am convinced of the usefulness of such visits and that more attention should be given to them; a n d t h e purpose to give more attention to them may be mentioned as a ''reform in contemplation." A reform in the administration at this port which has come under my observation is worthy of note, viz, the practical establishment of a single responsible head to the local appraiser's department, in lieu of the dual organization that has heretofore for many years existed. I am satisfied that the general efficiency of the department has been materially improved under the new system and its new administration. The new, extended, system of sampling merchandise and return of samples to the general appraisers, which has been inaugurated by the honorable Secretary during the last fifteen months, should also be noted as a change in the direction of reform or improvement. While necessary absence from this port at New York so much of the year has prevented giving that attention which the subject deserves, it is my purpose hereafter to make it a subject of more particular attention. The recent supply of better facilities for classifying and preservation of samples will promote the practical usefulness ofthe system. That part of the Secretary's letter which requests information respecting such advisable changes as maybe called for by those importers who transact considerable business with the customhouse, and which will require change either in the law or its administration, though in terms limited to changes at this port, may, perhaps, be intended to include changes applicable to all ports. The business of reappraisements 168 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. has brought to my attention one subject of complaint, the only remedy for which lies in a change of the statute law; but it is one which, it seems to me. may be demanded on equitable considerations. I refer to the existing law which subjects the importer to the inevitable and ir. remediable imposition of an additional duty of 20 per cent, whenever the invoice or entered value is advanced on appraisement to the extent of 10 per cent. The cases where such provisions operate unjustly are those where the merchandise is obtained by actual purchase in the ordinary course of trade, and so invoiced at the price paid, but which, it may be shown on investigation by the appraisers, is below the standard set by the law, viz, the market value. It is to be considered that this standard is not one which is generally easily or exactly ascertainable. The importer who goes into the foreign market to purchase may be supposed to know what the published or quoted prices are, but such quotations are not the highest emd best evidence of that marhet value. Actual transactions of purchase like that by which he has obtained his own goods are the best evidences. What such transactions are, beyond his own, he is not presumed to know. One purchaser may purchase for cash a certain quantity of goods at a certain price, while it may be ten other purchasers on the same day purchase the same kind of goods afc varying prices, paying, it may be, 10 or 12 per ceut. above that paid by the first. I t may be considered that the eleven transactions of purchase herein supposed would furnish the best evidence of the actual marhet value, b u t i t is not to be assumed that either of fche eleven purchasers had any knowledge of any ofthe transactions besides his own. The application of this inflexible rule, by which the price actually paid by one of several purchasers is advanced to the price, or average price, at which other purchasers procure their goods, in many cases inflicts a veritable hardshii^;^; notably so in such cases as the importations of worsted yarns and fabrics, when the variation in prices from day to day, although it may not have been to the extent of 10 per cent., has been sufficient to change the rate of duty, so that a manufacturer who has made a contract or purchase at a certain price on a certain day, on terms advantageous to his business as manufacturer of worsted fabrics, is subjected, by reason of a subsequent slight advance, to a rate of duty which would make his importation disastrous. Importations at this port are, as a rule, made upon actual purchases, and complaints are frequent and, it seems to me, well founded, by importers, that they are subjected to what may appropriately be termed a penalty for invoicing their goods according to the requirement of the law, viz, the price actually paid. It is natural and reasonable that they should understand that the price actually paid in open market, in the ordinary course of trade, constitutes market value, inasmuch as it has been held by high judicial authority that such actual purchase is prima-facie evidence of market value. The tendency to undervaluation at ports where importations are principally upon consignments by foreign owners to their agents in this eountry is, I suppose, the principal ground of support for the.law as it now stands; but it would seem that it ought not to be beyond the ingenuity of law-makers to frame a provision by which a discrimination could be made between a fraudulent consignment and a bona fide purchase by an honest importer. ^ ' It is not against undervaluation in invoices which show prices actually paid that the loud and prolonged complaint has been aimed. I do not consider it impracticable to make such change in the statutory law as to provide that the imposition of the additional or penal duty shall depend upon the finding of the appraising officers that the undervalua REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 169 tion was intentional, or made so carelessly as to imply culpability. Whether it would be advisable to place such discretionary power in the local appraisers, whose action is necessarily summary and hurried, is a question; but the course of investigation on reappraisement is su'ch that the cases are rare in which the reappraivsing officers do not have the information which enables them to determine whether an undervaluation of goods obtained by purchase is undervalued to the extent of implied culpability. Perhaps a better remedy may be suggested in the amendment of the existing laws, relating to the addition by the importer at the time of entry to the invoice value, by extending the period during which such privilege may be exercised, I do not perceive any sufficient reason why the importer, in case he shall be satisfied from the evidence fiirnished by the appraiser or from information from any other source, that his purchase price, as invoiced, measured by the strict standard of market value, is too low, should not be permitted to add to the entered value, at any time before liquidation, sufficient to make market value. This might be left in the discretion of the collector upon the report ofthe appraising officers, or upon information from whatever source, sufficient to satisfy him that the invoice valuation was made in good faith aud without intention o.f undervaluation. I think that the advance of the invoice values, which are the prices paid by honest purchasers, is one of the most pr,olific causes of dissatisfaction and complaint in the administration of customs laws at this port. The injurious and offensive, because to the importer it is inequitable, operation of the existing law is particularly exemplified in that class of importations which are based on orders for goods to be mauufactured or to be delivered at a future date, which class embraces a large proportion of the finer and more costly kinds of textile fabrics of mixed materials, the market value of which fluctuates with the cost of component materials. The rule that duties shall be assessed upon the market value at the date of exportation, irrespective of the actual cost or the market value at the time when the contract for purchase was made, results frequently in an advance on appraisement, which the importer could not have foreseen, and operates to complicate and disturb^ contracts, based upon such purchased value, which the importer has made for the sale of his goods in the home market. * While it may be well understood as a principle of law that the citizen is supposed to know what the law is, this law is no less a hardship and injurious in its application, because it is impossible to foresee and calculate upon its application. After long observation of its operation, I find importers of high standing and large business experience protesting now as earnestly and honestly as ever against the operation of a rule.by which their bona fide purchases are ignored, and values additional to those at which these goods have been honestly purchased found to such an extent that the rate of duty is largely increased. The doctrine that ignorance of law is no excuse for non-observance, so far from being satisfactory, is met with the protest that such a technical application to such a subject-matter is an offense to the common sense of justice. Neither does the suggestion that a change in existing laws would be productive of great abuse in the port of New York, convince the honest sufferers there, and at other ports, that they should be involved in penalties designed for dishonest importers, or that a modification of the law may not be devised, by which the innocent shall be protected, while the different class shall be left to bear the consequences of dishonest practices. 170 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY. I am satisfied that some such provision as that of conferring upon collectors discretionary authority, based upon the reports of reappraising officers, to permit importers to amend their entries, in case of honest mistakes as to market value, at any time before final liquidation, is practicable and would be safe. Already appraisers are charged in certain cases (Treas. Eeg., Art. 453) with the duty of reporting their opinion to the collectors where certain irregularities in invoices appear to be attributable to fraudulent intent; and it would seem equally proper to require appraisers to report an opinion, resulting from careful investigation, of a fraudulent or culpable purpose in undervaluations. Another improvement in administration which would require change in the statute, according to the construction by the Department of existing laws, which I beg leave to suggest, woukl be the enlargement of the discretionary authority ofthe Secretary of theTreasury with respect to the correction of mistakes on reappraisements. The occasions for the exercise of such power would probably be of rare occurrence, but in view of the fact that decisions of reappraisements, when conducted according to law, are absolute and irreversible, it would only be just and reasonable that there should be some remedy for the acknowledged mistakes which occasionally occur in the best administration of any law or in any practice. I would recommend that authority be conferred upon the Secretary to permit reappraising officers, upon their own request, and upon grounds satisfactory to the Secretary, to revise their report and correct mistakes which are discovered subsequent to the making of the report, such authority to extend, within reasonable limits, beyond the date of liquidation. According to present practice, sanctioned by judicial authority, the power to correct such mistakes at any time hefore liquidation is exercised, and there seems to be no sufficient reason w^hy similar authority, under the sanction of the Secretary, should not be extended. The objection that the existence of such authority would unsettle the long-established understanding that the reappraisement is a finality, and open the way to frequent and unreasonable applications to fche Secretary for revision, is met with the suggestion that application is only to be made by the reappraising board, and by the fact that in practice, under the present authority to revise before liquidation, its exercise is of very rare occurrence, although applications have been frequent and urgent. Under the present system of -reappraisements such full opportunity is given to importers to prepare for the hearings that there is seldom any reasonable cause presented for reopening the investigation. The tendency in modern legislation has been to enlarge equity jurisdiction for the correction of mistakes in the administration of general laws and their application to particular facts and circumstauces. It would seem in the line of such liberal reform that such authority should be conferred upon the chief executive of the Department, who already exercises, under the law, so large powers in the establishment of rules and regulafcions for the administration of that Department. I consider ifc a duty to again invite the attention of the Department to a point in the administration of the law, in respect to the ascertainment of mar'ket value, which involves such diff'erence of opinion as to make it difficult to apply the law to a certain class of invoice valuations. Having stated the grounds of complaint on the part of the importer against the operation of the law adversely to his interests, consideration should be had for this important class of cases in which a construction of the law made several years since operates to the prejudice of the interests of the Government. I refer to a ruling of the Secretary of the Treasury made April 21,1884, by which the collector at Boston, having REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 171 been called on to act as umpire in a case of disagreement between the general and merchant appraisers, was instructed that in ascertaining the market value of certain worsted yarns he might accept the price at which such goods were generally sold to the United States purchaser in distinction from the higher prices at which they were sold to any other purchasers. This ruhng has never been promulgated iii the usual way by printing in the synoptical series of decisions; and I am informed that it is not recognized at other ports as authority for the very reason thafc ifc has not been generally promulgated, the inference being that if it had been the purpose of the Department to have the principle of the ruling adopted by appraising officers it would have been announced in the usual way. I am inclined to this view because of a personal interview with the late Hon. Secretary Folger a few months subsequent to the ruling, and a few weeks before he w-as permanently disabled from official duties, in which interview the subject was discussed, and the Secretary declared that he would give it further consideration. At this port the ruling is well known, and is frequently cited by importers and merchant appraisers in reappraisements. It would seem to me that its general adoption would be so subversive of the geuerally accepted rule of finding market value that there would be not only practical difficulty in its application, but that it would seriously affect the revenue. While the equities of bona fide purchasers have beto recognized in considering their complaints against the technical application of the law to innocens and ignorant undervaluations, there can be no such consideration in thit class of cases, for in.the case in which the ruhng was made it was conceded that the prices were exceptional, and this knowledge may be presumed in all such cases, the motive presiented to the seller to induce a discount from the ordinary prices being that the purchases are for the United'States market. The following is an extract from the ruling of April 21, 1884, referred to: It is conceded t h a t the invoice'shows the prices actually paid for the merchandise. These prices are lower, however, than prices of the same goods for the Euglish market. But it is stated t h a t the invoice prices are those at which such goods are sold for exportation, so t h a t it is said there are two wholesale prices, both of them actual, one .tor consumption in England and the other for exportation, and the question arises which of these two values is to be chosen as the basis for the assessment of duties. In decision 3238 it was held that the general range of prices actually paid for good, shipped from foreign countries may properly be accepoed as a standard for t h e aetual market value or wholesale price prescribed by law as a basis for the assessment of , duties, although the actual market value of such goods for consumption iri the country of export may be greater. If there is an actual market price for goods to be exported to the United States, thpugh that market value differs from tbe actual value of ^oods sold for consumption abroad, the former should be the standard of assessable value for the customs officers here. By actual market value is meant a general market value by which any person could buy in the foreign market for exportation to the United States in competition with another purchaser for the same purpose, or, in the language o f t h e decision cited, *'a general range of prices actually paid." * <* * As a matter of fact in that case, established conclusively by the report of Special Agent Tichenor, whose information was obtained by personal interviews with the sellers of the merchandise in question, the prices invoiced were below all other prices except those made especially for the United States market, the exception being against prices for export to other countries besides the United States, as well as those for consumption in Great Britain. Decision S. S. 3238 is cited as supporting the ruling in this case. A reference to that decision shows that it was arrived at not without doubt, and was justified partly on the ground that the book trade was 172 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. peculiar, so as to '' render it impossible to fix any positive standard of . value for any particular book for any given time?' I t was fouud that the price at which they were invoiced to the Unifced States were substantially the same as those at which such books were sold to all Englishspeaking countries, and that an exceptional price had not been made for the United States. The previous decision of April 11, 1877 (S. S. 3196), is cited, and the Department says "there is no occasion to modify that decision." Thequestion of roj^alty was discussed, but, indepiendently of that, it was held that a no less price than that realized from the books sold for consumption in England could " b e accepted as a basis for assessment of duty," and, in conclusion, that as it did "not appear that the publishers had reduced the price of their books for consumption in England or for shipment to countries other than the United States," the value reported by the appraisers must be sustained. Although the instructions to the collector at Boston purports to be in harmony with the decision of May 15, 1877 (S. S. 3238), which latter affirms the preceding one of April 11 (S. S. 3196), it goes far beyond that, and declares, without the qualification that the prices must be the general exporfc prices, that " b}^ market value is meant a general market value by which any persou could buy in the foreign market for exportation to the United States in competition with another purchaser for the same purpose." i. e., for exportation to the United States. This decision of May 15 (3238) was based on the consideration that an exceptional price had not been made exclusively for the United Staties. The last paragraph is to be construed with the preceding paragraph, so that, although the precise lauguage is used as quoted in the instructions to the collector, it is to be read when quoted as it was originally given "in view of all the facts," a material one being that an exceptional price had not been made exclusively for the United States. The instructions to the collector could not have been given in view of any such fact, for the fact was established beyond all question that the worsted yarn had been purchased and invoiced at an exceptional price, made exclusively for the United States importer. Eeference is made to a report by late Special Agent Bingham on this subject, to be found printed in the " Eeport of the Secretary ofthe Treasury on the Collection of Duties," dated December 7, 1885, pp. 399-401, in which the instructions to the collector are discussed and contrasted with the generally accepted definitions and standard of market values. ° Eespectfully, yours, (Signed) H. S. BEIGGS, \ General Appraiser. No. 11. P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS., Appraiser's Office, November 29, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : S I R : I herewith transmit the statement required in your letter of the 16th ultimo. The imperfect records of this office in the past is the cause of my delay. Very respectfuUy, your obedient servant, A. B. STEAENS, Appraiser. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. m October 1,1884, to October 1,1885, to Octoberl, 1885. October 1,1886. (a) Invoices examined and appraised (&) Invoices reported value correct ^ . ..... (c) Invoices advanced in value by appraisers (d) Invoices advanced more tban 10 per cent (c) Invoices appealed to re-appraisers f Advance sustained (f) Effect and result of re- J Advance partially sustained . . . appraisement. j Advance made above appraiser. (. Invoice sustained No. 12. O F F I C E OF THE 29,902 29,135 767 50 22 7 10 1 4 36,371 34 9?3 1,438 79 45 10 15 5 15 . UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, D I S T R I C T OF MASSACHUSETTS, Boston^ November 16, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, D. C : S I R : In reply to^ your letter of the 8th instant, in regard to presentations to this office in 1886 by the collector for frauds on the customs revenue, I would say that there has been but one such case. Emily Eigby was accused of attempting to evade payment of duty on certain ribbons, laces, &c., valued at about'$375. A suit was commenced against her, the writ being returnable in circuit court October 15,1886, but it was discontinued before entry, in accordance with instructions from the Solicitor of the Treasury in his letter of September 27, 1886, the defendant having redeemed the goods by payment of their appraised value and having deposited the sum of $500 and costs in an offer ot compromise. Eespectfully, yours, JAMES EUSSELL E E E D , * ' Assistant United States Attorney. POET OF N E W YOEK. No. 1. • CUSTOM. H O U S E , N E W Y O R K CITY, Collector's Office, December 2, 1886. To the Honorable the S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E J R E A S U R Y , Washington, D. C. : S I R : In response to your request for my views upon the customs service, I beg leave to say that I have not yet had sufficient experience to enable me to point out intelligently and in detail evils to be remedied or to suggest improved methods in the customs administration atthisport. There are, however, two subjects which forced themselves upon my attention soon after taking charge ofthe custom-house; these are: 1. The imperative need of a new custom-house and a new public store. 2. The cumbrousness of the present system of thepayment of duties in the custom-house in actual money, and the consequent need of change. (1) That the custom-house building at this port is unfit and inadequate for the proper and orderly transaction of the business needs only to be stated. In past yea.rs, when the amount of business was comparatively small, it may have answered the demands of the service in a certain way, but it does not now afford the requisite accommodations 174 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. for either the public or the customs officials, and its interior arrangement and construction are such that it cannot be altered so as to make it fit for custom-house purposes. Without such accommodations, orderly, efficient, and economical administration is exceedingly difficult. Private firms and corporations recognize the fact that proper buildings in which to conduct their business are essential to success. They spare no reasonable expense to secure suitable and safe buildings and appointments for all the details of the work to be done. But the Government, while it has expended large sums for the erection of public buildings in various cities and towns of the country, has been content to leave its servants charged with the administration ofthe largest financial collecting agency in, the world in buildings not originally intended or constructed for the purposes for which they are now used, and not at all adapted for such use. The appraisers' department is inconveniently located in an old sugar refinery about a mile and a half froni the custom house, and the building is, like the custom-house, quite unsuitable for the business, nor is it large enough for the work of examining aud appraising merchandise and the safe keeping of the same. Many of the transactions of the collector's office require the concurrence ofthe naval offices. The convenience of the officers and employes of both of these departments, as well as that of the public, requires that these officials should be located in close proximity and under the same roof; but the naval office was crowded out of the custom-house buildiug several years ago and is now located in a rented building across the street. The lease will expire within three years, and should it be impracticable to renew it or to secure adjacent quarters for the uaval office, great inconvenience and delay would result to all concerned. The amount paid for rent for the twp buildings used for the naval office and the appraisers' store for the last five years was about $375,000, or $75,000 per annum. It is therefore respectfully suggested that Congress should make immediate provision for the purchase of a suitable site and the erection thereon of a building of sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the several departments of the customs service at this, port. The ground upon which the custom-house stands is very valuable and would probably sell for a sufficient sum to pay for a site in another location. (2) The losses which have occurred in past years in the cashier's department of the custom-house, and the risk to merchants in handling the large sums of cash used in the payment of duties, have rendered desirable some method of payment by checks or certificates. Yours, respectfully, . D. MAGONE, Colleetor. No. 2. SILAS W . BURT—Appointed Deputy Naval Officer April 29,1869; as Clerk and Comp troUer May 24, 1873; as Naval Officer J u l y 11, 1878, and J u l y 11, 1885. P O R T OF N E W YORK, Naval Office, October 30, 1886. Hon. DANIEL MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D, C. : S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, requesting me to give you a full and detailed statemeut of the reforms in the administration of my office, and generally in the REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 175 customs business at this port, that have been made within this year, and also to communicate to you other information regarding reforms either contemplated, desirable, or called for by pur principal merchants, as also the complaints made by them as to the present execution of the customs laws at this port. In obedience to your request I would respectfully submit the following statement, in which I have treated the several branches of the customs business in their order of succession. (1) Entrance and clearance of vessels.—Under this head the most important change has been that made by the act of June 19 last, abolishing certain fees, which became effective on July 1,1886. The amount of fees thus abolished that was collected at this port during the fiscal year ending June 30, was about $25,000. The result of their abolition has been a great simplification in the work connected with the documenting, transfer, entrance, and clearance of vessels. I know of no complaints in regard to the execution of the laws under this head. (2) Entry of merchandise.—The marked improvements on this point within the year are expressed in the several decisions by the Treasury Department: (1) More closely defining dutiable invoicevalue; (2) Tending to an insistence that the entered value must be the dutiable invoice value, with such additions thereto as the importer may-make; (3) Giving force to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the '^Oberteuffer case," that the invoice and entry are co-ordinate parts of a single transaction, and that both are to be considered in the assessment of duties; (4) That the oaths administered at the time of entry as provided by section 2841, Eevised Statutes, so far as they refer to costs, values, and discounts, apply to the invoice alone, and not to the form of entry. While these decisions have not been precise and definitive, their general trend has been in the direction indicated. It is always difficult to reverse a procedure long in practice, even when it is manifestly defective. At the very foundation of the assessment of duties under our present laws is the invoice, a document so important for this purpose that a costly corps of consular officers are sustained in foreign countries to verify it for customs purposes. The important element in the invoice is the cost, including all costs bf finishing the goods as exported, all of which constitutes the dutiable invoice value, or, expressed in brief, '^ the invoice value." This should be the entered value, with such additions thereto as the importer may elect to make. Thus there is a clear standard of entered value as of invoice value, leaving no chance for future doubt or misconstruction as to either. The appraiser has before him the invoice only in determining the market value, amd the collector and naval officer have the invoice, the entry, and the appraisement before them in the liquidation of the exact amounts upon wiiich duties are finally assessed. The merchants have for several years sought relief from the necessity of appearing in person at the custom-house to' take oaths on entries of goods. It is not necessary to recount the inconveniences they suffer in this respect, but to again recommend the repeal of the oaths, and substitution of declarations verified by the signature and seal of special notaries commissioned by the Secretary of the Treasury. So, too, as applicable not only to entries of goods but to all other official transactions connected with their movement, there should again be pressed the legislation abohshing the annoying fees now collectible on various documents, and which are small, indistinct amounts, vexatious in their payment, and difficult in their proper accounting. (3) Fayment of duties.-—There have been proposed several plans by which duties might be paid without the presentation of the actual coin or other lawful rboney at the custom-house. 176 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The importers have generally urged the acceptance of certified checks by the collector. There are certain obvious objections to this plan, and whatever one is adopted will require amendments to the present statutes aff'ecting the subtreasuries and other public depositories, as well as those affecting the collection of duties. (4) Warehousing and bonding of goods.—There is a general desire by importers that the 10 per cent, additional duty now assessed upon goods remaining in warehouse over one year shall be abolished. I t is my own opinion that our w^hole warehousing system should be remodeled, and so far as practicable that the British system should be substituted; the main features to be incorporated being a liberal term for warehousing, and for allowances for normal loss in quantity in bond when such loss diminishes values; a provision whereby the cost of the warehouse system should be borne by the interests benefited; the cancellation of export bonds upon alternative evidences satisfactory to the collector and naval officer; and a reduction of the number of bonds now required. The Governuient storekeepers should be so paid that their compensation would not, as uow, appear to be directly contributed by the warehouse proprietors upon whom they are the only check. For all importations made under the provisions of sections 2507, 2508, and 2509 there should be distinct series ofbonds, to be kept apart from, but treated in the same manner as, regular warehousing bonds. Some of the above suggestions were incorporated in the bill introduced in the House of Eepresentatives on February 1 last by the HoUo Abram S. Hewitt (H. E. 5010, Forty-ninth Congress, first session). (5) Appraisement and reappraisement.—^Under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, much has been accomplished within the year at this port in securing more accurate appraisements^ Appraiser McMullen has been indefatigable in his endeavor to carry out the provisions of the law governing appraisements (sec. 2902 E. S. particularly). In this delicate task he has naturally incurred the opposition and censure of many of the importers the value of whose goods has been advanced. I desire to renew my recommendation that the methods of appraisement be arranged and systematized so that in regard to the great bulk of importations groups may be established and a standard and staple commodity in each group be made the scale or key for that group. Articles of the same materials, uses, and origin must have a correlation in value, the common elements being cost of raw materials and labor. The concentration of research upon a single key would secure a more accurate valuation, and the fluctuations in this value would suggest responsive changes in the other commodities in the group. This method of judging by reciprocal relations is how adopted by the appraisers to someextent, but the extension and systematization of such apian would be of great benefit. The advantages that might have been gained by the more efficient appraisement of goods during the last fifteen months have been very greatly impaired by the defective methods of reappraisement and the administration of those methods. The cure for these defects must be radical, through legislation abolishing the present provision for general and mercijant appraisers, and substituting a board of general appraisers upon plans hitherto submitted to you and to the special Senate committee on the subject of undervaluations. Apropos to the appraiser's functions it may be here indicated that they are both intrinsic and incidental; the former beiug those imposed by law, i. e., the appraisement of the market values of imported goods; the incidental are those originating in the fact that the appraiser is the liEt^o!^* 6f ME SECfeiiTAt^l^ Of i^iiie TRriA^uiiir, ill only Customs official who examines and inspects the goods and who can certify to other officers the facts revealed by such examination. The action upon these facts (which do not enter into the question of market value) devolves upon the collector and naval officer, or the Secretary of the Treasury; and the opinion of the appraiser as to such action, whether voluntarily expressed or requested, is only advisory. Thus the opinions of the appraiser as to classification are advisory, and the responsibility of action on this point rests wholly with the other officers above named. There has been some misapprehension on this point, and appraisers and general appraisers have sometimes undertaken to decide both classification and dutiable values. (6) Liquidation of entries.—By this term is meant that ascertainment of the duties payable on every entry contemplated by sec. 2931, Eevise Statutes. The original estimate of duties at time of entry is based upon the ex parte papers produced by the importer, but in liquidation these papers are supplemented by the reports of the appraisers, weighers, gaugers, and other officers, who have subsequently examined th.e goods and testify as to their value, character, quantity, and condition, and the liquidation takes into account all the papers and certificates, with the provisions of law, regulations, and decisions pertinent to the entry. The Treasury Department, within the past year, by its decisions, aBd particularly those regarding protests, to be more particularly mentioned herealter, has greatly improved the methods and results of this important process. (7) Protests and appeals.—At an early date in your administration of the Treasury Department, you became apprised of the many vexed questions pending before the Department, and the courts upon protest (sec. 2931, E. S.) from the hquidated amount of duty. Your first action was on May 2, 1885, deciding that a legal protest upon an entry for warehousing must be made within ten days after the liquidation of that entry, and could not be made upon a final withdrawal of the goods. This decision, correct in law, and equitable in its relations to entries for direct consumption and those for warehousing, shut off* many claims having no substantial justice, but v/salid under previous rulings. The amount of money thus saved to the Treasury cannot be accurately estimated, but was very large. The minute and extended inquiries you made between A u g u s t l , 1885, and March 1, 1886, demonstrated serious defects in the administration^ of the law (sec. 2931, E. S.), leading to a vast accumulation of ap-' peals to the Secretary of the Treasury, and great arrears in the disposition of suits instituted in the United States courts. The decision of important questions being thus long delayed inflicted great injury upon commercial inteiests by the uncertainty as to rates of duty that might govern in the future, while the delay increased the interest charges upon all cases decided adversely to the Government. There was also inedequate preparation of the evidences for transmission to the district attorney. I beg pardon for even thus briefly touching upon the matters exhaustively treated in your letter of March 23, last, in answer to a resolution of the House of Eepresentatives, in regard to suits against collectors of customs. I have done so so only as a preface to a review of what has been accomplished under your orders since April 1, last. All protests are now examined by^ the collector and the naval officer, and after consideration of the points presented by the importer, the original liquidation is either confirmed by those officers, or a reliquidation is directed. Should the collector and the naval officer diff§p H. E?;. 2-^yoL ii--™12 178 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUl^Y. in such consideration, the matter of difference is immediately reported to the Secretary ofthe Treasury for his decision. The beneficial results that might reasonably be anticipated from this new procedure have not as yet fully accrued, for the following reasons: At the time when the new regulations were put in force on May 1, there were large arrears in the disposition of liquidations as well as of protests, and since that date these arrears of liquidation have not been largely reduced; the great mass of accumulated protests and appeals are upou points that should have been brought to suit, and the protests on these points are growing in volume, and as they are against Departmental decisions on appeal, they cannot be disposed of or reduced by any action here upon the protests. These accumulated appeals are mostly upon the following points: 1st, on coverings andcharges under the 7th section, act March 3, 1883. Although the Supreme Court decision (in re Oberteuffer et al. vs. Eobertson) appeared to cover all disputed points as to the above section, the protests are still filed in great numbers, and are almost invariably vague in their terms, not specifying particular charges on any invoice or entry, and generally having no grounds that can be ascertained by the most careful examination of those documents. In such cases the liquidation must be confirmed with a consequent appeal to theSecretary and probably the same fruitless labor in his office. The tendency to vague protests ^^at large" is increasing and the law^ should provide that matters of protest should be clearly and definitely stated in detail. (2) A class of protests, increasing in volume, is for the allowance for breakage under section 2, act of February 8, 1875, which allowance, it is claimed, was not repealed by the act of March 3, 1883. (3) A large number of protests are also made against the duty of 50 cents per gallon on wines, upon the claiml that the actof March 3,1883, did not repeal the duty of 40 cents per gallon imposed by the second section of the act of February 8,1875. . (4) Protests against the imposition of the metal rates of duty upon textile fabrics containing metal threads. (5) Protests upon all classes of textile fabrics liquidated at rates according to material under the several schedules but claimed to be subject to duty as "materials for hats." (T. I., new, 448.) (6) Protests against the assessment of wool and worsted duties on certain fabrics of mixed materials, and claiming that they are dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem because silk is their component material of chief value. (7) Protest against any duties on sugar imported from certain countries, clainiing that the treaties with those countries contain the " most favored nation" clause, and that sugars from them are free because they are free under the reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. It would be a great relief if lhe points at issue in these seven classes, particularly in the last six, could be brought into court and decided. They cover tens of thousands of entries and the mass daily increases, involving great labor in recording, both here and in the Department, while the interest in cae-e of adverse judicial decision upon the suits will add materially to the outgo from the Treasury. In spite, however, of this drag of arrears in liquidation andof the formal treatment of such a volume of protests that cannot be arrested, the results of the new raethod of reviewing protests by the respouvsible offi.cers at theport have been satisfactory. One hundred and fifty-two reliquidations of protested entries have been made to date, arresting certainly so many appeals to the Secretary, and probably many times thai,t REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 179 number had the protests in question not been reviewed here. Already the influence of this review is perceptible in the better education of'the liquidating clerks and the more efficient discharge of their duties. There is also a promise of much better preparation of evidence to sustain in the courts cases where the protest and appeal are denied. This reform in the treatment of disputed assessments of duties is entirely due to your official care, and in time will relieve the overburdened dockets in the Treasury Department and courts of law, and also remove one of the obstacles in the way of legitimate commerce, and that is, the doubt as to the rates of duties that will be imposed. Drawbacks.—This letter has been extended so far that I can touch but lightly on this; subject. I beg leave to renew the recommendations for amendment of the statutes made in my letter to you of November 19 last for reasons therein stated at length. Your request that this report should be made to you before the 1st proximo has so limited .the time I could give to a review of the year's work and to the consideration of what should be advised for the future, that I have probably omitted many matters pertinent to your inquiries. I would have treated the question of the necessary legislation, fixing a precise and practical basis of dutiable value, had I not learned that'you were making special inquiry on this subject in directions where there are better sources of information. All of the above is respectfully submitted by Your obedient servant, SILAS W. BUET, Naval Officer. No. 3, T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y , Washington, D. C, November 8, 1886. S I R : In your interesting letter of October 30,1886, you refer to "complaints submitted to me and to the Senate committee on the subject of undervaluations." Will you kindly give me the dates of those submitted to me, and also copies, if you can obtain them, of those submitted to the Senate committee? You also mention great arrears in protests and liquidations in New York growing out of transactions (I infer) before my protest order. Will you furnish me with a statementof the number of such protests in arrears, and say whether appeals thereon have been made ? Why have • not reports on such protests and appeals been.made to the Department '^ Be good enough to specify the chief questions presented therein. You also allude to the vagueness of protests. Is not the law sufficient in that regard; and, if so,why are not protests which are illegal because vague rejected on that account, and so reported to the Department ? I invite you to send rae, at your convenience, your views on the " precise and practical basis bf dutiable value" mentioned at the close of your letter. ' Eespectfully, yours, . D. MANNING, Secretary. SILAS W. B U R T , Esq., ^avo^ Officer, New Yorh 180 ' REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREAStJRY. N o . 4. - • . P O R T OF N E W YORK, Naval Office, November 12, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C; : S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of ybur letter of the Sth instant,' requesting me to explain certain expressions in my letter to you of the 30th ultimo, relative to the customs administration at this port. I would respectfully invite your attention to my letter of the 30th ultimo, wherein I mention plans submitted to you and to the Senate committee on the subject of undervaluations and not " complaints submitted, &c.," as your letter represents. These plans suggested such legislation as would repeal the present statutes providing for general appraisers and merchant appraisers and substituting for them a board of general appraisers having sole appellate jurisdiction. I believe that several such plans were prepared and brought to your attention, and that of the Senate committee. I inclose a letter from me to Senator Aldrich of that committee on February 22 last, in which I briefly outlined the defects in the present system, and suggested a board of general appraisers. The arrears in protests mentioned by me partly accrued before your orders of March 13 last, and that part originated in inefficient administration and the retention of many protests (with coincident appeals attached), because of defects or informalities which in most cases should have led to peremptory rejection or prompt reference to the Treasury Department or because of other reasons to me unknown. A part of the arrears accrued after your order of the above date and were caused by the apparent indisposition of the collector to obey that order, and it was not until May 1 that the protests were sent to "this office for review, and the month's accumulation then came in within two or three days. I do not know how the long delayed protests have been disposed of, but presume they have been reported. Since May 1, when your order of March 13 was put in operation here, the protests made subsequent to that date and sent to this office have been promptly considered and the arrears have been cleared off. In my l)revious letter I mentioned the arrears of liquidation as well as of protests, and it was to the latter I more particularly referred. These arrears, I regret to report, have for a long time existed and have averaged for several months past thirty thousand entries. The causes for these arrears are several, the principal one being the many errors made in the liquidations in the collector's office and the difficulties encountered in obtaining a correction of them. As this excessive number of errors aud the delays in their correction originated in defects in administration, they will doubtless be reformed by the present collector, who is gradually and efficiently reorganizing his office. Another cause of these arrears has been the inadequate force of clerks engaged in liquidation, which has been repaired by the authority recently granted by you to increase the number. ' The reliquidation of.entries under the supreme court decision in the Oberteuff'er case has begun, and the readjustment for refund of excessive duties in cases in suit, and otherwise valid, will be pushed forward with all possible rapidity. In regard to the vagueness of protests, you ask me if the law is not ginfficient in that regard, and why protests are not rejected upon that REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 181 account. The law ordains that the importer shall set forth in the protest " distinctly and specifically the grounds of his objection " to the liquidation. I inclose herewith some of the blank forms of protests in use at this port, as a more clear explanation of what I have termed as "vagueness," than I could otherwise give. Exhibit No^. 1 is usedin protests against the inclusion of coverings and charges, and is made most frequently upon entries where every item of cost for coverings or charges appearing on either the entry or invoices has been, excluded from the liquidated dutiable value. As the terms of the protests are general, it requires a minute and lengthy examination of the invoice and entry in order to discover if there are any discernible grounds for the protests, and as some of the protested liquidations cover many invoices and long and complicated entry statements, much labor and time are expended in the effbrt to test the allegations in the protest, which in most cases prove unfounded. If this latter document had specifically in licated the several items for coverings or charges claimed as non-dutiable, by amounts and names, the examination could be accurately and rapidly soade. Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, being protests against the validity of appraisements and reappraisements, show in a degree that is absurd, the indefinite, obscure, and difiusive terms in which protests are couched. Every possible contingency is covered by these documents, which allege every conceivable delect of commission or omission as tainting every official act connected with the appraisement of the goods in question. Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 are more speci.ic in terms than those mentioned^ but fail, to indicate the distinct and specific grounds of objection. It would seem that a certain class of attorneys have discovered the vast possibilities of the existing procedure on disputed assessments of customs duties. Their protests are framed " a t large," and are like a fine-meshed seine, intended to entrap all kinds and sizes of fish, known and unknown. Their policy is first to keep the protest and appeal alive as long as pos- ^ sible, in order to bring within its indistinct terms any subsequently dis- ' covered ground of objection. Thereafter it is to their advantage to delay a hnal adjustment in the courts, so as to accumulate as many protested entries as possible, since their contingent profit in case of a successful issue increases proportionately with the magnitude of the claim. All these delajys are obviously injurious in every way to the interests of the Government. > ^ If the Treasury Department considers as valid such protests as I have above particularly alluded to, there should be such an amendment to the law as will require a particular specification of each distinct act and item in the liquidation of an entry against which an importer^ may protest and the exclusion of all matter not pertinent to the specific acts and items objected to. In my letter of 30th ultimo, I gave seven difi'erent clauses of protests on^which suits are delayed to the great disadvantage of the business in the custoins offices and the Department, and with probable increased loss to the public treasury. Y'ou have also asked me my views as to a "precise and practical dutiable value." Of course such a value is the essential basis for the assessment of all ad valorem duties. As the theory of all customs taxes is that tliey are imposed upon foreign goods consumed within our country, the taxable value should logically be the valueof the goods in tbe condition in vvhich they reach the actual consumer. Some effort has been m'M^ ft'Oiii time to time to frame legislation t^hat would secure such 'M 182 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. end, the latest being embodied in the seventh section ofthe act ofMarch 5, 1883, excluding the cost of coverings and other charges. This proA ision as construed by the Supreme Court has not accomplished the jnirpose sought, since it enforces the exclusion of certain values pertaining to and inseparable from the goods as ultimately consumed. But the real and insuperable difficulty is in the impossibility of administrating any provision of law designed to talx the goods in the condition when consumed. In order to comply with the constitutional provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Unite€l States," a home valuation of imports, naturally different at the several ports, cannot be adopted, aud the tax must be, and therefore always has been, based upon the actual market value or wholesale price iu the foreign market. This value thelaw previous to act of March 3, 1883, enjoined should include certain costs .and charges, which injunction that act repealed for reasons above stated. As some of these costs and charges do now and always have formed a part of the foreign market value or wholesale price, the appraisements for the last three and a half years have been based upon a condition of the goods in which they have no expressed or recognized price. Under the most favorable auspices the proper appraisement of imported goods has been a difficult task, but the present law has raade it practically impossible. The basis for appraisement should be the value of the goods as prepared to be placed in the outside packing-case for shipment to the United States. This condition ofthe goods accords as near as may be to the wholesale price in the foreign market. It also has the rare advantage of being the condition in which the appraiser examines them, and he thus Jias a visible and tangible basis of valuation and not'a hypothetical oue unrelated to any condition in which the goods are bought or sold at wholesale. There are many excellent and sound theories relative to customs taxation that cannot be adhered to in practical administra,tion, such as the universal application of the ad valorem system of rates ; so, too, the a>ppraisement of the goods per se,or in the condition as consumed, is in theory the proper method, but in practice is not feasible, as shown by the experience of the last three years. The section of the bill known as the "Morrison bill," introduced in Congress at the. last session, providing for a new definition of dutiable value, w^as notentirely satisfactory, and recently there was furnished by this office to^Special Agents Tingle and Tichenor the draft of an amended section, which I understand these officers will include in some report to you. in making any change in the basis of dutiable value it must be borne in mind that such change will work a reduction or increase of tax upon the several classes of goods with resultant eff'ects upon commercial and manufacturing interests, as also upon the aggregate amount of revenue derived from the customs. In my letter of the 30th ultimo I omitted to mention among the transactions of the past year the reduction ofthe drawback rate upon refined hard sugars exported. * This rate, which went into effect upon the 1st instant, was estabhshed provisionally, pending an inquiry as to what further reduction may be necessary. Under your direction I have been gathering statistics per tinent to such an inquiry. They touch both special and general commercial conditions at home and abroad, and may also include particular informatiou that can be giv^u only by the refiners themselves. The, REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 183 extent of the statistics will delay for some weeks their collection aud collation for your use, bat the provisional rate is apparently so near the proper one that the delay will not materially injure any interests concerned. The great importance of the subject in its relations to the refiners, the revenue, and to our general commercial interests indicates a careful and thorough inquiry before a permanent drawback rate is fixed. \ would most respectfully suggest that there should be a commission appointed, by authority of law, to revise and recast all that part of the United States statutes comprised under Title 34 and the amendments thereto, and to report such revisions to Congress for consideration and enactraent. The basic law under which duties are collected is that of March 2,1799, which has been amended and enlarged by several scores of acts passed siuce. These frequent and distinct changes have failed to adapt the law to the growing needs and changed conditions ot our commerce. Those of our citi'zens interested in the carrying trade, as well as in the importation and exportation of merchandise, have daily cause to complain of the obstacles and inconsistencies of this patchwork code. T«lie corresponding British statutes have been entirely recast six or seven times within the past century in order to adapt tbem to the growth and changes in commercial methods and relations. This responsiveness of legislation to commercial needs is one of the elements in that superiority of the British fbreign trade to our own that is so often a cause of national regret. I will venture to say that you could do no greater public service to our commercial interests than by securing a thorough recast of our statutes regulating them. Witii great respect, I am your obedient servant, SILAS W. BUET, Naval Officer. fEnclosure FO.JL.—Exhibit No. 1.1 L A W O F F I C E CHAS. C U R I E , (44 Exchauge Place, N. Y.) New York, • , 188-. Hon. E D W A R D L. ^HEDDEN, Collector of Customs, New York : SIR : We protest agaiust your decision aud 'exaction of duty as made by you ou our entries below referred to of certain and otber merchandise aud against tbe paymeut of tbe dufcies exacted thereou, or exacted ou any of tbo cbarges tbereou, or upon a value enbanced by reasou of tbe cost or value of said cbarges, or upon tbe exaction of duty upon any value in wbicb smy of tbe cbarges mentioned and referred to in section 7, of tbe act of Marcb 3,1883, as non-dutiable, bave been taken or made a basis of estiniate in determining tbe dutiable value of said merchandise, upon tbe following grounds and upon eacb and every one of tbem. First. Against ^'our decision establisbing as tbe standard dutiable value of imported mercbandise, tbeir value in tbeir put up, packed, and covered condition, including tbe cost of tbeir putting up, packing, and tbe coverings in wbicb tbey are contained, and against all additions we are obliged to make on entry to cover sucb iteras of cost, claiming tbat the said items of cost are not dutiable, and t b a t you bave no legal rigbt to assess duty tbereou, and t b a t it is part of your official duty to cause the proper dutiable value of said goods to be returned b y t h e appraiser, wbicb value should, be exclusive of the items of cost mentioned, but t h a t on the contrary you bave liquidated and assessed tbe duties upon bis return value wbicb includes said cbarges and cost s, contrary to tb>e expressed provision of section 7, act of March 3, 188S. V Second. Against your certificate of entered or declared value ou invoice as false and unautborized by law in containing the value and cost of coverings aud cbarges. Third. Agaiust the return of tbe appraiser as uot in accordance'with tbe facts, in t b a t it pretends to return tbe market value of tbe mercbandise only, wbereas in fact he has added to such value tbe cost of putting up, packing, and coverings in which 184 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. tbe goods are contained, or bas taken and returned a value wbicb includes, besides tbe goocl;S, tbese cbarges and tbe coverings, contrary to tbe provision of section 7, act of Marcb 3, 1883; and furtber against t h e return as ma'de by the appraiser, upon t h e grounds t b a t tbere bas been no Jegal appraisement or ascertaiument of ibe dut i a b l e or market value of said goods, in t h a t the appraiser.has not acted upon bis own knowledge andjudgment, hut under directions o f t h e Secretary of tbe Treasury. T b a t be bas aggregated in bis return tbe market value of said goods and tbe cost of .putting up, packing, and tbe coverings in wbich tbey are contained, wbereas the value of the goods sbould bave been stated separate from such cbarges and tbe coverings, and the duties assess'ed on tbe merchandise only in accordance with tbe express provision of section 7, act of March 3, 1883; and we protest for these reasons against your assessment of duties on such illegal return. Fourtb. Tbat under the act of Marcb 3, 1883, the cost or market value of said mercbandise is alone dutiable, wbereas in ascertaining tbe dutiable'value tbereof tbere bas been illegally estimated and included as a part of such value cbarges expressly declared by section 7 of said act to be non-dutiable. Fiftb. Tbat under tbe act of Marcb 3, 1883, only tbe value of said mercbandise is dutiable, wbereas tbe value of tbe usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, and otber coverings bave been estimated as p a r t of the value of said goods, in determining tbe amount of daties for wbicb tbey sbould be liable, contrary to the provisions of section 7, act of Marcb 3, 1883. Sixtb. Tbat by tbe act of March 3,1883, all duties tberetofore exacted upon cbarges incurred in the importation ofmerchandise are repealed, but there bas been included in estimating tbe dutiable value of said goods, actual, usual, and necessary charges for putting up, preparing, and packing said merchandise, and we hereby separately and distinctly protest against all duties assessed by reason of such additions to tbe actual cost or market value of tbe actual mercbandise imported. Seventb. That under tbe act of March 3, 1883^, said mercbandise is only dutiable at its first cost or net raarket value in tbe principal markets of countries wben exported, wbereas tbe appraiser, in fixing tbe dutiable value of said mercbandise, bas illegally estimated and included as a part of such-value the charges for bleaching, dyeing, dressing, finishing, and p u t t i n g up said merchandise and tbe coverings iu wbicb it is contained, or one or more of said charges, and you have assessed duty thereon. Eigtb. Tbat under section 7, of the act of March 3, 1883, tbe dutiable value of said merchandise is its cost or triie market value a t tbe date of its exportation in tbe principal markets of'the country whence it was exported, free of cbarges, but you <= bave assessed a dinity tbereon upon a valuation in excess of such net cost or value. Ninth. We furtber protest against t h e duty assessed, claiming t h a t sections 2900, 2902, 1905, and 2906 of tbe United States Revised Statutes, as well as otber provisions of law heretofore existing, bave been so modified by section 7 of tbe a^it of Marcb 3, 1883^. t b a t tbe legal dutiable valine of said goods is now to be determined witbout tbe estimation of tbe value or cost of the packages or coverings of whatsoever kind, containing said goods, or tbe putting up, or tbe packing of tbe same, or tbe estimation of auy of tbe cbarges which were dutiable by said sections, or any, otber provisions of law prior to tbe passage of tbe act of Marcb 3,1883, but the appraiser, in bis return of tbe market value of said goods, has included therein the value or cost of said cbarges, or some one or more of them, and you bave assessed d u t y tbereon witbout making any allowance tberefor. Tberefore we give notice tbat we pay all higher duties-or rates than is claimed above as the legal duty, under compulsion, and to obtain and keep quiet possession of our goods, and we also give notice t b a t we do not intend by this protest to relinquisb or waive auy rigbt we may bave to a refund of the diJQference between tbe duty exacted of us, and any less duty whicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty upon said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against the present duty cbarged upon said goods, claiming that said duty is not tbe legal duty to wbicb said, goods are cbargeable, holding you and the Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of d u t y tbereon, and bereby give notice t b a t we intend this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmission by you to t h e Secretary of thie Treasury, under tbe rules of your office, to be an appeal to bim from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future similar importations hy us. Attorney. ForN E W YORK, Hon. , 188-. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury : • S I R : Appeal is bereby taken from tbe decision and action o f t h e collector in bis as^essme^t of dut^ on the importations respectively mentioned ii^ the protest liJ.ed ijeye REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 185 w i t b witb bim under tbe rules of your office, copy of wbicb is on tbe back hereof submitted and referred to, as embodying tbe grounds and reasons of our appeal to you on eacb of said importations. Very respectfully, By CHARLES CURIE, Attorney. [Enclosure No. 2.—Exhibit No. 2.] ^ L A W OFFICE CHAS. CURIE, (44 Exchange Place, N. Y.) New York, , 168-. Hon. E D W A R D L . H E D D E N , Collector of Customs, Neiv York: SIR : We protest against your decision and exaction of duty as raade by yoa on ©ur entries below referred to of certain and otber merchandise, and against t h e payment of tbe duties exacted thereon, or exacted on auy of tbe cbarges thereon; or upon a value enbanced hy reason of the cost or value of said charges, or upon tbe exaction of duty upon any value in excess of the net value of said good as expressed in tbe invoice. In tbat— Thero have been informalities and illegalities in t h e appraisal of said goods, both as to form add substance in one or more of t b e particulars following, to w i t : The appraising officers have not exercised all reasonable ways and means in their power to ascertain, estimate, and appraise t b e true and. actual market value and wbolesale price of said goods as required by sec. 2902, Revised Statutes, and existing law. That is to say : They have acted upon ex parte testimony. Tbey bave acted upon ex parte testimony of incompetent witnesses. Tbey have excluded t h e testimony of competent witnesses. Tbey have refused the testimony of competent witnesses. Tbey have neglected to properly inform themselves of the facts submitted for their inquiry and determination by evidence wdthin their reach, contrary to t h e requirements of said section. Tbat said appraisal has not been made i n conformity with law in t h a t the legally constituted appraiser or officer has not made the personal examination as required by sec. 2901, Revised Statutes.' They have not appraised the goods a t their actual wholesale price, or their actual market value in the principal markets of the country of exportation a t t h e time of exportation as requiied by secs. 2904 and2906, Revised Statutes; and Sec. 7, act March 3, 1883. They have not appraised tbe goods at their actual wholesale price, or their actual m a r k e t value in the principal markets of the country ©f exportation a t the time of exportation as required by secs. 2904 and 2906,'Revised Statutes and sec. 7, act March 3, 1883—namely, tbe price wbicb discreet and experienced merchants in said goods can and do buy or procure tbem at wbolesale in said markets, b u t have estimated them at t h e price wbicb careless or indiscreet buyers pay for them, or wbich second-hand dealers or storekeepers sell them to casual or inexperienced purchasers. That said appraisal has not been made o n t h e appraiser's own knowledge a n d j u d g ment, b u t upon tbe suggestion of outside parties, whom t b e importer is denied the r i g h t to face and to question in support of his own sworn invoice. That t b e invoice or entered value as declared in the invoice or entry is the actual and legal value upon wbich duties legally accrue, because tbey are the actual wholesale price, cost or market value tbereof a t time and x>lace of purcbase or procurement, and duties levied in excess are illegally exacted because of t h e reasons and grounds berein set forth. T h a t in making tbe appraisal aforesaid the appraiser has acted, not on his own judgment, b u t on instructions of tbe Treasury IDepartment or special directions of special agents of the Treasury. W e protest against tbe appraisal of said merchandise as made by t h e appraising officers upon t h e further ground of informality and illegality as to both form and substajice in one or more of t h e particulars following, to w i t : T b a t if t h e appraiser is nbt satisfied t b a t our invoice price states the actual wholes a l e price or market value of said goods at t h e time of exportation, because of there being no other purchasers of said goods and a t said time and place, or for any other reason be caunot ascertain tbe actual market value of said goods, t h a t iu such case t is his duty to determine the dutiable value of said goods UUder tbe prgvi sions pf 186 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. section 9 of tbe act of March 3, 1883, not to exceed tbe cost of production aud the putt i n g up of such mercbandise for shipment; but that, ou tbe contrary, be bas made certain arbitrary additions to sucb net cost for manufacturers' or commissioners' profit, contrary to the provisions of said section. We protest furtber against tbe interference to our rigbt to an impartial reappraisement as contemplated by section 2930, Revised Statutes, by a discreet and experienced mercbant in tbe merchandise in question, and tbe denial of our rigbt t a produce evidence in support of our invoice value, and of the denial of our right to be present at tbe bearing, and of tbe denial of our rigbt to face aud question our traducers or ac cusers, as arbitrary and illegal, tbereby rendering tbe said contemplated legal remedy for our aggrievance nugatory aud of no practical use or efi'ect, but, on the contrary, rendering it a mere sbam"for tbe illegal confirmation of a previous illegal act under color of law, at the expense of tbe appellant. That tbe denial of our said rights is equally illegal, whether done by instructions from tbe Secretary of the Treasury or at tbe appraiser's own suggestion, aud w^e protest against its illegality from whichever source the denial may emanate. We protest against tbe additions to value we are obliged to make on our eutry above the invoice value to meet tbe illegal and arbitrary standard of value fixed as aforesaid, upon tbe grouuds and reasons aforesaid, claiming the same to bave been done under duress and compulsion by the arbitrary withholding from us tbe right to an impartial reappraisal as aforesaid, and to obtain possession of our goods. We furtber protest agaiust tbe duty assessed, claiming t b a t sections 2900,2902,2905, and 2906 of tbe United States Revised Statutes, as well as otber provisions of law heretofore existing, bave been so modified by section 7 of tbe act of Marcb 3, 1883, t b a t tbe legal dutiable value of said goods is now^ to be determined witbout tbe estimation ofthe value or cost o f t h e packages or coveriugs of whatsoever kind containing said goods, or the putting up or tbe packing of the same. Or tbe estimation of auy of the cbarges which were dutiable by said sections, o r a n y otber provisions of law prior to tbe passage of tbe act of March 3, 1883, but tbe appraiser iu bis return ofthe market value of «aid goods bas included therein tbe value or cost of said charges, or some one or more of them, under cover of ^' market value per se," and you bave assessed duty tbereon witbout making any allowance tberefor. We protest against the appointment as mercbant appraiser of any jpersou who is not an actual importer, aud a discreet and experienced buyer of like goods iu the principal markets of the countries from which tbe said goods bave been imported, as contrary to tbe provision of section 2930, Revised Statutes, and existing law. We especially protest against tbe appointment of a domestic manufacturer as mercbant appraiser, and of the rigbt of the collector so to do, and against tbe collector's decision claiming sucb right, upon tbe ground tbat sucb appointment is iu direct con'flict witb tbe provision of section 2930, Revised Statutes, providiug for a discreet and experienced mercbant, and therefore illegalj and depriving us of tbe otberwise legal redress of tbe wrong complained of. Some of the reasons for our objections to said appointments a r e : Tbat he is an interested party in keeping up high values. That bis business interest depends to a great measure in keeping up such prices. Tbat he bas no experience as a mercbant in the markets ofthe countries from which said goods bave been imported. That be is biased, and an interested party. That be does not come within the legal requirements, in tbat he is not a discreet aud experienced mercbant, nor is be familiar witb the foreign value of tbo goods in question, nor is he an experienced buyer in such markets. We further specifically protest against your denial of our right to a reappraisement as provided by section 2930, Revised Statutes, without first paying an amount of money for tbe expense of sucb reappraisement. T b a t you have no authority in law to exact of us sucb fee or sum of-money as a prerequisite to our right to said reappraisement, and your action in so doing is arbitrary and illegal. That tbe appraisal as made by the local appraiser is wrong, incorrect, and based upon a false standard, or erroneous conclusion as to tbe facts, from which appraisal we bereby appeal by virtue of said sefction, claiming tbe rigbt thereto, free from any taxation for tbe privilege tbereof. Therefore we give notice t b a t we pay all higher duties or rates t b a n is claimed above as the legalduty under compulsion and to obtain and keep quietpossession of our goods, and we also give notice t h a t we do not intend by tbis protest to relinquish or waive any rigbt we may have to a refund o f t h e difi'erence between tbe duty exacted of us and any less duty whicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty ou said "goods,intending tbis protest to be made against tbe preseut duty cbarged upon said goods, claiming that said duty is not tbe legal duty to wbicb said goods are cbargeable, holding you and tbe Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you upou said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of duty thereop^ f»,ud hereby give notice that we intend tbis protest to apply to fill future KEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. 187 similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmission by you to tbe Secretary of the Treasury, under the rules of your office, to be an apxieal to bim from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future similar importations by us. We separately protest against tbe returned value as made by the ax>praiser as erroneous, informal^ aud illegal in tbat be bas, contrary to the provisions of sections 2902, 2904, and 2906, Revised Statutes, based bis valufition on contracts for future delivery, tbereby taking an hypothetical or speculative value instead of the actual wholesale market price whicb actually obtained for immediate delivery on tbe day of exportation, claiming tbe invoice value to be tbe correct value of said goods, and tbat unless it is sbown by evidence of actual transactions made on tbat day, by purchases and sales lor immediate delivery, our invoice must stand as evidence of the true value, and cannot be avoided or set aside for purpose of admitting hypothetical and speculative values based ou a theory as to wbat migbt be tbe value at some time in tbe future on the happening of some coutingent event. We furtber and separately protest against the appraising officer's metbod of computing t h e cost of said good's under the provisious of section 9, act March 3, 1883, as informal and illegal, in t b a t tbey bave not computed the same by ascertaining tbe cost aud value of tbe materials composing sucb merchandise at t b e time aud place of manufacture, togetber with tbe expense of manufacturing, preparing, aud putting up sucb mercbandise for shipment. Tbat w^e intend this protest to apply to the actions of tbe reappraising officers as weil as to tbose of tbe local appraisers. Yessel. Prom- Date. Kind of entry. Entry No. Date of liquidation. ^ -, Attorney. For[Enclosure No. 3.—Exhibit No. 3.1 Hon. E D W A R D L. H E D D E N , Collector of Custonis, port of New York: S I R : In tbe matter of tbe eutry, appraisement, reappraisement, liquidation, and demand for duties on tbe importation of mercbandise marked . Invoice dated at •. Goods shipped per S. S. from . Please take notice t h a t we bereby protest against tbe payment of tbe sum of I—'•— and the sum of | , amouuting in all to tbe sum of $ -, exacted by you from us as additional duty upon said invoice, wbicb amounts we bave paid under duress and compulsion, in order to obtain possession of our goods, holding you and tbe Government responsible for tbe return of tbe said excessive amounts exacted from us ou the goods iu question ; and t h a t w^e protest against tbe exaction of any duty on said mercbandise beyond tbe amount paid by us upon tbe original entry of tbe same on or about tbe day of , 188-. We claim t b a t tbe liquidation assessment and exaction of any duty in addition to tbe amount paid by us on tbe entry of said goods, including tbe additional duty or penalty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, are not warranted by law. We claim that the appraisement and reappraisernent of said goods by virtue of which the suras beyond tbe amount paid as aforesaid for duty at tbe time of t h e entry of said goods were assessed tbereou, w^ere not, nor was eitber of tbem, conducted in accordance with the requirements of law, and tberefore tbe liquidation, assessment, and exaction of said duty and penalty, so called, in addition to tbe amount paid at tbe time of said entry, were unwarranted, illegal, and void. ' / We claim tbat said re-appraisement was illegal and void, because tbe mercbant appraiser wbo acted on said re-appraisement was not a disinterested merchant and free from bias; beeause'be was not a discreet and experienced merchant; because be was not familiar witb the character and value of said goods; because be was not qualified or authorized by law to act as sucb merchant appraiser, and because you bad uo authority to appoint bim mercbant appraiser; and also because tbe undersigned were not allowed t o b e present eitber in person or by representative during tbe proceedings on said re-appraiseriient; because we were not allowed to be present eitber in person or by representative during tbe examination of tbe witnesses on said re-appraiseineut j beeau^e we were ^ot permitted to be presetit gn &m^ re-appraisement tu 188 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. examine the witnesses t h a t were produced to testify agamst us j because we were not allowed to be present on said re-appraisement and to produce witnesses in our own behalf and to have them examined in our own behalf, for the purpose of establisbing tbe correctness of the prices of said goods; because we were prevented from examining tbe written statements of the witnesses on said re-appraisement, notwithstanding tbe fact t b a t said statements were read and considered by said re-appraisers, and influenced their minds in reaching their conclusions on said re-appraisement; because we were not permitted on said re-appraisement to appear by or to be represented by an agent, factor, or broker; because we were not permitted to appear by, or to be represented by, or to bave the assistance of counsel on said re-appraisement—all this contrary to law. Because improper testimony and statements were received and accepted as evidence on said re-appraisement, including the statements or testimony of American merchants unfamiliar with the foreign market value of said goods; because competent and material statements offered and tendered to said general and merchant appraisers on said re-appraisement were excluded; because competent and mateiial statements ofi'ered and tendered on said re-appraisement as evidence of tbe correct valuation of said goods w^ere excluded by said re-apprais e r s ; because said re-appraisers disregarded tbe evidence as presented in tbe testimouy of witnesses on said re-appraisement, and acted contrary to tbe evidence, and upou tbeir own judgment and supposed knowledge in deciding the same, to the great injury of said importers; because tbe decision arrived at on said re-appraisement was contrary to tbe facts, contrary to tbe evidence adduced, and contrary to l a w ; because testimony was received and accepted by the said re-appraisers as competent evidence wbich was so incompetent, improper, irrelevant, and valueless tbat it should have been ignored, set aside, and disregarded altogether; because said general and mercbant appraisers and each of them in their deliberations on said re-appraisement, and, in tbe decision arrived at, acted in fraud and evasion, and disregard of tbe law, and in collusion with the collector of the port and the Secretary of the Treasury, for tbe purpose of exacting t h e excessive and illegal duty paid as aforesaid; aud, furthermore, tbat they conducted said re-appraisement in fraud of the importers, and by collusion witb adverse or rival interests, and by information or advice not communicated to the iraporters, and on evidence unknown to tbem, which they were afforded no opportunity to controvert, baving been denied a bearing; because you would not release said goods or permit said mercbandise to be re-appraised upon our demand therefor, witbout exacting frora us payment as and for compensation for said merchant appraiser, an amount and an exaction unwarranted b y l a w ; and we protest t h a t said re-appraisement was altogether irregular, unlawful, fraudulent, and void, and not in conformity with our demand tberefor, and tbe laws and regulations applicable thereto; and also tbat your appointment of mercbant appraiser to assess duties on our said importations was unlawful and void, and tbat you have no warrant or authority tberefor, nor had sucb mercharit appraiser any lawful qualification or right to act officially in the premises, and we hereby demand a re-appraisement of said goods to be conducted according to law. We claim t b a t said appraisement and re-appraisement eacb aiud both of them were illegal and void, because none o f t h e said goods were properly or legally examined by tbe appraiser, the assistant appraiser, or the examiner, wbo originally examined and advanced the prices of the same; because none of said goods were eitber properly examiued or appraised on sucb original appraisement; because said re-appraisers did not. nor did eitber of tbem, diligently and faithfully examine and inspect such packages of said goods, described in said invoice, as were duly desiguated b y t h e collector, and ordered to the public store, tbere to be opened, examined, and appraised; because none of said goods were properly examined by the general or the merchant appraiser as required by law, nor did the said general or merchant appraiser eitber propeiiy or legally examine or appraise tbe same; because none of said goods were properly examined by any or all of tbe witnesses on said re-appraisement, who testified for the Government and against.tbe importers, nor did any or all of said witnesses eitber properly or legally examine or appraise the same, and we also claim that said appraiser, assistant appraiser, and examiner, as well as said general, and mercbant appraisers were severally and collectively in making their said pretended appraisement and re-appraisement, unlawfully under the suggestion, direction, and undue influence • o f t h e Secretary ofthe Treasury and otber unauthorized persons, and t h a t said pretended appraisement and re-appraisement were not in fact, nor was either of them tbe act of the appraising or re-appraising officers assuming to make tbe same, but was the record o f t h e determination or desire of some otber officer or person wbo was witbout lawful authority eitber to appraise or re-appraise said merchandise; because said general and mercbant appraisers violated t h a t provision of law^ whicb requires that appraisers shall arrive at their conclusions by " a l l reasonable ways aud meaus" witbin tbeir power, tbe ways and means resorted to on said re-appraisement being unreasonable, unjust, unlawful, a n d i n the highest degree arbitrary and oppressive; bec?iuge thetyue and tactual foreign uni-rket v^lue find wholesale price Qf said goods ou ll^PORT OF THJE SECIIETARY OF THE TREAStfRY. 189 which duty sbould bave been assessed, was the value of tbe same as stated in tbe said invoice, tbe value by and in accordance with which such goods are bought and sold in the foreign market aud any otber or diff'erent so-called foreign market value or wholesale price, sbould not bave been accepted, cpnsidered, or regarded in any manner whatsoever in the assessment of duty on said invoice ; because the amount exacted as duty on tbe cbarges mentioned on the said invoice, including cartons, packing, packages, putting up, coverings of various kiuds, packing materials, labor in packing, and otber miscellaneous charges was unjustly and illegally exacted. Said charges should not have been considered or taken into calculation in estimating tbe duty, or any part thereof, on the said goods, for the reason, t b a t under tbe laws of the United States, the naked merchandise alone was liable to duty, according to section 7 of the tariff" act of March 3, 1883; because said appraisement and re-appraisement and each of them were conducted and concluded contrary to l a w ; because said appraisement and re-appraisement, and each of them, were unlawful and illegal, aud sbould be canceled, set aside, and declared null and void. . We claim t h a t the additions to^ the invoice value of the charges for packing and putting up, which were b y t h e cnstoms officers of this port placed upon tbe entry as a p a r t of the so-called dutiable value of said goods, were illegal and unwarranted; t h a t your refusal to permit said merchandise to be assessed for-duty at tbe value expressed on tbe invoice, with said* additions or deductions allowed, was unlawful aud unwarranted ; t h a t your menace, and t h a t o f t h e appraising officers, to impose a penalty or additional duty on said merchandise, unless we made or submitted to the addition of said undutiable items to the true invoice value, was unwarranted by law, and t h a t such additions as we made to said invoice value were made only in order to avoid tbe payment of said additional duty or penalty, and to obtain possession of our goods, and we claim t h a t the additions compulsorily made to said invoice by or under t h e direction of tbe revenue officers, were unwarranted by law, and t h a t we should n o t b e in any respect concluded or bound tbereby. We also protest against tbe fees or special compensations of any and every nature whatsoever exacted from us on the entries and liquidations of the entries, and appraisement and reappraisement of said goods. Wherefore, we demand t b a t said duties illegally exacted of us, as aforesaid, be repaid to us in accordance with our claim herein set forth. Uated, New York, —• , 188-. APPEAL. To the Secretary of the Treasury : ' You will take notice tbat pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, we hereby appeal from tbe decision ofthe collector of customs at this port, assessing duty on our importations of mercbandise described in the above protest, and for the reasons particularly set forth therein. Dated, New York, , 188-. Office and P. O. address, No. 4 William Street, New York City. [Enclosure No. 4.—Exhibit No. 4.1 \ Claim Dee, June 28, 1886; covers also SS. N E W YORK, June 26, 1886. Hon. . Collector of Custonis, New York: SIR : We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of duties as made by you on our importations below nientioned, consisting of certain nails, composed of iron, shank and head of composition metal, of which copper is the component material of cbief value, u. s. e. or p. f., plated or gilt, claiming said goods are entitled to entry at 4 cents per pound under section 2499 and the provision for ^ * and all other wrought-iron or steel nails, u. s. e. or p. f., in Scbedule C, actMarch 3,1883, or if these nails are to be deemed excluded from said provision because of the material their heads are composed, or because of tbeir commercial designationIthen they aredutiable, first, wnder the provision in said Scbedule of said act for all composition metal of which copper is the comp. mat. of c. v. u. o. s. e. or p . f., or at 35 per cent, ad valorem for all manf. of which copper is the comp. mat. of c. v. u. s. e. or p. f.; or, second, at no more than 35 per cent, ad yalorem under the provision in said schedule for plated and gilt articles and wares of all kinds, they being known as ''gilt-beaded nails," and not at 45 per ceut. ad valorem or as cbarged by you ; and we give notice t h a t we pay all other higher rates thau is claimed above as the legal rate under compulsion and to obtain possession of our goods; and we also give notice that we do not intend by this protest to relinquish or waive any right we may have to a refuiid of the differ- 190 m^pon-r OF THE SECRJSTARY OF THE TREASURY. ence between tbe duty exacted of us aud auy less duty wbicb may hereafter b e adjudged tbe legal duty upon said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against tbe present duty cbarged upon said goods, claiming t h a t the said duty is not tbe legal duty to which said goods are cbargeable, holding you and the Governuient responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, aud protesting against all illegal exactions of duty tbereon, and bereby give notice tbat we intend this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmissiop by you to tbe Secretary of the Treasury, under tbe rules of your office, to bean appeal to bim from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future similar importations by us. . ^ Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, New York. For . i Enclosure No. 5.—Exhibit No. 5. j N E W YORK, , 188--. Hon. Collector of Custonis, New York : S I R : We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of duties as made by you on our importations below mentioned, consisting of certain braids, plaits, flats, laces, trimmings, and tissues, used for making or ornamenting bats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in p a r t of silk, cotton, flax, hemp, metal, wool, or worsted, or other substance or material, and not specially euumerated or provided for under existing laws, claiming said goods to be subject to only 20 per cent, ad valorem under the provision of Scbedule N, act Marcb 3, 1883, and not at 50^ 45, 40, 35, or 35 and 40 per cent., or as charged by you ; and we give notice t b a t we pay all other higher rates tban is claimed above as tbe legal rate under compulsion and to obtain possession of our goods ; and we also give notice t b a t we do not intend by tbis protest to relinquisb or waive any.rigbt we may bave to a refund of the difference between the duty exacted of us and any less duty wbicb may hereafter be adjudged the legalduty upon said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against the present duty charged upon said goods, clairiiing t h a t said duty is not the legal duty to wbicb said goods are cbargeable, holding you and the Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of duty tbereon, and bereby give notice tbat we i n t e n d this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend the duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmissiou by you to the Secretary of tbe Treasury, under tbe rules of your office, to be an appeal to him from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future similar importations by us. Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, N. Y. For —• ... N E W YORK, , 188- [Enclosure No. 6.—Exhibit No. 6.1 Hon. Collector of Customs, New York : S I R : We hereby protest against your decision, liquidation, and assessment of duties as made by you on our importations below mentioned, consisting of certaiu torchon ' laces, of liiieu or linen and cotton mixed, or otber like mixed laces, claiming t h a t such as have flax or linen as a component material of chief value are dutiable at ouly 30 per cent, ad valorem, by force of section 2499, Revised Statutes, as flax or liuen laces and insertioijs, under the provisions of Schedule J, act of March 3, 1883, because, first, said laces assimilate to flax or linen laces more tban to any other euumerated laces ; or, second, because linen or flax being the component material of chief value, , they are dutiable by force of said section and schedule as if wholly of linen or flax ; or, thirdly, by force of said section and schedule, at no more than 35 per cent, as a manufacture of flax n. o. p. f.; fourth, those whicb have cotton as a component material of chief value are dutiable at 30 per cent, by assimilating to ''linen laces," by force of section 2499, Revised Statutes, and Scbedule J of said a c t ; or, fithhj, at uo more tban 35 per cent, ad valorem as a raanufacture of cotton n. o. p. f. under said section and Schedule J, act March 3, 1883, and not at 40 per cent, ad valorem, or as cbarged by you ; and we give notice t h a t we pay all other higher rates tban is claimed above as the legal rate under compulsion and to obtain possession of our goods; and we also give notice t b a t w^e do not intend by this protest to reliijquish or waive 9-ny REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF TME TREASURY. 191 right w^e may have to a refund of the difference between the duty exacted of us and any less'duty wbicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty upon said goody, intending this protest to be made against tbe present duty cbarged upon said goods, claiming t h a t said duty is riot the legal duty to wbicb said goods are chargeable, holding you and theGovernment responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of duty tbereon, and hereby give uotice t b a t we intend this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmissiou by you to the Secretary of the Treasury, under tbe rules of your office, to be an;appeal to bim from your decision, and to Ukewnse apply to all i'ufcure similar importations by us. Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, New York. For . [Enclosure No. 7.1 P O R T O F N E W YORK, Naval Office, February 22, 1886. Hon. NELSON W . A L D R I C H , ^ U. S. Senator, Washington, D . C : M Y D E A R M R . SENATOR: Before I had thoroughly considered tbe x>roposition to establish an appellate board of appraisers I was averse to it.. I am convinced t b a t tbis was caused by a trace of t h a t official over-conservatism t h a t I am generally free from. Tbe more t revolve the matter now t h e more I am persuaded t b a t it affords tbe only practicable relief from the difficulties in reappraisement under preseut tariff' conditions. I; would advance t h e following points as cogent: (1) Tbat t h e original conditions wbicb induced tbe employment of merchant appraisers no longer exist. Not only is appraisement not an arbitration or a compromise, b u t the class of merchants from whom sucb appraisers sbould be drawn is uot now available for tbe purpose. I t forms too small a proportion of tbe entire mass to be available in view of the vast increase of business. The great proportion of consignees in tbe aggregate mass of importers is fatal to the utility of sucb a metbod of reappraisement. (2) Tbe collector should be relieved from all concern in appraisements, eitber iu tbe selection of reappraisers or as an umpire when they disagree. At tbis port the collector has so much else upon his hands t h a t he cannot attend to appraisement duties . properly. This alone would suffice were there no other reasous for his relief. I reiterate my profound conviction t h a t there is no escape frora undervaluations with our high rates and tbe existing and probable future commercial conditions. A heavy customs t a x can be collected with uniformity and ease only by sjiecific rates, and it is only upon the presumption t h a t it is impracticable to generally substitute tbese for our present ad valorem rates t b a t I have sketched tbe followiug as tbe metbod I think the best adapted to the purpose in v i e w : Let there be establisbed in the Treasury Department a board of, say, twelve officers wbo sbould have final appellate jurisdiction as to appraisement of imported mercbandise and of all questions of fact relative to the classification of sucb mercbandise, aud cbarged with tbe equalization of valuations of mercbandise throughout the whole customs service. These officers should be appointed by the President, witb tbe advice and consent of tbe Senate, and sbould hold tbeir offices duriug good behavior, removable only upon cbargesi filed in the Treasury Department and publicly announced. They sbould receive a salary of, say, $6,000 per annum, and tbe payment of actual traveling expenses when on public duty away from tbe port of detail, as hereinafter provided. The central office of tbe board sbould be at tbe port of New York, and tbe officers sbould be detailed by the Secretary of the Treasury from time to time, so t h a t tbere be tbree officets at tbe port of New York and one eacb at tbe ports of Boston, Pbiladelpbia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, and San Francisco, and two at large for tbe districts east of tbe Rocky Mountains, and one at large/or tbe districts west thereof, tbe residental ports of sucb officers.at large to be fixed by tbe Secretary of the Treasury. Tbe Secretary of the Treasury sbould change tbe detail of tbe several officers at stated intervals, so t h a t they would rotate from port to port. In case an importer is dissatisfied with tbe original appraisement of any goods, or witb tbe classification of sucb goods as affected hy tbe facts appertaining thereto, b(^ sbould bave tbe rigbt to appeal to the appellate appraiser at tbe port or in the district where sucb goods are imported, and t h e decision of sucb appellafe appraiser should be finalaud cojiclusive as to the value of the goods or as to tbe facts relative to clcisslficatipn. At tbe port of New York tbe tbree appellate appraisers sbould be 192 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. organized as a board, whereof one of tbem, by devSignation of tbe Secretary of the Treasury, should be chairman, and tbe appeal sbould be made to such cbaitman, who should be empowered to refer it to either of bis associates for decisiou or to tbe full board of three officers, as be should deerri advisable, and the decision made by sucb ofBcer or board of officers sbould be final and conclusive. At t h e central office a t New York sbould be received and filed general and special reports from United States consuls and otber officers as to t h e market values and prices current a t all foreign markets, as well of r a w materials as of mauufactured articles, the prices of labor, rates of depreciated currencies, and copies of sucb foreign commercial journals as t h e Secretary of t h e Treasury may have subscribed for. Samples of goods appraised from time to time sbould be collected and kept for reference, as also samples sent by consuls, w i t b prices current marked tbereon. From tbe central office circular letters should be sent to all appraising officers, giving tbe appraised values of merchandise, accompanied, when practicable, by samples of tbe goods. Tbe decisions of t h e appellate appraisers should govern all appraisements subsequently made until set aside by new decisions, and i t should be competent for the Secretary o f t h e Treasury to order a conclave of at least five of tbese officers to meet at New York to consider and determine valuations, witbout regard to appeals for reappraisement, and t h e values so determined should continue until set aside by new decisions. This would provide for advances in value throughout t h e country, without regard to appeals by merchants. I am aware t h a t this scheme is crude, and t h a t the details I have given should be partly legislative and partly administrative. But w h a t I have presented may be suggestive, though I believe you have given the subject some attention and may have perfected your ideas. Apart from t h e crudity of my proposed plan, I perceive there are three objections to which it might seem open: (1) That it is in its terms arbitrary—what is popularly called "one-man power." I t may seem paradoxical, b u t it is nevertheless true, t h a t t a x laws, to be efficient and uniform, must be enforced b y arbitrary measures t b a t secure a prompt and final decision. I n tbis they are similar to our election laws, which have reached practical perfection in New York State b y a summary decision. (2) That the plan is expensive; but, o n t h e other hand, t h e task is.one t h a t requires well-paid officials and an effective staff, and I sbould not think an annual outlay for salaries, clerk-hire,traveling and other expenses of $150,000 to $200,000 would b e a t all excessive in comparison with the results economical and otherwise to be obtained. (3) Tbat t h e scheme is cumbrous, and requires t h e co-oi)erative and uniform action of many officers. I t must be remembered t b a t tbe assessment of ad valorem duties is cumbrous, since it demands t h a t t h e fluctuating values in a thousaud foreign markets sball be determined in a hundred ports and with equal precision at New York and Evausville, Ind. To secure harmony and justice in the administration of such a complicated and burdensome method there must be a special macbinery t h a t in the nature of things is as complex as the fabric it is to produce. The fault is not in the plan b u t in the. nature of t h e work it is designed to accomplish. Secretary Manning's recent communication t o the House is a clear and strong presentation of some of tbe difficulties encountered in administering customs laws, and imposes upon Congress t h e responsibility for relief. I hope Mr. Hewitt's bill providing a new basis of dutiable values will be rapidly pressed, so as to make as little disturbance to business interests as possible througb tbe radical cbange in taxation caused by tbe recent Supreme Court decision. < Very respectfully, SILAS W. BURT, Naval Officer. Ko. 5. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y , Washington, D. C , November 16, 1886. S I R : 1 have yours of the 12th instant, in which you transmit to me certain blank forms of protests in use at the port of ^ e w York, which ^re marked '* Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6." REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 193 I shall be under obligation to ;foa if you will ascertain and report to me, as far as you are able to ascertain it, what' decision, if any, was made iu regard to the illegality of those protests ou account of vagueness 5 by whom that decision was made, and also what report, if any thereou, was transmitted to this-Department. Eespectfullv yours, . ^ .' ^ DANIEL .MANMNG, • Secretary. ^ Hon. SILAS W . BURT, Naval Officer, New York City. No. 6. P O R T OF N E W YORK, Naval Office, November 17, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. : S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, relative to certain exhibits of vague protests contained in my letter of the 12th instant, and requesting me to ascertain and report to you what decision, if any, was made in regard to the vagueness of such protests. I would respectfully report that until your order of March 13 last went into operation at this port, on May 1, the protests were never seen at this office. I w a s therefore ignorant regarding all procedure and usage as to such documents prior to the last date. I was then, informed that such protests as I have invited your personal attention to were accepted by the Department upon appeals, and as they continued after that date to be accepted by the collector, who had been the repository of all previous orders and regulations as to protests, I saw no reason to reject them. I was confi^rmed in the belief that such protests were acceptable under existing laws and regulations by an examination of the protest upon which the suit of Oberteuffer vs. Eobertson was brought, which is quite as indefinite as to the items objected to as is the protest represented as Exhibit No. 1 in my inclosures. I hav^e felt that if such protests were acceptable under the law as now framed that there should be additional legislation requiriug a protest to be as precise and detailed in its terms as is now the bill of particulars, as defined by section 3012, Eevised Statutes. I t may be that there are orders and regulations or decisions by the Department^ made prior to your order of March 13, and consequently unknown to me, which would have caused the rejection for vagueness of some protests officially acted upon here since that date. I have, however, no official means of reference to any such orders, &c., if any such there be. I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, SILAS Wc BUET, Naval Officer. H. Ex. 2—VOL 11-^—-13 194 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. No. 7. • • • •" , -NOVEMBER 13. S I R : In the report made to me by the appraiser at New York, it appears that from October 1,1885, to September 30, 1886, there were 16,927 invoices advanced n value b y t h e appraiser; that 1,587 were advanced more than 10 per cenc. and 2,050 appealed for reappraisement. It also appears by the report of General Appraiser Bro wer that during the same period 2,089 invoices (the discrepancy is explained by the appraiser) were appealed ; that 106 were withdrawn ; that on 426 the entry was sustained; that on 272 the appraiser's advance was wholly, and on 1,014 partly, sustained; that on 49 the value was returned to be more than the appraiser had reported; that on 114 there were divided reports which went to the collector, and 108 are unfinished. I desire to know how many of the inyoices advanced by the appraiser over 10 per cent, represented purchased and how many consigned goods, and also what portion bf the 272 invoices in which the appraiser-s advance was sustained on reappraisement were for purchased goods» Also, I wish to be told how many of those 1,587 and of those 272 invoices, if any, were by the coilector presented to the district attorney foT prosecution as fraudulent, or were represented by the naval officer to the collector to be iraudplent. If it shall be that none of the iuvoices thus advanced in value by the appraiser and the reappraisers have been presented to the district attorney for prosecution as fraudulent, or only a very small portion, then I desire to be made acquainted, if possible, with the reasons which persuaded the proper officers of the customs that those invoices had all, or nearly all, been hoiiestly and innocently made and with no intention to defraud the revenue. Eespectfully yours, ,. Dv'MANNING, • Secretary. Hon. SILAS W. B U R T , / Naval Officer, New York, : • "• N o . 8 . . ••-:; • •-/•:•. - ': P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , NAVAL O F F I C E , Noveniber W, 1886. Hon. DANIEL^ MANNING-, . ' •'//•','-''• Secretary of theTreasury, Washington, D . C : S I R : I have the honor to inform you that I would have made an earlier acknowledgment of the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, relative to reappraisements and additional duties, had I been able to obtain the required information to answer the inquiries therein made. I find that the records in this office do not refer to the conditions of appraisement on the several invoices, and that I can only report to you the respective numbers of invoices for consigned goods and purchased goods advanced ten per cent, or more and on which additional duties were assessed during the year ending September 30,1886. This, however, will not coincide with the nunibers given by the appraiser for the same period, since the transactions in the several customs offices are not coincident, and as I have not the detailed list of invoices included in the appraiser's report,, I cannot collate my own statistics with those given by him. I t will take several days longer to get up the entries and invoices for my report on this point. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY. 105 Eeferring to the last queries in your letter of the 13th, I would answer that I am not aware that within the year ending September30 last any invoices were presented by the collector to the district attorney as fraudulent. There were none such officially represented by the naval officer to the collector as fraudulent. Since the passage of the act of June 22, 1874, known as the ''Antimoiety Act," it has been held that in the absence of any evidence of fraudulent intent, other than that of under-valuation in the invoice and entry, no prosecution, either in rem or in personam, could be sustained. Thus an invoice and entry of goods at one-quarter their appraised value would not work forfeiture . or other penalty, unless it could be affirmatively proven that such an under-valuation was made by invoice and entry with intent to defraud therevenue. Yery respectfully, ^SILAS Wo BUET,Naval Officer. No. 9. • P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , NAVAL O F F I C E , November 27,1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, Do -Co • S I R : I have the honor to inform you that in answer to your inquiry of the 13th instant, relative to what proportion of advances of value by reappraisement attach to consigned goods, I have found great difficulty in obtaining trustworthy data, on accountof the method in which the customs accounts have been kept. But in a review of the additional duties assessed under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, for advances in value since October 1, 1885,1 find that of the advances carrying a penalty of $50 dollars or more there were 70 per cent, attached to consigned goods. If there were excluded from the problem the penalties assessed upon addition of value of coverings and of charges (prior to Suprerae Court decision) the proportion of consigned goods subject to a material penalty would be aboiit 75 per cent, of the whole. , Wishing I could give you more satisfactory statistics, I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, SILAS W. BUET, Naval Officer. No. lOo NOVEMBER 13,1886. S I R : I send you herewith a copy of a printed report of ''communications respecting undervaluation of impprted merchandise submitted by an organization of merchants and manufacturers of Boston " ou March 4, 1886, and request you to carefully examine the same, and report to me whether or not facts within your knowledge, since you have been a naval officer, and if so, what facts, justify the criticism and condemnation applied therein to importers and customs officers at the port of New York, and to this Department as well. I call upoii you, and not the collector or surveyor, to favor me with the result of your observation and experience in that regard, because the collector has so Recently come to the port of New York, and the sur 19G " REPoitT OF T H E SECRI^TARY 6 F THE TREASURY. veyor is now prostrated by a severe illness, and because your intelligence, experience, and zeal in the matters referred to are of an exceptional character. Will.you kindly return to me the inclosure? Eespectfully yours, <), DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. SILAS B . BURT, Esq., Naval Officer, Neiv York City. No. 11. H A N S S. BEATTIE.—Appointed Surveyor of Custoras fort be port of New York, New York, J u n e 27, 1885. CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K C I T Y , Surveyor's Office, November 4, 1886. S I R : Acknowledging the receipt, by due course of mail, of your letter of the 15th instant, calling for certain information touching the administration of the affairs for the past twelve months of the department of which I have the honor to have charge, I respectfully report that, while, in theory, the duties of surveyors of customs are solely executive at ports where there are also a collector and naval officer, the port of New York covers so vast an extent of territory, and the volume of business transacted therein is of such magnitude, that, in addition to purely executive duties, the surveyor is constantly called ou to take greater responsibility and to decide more intricate questions of law^ and regulations than the collectors of customs at other ports. A t this port there are 320 inspectors of customs; 119 night inspectors (so called); 87 weighers and assistant weighers; 13 gaugers and assistant gaugers, and a force of 175 weighers' laborers, on an estimate for the smallest average day's work, also 14 skilled laborers and 28 ordinary laborers with the gauger. To see that this force performs its varied duties properly and efficiently is the special function of the surveyor. Experience has shown him that it is unwise, if not entirely impracticable, to vest discretion in these subordinates, and that that surveyor who considers it primarily his duty to see that the regulations of the Department and the orders of the collector are carried out to the letter, secures the best results to the service. During the past year much progress has been made in the conduct of the aff'airs by the simplification of the methods of business procedure, a continuous insistance on clearness and certainty in the issuance of orders, and the enforcement of strict compliance with the provisions of the statutes and regulations. To secure a proper observance of these statutes and regulations it has been found necessary to recommend the removal of many subordinates in all branches ofthe force subject to the supervision of the surveyor. The causes of such removals have been in some cases inexcusable ignorance of the rules and regulations goYerning the bureau in which the removed officer served, in others an apparently inherent inability to become subject to the simplest requirements of discipline, and in almost all, as compared with that reciprocityof regard which usually obtains between the private employ6 and employer, a callous indifference to the iuterests of the Government. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 197 Simplification in the method of business procedure has been obtained— s . First. By mobilizing the gangers' force under one head, concentrating its clerical employes in one office, and directing the performance of its outdoor work therefrom. For a detailed statement of the benefits which have thus far accrued to the service and to the public from the reorganization of this force, I respectfully refer to the report of Mr. C. H. Knight, gauger, under date of October 18,1886, herewith submitted, Second. By the adoption ofthe same principle of mobilization to the force of inspectresses, who, under the immediate supervision of one of their own sex, are now detailed to their respective assignments in the same manner as inspectors of customs are detailed. Heretofore the method of assigning inspectresses to duty was to have them notified, under the immediate direction of the deputy surveyor or Superintendent of the barge office, at their homes, by telegraph, of the arrival of steamships at Fire Island, Sandy Hook, or Quarantine, according as notice was received of the arrival of a vessel at one or the other of these points. Obviously this system of operating this force was liable to, and did frequently result in, the failure of an inspectress to be promptly in attendance at the wharf on the arrival of a vessel. To render such occurrences less liable to takeplace, and for the purpose of securing a proper record ofthedujbies discharged by the inspectresses, they have been divided into two watches, of four each, the tirst reporting for and awaiting assignment to duty in a room in the barge office (separated from other branches of the force there located), from 9 o'clock a. m. to 4 o'clock«p. m., a detail being made from that of one or more of them who may not have actually performed work during these hours, for any vessel which may arrive at her wharf between the last-naoied hour and 9 o'clock a. m. of the following morning, when the second watch relieves the first froin duty for the next twenty-four hours. The results thus tar obtained from this change have not only been more satisfactory to the service, but also to the inspectresses themselves, among whom a more equitable division of the aggregate of duties to be performed by them has been secured, without at the same time sacrificing any consideration for their sex, which should be observed. Third. By the modification of regulations, an instance of which is that approved by the Department March 12, 1886, in respect to the transfer of bonded merchandise for export and the shipment of merchandise entitled to drawback, when exported. The modification of this regulation has been made without prejudice to the revenue, the expense of collecting which would have been ma lerially augmented by the increased force which would have been necessaril}^ required to strictly carry out the provisions of the regulation before it was modified. , Among the matters which, at the present time, seem to me most deserving of the attention of the Department are: First. The condition and methods of conducting the business of the force employed in weighing. Second. The questions ofthe examination of passengers' baggage and the payment of duties thereon on the wharf. Third. The transfer to public store of packages ordered there for examination. For some time previous to July, 1885, the port of New York was, with reference to the weighers' force, divided into four districts, each under the charge of a United States weigher, too small a number, if the certificates of weight on which the collector bases his liquidation of the duties on articles paying duties by weight should be signed by the 198 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. person ascertaining it, and too many, by tliree, if the duties of weigher can be construe;d to be merely supervisory. The ascertainment of gross weight is comparatively simple. Giv^en correct a t d sharp beams and accurately adjusted poise, and true gross weight can be obtained by persons of ordinary intelligence, exercising care; but the question of tare is more difficult and requires judgment and experience in selecting the packages to be tared, so that proper representative packages of the whole lot may be taken. The emplo^^ment of unskilled labor in handling the merchandise to be weighed, so that a sufficient number of laborers may always be ready when required, and . yet none be employed that are not needed, is a result which ought to and cau be substantially attained. It must be conceded that the collector should base his finding of the amount due the Government by an importer, on merchandise paying duty by weight, on a statement or return made to him by that employ^ who directly ascertained, or, at least, witnessed, the ascertainment of the net weight so stated or r<eturned. The courts have decided (Marriott vs. Brune, 9 How., 619), that the collector is bound by the return of weight made by the weigher, he being ,the officer created by the statute for the purpose of ascertaining the weights ofmerchandise upon which duty by weight is paid. To have returns of weight made by the United States weighers who have personally supervised the actual weighing and ascertainment of tare would, at this port, require that the number of such w^eighers be increased to at least twenty, involving an incjrease of $40,000 in the expense of collecting the revenue—-for their salaries alone—if, as has been generally conceded, the act of Juue 26, 1806, fixing the salaries of weighers at this port, has not been repealed by reason of its provision not being included in the revision of the Statutes. The question then arises, Has the collector the right to accept, as the basis of liquidation of an entry, a return or statement of weight made to him by an assistant weigher '^ If this question be decided in the affirmative, the reorganization ofthe weighers' department is comparatively a simple matter, which might be accomplished by constituting it of one weigher, at a salary, as provided by law, of $2,500 per annum, whose duties should be the direct supervision, under the surveyor, of twenty, or more or fewer (as experience may decide to be necessary), principal assistant weighers, at a compensation, to be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as noio, at $4 per diem, or, perhaps, $25 per week, whose duties shouid consist of personally making or supervising the making of weight, allowing of tares, and making and signing of returns. • Under these principal assistant weighers the remaining number of assistant weighers (whose salaries might be fixed at $3 per diem, or $20 per week) deemed necessary could be employed. The employment of unskilled labor could be regulated by the appointment of one foreman of weighers' laborers and two classes of laborers—those employed by the week and those by the hour, as emergency might require—it being the duty ofthe foreman to assign them to work, as the principal assistant weighers might inform him, from timeto time, their services were needed. The reduction from the amount now paid the assistant weighers would not only offset the shght increase in the compensation of the principal assistant weighers, but the amount saved from the salaries of the weighers w^ould also make a large reduction in expenses. . This plan, if adopted, would give no principal assistant more than he could j)ersonally attend to'; and, by enabling the weigher and the surveyor to hold him to a strict and rigid responsibility, would certainly REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 199 increase the efficiency of the force and insure the greatest accuracy of the returns. On the 20th of March last I addressed a communication to the honorable the collector of the port, recommending a reorganization of the weighers' force. The recommendation, approved by the then collector, was, as I have been informed, forwarded to the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury. As up to the present date I have not been officially advised of what disposition, if any, was made of that communication, in order that the views then presented may be before you with those now expressed, I take the liberty of reproducing it here. It is as follows: CusTOM-HousE, NEW YORK, Surveyor's Office, March 20, 1886. S I R : Tbe honorable t b e Secretary of tbe Treasury baving ordered a reorganiza- . tion of the gangers' force a t tbis port, in accordance witb tbe terms of my recom-, meudatiou to bim, uuder date of January 18, 1886, I would respectfully suggest tbe propriety and practicability of applying tbe same metbod of mobilizing and operating the weigbers' force from a suitable central ijoint a t tbe i)ort. Tbe force, as now organized, is distributed, as you are aware, over four priucipal districts, eacb of wbicb is under a cbief weigber, at an annual compensation of |2,500, or au aggregate of |10,000. Eacb of tbese weigbers has a central office, and one of tbem (tbe weigber iu cbarge of tbe Brooklyn district), in addition to bis central ofifice, bas tbree suboffices. To eacb of tbese offices, both principal and sub, tbere is ^attached a clerical, janitor's, and otber force, wbicb it is necessaryto maintain under existing arrangements. There is also a force of assistant weigbers (sixty-two in number), apportioned among tbese districts and divisions, at an expense, for eacb assistant, of | 4 per diem, or an aggregate of $77,624 per anuum. I n addition to tbese regular assistant weigbers, tbere are also temporary assistant weigbers and laborers employed by tbe w^eigbers at a compeusation of 30 cents per bour wbile actually occupied.' The average number of sucb temporary assistant weigbers employed during tbe fourteen weeks ending Marcb 4, of the present year, was forty-eight, eacb of whom was occupied d u r i n g t b e sameperiod an average of forty-nine and one-half hours, and received an average compensatiou of $14.83^ per week. It is unnecessary, for my present purpose, to state tbe cost of labor and otber incidental expenses for tbe same period, as it is not at present contemplated t b a t tbe metbod of employing such labor, or providing for tbe other incidental expei^^srs, be changed. Data which I h a v e collected show t b a t in tbe Brooklyn district (to wbich forty regular assistant weigbers are assigned), between J a n u a r y 2 and March 15, of tbe present year, tbere were numerous days upon wbicb from live to eleven regular assistants rendered no service whatever t o t h e Government. For instance, on J a n u a r y 2, 1886, in tliat district, there were nine of tbese regular assistaLL v/eigbers who were awaiting orders all day at an expense of $36 to th^ Treasury, for it received no return wbatever ; on tbe 4th of tbe same montb tbere were seven ; on tbe 8tb, five; on tbe 9tb, t e n ; on tbe 21st, eleven; on tbe 25th, eleven; o n t h e 29tb, five, and a proportionate nuniber of idlers during tbe entire period coveredby tbe records wbicb I have bad made. Investigation has shown me t b a t tbe facts just stated are approximately true of tbe otber districts, aud t b a t tbis loss of energy and waste of money must be chiefly attributed to tbe existing metbod of organization. As au initial step toward securing more efficient aud economical administration of tbe force, I respectfully recommend— First. T b a t tbe services of tbe four cbief weigbers be discontinued, and t h a t in tbeir stead a superintendent of weigbers, at an annual salary of $3,500, and a superiutendent of taring, a t au annual salary of $2,500, be appointed. Second. Tbat tbe services of sixty-two assistant weigbers, wbo now receive a compensation of $4 per diem eacb, be discontinued, and t b a t autbority be given to employ in their place aud stead, not exceeding fifty weigbers, a t a compensation of 40 cents per bour. Tbird. Tbat thw autbority now possessed for employing temporary assistant weigbers, at a compensation of 30 cents eacb per hour, be discontinued. Fourth. That the services of tbe present foreman of weigbers be discontinued, and •that autbority be given to employ eigbt temporary foremen of weigbers, at a compensation of 50 cents each per bour. Fifth. That tbe existing provisions for tbe employment of skilled aud ordinary laborers, ja.uitors, and otber necessary force be contiuued. Sixtb. That tbe central office, for tbe transaction of the business of the entire weighers' force, be located at tbe barge offico, with eigbt suboffices; four in Brooklyn, 200 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. one in Hoboken, two on tbe Nortb River, aud one on tbe East River, Now York City ; tbe intention being to place a foreman iu cbarge of eacb, tbe suboffices to be chieily for tbe purpose of storing the tools, and as a locus for tbe assembling of laborers, &c. Tbe foregoing recommendations are so far iu accordance with tbe views wbicb I bave frequently expressed since I assumed office t b a t I trust tbey will receive your approval aud t b a t of tbe bonorable tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury. If adopted, they will not only secure uniformity of procedure in tbe conduct of the business of the weighers' force, but tbey will also result in a very material reduction of operating expenses. I am satisfied tbat, with tbe better means of supervising tbe force wbicb sucb reorganization will afford fifty men, employed at a compensation of 40 cents per bour, at au estimated annualcost of $50,000, will perform tbe services of tbe sixty-t^yo men wbo now cost tbe Government over $77,000 per aunum. Otber items of saving to be effected will occur to you, as, for instance, tbe $4,000 o f t h e amount now paid cliief weigbers, tbe one-third of t b e expense now incurred for a scattered clerical force, and the avoidance, to a very large exteut, of tbe expense uow incurred by numerous regular assistants being occasionally idle wbile in receipt of pay. The saving likely to be effected by tbe employment of a superintendeut of taring will be tbe subject of .another communication. , Yours, very respectfully, H. S. BEATTIE, Surveyor. Tbe COLLECTOR O F T H E P O R T . I understand that objections were made through some official channel to the following, among other, recommendations, made in theforegoing communication: First. To the employment of a superintendent of taring. Second. To the method of employing weighers at a per horam than a per diem rate of compensation. The first objection, I am unofficially informed, was made on the grounds that a superintendent of taring was an officer unknown to the statute, and that it was as much the duty of weighers to ascertain the tare as it was their duty to ascertain the gross weight of merchandise. (3learly this last objection was made under a misapprehension of the duty which it was intended a superintendent of taring should discharge. The object in recommending the appointment of a superintendent of taring did not contemplate that such an officer should ascertain the actual tares on all merchandise weighed—an obvious impossibility—but that he should ascertain that such tares as were found by the weighers were honestly found. There is no more important duty discharged by a weigher than that of the ascertainment of tare. I t is a very important duty—one that requires skill, knowledge of the nature of the merchandise to be weighed, and familiarity with the coverings in which it is imported. In this connection, I would respectfully refer to a recommendation of the surveyor under date of March 20,1886, relative to the result of tests made, under his direction, ofthe weight of bags in which sugar was imported from Havana. The statement inclosed with this showed that the then existing schedule allowance of tare was altogether too large, there being, in. some instances, a difference of| nearly 100 per cent, in favor of the Government, between the actual ascertained tare and the tare allowed by schedule, and on receipt of which the Department amended article 598 of the regulations of 1884, so as thereafter to require that actual tare only should be taken on all such sugars. This very recommendation was bottomed upon the fact that the weighers had neglected to do their duty under Article 597 of the regulations, a neglect which could not possibly have continued so long had there been an officer charged with the special duty of seeing thalt the (xovernment received its just allowance of tare. Whether or not such an officer was known to the statutes was not considered. The object REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 201 was to indicate the necessity for the appointment of an officer—by whatever title he might be known was immaterial—who would give his undivided attention to the practices employed and the methods pursued by the weighers in the ascertainment of tares. The second objection—namely, to the employment of men at a per horam rather than at a perdiem rate of compensatiouT—was, asT have been unofficially informed, made on the grounds, among others, that on a tenure of office of so uncertain and limited duration, it would be impossiblejo secure honest and efficient service, and that opportunity would b e afforded to a surveyer who desired to avail himself of it, to frequently fihsiDge the personnel of the force for political rather than for business purposes. As matter of fact, temporary assistantweighers have been for years, and are now, employed on the conditions proposed, at less favorable rates of compensation; and the chief weighers who were in the service when the present surveyor entered it, and the more competent of them, have repeatedly stated that the work done by the temporary assistants at the lesser rate of compensation, was and is done as satisfaetorily as that peiformed by the permanent weighers at the higher rate of compensation. But neither is the appointment of a superintendent of taring nor the employment of weighers at a per horam rate of compensation a vital object of the reorganization then or now recommended. The essential part of both of the recommendations is that which contemplates the operation of the force from the most available central point.in the port under the immediate supervision of one head, in order that uniformity of procedure in the conduct of business transactions of the same nature may be obtained, and that waste of time and force may be avoided. A reorganizatiou which will secure such a mobilization of this force and the operative concentration of its scattered energies must benefit the revenue and be of great convenience to the commercial interests of the port. Whether under such a reorganization one class of weighers shall, as now, be employed at a rate of $4 per diem; another, as now, at a rate of 30 cents per hour, and the laborers connected with such force at the rate of 30 cents per hour while actually employed, or whether all assistant weighers and all weighers' laborers, who may be necessary to the discharge of the duties connected with this Bureau, shall be paid a per diem rate of pompensation, is a matter of minor importance, and onC'which need not prevent the adoption of the essential features of either recommendation. In this connection I beg leave to draw your attention to a communication from me to the collector of the port under date of July 13, ultimo, forwarded by him to the Department with letter of approval under date of July 30 ultimo, recommending the expenditure of $5,000 for the purchase of a steam launch for the speedy transfer of various customs officers under my supervision and control to and fro within the limits of the port, as might be required by their assignment to duty. As promptitude and dispatch are among the principal objects of the proposed reorganization, the adoption of the suggestion made by me in said commuhication and approved as stated by the collector would be a not unimportant element in the effectiveness of the suggested change. I believe, howjever, that a perusal of the letters referred to will make it apparent that its adoption would be in the interest of economy and good business method, not merely as an adjunct of the proposed reorganization, of the weighers' force, biit even independently thereof, 202 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. and I accordingly take this occasion of again presenting the matter on both grounds for your consideration. Second. Examination of and payment of duties on passenger^'baggage on the wharf. These are .matters which, in the past, have been the fruitful source of scandal and complaint. During the last year the cause for both has been largely diminished. But as this decrease in the cause for com plaint has, as far as the conduct of the force is concerned, largely resulted from the fear of loss of place, rather than from the assertion of a self respecting manhood, the improvement in this particular has not been wholly satisfactory. By uo means is it intended to be understood that all inspectors are generally or habitually guilty, while in the act of examining passengers' baggage, of disregarding the prohibitions of the statutes and regulations; but it cannot be denied that, to some extent, passengers continue to fee the officers with whom they are brought in contact on the wharf, and that some of these occasionally accept gratuities. The custom of feeing officials for sometime^ real, but more frequently imaginary favors received, has so long obtained ainong the traveling public that it is extremely difficult to entirely stop it. In every case in which the ofieuse of accepting a fee has been reasonably fastened upon an inspector he has been removed^ The offense, however, is so difficult of proof; passengers in giving fees to these officers observe so religiously the rule of not letting their left hand know w^hat their right hand (Joes, and the opportunities afforded on poorly lighted and numerously crowded wharves for the infraction of the law unobserved are so great that the evil complained of can only be eradicated by an incessant weeding out from the service of such inspectors as may be reasonably suspected to be guilty of the offense. Under these circumstances, calling as they do forthe minimum of interference with the right of the responsible supervising officer, for cause which is satisfactory to him to remove a subordinate, the tendency to insist as a condition requisite to the removal of an officer, that the proof of his guilt shall be as strong as that which would convince a jury in court, the continuous efforts of subordinate officers to compel the making of such proof of cause for removal, and the encouragement which they receive from wellmeaning citizens in the maintenance of this position, offer a most serious obstacle to the realization of good and clean service. The honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, by the detail of several special agents' inspectors to assist the surTcyor in the detection of irregularities on the part of inspectors in examining baggage, hai materially aided that officer in the supervision of this lorce. It is, hoNvever, evident that when oneof these officers complains of an infraction of the regulations by an inspector, and the latter, as he usually does, enters a general denial to the complaint, the surveyor is inevitably compelled either to take no action on the complaint, or, because of his faith in the Mrness and honesty of the complaining officer, to recommend the removal of the alleged offender. Objection may be made that the supervision which it is desired to obtain by these assignments of special inspectors is the proper function of the deputy surveyor, and that he, if competent, woujSil be able to fill all necessary requirements. The answer to such objection is that the so-called deputy surveyor is a deputy only in name ; that the time of the present deputy, as was that of his immediate predecessors, seems to be almost wholly occupied in the supervision of inspectors employed in the examination of passengers' baggage; that it seems im])ossible to obtain^ for a compensation of $2,500 per annum, a man new to the serv REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 203 . iQe, who is possessed of that equipment of character and intellect which constitutes the surest guarantee of securing good, intelligently-directed and clean work, well done. Subordinates who have been long in contact with and the' associates of other subordinates of equal grade, are rarely free from embarrassment when they become the superiors of their former equals in office, and the experience of the present surveyor is that their hearty co-operation in any efforts to improve the service by removal for other than scandalous conduct is not to be expected. If employt^s, who find in the letterof the regulations a law for whose spirit no respect is found in their consciences, are to be eliminated from the service, such elimination must be effected* through the assistance of officers who are untrammeled by their former associations. In the absence of any provision for a compensation which would secure the entire time and services of a deputy of a much higher order of ability than has beeii possessed by the majority of those w^ho have been appointed to that office, it is only by the use of such agents as these specially-assigned inspectors that the surveyor can inform himself of the character of the force supervised by him and the quality of their work. In the mean time the system of collecting duties on the wharf would be improved if the representative of the appraiser were required to keep an account showing the amount found by him to be due on each entry of merchandise appraised by him, and to forward the same, through the United States appraiser, to the collector, in order that it might be coinpared with the returns of the other officers, and any failure to collect the full amount appraised detected. Another check on possible irregularities in the collection of duties on the wharf would be provided by requiring the collector's representative to give a receipt for the amount received by him from passengers in payment of duties. Passengers frequently imagine that the money they pay on the wharves as duty is not accounted for to the Government, but is retained by the officer receiving it, and that it merely represents an unauthorized levy or assessment which the inspector who has examined their baggage makes for his own benefit. The furnishing of a propeiiy worded receipt to each passenger who pays duties on the wharf would do much to remove this impression. Third. Delay in the transfer to the public store of packages ordered there for examination is also, from time to time, the cause of complaint, by importers. It must be admitted that under the present system of transferring these packages from such points as the w^harves at Hoboken and Jersey City, they frequently do not reach the public store until a week after the vessel in which they were imported has been entered at the custom-house. While many causes combine to produce this result, the principal reasons assigned for the delay are the manner of discharging a steamer under a general order, day order, and night permit, and the fact that since the passage of the act known as the '^antimoiety act"; the contract for public cartage has to be awarded, ^fter advertisement, to the lowest bidder. The question is one that has been so fully discussed during the past year in my reports to the collector that I now merely deem it necessary lo call attention to a suggestion in one of the latest of such reports, namely, that the delay complained* of in relation to the transfer of j)ublic store packages from New Jersey, Brooklyn, and other points remote from the public store could be avoided by the use of steam lighters instead of the use, as at present, of trucks or carts. Doubtless, such a change iii the means of transfer is practicable, and could be properly construed as the '^'public cartage of merchaudise." 204 'REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ThG practice of taking the capacity of casks containing distilled spirits brought in bond to this port for exportation, is one to which I have called the attention of the Departmeht as unnecessary, and have suggested the propriety of modifying the regulations relating thereto, as more fully appears by the following : [Extract from report made to collector by sarv^eyor, Ootober 12,1885, in re treatment of reimported American whiskiea.] The history of a barrel of whisky reimported is tbis : W h e n i t leaves tbe distillery w^arebouse for export its capacity is ascertained, which, with tbe wantage and otber particulars, are cut or punched ou the bilge stave, and a warehouse and an export stamp affixed, containing tbe sa'me information. Its serial number is also branded ou it. I t is transported uuder bond to tbe collector of tbe port from whence it is to be exported. It is tbere gauged again by a.customs gauger, wbo bas to ascertain its capacity, wantage, &c., alongside the export vessel, and is also watched by au agent of the internal revenue, wbo takes tbe proof, and in case "there is an excessive wantage, is, I believe, expected to account for it. It is exported, and after a time, greater or less, is imported as an "American production returned,'^ and as sucb is admitted upon payment of a duty equal to,tbe internal-revenue tax ; but first, and before it can be admitted as an "American production returned," tbe impbrter must prove to tbe satisfaction of tbe collector in wbat vessel it was exported, its serial number, its export number, produce a certificate tbat it was landed abroad, and tbe customs gauger must be satistied after again gauging it and scoring it t h a t it is tbe " original "package, serial numbers and all, before be can stamp it "American wbisky reimported." Now, I respectfully submit t b a t sucb a barrel ought to be forever after— if it bears anywhere, on eitber of its beads, tbe customs stamp of imported liquors—free from suspicion, aad tbat if auy internal-revenue agent sbould ever want to determine its history, be should be instructed to ask for it from tbe collector of tbe port wbere it was returned. Tbe mere giving of tbe serial number of tbe import stamp would be sufficient for tbe collector to furnish its entire history. I have, if anything, understated the various manipulations and markings that a barrel of "American wbisky returned^' bas to be subjected to before it can reach tbe control of an importer or bis customer. But I bave dwelt upon it at length because I bope tbe Department will look into the wbole matter, witb a view of seeing if some regulations cannot be framed whicb, wbile protecting both tbe iuternal and customs revenue, will reduce very greatly tlie expense necessary under tbe present regulations, and I would be very glad if the Departnient would detail some oflScer of tbe internal revenue to confer with you and tbis office, to the end t b a t some more prtjcticable regulation may be arrived at. , As already noted, the Department, under date ofMarch 12,1886, modified article 295 of the Surveyor's Eegulations, so as to remove the difficulties theretofore encountered in the strict enforcement of the unamended regulation. In the same communication in which this modification was recommended attention was directed to the existing practice in regard to the transfer of goods under I. T. entries, reference being made to the propriety of fixing the time when, and the place where, the responsibility of the common carrier begins, but especially with the view of effecting a further simplification iu the conduct ofthe business of the surveyor's department. Notwithstanding that in view, of the modification of the regulations in regard to the transfer of bonded nierchandise for export, and the shipment of merchandise entitled to drawback when exported then allowed, it was considered by the Department that the practice in respect to the transfer of goods under I. T. entries might remain unchanged. I avail myself of this opl)ortunity to request a reconsideration of the suggestion, and for that purpose I respectfully submit the following extract from my letter to the collector, under date of February 5,1886, in relation thereto : Tbis mercbandise is transported from tbis port to certain ports desiguated by law, b y t h e great railroad companies of tbe couutry, who, althougb under very heavy bonds required by tbe Governmeut from tbem as " common carriers "°to transact tbis business, are not apparently responsible until tbe merchandise is delivered to tbem at tbeir depots. REPORT OF THE SECttETAtlY OF t f i t l TRfeAStlRY. ^ 206 In practice any broker or agent presenting the proper bill of lading and invoices is permitted to make an I. T. entry by any bonded route in tbe third division of the collector's office. Tbis entry is cbarged against tbe bond o f t h e common carrier in tbe seventb division, witbout tbe knowledge or consent of tbe coisimon carrier, and a permit is issued to the discharging inspector of the import vessel, directiug bim to send tbe mercbandise described therein to tbe depot of the common carrier by tbe carts or lighters designated on tbe back of the permit, a n d n o t until tbe mercbandise is loaded on the cars of tbe comraon carrier does its agent receipt for tbem. Article 4S8 of the Surveyor's Regulations of 1883 directs t h a t I. T. mercbandise sball he transferred from the discbarging vessel to tbe common carrierfs depot under tbe same supervision as is required in case of tbe exportation of imported mercbandise to foreign countries. I respectfully submit t h a t tbe practice at this port, in regard to tbe entry of mercbandise for transportation without appraisement, should be changed ; t b a t no entry should be allowed until the agent of the common carrier consents to tbe entry being charged against its bond, and t h a t the only customs drayman or lighterman t b a t should be designated hy tbe collector for tbe transfer of tbe merchandise from the discharging vessel to the car, vessel, or vehicle of transportation should be t b a t of the common carrier t h a t has assumed the responsibility by permitting tbe entry to be charged against its bond. If this cbange of practice should be made, I am of opinion t h a t the supervision of the shipping inspector, as provided in article 432 (Surveyor's Regulations, 1883), would fully comply with the requirements of tbe act of J u n e 10, 1880. and tbe safety of t h e r e v e n u e be amply provided for by tbe transfer ticket prescribeel in article 430 (Surveyor's Regulations). Importers are occasionally subjected to much inconvenience by a practice which obtains in the fifth division of the collector's office of requiring that the permit shallbe an exact copy of the bill of lading, even if it contains manifest clerical errors, or differs frpm the invoice. Although the collector is bound by law'^to account for every package on the manifest of a vessel, and the bill of lading is a copy of the manifest, there seems to be no good reason why, in addition to the marks and numbers, as given, of the bill of lading, the permit should not have any discrepancy between the bill of lading and the invoice noted ou it, preceded by the word " or." Inspectors could then note on their return under which, mark or number the packages themselves were found. This method of procedure would seem to be as safe as that of having a permit first delivered to the inspector, then recalled, and merely indorsed, by some deputy collector, ''Land and return as found," while, in time alone, it would frequently save the importer twenty-four hours. I trust that the foregoing statement will impress you with the advisability of the reforms suggested in that branch of the service. I should have replied earlier to your inquiries had not the stress of business compelled me to postpone my answer until near the expiration of the time allotted in your letter. As you are xirobably aware I was then the subject of an assault which until now incapacitated me from completing and forwarding this reply. I am, sir, yours, respectfully, H. S. BEATTIE, Surveyor. Hon. DANIEL MANNma; Secretary of the Treasury. ,200 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Enclosure l^o. 1.] CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK C I T Y , Gauger's Office, October 18, 1886. H A N S S . B E A T T I E , Esq., Surveyor: SIR : I beg leave to offer a report as to tbe workings of tbe gauger's department since the reorganization by you, May 1, 1886. Im tbe first place I will take up tbe matter of baving one gauger at an office located in t b e custom-bouse, instead of tbe old plan of having tbree gaugers witb offices located in different parts of tbe port of New York. I will submit a case for illustration: A mercbant imports tbree lots of wine b y three different vessels, to be discbarged at piers in Brookl.y n, on tbe East River, and on the North River; under tbe old plan of tbree gangers' offices it would necessitate tbe mercbant sending to all tbe different gangers' offices for information as to wben tbe wines would be gauged and returned. Now, under thepresent plan, he can, by call^ ing or sending to tbe gauger's department, a t once obtain any information as to t b e time the wines would be gauged, returned, &c. Tbe reorganization as made by you is not only a great source of benefit to tbe wine and liquor importers, but is also a benefit to tbe department. Tbe expenses are less, the work is attended to more promptly, tbe men under tbe gauger are under better control, and a t all times i t is known wbere eacb and every member of the gauger's force can be found if wanted. I will now take as an example tbe case of a clerical error in a gauger's import return : Under tbe old plan t h e gauger would make his returns to your office for examinatiou as to clerical correctn-ess and tben return to his office. If, after an examination of tbe returns by your office, an error sbotild be found, tbe gauger would not know of i t until tbe next day, witbout the return for correction was sent to bis office by special messenger. Now, under tbe present plan, each and every return of gaugers are examined in the gauger's office before tbey are sent to your office; but if by auy chance an error sbould be overlooked by the gauger's office it can be at once returned, and tbe error corrected witbout delay. I have conversed witb many importers of liquors, custom-bouse brokers, and clerks of importers, and I find tbere is but oue opinion, t h a t tbe reorganization as made by you is a success in every way. Herewith please find letters from some of those baving business witb gauger's department. By. statement herewith you will see t h a t in tbe five montbs of tbis year, 1886, tbo nominal fees of the gauger's department were in excess of tbe expenses $3,137.94 while in the same montbs of 18>So tbe expenses exceeded the fees 1^,742.14, aud in tbe same length of time there were gauged, in 1886, 4,765 casks more than in same montbs of 1885. Tbat is, in tbe jGLve montbs of 188.'^ tbere were 170,244 casks gauged, a t an expense of 124,050.44, while in the same time, 1886, tbere were gauged 175,009, casks, at an expense of $21,181.^4, showing a gain of 4,765 casks gauged as also au amount in fees of 12,869.10. And in conclusion I would say tbat, after many years of experience in tbe gauger's department, I am fully satisfied tbat tbe gauging of imports and exports under tbe present plan can be attended to witb more dispatch tban ever before. Very respectfully, C. H . KNIGHT, Gauger. Ganger's department. 1885. 1886. Montb. Expenses. May June July Auo^nst... September Pees. Expenses. 67 90 31 08 34 $4, 986 44 4, 823 59 5,172 91 4. 633 00 4,434 50 $6,487 80 5,615 56 4,247 77 4,545 96 3, 548 95 $4,170 17 4, 334 11 4, 300 30 4, 242 80 4,133 96 21, 308 30 24, 050 44 24,440 04 21,181 34 $5, 008 4, 611 4, 725 3,198 3, 764 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Fees, 1885 ..;....... : Fees 1886 , 207 $21,308 30 24,446 04 Excess in fees, 1886 3,137 74 Expenses, 1885. :;...... Expenses, 1886 24,050 44 :....... 21,181 34 Saved in expenses 2, 869 ip Expenses over fees, 1885 Pees over expenses, 1886 ^. 2, 742 14 3,264 70 [DuTivier & Co., New York.l NEW YORK, Ociober 18, 1886. C. H. KNIGHT, Esq., United Statps Gauger: D E A R S I R : I n answer to your query in regard to t b e location of t h e United States gangers' and stampers' offices,-1 would^say w^e find t h e present system of combiuing all the gangers' and stampers' offices in t b e custom-bouse to be a great improvement on tbe old plan. I t facilitates the business of tbe importers very mucb, we can get our , goods staniped in one-third the time we could formerly, and would be very loth indeed to return to t b e old system. Yery truly, yours, DU VIVIER & CO. '\ , [Officeof James Eeid & Co., 49 Broadway.! 1 C. H. KNIGHT; Esq., N E W YORK, Oc<o&er 19, 1886. United States Gauger: D E A R SIR : I n response to your inquiry, if tbe present mode of concentrating tbe department of gauger and stamping office in the custom-house is more convenient for tbe merchants than tbe former practice of several gaugers at different locations, would say t h e present is infinitely more convenient, saving t h e merchants a great deal of time and labor, t b e former method beiug cumbersome, inconvenient, and a great loss of time. Yours, truly, &c., ^ JAMES REID & CO. fOffice of Josepb H. Beams & Co., No. 253 Wasbington street. 1 NEW YORK, Ociober 18, 1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , United States Gauger: . . DEAR SIR : We consider tbe present arrangement for gauging and stamping goods in bond very advantageous t o tbe importers. Our goods are gauged aud stamped promptly under tbe present system, wbich a t times is of considerable importance to us. Yours, &c., ^ J . H . BEARNS «fe CO. [Peter McQaade, importer, 33 Pearl street.] I N E W YORK, Octoher 18,1886. C. H. K N I G H T , Esq., United States Gauger, Custom-House : D E A R SIR : I have mucb pleasure in acceding to your request to give my opinion as to bow t h e transaction of the business in your department now compares witb its conduct previous io t b e 1st May last. Briefiy, I find much improvement; our facilities are increased, t b e vexatious delays that existed formerly much decreased, aiid I should be extremely sorry to find the department reverting to t h e old methods. I am, sir, yours, truly, P E T E R McQUADE. 'i08 REPORt O F T H E SfeCREfARY O F f U E TREAStJtlY. [F. Boegler & Co., 26 South WiUiam street.] NEW YORK, October 18, 1886. C. H. K N I G H T , Esq. Uniied States \yeigher and Gauger: DEAR SIR : We take pleasure in expressing our entire satisfaction with tbe management of your department during t b e past five months. The vexatious delays b y whicb our business bad suffered prior to t b a t time are now removed, and we only trust t b a t tbe present system may continue in force. Very respectfully, yours, F. BOEGLER & CO. [Emil Schultze & Co., 36 Beaver street, New York.] NEW YORK, October 18, 1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , United States Gauger, Fort of New York: D E A R SIR : We tbink t b a t t h e present system of stamping and gauging is better than t h e old one, as it does away witb unnecessary delays, and we would suggest t b a t tbe metbod should be continued, as we are convinced t b a t it would satisfy all tbe wants of tbe importers of New Yock. Respectfully, yours, EMIL SCHULTZE & CO. [Offlce of Gottsch Brothers, importers of wines and brandies, No. 346 Greenwich street.] N E W YORK, October 18,1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , United States Gauger, Fort of New Yoi'k: D E A R SIR : Comparing t h e preseut system of gauging and stamping now in force in your district with tbe former metbod, we would like to say t b a t it is working to our entire satisfaction, and tbat in our opiuion, i t is far above tbe old way. Very respectfully, . GOTTSCH BROS. [Clarence M. Eoof, 22 College place.] NEW YORK, 'October 18, 1886. Mr. C. H. KNIGHT, United States Gauger, Port of New York : DEAR SIR : We find t b a t t h e present metbod of gauging aud stamping followed in this city is much superior to the old metbod, preventing numerous delays aud annoyances. We sincerely hope t h e department will continue in t b e same line. We feel certain t h a t tbey will receive t h e thanks o f t h e merchants of New York. Respectfully, yours, CLARENCE M. ROOF, Per M. HOYT, Attorney. [Office of Davis, Clark & Co., 15 Dey street.] N E W YORK, Octoher 18, 1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , United States Gauger, Fort of New York: . DEAR SIR : We find t h a t tbe present metbod of gauging and stamping our goods is far superior to the old way, inasmuch as we are not obliged to visit several warehouses in New York, and oftentimes go to Brooklyn, in order to have a cask gauged and stamped. We remain, yours, very respectfully, DAVIS, CLARK & CO. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY/OF THE TREASURY. -209 [Samuel Streit Sc Co., 31 Liberty street.] N E W YORK, October 18,1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , , United States Gauger, Port of New York: D E A R S I R : We take pleasure in stating t b a t t b e method of gauging a n d stamping now followed in this city is a decided improvement over t h e former style and meets w i t h our approval. Respectfully, yours, &c., SAM'L S T R E I T . & CO. [Pringle & Gondran, 138 and 140 Liberty street.] NEW € . H . K N I G H T , Esq., YORK, October 18, 1886. > United States Gauger, Fort of New York: " D E A R SIR : I n regard to t h e present arrangement of one office for the issuing of stamps and assignment of gaugers, we wish to state t b a t we are in favor o f t h e present system, and hope i t will continue. We remain, Respectfully, yours, PRINGLE. & GONDRAN. fFerd. Euttmann, sole agent for Messrs. J . J . Meder & Zoon, Schiedam and Amsterdam, 51 Broadway.] NEW YORK, October 18, 1886. CHARLES H . K N I G H T , Esq., United States Gauger: > D E A R S I R : I n answer to your request for my opinion about t h e recent changes in the location and workings of t h e United States gauger's office, i t affords me a great deal of pleasure aud satisfaction to state t h a t t b e present appears a most decided improvenient on former methods of transacting the business of t b a t office, and its cent r a l location in t b e custom-house building a great convenience and saving of time t o the* merchant. I can cheerfully testify t o t h e prompt attention and dispatch of all business whioh has passed through your office for my account. Yours, respectfully, FERD. RUTTMANN. [Edw. Blackburn & Co., 25 Beaver street.] N E W YORK, Ootober 18,1886. C. H . K N I G H T , Esq., United States Gauger, Fort of New York: D E A R SIR : We are decidedly in favor of t h e present arrangement of having only one office for tbe stamping of wines and spirits, and hope there may he no change, as we find it a great improvement on t h e old system. Yours, truly, EDW. BLACKBURN & CO. [Ramsay Crooks, 25 Soutli William street.] N E W YORK, October 18, 1886. C. H . K N I G H T , Esq., - United States Gauger, Fori of New York: D E A R SIR : I n regard t o t b e present arrangement of one office for t h e issuing of Btamps and assignments of gaugers, I wish to state t h a t I am in favor of t b e present system, and I bope i t will continue so as long as t h e present system of stamping imported wines and liquors is enforced. Yours, respectfully, RAMSAY CROOKS. H. Ex. 2~voL n—-14 210 ' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.^ [I. Hays & Co., importers of wines, brandies, seltzer water, &c., 55 Warren street.] N E W YORK, October 18, 1886. C. H. K N I G H T , Esq., United States Gauger, City: . . , DEAR SIR :. We bereby wish to inform you t b a t tbe system of stamping and gauging now in operation under one department works better than t b e old'; Respectfully, I. HAYS &.C0., . Per J . M . [56 Wall street.] NEW Mr. C. H. K N I G H T : YORK, October 18, 1886. „ DEAR SIR : We tbink t b a t tbe couvenieuce o f t h e merchants bas been largely pro» moted by tbe cousolidatiou ofthe various gauging districts uuder one central head in the custom-bouse. The work bas been more promptly done and more promptly r e turned, and we are of opiuion tbat tbe iuterests of t h e Government as well of tbe merchants bave been greatly conserved tbereby. ' Very truly, yours, B. WARREN HAMM, Representing Messrs. Cook &, Bernheimer, Darwin &> Co., Gonzalez Byass & Co., C, H. Pye, E . C Hazard & Co., Osw. Jackson & Bro., Dodge, Cammyer &. Co., Davis, Clark & Co., C. Fraebt & Co., R. Greucen & Co., C. H. Marten, A. Rijneyo Scbmersahl & Wittzhau, and others. [P. W. Engs & Sons, No. 131 Front street. New York.] NEW Mr. CHAS. H . KNIGHT, YORK, October 18, 1886. ^ United Staies Gauger: D E A R SIR : We are pleased to say t b a t tbe changes in t h e working and location of United States gauger's office is favorably observ^able over t h e former modes of transaction of business witb tbe office. I t s location is certainly a very great convenience^ being quite central to tbe majority engaged iri tbe business requiring t b e gauger's services. . The promptness with whicb all our requirements are met calls for our strong commendation. Yours, truly, P. W. ENGS & SONS. [Cook & Bernheimer, 144 to 150 Franklin street. ] N E W YORK, October 18, ^1886. Mr. C. H . K N I G H T : D E A R SIR : We desire to express our approval of tbe change recently made consolidating tbe various gauging districts of tbis port into one district and under one bead. 'Our experience is t h a t t h e mercbandise imported and exported receives equal, if not better, attention under the present system tban could possibly obtain under a system divided in itself. We are of opinion t h e change has been to tbe benefit of tbe merchants. Yours, respectfully, * COOK & BERNHEIMER. [Lawrence Myers & Co., office 35 and 37 South William street.] NEW YORK, October 18, 1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T -: D E A R SIR : We are greatly in favor of the present method of gauging and stamping^ liquors, as it avoids numerous delays wbich occurred under the old system. Respectfully, LAWRENCE MYERS & CO. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 211 [Heyman Brothers, importers, 75 Murray street.] N E W YORK, October 18,1886. Mr. C. H. K N I G H T , United States Gauger, Fort of New York : D E A R SIR : We find t b a t t h e present method of gauging and stamping our goods is far superior to tbe old way. Yours, very respectfully, HEYMAN BROS. [Enclosure No. 2.] CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK, Surveyor's Office, July 13, 1886. SIR : I cannot find t h a t t b e exact limits of the port of New York as a subdivision of the colleetion district of the city of New York are anywhere legally or officially defined. Custom, however, appears to bave bounded its northern limit on the Hudson River by Communipaw on the west and the city line on the east; on the East River by Port Morris on the west and Point Lawrence on t h e east. Its soutbern boundary follows t h a t of the collection district, including Staten Island. The water front embraced witbin these limits, as will be seen by t h e report of Lieutenant^Colonel Houston, o f t h e United States Engineer Corps, inclosed herewith, is over 150 miles. This water front is divided into fifty districts, to eacb one of wbicb it is necessary to detail at least one iuspector of customs for tbe protection of the revenue, in supervising the discharge of smallsvessels, to wbich it is impracticable to assign other inspectors, and in receiving from and shipping by common carriers mercbandise in bond (appraised and unappraised). lu addition to the inspectors tbus detailed to district duty, other inspectors are assigned to steamers and large sailing vessels as tbey arrive, and remain on duty wiih them wberever tbey discbarge until tbey are unloaded. Tbe weighers and gauger, with tbeir assistants a,nd laborers, are also constantly employed on all portions of this water front. All of these persons scattered, as tbeir respective duties compel them to be, I am required, u n d e r t h e provisions of section 2627 of the Revised Statutes, to superintend and direct. To do this properly, it is necessary for me to visit various parts of tbe port, often remote from one anotber, a t very short notice. I bave caused to be prepared aud^inclose herewith a table showing the distances o f t h e places, wbicb it is my duty to visit, from t h e barge office, the most central point in tbe port, the time which, under the most favorable circumstances, taking advantage of ferries, horse-cars, aud elevated railroads, is necessarily consumed t o reach eacb place, compared with tbe distances by water, and the length of time required if use were made of a steam launch. Sucb a steam lau icb, capable of steaming from 8 to 10 miles per hour, can be purchased bere, complete and in good order, for less t b a n $5,000. In view o f t h e fact t h a t its use in sending for inspectors from remote distric s when their presence at tbis office is required, aud in transmitting orders wben promptness is essential would save tbe services for otber important duty of several inspectors, in addition t o permitting me to perform my personal duties properly. I bave no hesitation in recommending t h a t a sum not exceeding $5,000 should be expended .for tbis purpose. I am, sir, very respectfully, H. S. BEATTIE, Surveyor. Tbe Hon. COLLECTOR O F T H E P O R T . [Enclosure No. 3.] , CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK C I T Y , Collector's Office, July 30,1886. The SECRETARY O F T H E T R E A S U R Y , Washington, D. C : SIR : I respectfully transmit herewith a communication from the surveyor of the port, under date of t b e 13tb instant, with inclosures, recommending the expenditure o f a sum not exceeding $5,000 for tbe xiurchase of a steam launch to be used in t h e general supervisory duties of the surveyor, and for t h e speedy transfer of district and otber inspectors to and fro between tbe barge office, theif center of location, and t h e points witliin tbe port to which they are respectively assigned for duty. 212 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The inclosures, otber t b a n than tbe letter, coilsist o f a statement by D. C. Houston, lieutenant-colonel of Engineers, U. S. Army, of tbe number of miles of water-front witbin tbe port of New York, and a table contrasting tbe lengths of time consumed in reaching various important points within t h e limits of t h e port by the present method of travel and by t b e proposed Jaunch respectively. I t will be seen from this statement t h a t by the use of tbe proposed launch t h e travel mentioned can, on t h e whole, be accomplished iri half thetime now consumed, a reform of great consequence, as t h e efficiency of this service depends very much upon its promptitude and expedition. Moreover, I am informed by t h e surveyor that the time of a t least tbree inspectors is constantly occupied in communicating with t h e officers in remote districts of the port wben their attendance at t h e Central office is required, and I have ascertained . from inquiry t b a t t b e cost of running tbe proposed steam launch will not exceed $8 a day, an expense more t h a n counterbalanced by t h e service of t h e inspectors who have been tbus ascertained to act as messengers. For these reasons I approve t b e suggestion of t h e surveyor and recommend^ t h e same to your favorable consideration. Yours respectfnlly, E. L. HEDDEN, Collector. 1^0. 1 2 . . . J O S E P H TRELOAR—Appointed chief clerk November 24, 1855. OusTOM-HousE, N E W Y O R K CITY, Collector's Office, Novemher 5,1886. S I R : I havethe honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letterof the 15th ultimo, in which you request from me a statement of the reforms made during this year in the administration of the customs service at this port; of any other reforms which are, within my knowlledge, called for by importers who transact considerable business with the customhouse; and of the chief complaints made by importers ^^in regard to the present execution of the customs laws" at this port; and in what particulars the execution of the customs laws has in my opinion been improved. My memory serves me to enumerate the following reforms made dur, ing this year: \ A more full and careful examination into apjulications to make entry by pro forma invoices, which, it is believed, has resulted in a material reduction in the number of such entries. From personal contact with him I cian testify that the deputy collector now charged with such matters is well qualified therefor, and is doing good work. The refund, on adjustments made by the collector and naval ofl&cer, without certified statements to the Department, of duties decided to have been illegally exacted, except in suit cases. By this procedure payment is more promptly made of the claims of importers, clerical labors materially lessened, and the work done, it is believed, with that exactness which the protection of the Government demands. Your instructions that protests lodged before liq^uidation must be rejected as not in compliance with the laws (sec. 2931, Kev. Stat), which requires them to be filed within ten days after liquidation of the duties, leave no uncertainty in the minds of the importers or of the customs, oflQcers as to the time when notice of dissatisfaction with the assessment of duties shall be made, and have put an end to many questions which liad consumed much valuable time. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 2IS NEEDED REFORMS. Increased accommodations for the appraiser's force. The law now requires that one package at least out of every ten packages shall be sent to' the United States public store for examination; but the present buildiug, rented by the Government for the use of the appraiser, is in capacity not more than half sufficient to allow a compliance with the law? and the inadaptability of the building (an old sugar refinery altered) in every particular is strikingly apjparent to every person who visits it. As a consequence examinations of merchandise on the "wharf' are resorted to extensively, and I am unaware of any statute that p^rovides that they may be raade there. Would it not be wise to legalize the examination of bulky merchandise at such places for appraisement? I t is noteworthy that the appraising ofiicers do so well as they do in their much limited and confined apartment. A larger building and one better suited to the orderly and prompt transaction of the public business than that now occupied as a customhouse is also a crying necessity. The employes therein are cabined, cribbed, and contined, and do not have the space necessary to correctness and dispatch in the discharge of their functions. Many complaints are made at this ofl&ce by importers because the law (sec. 28M, Eev. Stat.), relieves them from the production of consular invoices only where there is no United States consular officer in the country from whence shipments may be made, andnot when the nearest United States consul is so far distant from theplace of shipment that he can be reached only with great expenditure of time and money. I have heretofore recommended that the law provide that additional (penal) duty shall attach for undervaluation in entries hy pro forma invoices, the same as when entry is made by certified invoice. And I now suggest for your consideration that it be recommended to Congress that the additibnal (penal) duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem shall accrue for undervaluation in the invoice of consigned goods. Such distinction between purchased goods and consigned goods was made by section 17 of the act of August 30,1842 (second proviso, vol. 5, S t a t , p. 564:). In the case of purchased goods the importer should, in myjudgment, have the right, as he has by statute, to make such additions in his entry to the invoice as he may deem necessary to make market value, for the reason that, the market value may have advanced between the date of purchase atid the date of shipment; but in the case of consigned goods the consignor is the owner, and doubtless knows what the, wholesale price or market value of his goods is at the date of their shipment; and. if for undervaluation in his invoice made at that time the law should impose an additional duty he will have incurred it by his own act, as does the importer when he understates the value of purchased goods in his entry. Complaints are also made by importers of delay in the transfer from the wharves by the public-store carman of packages ordered for examination and appraisement. . These are occasioned mostly by the discharge of cargo, as allowed by law, immediately on arrivalof the vessel andthe retention on the wharf of the goods for forty-eight hours, as authorized by the Department. The present collector has taken energetic measures for better service in this particular; but I submit that, as recently suggested by the surveyor of the port, the transfer of such packages could be more promptly made by the employment of steam lighters. I favor the amendment of thie 214 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. law, if necessary, to this end. (See section 25, act June 22,1874, voL 18 Stat. L,, p. 186.) , The subject of reappr.aisements is an important dne, and demands, in my opinion, further legislation. If the importer is dissatisfied with an, appraisement he may appeal to reappraisers, without cost to himself, for their services; and the great increase in the number of such appeals impresses me that itnporters in many instances resort thereto as an experiment, arguing to themselves, doubtless, that they can be no worse off even if the reappraisers do not reduce the value, I suggest as a remedy that the law provide, as is now under consideration, I believe, by the committee of the Senate, for a board of geueral appraisers and for a payment of a fixed sum by the importer to cover the expense of the reappraisement in cases where it does not sustain the Appeal; the Government to bear the expense where the entered value is sustained. A board of general appraisers is almost a necessity, by reason of the constant complaint of importers against the selection of their competitors in trade as reappraisers. And if merchants are to act in such cases, who is more competent than a competitor in trade'? The many questions growing out of the execution ofthe seventh section of. the act of March 3, 1883, have been fruitful in comjilaints of delays in the adjustment of duties. If outside or shipping packages are not to be made dutiable, and the previous law as-to charges shall not be re-enacted as the clearest remedy for the iiresent disputes, then I can suggest no better amendment than that cbntained in the fifth (printed) page of your letter ofthe 29th ofMarch last addressed to the chairman of the subcommittee of Ways and Mean,s', House of Eepresentatives, striking out, however, on the ninth line of that amendment, I re.c-l ommend, the words *' when so bought and sold or when consigned.'^ The words '^ when so bought and sold " would still leave it for dispute that the goods are not bought and spld in a paciked condition, that is to say, for instance, in cartons, it being alleged that the naked goods are bought separately from the coverings. Such was one of the pleas as to matches. Some years since, as a member of a committee appointed by the Sec. retary of the Treasury to inquire into'the workings of the customs service at this port, I joined in a recommendation that the entry clerks in the naval office could be dipensed with without detriment to the interests of the revenue and at the same time simplify the entry of merchandise, thus saving alsp the valuable time of the importer. I am still of the same opinion, and annex hereto a copy of the recomniendation which was made in that respect. I can readily understand and appreciate the need which the head of the Treasury may have for the services of an agent to look into special matters from time to time a t t h e difierent ports; but the constant presence in the custom-house of a number of special agents is, to my mind, a hindrance to the public business. Of course it is natural that they will labor to show a necessity for their existence by exerting themselves in the discovery of irregularities; and that they-will make their efibrts in such direction by consuming the valuable time of experienced customs officials whose attention may already have been given to the matter which the special agent may desire to investigate lor credit to himself. There are many excellent men in the force of special agents, but the collector is responsible for the discharge of the duties of his office;' and if special officers are needed to look into the doings of those under him they should be men of experience and training in the service, subject to his sole direction, and capable of sifting a matter understand REPORT OF THE SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY. 215 ingly without taking unnecessarily the time of officials whose constant attention is required to current business. I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, J O S E P H TEELOAE, Chief Clerk ojf the Customs. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury. [Enclosure No. 1.1 # » # # *. D E C E M B E R 7, * * 1882. Tbe naval officer originates nothing, b u t bis functions are to act as a cbeck against t b e collector, in order to establish his responsibility for tbe duties collected. At tbe present the entries, wben presented by the importer, after being examined and passed in tbe collector's office, are sent to the naval office, wbere a like examination is made, and if tbe naval officer finds no objection to the actions of tbe collector's office be conutersigns tbe permit for tbe landing o f t h e goods, on a certificate o f t h e proper officers t h a t the estimated duties have been deposited or bond daly given. Tbe estimates of duties, however, o n t h e presentations of an entry is but preliminary, aud tbe correctness tbereof is dependent upon t h e reliability of the description •of tbe goods given by the importer in bis entry. The rate or tbe amount of tbe duties due canuot be definitely fixed by either tbe collector or naval officer until the return of tbe appraiser sball have been made as to the cbaracter of tbe merchandise and its dutiable value, or u n t i l t h e returns of tbe weigber, measurer, or gauger as to quantity shall be furnished, and tbese reports are never made until after the entry has been passed on the preliminary examination now made by the collector and naval officer. If goods are incorrectly described in an invoice and entry, and a consequent wrong rate of duty is set forth in the entry, or tbe goods are so described in the papers pre-sented as to indicate t h a t tbey belong to the free-list, wben in reality they belong to tbe dutiable list, tbe error would not ordinarily be discovered until after the receipt of t-be returns of the appraiser as before indicated. We bave tberefore xiroposed in our estimates to dispense with tbe preliminary ex-amination of the entry in tbe Naval Office, and to simply require tbe officer known as tbe cashier in tbe Naval Office to note on tbe copies of tbe entries lodged in t b a t toffice tbe collector's estimates of duty, and to require tbe naval officer to prove t h e correctness of tbe collector's final adjustment or liquidation o f t h e amouut payable, tbus preserving a perfect check against the collector's daily receipts, and against his final settlement of tbe duties. W^e fail to see t h a t the iiresent system serves any otber pnrpose t b a n a useless cumulative action, and a consequent hindrance to the prompt dispatch o f t h e business connected witb tbe entry of imported merchandise. Tbe course of procedure proposed would save valuable time to importer, not lessen t h e security to tbe Government, and would save tbe salaries of one chief entry clerk, a t $)2,500; five entry clerks, at a salary of $2,200 eacb, and two messengers, one at •$840 and one at $500, whose services could tbus be dispensed with, and in t h a t event there would be no need for tbe counter signature of the naval officer t o t h e permit to land t h e goods from tbe importing vessel. Every prominent official in tbe collector's office we consulted, and whose opinions may be relied upon, from tbe nature of their official experience, concur in recommending the proposed cbange. I t may properly be added tbat wbile tbe collector's entry clerks do commit errors in t h e preliminary estimate of duties, it is equally true t h a t such errors will, witbout the assistance of tbe naval-office entry clerks, the day following tbe day of entry by tbe impost clerks in tbe collector's office. The discovery of such errors is now made daily, notwithstanding tbe previous review o f t h e entries i n t h e naval office. Tbe claim of tbe Government for additional duties arising from error, or otherwise, is secure under tbe law, by tbe retention o f t h e packages ordered for examination and appraisement until full payment of tbe duties due, and by tbe bond of the importer to return to the custody of tbe officers of tbe customs the package delivered to him o n payment o f t h e estimated duties and not ordered for examination. Tbere need be no apprehensions, we think, t b a t by tbe cbange proposed tbe sums of money involved in the errors heretofore discovered by tbe entry clerks in tbe naval office will be lost to tbe Government. If sucb cbange were likely to lead to t b a t result we sbould not recommend its adoption. To urge a continuance of tbe present -system because it w^as adopted long ago is to debar improvement in measures wbich were placed on the statute book in the earlier days of tbe Republic, and wbicb sbould'he modified from time to time, as business may require, and tbe interests o f t h e Gov•©rnment permit. 216 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •ISTo. 1 3 . . LEWIS McMuLLEN^Appointed February 27,1852; appointed Appraiser April 23, 1885k. P o i t T OF K E W Y O R K , APPRAISER-S OFFICE, October 30, 1886, Hon. DANLEL MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C : ' S I R : I am in receipt of your communication of the 15tli instant, in which I am '^ requested to prepare a full and detailed exhibition of whatever reforms in the administration of my office have been made by me this year, or have been made at this port, together with the conse quences of such reforms, as far as they have to me become apparent.-' I am " also requested to acquaint you with any other reforms in my office which I have in contemplation or which I advise at this port, and especially such as are within my knowledge called for by those among importers who transact considerable business with the custom-house, and which will require a change either in the law or its administration.-^ You also desire me to '^set forth the chief complaints, if any (including causes of such complaints), which are now made to me by importers in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port, and declare in what particulars the execution of those laws, in my opiniouj has been improved during the present year.I respectfully state that the appraiser-s department is composed of ten divisions for the appraisal of merchandise, one invoice bureau, and a laboratory. The first division, to which is assigned the appraisal of personal and liousehold effects, goods in what are known as packed packages, lumber, hides, rags, animals, See., the inspection of goods claimed to be samples, the appraisal on wharf of merchandise contained in passengers- baggage, and which also estimates the proper allowance to be made on goods claimed to have been damaged on the voyage of importation, is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Daniel J. Moore. This division has been reorganized by the rempval of several examiners,, whose vacancies have been filled by other and better officers. This'fact is apparent in the great reduction of allowances for damage over the previous year, being an estimated reduction of more than one-half. The second division, to which is assigned the appraisal of jewelry, precious stones, bronzes, paintings, 'engravings, lithographs, books, paper, toys, fancy goods, china, glass, earthenware, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Cyrus A. Stevens. Several examiners have been removed in this division and their places filled by the appointment of officers of greater integrity and ability, which has been shown in the increased appraised value of merchandise passed in this division, particularly on china and glassware. The third division, to which is assigned the appraisal of manufactures of silk, laces, and embroideries, is in- charge of Assistant Appraiser William Kent. Very little change has been made in the personnel of this division, the examiners being officers of integrity and ability. The goods appraised in this division are largely on consignment. This is the fact particularly in regard to manufactures of silk. They are consequently invoiced at less than their^proper market value The advances in this division for the past fiscal j^ear amount to $2,217,240, which is $581,167 in excess of the preceding fiscal year. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY bF THE TREASURY. 217 The fourth division, to which are assigned manufactures of linen, cotton, jute, and hemp, is in charge of Assistant Appraiser George N. ' Birdsall, The merchandise appraised in, this division is morC/Stable in its prices, and is generally on invoices of purchased goods. This divisioh has been strengthened in its appraising capacity by the removal of one examiner, the resignation of another, and the appointment of two others in their i^laces, and also by the appointnaent of an additional examiner. The fifth division, to which are assigned manufacturesof worsteds hosiery, gloves, straw goods, hats, hat material, feathers, flowers, yarns, &c,; is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Edward Eowe. This division has been strengthened by the addition of two examiners. Advances have been made, i)articularly on yarns and worsted dress goods, in consequence of the advance on the raw material. "^ The sixth division, to which are assig:ned wool and manufactures of wool, furs, hemp, carpeting, oil cloths, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Edgar A. Brown. This division has been reorganized by the removal of two exa;miuers and filling their places with others of greater integrity and expert knowledge- The work of the assistant appraiser and examiners for the past year in advances on woolen goods and the advances made by iraporters, together with the changes in classification that formerly existed, of classifying woolen as worsted goods, will amount in the aggregate to $861,972.99. The seventh division, to which is assigned the appraisal of drugs and chemicals, perfumery, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Charles E. Stott. No change has been made in the examiners in this division, as they are all hjonest and capable officers. The eighth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of windowglass, looking-glass plates, leather, sugar, molasses, and melado, is in charge of Examiner Abraham G. Eemsen. This division has been thoroughly reorganized by the removal of several examiners and samplers and filling their places with officers of known integrity andca^pacity, which is shown by the fact that on the same quantity and quality,of sugar there has been collected half a million dollars more this year than during the preceding year. ' The ninth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of hardware, cutlery, iron, steel, tin plates, lead, tin, marble, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser David C. Halsted. There has been no change in the examiners in this division, the present incumbents being officers of integrity and ability. The tenth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of wines, liquors, cofiee, tea, cigars, fruit, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser David C. Sturges. There has been no change made in the examiners in this division. Tbey are men of integrity and ability, and all but one have been a long time in the service. The invoice bureau is in charge of Chief Clerk Herman F. BauerThe invoices are received from the collector in this bureau and distributed to the various divisions to which they belong. When the goods bave been examined and the proper returns made by the assistant appraiser they are returned, and, after being properly approved by the appraiser, are transmitted by an official messenger to the collector. The laboratory is' in charge of Examiner Edward Sherer, to whom and his assistants is assigned the" analysis of all merchandise which is required to be analyzed in this department, and also the polarization of all sugars. The services of this laboratpry are frequently called into requisition by the department and the collectors of other ports. There 218 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. have been no changes in the personnel of the laboratory, the examiners having proved themselves capable and trustworthy officers. The clerical force of this department has been improved during the past year by removals and the filling of the vacancies with men pf greater ability. The force of openers and packers has been reorganized, many re-^ movals have been made, and the vacancies filled with better men. The force, as at present constituted, is in a more satisfactory conditiou than it ever has been. The men, without exception, are performing their duties faithfully and well. Eeforms have been made (luring the past year by refusing to recall and reconsider advanced invoices upon the assertion of importers that the additions to make market value were exorbitant; by requiriug the prPmpt attendance of every eraploy6 during office hours, declining to grant teraporary leaves of absence on frivolous excuses, prohibiting officers and other employes from visiting importers' stores without my approval 5 also b y t h e removal of careless and incompetent examiners, clerks, and openers and packers, and the substitution of others more painstaking and capable. , I have no hesitation in saying tbat the officers and employes constituting the fprce of this department will compare favorably with any other body of men in the service pf the Government. I have no other reforms in contemplation, except such as may, from time to time, suggest themselves. The real reform now required is adequate room for the appraisal of merchandise, and an increased force of examiners to properly perform the arduous and increasing duties of this department. The latter cannot be made available without additional accommodations. The condition and capacity of this building are treated of in my communication to you dated Februaiy 19,1886. There have not been any serious complaints made to me by importers in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port. The execution of these laws has been improved during the pa^t year by the more liberal construction put upon them by the Department. There is no serious cause for complaint on the part of importers against the administration of the law, but against the construction of the law, and a very earnest desire to get rid of its ambiguities by the substitution of a clearly-defined commercial tarifi'. Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, L E W I S McMCJLLE]^, Appraiser. ISTo. 1 4 . GEORGE V. BROWER—Appointed United States General Appraiser July 3, 1885. P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , O F F I C E OF U N I T E D STATES G E N E R A L A P P R A I S E R , November 1, 1886. Hon. DANIEL MANNING, Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, D. C : : In reply to you letter of the 15th ultimo, 1 have the honor to submit the following report: There have been several reforms in the administration of-the afiairs of this office, the effect of which has become apparent only during DEAR SIR REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - 219 the year last past. The method of conducting reappraisements has materially changed, pursuant to the letter of the Department, under ^ date ,of June 9. 1885 (synop. 6957), in which attention was called to abuses that existed in the hearing of causes on reappraisement. The efi'ect of that letter has enabled the merchant and general appraiser to hear all causes and decide them in an orderly manner, permitting them to give their whole time and attention t o t h e real issue. Honest importers, who heretofore deemed it their duty to employ lawyers to protect their interests, although at first strenuously objecting tp the change, now heartily approve of the working under the present system. Instead ofthe unseemly noise and confusion ofttimes attending reappraisements, by the conflicting interests, there is now quiet, order, and a sincere desire'to get at the true facts in ^ach case, and not to obscure them. Much annoyance was caused also by the announcement of the result ofa reappraisement to the importer, the merchant appraiser being frequently besieged by the importers for a rehearing of their cases, and, by their importunities, they would sometimes cause him to waver and demand a rehearing and a change of result, not from his own unbiased judgment, but by the persistent efi'orts of the importer. All decisions are now sent to the collector, where they are first announced, except in occasional instances, where the exigencies of the case may require a knowledge of the result by the importer, for the purpose of facilitating him in making entries on the reappraised basis. During the last year cases have been erected in which samples of all merchandise that has been reappraised have been placed, labeled, and numbered for the purposes of comparison and examination, and such samples will be held so iQpg as they are valuable for coraparison. In all cases where there is an appeal the saraples will be filed away until the hearing and determination of the protest and appeal by the court, and for use therein when necessary. The quarters assigned to the general appraiser are wholly inadequate for the proper transaction of the increased business of the office. When the present offices were provided the appeals for reappraisement were about twenty-five or thirty per month, while at the present time they are in the neighborhood of three hundred per month. All this vast amount of merchandise has to be opened in two small rooms and there inspected and examined by the witnesses and appraisers. These rooms oft( u cannot contain one-half the articles to be examined, and the halls and passage-ways are filled with boxes, crates, bales, and casks, so as to scarcely allow passing and repassing. ^ The halls are dark and unsuitable for the inspection of the merchandise. We need at least four times the space we now have in order to permit a proper .examination of the various articles that come up daily for reappraisement, and to facilitate the business of the department. The room in w^hich the merchants, importers, and witnesses summoned by the Government assemble, and in which they are sometimes compelled to remain for a long time, is small and unfit for the purpose, being often crowded almost to sufiocation to the serious embarrassment of the clerks in the discharge of their duties, they being compelled to occupy a portion of the same room. Many improvements in the method and management of this department could be made if there was more space in which to transact its business. I t is no fault of the general appraiser that the accommodations are so limited. Application has been made for more room, but the overcrowded condition of the present building used for public stores prevents the acquisition of greater space. As the work of appraisement and reappraisement, to be carried on effectually and econom- 220 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ically, should be conducted in the same building, the only relief would seem to be in having a public store-house commensurate with the dignity of the Government and the importance of this port. Since the decision of the United States court, decreeing that the enaction of a deposit to pay the expenses of a merchant appraiser was illegal, reappraisements have increased rapidly. If the present law is not adequate to protect the Government, then some immediate legislation is necessary to compel the importer to make a deposit, as many cases on appeal are of the most trivial nature, the amount involved being sometimes scarcely enough to pay the expense thereof, and the appeal only taken'to embarrass the appraising officers and tending to throw discredit on reappraisements. These numerous appeals are becoming a great burden to witnesses and merchants, requiring almost daily attendance at the public stores, to the great detriment of their business. Merchants on whom the Government can rely, who come and act at a great personal sacrifice, are becoming very much discontented, as theyoften have to act on a great many cases, occupying the greater portion of the day, and unless some arrangement or plan can be adopted to lighten their labors they will refuse or evade service, to the great detriment of the revenue. Witnesses who come day after day upon the same cases cease to perform their duty a^ satistactorily as when only occasionally called, their great anxiety often being to escape'duties which have become exceedingly irksome. On some questions there have ]3een nearly two hundred appeals, and with one uhiform result on reappraisement. The'exactions and appeals did not cease until the decision of the United States court, sustaining the general appraiser, and the direction of the Department to appraising officers. Competent merchants who give their time to the investigations, after having acted thereon in an intelligent and conscientious manner, ofttimes find all their efforts neutralized on every succeeding invoice of the same class and character. , Eeappraisements should have some binding fbrce and eff'ect and should be conclusive upon the importer and the GoYernment, at least for a reasonable period, unless for good cause shown to the department or the collector, to the effect that there was an error o n t h e reappraisement, in that there was fraud or that new and important evidence had been received since the reappraisement, or that the market value had materially changed since the previous reappraisement or reappraisements. This office has outgrown all the machinery or laws made for it on its organization, and has become one of the most important departments in the revenue service. Eor the last eight or nine months past the business has increased so rapidly that it is impossible for one general appraiser to hear all the cases, and at times it has been necessary to request the aid of all the general appraisers to prevent delay. The inadequate accommodations for the transaction of business,^ however, prevent more than two general appraisers acting to advantage. There is, probably, no department in the customs service that requires more prompt legislative action than the administration of the office of general appraiser at this port. If the suggestions herein made are deemed wise and prudent and such action should be advised and,taken, with it should be coupled some regulation whereby the compensation of the general appraiser of the port of New York may be made commensurate with the importance of the position. Yours, very respectfully, . GEO. V. BEOWEE, United States Oeneral Appraiser. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' ' No. 15. .. 221 \ H. W H E E L E R COMBS—Appointed United States General Appraiser December 4,1877, O F F I C E OF U . S . G E N E R A L A P P R A I S E R , New York, October 27,1886, Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C : S I R : In reply to your circular letter of the 15th i n s t a n t , ! have the honor to state that at the time of my appointment to the office of general appraiser at Baltimore, in July, 1884, there were but two clerks attached to that office, who were the only employes under my control. I have feeeh aide, by systematizing the business of the office, to dispense with the services of one of them without impairing the efficiency of that branch of the service. ^ The most important improvement^ in the execution of the customs laws within the district under my personal supervision has resulted from a strict enforcement on my part of Department letter (L.G. M:) of June—, 1885, requiring appraising officers to forward daily samples of all merchandise of which samples could be taken, appraised and classified by them, to the general appraisers of their respective districts. By means of these daily samples I have been enabled to promptly detect and correct numerous erroneous classifications of imported merchandise, and have thereby secured, practically, within that district uniformity of classification and valuation. I, have, in accordance with Department letter above referred to, scheduled and retained in my office the samples received under said instructions and find them' to be of great value for reference and comparison in the supervision of classification and valuation of imported merchandise at the many different ports within my district. Had the order been strictly enforced in the several general appraising districts, as contemplated by the Department, it would have resulted in the greatest good to the service by securing uniformity of classification and valuation at all the ports of the United States. I would respectfully suggest, as the best means of securing uniformity of practice at the various ports, the establishment of a bureau of samples at New York, to which appraising officers should be required to forward, daily or weekly, samples of all textiles appraised and classified by them, with label attached, showing the place of manufacture, date and place of exportation, with weight, value, and classification, and also a weekly or monthly report giving same information concerning all merchandise other than textiles appraised and classified by them. The beneficial results experienced by me in the jierformance of my duty in the supervision of classifications, from the daily samples of textiles, caused me to require samples of all wools exported from Mexico and entered at the ports along the border. From these samples I discovered that large quantities of merino wools, or wools having traces of merino blood, were being entered at these ports as carpet wools of the third class, upon which the duty imposed was .2J cents per pound. This inforraation having been furnished by me to the Department, instructions Were issued from the Department which have corrected this erroneous classification and resulted in the collection of a large amount of duty which otherwise would have been lost to the Government, besides bringing about a uniform classification of such merchandise at the various ports of the United States. . I am not aware of any complaints at Baltimore with respect to the present execution of the customs laws, although I have been away from 222 .REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. that port so much of the tirae during the last year that I have had bufc little opportunity to hear such complaints, if any exist. Having been on duty at ^this port (New York) constantly since May last, I am familiar with the complaints and causes therefor existing here, but suppose you will be fully advised of tbem by the local officers of this port. The greatest number of reappraisements in the Baltimore district have been upon "iron cotton-ties- and ^>Portland cement,- two articles of merchandise which are sold by the pound or hundredweight, and upon AYhich the duty should be specific. Complaint will naturally exist so long as ad valorem duties are collected upon such a number and variety of articles of merchandise. The execution of the customs laws has been, in ray opinion, greatly improved within the last year by relieving appraising officers and examiners of all outside or undue infiuences, heretofore frequently exerted upon them, and by your policy of holding each xirincipal officer of the customs service at the various ports alone resppnsible.for the proper performance of the duties charged upon him by law. The prohibition of attorneys from appearing and practicing before reappraising boards has operated very beneficially at this port (New York). Yours, very respectfully, H. W H E E L E E COMBS, United States General Appraiser. No. 16. P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E , Octoher 26, 1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, Secretary of tlie Treasury, Washington, D. C : SIR : In reply to your communication of the 16th instant, I have the honor to transrait herewith a stateraent covering the period frora October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885; and the period from October 1,1885, to October 1,1886, giving for each aforesaid year the following information concerning the transactions at this office: (a) The wliole number of invoices examined and appraised. (b) The whole number of invoices reported value correct as given in invoice. (c) The number of invoices advanced in value by the appraiseri (d) The number of invoices advanced by more than 10 per cent. (e) The number appealed to reappraisers. In reply to inquiry marked (/) I transmit herewith a communication from General Appraiser George Y. Brower, dated October 25, in which the effect aud result of reappraisement are specifically stated. The discrepancy between iny statement and that of the general appraiser as to the whole number of invoices appealed to reappraisers during the respective years is accounted for by the fact that a considerable number of the invoices which were acted on by the reappraising board iu each of these years had been received at the office of the general appraiser prior to the coraraencement of the years in question, while in the statement furnished by me the dates are carefuUy confined to the years and months in which t h ^ appeals were taken. Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, L E W I S McMULLEN, Appraiser. 22S EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASURY. [Enclosure l.J * ^ ' - PORT OF N E W YORK, OFFICE OF UNITED STATES GENERAL APPRAISER, October 2^0,188^. L E W I S MCMULLEN, Esq., Appraiser of the port of Neiv York: SIR : In compliance witb your request to be famished with a statement, covering t h e periods from October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885, and from October 1, 1885, to October 1, 1886, of the number of invoices appealed for reappraisment, and t b e result of said reappraisements, I respectfully submit the following : Total uumber of appeals from October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885 1,078 W i t b tbe followiug action : Appeals witbdrawn by importer 103 Entry sustained •. , 177 Appraiser's advance sustained 236 Appraiser's advance sustained in part , 464 Advanced beyond appraiser's valuation : 65 Divided reports: Collector sustains entry i 2 Collector sustains general appraiser ' 9 Unbnisbed reappraisements , 22 1,087 Appeal8 received from October 1, 1885, to Octolier 1, 1886 W i t b tbe following action : Appeals witbdrawn by importer Entry sustained i Appraiser's advance sustained Appraiser's advance partly sustained Advanced beyond appraiser's v a l u a t i o n . . Divided reports: Collector sustains entry Collector snstains geueral appraiser Decision not rendered Appeals not taken up or unfinished 1 - ^- 2,089 106 426 272 1,014 49 106 4 4 108 ; Total 2,089 The 106 cases above named in which t b e collector sustained the entry were t b e Donskoi wool cases. Yours, very respeptfully,, , GEO. V. BROWER, United States General Appraiser. [Enclosure 2.] ConsoUdated report of invoices examined, <^c'., in the appraiser's department. New York, from October 1, 1884, to September 30, 1886. Months. October... November December January . . Eebruary. March April , May June July Aagust — September. Total Whole number of iuvoices exami n e d and appraised. Whole number of N u m b e r of ininvoices reported; voices advanced valae correct as in value by the appraiser. given in invoices. 1884-'85. 1885-.'86. 1884-'85. 16, 921 14,747 15, 605 14,369 15, 064 17, 683 15, 923 14,781 15, 351 17, 259 18,170 18,319 18, 560 16,881 16, 763 16.139 17, 661 39,950 19, 338 15, 983 18, 931 18, 319 21,467 20, 031 15, 834 14, 068 14. 928 13, 540 14, 080 16, 206 14, 860 13,794 14,222 15, 506 16,439 16, 600 17,168 15,901 14, 777 14, 951 16, 447 18,217 18,112 14, 862 17, 747 16,513 19, 468 17, 933 1,087 679 677 829 984 1,477 1,063 987 1,129 1,753 1,731 1,719 1,188 1,214 1,733 1,226 1,121 1,184 1,806 1,999 2,098 220, 023 180, 077 203,096 14,115 16,927 194,192 1885-' 1884-'85. 1885-'; 1,392 224 REPORT OF^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Consolidated report of invoices examined, ^c.—Continued. Months. Number advanced by more than 10 per cent. Number appealed to reappraisers. 1884-'85. 1885-' 1884-'85. 1885-'8a. 75 36 33 63 75 September. October November. December.. January - . . Pebruary .. March April May June July Auguat .w.. 98 76 107 120 130 60 96 Total 70 138 188 167 127 100 98 157 108 237 200 20d 187 186 183 268 1,014 2,050 119 107 98 164 179 151 117 101 149 170 1,587 No. 17. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, J O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, Washington, D. C, October 15,1886. S I R : Will you at your earliest convenience and before November 1, 1886, present to me such considerations and suggestions as you may deem it useful to lay before me, growing out of your observation and experience in dealing with suits, in your judicial district begun against collectors of customs for duties alleged to have been illegally exacted ? Is the force in your office adequate for the economical, proper, and efficient defense of those suits, and, if not, why not, and what additional force is needed? Is the existing relation between your office and the custom-house that which is needed, in your opinion, for the proper defense of those suits, and, if not, what improvement can you suggest? You are invited to freely express to me whatever, in regard to this most important subject, you may deem it useful for the public service, and for the due protection of the rights of importers who are plaintiffs, to be presented to my attention while engaged in preparing my annual report to Oongress. And will you likewise inform me how many and what description of suits for the presentation of false invoices or fraudulent entries at the custom-house have been begun, by the request of the coUector, during your term of office, and whether or not any such have been brought to trial, and, if so, with what result? Eespectfully yours, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. Hon. S T E P H E N A. W A L K E R , United States District Attorney, New York. REPORT OF T H E • SECEETARY OF THE TREASURY. 225 O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O R N E Y ^OR THE'SOUTHERN D I S T R I C T OF N E W Y O R K , • New York,. October 21,1886. S I R : I am in receipt of your letter of 15tb instant, requesting any suggestions I may have to make respecting suits against collectors of customs in this district, and asking particularly— Is the force in your office adequate for the economical, proper, and efficient defense of those suits, and if not, wby not, and what additional force is needed ? Is tbe existing relation between your office and tbe custom-bouse t b a t wbicb is needed, in your opinion, for i^e proper defense of tbose suits, and if not, wbat improvement can you suggest ? There has been but one session of the courts of 17 days' duration devoted'to the trials of suits of tliis character since I entered npon the duties of this office, but I have arrived at very clear convictions upon many points in reference to the subjects which you have hitherto dealt with in so intelligent a manner, and will present my response to your inquiries without discursive argument, and in a form wMch I hope" will be most convenient for your usCc First. With the present number of judges assigned for the trial of customs cases, and the consequent limited time for actual trials, the number of assistants, and the working force of this office, are sufficient to try the legal issues involved in the suits now upon the calendar notwithstanding the fact bf their appalling numbero You will understand by this that the strictly professional work involved in the trial of a suit, or any of the suits against the collector, can be attended to (under present conditions as to ^ the opportunity for trials) with my present assistance. Second.' As to the relations of this office to the custom-house, and the collector as my client, there is need of reform, and of certain changes, which cannot be accomplished without additional expense to the G-overnment. My answer to your first inquiry, you have observed, is limited to the questions of laiv presented in each casCo It could not be truthfully made so broad as respects all the issues presented in the cases which are likely to be moved for triaL There is no sufficient provision for the discovery, preparation, and presentation of evidence on questions of fact arising in these trials* It should be the duty of the collector, and he should have the authority and force to accomplish it, to provide the names of witnesses, a digest of their evidence, samples ofthe merchandise in question, in other words, the facts involved in every expected trial. I am satisfied that the same duty should be imposed upon the collector, in reference to customs cases, which belongs to a private client in a private case, of giving to the attorney, whom he employs, the facts, and their sources, to which the law is to be applied. Some one competent to represent the collector in his relations to this offlce, with right of access to every document in any department of the revenue in this city and following the lines, methods and subjects of inquiry directed by this office, should be charged with the responsibility of securing and presenting for use upon trials the facts in every case. Such person should have headquarters in this post-office building. Let me illustrate this necessity briefly by a single class of cases. There are pendiug in this office some suits of venerable age known as the square yard issue. Two bf these suits have been to the Supreme Court, and the questions of law involved are fully settled* Probably H. Ex. 2—VOL II 15 226 REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. three hundred thousand dollars are claimed in the actions which have not been tried. The Supreme Court has decided that it is a question of fact, to be decided by the jury, whether Saxony wj^ol cloths are articles of "similar deiscription^ to delaines. The verdict of any number of juries upon this point will never make this question res adjudicata. No investigation, or study, or preparation on the part of this office is necessary on the legal questions involved in such a case. But the trial comes on, and the plaintiff produces a dozen witnesses to prove that, as a question of fact. Saxony wool goods are articles of similar description to delaines. It is not an answer to say that two juries, one in Boston and one in this city, have found otherwise. Witnesses must besecured and produced who will swear otherwise. The custom heretofore has been that the appraiser should forward the names of the officers who made the original appraisement—probably now out of office, and possibly employing the experience gained while in office in some business adverse to the interests of the Government—-and one or two other names, probably names of those importing goods at the time in question. These men, and others if possible, must be drummed up by the young men in this office. Without criticising fhe service rendered by them or their predecessors, or speculating upon results, I am satisfied that the inethod, or system, if it can be called such, is wholly bad, 'dnd that the plan I suggest of bringing the collector through a skilled agent or bureau, into a direct responsibility for the facts of each case would be a vast improvement. Third. The foregoing suggestions concern only the state of affairs as they now exist with the present judicial force for the trial of customs cases. Nothing can be added by me by way of argument to the. authority ofthe letter to Oongress of March 23, 1886, respecting the necessity of a radical change in suits against collectors which would be involved in the appointment of an additional judge. Until that is done, any reforms and changes will alleviate x)nly the surface of the difficulty presented by the vast accumulation of cases, the consequent expense by way of interest, loss of cases upon trial by death, and disability of witnesses, and all the evils consequent upon the present condition of affairs, which you so clearly apprehend, and have so urgently set forth. Below will be found a description of the suits for the presentation of false invoices, or fradulent inventories, begun since I entered upon the duties of this office, March 4,1886, with the disposition of the same. Following-named suits were brought at request of collector by the United States for violation of sections 2839,2864: Eevised Statutes, and section 12, act June 22,1874: United States V8.20 Cases Cedar Cigar-box Shooks, &c. Letter from eoliector June 3, .1886. ' Undervaluation and false invoice as to quantity and measurement. Compromised July 2, 1886. , United States vs. No. 6, 1 Bale Cotton-Yam. Letter from coUector June 16, 18S6. False invoice as to price. Compromised August 7, 1886. United States vs. One Case Silk and Cotton Astrakhans, No. 147. Letter from ooUector August 16, 1886. False invoice as to price. Fending. ! Sanie t)«. Same. ^ Same remarks. Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, '" '"^ ' • STEPHEN A.. WALKEE, U. 8. Attorney. To the SsoRETARy OM THE TREASUBY, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. T R E A S U R Y D E P A E T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E 227 SEOEETABYJ WasMngton, B . Go, Novemher 8,1886. Snt: Eeferring to yoiiir letter of the 21st ultimo, will you inform ine how' many days in 1886 have been given by the circuit court for the Southern District of New York to the trial of collector's suits with a jury, the nnmber and total of all the suits tried, and the names of the judges holding the conrto' Also, please inform me how many presentations to your office have in 1886 been made by th© collector of false invoices or entries for prosecution. Eespectfully yours, Do MANNING, Secretary. S T E P H E N A. WALKER, Esq., United States States Attorney, New York Gity. NOo 20o O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O R N E Y F O R T H E S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T OF N E W Y O R K , j New York, November 10,1886. The S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y : S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge th© receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, asking for certain information as to suits brought against collectors of customs in this districto In answer, to the first part of your letter, I beg leav© to refer to th© statement herewith inclosedc As to th© second part, I beg to stat© that, as it appears by th© records of this offices n^ suits for th© presentation of false invoices or ©ntries wer© b©gun prior to Jun© 3, 1886, during th© year 1886, and a list of such cases was submitted to yon in my letter dat©d October 21j 1886, addressed to you. Very respectMlyj STEPHEN Ao WALKEE, United States Attorneyo [Snolosnre No. 1.1 Suits tried &^ mjury in 1886. Ssri®8 No. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. O.S. N.S. N.S. N. a 8570 8580 9959 9960 458 8650 8611 7883 Title of suit. Henry Hermann eiaZ. v. W.H. Robertson L. Weddigen et al. v. Same J". O. Carleton and another v. Same E. Luckenieyer and another v. Same — Otto W. Paliitz et al. u. Schell Jacob Basch et al. v. Robertson Fred'k Beck and another v. Same Wm, »«i!tmgftTrt®« amd »R»th®r v. S«3a»., V©rdiot f o r - Plaintiffs ...do--.. Defendant ...do.... Plaintiffs Defendant Plaintiffs do j u d g e before whoitt triod. Dat® of trial. Wheeler.. Shipman . do . . . . ...do Wheeler.. Shipman.- 1886. Jan. 11 Jan. 12 Jan. 12 Jan. 13 Jan. 13,14,15 Jan. 14 Jan. 15 <Jft».15 , ,..do 228 REPORT O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY. Suits tried by a Jury in 1886—Continued, Title of s u i t Series No. N . S . 9422 N . S." 399 N . S. 6862 N . S . 6872 N.S. N. S. N. S. N. S. N. S. N. S. N.S. 7304 6971 7519 7128 9449 7506 9431 N.S. N. S. 0. S. N. S. N. S. N.S. N. S. N.S. O.S. 9613 6935 1585 9985 8676 7837 6807 9965 317 N; S. 10092 0. S. 1804 N . S . 9063 K. S. 10038 N. S. 2824 N. S. 10064 N . S . 9986 Verdict for— Judge before whom tried. Date of trial. 1886. E. P. Grleeson Manufacturing Company Plaintiffs . . . . . Shipman.. Jan. 18 V. Same. Wheeler., Jan. 18 E. A. Oelrichs and another v. Barney . . . do Jan. 18 do H. Passavant et al. v. Merritt do ' G. Callamore and another v. Same .. Plaintiffs, by Shipman.. Jan. 19... direction of the court. Jan. 2 0 . . . . . . . . ....do Edward Hill and another v. Same Defendant PlaiDtiffs . . . . d o . . . . . Jan. 20 J. Kurtz et al. v. Same . Jan. 20,'21 ....do Chas. L. Tiffany v. Same Plaintiff Jan. 2 1 . . : J. Kurtz et al. v. Same . . . . . . . Plaintiffs ...do > do . L. A. Solomon et al. v. Eobertson ....do Jan. 21,22,25.. Dwight &c., late Waterman, v. Merritt.. Defendant ...do Jan.26 Gustav Falk and another v. Eobertson. Defendant (sec- . . . . d o Jan. 27 ond trial). W. H. Perego and another v. Same Split verdict.. . . . . d o Jan. 27,28 Plaintiffs . . . . . . . do .1-... Jan. 28 D. Cameron and another v. Merritt 5Jan.28,29*.... ') Defendant ....do C. Meletta v. Schell ^Feb.lt C Von Pustan v.Eobertson Plaintiffs ! . . . . . . d o , . . . . F e b . l . L. Fleishmann v. Same ....do ....do . . . . . Feb. 2 n H. Wallach and another v. Same Feb.3 Split verdict.- . . . d o F e b 3 Plaintiffs John F. Brigg et al. v. Merritt ....do ^ Wm. H. Schieffelin et al. v. Eobertson... . . . . d o .-..do Feb. 3,4 Fewstgr Wilkinson et al. v. J . E. Pai- . . . d o April 6,7 Coxe sons, &c. Geo. C. Miller v. Eobertson • Plaintiff...... . . . d o . . . . . April 7,8,9 . . . April 9,12 . . . . J . W. Smith, &c., V. Eobt. Schell, &c . . . . Defendant ....do April 12,13,14. Chas. A. Edelhoff" et a l v. Eobertson . . . . Split verdict.. . . . . d o April 15,16.... Philo L. Mills and another v. Same ...do ..... . . . do April 19, 2 0 . . . . Philip Mettre v.C. A. Arthur Plaintiff.....: . . . d o April 20 Thos. K. Cummings v. Eobertson ....do Defendant Aprir20,21.... ....do ....do Joseph Nettreclift et al. v. Same }. s 1 ^ 1 }=, r 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 •Numberof days given by the United States circuit court for the southem district of New York to the trial of collectors'suits with a jury (31 days), t Number and total of all suits tried in 1886 (35 suits). ' No. 21. :NI^W YOB.K, November 20,1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNINGS, Secretary of the Treasury: S I R : Agreeably to your instructions of the 18th instant, I have examined the records o f t h e general appraiser's office at this port for the purpose of ascertaining whether th© reappraising force is adequate for the proper transaction of the business of that office, and respectfully report as follows: As the business is now conducted the reappraising force is not adequate. If it were practicable to assign all of the four general appraisers to constant duty at New York, it is doubtful whether they could promptly dispose of appeals, so long as the presient unbusiness-like methods are continued. During the twelve months ending September 30,1885, the number of cases received by the general appraiser for reappraisement was 1,078. For the twelve months ending September 30, 1886, the number of appeals was 2,089. Since that date to the 19th instant, 459 appeals have been received, making 2,548 since the 1st of October, 1885. A t the present monthly average the number of appeals for the current fiscal year will exceed 3,000. In order to dispose of them promptly at least ten cases per day must be passed upon. There are now 310 appfeals^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 229 many of them at least two months old, awaiting the action of the general appraiser. The increase in the number of appeals is to be attributed partly to greater care and vigilance on the part of certain of the examiners and assistant appraisers in appraising consigned goods, particularly silks and woolens, and partly to the discontinuance in July last of the practice of requiring the importer to pay the fee of the merchant appraiser. Besides the general appraiser permanently located at this port, one of the other three general appraisers bas been here almost constantly during the past year under temporary assignment to assist in the disposition of appeals. It appears that the mode of business adopted years ago, when appeals were few—not exceeding 300 in a year—is still continued, although the number of appeals has reached over 2,000 annually. The practice of the general appraiser has beeh, and still is, to devote but two to four hours per day for five days in the week to reappraisements. The rule is to set the reappraisement cases for hearing at 11, 11.30, 12, and 1 o'clock, except on Saturday, when no cases are heard. From five to six, sometimes more, merchant appraisers are summoned to be present at the same hour. These gentlemen, as well as importers and witnesses, congregate in large numbers in the general appraiser's rooms, awaiting their turn, and there is great pressure to hasten the .hearing of cases. Sometimes two or more cases, where there are different merchant appraisers, are heard at the same time b j General Appraiser Browero ^ All this results in a confused and hurried disposition of business. Many cases are necessarily adjourned from day to day, causing loss of time to all concerned and giving rise to just complaint. During the present week the number of cases set for hearing and disposed of by the two general appraisers was as follows: Monday, 15th, 16 cases appointed, 11 disposed of, and 5 adjourned; Tuesday, 16th, 21 cases appointed, 14 disposed of, and 7 adjourned; Wednesday, 17th, 15 cases appointed, 7 disposed of, and 8 adjourned; Thursday, 18th, 17 cases appointed, 11 disposed of, and 6 adjourned; Friday, 19th, 25 cases appointed, 19 disposed of, and 6 adjourned. It is evident from the above that assignments have not been judiciously made. . The adjournment of some of these cases is due to the non-appearance of the merchant appraiser appointed, the practice of the collector being to address the letter of appointment to a member of a firm, with an alternative to sorae other member of the same firm, as, for example, to James M, Constable, or some other member of the firm of Arnold, Constable & Co, This is not, in fact, an appointment by the collector of a particular person to serve as merchant appraiser as contemplatBd by law, but is an authorization to a firm to select oue of its members to act in that capacity. I t frequently occurs that the member of the firm familiar with the merchandise to be reappraised is absent from the port, and therefore fails to be present when the case is set for hearing. It has long been the custom, under fhe regulations, for the local appraiser to send to the collector the names of five or more firms from whom a selection of a merchant appraiser may be made, the others being summoned as witnesses by the general appraiser. Upon inquiry recently made by the collector he found that over fifty persons whose names had been sent to him at different times by the appraiser as eligible for appointment as merchant appraisers were either dead, aliens, out of business, or otherwise ineligible. 230 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. These facts suggest a renewal of the recommendation heretofore made that the ^appraiser be required to furnish the collector a list, to be revised monthly, of individual merchants (members of firms) legally qualified to serve as merchant appraisers of the various classes of merchandise imported, . ' The lack of adequate space in the rooms assigned to the general appraiser for opening and displaying merchandise under reappraisement is another obstacle in the way of the orderly and prompt dispatch of business. It causes delay and confusion in examinations by reappraising officers and expert witnesses. Notwithstanding the great increase of appeals and the large number of cases now in arrears at this port, I am of the opinion that with a thorough reformation in the methods of business, and with proper management, the two general appraisers now on duty here^ would be able in a few weeks to dispose of the accumulated cases, and that thereafter one of the general appraisers, with occasional assistance from the others, could keep up the work. To do this it will be necessary— 1. That the general appraiser permanently located at New York, shall give his entire time, during business hours, to his official duties. 2. That he shall appoint the hearing of cases at suitable hours, from 9.30 a. m. till 3.30 p. m., each day, including Saturday. 3. That when the importers and witnesses in a case are not present and ready at the hour appointed, or the merchant appraiser is absent, . the case may be put at the foot of the list for future assignment. 0 4. That the appointment of merchant appraisers shall be made by personal service upon the individual merchant selected, and if it be then ascertained that for any proper cause the person so selected cannot serve, another appointment shall be made without delay. I t is proper to state that General Appraiser Combs, who has been on duty here for some time assisting Mr. Brower, has suggested to the latter changes in methods calculated to expedite the work and secure -a more orderly transaction of business, Mr, Brower, however, while expressing himself favorably, has taken no action toward making the changes proposed. Eespectfully, yours, A, K. TINGLE, Special Agent. POET OF P H I L A D E L P H I A . Noolo ' ' JOHN CADWALADER.—-Appointed CoUector of Custoins for the District of PhUadel- phia, Pennsylvania, July 30, 1885. OUSTOM-HOUSE, P H I L A D E L P H I A , PA., Collector's Office, Octoher 30,1886. Hon. D A N I E L MANNma, . Secretary of the Treasury .» S I R : i beg to transmit the following reply to your- communication of 16th instant: Upon assuming the duties of this office on August 12,1885,1 called for a statement, in writing, from each of the clerks and other chief officials, defining their duties as they then were and had been, to ascer- REFORT OF TB^E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.' 231 0 tain, as far as possibie, at once, their relative qualifications. From the replies and my own observation I found a lamentable lack of system in the department. Disregard of proper habits of business among the employes—smoking, lounging, reading newspapers, running in and out ofthe buildings, constant visits from friends and acquaintances during business hours—was the rule and not the exception. Leaves of absence had been granted with but little, if any, restriction. The change in the office of surveyor of the port was not made until December, 1885, and my sources of information as to the inspectors, &c.j was, until that time, limited and unsatisfactory, I found, however, many men upon these rolls who had scarcely ever performed a day's service; intemperance was very common, and irregularities of many kinds prevailed. Officers then known as '^ night inspectors " were especially unworthy. From the date upon which Mr. Campbell became surveyor a complete change in his department has been effected. I cannot speak too highly of the attention and fidelity of the surveyor to his duties. He gives close personal supervision to the various branches of the service. He visits docks, wharves, and vessels at all hours of the day and night, and thus secures a vigilance and care among the subordinates hitherto unknown. The force of ^^ night inspectors" was, with scarcely an exception, composed of incapable and negligent men. The duties of this class were entirely distinct from those of an inspector, and their designation was deceptive. They received very high compensation, namely, $3 per diem, and their duties were limited to watching vessels and docks during about six hours, frora sunset to midnight, or from midnight to sunrise. As charges against the night inspectors were made and removals took place I asked that their offices be abolished, and I asked for the appointment in their stead of officers to be known as ^'surveyor's watchmen," with compensation at the rate of $840 per annum, being the same amount paid to other night watchmen. By this change, which I warmly commend to your consideration to be extended throughout the service at other ports,^ [ effected a reduction in the expenses of the department of $8,670, and have secured a force superior in every respect to the former body of night inspectors. The chief weigher has made many excellent reforms in his department, and has watched very closely all incidental expenditures, reducing them about 50 per cent., and has limited the laborers' roll as far as practicable. A great increase in the business of his department—nearly double that of former years—has been met by him, as shown by the statement annexed hereto, at less cost in the permanent force, and the cost of weighing per ton has been reduced from 9.7 cents in 1883, under his predecessor, to 6 cents in 1886. A question of some difficulty has arisen in regard to compensating customs officers for extra work at night and on Sunday. The business of this port requires facilities for weighing as well as discharging cargoes at night. These have been partly provided for night service; but it is much to be desired that vessels should be permitted to continue discharging during Sunday. Volunteers from the inspectors for Sunday work can be obtained if extra compensation, equivalent to a night's service, is given, and I ask^ authority to this end. Many requests have been made by masters to clear their vessel at night on completing their discharge. As the return of the inspector must be compared with the manifest, a n d t h i s could not be done after the custom-house had closed, I have hitherto seen no proper mode of complying with this reasonable demand. As I have reorganized my clerical force by appointing chiefs of division, who, as "clerks designated," are authorized to administer the necessary 232 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. oaths and to issue the requisite certificates, I have requested authority hereafter when an application is made prior to 3 o'clock by a master to clear his vessel after hours, to designate the several chiefs of divisions in rotation to attend at the office for the purpose, at any hour required— the vessel to pay $10 for this special service, which shall be paid, as in the case of other night service, to the chief of division attending at the office. *' \ The following r^eforms are among the more important secured : The clerical force has been organized into divisions, known as law, statistics, estimation, liquidation, and navigation, with chiefs of each division, who are directly responsible for the work of the minor clerks. Hitherto there was no head for any of these branches, except one general deputy. An auditor has been- appointed, an officer absolutely necessary to the * department. This position is filled by my special deputy, Oharles Henry Jones, esq., who has brought to the service high attainments, and has proved himself one of the most competent, efficietit, and thoroughly informed officials in the customs department. I recommend an abolition of compensation by the day and a substitution of fixed salaries for all employ^s« ^ An evil of the service, I think, is the very high rate of compensation for the lower grades of employment—being two or three times that of similar service in private positions—and inadequate compensation for positions requiring a high standard of attainment. I recommend a reclassification of the clerical force into three grades, namely, clerks at $1,200, promoted clerks at $1,500, and chief clerks at $2,000. A t present there is no substantial difference between the duties of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th classes. The suggested change has a meaning: $1,200 will secure the best qualifications, and is nearly 25 per cent, higher than banks, &Co, pay, and is therefore ample for all new clerks. Where capacity and fidelity have been proved, promotion may •follow, with the further prize of the chief position in prospect. The bonds and powers of attorney had never been properly drawn or renewed, and were practically of little or no value or protection to the •Government. A competent lawyer is now in charge of this department, and systein has succeeded disorder. The records and papers of the office were in great confusion—in heaps upon the floors and without arrangement; brokers and their clerks and others had free access to them, with the consequences natural to such indiscriminate handling. They have now been completely overhauled and arranged, and, in order to examine a paper, formal application must be made to the record clerk. Additional duties, found to be due, upon liquidation, had been allowed to remain uricollected for a long period of time. The arrears have now been largely reduced and the current list carefully and promptly collected. Formerly, entries after being handed in and accepted, were constantly taken away by parties concerned. This is no longer permitted. The regulations had been generally disregarded by the employes as to pledging and assigning their pay in advance. Moneys were loaned to them by brokers, and discounting hy fellow employ6s was common. Money was frequently paid by parties outside of the office to obtain facilities and favors. The discovery of these and many other irregularities have rendered it necessary to have many of the employes removed, and at present the force is more competent and efficient than it has REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 233 ever been, as is freely admitted by the old employes, whose fidelity and effieieijcy have secured their retention. ^ The appraisej's department, under the care of Joseph B. Baker, esq., my predecessor as collector under President Buchanan, has been reformed in many ways, to the great benefit of the Department and of the public. All favoritism and discrimination has ceased, and a cordial cooperation with the general office has succeeded a condition of almost constant conflicts under former administrations. The relation of the appraiser to the collector is, however, anomalous, and, in myjudgment, should not continue. At present he nominates all the examiners, packers, and laborers in his department, and his assistants are Presidential appointments. Neither the appraiser nor any of his subordinates is under bond, and although he has exclusive custody of large quantities of merchandise of great value, for examination, all responsibility for this property andthe care of it rests npon the collector, who cannot supervise or control the employes. There is no reason that these ofificials, exclusive of the personal clerks, as in the case ofthe surveyor, should not be appointed, as other officers of the customs, by the collector, and I recommend legislation by Congress to effect this result. The office of cashier of a customhouse is a very responsible one. They are obliged to receive large sums of money very frequently under great pressure. These moneys must be carefully examined. No checks or drafts are receivable, light coin and counterfeit notes must be guarded against, and a very difficult portion of the duty is in returning proper change to those paying duties. Under the present cashier, Mr. Vaux, there has been sec