The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ANNUAL REPORT
OP THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
ON THE
STATE OF THE FINANOES
T H E Y E A R 1885.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOLUME
II:
COLLECTION OF DUTIES.
WASHINGTON:
GOVEENMENT P E I N T I N G O P P I O E .
1885.
TKBABUBY DBPAKTMBHT,
Document No. 724, 3d ed.
Secretary.
^
LU
-OONTEISTTS.
Pago.
Invostigations ordered by the Department
--o»
i
Inquiries to Cnstoms OfiScials
-on
Invoices and their Verification....
o=-=o- - » . . .
iii
Consnlar Authentication of Invoices
r—ix
The Entry of Merchandise..
„
»
,
xvi
Appraisement
,
_ xvui
Reappraisement
1
xxv
Final Assessment of Duty
«... xxxiv
Special Agents of the Treasury and Chief Ofi&cers ofthe Forts
xxxviii
Suits against Collectors
XLI
Examination of Passengers' Baggage
^ XLV
Deterrent Legislation against Frauds ou the Revenue
,
„
°
o
Appendix: Answers to inquiries ofthe Department relative to the transaction
of customs-revenue husiness in the different collection districts.:
i
THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
December 7,4885.
SIR : In the montli of January, 1885, my excellent predecessor in tMs
Department, Mr. McCullocli, had been constrained, by the conduct of
certain Special Agents of this Department at the Port of IsTew York, to
order an investigation thereof. Three Special Agents of the Treasury
were selected to make the necessary inquiries. Additional instructions
were given to these Agents, and on the same topic, on February 25,1885.
The work being in progress when I came to the Department, I 'gave
such other instructions, from time to time, as seemed needed to promote and accomplish the object. The reportsmade by those to whom
the investigation was confided will be found in the accompanying documents, on pages 10 to 31. '
In February, 1885, and on the suggestion of the Special Agents Division of this Department, my predecessor directed an inquiry to be made
by the Special Agents who ad^dsed such inquiry, into undervaluations,
damage allowance, drawbacks, and such other irregular practices at
' the Port of IsTew York as might come under their notice. The result
of that investigation will be found on pages 32 to 63 of the papers herewith transmitted.
On March 16, 1885, complaints having been made to me of improper
conduct in reappraisements at the Port of I^ew York, I directed the
Special Agents to thoroughly examine the subject, whose report will
be found on pages 74 to 99.
A short time thereafter I ordered an investigation by the Special
Agents, =and a report to me, ofthe manner in which the customs business
was generally transacted in the several Collection Districts, and indicated one hundred and eleven pointSj or topics, about ^ h i c h I wished
to be especially informed. The result thereof will be found herewith,
on pages 100 to 128.
On June 27,1885, one of the General Appraisers, together with two of
the Special Agents, having been directed by me to investigate the
entry, appraisement, and classification of imported merchandise at Boston, IsTew York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, made reports, which will
be found on pages 63 to 74.
Subsequently, and in March and April, I sent a request to local ofacers in the CoUection Districts, that each of them would inform me to
•
(1)
II
REPORT OF THE ISECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
what extent, in his opinion, the force eniployed in his District might be
reduced without detriment io the public service. The replies received,
together with tabular statements showing the reductions made subsequently by me in the size and expense of the customs service, will be
found on pages 129 to 273.
Having reason to feel that such inquiries as had been set on foot by
my predecessor, or myself, | through the Special Agents ofthe Treasury
might have been partial, or possibly controlled by prejudices, or pre
conceived theories, entertained by those Agents, and being desirous to
satisfactorily ascertain the) real relation existing, in the customs service,
between those Agents andj the Chief Officers at the more important oi
the several ports, and also wishing to obtain the opinion of those local
officers respecting the character and causes of the present condition of
the service,—I sent, in August last, to a large number of the last-named
officers, including District Attorneys in the iaore important of the judicial districts, a Circular Letter of Inquiry. A copy of that CirculaT*
Letter accompanies (page |331) this report.
A iDart of my original purpose, in the preparation and use of this
Circular Letter, was to get information and opinions from the local officers to aid me in working out conclusions which I could properly
transmit to Congress for its appreciation, and possibly for its guidance
in enacting new laws where required for improving, and strengthening,.
this most essential branch of the Government service. But, on a careful examination of the replies, and on a comparison of the conflicting
views taken, not only by officers at the same port, but by officers at different ports, as well as in' consideration of opposing opinions betwen. Special Agents and local officers, it seemed to me better to, transmit to
Congress the text of each reply.
My endeavor has been to leave each officer quite free to frankly express his opinion as an otfficer, and to criticise,the decisions of this Department, as well as the conduct of the superiors, or associates, at the
several ports. To thesej 227 circulars of inquiry sent out by me, replies have been received excepting from the small number of 19.
All but 25 of the replies are from officers who were in the customs
seryice prior to March last.
The decision to seiid| to Congress each one of the replies was somewhat influenced by the [thought that a perusal of all of them by members of the legislative l|)ranch of the Government may throw light on
che familiarity of those; customs officers with the laws which they ad, minister, their general I intelligence,, their fidelity and zeal. The char^Qter of the replies received from those who occupy the places of Ex^,iu-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Ill
iners in the Appraising Department is especially noteworthy,' as well
as the tendency, more or less apparent, of so many of the local officers
and the Special Agents, to allude to IsTew York as the port where the
larger part of the offences against the revenue laws have been and are
committed, as well as the disagreement of opinion between the Collector, the local officers of certain ports, and Special Agents of the Treasury assigned to those ports.
In transmitting to the Senate and House this large body of information on customs affairs, coming from so many different sources, and from
so many widely separated ports and places, and many of the opinions
conflicting with one another, it will naturally be expected by Congress,
and by the country, that I express my own conclusions on the matters
wherein there is not a unison of opinion in the replies.
The weakest point in the execution of the customs-revenue law has
been, and is now, at the inception of the importation of dutiable merchandise. Perhaps such defect in administration is inherent in any
tariff system that depends for its integrity on the correct ascertainment
of foreign values. The difficulties are twofold. The first comes of the
persistent unwillingness of shippers to tell the truth in invoices. The
second comes of the ignorance, or inattention, or something worse, of
our own Consular officers. This last is the more inexcusable, since
quite four-fifbhs of the money that upholds, and keeps alive, our entire
Consular system is derived from fees levied for the pretended Consular
examination of invoices.
During nearly three-quarters of a century, our tariff laws have required shippers, and especially manufacturers, as a condition precedent
of sending merchandise to this country, to disclose, and declare, the
real value thereof This will appear on a brief review of our legislation, and such a review is necessary now because of the idea that has
recently been so industriously put about, that there is something modern,
or novel, or unnecessarily exacting in the present requirements of Congress in that relation.
In 1789, the first law was enacted to regulate the collection of duties.
Therein it was required that every person, having any merchandise on
board any arriving vessel, make entry thereof with the Collector of the
por'^ where the same shaU arrive, declaring the net prime cost, and produce to the Collector the original invoice, or invoices. One year affcer
ward that law was repealed. Another was enacted to take its place.
IV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
for which, on Maich 2, 1799, the elaborate enactment of that last-named
date was substituted. It has remained to this day as the foundation
and the frame-work of subsequent legislation for the taking possession
of arriving merchandise, and the levying and collecting of duties thereon.
The thirty-seventh section declared as did former laws, that the owner
or consignee, or agent of the owner or consignee of merchandise, shall
make an entry thereof in writing with the Collector, and shall therein
specify, among other things, the ''prime cost.^\ This law referred, it is
to be assumed, only to purchased goods.
On April 20, 1818, the law of 1799 was amended, and new requirements made in respect to invoices, so that, in addition to the former
oath under the law of 1799, the person making entry of merchandise
subject to ad valorem duty, must declare that the invoice produced by
him exhibits ''the true value^^ of such merchandise, in its actual state of
manufacture, at the place from which the same was imported. The
eighth section declared that any dutiable merchandise, belonging to a
person residing and being at the time of entry outside of the United
States, shaU not be admitted to entry unless the invoice shall be verified
before an American Consul abroad. This is one of the earliest laws requiring the participation of Consular officers in the importation and
entry of merchandise. The same section declared that, under the cir- .
cumstances of ownership last described, the owner or owners, shall
swear '' whether he or they are the manufacturers, in whole or in part,
of such goods, wares or merchandise, or are concerned directly or indirectly in the profits of any art or trade by which they have been brought
to their present state of manufacture; and if so, he or they shall further
swear that the prices charged in the aforesaid invoice are the current
value of the same at the place of manufacture, and such as he or they
would have received if the same had been there sold in the usual course
of trade.'' This early law, it will be seen, distinctly regulated the
entry of merchandise by foreign manufacturers consigning their products to this country for sale on their account and risk, which has recently created so much difficulty.
The law was again amended on March 1, 1823, when the distinction
was made plain, which now exists in the law, between an invoice of
merchandise purchased abroad and imported by the purchaser, and
merchandise not actually purchased abroad in the ordinary mode of
bargain and sale, but imported by the manufacturer. That law of 1823
required that the invoice oi purchased goods shall contain ^^a true and
faithful account of the actual cost t h e r e o f and be accompained by an
affidavit of the truth of such declaration administered by the Consul,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
V
or Commercial Agent, of the United States. If the merchandise be
imported by one who has not acquired it in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, or belongs to the manufacturer in whole or in part, th^n
the invoice, verified by the oath of the owner, must contain ^'a true
and faithful account of the said goods, wares or merchandise at their
fair market value at the time and place when and where the same were
procured or manufactured as the case may be.'' On March 3d, 1863,
new requirements were added. Theretofore only a single legalized invoice was necessary, but, in 1863, all invoices were required to be made
in triplicate. They must, at or before shipment, be produced to a Consular officer nearest the place of shipment, and have indorsed thereon,
when so produced, a signed declaration setting forth that the invoice
is in all respects true; that it contains, if the merchandise be subject to
ad valorem duty and was obtained by purchase, a. true and fiill state-,
ment of the time when and the place where the same was purchased
and of the actual cost thereof; and, when obtained in any other manner
than by purchase, the actual market value thereof at the time when and
where the same was procured, or manufactured"; This law (Eev. Stats.,,
sec. 2855) also requires that the, person producing the invoice shall, at
the time of production, declare to the American Consular officer, the port
in the-United States at which it is intended to make entry, whereupon
such officer shall indorse, upon each o f t h e triplicates, a certificate
stating that the invoice has been produced to him, with the date of such
production and the iiame of the. person producing it, and the port of
entry. This last proceeding by the Consul is the consular authentication
of the invoice, as distinct from the verification of the invoice by the
owner. The Consular officer is required to deliver one of said triplicates to the shipper to be used in making an entry; file another in his
officeto be there preserved; and transmit the remaining one to the
Collector of the port of entry. It will thus be seen that, ever since
1823, and even earlier, the law has imposed upon a ^ip^^T oi purchased
goods the simple task of honestly and truthfully declaring by his invoice, to the ciistoms officers, the actual transaction by which he
obtained the merchandise.
^
It will be inferred from an examination of the documents herewith
transmitted that a large part of the frauds'perpetrated bn the revenue
have been, and are accomplished by incorrect invoices of merchandise
not obtained by purchase, but consigned hither by manufacturers for
sale in this country by their agents on the account and risk of the owner.
The requirement of the law in respect to the invoices of such merchandise has been so long in force in this country that the meaning of it
ought to be, by this time, well established, and understood, both at home
Vi
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and abroad, by those concerned in importations to this country, and
the existence of a ^ ^ market value'' of merchandise manufactured abroad,
and extensively imported, and sold in this country, ought to be a fact
easy of ascertainment at home or abroad. But, nevertheless, the existence of the fact appears to have been denied, and the difficulty of
ascertaining the fact by our own Appraisers appears to have been so
great, that the ninth section of the law of 1883 declared that when the
fact cannot be ascertained, to the satisfaction of the Appraiser, ^4t shall
then be lawful to appraise by ascertaining the cost or value, of the
materials composing such merchandise at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing and
l^utting up such merchandise for shipment."
The Special Agents of the Treasury, and several of the local officers of
the customs, express the opinion that the consignment of products to,
this country by foreign manufacturers for sale by their agents, has
largely and injuriously increased during recent years, and that our tariff
.. law has promoted the increase. Whether or not that opinion be correct,
and whether or nbt our tariff legislation has increased such consignments relatively to the siim total of importations, I am not prepared to,
say. Nor am I prepared to say that such form of importation, by which
foreign manufacturers present their merchandise in this country for sale,
is an injury, provided the full rate and amount of duty prescribed by
Congress be thereon uniformly levied and collected. That form of importation is not novel. After the enactment of the law of 1863, and twenty
years ago, prosecutions were begun in California, and in I^Tew York, for the
forfeiture of large shipments of Champagne Wines, Sherry Wines, Silk
Eibbons and Silk Goods, all of which were sent to this country by the
producers, or manufacturers, on consignment. The averment of the
Government W2is that the invoices did not contain "the actual market
value" as required bythe law of 1863, but that the invoices were knowingly and with intent, made to evade the revenue b y declaring a less
value. A suit originally tried by a Court and jury at San Francisco,^
came by writ of error to the S apreme Court at Washington. (See Cliquot's
Champagne, 3 Wallace Eep., p. 114.) That Court in its opinion considered, and finally adjudged, many of the questions which have been presented to me, in the documents heremth transmitted to Congress, as
novel and obscure. The Court defined the distinction in our revenue
law between ^^the actual cost" of purchased goods, and ^^the actual
market value" of consigned goods, and, in the fbllowing language, declared the meaning of thelast phrase as applied to invoices. It said:
^ The inquiry therefore presents itself: What is the ^actual market
^
value' in the sense of that (1863) statute? The market value of goods
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
VH
is, the IDrice at which the owner of the goods, or the producer, holds
them for sale; (2) the price at which they are freely offered in the market
to all the world; (3) such prices as dealers in the goods are wiHing to
receive, and purchasers are made to pay, when the goods are bought
and sold in the ordinary course pf trade."
Subsequently, and in 1868, the prosecution for the forfeiture of Sherry
Wine, consigned in like manner by the manufacturers, came on for trial
in the City of JN'ew York, before Judge Blatchford and a Jury sitting in
theFederal District Court. The charge to the Jury of the learned Judge
is given at length in the second volume of Benedict's District Court
Eeports, (page 249,) and deals in a most instructive and authoritative
way with all the questions which appear to have recently so perplexed
and confused the local customs officers at New York, and the Special
Agents of che Treasury. During the next year, and in New York,
a suit for the forfeiture of six cases of Silk Eibbons, involving similar questions, came on for trial before the same Judge and a Jury,
where again the phrase ^ actual market value" was, for a third time,
^
most clearly considered and defined in its manifold relations, together
with the .sources to which either the apj)raiser in determining dutiable
values, or the jury in ascertaining invoice values were entitled then, and
are entitled now, to look.
» ^
^
It is difficult to understand how an honest,, and well-meaning manufacturer, consigning his iDroducts to this country for sale, can now have
doubt about the meaning ofthe phrase " actual market value." He is
to be presumed, as well as one of our own citizens, to know our laws..
The laws themselves are printed, and judicial expositions of the meaning of the phrase ^^actual market value" have also been printed, and
are accessible to the foreign manufacturer, as well as to our own citizens. Each one of those manufacturers, who has large transactions with
this country, has most intelligent agents here who are his consignees.
The manufacturer, or those agents, can always apply to this Department for information as to the meaning of obscure or doubtful phrases
in the tariff law, or, if he or they prefer, they can apply to counsel
learned in the tariff law who will adequately advise them. There can
be no excuse, therefore, for ignorance, or misinformation. The plea of
the foreign manufacturer is that, for his own purj)oses, he does not
freely offer at the place of manufacture for sale and shipment to the
United States, articles similar to those that he consigns to this country,
and therefore, since they are not thus freely bought and sold at that
place for the American market, there is no ^^market value" of them
at that place within the meaning of our invoice law. But the Supreme
Court of the United States anticipated the frivolous objection when it
said that the ^ actual market value," in the sense ofthe statute, is suclj
^
VIII
REPORT OF^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
a price as: manufacturers of the goods ^^are willing to receive." It is
absurd for a foreign manufacturer to seriously contend that there is not
a price, at the time and place of manufacture, tliat he expects to receive
for the merchandise which he has manufactured year after year in such
large quantities for consignment to the United States. It is probably
true that the whQle production of such manufacturer is not sent to the
United States, but that a portion is sold to go to other parts of the
world, and for such portion there is a price asked, and received, by the
manufacturer, which should be evidence to his own mind of the ^ mar^
ket value" of the portion sent to the United States.' The net price,
which, during a longer or shorter period, the manufacturer abroad actually receives, as the result of his consignments to this country, should
also offer evidence to his mind tending to show what is 'he '^market
value" of the merchandise at the time and place of manufacture. I t is
true that our law levies duties, not upon the home value in the United
States, but upon the foreign value at the time of shipment, in the principal markets of the country of exportation, and evidence of this home
yalue may not, in all cases, be relevant, according to strict rules of legal
evidence, to the question of foreign value, but if a manufacturer takes
orders from New York to deliver his merchandise in that city at a
specified price, duty paid, that trainsaction ought to afford/ and undoubtedly does afford, an honest manufacturer a satisfactory basis by
which he can arrive a t t h e ^ market value" at the time and place of
^
manufacture. ^ The real difficulty is believed to inhere in the fact that
the manufacturer does not wish, or intend, to declare in his invoice to
the customs officers of the United States, the true value prescribed by
American law which he is bound to know, and does know. I can but
think, therefore, that the difficulties suggested, by the Special Agents
of the Treasury, ^ and local officers, in the documents herewith transmitted, are more fictitious than real, and that they will, in a measure,
disappear if there be more intelligence, vigor, and fidelity manifested
by the consular, appraising and prosecuting officers of the United States
in ascertaining invoice values.
That very extensive frauds have, during many years, been perpetrated
upon the revenue by false invoice values, I cannot doubt. Many of
them have been perpetrated by invoices of merchandise consigned by
manufacturers. I appreciate the difficulties which surround the ad'ministration of our revenue law in that regard. But large frauds have
also been perpetrated by invoices of goods obtained by purchase, and
especially by invoices of merchandise obtained by purchase in the great
cities of Europe. Sellers openly propose to buyers in those cities tc
make a fictitious invoice for use at the custom-house in this couhtiy
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
IX
American purchasers who dislike to directly participate in a fraud upon
the revenue of their country, consent, I am told, that the articles shall
be shipped hither by an agent in Paris to his agent in New York, (such
agent being often an express company,) and to such agent in New York
the agent in Paris sends a fictitious and fraudulent invoice upon which
the goods, may be entered and duty paid,—^the buyer fancying that,
although he perfectly understands the transaction, and that thelaw is to
be violated, he will, nevertheless, behimself free fromthe taint of iihmoral
and illegal conduct, and his property safe from condemnation.. Merchandise entered under such circumstances would be liable to forfeiture
under the law if the facts were known to the officers of the United
States, and could be judicially established.
I have dwelt so much in detail upon the subject of invoices, because
a true and correct invoice lies at the foundation of, and is essential to.
an honest enforcement of the existing complicated tariff law. A false
invoice, coming from a well-known dealer abroad of respectable repute,
may poison the appraising system of this Government at its fountain,
and for a long time mislead the Appraisers. The United States have
the right, and the power, to prescribe the circumstances under which
either their own citizens, or foreigners, may be permitted to bring merchandise into the country. Those requirements may, in the opinion of
foreign manufacturers, be onerous, severe, and embarrassing, but, if
ordained by our law, they must be complied with, or those nianufacturers must abstain from the attempt to send their merchandise hither.
CONSULAR AUTHENTICATION OF INVOICES.
,
A large number of the accompanying replies from Special Agents, and
local customs officers, refer to the imperfect and misleading manner in
which consular officers execute the laws enacted to insure the presentation of correct and truthful invoices upon the entry of imported mer'chandise. My observation leads me generally to concur in the criticisms
made. The work, as it has been, for some time past, and is now performed by too many of our Consular officei-s, in the verification and
authentication of invoices, is really worse than worthless, because
tending to mislead, and deceive, appraising officers. It has been seen
that not until the law of April 20,1818, were Consular officers required
to participate in the verification of invoices. Difficulties were experienced in executing that law because certain foreign countries forbade
American Consular officers to administer oaths to shippers not American citizens. Therefore the subsequent law of 1823 attempted a relief
in that regard by permitting such foreigners to make oath before a
magistrate of the country where the oath was'administered, and then
requiring the iuvoice to contain a certificate by an American Consular
X
REPORT 0 ! THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
?^
officer that the person administering the oath was a competent magis
trate. Up to July 14, 1862, only such invoices needed to be thus verified, and certified, as covered merchandise, subject to ad -yaZorem duty,
the owner, or owners, of which resided out of the Uriited States. The
seventeenth section of the last-named law forbade any merchandise, no
matter where or by whom owned, to be admitted to entry unless the
invoice be verified by oath of the owner, or agent, to be administered
by a Consular officer of the United Stat^, or a magistrate of the country duly authorized. I t i s to be inferred that difficulties were again
interposed, or consular officers represented that they were intefposed,
in the way of executing this requirement of an oath, because the subsequent law of'March 3, 1863, instead of compelling the owner to make
oath to his invoice, only required an indorsement thereon of a declaratio7i
signed by the proper person. Two years later, and on March 3, 1865,
there was an enactment, containing only one section (Eev. Stats:, sec.
2862) which authorized all Consular officers to require, before certifying any invoice under the law of March 3,1863, ^^satisfactory evidence,
either by the oath of the person presenting such invoices, or otherwise,
that such invoices are correct and true: Frovided, That in the exercise
of the discretion hereby given, .the said Consular officers shall be governed by such general or special regulations, or instructions, as may
from time to time be established or given by the Secretary of State."
Nothing contained either in the enactment of 1863, or in any previous
legislatiqn, distinctly imposed upon consular officers the responsibility
and duty of deciding whether or not the actual and true value had been
declared in the invoice, but the law of 1865 did, more distinctly than
before, put that responsibility upon Consular officers, and yet discretiou
was therein given to require, or not to require, an oath. They were,
nevertheless, to be governed by such regulations, or instructions, as
might be given by the Secretary of State, who did, immediately after
the enactment of 1865, instruct all Consular officers in this language:
^^It is therefore manifestly but proper that those officers be held responsible for any want of truth or correctness in the invoices certified
by them, and they will be responsible accordingly. They will be expected to keep themselves informed as to the kinds, qualities, and market value of the merchandise exported from their respective districts to
the United States, and to see that each invoice exhibits a fair and true
description of the merchandise to which it relates, and contains a true
statement of the prices of value thereof. For this purpose they may,
whenever they deem it expedient, require the oath of the person presenting
the invoices, or of the shippers, owners, or manufacturers of the merchandise^ to their correctness; and may even, if necessary, examine
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XI
under oath such persons or others whose statements would be of value,
upon any matters calculated to satisfy the mind of the officers upon the
general subject of inquiry. They were, however, admonished to embarrass or interfere with the course of legitimate trade as little as is^
compatible with the protection of the revenue and all honest traders
against, the practices of the unscrupulous; and they are therefore expected to observe great prudence and circumspection in their actions in
order to avoid the just complaint of such interference." Section 1715
of the Eevised Statutes declares that ^^no consular officer shall certify
any invoice unless he is satisfied that the person making oath thereto is.
the person he represents himself to be, that he is a credible person, and
that the statements made in such oath are true. He shall thereupon by
his certificate state that he was so satisfied," and section 5442 punishes
by fine and imprisonment any consular officer ^^who knowingly and
falsely certifies to any invoice."
The law of 1823 declared that for each verification, and certificate of
an invoice, by a Consular agent, the fee shall be two dollars and fifty
cents, ($2.50.) That is now the law. The State Department regulations
direct that the three triplicates be considered one invoice in that regard..
That declaration is repeated in section 2851 of the Eevised Statutes,
which is supplemented by section 716 (enacted in 1869) which also declares that if any Consular officers shall demand or receive, for anything
done in verification or certification of an invoice, or permit any clerk or .
subordinate to demand or receive any greater sum therein, than two
dollars and fifty cents, ($2.50,) he shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, and removal from office. My inference is that neither the
law of 1865, nor the instructions of Consular officers issued thereunder
by the Department of State, contemplate an oath to be administered by
any other than a Consular officer unless it should so happen that no such
officer could be had. It is confirmed by the authority given in section
1750 of the Eevised Statutes to every Consular officer ^^ whenever he is
required or deems it necessary or proper so to do," to administer, or
take, from any person an oath, and to perform any notarial act which
any notary public is required, or authorized, by law to do within the
United States. Such oath is therein declared to be as valid, within the
United States, as if administered therein, and that the offence of perjury
can be predicated thereon.
Shortly after I came to the Treasury Department, my attention was
called to complaints by shippers that in London, and elsewhere in Great
Britain, they were compelled to pay for verification and certification of
invoices a sum largely in excess of that prescribed by the Statute,
I found on inquiry, that, after 1868-9, the practice had prevailed ii) *
. XII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
our Consular offices in the United Kingdom of sending a shipper to a
British notarial officer for the administration of an oath, and that the shipper was generally compelled to pay a sum not less, and often more than one
dollar and twelve cents ($1.12) for such administration, in addition to the
two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) authorized by the Statute. It was represented to me that this additional large tax upon each shipment prevented
the legalization of invoices, and inconvenienced the administration ofthe
the custoras revenue in New York, and other large ports. Th e law generally forbids any merchandise to be admitted tp entry unless accompanied
, by a legalized invoice, bnt a discretion is vested in the Collector of the
port, under the general instructions of the Treasury Department, to admit, nevertheless, merchandise ofa relatively small amount, and under
proper circumstances without a legalized invoice. The excessive tax demanded for consular verification and authentication naturally increased
the number of importations without a legalized invoice, and thus not
only was the revenue inconvenienced, but receipts from the regular consular fee of two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) were diminished. With
increasing facilities in this country for ordering small parcels of merchandise from European cities, and quickly bringing them to this
country, the number of such relatively small importations increase, and
it is obviously for the interest of the Government that they be accompanied by a formal and legalized invoice.
The circumstances under which the practice of lev3dng this additional
tax for an oath grew up in London and elseAvhere, will be found exhibited
(pages 352, 355, et seq,) inthe accompanying documents. The relation
, of this excessive tax levied indirectly by certain Consular officers in
Great Britain will be found significantly mentioned in an Ex. House
Doc. No. 145, 3d Session XLII Congress. On May 19,1881, a resolution
of inquiry was presented in the Senate, asking the Department of State
^' whether or not ^^^any consul-general, consul or commercial agent, has
been personally benefited thereby, and if so, to what extent.". The'
reply of the Department of State, (Ex. Senate Doc. No. 122,1st Session '
XLYII Congress) contains a full presentation of the general subject of
consular fees for the verification and authentication of invoices, but omits
to answer the most pertinent poi'tion of the Senate inquiry.
. The whole sum levied in the United Kingdom, in excess of the statute
fee, has however been considered by one of the Special Agents of the
* Treasury (]3. 353) in response to my specific inquiry, and it appears
therefrom that there Avas levied on shippers to this country, during the
- fiscal year that ended on June 30, 1885, the great sum of eighty-three
thousand five hundred and sixty-eight dollars and ten cents, ($83,568.10.)
The total number of invoices certified at the London Consulate, during
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XIII
the foui' fiscal years from 1882 to 1885, inclusive, having been eightythree thousand seven hundred and eleven, (83,711,) the total sum exacted was ninety-two thousand and eighty-two dollars and ten cents,
($92,082.10.) At Belfast, and its agencies, four thousand three hundred
and sixty-two (4,362) invoices were certified last year. If the number
of invoices certified at London, and in the United Kingdom, since 1868,
was as indicated, an estimate can be made of the vast sums exacted,
and of the benefit received by Consular officers on an arrangement like
that reported as made at Bradford. Not a dollar of that large sum has
really and appreciably benefited this Government, or been covered
into its Treasury.
,
tf the sum total of that large tax inflicted upon shippers, and ultimately paid by American consumers, could have been expended by the
Treasury Department in the employment of experts at different points
in Great Britain, to actually verify invoice values^ something of good
might possibly have been accomplished for the revenue, but under the
notarial-oath system little has been accomplished for the revenue but
injury. It appears from the Senate document last referred to, that
generally on the Continent of Europe oaths are, for the reasons therein
specified, not. required by our Consuls on invoices.
I have been unable to discover a well-authenticated case of prosecution for perjury, or for a false oath, in the verification^ or authentication, of invoices abroad, or indeed in our custom-houses at home. It is
extremelj^ doubtful whether in Great Britain a prosecution would be
attempted, or would be successful if attempted. The crime of perjury
would be, as I am ad^dsed, difficult to lay and prove in legal form, even
if a foreign government would promote, or tolerate in its jurisdiction,
a prosecution for an offence against the tariff law of the United States.
But, while ad^dsing that the notarial oath be dispensed with, I would
have Consular officers compelled to be more careful and vigilant in acquainting shippers with Av^hat our laws require an iuA^oice to contain,
and in admonishing them of the great perils that will await their merchandise in the United States if the invoice shall be found to be false
in any essential particular. Excepting in a few places in which the
manufacture of a limited number of products embraces the industrj^^
of the locality, it will be well nigh impossible for a Consular officer, no
matter hoAv alert and conscientious, to form a safe opinion in regard to
the correctness of all invoices Avithout an actual inspection of the merchandise. To rely upon samples presented by a dishonest shipper may
be very misleading. In the large cities of Europe, where fifty, or seventy, or even an hundred invoices may in one day be presented to the
Consul, covering every variety of mercbandise it will of course be im-
XIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY "OF THE
TREASURY.
possible for Consular officers, no matter how expert in values, to adequately inspect the merchandise. It may well be doubted whether the
foreign governments, that will not permit an oath to be administered
by an American Consul, even although their own Consuls 5reely admin. ister oaths in New York and in our jurisdiction, will tolerate a detention of merchandise by American Consular officers long enough for
such a careful inspection thereof. Consular officers can, however, inform, instruct, admonish, and so somewhat deter shippers from making
false invoices. That work they should be required to diligently perform, and not leave it to be done, in a perfunctory way, by subordinates, as is so much' of Consular verification.
- The Consular serAdce of the United Staties is not, and cannot well be,
under the immediate superintendence of the Treasury Department.
The rights to be held, and the duties to be performed, by Consular
officers in a foreign country, are regulated by treaty, or by international
law. Our Consular o.fficers are necessarily, therefore, under the immediate control abroad of our Diplomatic Agents. It is,, for that reason,
most fit and proper that the superintendence of Consular officers should
be committed to the Department of State. But the legislation of Congress has not been quite logical, or consistent, in that behalf, inasmuch
as while Consular officers are generally directed by law to make their
reports to the Department of State, they^ are, here and there, as in section 1715 ofthe Eevised Statutes, required to .make reports to the Secretary of the Treasury. The sending abroad of Special Agents of the
Treasury, to advise with and assist Consular officers, has not worked
altogether satisfactorily, owing in part, perhaps, to the fact that the
two classes of officers were subordinates of different Departments and
thereby were naturally created inconvenient jealousies and rivalries.
I do not in what I now say, concern myself with any aspect of the
Consular service excepting that which relates to the customs revenue,
and to the interests of naAdgation which are especially committed to the /
Treasury Department, but in respect to the adequate protection of both
of those interests I have a very decided conAdction that our Consular
service needs immediate reformation.
.
5 The whole cost of that service for the fiscal year ended June 30,1885,
was $870,183.10; the whole sum received for official fees during that
period was $791,345.43, and thereof $699,852 were paid by shippers
to Consular officers on the verification of invoices, exclusive always of
the large sums paid as unofficial fees to British notarial officers on the
same account. Thus it vdll be seen that the cost of our imperfect Consular service to the Treasury was $78,837.55 in 1885 in excess of its total
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XV
receipts. During the fiscal year 1883, the total amount of Consular fees
received amounted to nine hundred and twenty-six thousand and fiftyfour dollars and ninety-five cents ($926,054.95) and the total cost was only
$870,290.60; in 1884 to nine hundred and eight thousand nine hundred
and thirty-two dollars and thirty-two cents, ($908,932.32,) andthe total
cost was only $872,345.08, but the receipts were in 1885 only seven hundred and ninety-one thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars and
forty-three cents, ($791,345.43.) The large falUng off may be accounted
for by the fact that the fees for services to American vessels in 1884
were ninety-one thousand and thirty-one dollars and eighty-six cents,
(91,031.86,) which class of fees was abolished by the law of June 26j
1884. There Avas also a diminution of consular fees for certifying invoices amounting to fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven
dollars, ($58,937.)
.
The existing system of Consular fees works badly for the customs
revenue in this sense : The tariff law requires that each invoice of merchandise shall be produced to a Consular officer "nearest the place of
shipment" which place may not necessarily be the place where the merchandise, if imported from across the sea, is actually put on board ship,
but the place where the merchandise has been prepared for exportation
hither, and its journey is actually to begin. Thus the place of shipment >
of goods manufactured, or produced, at Manchester, in England, and
put on board ship at Liverpool, is not Liverpool but Manchester, and
to the American Consular office at Manchester theinvoiceshould.be
produced. The purpose of the law is to subject the invoice to the scrutiny of a Consular officer "nearesV^ the place where it was manufactured, or actually purchased. The frequent violations by Consular
officers of the distinct commands of Congress, and of the Department of
State, in this regard, constrained, on January 20, 1881, the sending by
that Department of a very peremptory circular letter of complaint, and
admonition, in which it was said that Consular officers became rivals of
one another in obtaining invoices for authentication. There was a
scramble for fees! The motive and inducement of this rivalry were
those statiite fees, or the notarial fees by which the Consular officers
either directly or indirectly benefited. Whether or not it be feasible
to remedy this evil which is now in existence, by any modification of
the existing Statute, I respectfuUy submit to Congress.
I also especially iuAdte the attention of Congress to the disclosures
made in the accompanying documents (p. 425) in respect to the character of a part of the Consular serAdce in the Dominion of Canada, and its
relation to that long frontier which separates the two countries,
XVI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
In the Manual of Eegulations and Instructions prescribed in 1S81 for
the information and government of Consular officers, there are (pp. 581;
582) forms^ of declaration to be made where merchandise has been purchased, and also where merchandise is consigned by a manufacturer.
These two forms follow with perfect precision the language of the law.
There is also the form (No. 140) of a certificate to be attached by the consular officer, and that certificate is required to declare ^^that the actual
market value or wholesale prices ofthe goods, wares, and merchandise in
the said invoice, in the principal markets of the country, and at the
time of exportation, are correct and true." This certificate, it will be
seen, does not relate to the same place nor to the same time as does the
declaration to be made either by the purchaser or the manufacturer.
The former relates to the time and place of purchase; the latter relates
to the time and place of manufacture; but the consular certificate is
made to relate to ^^the principal markets of the country and at the time
oi exportation.'^^ The time of exportation may be different from the
time of purchase, or the time of manufacture. This certificate of the
Consul seems intended to cover the time and place which the Appraisers
are to ascertain, instead ofthe time and place which the Statute requires
in invoices.
My opinion is that one effect of the legislation by Congress, and the,
instructions by the Department of State, which placed such duties and
responsibiUties upon Consular officers in the verification and authentication of invoices, has been to lead shippers who arc? abroad, as well as
appraising officers who are at home, to look, or to pretend to look, upbn
Consular officers as in effect Customs Appraisers in a foreign country,
whose verifications of invoice values are to be received with a credit,
and authority, which they really do not, and cannot, deserve. As it is
now, the shipper misleads Consular officers, and they, in consequence,
mislead Appraising officers, who return false values and classifications
to the Collectors.
>
THE ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE.
The Consular verification of an invoice haAdng been completed^ and
the Consular certificate attached thereto, and the document delivered to
the shipper, the next step in the law of importation is the presentation
of that invoice to the Collector of the port at which the merchandise is
to be entered by the person authorized, to make the paper, prescribed
by the Statute, and defined as an ^ entry." The work of boarding ar^
riAdng vessels when within the revenue jurisdiction ofthe United States;
of presenting a manifest of the cargo by the Master; of unlading the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XVII
cargo under the superintendence of the inspector; of wareliousing; of
keeping custody ofthe merchandise in thepubUc stores; of sending designated packages to the appraisers for exainination; of preliminary estimate
of duties; of taking the money receivable therefor; and of final Uquidation on the, appraisers' report, appears to be now fairly well done, excepting the cartage on deUvery orders. Whatever defective administration there may be does not require, it is believed, legislative action
for its remedy, but is a subject for executive reform. The important
and-most essential business, however, of weighing, measuring, gauging
and ascertaining actual tare, upon the wharves, or in public stores, is
not satisfactorily done. But here again there does not appear, at
present, to be need of additional legislation. What is needed are persons more vigilant, trustworthy and incorruptible in the ascertaining
weights and measures on whose returns the Collector IcAdes duty. At
the larger ports, the Surveyor is, under the direction of the Collector,
charged with the superintendence of inspectors, weighers, gaugers and
measurers, but since the merchandise to be thus tested is scattered along
the wharves, among so many widefy-separated places, an actual, visual,
superAdsion by him, or his Deputies, of each weigher, gauger and measurer, while ascertaining quantities, is of course physically impossible.
If the Surveyor is active and thorough, and, for good reason, a weigher,
gauger, or measurer, is unsatisfactory to him, the best, and indeed the
only way, to maintain good conduct at that point in the customs service,
is to make a prompt removal of the unsatisfactory person, even though
the reasons for dissatisfaction may not be of a character to be adequately
expressed in writing, or to be publicly exhibited. If a Surveyor is
really alert and competent, an inspector, or weigher, or gauger, or measurer, should not be kept in office if the former, and the Collector, honestly suspect that such important work is dishonestly, or even carelessly
done.
The declarations A^ery recently made, in reply to my inquiries, by
the Naval Officer at the Port of New York, in respect to the taking of
gratuities from importers, or their agents, by persons employed in the
Collector's department, have not escaped my attention. The practice,
to which I shall again allude, is a vicious one in every aspect, and, if it
exists, as it probably does, it must be arrested, if for no other reason,
because the law forbids it. But here, as in so many dther departments
of the customs service, there is a difficulty in obtaining satisfactory eAddence. Those who suffer by the practice are naturally unwilling to
make representations to the chief officers unless they can feel that
prompt punishment Avill be inflicted. And here again, I can think of
no other efficient remedy, but the prompt dismissal from office of such
(2)
•
,
XVIII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
inculpated persons, even though the di'smissing officer may not ^make
public the reason for the dismissal, or the eAddence which compels it. ^
A plea, or an excuse, for the taking of such gratuities by servants of
the customs has been, and is, that the service is rendered, it may be,
out of office-hours, in the liquidation of entries, or in the preparation of
other papers, or in some other way. But even if that were literally true,
the relation thus estabUshed between the Government servant and the
importer, or customs broker, or attorney, is an improper and demoralizing one, which is intolerable in every aspect, and which I shall endeavor
to bring to an end even if servants or officers, otherwise useful and valuable, are summarily expelled from the service. The practice of bestowing such gratuities in its 'application to clerks in the Auditor's
office in New York, who are charged with the preparation of statements.
of refunds to be made upon protests to collectors and appeals to thisDepartment, or in obedience to the judgments of courts, is especially
dangerous and reprehensible.
The law of 1842, (Eev. Stats., sec. 2901,) requires a Collector, when
an invoice is presented to him on entry, to designate^ on the invoice at
. least one package, and one package at least of every ten, and a greatei
number should he deem it necessary, to be sent to the public stores for
examination, to be opened, examined and appraised as a fair sample
of all the merchandise contained on the invoice of ^that class. Heretofore frauds upon the revenue have been committed by collusion between the importer and the Collector's office in designating packages
for examination by the appraisers, which did not fairly represent the
' quality and value of the other packages which are described on the invoice as of a similar class. Of course it is impracticable to-send to the
Appraiser's stores for examination, as a general rule, all of the arriving
packages. I am gratified to believe that an arrangement has been per-^
fected, certainly at New York, by which dishonesty of that character
cannot easily be successful.
APPRAISEMENT.
The weakest point at present in the customs-revenue service, and under
the existing complicated tariff law, is, as I have already said, at the
beginning of the process of importation, and in the preparation, verification, and authentication of invoices. That work is done in a foreign
country. The next weakest point, at present, is, in my opinion, in the
appraising branch of the service. The weakness at the former point is,
however, more serious and injmious even than at the latt-er point, for
B long as the existing law (Eev. Stats., ^ec, 2900) which forbids any
O
REPORT OF T^E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XIX
Collector to assess duty ^^-upon an amount less than the invoice or entered
value" is in force, the customs revenues provided by Congress cannot
be seriously impaired by appraisement, if no merchandise is admitted
to entry without a true invoice, and if all invoices fairly and truly represent the actual cost of purchased goods, an'd the market value of merchandise consigned by the manufacturer, or producer.
^
•
The existing system of appraisement at the several ports has been one
of slow groAvth, and has been, subj ect to many legislative changes. Up
to. 1823, the invoice, accompanied b y t h e oath of the person making
entry, was generally accepted by the Collector as truly declaring the
dutiable value. But in that year, after the increased duties imposed in
1816, and'under the conviction that merchandise was often undervalued
in the invoice, official appraisers were authorized and appointed to examine the merchandise and report the dutiable value to the Collector.
By the law of 1823, the two Government Appraisers first fixed the value
and then, on appeal, two merchants designated by the importer, were
united with the same Government Appraisers; and, finally, on a second
appeal, the Secretary of the Treasury closed the dispute. That law was ,
modified, among other years, in 1828, 1830, 1832, 1842, 1851, 1865, and
1866. This last-named enactment of July 27, 1866, (14 U. S. Stats, at
Large, 302,) has been distributed ainong different sections of the EcAdsed
Statutes, and is substantially to-day the law regulating appraisements
at the Port of New York. Other sections of the EcAdsed Statutes regulate such matters at the other ports; but the system, excepting in some
instances the designation of officers, is substantiaUy the same. . ^ '
In the accompanying document (p. 287) vdll be found a concise" tabulated statement of the manner in which classes of merchandise are dis-'
tributed among different divisions of the Appraiser's office at the Port
of New York, together with the designation, the number, and the sala-'
ries of the chief persons whose work it is to exainine, appraise and
report to the Collector.
In New York, when the Collector has designated on the invoices the
packages for examination and appraisement, and has marked distinctly
thereon the rate at which duties haA^e been estimated in a preliminary
way on the several articles therein specified, the invoice, together Avith
necessary stamps and other indications thereoh, is sent to the Apjpraiser,
who, in turn, sends it to the proper assistant appraiser, who, in turn,
sends it to the proper examiner, who directs persons, called openers and
packers, to expose the merchandise to his Adew.
The accompanying documents clearly tend to establish the fact that,
as a general rule in New York, and probably in the other large ports,
XX
<
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the Examiner is the only officer who actually examines the merchandise, and is, therefore, in fact, the appraising officer. The law is specific
that the Collector shall send for exainination to the Appraiser not less
than one package of every invoice, and one package out of every ten
packages, and the inference therefrom clearly is, that to make a valid
appraisement, the contents of each and all of those packages must be
actuaUy seen, and exainined, by the proper appraising officer in order
to make a valid appraisement. Congress has by the existing law on the
subject authorized the appointment in New York of one Appraiser who
is to "direct and supervise^^ the appraisement and ^'cause to be duly reported to the Collector the true value thereof as required by law."
The number of invoices sent by the Collector to the Appraiser at New
York in the year 1884, was two hundred and five thousand seven hundred and sixty-two, (205,762.) It was therefore a physical imppssiv
bility fbr the Appraiser to examine and appraise, in person, the merchandise covered by those invoices. Indeed the executive business of
the Appraiser's office at that port which must be performed by the
Appraiser in person is so vast; including correspondence with the Collector and with the Treasury Department, that the Appraiser can, in
fact, be little more than a general director and supervisor of the business,
and a reporter of values to the Collector which have been found by his
subordinates. In appreciation of that fact, the law of 1866 authorized
the appointment of not more than ten (10) Assistant Appraisers at that
port, ^^who shall be employed in appraising goods according to law,
under the direction and superAdsion o i t h e Appraiser, and in reporting
to him the true value thereof according to law.'' Such report is subject
to rcAdsion and correction by the Appraiser, and, when approved by
him, is to be transmitted to the Collector, and is to be taken to be the
appraisement by the United States Local Appraiser of the District.
The second section of the appraisement law of March 3,1851, (9 Stats,
at Large, 630,) declared ^^thatthe certificate of any one of the Appraisers
of the United States, of the dutiable value of any imported merchandise required to be appraised, shall be deemed and taken to be the appraisement of such merchandise required by existing laws to be made
by such Appraiser." The quoted portion of that law was substantially
in EcA^ Stats., sec. 2950; and the Customs Eegulations of 1884, issued
by the Treasury Department, declared, (Art. 455,) that ^^the certificate of any one of the Assistant Appraisers at the port is to be
deemed and taken to be the legal appraisement of imported merchandise required to be made by such Appraisers." If there were no assistant appraisers in 1351, the statutory source from which this article,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TflE TREASURY.
X^I
making the certificate of an assistant to be a legal appraisement, is not
apparent.
The fourth section of the law of 1866 enacted that in Ueu of the clerics
now employed in the examination and inspection and appraisement of
merchandise at the Port of New York, the Secretary of the Treasury
may, on the nomination of the Appraiser, appoint such number of Examiners as said Secretary may deem necessary, their compensation to
be fixed by him, and not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) per year for each. The duty of such Examiners is ^ to aid each
^
of said Assistant Appraisers in the exainination, inspection, and appraisement of goods, Avares and merchandise according to law.'' By the same
section, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to appoint on the
nomination of the Appraiser, the clerks, verifiers, samplers, openers,
packers and messengers in the Appraiser's office, and to fix their number and compensation.
My own inference, from the language employed by Congress in this
appraising law of 1866, is that the Assistant Appraiser must personally
examine the articles he appraises, and the value of which he reports to
the Appraiser. But the weight of the testimony in the accompanying
documents seems clearly to indicate that, as a rule, it is only the Exam;
iner who actually inspects the merchandise. To be sure the law says
that the Examiner shall "aid each of said assistant appraisers in the
examination, inspection and appraisement;" but did the law intend
that the appraisement should be made on the inspection of the merchandise by the Examiner alone % Do the language of the law, the mode
of appointment of such Examiners in contrast with the mode of appointment of the Appraiser and the Assistant Appraiser, and the limit of
salary to be paid to such Exaininers, indicate that such critical and
delicate work is to be left to the unaided discretion and judgment of
Examiners'?
Without an actual inspection of the merchandise, there cannot be a
true appraisement. If neither the Assistant Appraiser, nor the Appraiser, thus inspects, is the appraisement valid under existing law
unless the importer waives the irregularity • I respectfully present this
?
subject to the immediate consideration of Congress, with the suggestion
that if such vast responsibilities are t o b e placed upon Examiners, the.
intelligence, the experience in foreign markets, and the character of the
force of Examiners at the Port of New York need to be materially enlarged, strengthened and increased.
There are noAV seventy-three (73) Examiners inthe Appraiser's office
at New York, including sixteen (16) employed in the laboratory who
- XXII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
make chemical examinations and assays of samples sent to them from
the several divisions, and test sugars by the polariscope. Of the fifty,
(50,) O thereabouts, who inspect and appraise merchandise, I find on inT
quiry that not one-half have been employed in the business of importation or in buying and selling ^articles similar to those which they examine. Many of those who have been promoted, either by competitive
civil-servdce examination or otherAvise, to be Examiners, and Assistant
Appraisers, entered the service as clerks, or in a subordinate capacity,
and have had no experience in importing, or jobbing, or even in the
retail business. The few Examkiers who may have been, many years
ago, large dealers, or smaU dealers, in articles like thbse which they
now appraise, cannot, if continuaUy engaged in the appraising office at
New York, have had experience at home, or abroad, in buying and selling. The law of 1866 declares that the Appraiser ^ shall he practically
^
acquainted with the quaUty and value of some one or more of the
chief articles of importation subject to. appraisement." The quahfication of each Assistant Appraiser is described in the saine language.
The Examiner must be ^^practically and thoroughly acquainted vdth the
character, quality and value of the article, or articles, in the examination and appraisement of which he is ^^to be employed" to aid the Assistant Appraiser.
I have learned by inquiry respecting the range of salaries paid in
New York by the large importing and jobbing houses in the city, that
those who are deemed competent to successfully buy merchandise abroad,
^or at home, receive twice, or even three times, as much' as is the range
of salaries paid to Exaininers in the New York Custom-House who examine similar articles. In addition, a few of the large houses p a y a
pension to those of their faithful clerks, or agents, who have become
old, or physically incapacitated, in serAdce.
If the existing complicated rates of duty now IcAded upon imported
merchandise are not to be simplified and made easier of application, and
if Examiners are to be the responsible appraising officers who alone inspect the merchandise, then there needs to be, I think, an imrnediate
legislative reorganization of the Appraiser's office at NewYork, and the
infusion bf larger mercantile experience and inore self-confidence in determining foreign values.
'^
Under the existing system, the shipper and maker of the invoice
have too much control in fixing the dutiable value of the .importation,
. for their declaration of value is, as a rule, accepted by Consular officers,
and their certificate is as a rule accepted by Examiners. The law
(Eev. Stats., sec. 2902) distinctly declares that it ^^shaU be the duty of
Rtet>ORf Oi" THE SECliEtARY OlT THE tREASU:feY.
XXtM
the Appraisers to lis certain, estiniate and appraise the true and actual
market value and Avholesale price, any invoice or affidavit, thereto to the
contrary notwithstanding, of the merchandise at the time of exportation
ih the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported into the United States." But by reason of the requirement that
the Collector shall nbt levy duty upon less than the invoice or entered
value, the habit began many years ago, as I am informed, of simply reporting t o t h e Collector, '^ Value Correct," unless there be something
to excite suspicion against the integrity of the invoice. The attention
of neither the Assistant Appraiser nor the Appraiser seenis to be called
to an importation, unless under circumstances which induce the Examiner to advance, or raise, the invoicevalue; which is confirmation of.
the opinion that the value stated in the invoice practically controls the
judgment, in nine cases out of ten, of the appraising officers. The strain
of the responsibility, therefore, of detecting and of reporting fraud,
undervaluation, or error in the invoices, is upon the subordinates instead
of the chief officers in the Appraiser's department.
The EcAdsed Statutes (Sec. 2922) empoAver the Appraisers to call before
them, and examine upon oath, any person, touching anything material
in ascertaining the market value, br wholesale price, of, imported merchandise, and to require the production on oath of any letters,, accounts,
or invoices, in his possession, relating to the same, but, under the existing practice in New York, that process for ascertaining the truth
would not be put in mbtion excepting upon the suggestion of one of the
inferior appraising officers.
The accompanying documents wiU give to Congress satisfactory information, it is hoped, respecting the contention which raged at the
Port of New York, last summer, between the agents and consignees of
certain foreign manufacturers, and the Special Agents of the Treasury
Department, who, it must be said, bore the burden of the .contest in
behalf of the Government, and in vindication of the law. Some of
the aspects of the controversy I have already mentioned in what I have
said about invoices,—their verification and authentication. While
Congress has required thajt the invoice of merchandise consigned by the
maker shall .contain the ^ actual market value" thereof atthe time and
^
place when and where the same was procured or manufactured, the Appraisers are ^^to ascertain, estimate and appraise the true and actual
market value and wholesale price at the time of exportation, and in the
principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported
into the United States." The shippers of the merchandise referred to,
and their agents in New Ybrk, insisted that the merchandise had, at
the time and place of manufacture, no ^^actual market value," for the
XXIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
reason that the manufacturers, or owners, refused to sell it to any one
for shipment to the United States. The'eighth section of the Tariff
Law of 1818 has a phrase, used by the Congress of that day, which
seems to anticipate this very contention set up nearly three-foui*ths bf
a century afterwards. By that section, the manufacturer, on making
entry, was required to swear that the prices charged in the invoice ^^are
the current value of, the same at the place of manufacture, and such as
he or they would have received if the same had been there sold in the usual
course of trade.^^ The Supreme Court, in its opinion in Cliquot Champagne, modified the phrase by saying that the ^/actual market value"
of the law of 1863 was the price Avhich, it is believed, the manufacturer
would have been willing to receive. As a Avay out of this apparent
difficulty. Congress, in 1883, (22 Stats, at Large, 525,) declared that when
the Appraiser (not an Assistant or Examiner) could not ascertain, to
his own satisfaction, the true and actual market value, or wholesale
price of merchandise, it shall then be lawfal to appraise the same ^^by
ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise, at the time and place of manufacture, together Avith the expense of manufacturing, preparing and putting up such merchandise
for shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares or
merchandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained." This modification is calculated to increase the efforts of manufacturers, and consignors, to conceal the price at which they really
hold abroad the merchandise, and expect to receive as a result of the
consignment to this 'country, and to compel the appraising officers to
make investigation into the materials of manufacture, and cost, for
which few of them have the necessary experience. A more conscientious and vigorous service by Consular officers abroad and by Appraising officers at home, aided, if the existing ratesof duty are to be maintained, by adequate legislation calculated to deter shippers from the
preparation and presentation of false invoices will, in my opinion, make
more apparent the ^^market value and wholesale price," as that phrase
is used in our revenue law.
There is somewhat of conflict of opinion between the Special Agents of
the Treasuiy Department, and -the Appraiser at New York, in regard
to the fldeUty and correctness with which values are now reported to
the Collector. The differences between them may be reconciled by
bearing in mind that, under the existing system, the opinions of the
Appraiser are necessarily colored by the Adews of the" Examiners.
I am quite Avilling to believe that much of the undervaluation that
has existed at the port of New York, came of rivalry in buying and
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXV
selling, rather than of a motive to defraud the Government. And yet
one cannot weU shut his eyes to the fact that good men, who are obedient
to other laws, do sometimes deal as if they felt that evasion ofthe existing
tariff law is pardonable. Why is it so? A very little evasion in the
payment of money which ought to go to the Government as duties may,
in the strife of buying and selling imported staple articles, make the
difference between a profit on one hand or a loss on the other, and may
enable a successful evader of duties to outstrip and outsell all rivals in
the same line of merchandise. It vdll be to the discredit of the Govern,
ment if importers doing business at the ports to which a certain description of merchandise is not consigned by manufacturers, and who
endeavor tb buy abroad, shall be injured, or driven out of their business
of real importation, because of the failure of Congress, or of the Executive, to make dutiable values, and to ICA^ and collect duties, uniform at
all places and for all persons throughout the United States..
REAPPRAISEMENT.
I have already alluded to the investigations, set on foot by my immediate predecessor and myself, into the methods of reappraisal at the
Port of New York. Congress has required the Executive to ascertain
and fix the dutiable value of all imported merchandise subject to a<2
valorem duty. The law has authorized the appointment of officers to
exercise that important function, and has (Eev. Stats., sec. 2949) empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to establish, from time to time,
rules and regulations, not inconsistent Avith law, to^secure a just, faithful and impartial appraisal of the actual market value or wholesale
price. It has provided for what is caUed a ^4ocal appraisement," to
which sufficient reference has already been made, and then, if the importer shall demand it, for a reappraisement to be made by a permanent general appraiser wherever practicable, and ^ a discreet and expe^
rienced merchant" to be selected by the Collector, wherever that is
practicable, or two discreet and experienced merchants who are American citizens and familiar Avith the character and value of the goods in
question. When the Appraiser has reported to the Collector an ad
,vance upon the entered value, the Collector is required to notify the importer of such advance. If the importer be dissatisfied therewith, and
Avithin twenty-four hours shall give written notice to the Collector of such
dissatisfaction, the Collector is required to call on the Appraiser for a
special report of the appraisem^^nt in due form, and notify him of'the
appeal. On the reception of that report, the CoUector is required to
XXVI
liEPORt OF THE SECRETARY Ot^ THE TREAStJilY.
select/^a discreet and experienced merchant" to act with the General
Appraiser and to notify both of them of the appeal, and of the time and
place of reappraisement. The valuation having been determined, the
reappraisers are required to report the same to the Collector according to a
prescribed form, but if the reappraisers do not agree, they are required
to; make separate reports to the Collector who must '' decide between
them." The decision of the Collector, thus made, is final, and the duties are to be assessed accordingly. If the appraised value thus ascertained exceeds the entered value by ten (10) per cent, or more than
ten (10) per cent., a duty of twenty (20) per cent., in addition to the
regular duty, must be levied.
••
.^
The irregularities and improper practices which have existed at the
Port of New York in making reappraisements are so thoroughly exhibited in the accompanying documents that elaborate further reference to
them on my part is unnecessary. It is difficult to understand how these
irregularities and improper practices could have begun, and have resulted, as they did, in an unseemly scuffle between importers and
appraising bfficers. Special Agents ofthe Treasury,, and local officers at
New York. The law, and the General Eegulations of the Treasury, are
clear and adequate.
It seems to me, after a careful examination ofthe reports, that nearly
every question presented had been disposed of by my predecessors, from
time to time during the last forty years, and the decisions published.
I issued, however, on June 9, 1885, ncAV instructions, (p. 98,) which
accompany this report. After they had been pubUshed, elaborate written arguments were presented to me by legal counsel of importers who
thought themselves aggrieved by my instructions. Therein it was
asked:
(1.) That the importer be permitted to be present at the reappraisenient; which permission had never been denied so far as I am aware.
(2.) That the importer be permitted to support his own oath on entry,
and, within proper limits, to confront any opposing witness by testimony.
(3.) That he be permitted at the reappraisement to test the eAddence
offered to impeach the correctness of the value stated by him on the
mtry.
(4.) That he be permitted to be represented by a laAA^er, and to crossexamine witnesses.
To the arguments, and the reference to judicial authorities, offered to
sustain the contention of the importers^ I gave careful attention, and
took the'opinions of competent experts in my Department, and at sev-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY oi' THE TREASURY. XXVll
eral of the Ports, the result of which was to confirm the correctness of ^,
my instructions of June 10, 1885. To those instructions I shall adhere
until otherwise directed by competent legal authority.
.
It would be impracticable for the Executive to carry on reappraisements of the value of imported merchandise by the forms and methods
of ^^a law suit,^^ as those forms and methods are employed in judicial
proceedings. In what relates to the commercial designation bf imported
articles, their classification for duty, and the rates of duties to be levied
thereon, the importer has ample recourse to the judicial tribunals, but
the ascertainment of dutiable values has, by the law, been wisely made
purely an executive function, involving, it is true, the exercise of discretion and judgment, but not on that account a judicial function in the
sense in which the Federal Constitution has distributed powers among
> ExecutiA^e, Legislative, and Judicial Departments.
To aid the Collector in selecting ^^a discreet and experienced merchant," the Treasury regulations require the Appraiser to submit to
the Collector the names of suitable persons, but it appears, from the
reports made to me, that this important work was b y t h e Appraiser
delegated to an Examiner, and that the Collector, instead of himself
exercising his most important function, was in the habit of committing
it to a Deputy in palpable disregard of the obligations of bfficial duty.
A Avrangle took place at the Port of New York as to whether the
^^discreet and experienced merchant" must be an importer, or could be
a jobber of merchandise similar to that under investigation. It was
even seriously contended by importers, and apparently conceded by
some local officers of the customs at New York, that it would not be
possible to find in New York a ^^discreet and experienced merchant"
competent to appraise a certain class of merchandise brought into that
port and sold, in great quantities. The immediate predecessor of the
present Collector, on instructions from this Department, took the selection of a merchant appraiser into his own hands.
In a system of ad valorem rates there are two critical points: One is
dutiable value, and the other is rate of duty. The present rate of duty
on certain silk goods is fifty (50) per cent, of the market value at the
time of exportation in the principal markets of the country, or what is
equivalent to one-half of the importation. If the law were so administered
•by the Treasury Department that on the importation of one importer,
fifty (50) per cent. waslcAded, and on the importation of another importer
forty (40) per cent., and on that of another importer thirty (30) per cent.,
there would be a general outcry. So there would be if an importer at
New York was required to pay only thirty (30) per cent., and if of an-
XXVIII REPDRT OF- THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY..
«>ther at Buffalo Avas demanded forty (40) per cent., and of another at
Chicago was required fifty (50) per cent. But a none the less illegal and
intolerable result would follow if the dutiable value on one importation
were fixed at one hundred dollars, ($100;) on another, by the same A^essel, at eighty dollars, ($80,) and on another by the same vessel at sixty
dollars, ($60,) the merchandise in all of the three being similar. If
importers can illegally control dutiable values, they can control the
amount of duties paid on the merchandise, although the ad valorem rate
may be fixed and uniform for everybody and every port in the country.
A variance of opinion and practice having arisen among customs
officers in the application of the seventh section of the tariff law of
March 3, 1883, a conference of those officers was assembled in that year
to consider the subject and those officers not having agreed in their
views, my careful predecessor, Mr. Folger, applied to the whole subject his eminent learning and tried judicial experience, and prepared
an elaborate opinion, dated September 27, 1883, wherein he decided:
^^The dutiable value of the goods is the actual market value, or the
wholesale price thereof in the condition of finish and preparation for
sale in which they are finally offered by the foreign merchant to negotiating customers, and for which they will and do sell them, though
that value or price be.enhanced because of that finish and preparation,
and though a part of the preparation consists in placing in or upon or
about the goods, boxes, cartons, and paper cards or other like things."
The question was afterwards referred to the Department of Justice for.
examination, and on January 11, 1884, the Attorney-General gaA^e an
opinion, in which that officer substantially concurred in the reasoning,
and in the conclusion, of the Secretary of the Treasury, and said:
^'The cost of boxes or coverings with which goods are ordinarily prepared for sale in foreign markets, and in which they are usually sold
and purchased there (the price paid for the goods including the box or
covering which goes therewith to the purchaser) must be regarded as
entering into, or as being an element of, the actual market value of the
goods. Section 7 of the act of 1883 does not forbid the inclusion in the
dutiable value of merchandise of that which forms a constituent of its
actual market A-alue. Hence the dutiable value of goods usually prepared for sale as above, and those usually sold in the foreign market, is
their current or actual market value, or wholesale price, in such market, as enhanced in the preparation thereof for sale in the manner referred to."
"
On January 18, 1884, this Department published the opinion of the
Attorney-General ^^for the information and guidance of Customs Officers."
On May 13, 1885, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon decided that the value of barrels in which Portland
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXIX
Cement is imported cannot be added to the wholesale price of the latter
as an element of its dutiable'value.
On August 20, 1855, Judge Wallace, in Oberteufferet al. vs. Robertson,
(24 Federal Eeports, 852,) in the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Southern District of New York, decided that whenever goods are
sold in the markets of the country of exportation, whether usually, or
only occasionally, in boxes, cartons, or coverings of any kind, which
make the goods attractive and desirable, and the boxes, cartons, &c.,
enter into the price there of the goods as merchantable commodities,
the boxes, cartons, &c., are accessories ofthe goods.; and actual market
value includes them as an element of the value of the goods in the condition in which they are purchased.
The decisions and instructions of this Department, in respect to the
seventh section of the law of 1883, just alluded to, have resulted in a
very large number of protests made, and suits begun, by importers, to
recover money alleged by them to have been exacted in excess by Collectors in obedience to the requirements of this Department.
I commend this question to the immediate attention of Congress to
the end that, by legislation, the question may be settled definitely for
the future, and so prevent the continuance in the future of a large number of protests and suits which have been begun, or are likely 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 adA^ersely to the Department by the Supremte
Court of the United States.
The question presented by the seventh section of the law of 1883, has
arisen in another form, and in connection with reappraisements. On
importations of an article, commercially knovm as ^ Worsted Italians,"
^
there was an appeal to reappraisers, and« the General Appraiser and
the Merchant Appraiser disagreed upon the question whether a coarse
cotton covering placed around the article should be included in the dutiable value. The General Appraiser decided in the affirmative, and
the Merchant Appraiser in the negative. Under the statute in such .
cases, the question went to the Collector ^^to decide between them."
That subject, which incidentally embraced other questions, was referred
to the Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion. On August 31, 1885,
I,decided that the question whether or nbt that coarse cotton covering
known as '^Tillots," and whether cartons, boxes or other coverings are
elements of the dutiable value of any particular importation, is to be
determined in each case by the appraising officers, subject to the general rule of decision in such cases laid down in section 2906 pf the Ee-
xxx
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Adsed Statutes, and the opinion ofthe Attorney General of January 11,
1884. . .
In the reply of the Chief Clerk of the Customs at New York contained
in the accompanying documents, (p. 601,) that bfficer, in response to my
invitation to freely criticise any decision of this Department, expresses
the opinion that when the reappraisers shall disagree, and the CoUector,
by Eevised Statutes, section 2930, ^^shall decide between them," t h a t .
officer must adopt one or the other of the disagreeing opinions of the
reappraisers, and that Article 470 of GeneralTreasury Eegulations bf 1884
which declares that ^^the Collector is, howcA^er, not bound by the values
fixed in the report of either the Merchant Appraiser or the General
Appraiser, but wiU adopt such value as upon the testimony submitted
may seem to him just," is in violation of law. The question ma^? be
of importance in customs administration by reason of the recent opinion ofthe Supreme Court in Hilton vs. Merritt (110 U. S. Eep., 97) where
the<Court, in the course of a very instructive opinion on the subject of
reappraisals, and the relation of appraising officers to classification,
rates and amounts of duty, refers to the questions suggested to me by
the Chief Clerk of the Cuistoms at New York, but Avithout expressing
an opinion thereon.
The instructions of this Department have not been uniform, for in the
volume of Customs Eegulations for 1874, Art. 427, it is said, referring
to a disagreement bf reappraisers, that '' they will make separate report's
to the Collector who will decide between them, adopting one or the
other valuation as he may deem just." , The question is not free from
difficulty as is sufficiently intimated in the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States, to Avhich I have just referred. Aided by
the laAV advisers and experts of this Department, I have given it a
careful consideration, and am of the opinion that it was the intention
of Congress to give, and that a fair construction of the language used
by Congress does give, a full discretion to the Collector in the final
determination of the values in controversy. A strictly literal construction of the Avords ^^decide between them" might exclude the finding
either of the General Appraiser, or the merchant, and make an intermediate valuation obligatory, which valuation it may be fairly assumed
would naturally be nearer the truth than that of either of the disagreeing reappraisers. I do not think that the conclusion need necessarily
be that the Collector, when called upon to act as an umpire by the statute, is necessarily to be considered an appraising officer, bound by all the
statute technicalities w^hich environ those officers. And yet, the statute
declares that " t h e appraisal thus determined (by the Collector) shall be
-REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXXl
final." The CbUector need not take an.oath of office as appraiser in
each case, and it is within his discretion and judgment, upon all the
facts, whether or not to make a personal examination of the merchandise. The Examiners, Assistant Appraisers, the Appraiser and the
merchant reappraiser are assumed to be experts in the character, quality
and value of the merchandise under consideration; Avhile in the case
of the Collector, it may be said that the statute did not assume that he
would possess such expert knowledge. A reappraisement is, in my
opinion, substantially the same proceeding as the original appraisement,
inasmuch as the statute expressly prescribes that the reappraising officers
shall proceed agreeably to the proAdsions made for the original appraisement. But the statute has made no such requirements of a Cqllector
when deciding between disagreeing reappraisers. It seems to me that
an interpretation of the statute which required the Collector to take one
or the other of two disagreeing valuations inight require him to make
a decision that his OAVU judgment did not approve. Congress evidently
foresaw that as only two persons could sit on a reappraisement, disgreements between them might arise which must be decided by somebody, and the statute naturally and prudently, treated and disposed of
such a contention by making the decision ofthe Collector, as Collector,
final and conclusive.
^
I shall adhere to these Adews until otherwise controlled by the Supr^eme
Court of the United States, or by statute, but, in the meanwhile, I respectfully subinit the question to the consideration of Congress for such
legislation, if any, as it may see fit to make.
It is proper for me to add that neither the decision of this Department, of August 31, 1885, nor any other Department decision on this
subject, interferes Avith the functions of appraising officers in ascertaining the value of imported goods. I have only, in obedience to the
requirements of Congress, defined and established a general principle,
and rule, by which they are to be guided.
When the statute requires that on the disagreement of two reappraisers ^^the Collector shall decide between them" it imposes a most delicate and important task upon the Collector, which, there is reason to
fear, has, in the past, been performed in an inconsiderate and perfunctory manner. The exercise of such discretion and judgment should
never, by a Collector, be intrusted to any subordinate. The law, and
the pubUc welfare, demand that the decision shall, in every aspect,
represent his own intelligence, integrity and reason.
XXXlI
E E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
FINAL ASSESSMENT OF DUTY.
If a correct and truthful invoice of imported merchandise can be obtained by the Collector, and if the appraising and measuring officers,
are competent and watchful, the full amount of duty required by Congress to be paid will be levied, and collected, unless this Department,
and the several Collectors, shall be at fault in making classifications,
prescribing the rates, and in liquidations. There is now no reasonableground for complaint of the manner in which classification is made, and
rates levied. There are disputes in abundance between importers and
Collectors in that regard, and difficult questions are presented by tho
local officers to this Department, but these difficulties are inherent in
the existing tariff law rather than in administration. That many of
the present rates of duty have been a long time in force does not prevent
a daily increasing presentation of new questions, concerning commercial
designation and classification, growing, in part, out of the production
of new forms of manufacture by new combinations of materials, creating
novel commercial designations. There are, in the present law, not only
purely ad valorem rates, but specific rates, which vary according to the
value of the article at the foreign port. The same article is, by the
present tariff, made to pay duty by value, and by quantity. Cotton
goods are dutiable a<Jcording to the number of threads to the square
inch. The satisfactory execution of such a law requires, in my opinion,
an immediate and thorough strengthening of the appraising department
of the several ports, and important changes elsewhere in the consular
and customs service. I appreciate how important it is to the importing,
manufacturing, and industrial interests of this country, that the tariff
law shall be stable, permanent, and well understood, but those qualities
can never inhere, in my judgment, in the present tariff law, no matter
how long it is upon the Statute-Book, and for the reasons to which I
have referred.
^
,
There are now 116 ports of entry in the United States vdth as
many separate Collectors, at each and all of which a new article of
manufacture may be presented for entry. It is of course impossible for
the Secretary of the Treasury, any more than Congress, to anticipate
every possible product of manufacture, and of importation, under the
existing law. When, therefore, the article is presented for duty, the
Appraising officers, and the Collector, at each port, levy such a rate as
they think the law requires, but the result is that differing rates on precisely similar articles are, at first, levied at the different ports. In
order to correct such errors, since it is impossible that each of several
conflicting decisions can be correct, the law has Avisely provided that
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIII
the importer may protest against the exaction by a Collector of a rate
or ah amount of duty which he believes excessive. If the -Collector
adheres to his first ruling, then the law permits the importer to appeal
therefrom to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is in the interest ofthe
law, and of a good administration of the revenuCj that importers be
Adgilant in making such protests and appeals whenever they feel aggrieved, for thereby the Secretary ofthe Treasury is informed of differing
decisions in the several collection districts. If, when the Treasury Department has decided (as it has the authority to decide definitely and finally
so far as the executive department is concerned) what the rate of duty
shall be, and the importer is dissatisfied, he is then permitted by the
Government to bring a suit against the Collector to test judicially the
legality of the exaction. This suit must be prosecuted in a Federal
Court of the Circuit wherein the exaction of the money was made, and,
under defined circumstances, either party can, by writ of error, bring
a question of law arising therein to the Supreme Court at Washington.
The present law (Eev. Stats., 2931) declares that the decision o f
the Collector, as to the rate and amount of duties, shall be ^ final and
^
conclusive "• unless a legal protest be filed within ten days ^ after the
^
ascertainment and liquidation of the duties." There have been con- ,'
tradictory instructions by this Department, (See those of September 30,
1878, ahd July 8,1879) in respect to the one of several possible ascertainments and liquidations referred to by the statute. The last instruction
by this Department declares a protest may legally be within ten days
after thefirst ascertainment and liquidation, although the final liquidation of the entire entry and account may not be, till afterwards. It is
obAdous that if a protest need not be, and cannot legally be, tiU ten
days, and an appeal to this Department tiU thirty days, after the
final liquidation of a warehouse entry on the last withdrawal, there
haAdng been a succession of withdrawals for consumj)tion of a portion
of the merchandise originally entered for warehouse and duty paid
therebn,—then the protest may not be against,a payment of money and
Avithin ten days, but only against a subsequent computing, or liquidation. It is important that the CoUector be as quickly as possible informed of any illegality in his exaction of money that is set up by an
importer. The law of protests, appeals, and suits needs rcAdsion by
Congress in several particulars.
There have been from time to time, and here and there, suggestions,
first, that the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury,, in respect to
tlie rat^e and amoiint of duty shall be final and conclusive as the decis-
XXXIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ion of the appraising department is final and conclusive as to dutiable
value, or, secondly, if the importer shall be aUowed an appeal to any
other tribunal, it shall not be to the regularly established Federal Courts
of the country, but to a special tribunal, either the present Court of
Claims, or a single tribunal to be established elsewhere. In regard to
thefirst suggestion, I have already expressed an opinion; and in regard
to the second, I am equally clear that the use of a new tribunal like the
Court of Claims, or any other to be established, would not be well. I
am advised that the Constitution forbids the taking away from an importer of the right of trial by jury in a suit against a Collector which
he has begun, and which is now pending, inasmuch as it is a '^suit at
common law." In probably nearly aU such suits the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, ($20.) Congress could deprive importers
in the future of the right to maintain a suit tp revise the decision of the
Secretary of the Treasury in respect to rates of duty, but such a proceeding would be unvdse if it created additional hostility against the
tariff law.
If a new tribunal shall be created where shall it sit * K there be morej
?
than one, there vdll be need of a supreme appellate tribunal to producer
uniformity of decision. The larger part of the revenue on imports i
M
collected at the Port of New York, and therefore. New York would
naturally be the place chosen for the sitting of such a tribunal. But,
if there is to be only one tribunal, and it sit either in New York, or in
Washington, importers who Uve in distant parts of the country and on
the Pacific Coast, wUl be greatly inconvenienced if vdtnesses must travel
so far. The questions cannot always be adequately presented on written
depositions. On all questions of fact, in dispute between an importer
and the Government concerning rates of duty, both parties are entitled
to a trial by jury if desired, and a trial by jury at the place where the
IcATy was made. The present ^system secures that right, and it also
secures the right of the importer and the Government to bring each and
every question of law to the Supreme Court at Washington.
There have also been suggestions for the creation of an Executive
Board to try and decide the questions concerning commercial designation, classification and rates of duty which are now tried and decided
by the Treasury Department. The result of my own Umited observation and experience in the Department is that if the existing system be
efficiently worked, both by importers and local customs officers, and by
this Department, there is no need of modification. Bnt at several of the
ports the system is not at present adequately worked. H the importer be
dissatisfied, and file a protest against the liquidation, the CoUector is to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXXV
immediately reconsider the liquidation in the light of the protest. In
practice, however, that important work of considering the protest, and
of redecision of the question of rate of duty, is either assigned by the
Collector to a subordinate, or is performed by him in a perfunctory
manner. It is the practice in this Department when an appeal is received 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 conscientious one, both in regard to law and facts, this 'Department Avill
have before it the contention of the importer, who is very sure to state
his case clearly and strongly, and also the contention of the" local officers.
Upon such a preparation of each case, and upon a similar preparation
of similar cases from the several ports, the Department ought to be in
a condition to make a safe decision.
I am also of the opinion that the decision of these questions should
be kept in hands where it can be subject to the suggestion ofthe President, inasmuch as those questions often involve the consideration of
treaties and of the friendly relations of this Government Avith other
governments.
It will be obAdous that the labor and responsibility of deciding questions involAdng rates of duty, which is now devolved upon the Secretary of the Treasury, is onerous, and for his own peace and contentment
of mind he Avould Avish the responsibility placed elsewhere, but it is
difficult for me to see how any executive commission, or board, can be
permitted to decide that class of questions without a certain amount
of responsibility of revision being finally devolved upon 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.;
The law commands the Secretary of the Treasury to make laAvful
rules and regulations for the government of all customs officers,, and
section 2931 of the EcAdsed Statutes declares that the decision of the
CoUector, at the" port of importation and entry, as to the rate and amount
of duties shall, as has just now been explained, be final and conclusive
against aU persons interested therein, unless a protest shall be filed and
an appeal taken from the decision of the CoUector as therein prescribed;
and on such appeal the decision of the Secretary shall be final and
conclusive, so far as the Executive Department is concerned. This
Department, under these provisions of law, is therefore required, as
I have already said, to make final decision, on actual importation, between any disagreeing coUector and importer. This function is a
most difficult and responsible one under all circumstances, and is one,
XXXVI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the exercise of which, naturally excites criticism or condemnation.
The difficulty inheres chiefly, when Congress, in the law which imposes rates of duty, has not spoken of an article in a clear and unambiguous manner. Different theories have heretofore prevailed, in
years past in this Department, as I am informed, in respect to the rule
of decision when Congress has not thus spoken with perfect precision
in respect to the rate to be levied on a particular article. The article
may not have been in existence, and commercially known, at the time
the schedule of rates was fixed by Congress. Some of my distinguished
predecessors in deciding such questions of rates of duty between collectors and importers have invoked the aid of the principle announced
by Mr. Justice Story, in Adams vs. Bancroft^ (3 Sumner, 387,) that laws
imposing duties are never construed beyond the natural import of the
language, and duties are never imposed upon the citizens upon doubtful,
interpretation, for every duty imi^oses a burden on the public at large,
and is to be construed strictly, and must be made out in a clear ahd
determinate manner from the language of the statute. The same principle was subsequently reannounced by that wisest of magistrates, Mr.
Justice Samuel Nelson, in Powers vs. Barney, (3 Blatchford, C. C. Eep.,
203,) where he said ^^that in cases of serious ambiguity in the language
of the act, or doubtful classification of articles, the construction is to be
in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed upon the citizen
upbn vague or doubful interpretations."
The rule by which the Secretary shall be governed in this class of decisions, is the more important because the Supreme Court of theUnited
States holds that in the trial of a suit to overthrow the decision of this
Department, as to rates of duty, the presumption shall be that the
decision Avas correct, and the burden is thrown upon the importer of
satisfying the Court and Jury to the contrary.
What the Secretary of the Treasury has to do in this regard, as an
executive officer, is to ascertain, as best he can, and enforce, the intention of Cpngress as defined and expressed ih the language it has used,
whether in declaring articles subject to duty or exempt therefrom. It
is natural, and indeed is indispensable for the protection of the revenue,
that the local customs officers in deciding questions of classification and
rates, shall, in cases of perplexity and doubt, give to the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Government, the benefit thereof, first, because
the Collector is responsible for leAying and collecting the full rate of
duty; and, secondly, because i f less than the fnU rate is collected, it is
possible (although the contingency under the existing system of ware-
.REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXVII
housing and of bonds taken on entry for consumption is remote) that
security may pass out of the hands of the Collector before the error in
rate can be presented to this Department and corrected.
In the tariff law enacted on March 3, 1883, there is a clause which
has relation to this subject. It is to be found in section 5, p. 491, and
is an addition to section 2499 of the Eevised Statutes, which section as
it stands in the rcAdsion is taken from the twentieth section of the Tariff
Law of 1842, which is knoAvn as the ^^SimiUtude Section," which Avas
considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Btuart vs. Maxloell, (16 Howard, 150.) The additional clause enacted in 1883 is this:
'^ If two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported
article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates:
Frovided, That non-enumerated articles similar in material and quality
and texture, and the use to which they may be axiplied, to articles on the
free-list, and in the manufacture of which no dutiable materials are
used, shall be free."
The clause was not, as it seems to me, intended by Congress to declare
that when the Legislative Department has used obscure, ambiguous or
equivocal language in respect to an article, not fairly Avithin the ,Similitude Section, there shall be levied the highest possible rate, but
rather that the rule expressed by the two illustrious magistrates whom
I have just quoted is the truer and better executive rule.
In another part of this report, I have alluded to the large nuinber of
suits now pending in different parts of the country, to recover money
alleged to have been exacted in excess for duties. An interpretation
which is the opposite of the one I have suggested as most conformable to
the spirit of oui* institutions, and to the feelings of the people from whom
money is taken by taxes, would largely increase the number of those
suits; and so long as the existing law remains uiion the Statute-Book
- which permits jurymen to decide questions of commercial designation
and questions of fact, in such suits, and an independent magistracy to
decide questions of law, it is not to be assumed that such suits Avill be
finally disposed of upon the rule that in every case the citizen must be
made to pay, when the law-makers have not spoken clearly and diS;
tinctly, the highest possible rate.
In respect to all the decisions, and the principle of the decisions, which
have been heretofore made by my predecessors in respect to classifications
and rates of duty, and to executive decisions which are now pending in
the courts, I shall in no way interfere, excepting to take care, so far as
I can, that the defence to be interposed by the several District Attorneys shaU be thorough and adequate. Those suits have passed out of
XXXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
executive determination and are substantially in the hands, so far as the
ExecutiA^e is concerned, of the Department of Justice, and those of the
Courts. ' I deem it my duty to respectfiilly present to Congress the rule upon
which, while, at the same time enforcing and protecting the Similitude
Section, I shall act in all new questions as they may arise, and until
otherwise directed by superior authority.
EASURY,
PORTS.
There has been, from time to time, especially during the last summer
and in New York, criticism of the conduct of Special Agents of the
Treasury, their employment, and interference Avith the collection of the
revenue. When I came to this Department, I found there was in service
under the Eevised Statutes (sec. 2649,) as amended in 1876 and 1878, the
full number of twenty-eight (28) Special Agents that can be employed in
the customs service, and at an annual total cost, for the last fiscal year,
of eighty-seven thousand four hundred and sixty-six dollars and fortytAvo cents, ($87,466.42.)
I also found a force of Special Inspectors, numbering forty-three, (43,)
the entire expenditure for which in the last fiscal year was fifty-two
thousand six hundred and seventy-two dollars and two cents, ($52,672.02.)
These inspectors are assigned to duty under the Collectors and Special
Agents. ^
I also found other persons employed on what was called the "Fraud
Eoll,'' to the number on November 1,1884, of fifty, (50,) under an appropriation of not exceeding onehundred thousand dollars, ($100,000,) which
began in the Civil Appropriation Bill of 1879 ^^for the detection and
prevention of frauds on the custPms revenue," and has been annually
continued thereafter. For the year ending June 30, 1880, the cost of
this ^ Fraud Eoll" was only twenty-three thousand three hundred and
^
eighty-nine doUars and twenty-five cents, ($23,389.25,) but for the
first three quarters of the last fiscal year of 1884-5 the expense was about
sixty thousand dollars, ($60,000.) There are to-day only eight (8) persons on t h a t ' ' Eoll'' out of fifty (50) in November, 1884; the total annual
cost is now at the rate of about eight thousand dollars, ($8,000,) and five (5)
of the eight (8) are employed in Europe, as silk experts to aid our Consular
Agents, from which service I have not yet withdrawn them. The persons on the ^^Fraud Eoll," were, and now are, under the immediate
supervision of the Special Agents' Division of the Treasury. ^
There is much obscurity in the origin of the employment of Special
Agents of the Treasury in custoins affairs; of the fund out of which they
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIX
were paid before 1870; and ofthe authority therefor which appears not
to hav^e been distinctly given by Congress till the last-named date.
(Sec. 2649, Eevised Statutes.) The accompanying documents (pp. 274
to 286) give such information thereon as I have been able to gather.
The average annual/expenditure during the last five years to employ
Special Agents of the Treasury, Special Inspectors, and members of the
^^Fraud Eoll" to aid, or supervise, the regular officers in executing the
customs law has been $184,306.13. That sum I deem excessive, and I
shall continue to make effort to prudently reduce it; members of-the
f^Fraud Eoll," have even been assigned to permanent work in the Dis- trict Attorney's Office at New York.
In the present fprce of Special Agents, numbering twenty-three, (23,)
there are useful servants of the revenue whose inteUigence, zeal and
fideUty cannot be justly, or successfally, caUed in question. Their work
is incessant, responsible, delicate in character, and at times most vexing.
The best among them are invaluable aids to the Head of this Department, whose services, or the services of others Uke them, it would be
an injury to the customs revenue to lose. But yet, while I thus fally
and cordially recognize the value of the Special Agents' Division, I also
appreciate the danger there is that a force of men, so near the Secretary,
and naturally believed by the local officers to represent his views and
purposes, may, if not most judicious and discreet in conduct, and not
most watchfully supervised, become an injury to the local serAdce at the
ports which they frequently visit as the especial representatives of this
Department, by creating, or encouraging, among the officers of the
ports, a feeling that the latter are reUeved in some sense of the responsibility which the statute imposes on them, and especially if assigned to
permanent work therein. I fear that such has already, and in times
past, been one result, and that the Government is now feeling, throughout the country, the unfortunate consequences. The fanctions of Collectors, Naval Officers, and Surveyors, as well 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 Treasury does not,
by the eyes of his Special Agents, see irregularities and needed reforms,
then none exist.
If such a condition of dependence oh this Department actuaUy and
generally exist, as I fear that it does, for supervision of the local work '
of a port, or of a place on the frontier, the process of restoring a condition of effective and responsible local administration, such as the law
contemplates, Avill necessarily be slowl The average customs officer,
who has been long in service, cannPt be easily, and quickly,, shunted
XL
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '
upon a new track when reform is needed. The force of habit is strong
with him.
In the administration of the customs law the Collector is the chief
officer of the Pprt. The Avise framers of the law of 1799 provided for
local self-government under general superAdsion at the Federal Capital.
The Surveyor is under direction of the Collector, and is the chief outdoor officer. The Naval Officer verifies and countersigns many of the
moi e important acts of the Collector in estimating, IcATTing and Uquidating duties. It is through the Collector that chiefly flow the orders of
the Department to the port. While' the duties of the Naval Officer,
Surveyor and Appraiser are clearly defined by law, it is, nevertheless,
upon the Collector that the Department must depend for general superintendence, and a taking care that the law is executed at the port. It
is the Collector whp communicates with the District Attorney, and
directs, or ought to direct at the outset, the instituting, and defending,
of certain suits at law. It is manifestly improper that his authority or
influence, be weakened, or impaired, by any subordinate Agents of the
Treasury. The salary of the CoUector at New York, which is larger than
that of any Federal Officer, excepting the President, larger than that of
the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, or any Head of a Department,
may be taken as an indication of his responsibiUty and labor if both be
adequately performed. At that port seven-tenths of the whole customs
revenue, amounting last year to $181,471,939.34 is by him collected.
He selects merchant appraisers, and with himself is often the sole
and final decision. He decides, in the first instance, compUcated
questions of rates of duty. He should be, if any one man could
be, a successfal merchant, an experienced laAvyer, a Avise judge, and
especiaUy a controlUng executive officer in the handUng of subordinates. He requires, and should have, adequate assistance, but,
in many most essential matters and controversies, the discretion, judgment and decision must be his own indiAddual act, at the end of careful
and Avise investigation, or the customs revenue may suffer irreparable
injury. Yery much that is bad in the present condition of the customs service at New York, has come of the freedom given, by the Collector, to Deputy CoUectors to execute the law in their own way, and
even to exercise discretion in important matters, vdthout adequate,
constant, personal supervision by the chief officer of the port. What is
true of New York is true of other ports in a measure and relatively to
the business. As a rule, the way of doing the work by the chief ofccers
of the coUection districts is carefuUy prescribed by Statute and Treasury
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAGURY.
XLI'
Eegulations, but there is need of perpetual watchfulness by the Collector
to keep the machinery from faUing into infirmity and partial decay, as.
is to-day its condition in too many districts.
SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS.
I respectfuUy ask the attention of the Senate and House to the several
replies made to my inquiries by the Attorneys of the United States.at
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore; and especially to the
reply of the Attorney of the United States for the Southern District of
New York, in respect to suits now pending, and growing out of differences between importers and Collectors in respect to the rate and amount
of duty IcAded by the latter. The number of such suits now pending in
the Southern District of New York is reported to be about two thousand three hundred, (2,300.) It will arrest attention that about one
hundred and ninety-five (195) of these pending and untried suits'^in the
Southern District of New York arose under the Tariff Laws of 1846,
1851, and 1857.
It Avill, no doubt, be to Congress, as it was to me, a startling announcement that ^^of these suits no one is now" (October 19, 1885) ^^.fully
ready for t r i a l " on the part of the defendant; that ^^the pleadings do
not disclose the precise issues in controversy;" that ^^the issues can
only be accurately determined from the plaintiffs' protests, which, with
very few exceptions, are on file at the Custom-House," and have, as it
is to be inferred, not been seen by the District Attorney's Office; and
that there does not appear to be in the District Attorney's f^Office or
elsewhere, within the control of the Government, any note or memorandum
as to what were the facts, on which the action of the Government officers
was based, or what witnesses are available for the defence."
There is in the reply made by the District Attorney to my inquiries,
a severe criticism of the conduct of the Collector of the Port in regard
to those suits, but, conceding that criticism to be well founded, I am
even then at a loss to understand how, or why, if the District Attorney
has enforced, as was his duty. Section 3012 of the Eevised Statutes,
there is not in his office, as he says there is not, ^^any intimation of
what the issue really is, or what is the Government's defence."
That enactment, requiring a detailed statement of the plaintiff's demand,' and a ^^description of the merchandise," was made in 1866; and
if such a '' Bill of Particulars'' be not served on the District Attorney, '' a
judgment of nonpros, shall be rendered j " says the law. One is naturaUy puzzled to understand how an adequate exainination of each case
could have been made by the District Attorney, even to prepare proper
XLII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
pleadings in defence, on such meagre facts as are described as now in
that office. An inquiry was made by the Court in Muser vs. Eobertson,
(21 Biatch., C. C. Eep., 368,) as to the sufficiency of the information
respecting ^^the precise points in controversy" in Collector's suits,
afforded to the defendant, and his attorney, by the statutes, and to
that opinion I respectfully invite the attention of Congress.
It is due to the present District Attorney at New York to say that
these suits were begun, and put at issue, before his term of office began,
and that the reply to me, of October 19, 1885, was made before any of
the assistants so Ipng in that office had been removed, or othervdse
changed.
What sum of money may be involved in these twenty-three hundred
(2,300) suits, the information accessible by me, either in the office of
the District Attorney, or the CoUector, does not enable this Department
to form even a guess. It may be milUons! Nor ara I able definitely to
ascertain why more of these suits have not been put to trial. I am told.
that during the three years ended April 6,1885, only 105 days have been,
by the Circuit Courts for the Southern District of New York, ^iven to
the trial Avith a jury of suits against Collectors, and, in all that period,
only 58 such suits were tried. Since April 6, 1885, no Collector's suits
have been tried with a jury.
I do not concur in the plan suggested by the District Attorney's Office
(p. 619) to send the questions therein referred to, of law, or fact, or
both, ^^to a Eeferee for his determination of the whole suit." K computations. Or reliquidations, of duty are not to be made in presence
of the Court and Jury, but are to be sent to a Eeferee, he should be
the Collector of the Port, in order that they be done by the regular
Uquidating force of the Custom-House. Whatever questions he, and
the Appraiser, cannot dispose of should, as a rule, and excepting in mere
numerical calculations, if questions of fact, be decided by, the Jury,
and if of law, by the Court.
' ,
It Avill be remembered that by Section 827 of the EcAdsed Statutes,
the District Attorney may receive a fee, outside of his salary, for the
defence of these suits. Immediately prior to 1877 the District Attorney
at New York received, under that section, Avithin three years, $40,490.
On June 4, 1877;, it was ordered by my distinguished predecessor, Mr.
Sherman, that not more than four thousand doUars, ($4,000,) in any
one year, be allowed to any one District Attorney, under that section, wliich rule is now in force, and that sum has since then been
annually allowed to the District Attorney at NCAV York, in addition
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XLIIl
to his salary of six thousand dollars, ($6,000,) and other sums. Im
mediately after the issue of that order, the District Attorney at
New York asked this Department, on September 11, 1877, for an
allowance of a sum of money to two additional law-clerks, which
was granted, and since then this Department has, under Section 827,
paid to the New York District Attorney six thousand dollars ($6,000) a
year, in addition to his salary, for his own services in CoUectors' suits,
and for an allowance to two such law-clerks. What influence this new
system of compensation has had on the defence of suits against Collectors, I am as yet unprepared to say. From the information gathered
in this Department the folloAving tabular statement has been prepared
according to fiscal years, and it may thrpw light on the inquiry*
Year.
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
;
Totals
Averasre
^
New suits
....
Tried.
Settled
without
suit.
In favor
of U. S.
1,092
463
283
351
400
496
712
936
576
565
637
103
64
98
30
84
7
47
31
25
.35
34
442
387
423
384
473
369
727
660
1,136
654
241
6,571
558
5,896
323
597 10-11
50
586
29 4-11
82
47
17
30
71
3
31
27
5
4
6
It is to be added that this Department has also paid another annual
salary of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to a member of the '' Fraud Eoll,''
who has been assigned to the New York District Attorney's Office as a
laAvyer, but whose serAdces came to an end on the first of the present
month; It should also be said that, by the general theory of our laws,
and Sections 363 and 836 of the EcAdsed Statutes, the number, and the
compensation, ofthe assistants, or clerks, of District Attorneys are under
the control of the Attorney-General, and that for the service of the
necessary force in District Attorney's Offices there was, for this present
fiscal year, appropriated three hundred and fifty thousand doUars,
($350,000.) '
The confusion and embarrassment created in the Treasury Department by the several, sections of the Eevised Statutes which regulate
•the moneys and payments to be allowed to District Attorneys by the
accounting officers, and the inconvenient division of responsibility in
that regard between this Department and the Department of Justice,
XLIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
have been clearly set forth in a.letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the House of Eepresentatives, dated December 14, 1878, Ex.
Doc, No. 27, 45th Congress, 2d session. The Eevised Statutes declare
(section 772) that the District Attorney, for the Southern District of
New York, is entitled to receive, ^^for all his services," a salary at the
rate of $6,000 a year; but it has been the rule, in this Department, to pay,
or allow, to that officer, other and additional sums, for special services,
by virtue of other sections referred to in the before-mentioned letter. *
For the last fiscal year the total sum paid, or allowed, to the District
Attorney for,the Southern District of New York, exclusive of sums
received by him as fees, or costs, on the discontinuance of suits, or
prosecutions, of which this Department has no. record, was, as nearly
as can be ascertained, $11,484. I earnestfy adAdse that the law be
amended so as to provide an adequate salary for that important officer,
and for each of the other District Attorneys, which salary shall cover all
serAdces that such officers may, by their superior officers, be required.
to perform, and that each and every sum received by a District Attorney's
office as costs, or fees, or percentages, shall be paid into, and accounted
for with the Treasury Department.
I earnestly commend the 2,300 pending suits to the attention of Congress, together with, an inquiry whether or not there be an adequate
judicial force in New York to deal with those suits, and the new suits
that are daily begun, which demand, in the interest of the Treasury,
an immediate trial.
.
.
The sum which'the iDlaintiffs in these Collector's suits is entitled to
recover of the defendant as interest by way of damages, when there is a
verdict in favor of the plantiffs, will be large, and is a very serious matter
forthe Treasury. The legal rate of interest in New York is much above
what the Government pa^'^s on its bonded debt. It was decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States in Eusldn vs. Yan Arsdale (15 Wallace, 75) that in such suits for the recovery of duties illegally exacted
by Collectors of Customs, and paid under protest, the Jury is ordinarily
entitled to add interest from the time of the illegal exaction complained
of But in a more recent case, Eedfield vs. Ystalyfera Iron Company, (110
U. S. EeiDorts, 174,) the Supreme Court rejected the item of interest
in a judgment, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been guilty of
laches in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of his claim. I have
already directed, and shall require, that this very proper ruUng of t h e .
Supreme Court be insisted upon in the future, and thatthe facts tending
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XLV
to shOAv laches on the part of the plaintiff be properly presented, on
the trial, to the Court and Jury if any such evidence exists..
The decisions of the Supreme Court within the last ten years, have so '
clearly and frequently expounded the general rules of law in respect to
commercial designations, classification, burden of proof, and the respective functions of the Court and of the Jury in this class of suits, that
there ought not to be difficulty in the true application thereof by the
Circuit Judges, and a speedy determination of these untried suits, if
there be adequate energy used on the part of the Attorneys ofthe United
States in the several Districts where so many of these suits are pending
and if a Court can be had. On all questions of fact, a verdict by a Jury
in accordance with the Aveight of evidence, should be satisfactory to the
Treasury Department, if the defence has been fully and adequately presented. And on all questions of law the legislation of March 3,1875, has,
in my opinion, indicated that the ruUngs and judgment of the trial court
should be promptly acquiesced in by the Department if no error Avas
made on the trial. When the District Attorney, defending against
the suit, shall report an error of laAv made by the Judge to the prejudice of the defendant, the questions presented will be subinitted to
the Attorney-General for his adAdce. Although the second section of
that law provides that'the Secretary of the Treasury may, notwith-'
standing the advice of the Attorney-General, insist on a writ of error
to the Federal Court of last resort, it is not probable that the Head of
this Department will be called upon to resist the adAdce of the AttorneyGeneral to Avhom has been confided by law the conduct of the suits in
the Supreme Court in which the Government is directly or indirectly a
party.
THE EXAMINATION OF THE BAGGAGE OF ARRIVING PASSENGERS.
The documents which are herewith communicated to Congress explain
(pp. 290 to 330) the circumstances and reasons under which I was constrained to abandon.for a time the use of the Barge Office, at the Port of
New York, for the examination of the baggage of passengers. How soon
that work may be resumed at the Barge Office will, in the absence of
any legislation by Congress, depend on the facilities afforded to customs
officers by steamship companies at their wharyes, upon the safety of the
revenue, and a proper regard to the convenience of travellers. The
beginning of the use of the Barge Office had been so environed vdth
improvident contracts, and the general arrangements therein had so
inflamed i3ubUc opinion against the Barge Office as then used, that it
seemed to me, after a very careful consideration of the subject^ that it
XLVI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
would be wiser and safer for the revenue, to. discontinue, temporarily at
least, the use ofthe place. No injury to the revenue has, I am satisfied, thus far resulted from the change.
A very serious difficulty, in the examination of passengers' baggage
presses upon the Department which is not to be relieved by any change
in theplace oi examination so long as it is to be in a building upon the
wharf where passengers are landed. ;
The last Tariff Law of March 3,1883, (22 Stats, at Large, 521,) inserts
in the, free-list the following:
^^Wearing-apparel in actual use, and other personal effects (not merchandise,) professional books, implements, instruments and tools of
trade, occupation, or employment of persons arriving in the United
States. But this Exemption shall not be considered to include machinery or orther articles employed for use in any manufacturing establishment, or for sale.";
This exemption from duty is a literal copy from section 2505 of the
EcAdsed Statutes, p. 489, which clause was interpreted by the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the decision rendered in the case of Astor
vs. Merritt, on April 7,1884, (111 U. S. Eeports, 202.) In that opinion,
the Court so interpreted the clause as to declare that the articles exempted ffom duty Hhall be the folloAving:
^^Wearing-apparel owned by the passenger and in a condition to be'
worn at once without further manufacture; (2) brought with him as a
passenger and intended for the use or wear of himself or his family who
accompanied him as passengers, and not for sale, or purchase, or imported for other persons^ or to be given away; (3) suitable for tiie season of the year which is immediately approaching at the time of arrival ; (4) not exceeding in quantit^^, or quality, or value, what the passenger was in the habit of ordinarily proAdding for himself and his family at that time, and keeping on hand for his and their reasonable
wants in view of their means and habits of life, even though such articles had not been actually worn."
Such a very Uberal interpretation was made of the phrase " i n actual
use" as applied to wearing-apparel. •
That interpretation is now the test, and guide, for customs officers in
ascertaining what articles shall be on the free-list. It is essential that
the articles be owned by an arriAdng passenger, that they accompany
the passenger, and that they are not brought hither for the benefit of
other persons, or be given to other persons, when landed. It is also
essential, under the definition of the Supreme Court, that the/articles '
be ^^actual wearing-apparel," including of course articles ordinarily,
used by a traveller; that the articles of wearing-apparel be in a conditions to be worn immediately without further manufacture, and worn
by the arriving passenger, or some member of his family who accom- '
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XLVII
panics him, suitable* for the season of the year immediately approaching at the time of arrival; and not in quantity, or quaUty, or value, in
excess of what the passenger would ordinarUy provide for himself and
family at that time, and keep on hand for use, even though the articles
had not been actuaUy worn.
Eeasonable and fair execution of such a law, in the sense both of the
Government and of the arriAdng passenger, cannot be easy under any
circumstances of time or place. There must be an inquiry into questions of present OAvnership, of future intention, of the suitableness of
clothing for the season of the year, and of the quantity which the arriving traveUer is in the habit of providing. Even if the luggage were
regularly entered vdth the Collector, as is imported merchandise, and
sent to the Appraiser's stores for quiet and deUberate examination, the
test required by the law would be difficult of correct and perfect application. But when large boxes, or trunks, containing the articles referred,
to, are to be examined, in a buUding on the steamer's wharf, at all seasons of the year, and sometimes at all times of day or night, in the hurry
and confasion ofthe arriAdng of hundreds of passengers, surrounded by
waiting friends, who are impatient of delay, the difficulty becomes most
serious. The examination is made by discharging ^^Inspectors'' whose
pay is four dollars ($4) per day, and whose day of service is often long
and tedious.
,
The articles, classified as wearing-apparel, when brought into the
country by regular importation, pay generaUy a very high rate of duty, >
as high as Mty (50) or seventy (70) per cent., and even more. There is
naturaUy a feeUng of dissatisfaction on the part of manufacturers of
clothing in our own country who are compeUed to pay such high rates
of duty on the imported material of manufacture, when they see, or
think they see, travellers returning from Europe, who bring Avith them
large quantities of new wearing-apparel fresh from a foreign shop. One
of the most serious embarrassments in the way of the customs officers
is a discrimination between those who bring such articles for sale, or
gift to others, and those who bring them for their own use Avithin the
Umitations defined by the Supreme Court,
The Chief Clerk of the Customs at the Port of New York (p. 586)
says:
•
'
^^I know of ho law for the examination of baggage on the steamers'
wharves. It is permitted by Treasury regulations only as a convenience
to passengers."
~
Sections 2799, 2800, 2801 and 2802 clearly prescribe two methods of
passing through the custom-house the baggage of arriving passengers.
It m a y b e passed by a formal entry, (section 2799,) as all other mer-
XLVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
chandise, but separate and distinct therefrom, and after an examination a
permit may be granted for delivery to the owner of such articles as are
exempt from duty. The chief thing to be done, it will be seen, is not
to appraise and levy duty, but to separate dutiable articles (if any there
be in the luggage) from the free articles and deliver the latter to the
traveUer. Another mode (section 2801) distinctly authorized by the
Statute is for the Collector and Naval Officer, whenever they ^ think
^
proper," to direct the baggage of any person arriving to be examined
by the Surveyor, or by an inspector, who shall make a return of the
same. If any articles are exempt from duty, they, of course, are to be
delivered to the OAvher; and if any are dutiable ^^due entry" of them
must be made and duties paid thereon. Section 2801 does not define
theplace in which either a Surveyor, or an inspector, shall examine
passengers' luggage to ascertain what portion of it is, and what portion
of it is not, exempt from duty. But the practice of examination on the
steamers' Avharves has long existed, and I cannot doubt that the practice is authorized by law. It would no doubt be a great convenience
for customs officers at the Port of New York, and a great protection for
the revenue, if the examination could be made in a more formal manner, and with more circumspection by the regular appraising officers,
at their Government storehouse; but such formality and delay would ^
certainly be a great hardship for arriAdng travellers.
There is-, as I have said before, not only a difficulty growing out of
the law which is to be applied in such a hurried way, in the place wheve
it is to be applied, and the officers by-whom the examination is to be
made, but a difficulty that is, in my appreciation, quite as serious', groAvs
out of the prevailing practice, by arriving passengers, of making payments of money to inspectors for serAdces rendered, and it is to be
assumed, in making the examination to decide whether the articles are
fairly embraced within the free-list. My attention was called to this
•subject when I first came to this Department, and I invite the attention
of Congress to the several orders and letters of instruction (pp. 328-330)
which I issued and made pubUc. As the CAdl and scandal of these payments in Adolation of law did not cease, I detailed Special Agents of the
Treasury to superAdse the examination of baggage, and report to me.
From these reports, and from information received from other sources,
I am convinced thiat the practice stiU exists, although so carried on, in'
part, under such circumstances of solicitation by the inspector after the
passenger has left the wharf, as to make prevention difficult by any
agency at present,Avithin my control. The large sums that are often
paid, as I am toldy by arriving passengers to the inspector wjio exam-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XLIX
ines their luggage, or afterAvards to some one who represents him, make
it impossible to believe that the money is paid merely as a recognition
of proper civility, or courtesy, or patience, on the part of the examining
officer.
"
.
The practice of asking and making such payments is one of long
groAvth, and therefore well estabUshed; but the sums paid are represented
to me as yearly increasing in size. How can it be prevented'? The
reply made by the Chief Clerk of the Customs at New York (p. 586)
fairly represents the tenor of the replies contained in the accompanying documents. ^'By espionage," is one suggestion! Manifestly the
espionage of the^Collector and the Surveyor, in person, would be inadequate, in consideration of the'number of steamers often arriving in New
York on the same day, and at the same hour. The espionage of one
local inspector over another local inspector does not hold out the promise of a good result. I have thoroughly tried the espionage of Special
Agents from this Department, and, while I think somewhat has been
accomplished in the way of reform, the evil remains. To require, one
class of officers to watch'another class, in that kind of work, would, in
the end, create a system that must break doAvn by its OAvn weight.
Another suggestion of remedy is '' the sure dismissal and prosecution of
the offending parties.'' The problem of '' dismissal" is a large, difficult
and complicated one. The pubUc mind is just now, and very properly,
sensitive and alert in regard to the removal of any, even the most subordinate servants of the customs revenue. The representatives of a
political party, hostile, in the sense of ^^government by party," to the
party which has so long held executive power, having recently been
chosen or appointed to execute the customs law, there is a most natural
suspicion that a dismissal from office has been inspired, and only inspired, by a desire to make a change in a party sense. Therefore comes,.
on each removal, a demand to know why the removal Avas made. If no
reason be assigned, then the rcmoAdng officer cannot expect to escape
criticism. But in case of the examining inspectors pf passengers' lug
gage now under consideration, if the eAddence of receiAdng money under
illegal circumstances is so clear as to permit its statement as a reason
fbr removal, then there should follow a criminal prosecution of the offending parties. If, on the other hand, the eAddence is not sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution, but is sufficient to raise a well-grounded
suspicion against the integrity of the officer, then it would be manifestly
unjust to the removed officer to announce bribery, and Avhat in law ia
a misdemeanor, as a reason for removal.
L
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
This habit of making gifts to customs officers is quite general in other
parts of the service besides the examination of passengers' luggage. It
prevails among the warehpuses, and, as I am told, generaUy throughout
the Port of New York. I can but feel that importers, and the persons
concerned in the entry or the warehousing of merchandise, are quite as
much to blame as are the servants of the Government who receive the
money offered to them. The persons who make these gifts to custoins
officers would not tolerate such practices in their own business. No
Bank would permit its depositors, or those in the habit of receiAdng
loans therefi:om, to make large " t i p s " to its Cashier, or its Eeceiving
TeUers, or its Paying Tellers, or its Discount Clerks, for services rendered in the business of the Bank. Nor would a wholesale or retail
dealer permit customers to make gifts of money to his clerks for courtesies extended in the making of sales, or the fixing of prices.
If it be asked why there is not an attempt at criminal prosecution of
those who make, and those who receive, these gifts in Adolation of the
spirit of the laws of Congress I refer to an extract (p. 557) from a communication made by Ex-President Arthur, when, in 1877, he was Collector at the Port of New York. He said, in relation to the subject of
gratuities bestowed upon clerks by importers nominally for' hastening
the clearance of goods:
" T h e strict law now on the Statute-Book has proved practicaUy inoperative for the simple reason that it has been found impossible to procure the evidence of a violation."
He adds in respect to the subject of bribing inspectors of passengers'
baggage:
" I have read the remarks of the Surveyor as to the inspectors who
are more immediately under his control, and concur in what he says.
I may, in addition, call your attention to the fact that when last year a
prosecution was instituted against inspectors who were alleged to have
received money for passing passengers' baggage, it failed because it was
necessary to prove not only the receipt of the money but that it was re-.
ceived as an inducement to do an illegal act, and, secondly, that there
were dutiable goods in the baggage. The latter fact it is impossible to
prove [in court] unless the baggage is seized on the spot, which, with
the present faciUties for examinatipn of baggage cannot ordinarily be
done in those cases where the payment of money can be detected."
I do not fail to appreciate the fact that removal from office of % sus- .
pected subordinate servant of the revenue is within my own discretion
and power, whenever I have what seems to me reasonable ground of
suspicion. Thus far I have felt it my duty to await the most careful
and patient inquiries in regard to these and other matters in the customs
EEPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
LI
service that it was in my power to ihake, before attempting to break up
these pernicious practices by rapid removals of suspected persons.
My fear is that nothing less than sweeping and severe new criminal
enactments vdU thoroughly exterminate these practices. I respectfuUy
commend the subject to the attention of Congress vdth the suggestion
that the good effect of new legislation Avill depend upon the decision by
Congress of the question whether or not it is wise, in a public sense, to
punish criminaUy the giving or taking of a gift made to one in the customs service without proof that such giAdng, or taking, was accompanied
by an iUegal intent; or in other words, whether or not the receiAdng by
one in the custoins service of any money, or thing of value, not authorized by law, can well and safely be defined and punished as a crime, if
done in connection with the importation, storage, examination or delivery of imported merchandise, Avithout the aUegation, or proof, of an
actual intent to violate the law, or injure the revenue.
DETERRENT LEGISLATION AGAINST F R A P U D S ON THE REVENUE.
Neither my personal nor official experience has been such as to enable
me, by observation of current events in the custoins servdce immediately
before or after 1874, to form an opinion of the effect of the legislation
of that year knoAvn as the "Anti-Moiety Law." The documents hereAvith offered to Congress do, however, contain very decided opinions
expressed by those who have had good opportunities for such observation. Whatever differences there may now be concerning' the wisdom
and safety of that legislation ten years ago, I think that Congress, and
^ the country, should bear it in mind that the Executive, to-day,—although
required to execute a tariff law quite as complicated, and quite as
tempting, to smugglers and those who are Avilling to make false invoices
and entries as was that of 1861-2, which made necessary the law of
1863,—^has been deprived of the incentive to local customs officers and
others to make seizures which existed from 1799 to 1874, and also of the
power to compel the disclosure of eAddence that was practically exercised during the same period. The same acts of commission, or omission, in respect to the customs/evenue, are now, as from 1863 to 1874,
defined'and denounced as crimes to be punished by the criminal side of
the Court, and as offences to be visited by deprivation of property by
the civil side, but the power of the Executive and Judicial Departments
to enforce the law, has been greatly impaired by the legislation of the
last-named year. How serious that impairment is AviU appear by a
LII
EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
glance at that legislation and a comparison of it with the legislation of
1799 and 1863.
'
^
From the early days of the Government, and doAvn to 1874, Congress
gave to the Executive exceptionally large power to compel the production of evidence disclosing the actual cost, or foreign market value, of
imported merchandise. All persons were thereby invited to lay before
the Executive evidence in their possession tending to show frauds upon
the revenue, and the chief officers of the several ports were induced by
the hope of large pecuniary reward to make seizures of suspected merchandise, and to promote suits to recover the value of merchandise illegally imported which had passed out of the bands of the Government.
That legislation is a great part of it to be found in the laws of March
2, 1799, and of March 3, 1863. Up to the last-named date, as I am
informed, the chief officers of the ports, or persons specially appointed
by either of them, did, by obtaining a warrant therefor from a justice of
the peace under section 68 of the law of March, 1799, enter private premises in order to seach for, and seize, merchandise, on which duties had not
been paid, and, under the protection ofthe warrant, demand the examination of private books and papers purporting to relate to a suspected importation, and even carry the same away for inspection. By the seventh
section of the law of March 3,1863, that very extraordinary proceeding
Avas regulated by requiring the apphcation for a warrant to seize an
importer's invoices, books, or papers to be made under oath, to a Judge
of the Federal District Court. The Judge was authorized, if he saw fit,
to issue his warrant, directed to the Collector of the Port, empowering
him to seize and carry away for inspection invoices, books or papers,
and retain the same for the use of the United States so long as necessary, subject to the control of the Solicitor of the Treasury. On July
18, 1866, and on March 2, 1867, the exercise of this dangerous prerogative was further restricted and controlled. Congress then ordained
that the warrant be directed not to the Collector, but to the Marshal of the District, commanding the Marshal by himself or deputy,
to seize and take possession of books or papers, and produce them
before the Judge instead of the Collector of the Port. The Judge
was authorized to permit the Collectbr to examine the same, but
they were to be kept always subject to the disposition of the
Judge, instead of the Solicitor of the Treasury. But by the first section pf the law of June 22, 1874, all legislative authority to enter private premises, and seize private books and papers, in order to ascertain
fbreign values or to obtain evidence of frauds upon the revenue, either
/ accompUshed or intended, appears to have been swept away. Instead
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUEY.
LHI
thereof, it was provided by the fifth section of the last-named law that,
after suit for forfeiture had been actually begun, the Attorney representing the Government may make a written motion, particularly describing a book, invoice or paper, and setting forth the aUegation that
he expects to prove; and thereupon the Court in which the suit is pending, may, at its discretion, issue a notice to the defendant, or claimant,
to produce such book, invoice, or paper in Court, at a day and hour to
be specified in said notice, which notice shaU be duly served by the Marshal, andif the defendant or claimant, shall fail, or refuse, to so produce,
and the allegation stated in the motion shall be taken as confessed unless
his failure, or refusal, to produce shaU be explained to the satisfaction of
the Court. If produced, then the Government Attorney shall be permitted, under the direction of the Court to examine the designated entries in said book, invoice or paper, and offer the same in eAddence, but
the OAvner of said books and papers, his agent or attorney, shaU have
the custody thereof, subject to the order of the Court. This proceeding,
it vdll be observed, gives to the Executive no power to compel the production of books; invoices or papers, before 2i suit has been begun, in
order to ascertain the truth in respect to foreign values, or any other
fraud upon the revenue.
Up to 1874, and by the seventy-first section of the law of March 2, ^
1799, on a trial of a suit to forfeit any merchandise that had been seized
for a fraud upon the revenue, the onus probandi of proAdng the innocence
of the merchandise was upon the claimant thereof, provided a probable
cause for such prosecution has been shown, to be judged by the Court
before whom the prosecution is held. But, by the sixteenth section of
the law of June 22, 1874, it was made the duty of the Court on the trial
of any suit for forfeiture, or for value, to submit to the jury, as a distinct and separate proposition, whether or not the alleged acts were
done with an actual intention to defraud the United States, and to require upon such proposition a special finding by such jury. I respectfully invite the attention of Congress to a letter on this subject (pp.
870) which the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, assigned to the Second Federal Circuit, has been kind enough
to write to me in reply to my inquiry respecting his own very large
judicial practice in the Southern District of New York on trials of suits
for forfeiture, or for value, which took place before him under the laws
of 1863 and 1874.
Down to 1874, the law also gave,-after deducting aU proper costs and
charges, one moiety of the proceeds of Custom-House forfeitures to the
Federal Treasury, and divided the other half in equal portions between
Liv
REPOi^T OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the CoUector, Naval Officer and Surveyor, excepting when such forfeiture was recovered in pursuance of information given to the Collector by any person other than the Naval Officer and Surveyor, and
then one-fourth of the net proceeds were given to such informer, and
the remaining one-quarter distributed among the three chief officers of
the Port. That inspiration and inducement to the chief officer of the
Port to make seizures, and to other persons to give information to the
Collector of frauds upon the revenue, were taken away by the law^of
' 1874, which directed that the entire proceeds shall be paid into the Treasury, and left it vdth the Secretary of the Treasury to make suitable
compensation, out of a specific sum to be annually appropriated by Congress, to oflacers, or persons, seizing smuggled goods, or to any informer
of perpetrated or contemplated custoins revenue frauds, who shaU not
be an officer of the United States. The sum to be paid to such informer
could not exceed in any one case five thousand dollars, ($5,000.)
Up to 1874, when any line, or item in an invoice was made with intent to evade the payment of duty legally chargeable, the whole invoice,
and all merchandise described therein, Avas liable to forfeiture, but
under the twelfth section of the law of 1874, the forfeiture "shall only
apply to the whole of the merchandise in the case or package contain- .
ing the particular article or articles to which such fraud or alleged
fraud relates; and anything contained in any act which provides for the
foi feiture 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."
There will be found on page 628 of the accompanying documents a
significant tabular statement of the number of suits or proceedings,
begun in the Southern District of New York, for forfeiture, or for value,
on account of revenue frauds, in the ten years between 1863 and 1874,
and alsp the number of such suits, or proceedings, begun in the ten
years between 1874 and the present date. In the former period, there
were nine hundred and fifty-seven (957) suits, or proceedings, on which
the large sum of three million six hundred and ninety-six thousand two
hundred and thirty-two dollars and fifty-three cents ($3,696,232.53) was
paid into the Eegistry of the Court and in the last-named period, only
two hundred and fifty-four (254) suits were begun, and thereon only
three hundred and ninety-three thousand seven hundred and seventyfour dollars and seventy-two cents ($393,774.72) have been paid jnto the
Eegistry of the Court. It will not, I suppose, be claimed that the legislation of 1874 was of a character to increase the integrity of invoice
valuations, or to diminish custom-house frauds.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
LV
But,, nevertheless, the law of 1874 appears to have been necessary, at
the time of its enactment, on account of the conduct of Special Agents
of the Treasury, and the intolerable scandals it created. Ten years
have, however, elapsed since that legislatipn, which probably required
and contemplated, for its full fruition, that the Tariff Law, should at
the same time, be simplified, and made easier of executive administration.
It must be boi:ne in mind that underthe Federal laws there cannot be
a libel or information filed, or other suit begun in a Federal Court to
forfeit merchandise for a fraud upon the revenue, unless at the time
there is a good and subsisting seizure thereof either by an executive
officer or by an individual. Since 1874 there has been no one Avith a
sufficient personal motive to take the risk and responsibUity of seizing
merchandise and depriving the OAvner of the control thereof. Previous
to 1874, an informer, or one of the chief officers of the Port was naturally wiUing to encounter that risk, which might involve very serious
pecuniary consequences for himself if the Judge, at the time of trial of
the forfeiture, decided that there was no reasonable ground for the
seizure. The accompanying opinions of the customs officers sufficiently
disclose the difficulties, which, in their appreciation, the law of June
22, 1874, has interposed in the way of a verdict by a jury in favor of
the United States.
In addition to this, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York decided in March, 1884, (19 Federal Eeporter,*'p. 893,) which
decision was affirmed on appeal, by the Circuit Court, on May 5, 1884,
that the legislation of June 22,1874, covered the whole ground of frauds
on the revenue by the entry of imported goods at the custom-house embracing punishment of importers criminally, as well as indemnity to
the Government, and, therefore, superseded by implication sections
2839 and 2864 of the Eevised Statutes on the same subject, so that there
is at present no law authorizing a suit for the value of the merchandise
which has been Avithdrawn from the custody of the Government,
although the merchandise has been tainted by a fraud in its importation and would have been liable to condemnation if the prosecution
had been in rem. I respectfully suggest to Congress the immediate
enactment of legislation to remedy such an interpretation of the law of
1874 which could not, I assume, have been intended by Congress.
I do not make a recommendation to'Congress for the restoration of
the "old Moiety system," and the statutory inducement to informers,
or the law concerning intent and burden of proof, which existed from
1799 to 1874. And I do not so recommend for the reason that the purpose
LVI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of the House and Senate, in respect to the simpUfication of the rates of
duty and a prudent enlargement of the application of specific rates, is
necessarily unknovm. Should some such last-named change be not
made, I have little faith that the existing power of the executive, and
of the courts, will be adequate to secure honest invoices, and fuU appraisement.
It is to be assumed that during the present and next fiscal year quite one
hundred and fifty milUons of dollars must annually be taised by duties on
merchandise. The necessity of correct invoices, measurements, weights,
classifications and appraisements Avill exist, under any practicable and
possible reform of a tariff to raise that large sum, but the peril to the
Government of false valuation in invoices need not be so great as now.
Certainly the Government should not return to that system of inquisitorial executive and judicial procedure, by the seizure of books and
papers, that existed, in 1863-7 unless the revenue is in peril, and also
unless the moral sense of the country vdll be behind such legislation to
uphold it. That false invoices, and the evasion of duties legally chargeable on merchandise, inflict definite evils upon the Government and
those who make true invoices and pay fuU duties, cannot be denied.
The law which denounces those acts, as crimes, or offences, to be punished, ought not to be a dead letter, asit is now. But the real difficulty
is, I fear, in the fact that so large a portion of the people of the country
disapprove of the present tariff rates, and would condemn any adequate
punitive and deterrent legislation, Uke that of 1799 and 1863, intended
to uphold those tariff rates,"^ or would only support such legislation because obedience to all law is, among right-minded people, a general obligation. But yet if the existing rates of duty are to stand, and if those
compound rates wherein even specific rates depend on foreign values are
hereafter.to be inflicted, there vdU be need, I think, of new deterrent
legislation which Avill more surely and swiftly imperil the property on
which foreign manufacturers, and shippers, seek to evade payment of
duty which they know the law imposes, and which duties those who
present truthful invoices must pay, since the Collectors cannot levy ad
valorem rates on less than the invoice or entered value.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, ^
The Honorable
The
SPEAKER OF T H E H O U S E OF EEPRESENTATIVES.
APPENDIX.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURT.
INVESTiaATION OF SPECIAL AGENTS AT NEW
YOEK.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C, January 17, 1885.
I n t h e recent trial at NCAV.York, N. Y., of the suit of
Liddell against Dodge et al., Judge Shipman in his charge to the jury
severely reflected upon the management of the office bf the special
agents at New York.
.
>
It is charged that twenty-two invoices of linens inix3orted by Messrs.
Watson & Girdwood w-^ere under investigation in the special agents'
office about January, 1884, but that no report thereon Avas made to the
Department, the district attorney, or the collector, notwithstanding
the fact that the goods embraced in the iuA^oices referred to were undervalued, and that the proof thereof was easily attainable. .
The facts in the case are fully set forth in a communication, dated
the 19th ultimo, from the United States district attorney, and which,
with other papers on the subject, are herein enclosed.
I desire that a thorough investigation be given to the subject, and
hereby appoint you a commission to proceed to New York for that purpose. I also desire that the manner in which the business generally
at the special agents' office at New Yprk has been conducted for the
past two years shall receive attention; and, in order to afford the fullest
opportunity for a thorough investigation, 3^ou are hereby authorized to
exercise your discretion as to the methods and extent of the examination.
.
Upon the conclusion of your labors, which it is hoped will be pushed
to an early terminatipn, you Avill please submit a written report, in
which you will embody such recommendations as, in your judgment,
the ascertained facts and the interests of the Government demand.
Very respectfully,
;
H. McCULLOCH,
Secretary,
Messrs. GEO, C. TICHENOR, J A M E S W . DAVIS, O . L . SPAULDING.
GENTLEMEN:
4
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
.No. 2.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B, C, January 24, 1885.
GENTLEMEN; : Eeferring to the communication addressed you on the
17th instant, appointing you a committee to investigate the special
agents' office at New York, I transmit herewith, for your information
and such action as you may deem proper, copy of a letter from Mr.'
Fred. Wallroth, dated New York, January 16, 1885, in Avhich he makes
charges against said office relative to irregularities in the importation
of certain tin-plate at that port; also, copy of a letter from Mr. John
H. McKinley, dated New York, the 20th instant, alleging malfeasance
in pffice on the part of Special Agent Brackett.
" I also enclose copy of an anonymous communication, dated New
York, January 19, 1885, bearing on the same subject as above.
The gentlemen named have been. notified of the reference of- their
letters to you.
^
Very respectfully,
.
CHAS. E. COON,
Assistant Secretary.
Messrs. G E O . C. TICHENOR, J. W. DAVIS, O . L . SPAULDING,
New Yorlc, N. T.
^
[Enclosure.]
, N E W YOEK, 81 Nassau Street, January 16, 1885.
S I R : I respectfally suggest that the name of A. K. Tingle, a special agent, be
omitted from the commission which you are about to appoint to investigate the special
agents' ofS.ce and hear complaints from citizens of New York and other places. There
should be no whitewasher on the committee, but men of the class of Capt. C. C. Adams,
(with whom, likewise Capt. Brackett, I have been acquainted during many years,)
whose honesty is unimpeachable, and whose integrity is away above that of your two
Assistant Secretaries, because Capt. Adains would never have ignored, and has never
ignored, a complaint made to him agaijist any one believed to have defrauded the Government, where it was his duty to investigate ; whereas your two Assistant Secretaries,
when actiug as Secretaries, refused to inyestigate a charge made by me against one John
g. Dickerson, and, although paid public servants, did not (perhaps dared, not) even
acknowledge the receipt of communications from me to the Department, which- every
citizen had a right to demand.
Some years ago I notified the Government that large frauds were being committed in
the importation of '' tin-plate'' b y the firm in which said J. S. Dickerson was a partner,
and by others in the trade. Several special agents were appointed to investigate. One
of them was Capt. Brackett, and, at my expense, we weighed '' tin-plate'' on the docks
and in the importers' stores and investigated weighers' returns. In one case we found
boxes on the docks weighing 300 pounds and invoiced at 30 pounds. This little matter
Mr. Tingle arranged with the importer. In another case we found exactly 100,000
pounds difference against the Government between the invoice weight and the weighers'
returns in one shipment. What report to your Department was made on this investigation? I have been told that Mr. Tingle has said that it amounted to nothing. Whose
fault was it, if it did not? I t is the most ungrateful task a person can do to expose a
Government thief or bribe-taker, but I may appear before the commission you will
appoint and tell what I know of frauds against the Government, and if I should give
to the press some papers not very complimentary to your two Assistant Secretaries; they
, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
5
would have themselves only to .blame if I retaliate on them for calling me a ^'crank,*'
which I have been told they have-^been doing.
.
,
Believe me, your faithful servant, '
FRED. WALLROTH. ^
Hon.
H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasu7^y, Washington, D. C.
No. 3.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, January 31, 1885.
SIR : I beg to iuAdte the attention of the Department to the enclosed
slip, cut from the New York ^ World" of the, 30th instant. In regard
^
to the case of underA^aluation mentioned in the article, it is proper for
me to state that it was disposed of upon appraisement before I went to
New York, under Department's instructions of the 3d instant, to investi4^ate the undervaluation of silks. It may be also pertinent to say that
the firm alluded to is one that receives large consignments of silks,
which, according to the reports of the consuls and the statements of the
examiners, are, as a rule, undervalued in the invoices. I make no comment upon the extraordinary statements attributed to Deputy Collector
Bartram, except to say that the only fragment of truth in the article, so
far as it relates to myself, is that, at the request of Assistant Appraiser
Kent, I politely inquired of Mr. Bartram hoAv it happened that he had
appointed a merchant appraiser in the case referred to whose name
was not upon the list furnished by the aj)praiser. No profane or violent language was uttered by me on that occasion. Mr. Bartram readily showed me the papers in the case, and explained that he had taken
the name of the gentleman appointed from a list furnished for another
reappraisement. One of tlie chief obstacles to the just appraisement
of silks has been the practice at New York of axipointing as merchant
appraisers: members of firms engaged in the business of receiving consignments from European manufacturers.
There appears to have been a tacit understanding among the firms
that they Avould protect each other from adA-ances upon invoices involving iDcnal duties. With one of these importers as nierchant appraiser,
and others as swift witnesses to swear to a low valuation, in'/oices have
seldom been advanced 10 per cent, or oA^er. In view of these facts,
the collector at New York has recently taken the appraisement [appointment] of merchant appraisers into his OAVU hands.
Yery respectfuUy,
A, K. TINGLE,
Special Agent.
Hon.
H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No: 4.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washingt(fn, B. C, February 2, 188b. '
S I R : Your attention is invited to the enclosed publication from the
^^New York World" of the 30th ultimo, containing statements, said
to hav© been made by Deputy Collector Bartram, reflecting upon the
^
REPORT
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURE.'
officers of this Department. You are requested to call upon Mr.
Bartram for an explanation of these statements, and such eAddence as
he may haA^e tending to establish the alleged conspiracy set forth in
said article. You Avill find herein enclosed, for 3^our information, copy
of a report upon the subject from Special Agent Tingle.
Yery respectfully,
. H. McCULLOCH,
Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF ^CUSTOMS, New Yorlc City.
•;
.
•
^
No. 5.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, February 5,
1885.
SIR : In reply to your indorsement upon a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury of date. February 2, 1885, I have the honor to.
report as follows:
Some time about the middle of January, Mr. Tingle came to my desk
in the rotunda and asked me who appointed the nierchant appraisers.
1 replied that I did. He then asked hoAv it Avas that in appointing a
merchant axipraiser in the case of Megroz, Potier & Grosse some time
since, I did not take a name from the list furnished by the appraiser.- I
replied that I had no recollection of not having doue so, but to settle the
matter I would get up the appeals. Upon looking at the papers for
that date, we found that there Averefive reappraisements called for that
day—two for Schroeder and three for Megroz, Potier & Grosse. On.
the appeals for Schroeder, Mr. LcAvis, of LcAvis Bros., headed the list furnished bythe appraiser, and the name of C. Lambert, of Messrs. Dexter,
Lambert & Co., headed the list furnished for Megroz, Potier & Grosse.
As the goods in each case Avere similar, and the reappraisements were
called for the same day, I folloAved a common practice by designating
Mr. LcAvis to act on all the cases. I made this explanation to Mr.
Tingle. He replied that Mr. Kent, the appraiser, was greatly enraged
because I had not ai^pointed Mr. Lambert. I asked him what Avas-the
trouble with Mr. LeAvis, and he replied that he iniported the same line
of goods that were under examination., I said to Mr. Tingle that, in
my opinion, that Avas the very best reason that could be given for his
appointment, the statute requiring the collector to appoint a merchant '' known to be loell qualified, and believed to be disinterested and free
from bias,^^ and in no Avay binding him (the collector) to the names
furnished by the appraiser. I then asked Mr. Tingle hoAv it Avas that
Mr. Lewis Avas considered a proper man in Schroeder's case and an objectionable one in the case of Megroz, Potier & Grosse. He replied that
Mr. Kent said that Mr. Lewis had had an iiwoice raised not long ago
himself, and he thought that he (Lewis) would like a chance, to get
square. This statement astounded me, and I expressed myself" as
forcibly, yet courteously, as I could upon the subject. I told Mr.
Tingle that, ih my opinion, it amounted to a conspiracy upon the part
of the appraiser against the importer; that, in my opinion, when the
appraiser had advanced an invoice his duties Avere completed therewith, and that the matter on appeal then passed to the hands of the
United States general appraiser, and that in justice to the nierchant,
and in accordance with the statutes, the collector was bound to a}3point
a merchant to act with him (the United States general, appraiser) in
REPORT OF TIIE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
7
the final reappraisement. I said to him that I have ncA^er been re^
quested by but one person to appoint a named merchant appraiser, and
that Avas by Captain Chalker, who, upon my remonstrating with him
for, making such a request, modified it by asking me to give hini ^^a
good man," and acknoAvledged the impropriety of his request. Mr.
Tingle repUed, '^Oh, Chalker is a d — d fool." I told him IfaUed to
see any difference in his position from that of Chalker, and asked him
if he did not think he had better go a little slow. I expressed, to him
the great respect I had always entertained for him as an honorable and
efficient officer, and he replied that he intended to do no man an injustice. Before Mr. Tingle left I said to him, '^How is it that in all
these cases the United States general appraiser has agreed with the
merchant appraisers'? He is a sworn Government officer, and should
have looked out for the interests of the GoA^ernment. Ishe corrupt, or
is he in competent •?" His reply Avas, ^^Oh, he'likes generally to agree
with the merchant appraiser;" Avhich seemed to me puerile. Our conA^ersation Av:as earnest, but courteous; and after some further remarks'
upon the unfortunate and complicated turn affairs Avere taking, he left.
Mr. Tingle makes the assertion in his letter to the Secretary that the
chief obstacle of the just appraisement of silks has been the practice of
appPinting nierchant appraisers from members of firms engaged in the
business of receiving consignments from European manufacturers, and
then folloAvs Avith a general charge against the importers of combining
to. protect each other as witnesses and nierchant appraisers. He closes
with this sentence: " In view of these facts, the collector has recently
taken the appraisement [appointment] of merchant appraisers into his
own hands." In regard to the terrible charge against the merchants
of NCAV York it may perhaps not become me to speak; (they are
abundantly able to plead their own cause, and it strikes me the time
has now arrived for them to begin;) but I may be permitted to say that
the difference between the views of a manufacturer like Mr. Lambert
and an importer like Mr. Lewis arises from the different directions in
which they set out to ascertain the foreign niarket value.
Mr. Lambert clainis, as I Avas informed by Mr. Tingle, that it is impossible to ascertain the foreign market value of consigned silks, and that
therefore they should be appraised under section 9 of the act of March
?>', 1883, at the cost, &c. Mr. LcAvis claims that silks are a standard
article, whose aj>praisement is not contemplated under section 9, act of
March 3, 1883, and that the foreign market value is fixed by the price
at Avhich the manufacturer ic willing to dispose of large lots of his
goods, and that to prove undervaluation it must be shown that the exporter receives more for his goods than the invoice price. With two
classes of merchants, differing so radically, it becomes apparent at once
that tbe merchant appraiser (with a United States general appraiser
*'who likes to agree Avith h i m " ) becomes a very important factor in
settling the dispute.
Your attention is invited to a report of the chamber of commerce on
this question, a copy of which, I have no doubt, has been received by
you. Two or three days before my conversation with Mr. Tingle you
sent for me and said, " Colonel, there appears to be a great deal of excitement just how on the subject of undervaluation. The special agents
are on here to investigate the matter, and I will appoint the merchant
appraisers myself for awhile. I want nothing donein our office on
which the slightest suspicion can be hinged." No reference was made
to any particular case, and I said to you that in making the appoint
8
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ments I had followed your instructions in regard to protests, viz.,
'' that when a merchant, having appealed to a reapjiaaisement and
protested in adA^ance against the appointment of certain merchants as
merchant ai3praisers, that appeal was to be respected, as" there were
plenty of reliable merchants in NCAV York, and it Avas not desirable
that litigation should be inyited by appointing merchant appraisers
who had been protested."
^
You expressed no dissatisfaction with my action, and informed me
that Mr. Tingle had no authority from you for the statement made in
the last sentence of his letter. In regard to the character and standing
in this city of Mr. W. H. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis Bros., whose appointment Avas so distasteful to Mr. Tingle, I would refer the honorable
Secretary of the Treasury to the President, to whom Mr. LcAvisis well
known.
,
I would respectfully suggest to the Secretary, in view of the fact that
the merchant appraiser is the only man outside of a Government office
who has any voice in deciding upon the fairness of an importer's invoice, that it would be a pertinent inquiry as to whether any appraiser
has ever been approached by any special agent with the purpose of
having any names of merchants to be subniitted to the collector as merchant appraisers placed upon his list.
A feAV words in regard to the alleged interview b y t h e ^ W o r l d " re^
p'orter, and I am through. I must respectfully decline to be held
responsible for the sayings of the average New York reporter. As I
was walking away from my desk one afternoon, at the close of business, I was accosted by a young gentleman, who informed me that he
was a -^ W o r l d " reporter, and desired to know the name of the merchant appraiser appointed by me in the Megroz, Potier, & Grosse case.
I informed him that Mr. Lewis was the man, and that his appointment
did not seem to have been satisfactory to the special agents. For the rest
of the article t^his young man drew upon his imagination. Mr. Tingle
called at my desk next day, and, when I made this explanation to him,
he said that almost every day the reporters had something to say from
him, whereas it Avas his practice to have nothing to say to reporters.
I little thought that he would call the attention of the Department to
the matter; but I thank him for so doing.
In conclusion, I beg to call attention to the inclosed clipping from
the ^^ Chicago Tribune" of January 31, embracing the statements of
Special Agents Swift and Keefe, and to say that I never met either of
these gentlemen in my life, and that I have no knowledge of the fact
that they had been in New York on business until I so lately learned
through the papers discussing this matter. It will be seen that, in
their opinion, among their duties is that of recommending names for
merchant appraisers to the collector. . Also, tka^t they do not hesitate
to stamp me as an interested, if not a guilty, party. I respectfully re-quest that they be given an opportunity to establish my interest or
guilt in the matter of appointing nierchant appraisers.
Very resxiectfully, your obedient servant,
N. B. BAETEAM.
P. S.—I learn to-day that two reaiipraisements of Megroz, Potier, &
Grosse, Avhich Avere under the special superintendence of Mr. Tingle, were
decided yesterday, in which the collector appointed Mr. Constable, of
Arnold, Constable & Co., as merchant appraiser. The invoices A ere
V
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
9.
advanced in one case to 27Y%^-{^ per cent.; the reappraisement resulted
in an adA^ance of 4i^o per cent. In the other case the invoice was advanced. IT-i^oPei* <^Giit-; the reappraisement fixed the advance at 2/^
per cent. I presume Mr. Tingle will have some scurriUty to advance
concerning Mr., Constable.
^6
N. B. B.:
Hon.
W M . EOBERTSON,
Collector.
No. 6.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, January 24, 1885.
: I enclose hercAvith, for your consideration in connection Avith the investigation of the special agents' office at New York,
copy of a communication, dated the 23d instant, from Mr. Oscar Hesse,
of Eed Bank, N. J., in which he prefers charges of irregularities-on
the part of special agents at New York. It is suggested that Mr.
Hesse, who has been notified of the reference of his communication tP
you, be invited to appear personally before the conimission.
Yery respectfully,
H. F. FEENCH,
Assistant Secretary.
Messrs. GEO. C. TICHENOR, J. W. DAVIS, O. L . SPAULDING.
GENTLEMEN
[Enclosure.]
R E D B A N K , MONMOUTH Co., N.
J.,
January 23,' 1885.
D E A R S I E : Your favor of the 22d instant is at hand, and I herewith hand you further
details.
In 1871 I had positive information in regard to frauds upon the customs duties and
fraudulent damage allowance by the importer, H. Seggermann, of New York city. I
communicated with the Treasury Department in the spring of 1872, which Department
placed the matter in the hands of the special agents. I met Special Agents Chalker and
Lee at the Astor House, and was informed that in case of a successful termination the
amount recovered would be divided as follows: One-half to the Government, one-fourth
to the surveyor of the port, one-fourth to the special agents^ office, and that the latter
one-fourth would have to be divided between Brackett, Chalker, Lee, and myself.
The books of the importer Avere seized by Chalker and Lee in the spring of 1872, and
the amount recovered by the Treasmy was a little over $10,800. In the fall of 1872 I
wrote to the Treasury that my reward was not forthcoming. A very short time after
this complaint was made by me. Special Agent Chalker came to m e . one evening and
took me to Captain Brackett's private residence, who gave me a check on a banking
house in Pine street, I believe. The amount of this checlc was within a small amount
of $675, which is all the money I ever received from this case. In having given my
information directly to the Treasury, in ojder to be the sole informant, my just reward
fell 12,000 short of what it should have been. I had no remedy. I was directed by
the Treasury to impart my information to the special agents, and I did so, and they
kept $2,000. Not knoAving how far-reaching their influence was IQ thus boldly appropriating the above amount, I have patiently waited for a favorable opportunity to present my case.
Your letter indicates that I may be called upon to testify before the committee, but,
before I do, please inform me if on due investigation this amount will be returned to
me.
Awaiting your reply, I remain, youi'S, respectfully,
OSCAR HESSE.
Hon.
H.
MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington., D. C.
10
REPORT OF, T H E SI^^CliETARt' OF T H E TREASURY.
'
• • - N o . 7.
^•
N E W YORK, February 18, 1885.
'
SIR : Eeferring to the Department's letter of the 26th ultimo, transmitting copy of a communication dated the 23d ultimo, from Mr. Oscar
.Hesse, of Eed Bank, N. J., preferring charges of irregularities on the
part of special agents of the Department at this port, we have the honor
to report as folloAvs:
Upon our invitation, Mr. Hesse appeared before us on the 28th ultimo,
and made the affidaAdt hereAvith enclosed, marked ' ' A . " From this
document it will be seen that, while acknowledging the receipt from
the special agents of one-sixteenth of the full amount of moiety accruing
to the officers in the case, and ^admitting that he was told by Agent
Chalker, when he gave the information, that such would be his share,
he acquiesed therein in ignorance of his rights in the premises, and
clainis now that he was entitled to receive one-fourth of the amount
distributed as moieties.
Mr. Hesse again appeared before us, on the 12th instant, at the request of Special Agent Brackett, and expressly stated to us that Agent
Brackett was not the person referred to in his affidavit as having given
him the bank-check, he having been mistaken in his identity, and he
fully acquitted him of the charge he had made against him.
On the day foUowing we received from Mr. Hesse the letter herewith
enclosed marked ^^B," and on the succeeding day the letter and enclosure hercAvith marked'^C."
Special Agent Brackett expressly denies that he gave Mr. Hesse the
check in question, or that he ever met him, to know him, until the
12th instant. He (Brackett) also declares that he had nothing whatever to do with the management of the Seggermann case, and did not
share in the distribution of moieties therein.
We find from the letter-press cdpy-books in the special agents' office,
copy of a report, dated June 20,1872, from. Special Agent Wm. G. Lee
to .Frank E. HoAve, special agent in charge here at that time, from
Avhich it appears that the case of Henry Seggermann was managed by
Agents Lee, Brush, and Qhalker.
The records of the custom-house here shoAv that the sum of $10,810
was recovered in the Seggermann case, of which sum $2,612.65 was
distributed as' awards to P. E. Howe, J.^ S. Chalker, W. G. Lee, and
A. A. Brush, special agents, in the month of November, 1872. From
the affidavit of Mr. Hesse, enclosed, it would seem he receiA^ed one;
fourth of the amount- thus distributed within a short time after such
distribution Avas made, such share being in accordance with the understanding had with Agent Chalker at the time he (Hesse) gave his information to that officer.
Yery respectfuUy,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Special Agents.
Secretary of the Treasury.
[Enclosure.]
/
.
A.
Mr. OSCAR HESSE, of Red Bank, N. J., appeared before the commission on the 29th
day of January, 1885, and made the following statements:
.My name is Oscar Hesse. I reside at the town of Red Bank; State of New Jersey.
My age is forty years.
.
"
REJPORT OF t H E
SECRETAIiY OF THE TREASURY.
l l
In the early part of the year 1872, I think in the month of January, I informed the
Secretary of the Treasury, by letter written from New York city, that I was in possession of information to the effect that certain importations of merchandise were being
undervalued and certain fraudulent' claims for damage to imported merchandise were
being allowed at t h e p o r t of New York, i]i which certain customs officers were irhplicated.
I received a letter from the Treasury Department, requesting me to report my information to Special Agent Lee, at New York, whereupon I met Agent Lee, who referred
me to Special Agent Chalker, to whom I immediately gave a list of the undervk,lued
invoices and all my information .concerning the same, and he at once undertook the
investigation of the case..
These invoices were five or sixan number, and embraced orange and lemon candied
peel, imported by Henry Seggermann, and were undervalued about 30 per cent. About
six weeks after I gave Agent Chalker this information, I informed him'^ of the receipt
by Mr. Seggermann of another invoice of about $3,000 worth of goods, and, within a
• day or two afterwards, the books and papers of Mr. Seggermann were seized by Special
Agents Chalker andXee and the United States marshal, but the last-mentioned invoice
was not found and seized, and was destroyed by Mr. Seggermann after the officers left,
and Agent Chalker informed me no recovery was made on it. According to my recollection, this seizure was made about the last of March or first of April, 1872. Subsequently, at Agent Chalker's request, I assisted him in examining and arriving at an
understandings of the account books of Mr. Seggermann at his (Chalker's) house in
Jersey City. •
.
Some time in the summer of 1872, Agent Chalker informed me that the case had
been settled, and the sum of $10,800 recovered from Seggermann; and it was not until
then that I learned from him that the $3,000 invoice above mentioned had not been
seized, and, in consequence, no amount of money was recovered on the same. At this
time, and upon repeated occasions afterwards, I applied to Agent Chalker for my share
as informer, but I received only evasive answers fi'om him.
Finally, in October or November of that year, 1872, I made complaint-in writing to
the Secretary of the Treasury, in which I gave the amount stated to have been recovered, and asked that the amount due me as informer should be paid me. Within a few
days after I wrote the Secretary, Agent Chalker called in a carriage at my house in
Jersey City and took me to Special Agent Brackett's private residence in New York
city. This was about 9 o'clock at night, and I was there introduced to Captain Brackett, who gave me his individual check on a bank in New York city for the sum of six
hundred and some seventy dollars, the same being, as stated to me, one-sixteenth of
the amount recovered in the case. I handed this check to Agent Chalker to collect,
from the bank, and by arrangement he met me on the following day and gave ine the
money ; at the same time he represented to me that as he had had a great deal of work
and trouble in the case, he thought I ought to give him a part of the amount, which I
declined to do, handing him, however, $10, which I said would only cover his carriage
hire.
After I had given the information to Agent Chalker concerning Mr. Seggermann's
undervalued invoices, he (Chalker) told me my share as informer would be one-sixteenth
of tlie amount recovered, and he gave me a written memorandum to that efiect, which '
I then acquiesced in, not at the time being informed as to my rights in the premises.
I have since learned, and now claim, that, having given the original information to the
Government in my letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, I was entitled to the full
amount awarded as informer's share, and that the portion thereof not; paid me was.
wrongfully withheld from me.
• At the same time I gave information respecting the undervalued invoices I reported
to Agent Chalker that Mr. Seggermann had secured damage allowances on certain importations of chiccory through certain false and fraudulent representations and connivance of customs officers. Agent Chalker inforraed me afterwards, however, that
nothing was recovered ficom Mr. Seggermann on that account.
OSCAR HESSE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of January, A. D. 1885.
,
.
. GEO. C. TICHENOR, .
Special Agent.
[Enclosure.]
B.
R E D B A N K , Fehruary 13, 1885.
D E A R S I R : I am very glad that I called on Brackett yesterday, as a few minutes' conversation with him and Chalker has reminded me of several points, their barefaced Ijang
notwithstanding. I hope yoii understood me when I stated that Brackett did not Jia^d
12
REPORt
O:^ T H E SliCRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.
me this check. Hand me is all I release him of. The check bore his signatures; and no
intrqduction being given me to the party who handed me this check in Bleecker street
when Captain Chalker took me there, I naturally supposed, by the signature, that it
was Brackett, beingv furthermore told by Chalker that Brackett was to receive onefourth ofthe informer's one-fourth, and the balance to Lee, Chalker, and myself.
Please ascertain, if possible, if Brackett was in the habit of signing checks coming from
the special agents^ office, located at that time at 45 or 47 Broadway, in the fall o/1872;
and get this checli-book, if possible, because the more I recall this check to my mind^
the more I am convinced of Brackett's signature, and the printed matter on the check
identifying it as coming fi?om the special agents' office on a bank in Pine street.
Respectfully, yours,
G. C. TICHENOR, Esq., New Tork.
HESSE.
C.
[Enclosure.]
Copy of answer to C. N. Brackett.
R E D B A N K , February 14,
1885.
D E A R SIR-: Your letter of the 13th is at hand. Your request I cannot grant. Although I have never met you before last Thursday, still your name is written in indelible ink ia my memory in connection with this case. I have simply released you
before the commission as the party who handed me the check in Bleec]?:er street. How'
this happened I have fully explained now to the commission. Your vindication rests
with yourself; I cannot do it.
; ,
Respectfohy, yours,
> HESSE.
No. 8.
.
N E W YORK, February 18, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to Department letter of the 24th ultimo, transmitting
copy of a communication from Mr. Fred. Wallroth, dated the 16tli
ultimo, containing serious reflections upon certain officers of the Dexiartment, also upon the special agents' office here, in connection with
alleged irregularities in the importation of certain tin-plate, we have
the honor to report, as follows:
Mr. Wallroth, at our invitation, appeared before us on the 31st ultimo,
and represented that a number of officers of the Government, including
ex-Secretary Folger, ex-Commissioner of Internal Eevenue Eaum, Commissioner Evans, ex-Solicitor Eaynor, Internal-Eevenue Collector M.
M. Blake, and Special Agent Tingle, had been guilty of official misconduct in failing to take proper action upon information he had furnished,
at different times within a great many years past, with respect to the
.non-payment of proper income-tax by Mr. J. S. Dickerson, of this city.
It appearing to us that the matter had had the attention of the
proper officers of the Government, as well as. of Congress, and that it
did not relate in any way to the special agents' office here, we informed
Mr. Wallroth that we were not authorized or disposed to make it a subject
of investigation. Whereupon he declined to enter into the subject of
the alleged irregularities in the importation of tin-plate referred to in
his letter.
It will be seen from the copy of a report, dated December 1, 1878,
from Special Agent Brackett, enclosed herewith, that the matterof tin-plate in question was thoroughly investigated by him, in conjunction
with'Mr. Wallroth, without results.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Seeretary of the Treasury.
Special Agents.
REPORT OF TME SEeRETARY OF TffiE TREASURY,
13
No. 9.
N E W YORK, February 19, 1885.
S I R : We duly received the Department's letter of the 17th ultimo,
Avith twelve enclosures, appointing us, with Special Agent James W.
Davis, since deceased, a commission to investigate the action of the
special agents of the Department at this port with respect to certain
invoices of linen goods of Messrs. Watson & Girdwood, and also the
maimer in which the business generaUy of the special agents' office
here has been conducted for the past two years, and have the honor
to submit the following report:
We have given the subject of our instructions thorough and patient
investigation, inviting all testimony tending to throw light upon the
conduct and management of the office, and have accepted, when offered,
voluntary statements of parties claiming to possess knowledge affect-.
ing it.
.
As Special Agent Brackett, late chief of the office, was especially
concerned in the charges preferred, we advised him fully of them, and
extended to him opportunity to reply and to cross-examine witnesses.
We forward hereAvith the testimony taken by us, and return the enclosures accompanying our instructions, which have been considered
by us and form the basis of this report.
The Watson & Girdwood linen case Avas the leading one presented,
and the one to which our instructions iiarticularly referred. The facts
in the case, so far as important to its understanding, are briefly these:
. Watson & Girdwood are, and since 1879 have been, the New York agents
and consignees of William Liddell & Co., manufacturers of linen goods
in Belfast.
In January, 1882, comiilaint was made to the United States district
attorney in New York that linen goods consigned by Liddell & Co. to
Watson & Girdwood were undervalued. The informer was referred to
Special Agent Adams, then in charge ofthe New York special agents'
office. The latter called up the later invoices of this firm, and obtained
from the Department's agent abroad price-lists of several manufacturers of linen goods, including that of Liddell &Co., and certain.samples of linens. WhatCA'^er investigation was undertaken by Special
Agent Adams was not concluded Avhen he was relieved by Special Agent
Brackett, in.the December fbllowing. In July, 1883, the informer,
Byrne, presented the case anew to Mr. Brackett, Avho procured from
Mr. Adams, at Philadelphia, through the Department, such invoices,
price-lists, &c., as the latter had taken Avith him when transferred to
his new station. On their receipt, Mr. Brackett assigned the case to
Special Agent Chalker for investigation and report, procuring from
the Department's agent abroad, and referring to Mr. Chalker, further
price-lists and samples. The informer, aiding Mr. Chalker in the investigation, advised him he could locate none of the goods then in
Watson & Girdwood's store by case numbers, or as belonging to any
given invoice, but he did know them by their list numbers. ^ It was,
however, concluded to await a new arriA^al of goods to this firm before
action. On December 13, 1883, an invoice of linen goods from William Liddell & Co., consigned to Watson & Girdwood, arrived by the
steamship ^^State of Georgia," and entry was made the next day. By
request of Mr. Chalker the entire invoice was ordered to public store.
for examination. Upon appraisement the invoices were variously ad-
14
REPORT OF THE "SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
vanced by Examiner Dutcher, resulting in an average advance of 9.51
per cent., and was returned to the collector so adA-anced without the
knoAvledge of the appraiser, though it bore his approval stamped upon
it. Assistant Appraiser Birdsall and Examiner Dutcher united in the
opinion, after a careful and thorough investigation, (page 2.) that no
further adA^ance than this Avas warranted. Mr. Chalker believed the
advance should be greater.; and, at his request, the appraiser recalled
the invoices, and the goods were re-examined.' The appraiser directed
the invoice to be advanced 1 5 per cent., which Avas done, and an additional duty and penalty was paid by Watson & QirdAvood, who also
advanced 15 per cent, upon entry t V other importations then in gen^
AO
• eral order. The advance, as explained to us, was brought about by an
agreement between the appraiser ahd E, D. Jaickson, representing the
importers, that the appraiser should adA^ance the ^'State of Georgia"
invoice 15 per cent., and the importers should enter the two other importations at a like advance. Mr. Chalker, the assistant appraiser, and
Watson & GirdAvood supposed this Avas to be accepted Avithout appeal,
while the appraiser states it Avas done Avith a view to an appeal and a.
reappraisement. It Avas established upon the examination that the
goods Avere standard goods, identified and known to the trade by certain numbers, which also appeared in tAventy-two iuA'^oices of Liddell
& Co. to Watson & GirdAVOod, then in the hands of Mr. Chalker, and
which had arrived between January 16 and November 3, 1883.
Attention is now directed to a peculiar and noticeable transaction.
The entry of December 14 Avas made by Girdwood, his partner, Watson,
then being en route from Europe. Samuel Houston, of the firm of
Dodge & Houston, the custom-house brokers of Watson & Girdwood,
soon after the entry told Girdwood of the GoA^ernnient claim of undervaluation, advising him also that serious trouble was to be apprehended.
-After the recall of the invoice by the appraiser, Houston told Watson,
who had assumed active control of the matter for his firm, that he
could' be of no further service, and advised the einployment of E. D.
Jackson, also a custom-house broker, versed, as he said, in customs^
law and possessed of exceptional influence Avith Treasury officials.
Jackson came into the case through Houston about January 10, 1884,
upon Watson sending him his individual check of $1,000. Jackson
sought no .evidence from Watson & Girdwood to disapprove-undervaluation, but told the appraiser his clients were willing a 15 per cent, advance should be made on the ^estate of Georgia" invoice, and that
they would A^^oluntarily advance to the same amount the tAvo following
invoices just arrived. He then sought to dissuade Special Agente
Brackett and Chalker from action uppn the twenty-two iuA^oices entered Avithin the year preceding. He had frequent interviews Avith
them, and on the last of January was advised by Mr. Brackett that nothing further would be done with those invoices. (See enclosure ^ A.")
^
The special agents deny that he influenced this decision, but if he did
not it is certain he magnified his services to his clients, for he at once,
through Plouston, demanded the ]3ayment of $4,750 additional for his
services and disbursements, AAdth the condition that it be paid in currency and not by check. Watsou, AAithout the knowledge of Girdwood, receiA^ed from his bank a certified check upon another bank^
and being identified there obtained $6,800 in currency, and drew individually upon. William Liddell & Co. for that amount. He paid this
inoney to Houston in the hall of the building in which Dodge & Hous-
- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
15
ton had their office. It Avas to be applied as follows: $4,750 to be paid
to Jackson, $500 to be paid for a purpose Houston would not disclose,$500 to be retained by Houston for his serAdces, and $50 to be paid to
his clerk. The remaining $1,000 was the sum Watson had previously
paid by his own check, and Houston then returned this to him by his
check. Both the $500 paid to Houston and the $50 paid to his clerk
Avere voluntarily paid by Watson, who then believed unusual service
had been rendered his firm in passing the goods. Early in February
two invoices of the Liddell goods, just arriA^ed, Avere advanced by Watson & Girdwood on entry 8 per cent., and further advanced by.order
of the appraiser 7 per cent. Watson appealed, contrary to the advice
of Jackson, and upon reappraisement the entered A-alue was sustained.
From this time forward Liddell & Co. invoiced goods of the qualities'
of those imported per the ^ State of Georgia" 15 per cent, higherthan
^
• that invoice.
On March 7, Mr. Brackett forwarded to the Department Mr. Chalker's
report of that date of the action taken on the ^'State of Georgia" and
the four following invoices; but no reference was made to the twentytwo preceding invoices, and no report was thereafter made to the Department or to the collector or to the district attorney touching these
or other back invoices, until explanation was asked by the Department
of Special Agents Brackett and Chalker, under date of January 6, 1885.
On Monday morning, February 11, 1884, Examiner Dutcher handed
to Girdwood, in the office of Watson & Girdwood, $100, stating it was
given to him by Houston, and requesting it to be paid to the persons
entitled to it. Mr. Dutcher is entitled to the benefit of his' statement
to us, that he took the money from Houston on the preyious Saturday
afternoon, to escape his importunities to accept a present, with the in' tention of giving it to Watson & Girdwood at the. earliest opportunity.
Girdwood, who up to that time was ignorant of the payment of money
by Watson, handed the money to the latter on his coming to the office
a few minutes later, repeating to him Dutcher's statement, with the
expression of his own belief that Watson had been imposed upon by
Houston and Jackson. Watson at once sought Houston, charged him
with improper use of the $100, and demanded what disposition he had
made of the $500 he had received for an unexplained purpose. Houston then admitted the payment of the $100 to Dutcher and the deposit
of the remaining $400 in bank to his OAvn account. The next day he
returned it to Watson. Early in the summer GirdAvood wrote to Supervising Special Agent Martin, inquiring if the money which he had then
learned his partner had paid to Jackson in compromise had gone into
the Treasury. He was informed it had not; that the only money paid
in^was the additional duties on the ^^^tate of Georgia" and subsequent
invoices. This fact he made known to Watson and Liddell, and the
latter brought suit against Dodge & Houston and Jackson for the recoA^ery of the.money early in August, 1884. From February until after
this suit was brought Watson & Girdwood experienced no opposition
to the passing of their Liddell consignments.
The attention of United States District Attorney Eoot having been
called to the matter by the commencement of this, suit on September 4,
he asked the collector for the twenty-two invoices before referred to,
and upoh examination finding five of them still within the year i h
which back duties were recoverable; procured thieir return to the appraiser.
ll
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
From the foregoing statement of facts it is seen that the investigation
of the twenty-two invoices ceased about the last of January. They had
been the subject of investigation for months. They contained numbers '
found in the/^State of Georgia" invoice.. It was shown that these
numbers represented standard goods well known to the trade by such
numbers, and the importers admitted their undervaluation. The importers themselves had completed the case for the Government. At
the point where success ivas probable the case was dropped: The important
and leading subject of investigation had been these invoices. The
^ State of Georgia" case, while important in itself, was an incident to
^
and had been relied upon in aid of the main investigation, but it was
made the subject of a report to the Department, while the original and
main case dropped out of sight. The Department was not informed of
it, nor was it reported to the collector or to the United States attorney
for such action as he might deem proper. In our opinion this should have
been done. The information came originally from the district attorney's,
office; but aside from this the law imposed an imperative duty upon the
special agents. Here was a confessed violation of the customs laws, and
section 15 of the act of June 22, 1874, expressly makes it ^'the duty of
any officer or person employed in the customs-revenue serAdce of the
United States, upon detection of any violation of the customs law, forthwith to make complaint thereof to the collector of the district, whose
duty it shall be promptly to report the same to the district attorney in
which such frauds shall be committed." It was the duty of the special
agents to have reported the case; they were not to anticipate what other
officers might think fit to do, Even if a prosecution of the firm was
not advisable, (and the United States attorney should have been consulted upon this point,) it is certain that the year in which back duties
might be collected had not expired, and steps ought to have been taken
to recover them. It Avill be noted that the district attorney, when the
invoices came into his hands in the September folloAving, did take steps
to recover the back duties on the five invoices yet falling within the
. year. It is to be presumed if the facts had been reported to him in
January he would then have taken simUar action upon all of them.
Special Agents Brackett and Chalker say the recovery of back duties .
did not occur to them ; but they were of&cers of long service and experience, and precedents for such action were to be found at this and'
other ports. Such action was not unusual. Appraiser Ketchum says
that Avith the information before him derived from the ^ State of
^
Georgia" importation, had his attention been called to the twenty-two
back inyoices, he would have felt in duty bound to call the collector's
attention to them, (pages 53-55 testimony;) and Chief Clerk Wright, of
the law office of the custom-house, says that had all the facts been laid
before him, he should have adAdsed sending the case to the district attorney for his action. (Page 169.)
By reference to the testimony of Deputy Collector Palmer, (page
59,) it will be seen that his advice to Mr. Brackett, to which the latter
refers in his report of January 10, 1885, had reference to the iuA^oices
first called up by Special Agent Adams. It should be remembered
that the decision in the Auffmordt case, to which Mr. Palmer refers in
his testimony, was subsequent to the investigation of the 'twenty-two
invoices by Messrs. Brackett and Chalker.
We believe Messrs. Brackett and Chalker omitted a plain duty, but
positive evidence is lacking to prove that, this was brought about by
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
17
corrupt influences. It is clear that Mr. Jackson procured from Watson
a sum of money much larger than his legitimate services were worth.
He first received $1,000, and when assured that the special agents
would not act on the back invoices, he demanded and received a further
sum of $4,750 in currency, atotal of $5,750, most of which must have
been received for services touching the back invoices, for it appears he
suggested or readily acquiesced in the 15 per cent, advance on the
''State of Georgia" invoice, and thereby put in peril the back invoices and furnished damaging evidence to the GoA^ernment. He may
have kept the entire $5,750; but it is so extravagant and unconscionable
a fee for a service, a part of which is open to the criticism of being
hostile to his clients, that it casts a suspicion upon the motives and
actions of any officer who contributed to results he was seeking.
The dropping of the case being so nearly coincident in time with the
payment of this money, is unfortunate for the reputation of the officers,
hoAvever blameless they may be.
The procuring by Brackett from Jackson of a written statement that
he had paid no nioney to any one in the special agents' office, because
of a mere office rumor, suggests haste in meeting a charge before it is
made, but is not inconsistent with innocence.
Mr. Girdwood says that in June he was told by Mr. Brackett, with
a confirmation from Chalker, that the special agents' office received
some $3,000 of this money. This was in response, he testifies, to his
demand for a voucher for moneys paid the Government in the matter
of the back invoices. (Page 246.) Brackett and Chalker, upon a second examination upon this point, say t h a t if there was a conversation
about money, and they think there was, it referred to the money collected on the '''State of Georgia" and subsequent invoices. (Pages
143, 162, 289, 305.) WhUe we give them the benefit of this statement,
it is improbable that Girdwood should ask about this money, as he
already knew its amount, and that it had gone into the Treasury.
On the trial of the case of Liddell vs. Dodge & Houston and Jackson, the judge, in his charge to the jury, pointedly called attention to
the payment of this large sum of money in currency and the unusual
and suspicious circumstances surroundings it. (See charge, with enclosures, returned herewith.)
Oscar E. Finke testifies that on the day, as he remembers it, that this
charge was given, Mr. Brackett came from the court-room to his office^
somewhat excited, and dispatched him for Mf. Jackson, who returned
word that he would call on his way home; that Brackett again sent for
Jackson, who then came in and had a long private interview with
Brackett and Chalker. (Pages 186, 187.)
If a part of the money had gone_to the special agents, such- an interAdew would not be unlikely in Adew of what the judge had just said,
but Brackett says he remembers no such interview. Chalker testifies '
to an interview betAveen the three, but gives the Boyd glass case as the
subject of conversation. This must have occurred earlier than the date
fixed by Finke, as Jackson had retired from the Boyd case early in July,
These circumstances reflect unfavorably upon the decision as to the back
invoices, but are not necessarily connected with it.
While, as we have before said, we find both of these officers omitted
a plain duty, the evidence does not convince us that this came about
through corrupt influences,
"
^
2A
18
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
During the progress of our investigation the following resolution oi
the Unit'ed States grand jury, adopted February 6,1885, was handed us
by United States Attorney Eoot.
, . " Eesolved, That Ave respectfully call the attention of the United States
attorney to the i'act that the goods of Watson & Girdwood haA^^e, according to their statements, been unreasonably detained in the custom-house
siiice last September." (See enclosure " B . " )
- We deem it oui* duty to consider this complaint, as it was found to
reach the special agents' office. We found that the goods of this firm
, had been held for months by the customs authorities, and that their busi
ness had been irgured thereby, but good reasons for this action were not
apparent. While the Government should have its customs revenue, it
owes it to the importer that collection should be made Avithout unnecessary annoyance or delay. A mere statement of the facts in the case
' referred to is, in our. opinion, a criticism of the action taken.
It should be remembered that oh the advance of the "State of Georgia" invoice by the appraiser, the importers adA-anced two other invoices
15 per cent, on entry. Like goods thereupon were invoiced abroad at
this adA-anced A-alue, and they passed the custom-house unchallenged
until September.
On the 16th day of August, evidences of renewed activity appeared
in the special agents' office. Special Agent Brackett on that day asked
the appointment of Lawrence J. Byrne, and on September 24 he Avas
appointed by the Treasury Department to assist Special Agent Chalker
in iuAT^estigating the importations of this firm. The first entry of their
goods after this appointment Avas after the commencement of the suit of
Liddell vs. Dodge e^ al., and on Septeniber 29, when an invoice of seventy. iseven lilies or qualities of linen goods arrived by the steamship "Cit^^
of Berlin." The invoice did not reach the examiner until October- 8,
(page 310,) after the importers began asking the reason of delay. It
Avas returned advanced on eighteen articles from 8 to 161 per cent., and
an appeal was taken October 31. Fifty-nine qualities Avere not adA-anced.
The reappraisement was postponed from time to time, on the part of the
Government, until December 17, when the appraiser recalled the inA^oice from the reappraisement board, and adyanced it, as to all articles
not before advanced, in various amounts, and returned it December 26.
From this second advance the importers appealed to a nierchant.appraisement; but, though early action was urged by the importers, the
merchant appraiser Avas nqt sworn until January 17, 1885. The reap.praisement was concluded on Februar^^ 9, and resulted in advancing
only seven qualities in the entire iuA^oice, an increase of but 2.3 per
cent, upon the entered A^-alue. Nearly four months and a half had been
consumed in reaching this result. In the mean time $25,000 Avorth of
the importers' goods had been piled up i n public store and in' general
order, and they were unable to pass them and fill orders taken on the
faith that the United States Government would not unnecessarily embarrass private business. The question was not a new one. The investigation had continued since July, 1883—indeed, since January, 1882.
The importers had acquiesced in the advance made on the "State of
, Georgia'' invoice; had advanced subsequent iuA'-oices to the figure named
^ by the appraiser; had offered the ciistoms officials access to their books
and papers; and it would seem that abundant opportunity and time had
been afforded for an intelligent and final decision.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY;
,
19
It should be remembered in this connection that the importers, by
their attorney, unsuccessfully appealed to the general appraiser for the
delivery of the goods i n his possession, which had not been advanced
by the appraiser, offering to leave samples and to furnish the securities '
required by the customs regulations in such cases. (Page 320.) It was
soon after this that the invoice was recalled from the reappraising board,
an unusual proceeding, and all the goods advanced.
Another case, known as the Bahmann & Hoehn "glass-eye case," was.
called to our attention. We found the facts to be briefly these: In
August of last year, a man calling himself "James Ferguson" informed
Captain Brackett, by cable from abroad, that Bahmann, who was then
on his return from Europe to New York, would attempt to smuggle a
quantity of artificial eyes. Agent Brackett put the case in the hands
of Inspector G. Frank Moseman, who called to his aid Inspectors Swayz'e
and Hussey. On the arrival of Bahmann in NCAV York, the goods were
found concealed upon the person of his wife, and were seized. In examining his baggage certain papers were found in the German language,
Avhich, upon translation by Oscar Finke, showed fraudulent importation
of other goods, Avhich it was found had^ gone into stock and could not
be identified by the customs officers. A search-warrant was sworn out
and the store Avas placed in charge of officers of the special agents'
force, and the business of the firm suspended from the 26th of August
until the l l t h of September. Bahmann and Hoehn Avere young Ger* mans, speaking our language imperfectly, and ignorant of their legal
. rights. Mr. E. D. Jackson was emploj^ed by the firm. He demanded
of them $3,000, of Avhich they paid $400 from their own resources, and
the balance Avas borrowed fi'om their Mends. Soon after he^ demanded
of thein an additional sum of $5,500, which they were unable to and
refused to pay. About this time they substituted their broker, Mr.
Baese, for Jackson, and the latter, upon the request of Baese for the
money in his hands less a reasonable fee for his services,' returned $2,000.
Mr. Dudley F. Phelps, wHo had been retained in the case as' attorney
by Jackson, was continued by^ Baese. ' In the fraudulent importation
case no defence was interposed* by Bahmann & Hoehn, and it was settled by their payment to the Government of its claim of $3,571.98.
(Page 363.) Bahmann pleaded guilty to the charge of smuggling, and
paid a fine of $250. The full amount of money paid by them appears
as below:
. .
To Jackson
In settlement of the fraudulent importation case
$1,000 00
3, 571 98
Account of Baese rendered as follows:
•
Suit United States vs. Bahmann & Heohn, district New York; suit United
states'z;s. Fred. Bahmann, " E m s , " New Jersey: .
To attorneys' fee, our fee, fine, and expenses
$2,125 00
To attendance at marshal's and services
'
25 00
2,150 00
It Avill be seen that while the Go Adornment received $3,571.98, private parties receiA^ed $2,900, indicating that the laws ot the United
States are not always invoked for the sole purpose of subserving the '
public interest. It came out through the voluntary statement of Inspector Moseman to us, (page 147,) that upon the settlement of the
cases he received $200 Ixom Baese through Phelps. Moseman's understanding seems to have been that Baese was to pay $250, to be divided
20
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
equally between himself and Brackett, but that Brackett had preAdously borroAved $50 of Baese, which, being deducted from the $250,
left but $200 to come into his hands, and of which,he paid. $75 to
Brackett. This Brackett denies, and Ave should give him the benefit
of the doubt raised by evenly-balanced testimony were it not foj* the
circumstance to which v^e shall UOAV allude. Mr. Baese, who testified
reluctantly, said that during the progress of the cases he called at th<^.
special agents' office to inquire about them, and in an interview he
then had with Brackett, at the latter's request he loaned him $50, but
took no evidence of indebtedness therefor; that when the cases"were
ehded, understanding that $250 was to be paid to Brackett and Mos(5nian, he left that sum, less his loan of $50, with Phelps for that purpose.
(Page 221.) He supposed the matter settled until FEBRUARY 3, tnhen
Brackett called upon him and paid him the $50, taking his receipt for it.
Brackett says he borrowed the money in November, to be paid in a
short time, or when he should get his check, (page 295,) but did noi
repay it, nor speak to Baese about it, until February 3, during the pendency of this investigation. Mr. Phelps, who, prior to this date, had
been informally before us, testifies that he told Brackett of his interAdew with us, and that he had related to us the fact of this money trau:
saction; that Brackett replied that the $50 was a private matter, and
that he intended to pay it. He appears at once to have sought Mr.
"Baese and paid him $50, taking his receipt therefor. 'We are satisfied
from Baese's testimony that he never expected the return of this monej^,.
and we are coiffirmed in this opinion by the surprise expressed by
Baese to Phelps immediately after its payinent. (Pages 205, 206.) It
appears, also, from Brackett's own testimony, that he never borrowed
money of Baese at any other time. (Page 363.)
In view of all the testimony, we are compelled to accept Moseman^ s
statement as true, that he divided this money with Brackett. Ih this case
we also find that Oscar IJ. Finke, who translated the German papers,
received $100 voluntarily paid him by the firm after the release of the store.
He had acted as an interpreter between them and the officers and aided
them ih other ways. As an expression of their gratitude for his kindness, they offered to him and he accepted this money, but without intent
of either party to violate the law.
Some time after the settlement of the Bahmann & Hoehn cases, Special Agent Brackett certified to the Department an application made
over the signature of ''James Ferguson" for award as informer i n the
fraudulent importation-case. (Page 214.) It coming to our knowledge
that this was an assumed name of the person giving the information as
to the intended smuggling of glass eyes, and the question having been
raised that he Avas not entitled to an award in the fraudulent importation case, such information having been derived from the discovery and
translation by Oscar Finke ofthe papers found in Bahmann's baggage,,
we addressed a communicationto the Department suggesting that action
be deferred with respect to the award. Special Agent Brackett contends that as the cablegram led to seizure of the trunl^ and the discovery
of the papers, the person sending the cablegram gave the original in-,
formation in the case. In our opinion, the facts do not warrant this
conclusion; on the contrary, it appears that the original information in
the fraudulent importation case was obtained by Oscar Finke from the
papers taken from Bahmann's baggage.
We again refer to Mr. Moseman's testimony, and call attention to hi3
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
21
V
statement that in May, 1884, Inspector John E. Lawrence,'d^n attacM oi
the special agents' office^ and himself seized at the works of the Barbour Flax-Spinning Company, at Paterson, N. J., certain flax iniported
irom-Canada and claimed by the customs officers to haA^e been fraudulently entered at irontier-ports as tow. After the seizure of it, in compliance with Mr. Barbour's request that they give it no publicit}^, he
handed Moseman $200 at his store in New". York to be diAdded equally
between Laiorence and^ himself While Moseman positiA^ely asserts
this to be true, Lawrence, when he was before us, Avhile not denying it,"^
replied, when asked if he received any of that money, " I don't admit
anything." (Page 274.) We have no doubt the money was paid as
Moseman states.
In this connection we invite attention to the testimony of M. Fox
(page 207) and Charles J. Fox, (page 210,) in which t h e y charge Inspector Lawrence with proposing to them to assist one Graves, a partner of said M. Fox, to smuggle a quantity of precious stones into the
United States, Graves being then about to return from a visit to Europe.
LaAvrence virtually admits making the proposition, but says it was
made for the purpose of learning when and upon what ship Graves was
expected, and whether he had precious stones in his possession Avhich
he intended to smuggle. (Page 274.) Whether Lawrence made this
proposition with intent to join in an unlawful enterprise, or from an
over-zeal for the service, we express no opinion. In the most favorable
A^iew which can be taken ofthe transaction, the officer subjected himself to criticism and deserved censure.
The testimony we have taken discloses instances of unsuccessful efforts to obtain money, made sometimes by custo'ms officers and sometimes by private parties claiming to have exceptional influence at the
custom-house and at the Treasury Department. An instance is cited
in the case of Henry Matier & Co., as appears in the testimony of Mr.
Mark Finlay. (Page 175.)
A notable instance is found in the case of D. A. Lindsay, against
wiiom a claim was made up for $144,000, at the instance of the special
agents' office. Mr. Lindsay was not only subj ected to the expense and
annoyance Of a vexatious inquiry into his business affairs proA^oked by
this claim, which was subsequently abandoned by the Government upon
the advice of the district attorney, but his importations were stopped
for some ten months, resulting in business embarrassments and seriously
affecting .his commercial and social standing. (Page 229, testimony of
William Heartt.)
About August 1, 1884, (page 225,) thefts of merchandise from the
p.ublic stores .were reported to Mr. Brackett, who detailed Inspectors
Lawrence and Hussey to investigate them. (Page 266.) They reported
evidence looking to the guilt of certain Government employ6s, but Mr.
Brackett was of the opinion that it was not sufficient to warrant their
arrest. (Pages 267, 330.) This might be true. But this did not relicA^e
him of the clear duty of pressing a sharp and Adgorous iuA^estigation.
-It was of the last importance that these depredations cease and at once,
and he should have seen to it that no rest be taken until the guilty
parties were found and punished. He seems, instead, to have dropped
it when suspicion pointed to certain persons, one of whom, while under
this cloud, received promotion in the appraiser''s department. Later on,
by the efforts of another officer, the suspected parties were found to
be the guilty ones, and upon their arrest the depredations ceased,
22
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
A practice is found to prevail in the special agents' office at this port
which we suggest would be more honored in the breach than in the
observance. We refer to the signing of seizure reports by the special
agent in charge when not making the seizure in person, to the exclusion sometimes of subordinates Avho actually took part in the seizure,
and to what seems to have been an iuA^ariable rule, that the subordinate
divide his moieties, however insignificant, vrith his chief. In our opinion,
the seizure reports should be signed by the sei zing, officer, and no other.
The report would then be true in fact, and giA^e credit to the proper
person. If he be a subordinate, his chief, it is presumed, ^will not leave
the Department in doubt how far he himself contributed to a successful
result when he comes' to make a formal report. The acceptance by the
chief officer of a part of a moiety earned by his subordinate is possibly
matter of taste; but it seems to us that the self-respect of booh parties
and the discipline iof the force would be best maintained by leaving to
each the money he is recognized by the laAv to have earned.,
In addition to the sterling price-list for 1882 of Wm. Liddell & Co.,
Special Agent Adams had received, ahd had in his possession at the
tinie the Watson < Girdwood case came to Mr. Brackett's attention,
&
^ price-lists and certain samples of John S. .Brown & Sons, Henry Matier
& Co.^ The Ulster Spinning Company, and of other manufacturers of .
linens at Belfast, i These came into the hands of Mr. Brackett, who
subsequently received from the Department's agent abroad a large
numberof price-lists, special quotations, and samples-from different
manufacturers of linens in Ireland and Scotland whose products come
to this country consigned either to their agents or to purchasing im-.
porters. This information was important, and had been obtained with
much effort, and at considerable expense to the Government.. It was
all referred to Special Agent Chalker, who does not seem to have utilized
it to the extent even of placing it in the hands of the appraising officers.
'Nevertheless, it appears that the consignments of certain of these manufacturers, notably of John S. Browii & Sons, Avere found by Assistant
Appraiser Birdsall and Examiner Dutcher to have been greatly underA^alued, and advances made by them were sustained on reappraisement.
Mr. Chalker excuses his apparent dereliction of duty in this regard
on the ground that he was not allowed proper opportunity to attend.to thesame; in fact, that his time was so occupied and his attention so
constantly distracted by other Avork assigned him, as to prevent his
giAdng proper attention even to the Watson & Girdwood case.
Mr. Brackett seeks relief from responsibility in the management of
the Watson & Girdwood case, and in the use of the other information
named, because he had intrusted it to Mr. Chalker. He also claims
justification for apparent neglect of other matters coming to his office,
especially those relating to undervaluation, for the reason that his time,
and attention as Avell as that of his assistant agents, Chalker and Gray,
Avas necessarily and largely occupied in supervising the'work and endeavoring to utilize the services of an unnecessarily large, partially
inexperienced, and more or less inefficient force of subordinates, most
of whom had been assigned to him unasked, and the discharge or transfer of a number of whom he had recommended to the Department
without success.
Without indorsing this explanation of Mr. Brackett as sufficient,
we feel bound to report that the force of subordinates assigned to him
w^^s largely in excess of the needs of the office, and many of them un-
/
, . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
2S'
qualified for the serAdce to be performed. Notwithstanding the recent"
reductions made by the Department, we believe that a further- reduction ought to be made at once of at least 50 per cent, of the sp'^cial
agency force at this port.
Messrs. Brackett and Chalker are old and experienced officers of the
Department. Their records of long service are not without evidences
of earnest, faithful, and useful endeavors in the interest of the GoA^ernment, which have in times past commended them-to the confidence of
the Department and their associate officers. In reviewing their acts
Avhich have been the subjects of this investigation, due weight should
be given to these considerations; and if duties and responsibilities
have been imposed upon them beyond their ability to properly discharge, such fact should also be considered in measuring their accountability.
.
" ^
The duties of special agents of the Treasury Department, as defined
by law and regulations, are of a delicate and responsible nature, requiring for their efficient and proper discharge a high orderlaf intelligence, integrit^^, and business training, united with good habits and^
gentlemanly bearing.
. ,
Holding the relation of confidential officers to the Secretary, Avho is
often obliged to xelj upon their information and advice, and being
often the medium of communication between the Department and the
chief officers of customs, thej^^ should be thoroughly informed- in customs laws and regulations and qualified to consider and report upon all
questions affecting the adniinistration of the customs laws. I t is peculiarly their duty to aid the Department and the administrative officers
ofthe customs in correcting abuses in methods of conducting the public business and in the detection and prevention of frauds upon the reA^enues. While it may be necessary in instances for them to obtain information by indirect nieans, what are commonly known as "detectiA^e
methods" should not be resorted to, as they are unnecessary and incompatible with their service. To do their work effectively, they
should be familiar with the provisions of the tariff and competent to
investigate and consider questions of classification constantly arising.
The prevailing custom of under valuing merchandise subject to ad
valorem duties makes it necessary that they should give special study
and attention to the subject, but it is equally their duty to refrain from
all attempts at administrative functions, while they should freely advise
with, and fully communicate to, the Department and the proper officers
of the customs the result of their investigations. They have no right
or color of authority to obstruct the course of public business, either by
interference with the prerogatives of other customs officers or by the
detention pf importations. When they conspire or join hands with
brokers or others in misleading, intimidating, or improperly favoring
".mporters, they Adolate their official trust and deserve condeinnation.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
O. L. SPAULDING, ^
Special Agents.
Zon.
H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasury.
24
- REPORT OF' THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
i
No. 10.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
!
^
Washington, B. C, February 24c, 1885..
: Eeferring to that portion of your report of tlie 19th
instant, on the investigation of the special agents' office at NCAV York,
in which it is stated that the force of subordinate officers assigned to the
office in question is largely in excess of the needs of the serAdce, and
. that many of them are disqualified for the duties to be performed, I
have to request that you submit at once a list of the names of persons
employed under the direction of the special agents at New York whose
services, in yonr! judgment, may be dispensed with without detriment
to the interests of the Government.
Yery respectfully,
H. McCULLOCH,
'
Secretary.
GENTLEMEN
Mr. GEORGE C. TICHENOR and Mr. O. L.
!
SPAULDING,
Special Agents, F . 0. Box 1920, New York City.
No. 11.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
New York, February 25, 1885.
S I R : Ackpiowledging receipt of the Department's letter of the 24th
instant, directing us to "submit at once a list ofthe names of the persons
employed under, the direction of the special agent at New York, whose
services," in our judgment, may be dispensed with without detriment
to the interests of the Government, Ave have the honor to report as
follows:
Having conferred with Special Agent Ayer and other officers whose
opportunities enable them to correctly judge of the character, qualifications, and the necessity of the employment of the persons now on duty
with the special!agent in charge of the second special agency district,
we noAv submit the following list of persons whose services may be dispensed Avith, viz :
Secial inspectors of customs.—John Eamsay, John E. Lawrence,
James A. Dodge, Samuel W. Swayze.
Faid from fraud appropriation.—Matthew Stewart, Geo. M. Storrs, J.
W. Wilson.
Inspector G. iPrank Moseman is an active and intelligent officer.
Were it not for the facts reflecting upon his character which appear in
our report o f t h e 19th instant, we should advise continuing him in the
service. Whether his voluntary statement to us of the official misconduct of himself and other officers warrants his retention we express no
opinion.
Inspector Jaines E. O'Beirne for the past year and a half has been on
independent duty at the public stores by authority of the Department.
We are not prepared now to express an opinion as to the value of his
services.
:
In addition tp the names appearing on the list enclosed with the Department's letter, Ave find that Inspectors John M. Wilson, T. J. Don-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
25
ohue, and Thos. Brown, from the surveyor's office, and Watchman Oscar"
Eequa, from the collector's office, are detailed for duty at the special
agents' office. Of these we are of the opinion that Mr. Eequa^s services can be dispensed with, and recommend that he be ordered back
to the collector's office.
- Concerning the value and need of the services of Michael Harrigan
and of Inspectors O'Donphue and Brown, we withhold our opinion
pending an investigation which will be the subject of an early report;
meantime we deem it important that they be retained in the service.
Owing to the absence from the city ot Special Agent Fox, we have
not thought proper to report as to tihe force employed under his direction at this time.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Special Agents.
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 12.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
New Yo7% March 2, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to our letter of the 25th ultimo, relating to the force
of subordinate officers and employes attached to the special agencyservice at this port, we have the honor to submit the following suggestions :
The names of the folloAving employes of the special agents' office here
are carried upon what is commonly called the "fraud roll," viz : H. A.
Moore, at $6; -T. J. O'Sullivan, at $6; J. C. Cummings, at $4; D. B. .
Harrison, at $4; W. Kryzanowski, at'4; Matthew Stewart, at $4; George
M. Storrs, at $4; Michael Harrigan, $3, aggregating $39 per diem;
making a total annual disbursement on this account at this port alone
of $14,235.
These men are permanently employed, not on account of any particular information possessed by them respecting frauds upon the customs
revenue, but merely because of their qualifications for clerical and other
routine work, or at the instance of personal or political friends. The
law relied upon for their employment simply authorizes the expenditure
of a sum not exceeding $100,000 per annum "for the detection and prevention of frauds upon the custonis revenue."
We think it is clear that if the statute contemplates the employment of
persons, it is for temporary service only, and where some particular fraud
is to be detected or prevented, under the direction of customs officers,
and not the regular and constant employment, clerical and otherAvise,
upon a similar footing with officers especially authorized by law.
,The leading idea of the law undoubtedly is to reward parties for specific information as to frauds, either contemplated or perpetrated.;
Persons so employed have no official status, and no authority to make
seizures or perform other official- acts devolving upon customs officers.
We are of the opinion that all permanent employes should be officer?
^knoAvn to thecustoms laws, and should be paid from appropriations
specifically made for that purpose.
26
REPORT OF THE SIECRETARY OF THE , TREASURV.
If it is deemed necessary to retain in the service any of the persons
above named or! others of their class, we respectfully recommend that
they be dropped from the "fraud roll" and made officers.
We also call attention to the fact that the special-agency force here is
divided into three independent and more or less rival detachments. Adz:
Special Agent Ayer, with the major part of t h e force at the customhouse ; Special Agent Fox, with several subordinates at the district attorney's office; and Mr. O'Beirne at the public stores.
In our opinion, these should be consolidated under a common chief
If this were done, the aggregate permanent force could be considerably
reduced, harmonious action secured, and better results achicA^ed.
Yery respectfull^^^,
•
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
i
'
,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Special Agents.
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 13.
, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY, <
I
Washi/ngton, B. C ; March 6, 188?,.
: 11 transmit herewith for iiwestigation and report thereon
a communicatioii, dated the 2d instant, from Thomas Brown, nightinspector of customs at the port of New York, AA^herein he prefers
charges against Mr. Wm. Hussey, an employe under the direction of
Special Agent Geo. H. Fox, at the port of New York.
Please return the enclosure with your report,
i
Yery respectfully,
H. McCULLOCH,
I
Secretary.
Messrs. GEO; C. TICHENOR, A. K, TINGLE, and O. L. SPAULDING.
GENTLEMEN
,
[Enclosure.]
N E W YORK, March 2, 1885.
SIR : I have respectfully to request that an investigation be made by the special
agents' commission now sitting in New York in reference to t h e character, employment, and present status .of Mr. W^illiam Hussey, an employ6 of the special agents'
office at New Yorkj and acting with and under the dhection of Special Agent George
H . Fox.
;
I ask that this myestigation be made for the following reasons, and am prepared to
furnish - witnesses of uniniprachahle character to prove all that is charged against him
i'rom^the date of his first appotatmeht, and have to submit the following in connection
therewith:
'
^
1. V\^m. Hussey was appointed night-inspector November 4,1869; removed April 25,
1870.
;
.
•
2. Reappointed June 18, 1870.
3. Again removed August 2, 1871.
;
'
4. Again appointed October^7 or 12, 1871.
*
*
5. Suspended December 17,1874.
6. Again removed February 15, 1875.
7.. Employe4 in special agents' ofiSce, under Special Agent Brackett. Again removed. Emp,loyed! in special,agents' office again, under Gen. N. M. Curtis. Again'
reinoved. Employed in special agents' office again, under Snecial Agent Adams, and
again removeu.
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF' THE TREASURY.
27
The causes of these frequent removals are not known to me, but will no doubt be
found on file in the Department.
Just previous to his present appointment in the special agents' office, the New York,
papers stated that Mr. Hussey liad beeh indicted for keeping a gambling-house at
Hunter's Point.
. '
January 9, 1879, Hussey and Donohiie were detailed by Special Agent Curtis, on
information that a quantity of cigars were to be landed from the steamship ^'.Niagara"
from Havana, about this date. In accordance m t h instructions, they, secreted themselves in the Cabin of a schooner lying next to the steamship to watch the same.
About seven o'clock in the morning they discovered a row-boat with two men in it
approaching the steamer, and in a few minutes two bags of cigars were lowered in tothe
row-boat, when Inspector Donohue called Hussey's attention,to the same, and he,
Donohue, V e n t out and demanded the men, undCr cover of a revolver, to pull back
with the cigars, which they did, while Morris Stack, a saloon-keeper at No. 18 West
street, who is and has been known fbr years to be a smuggler, stood on the pier, ordered
the men off' and to pay no attention to Donohue. However, Inspector Donohue got
the cigars, at the risk of being thrown overboard by Morris Stack, Avho had threatened
to do so. Hussey, who is a friend of Morris Stack, did not leave the cabin or come to
Donohue's assistance.
About the latter part of September, 1880, on the arrival of the steamship '' Santiago
de Cuba," from Havana, there was landed from said steamer while she was lying in
lower quarantine about 25^000 cigars. This was affcer daybreak in the morning, and
they were lowered into a row-boat occupied by two men. At the sternof the steamship, from where this action on the part of the smugglers could easily beobserved, was
another row-boat, with two Government officials in, viz., George H. Fox and AAdlliam
Hussey, and also an oarsman. Thgy saw the cigars lowered into the boat, andthe boat
pull away, and never even attempted to stop or pursue them.
In the spring of 1880, the steamship '^ Santiago de Cuba" arrived from Havana with
a lot of cigars on board to be smuggled ashore. Donohue and Hussey had the ship
under surveillance. While Donohus was relieved by Hussey, to go to breakfast, Hussey, Stack, and a friend of theirs, by the name of Grady, landed and carried the cigars
up the dock, and took them into a liquor store on Rector street.
^ . .
On New Year's morning, the steamship ^' Newport'' was on her way up from Havana,
and in the lower bay. She was moving along rapidly, while Harrington and myself
were in a row-boat waiting and watching the movements of three men in a row-boa;t
some distance off. We were concealed behind the dock at Fort Wadsworth. We saw
a man stand up in the pther row-boat and wave his hat three times, so that the smugglers on board the ship could not fail to notice it. Immediately after, they threw off
four bags containing about 5,000 cigars, and opposite Fort Wadsworth three bags
more were thrown off, containing about 600 bundles cigarettes and about 5,000 cigars,
making in aU seven bags. The three men in the other .boat immediately pulled for the
bags, with all the three men rowing. We also pulled for the bags and got there first,
and picked up the three bags, then went in pursuit of the others, which we also secured.
These men were armed with shot-guns or rifles, and boasted afterwards that if they
could have gotten near us they would have shot us. Special Agent Brackett did not
know we were going- down the bay after these cigars, or that we had gone.
Now, in regard to this seizure, I have t o . state that I was informed by Special Agent
Brackett, the next morning at the office, (he being then in charge,) that on Sunday,
the day immediately preceding the seizure, a man came to his house, and also on
Monday, New Year's day, the day ofthe seizure, and complained to him that we were
in complicity with the smugglers, and were afraid to go down the bay after them. I
have every reason to believe that the man who made this complaint to Captain Brackett
was Wm. Hussey, and that he made the charge outofenmity to us. Captain Brackett
refused then and refiiseg^ now to furnish us with the name of this man.
When Mr. Hussey was reappointed to the special agents' office, under Special Agent
Brackett, last spring, he (Captain Brackett) stated that Hussey made the reniark that
he was going to ^^break us up"—meaning Donohue, Harrigan, and myself. This 'remark was repeated afterwards by him, and has proved true, to the extent that, his
employment in the office has prevented us from making seizures that we otherwise
could have made had it not been for him, as for instance : Inspector Donohue had information to the effect that the steamship '' Gity of Merida,'' arriving from Havana
about May or June last, would have a large quantity of cigars on board. Hussey also
claimed to have information on the same vessel. In consequence of these two statements of Donohue and Hussey to Captain Brackett, it was determined by Captain
Prackett to send Officers Hussey and Harrison down the bay to watch the ship, that
28
REPORT OF THE; SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
nothing could be thrown off, and Donohue, HarrigajU, and myself were detailed by him
to board the vessel when she reached her dock at Pier 3, N., R., to search her. We
were at the dock when the vessel arrived; Hussey immediately proceeded to go ashore.
AVhen Donohue spoke to him and told him we would work the place on the ship, that
he had information against, Hussey refused to assist, on the plea of havdng been up all
night, and would not tell us the location of the place where his informant said the
cigars were concealed, and then went off the dock. Harrison was still on board. While
Hussey was away, we learned, from an employ6 on board who was friendly to-us, that
six or eight bags of cigars had been thrown overboard in the lower bay. VVe had every
reason to believe this statement to be true, from the fact that Mr. Hussey's son was
, also an employ^ on the vessel. Hussey afterwards told Donohue, when questioned by
him as to the cigars presumed to be on board, that they had been thrown off down the
bay, b u t , ' ' not to say anything about it.'' Consequently, we did not search the ship.
Without wishing to detaU further particulars in this direction at the present time, I
am fully prepared to submit further evidence upon an investigation; and when called
upon by the commission, if this should be referred to them, will submit a list of
Avitnesses to prove all the charges made.
I have respeciiftilly to request an acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication.
•
Very respectfully,
THOMAS BROWN,
Night-Inspector.
Hon. H U G H MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 14.
^
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, March 21, 188^. ,
: On the 6th instant the Department transmitted to you,
for investigation and report thereon, a communication, dated the 2d
instant, from. Mr. Thomas BroAvii, night-inspector of customs at the port
of New York, wherein he preferred certain charges against William
Hussey, now employed as an inspector of customs under the direction
• of Special Agent Geo. H. Fox. I transmit herewith another communis
cation, dated the 16th instant, and its enclosure, from Mr. Brown,
further in relation to the subject. You will please give immediate attention to this matter and report the result to the Department.
Mr. Brown has been informed of the reference of his communication
to you. Please return the enclosures.
Yery respectfally,
C. S. FAIECHILD,
Assistant Secretary.
Messrs. GEO. C. TICHENOR, A. K. TINGLE, O . L . SPAULDING,
Special Agents, Neio York, N Y .
GENTLEMEN
[Enclosure.]
N E W YORK, March 16,-1885.
SIR : I respectfully state that I forwarded a communication to the Department, under
date of the 2d instant, making certain charges against Mr. Wilham Hussey, an employ 6
or inspector in the customs service in this city, who is acting with and under the direction of Special Agent Geo. H. Fox, and showing Mr. Fox's intimate and improper connection with him, wi-feh request that they be referred for investigation to the special
agents' commission now sitting in this city. I have further to submit, for the consideration and action of the Department, the following statements in relation thereto : ^.
.One ofthe causes which led to the dismissal of Mr. Hussey from the special agents'
olSce, while Apedal Agent Adams Avas in cliarge, is' as follows: A smuggler by the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
29
name of Cantlin had some cigars seized by certain officers of the special agents' office.
Mr; Cantlin offered $25 to Mr. Hussey if he would find out ' Svho gave him away,"
which Hussey promised to do. After Hussey was dismissed, Mr. Fox, who was then
an inspector in the office of Special Agent Adams, told Captain Adams that he (Fox)
and not Hussey was the one who offered to furnish Cantlin the name of the informer.
I jinderstand from Special Agent Adams that he told Mr. Fox it looked as if he wanted
to cover Hussey up.
In a recent interview m t h the Hon. EUhu Root, United States district attorney in
this city, to whom I submitted a copy of my former communication to the Department,
he informed me that he had already called the attention ofthe special* agents' commission, while investigating Special Agent Brackett's office, to the^character of Mr. Hussey,
and this before Mr. Hussey had been transferred from the fraud roll to an inspector of,
customs.
It apxDears that SiDCcial. Agent Fox, with whom Mr. Hussey is so closely and intimately
. connected, was interested in a tobacco investigation at Detroit in 1879 or 1880, while he
Avas an inspector, after which Special Agent Spaulding made a report to the Department reflecting severely on Mr. Fox's action in the case. I am also informed that Mr.
Jno. D. Bartlett, then an inspector of customs, now superintendent of the Kennebec
Ice Company at AVashington, D. C., was also detailed upon the case.
If Special Agent Spaulding's report be referred to, and Mr. Bartlett's testimony in
the case be taken, it will, without doubt, show the methods employed by Mr. Fox: as
a Government officer.^
•
I would respectfully request an acknowledgment of the receipt of this and my former
communication.
Very respectfaUy,
THOMAS BROWN,
Night-Inspector.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury. .
No. 15.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
.New York, April 3, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully referring to Department letter of the 6th ultimo,
covering charges preferred by Inspector Thomas Brown against Inspector
WiUiam Hussey, and to a letter from the Department, dated the 21st
lUtimo, enclosing charges iireferred by Inspector Browii against Special
Agent George H. Fox and Inspector Hussey, instructing us to iuAT^estigate and report thereon, we have the honor to submit the following:.
Before the receipt of these letters, upon the suggestion of District
Attorney Eoot, Wje,had commenced the investigation of complaints made
to him that Inspectors Brown, Donohue, and Harrigan, attached to the
special agents' office, and engaged in examining the Havana steamers
for smuggled cigars and other articles, habitually neglected' their duty,
if they were not in actual collusion with smugglers ; and that while they
made an occasional seizure, they made no arrests. It was further made
a subject of comiilaint that while the steamship companies were trying
to suppress smuggling, they were not assisted by the customs officers,
but Avere annoyed b^^^ the bringing of vexatious suits against the masters
and their A^-essels.
We continued this inquiry in connection with the investigation, of
the charges made by Inspector Brown, as the3^ appeared to be intimately
connected. Indeed, the latter charges, which jioint to alleged official
misconduct of some years ago, seem to have been inspired by BroAvn's
belief that they would serA^e in the defence of himself and associates
against complaints for which he thought Fox and Hussey responsible.
30
/ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
It is .probable that the atijcntion of the Department would never have
been called to these charges were it not for the fact that Inspector Hussey is on duty with Special Agent Fox at the district attorney's office,
while Inspectors BroAvn, Donohue, and Harrigan report to Special
Agent Ayer at the custom-house.
" There is not good feeling between the offices of these two special
agents, and this prevents them from working together ih the best interests of the public serAd.ce.
We learn from the steamship companies that they find no ground for
complaint because of legal proceedings during the last year and a half,
but they desire a discontinuance of what they deem vexatious suits
brought prior to that time and now pending. Eegarding these suits we
have made no inquirj^, as they are within the control of the district attorney. , A list of seizures made by Inspector Brown and associates was handed
to us, with the statement that they were not accompanied by arrests.
This charge was evidently made through misapprehension, as the evidence shows a considerable number of arrests and the iiunishment of the
guilty parties. This misapprehension may have arisen from reports of
a number of seizures of articles not on the manifest which were found
by the officers in searching the shiii. In such cases no person could be
held for smuggling. The records, however, also shoAv that no seizures
Avere made by these officers from August 21 to December 24, 1884, a
period of foui" months, while it is in evidence that the smuggling of
cigars was going on during that time. (See testimony of John Collins,
page'3.)
The claim of the steamship companies that they make CA^ery effort to
stop smuggling by their employes, but are not supported by the customs
officers, is met by the statement that certain, of their officers, notably
liursers, are retained in their employ, although engaged in illicit trade. ^
It is not clear, hoAvever, that knowledge of this has been brought home
to the responsible officers of.the companies.
We believe Inspectors BroAvn and Donohue to be efficient officers, who
have rendered good service to the Government. Officer Harrigan is
said to have been a smuggler some years ago, when emiiloj^ed upon the
steamers; but if this Avere true, and without discussing the policy of his,
emi3lo3nnent, Ave are not convinced that he has failed in his duty during
his service in the customs. He is skilful in the nianagement of a boat,
and it is in this capacity, in the lower bay, Avhere cigar-smuggling is
chiefly cariied on, that lie has done-good work.
Inspector Hussey has a A^ariegated record of appointment to and dismissals from the, custonis service, running through morethan fifteen
years. His appointments seem to have been iiolitical, as were some of
his removals. In one instance, however, he says he was dismissed for
bringing ashore for his own use four gallons of gin without payment of
duty, an act fbr Avhich he claims abundant Avarrant in the iiractice in
those days of his superior officers. His latest removal Avas made upon
the recommendation of Special Agent Adams, who states- that he dis-^
pensed Avith Hussey's seivices because of his general bad character and
of a specific charge Avhich was not iiroA^ed. (See testimony,-iiage 38.)
liussey is an energetic officer, with considerable detective ability,
vfhich he has used on occajSion for the benefit of the serAdce. A notable
instance of this kind is found in his .seizure, in January last, aided by
Inspector Keely, of a quantity of cigai'S, smuggled from the steamer
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
31
^'Newport" by one Caution, a notorious smuggler, Avho was promptly
arrested and convicted. It appears from the testimony, (pages 77 and
86,) that on the s.ame day, and before the cigars left the vessel, she had
been searched by-Officers Brbwii and Harrigan.
The charges of official misconduct of Special Agent Fox at this port
we think are not proved. We are unable to iuA'-estigate his official acts
at Detroit some 3'ears ago; and of this there is no need, as all the facts
relating to the matter mentioned in Mr. Brown's charges are presumed
to be of record at the Department.
.
• .
In closing the report, we beg to call attention to what we believe to
be a needed change in certaiii administrative practices. The ispectors
above named do not report direct to the collector, who is the chief officer
of the port, but to difi'erent chiefs, neither of whom is an administrative
officer. In our opinion, the officers upon the duty ^named should be
under the general superAdsion of the collector. ^ It is no part of the duties
of siiecial agents to maintain administrative clepartments independent
of the collector. The latter is responsible for the due enforcement of
the customs laws at his port, and this responsibility implies that he has
control of subordinate officers, and that their reports should come to
him. A skilled and intelligent special agent will find much work at
hand of more importance than the supervision of a cor]is of inspectors
engaged in searching vessels and the detection of iietty smuggling. We
take occasion to renew the suggestion made in a former report, that the
siiecial agents' force at this port be consolidated under one competent
and responsible head. It will then be freed from existing jealousies;
there Avill be less working at cross purposes, and the public service will
be the gainer. We also recommend that Officers Brown, Donohue, Harrigan, and Hussey be relieved from duty at the special agents' offices,
and ordered to report to the collector for assignment to duty.
'
If emplo3^6s of the steamship companies are found engaged in or abetting smuggling, the latter should be at once advised by the collector of
the ofience, and the name of the offender. If such employ^ is then retained by the companies, they will have no reason to complain if suits
are brought against the masters of their vessels. It is presumed, however that the GoA^ernment and the officers of the steamshiii companies,
thus, brought together and inspired with mutual confidence, will be
found Avorking together to enforce the laAv.
We return the charges of Mr. Brown and enclose the testimony taken
in the case.
o
^
'
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Special Agents.
Secretary of the Treasury.
•
'
3§
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
INVESTIGATIONS AT' NEW YORK BY SPECIAL
AG-ENTS INTO UNDERVALUATIONS, DAMAGE'
ALLOWANCES, AND DRAWBACK.
No. 1.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Neio York, February 21, 1885.
S I R : A t t h e time of and ^ directly folloAving our assignment, under
Department letter of the 17th ultimo, as a commission to inA=^estigate
matters relating to the special agents' of&ce here, it was prominently
announced in the public press of our principal cities that our instructions
contemplated a wide field of inquiry, afi'ecting the different departments
of the customs service at this port.
Such prominence was given to the announcement that our investigations Avould relate chiefly to the administratiAT^e measures and methods
here respecting the undervaluation and improper classification of imported merchandise, and to irregularities as to damage alloAvances, as
to lead to general discussion of these subjects in the public prints and
trade circles of the country, and to some extent abroad. In consequence
of such publications and discussion during the progress of .our investigations, forming the subject of our report of the 19th instant, both
consular and customs officers, the United States district attorney here,
as well as importers and other private parties, here and elsewhere, have
in person, priA^ately and otherwise, sought to bring to our attention and
action maii3^ matters of consequence affecting the administration of the
customs laAVS at this port, the conduct of customs officers, &(3.
' The investigation of these matters not being authorized by oui^ instructions, we have deemed it proper to indicate to 3^011*their general character, for such, action as may be deemed proper by the Department, viz :
United States Attorney Eoot has called our attention to matters indi- , eating laxity on the part of >certain customs officers in reporting to him
-cases against masters of vessels on which unmanifested cigars and other
articles have been seized, and Avhere, it is thought, proper steps have
not been taken to secure the proofs necessaiy, as w^ell as to secure the
arrest and pntiishment of the parties actually guilty of smuggling.
I h e district attorney has also called our attention to inlbrmation indicating collusion on the part of certain customs officers with smugglers, .
and has suggested that we make the matter the subject of eaii^^ and
thorough inqiiirj^
It has been reported to us by an ofiicer of the Department that an
officer from the collector's of&ce bn duty at the Barge office devotes
much of his attention, on the arrival of passenger-steamers from foreign
ports to exchanging oux currency for foreign money, at large discount,
with arriving passengers, including immigrants.
Information giving rise to suspicion of irregularities in connection
Avitli allowances for drawback on exported bags has come to us from a
source deemed reliable.
We enclose herewith a communication, dated the 5tli instant, with
two enclosures, from the United States consul at Bradford, England,
containing serious charges agaiiist Assistant Appraiser Wickham, and
conveying information he has communicated from time to time with respect to undervaluations, and suggesting inquiry as to the action Avhich
\ m been fallen upon the same,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.33
Private letters from other consular officers have come to us with
similar suggestions as to the treatment of information they haA^^e communicated either to the collector, appraiser, or special agents.
It has been represented to us that serious irregularities liaA^e prevaUed
in allowances for damage to imported merchandise.
Importers of certain classes of merchandise have complained to tiS
that competing houses have been allowed to pass their importations at
gross undervaluation, notwithstanding they haA^e fiirnished the proper
officers irrefragible proof to that effect.
It has been stated to us that the same identical class of goods has been
classified widely difierent for dutiable purposes when.coming to different
importers.
We are of the opinion that our inability to take up and iiiA^estigate
certain of these and other matters brought to our notice has inspired
some, at least, of the many unfriendly criticisms of the Department and
of ourselves, with respect to our assignment, which have recently appeared in the public press of this city.
.
'
Very respectfiilly,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. H U G H ]\IcCuLLOcn,
Special Agents.
Secnetary of the Treasury.
No. 2.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, February 24, 1885.
are instructed to continue the iuA^estigation of
irregularities in the customs service at the port of New York, and Avill
report to the Department as soon as practicable the result of your inquiries in regard to undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances,
drawbacks, and such other irregular practices at said port as may come
to your notice. You will submit separate reports as soon as convenient
upon each subject examined.
Special Agent A. K. Tingle has been instructed to co-operate with
you in this investigation.
Yery respectfiilly,
H. McCULLOCH,
GEO. 0. TICHENOR, O . L . SPAULDING,
•
Secretary.
Special Agents, New York, N. Y.
GENTLEMEN: YOU
No. 3.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, February 24, 1885.
S I R : You are hereby instructed to join Special Agents Tichenor and
Spaulding in the investigation of undervaluations, damage alloAvances,
drawbacks, and other irregularities at the port of New York, in accordance with instructions to those officers contained in Department letter
of this date..
Yery repectfully,
H. McCULLOCH,
Mr. A. K. TINGLE,
Seci-etary.
Special Agentj Treasury Bepatimeiit
3 A
•4
3
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-OF THE TREASUBY.
• N o . 4,
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K CITY,
'
Collector's Office, March 21, 1885.
SIR : We have the honor to transmit hercAvith a communication addressed to us, under date of the 9th instant, by Messrs. Wm. Pickhardt
& Kuttraff, importers of this city, complaining of the action of ihe
appraiser's department at this port with respect to the rate of duty
assessed upon their importations of so-called ''alizarine assistant" or:
**oleate of soda," as AA^CU as of delay in passing recent importations of
such merchandise.
Deeming the matter within the scope of our instructions of the 24th
ultimo, we, upon receipt of the above communication, called Appraiser
Ketchum's attention thereto, and were informed by him that upon conference with Assistant Appraiser Gregg, prcA^ous to our visit, he had
taken the matter into his own hands for action, and Avould at once pass
the merchandise in accordance Avith the Department's recent decision
upon the subject.
We at the same time conferred with Assistants Appraiser Gregg, Avho
Avas quite decided i n his opinion that the article in question was not entitled to classification as a chemical compound under the' proA^isions of
the existing tariff', but v/as liable to duty as castor-oil, under section 2499,
EcAdsed Statutes. He described the article as a ''chemical niixtui'c,''
composed of sulpho recinoleate of soda and castor-oil, and held that
Avhen these constituents were combined positive coiwersion did not occur, the castor-oil being simply dissolved and remaining in such condition as that it could be reclaimed b^^ the simple process of boiling Avith
a Aveak acid, although he did not contend that Avhen so reclaimed it
Avould have all the characteristic traits ofthe castor-oil of commerce.
Dr. H. M. Baker, chemist in the laboratory attached to the appraisers' .
department, informed us that he had made numerous anal^^ses of the
articles, and had given the same ca]:eful study Avithin the year past and
recently, that he was clearly of the opinion that it was a chemical compound, and that it Avoiild be utterly impossible, by any IsinoAvn process,
to recover the castor-oil used in its preparatioii in condition to be available for use as castor-oil of commerce.
Yery respectftdly,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
.
O. L. SPAULDING,,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Special Agents.
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
No. 5.
N E W YORK, March 23, 1885.
SIR : Among other irregular practices claiming our attention at this
port, the system of paymentof drawbacks upon exported bags has been
carefully examined, and we now have the honor to submit th e foUoAving
report thereon:
.
Section 3019 of the EcAdsed Statutes provides that ''there shall be
aUoAved oii all articles Avholly manufactured of niaterials imported on
Avhich duties haA^e been paid, Avhen exported, a drawback equal in
amount to the duty paid on such niaterials, and no more, to be ascertained under such regulations as, shall be prescribed by the Secretary of
the Treasury. Ten per cent, on the amount of all drawbacks so allowed
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
36
shall, however, be retained for the use bf the United States by the collectors paying such drawbacks respectively."
The general regulations of 1884 (article 967) require that the entry in
such cases, describing the goods by marks, numbers, description, quantity, and value, shall be filed with the collector at least six hours .before
lading any of the merchandise on board the exporting vessel. Article
968 provides that the proceedings after entry is filed shall be the same
as in cases of withdrawal from warehouse for exportation. These proceedings are set forth in article 750 of the Eegulations, which prescribes
the form of permit for inspection of the goods and the lading on board
the exporting vessel, as well as the form of the return of the inspector
Avhose duty it is to examine the goods and certify to then identity with
the description set forth in the entry, and to the fact that they were
actually laden under his superAdsion on board the exporting vessel.
This certificate implies that the statements it contains as to the character, quality, and quantity of the goods, as well as the lading, were all
Avithin the personal knowledge of the inspector.
" When dutiable goods are imported they are not allowed to pass from
the custody of the Government until the duties are paid. When exported in the original packages, for benefit of drawback, they are subj ect
' to certain restrictive regulations, and the law especially provides (section 3025) that no return of duty shall be allowed on the export of any
merchandise after it has been removed from the custody and control of
the Governnient, except in certain cases, one of which is provided for
in section 3019, under which drawback on bags made of imported burlaps
has been claimed and allOAved.
When it is found that the regulations applicable to the importation
of merchandise^ and the collection of duties thereon, and the exportation ofmerchandise from warehouse are necessary, and none too restrictive for the protection of the GoA^ernment, it would seem that the exportation of manufactured goods upon which money is paid frpm the
Treasury by way of drawback should be made under regulations not
less guarded and restrictive.
The Department has, upon application of interested parties, modified
the drawback regulations in certain particulars applicable to the exportation of bags.
. A large proportion of these drawbacks are claimed and allowed upon
bags containing flour exported from western States upon through bills
of lading to Europe. The shipments arrive at New York and other
Atlantic ports at irregular and unstated intervals, and it was found that
it was often impossible to determine six hours in advance of lading
upon what vessel they were to be exported or in what quantity. The
amount of drawback upon a single shipment was so insignificant that
the owners of the flour were not usually disposed to incur the trouble
and expense invoh'-ed in making a drawback under regulations.
The difficulties in the way of a strict compliance with the regulations
led to their modification and to the establishment of the folloAv^ing
practice:
Custom-house brokers, who had neither OAvnership of the flour nor
the bags, were alloAved to make entry as exporters of the bags upon the
presentation at the custom-house of duplicate bills of lading unindorsed
and niarked across the face "for custom-house purposes only," such
bills of lading being the through bills to European ports. Thus, it
would occur that, while the manifest of the exporting vessel shoAved
that a certain number of bags df flour had been shipped by certain, par
36
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ties, there would be nothing on the manifest to indicate that the bags
on which the drawback Avas claimed had beeri exported by the party
claiming and receiving the drawback. The broker was allowed to take
the exporter's oath, when, in point of fact, the article was exported by
another person, as shown by the custom-house records. The entry in
these cases was made for a larger number of bags than it was expected
would be shipped. The form of entry used by the brokers usually had
printed in it ^'five thousand bags—7,500 yards of burlaps." Upon
filing the entry, which was often done some days prior to the arrival
of the flour from the West, an order to inspect and superintend the
lading Avas issued and delivered to the inspector. Upon the arrival
and shipment of the merchandise, return was made to the draAvback
bureau of the number of bags shipped, which was then inserted in.the
entry in lieu of the number originally entered. When it occurred, as
it frequently did, that the goods were not shipped by the vessel 'or to
the port originally named, the entry in this parlicular was chan^ d, by
consent of the di^awback entry clerk, who put his check upon the altered
paper bearing the signature of the deputy collector, Avho, however, was'
not cognizant of such change. The affidavit of the exporter was also
changed by inserting the name of a different vessel or port from that
set forth in the original oath, and no new oath was administered, thus
destroying its validity, and resulting in the exportation of merchandise
and payment of drawback without an exporter's oath. ThiS/practice
is one of long standing, and continued at the time of our investigation. «
An examination of seventeen drawback entries of flour-bags made on
one day showed that eight of the affidavits had been thus changed. A
like practice was found to a limited extent in the exportatioii of sugar
and tin. cans, it appearing that the brokers and the officers immediately
in charge of draAvback entries regarded these changes in completed
papers as immaterial.
Other modifications of the regulations affecting the exportation of
bags for drawback permit the shipment of the merchandise upoh inspection orders in advance of entry, and the combining by a broker of a
number of claims of several parties in one entry witmn thirty days after
the sailing of the exporting vessel or vessels.
- Another modification dispenses with the requirement that the manufacturer's affidavit covering proof of manufacture of the merchandise
from duty-paid materials shall accompany each entry, and allows the
filing of such aifiidavit in the custom-house, or the certificate of a collector of another port that such affidavit is on file in his office, the shipments being checked off against the importations covered by these
affidavits or cei'tificates as they occur.
The surveyor's department is charged with the work of supervising
the inspection and shipment of all merchandise exported for drawback,
and there is a separate division in his office, called the '^debenture bu-'
reau," through which all export orders pass. The draAvback orders are
entered upon a register, and are issued to the several inspectors assigned
to debenture duty in turn as the orders come in. It appears, however,
that the four inspectors hitherto employed on this work have divided
between themselves the scA^eral classes of drawback entries, and that
for the last eighteen months, under this arrangement, Inspector W. S.
Copland has practicaUy made all the returns of the examination and
lading of exported bags.
A M l inquiry into the methods of this officer disclosed the fact that
he has not, as a rule, actually examined 'the merchandise or sux)ervised
EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
37
the lading thereof, but that he has been in the habit of obtaining the
information from which his returns were made up from clerks of the
transportation companies after the shipment of the goods.
The materials from which these bags are made vary in quality and
price, and no proper examination is made to determine the number or
quality of the exported articles, or whether they are of domestic or foreign manufacture; nor are the bags so marked that they may be identified in case of reimportation. Although the form of entry prescribed
by the regulations indicates that marks, numbers, and descriptions
must be therein set forth, the entry anddnspection order contain no information of this character, except the number of bags proposed to be
shipped, and this is always suppositious.
One instance came to our notice of an entry for drawback at the port
of Baltimore of cotton bags containing flour, entered for drawback as
bags made of foreign buiiaps. The fact that the material was cotton
could only, have been discovered by actual inspection, which we find is
not usually made at this port. It appeared in another case that entry
was made and drawback collected some weeks after the exportation of
the goods. In another case the entry Avas made and the inspection order
issued on June 17,1884, some days before the goods were actually shipped
from the West. From an examination of the return of the inspector, it
appears that it was first made on June 19, before the goods left Chicago
and St. Louis, and afterwards changed to July 19. These instances are
cited to illustrate the danger of dispensing with any of the safeguards
provided by the general regulations, and the necessity for absolute
fidelity on the part of the officers intrusted with the duty of inspection
and shipment.
•
Burlaps made of jute are imported in large quantities, and are used
for wrappings of all kinds. We are informed that but a small proper-,
tion of the whole quantity imported are used for flour-bags. Large
numbers of bags which have been exported are reimported free as of
American origin, or as having been originally imported duty-paid.
Some bags so-reimported are known to have contained flour on exportation. These bags go into consumption in this country, and many of
them are in a condition to be, and we are told are, again used for the
exportation of flour.
It appears from the records of the custom-house that no duties are
ever paid on returned bags. * A few instances have occurred where
duties were exacted, but a refund was subsequently ordered by the
Department.
There are a number of jute-mills in this country engaged in the manufacture of buiiaps, much of which is made into bags. Being of the same
material, they cannot be distinguished from bags made of imported
burlaps.
The form of drawback entry prescribed by the regulations^ontains
an affidavit of the proprietor and foreman ofa bag factory, showing that
the materials entering into the manufacture of the bags described in the
entry were imported and made into bags at such factory, giving also
full particulars as to marks, numbers, description of material, by whom
imported* name of vessel, date and port of importation, whence imported, and quantity. The oath of the exporter corroborates this affidavit and states that duties were paid on such material, and that no
part of such duties have been refunded. When the entry is presented
at the custom-house, the import entry referred to in the affidavit is
DB
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF -THE TREASURY.
examined and the fact ascertained that such importation Avaci niade.
This chain of CA^idence, the.affidavits being accepted as true, is sufficient
prima facie proof in cases where articles manufactui-ed from foreign
materials are exported direct from the factory, and the affiants haA^e the
means of knoAving that the goods are the identical articles manufactured
under their direction; but in the case of bags Avhich have been sold to
third parties,, have been transported thousands of miles and filled with
floui*, having thus virtually gone into consumption in this country, it is
impossible that the manufacturers can know that they are the same bags
sold by them months before. If they made actual inspection of the bags
exported, Avhich they do not, the persons AVIIO make these affidavits
coAild not knoAv that the bags were made at iheir factory unless there
Avas some distinguishing mark upon them, which is not alwa3'S the case,
as some of the flour manufacturers will not buy bags Avith such marks.
It is obvious, thereibre, that as the proprietor and foreman do not see
the bags after they leave their factory, they cannot know that the bagis
entered for export were manufactured by them from imported bmiapSj
or that they were not made fxom domestic buiiaps. It will be readily
seen that the officers of the drawback bureau, Avho did not regard an
alteration in an affidavit after it had been signed and sworn to as
material, would not be apt to inquire as to the means of knowledge pos
sessed by the persons making such manufacturers' affidaAdts. .
By the modified regulations, the proof of manufacture from foreign
materials, and the identification of these materials with the exported
articles, may be filed at the custom-house prior to the entry. In these
cases—and this is now the usual practice—the affidavit coA^ers an importation of fbreign burlaps and identifies them with bags sold to parties
named, usually the miller shipi ing the flour. The miller who knows
whether the bags used for the shipment are those bought from this
particular manihhcturer, and who is the OAvner and exporter, is the
only person really entitled to make entry for drawback, is hot required
to complete the chain of CAadence by his oath, or other competent testi
mon^^ The affidavit of the manufacturer is regarded as sufficient, and
the drawback clerk checks off the shipments as they come in, until the
number of bags embraced therein is exhausted.
If it Avere a fact that all export bags are made from foreign burlaps,
it might be urged that the identity of the bags shipped with any given
importation of burlaps was not necessary fbr the protection of the GOA^-^
ernment, but when it is considered that large numbers of export bags
are made from domestic burlaps, it is evident that t^he present practi ce
invites fraud.
Imported jute bags pay a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem. One of
the largest European manufacturers of this article, we are informed, is
the firm of Morrison, Anderson & Butchart, of Dundee, Scotland. They
bring the jute from India to Dundee and there manufacture burlaps and
bags. Since the present modified regulations have been in force this
firm has transferred to this countiy the finishing process in making bags
for sale in the United States. They import the buiiaps manufactured
by .them in Scotland, paying.a duty of 30 per cent, thereon, have them
made up into bags at a tiifiing additional cost, and sell the bags to
the millers for consumption as Avell as export. Upon those exported
they obtain a drawback of the duties paid, less 10 per cent., so that the
duty paid on the bags thus sold for export is only 3 per cent, ad A'-alorem.
They are thus placed in a position of great advantage so far as the con-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
39
trol of the sale of bags in the United States is concerned. "While they
have clearly this right under th<e law as it has been heretofbre construed,
it is the duty of the officers of the Government, charged Avith the protection of its interests, to see to it that the regulations under which
these draAvbacks are paid are not so loosely drawn and administered as
to imperil those interests as well as to defeat the object of the drawback
law. It is Avorthy of consideration whether the bags have not already
gone into consumption Avheii filled with flour Avhich may be sold at home
as well as abroad. They are a mere envelope of the principal article,
are not then merchandise but an incident employed as a convenient
means of transportation. The wear and tear of bags begin the moment
the flour is put into them, and if exported they have already been in
use in the United States fbr weeks and perhaps months before shipment
abroad. Iu this view of the case, it may be doubted Avhether they come
within the intent of the drawback laAv in the absence of specific mention.,
Is not the laAv properly construed by limiting its application to articles
shipped abroad to be sold as merchandise in the condition in which they
are manufactured'?
In regard to the practical administration of the drawback regulations
at this port, it should be stated that besides the acceptance by the drawback bureau of entries and affidavits altered by erasure as hereinbefore
mentioned, the inspector has been in the habit of delivering to brokers
making entries his orders for inspection and lading. His return is
filled up by the broker, with the particulars as to the number and size
of bags shipped, from information obtained from the transportation
companies, either direct or through the inspector, so that the entire
transaction, so fiar as it gOA^erns the amount of drawback paid, is carried
thrbugh by the brokers receiving vSuch drawback.
The officers in the scA^eral departments of the custom-house responsible for the long continuance of the ii'regularities shown in this
report cannot be held blameless. Some of them appear to be more
zealous in the interests of the brokers obtaining these drawbacks than
to protect the Government from illegal payments.
We have called the attention bf the collector, naval officer, and surveyor, to these irregularities and to the conduct of the officers responsible therefor in the several departments.
The oral testimony taken in this matter relates also in some degree
to drawbacks on articles other than bags, notably sugar. We expect
further evidence as to drawbacks on sugar, as well as other merchandise, and will subniit all the testiriiony taken Avith a general report on
°drawbacks as soon as practicable, unless it is desired by the Department that the testimony taken as to bags shall be forwarded at once.
We regard the irregularities developed in this branch of the subject oi
so flagrant a character as to demand an immediate repbrt.
Yery respectfally,
GEO. C. TICHNQE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
40
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF. THE TREASURY.
No. 6
.
N E W YORK, April 10, 1885.
S I R : Continuing the investigation of the methods of conducting the
customs business at this port, we haA^e given careful consideration to
thesubject of undervaluation. While there is no doubt that t h e i n ,
voices of all classes of merchandise consigned to the United States for
sale on foreign account are as a rule undervalued, this is notably true as
to silk goods. During the past ten years since the repeal of former
restrictive and penal provisions of the revenue laws, a system of successful evasion of duties on silks has been gradually built up and established.
This system of evasi9n has been a subject of frequent investigation and
report^ at home and' abroad. It is a matter of common notoriety in
offlcial and mercantile circles. No one familiar with the silk trade here
or in Europe will contend for a moment that consigned silks are honestly
imported into this country.
Many efibrts haA^e been made to secure the proper and uniform ap- '
praisement of silks, but with only partial and temporary success. With
the exception of occasional purchases of noA^elties in the European
markets, all imported goods of this character come consigned to commission merchants, either for sale on foreign account or for delivery to
a pui'chaser Avho has bought them abroad at what is known as a "dollar
price''.—that is, a price in United States currency—the goods to be delivered here, duties, freight, and charges paid, as distinguished from a
price in the currency of the country where the goods are purchased.
Manufacturers Avho ship their products regularly to this countiy, while
they refuse to name what is known as a ''franc" price to American
buyers, will readily take orders for deliA^ery here in the manner stated.
American importing firms of the highest standing and credit cannot
buy silks fbr cash in the fbreign markets and import them on their own
account.
An essential feature of the cohsignment system is the concealment of
the actual foreign market value, so that customs officers may haA^e no
standard by Avhich to make appraisements. The greatest care is exercised in Lyons, Zurich, and other principal silk markets to prevent the
prices at which sales are made to European buyers from becoming known
to any one Avho might possibly disclose them to persons connected with
the Anierican customs. So universal is this practice of concealment
that there is no longer any such thing known to American buyers or
customs officers as the actual market value or wholesale price of silk
goods in the principal m^rket^ of the countries of production; and*
this, to a great extent, is true also of kid gloA^es, laces, embroideries,
and other articles, which are almost exclusively imported by consignment instead of purchase.
^ The only foreign A-alues known are those nominal values expressed in
the invoices which are made up and used for customs purposes only.
These values seldom cover the cost of the materials and labor used in
producing the goods. The knowledge of iuA^oice A-alues is confined to
shippers, their American agents, and the Government officials through
whose hands the papers pass. The great body of American houses dealing in these goods and on Avhom the appraising officers w^ould naturally
depend for correct infbrmation of actual values, know nothing of the
subject beyond the selling prices in our markets, and these they are reluctant to disclose, The home market value, Avhen. it ca.n bQ as.cei:taine.d?j
EEPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
41
has therefore become an element for consideration in appraisements,
instead of the foreign market value which is the legal basis fbr the assess-^
ment of duties. EA'^CU the home value is concealed from the appraising
officers as far as practicable.
In a recent case, where an invoice of silk goods had been ordered by
a New York merchant for delivery here at a dollar price, the commission merchant who Avas the medium through whom the delivery was to
be made, and who entered the goods at a manifest undervaluation, refused to disclose t h e / ' d o l l a r price," although so required by the
appraiser, under the proAdsions of section 2922 of the Eevised Statutes.
The extent to which specific invoices are undervalued depends upon
the audacity of the shipper and the degree of confidence ha has in the
ability of his NewYork agent to pass the goods through the appraiser's
office Avithout incurrihg penal duties. The only risk to be apprehended
under the law as it has been administered for years past is the advance
of A-alue upon appraisement.
Foreign shippers and their NewYork agents do not appear to regard
this method pf .CA^ading duties as in any degree unlawful. We enclose
a list (marked A) of invoices advanced beyond 10 per cent, for the
months of December, 1884, January, and a part of February, 1885.
None of these cases have been referred to the district attorney for such
action as he might deem proper. It is the practice of the collector's
office, in case of adA-ances to a penalty, to waive a seizure and accept
additional duty. The importer has thus come to understand that in
undervaluing his merchandise he runs neither the risk of criniinal prosecution nor of losing his goods. His object appears to be to enter his
merchandise as low as possible and escape a 10 per cent, advance. But
if such advance is made, he is sure of no punishment beyond the 20
per cent, additional duty.
Attention is called to the frequent recurrence of undervaluations by
thesame importers; the advances range from 12 per cent, to more than
100 per cent. We also invite attention to Schedule B, showing advances of less than 10 per cent, during the months of October and November, 1884, and to the frequent repetition of the names of the same
importers on this list. A remarkable feature of these advances is that
so many of tbem are just a shade under 10 per cent.: For example, in
eighteen invoices of one firm the advances ranged from 9.02 to 9.99 per
cent., showing that the appraising ofiicers, in passing the goods, apparently made careful computations with special reference to the penalty
line, and this, too, on goods about which the best experts rarely agree
within 5 per cent, of tlie value. Duiing the three months ending December 31,1884, more than twenty-two hundred invoices were advanc'ed
on appraisements, two-thirds of which were invoices of forty of the
leading houses receiAdng consigned goods, chiefiy silks, for sale on foreign account.
The act of June 22, 1874, provides "that it shall be the duty of any
bfficer or person employed in the customs-revenue service of the United
States, upon detection of any violation of the customs laws, forthAvith
to make complaint thereof to the collector of the district, whose duty
it shall be proraptly to report the same to the district attorney of the
district in which such frauds shall be committed."
It is not claimed that the advance of an occasional invoice indicates
fraudulent intent of the importer, but when he persistently and uniformly enters his goods at an undervaluation, it i^ CAddent that he is
42
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF ^ THE TREASURYi-
not deterredfi^oman unlawful practice by the possible addition of penal
duty.' In such cases the law should be invoked, and the habitual under-valuer made to know that the practice endangers, not only his property,
but his personal liberty and his reputation. Such action, if taken,
would, it is belicA^ed, be more effectual than any other means Avhich
could be adopted to break up the practice. The courts are open and
the law is plain. If,' for any reason, it fails in its practical administration, that is not for the custonis officer to consider. That these cases
have not been reported is probably due to the belief of the customs
officers that, oAving to the prOAdsions of section 16 of the act referred to,'
successftil prosecutions could not be maintained. But, in our opinion,
the collector should follow the plai n letter of the law in making his
report, leaving the consequences to the district attorney and the courts.
Whenever, as at the present time, undervaluations have become so
flagrant as to call for special inquiry by the Department, the agents of
fbreign shippers, Avhile defending Avith vigor the integrity of particular
invoices in Avhich they have an interest, ft'ankly admit the general
practice of undervaluing and deplore its demoralizing and injurious
effect upon trade. They profess a desire for the adoption of some measure fbr the suppression of the evil—the means generally suggested being
specific instead of ad valorem duties—so that all foreign manufacturers
sending goods here fbr sale may be placed on equal footing. Under the
present system, they say, the manufacturers are ahvays cutting each
other's throats. No matter how low one may invoice his goods, and thus
be enabled to lower his selling price to the extent of the duties saved,
another can undersell him by simply invoicing his goods a few centimes
loAver. The 50 per cent, duty imposed by law on silk goods affords the
European shipper a convenient sliding scale,' by which he may measure
his prices up or down, according to the conditions of trade and the coni;
petitive underA^aluation of his neighbors.
As a measure towards the correction of values, the consuls at Lyons,
Zurich, and Horgen have been authorized to employ experts to examine
and report the cost of labor and materials used in producing the goods
shipped ft-om their districts. These reports are made regularly; those
ft'om Horgen and Zurich include all the iuA^oices certified by the consuls. Only a small proportion of the invoices sent from Lyons are reported upon in detail as to cost of production; but Avhen this is not done,
the consul reports the market A-alue. An examination of these reports
vshows clearly that invoice prices are fixed arbitrarily by the shippers,
Avithout referehceto market value or cost of production. The difference
b^tAveen iuA^oice prices and the cost of labor and materials varies largely,
reaching in some cases 50 per cent., Avhile in others it may be as low as
1 per cent. There is no approach to uniformity of A-alue of goods of
the same quality from different manufacturers. As one Swiss manufacturer expressed it, "the invoicing is largely a matter of conscience."
No sales being made, the shipper iuA^oices his goods at whatever price
he pleases.
Honest merchants, excluded from the foreign markets by the operations of this system, are emphatic in denouncing such methods, but they
are powerless to remedy the evil. Not only are they prevented from
importing, but they are forbidden, by an unwritten but inexorable law,
laid down by the agents of foreign shippers, to disclose to Government
officers the prices paid for goods, or other information which might aid
in determining the -actual values of merchandise. If a merchant, know
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
43
ing the iniquities of the system, gives information whereby an invbice
is advanced, and the source of such inlbrmation becomes known, he is
boycotted by the firm involved, and loses caste with all the conimission
houses in the same line of business. He is made to feel that, so far as
such houses are concerned, he is not entitled to ordinary business courtesies. The merchant who thought to preform a duty as a good citizen,
by exposing the methods by which the Treasury is robbed by foreigners, and honest merchants crowded out of business, finds himself embarrassed and annoyed in his business, and suffers pecuniary loss. One
such lesson is sufficient to prevent a repetition of this business indiscretion, and thus an important aA^enue of information is closed to the
officers of the Government. So it is when a merchant, acting as merchant appraiser, in good faith advances an invoice, or when as a witness
on reappraisement he gives testimony as to values resulting in the
imposition of penal duties. He is reproached by the importer with
having done him an injury, and his business relations with all the
undervaluing houses are disturbed. It will be seen from the foregoing
that-'the task of the officers charged with the duty of appraising these
goods is not an easy one. It is certain that under the system, or Avant
of system, which has long prevailed in the appraiser's department,
full values of consigned goods haA^e not obtained. The enclosed abstracts of the consuls' reports (Enclosures C to K, inclusive) upon silks '
sliipped from Lyons, Horgen, and Zurich, and the appraised values of
the same, in the month of October, November, and December, 1884,
present, in our judgment, a fair indication of the aA-erage undervaluation
of silks. It appears from the reports that the—
'
Francs.
Total invoice value of silks sMpped from the consular districts of Hogen
and Zuricli during the said period was
The importers' additions on entry were
The appraisers' additions to make market value amounted to
The cost of labor and materials was
To this should be added 10 per cent, to cover waste insurance, interest,
and incidental expenses to reach actual cosb of production, namely..
4,484,051.35
190, 825. 47
198, 369. 01
5, 022, 369. 00
502, 236. 90
Making the total cost of production
5,524, 605. 90
The difference between the cost of production and invoice value is
(equal to about 23 per cent.)
1,040, 554. 55
The additions by the importer and appraiser to make market value
are about 8J per cent., leaving 14i per cent, of this difference upon
which no duty was paid.
Applying these percentages to the entire importations of silk at this
port fbr the year 1884, the following appears to be a fair statement of
the case:
The entered value, including additions by importers, as shown by
statistical reports, was....
.$30,494,797 00
Thecostof production would be
Invoice value....
Difference
Additions by importer and appraiser
Excess ofcost ofproduction over amount on which duty was paid,
$35,979,473 .00
29,251,604 00
6, 727, 869 00
2,486,388 00
4,241, 481 00
44
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
If we add no more than 5 per cent, to the cost of production for the
manufacturer's profit, we will have
Making an undervaluation of.
And a loss in duties of. •
•
•
$1,798,969 00
6, 040,450 00
3, 020, 225 00
Since the passage of the tariff act of 1883, the appraising officers
have had ample power to measurably arrest undervaluations by appraising the goods at not less than cost of production, as provided by
sectioii 9 of said act, but they do not appear, except in rare instances,
to have exercised this power. The consular reports have come regularly to the appraiser during the last eighteen months. They have
furnished a fair basis for the proper ascertainment of the cost of production, but they have not been given full credit by the examiners.
While errors haA^e been discoA^ered in some of the reports from Lyons,
the, correctness of those from Zurich and Horgen has been successfully
disputed.' Well-informed domestic manufacturers, to whom the calculations of these experts have been si^bmitted, have pronounced them too
low; they are known to be made upon a conservatiA'e basis, the benefit
of every doubt being given to the shipper. There would seem to be no
valid reason, thereibre, for the failure of the appraising officers to avail
themselves fully of the information thus furnished; but they appear to
have given greater weight to the representations of interested parties,
and to have appraised goods at less than the cost of production.
One of the chief difficulties in the suppression of undervaluations is
found in the method of reappraisement prevailing at this port. The
list offiA^enames sent by the appraiser to the collector, from which selection is made of a merchant appraiser, is composed in part, sometimes
wholly, of firms engaged in the consignment business whose invoices
are habitually undervalued. It is true that the names of domestic manufacturers and importers who do not receive consigned goods are also
included in these lists, but the majority of the names are those of houses
above described. The deputy eoliector who, previous to January last,
made the appointments of merchant appraisers, states that he regarded
it as unfair to select a domestic manufacturer to appraise imported
goods; besides, he had received formal protests from the importers
against such appointments, and these he regarded as sufficient reason
for ruling out domestic manufacturers. He appears, however, to have
considered it no impropriety to appoint the agents of foreign manufacturers whose iuA^oices of like goods were constantly undervalued and
subjects of reappraisements.
^
When it is understood that the general appraiser possesses little or no
expert knoAvledge of the quality or value of merchandise, that the merchant appraisers usually appointed are agents of foreign manufacturers,
and the witnesses called are usually in the same business, and therefore
interested in maintaining the consignment system, it is not surprising
that so little progress has been made towards reaching true values upon
reappraisements. Proper results in these cases largely depend upon
the prompt,' vigorous, and intelligent action of the general appraiser.
All advances upon invoices of 10 per cent, or more are, as a rule, appealed from. The examiners making the advances are usually better
informed than any one else as to the actual value of the merchandise.
The merchant appraiser, appointed to act with the general appraiser
' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
46
under the proAdsions of section 2930 of the Eevised Statutes, must be a
merchant in business on his own account. Gentlemen who are partners
in large firms are usually selected. Many of these have little or no expert knowledge of the merchandise to be appraiseii, they depend for in-.
formation upon the testimony adduced. The goods advanced by the
appraiser are almost ahvaj^s consigned, not purchased. The merchants
receiAdng them do not profess to have definite knowledge of the foreign
market A-alues. Their ideas of such A-alues are based upon the invoice
prices and the A-alue in the New York market. These houses do not
buy the goods abroad, and do not own them ; they simply sell them on
foreign account fbr Avhat they Avill bring. The employes of these firms
called to testify to market values do not hesitate to fix prices at or near
the invoice prices, and these prices are generally furnished to them beforehand by the importer whose invoice is under reappraisement.
When questioned, they are generally found to possess no actual knowledge of foreign market A-alue. The same witnesses appear almost daily
and give similar testimony. There are, in many cases, reports from the
consuls shoAving the cost of production, and in some instances this has
been supplemented by the testimony of domestic manufacturers and
experts. This testimony has in repeated instances been submitted to
the reappraising board, and has been disregarded, while the testimony
of emploj^fe of houses receiving consigned goods, presumably always
undervalued, has been accepted and the goods appraised at less than
cost of production, notwithstanding the provisions of the law. This,
however, does not always occur. When the merchant appraiser happens
to be a person not himself engaged in the consignment business, or one
A ^ o is not tied up by intimate business relations with firms of that
Ah
character, due credit is given to the testimony adduced ou behalf of
the GoA^ernment, and examiners adA-ances are sustained. In either case,
the general appraiser and his associate rarely differ.
The practical result of reappraisements as they have been generally
conducted is that the consignee and his business friends, each of whom
expects return favors from his associates, virtually fix the market value.
The idea seems to have been lost sight of that a reappraisement is to be
conducted in practically^ the same way as an original appraisement, and
that reappraising officers are not to rest their decisions upon testimony
obtained after the manner of law courts, regardless of their own expert
knowledge or facts procured "by all reasonable ways and means in their
poAver."
We are informed that it is not unusual for the merchant appraiser to
be known to the appealing party before taking the required, oath and
entering upon duty, and that he and witnesses are visited before the
hearing by interested parties and furnished with the invoice prices.^
Eumors have reached us that the person selected as a merchant appraiser
has been knoAvii to declare at these prelimi.nary meetings the decision he
intended to give in the case. WliateAT-er truth there may be in these
rumors, the fact that they obtain currency is a striking commentary on
existing practices. •
,
When there are several cases set fbr appraisement the same day, it is the
practice to have them all in progress at the same time. The importer and
his witnesses gather about the merchant appraiser, who, Avhen he reaches
a conclusion, consults with the general appraiser, and the decision iS'
46
RE.PORT OF THE SECRtiTARY OF THE TREAStJRY,
i.
made known in the presence of the importer and witnesses. If this is
not satisfactory tbl^he importer, he is allowed to protest and reargue the
case, with a view to the modification of the finding, in AAdiich he is often
successful. This condition of affairs suggests the wisdom and necessity
of a return to the old and legal methods of reappraisement outlined in
a circular letter of Secretary Eobert J. Walker, of Deceniber 26, 1848,
a.copy of which is enclosed, marked L. .
.
Examiners who endeavor to do their duty faithfully h j advancing invoices become discouraged after repeated failures of the appraisers to
sustain their action. In recent cases, Avhen values have been determined
upon reappraisement in the manner stated, the examiners have been
directed by the appraiser to pass subsequent iuA^oices in accordance with
the values so found. They are thus compelled to subordinate their OAVU
judgment to the findings of a reappraising board on previous invoices,
reappraised in some cases months, and even years, before.
There is always a reluctance on the part of appraising officers to adA^ance values to the 10 per cent, limit, or, as it is expressed in the common parlance of the appraiser's store, to " p u t the importer to a penalty." This idea runs through the entire proceeding, and, according
to the expressed opinion of the appraiser, is inseparable from it. The
ascertainment of the true value of the goods, and the appraisement
thereof, is thus coupled Avith the consideration whether a penalty will
be involved; if so, a strong effort will be made to reduce the appraisement, in Avhole or in part, so that the advance will be a shade under 10
per cent. This tenderness towards importers—this disposition of officials to shield them from the legal consequences of undervaluation—has
tended to encourage and establish the practice.
Successftil undervaluations have prevailed fbr so many years that the
belief has generally obtained that nothing short of legislation will suppress them. That legislation is needed in this direction, no one will dis' pute. The adoption of specific duties Avherever practicable would bea long step toAvards securing correct and uniform coUection of duties,
and remedial laAvs are needed to enable the GoA^ernment to enforce the
tariff; but Ave are satisfied that much of the existing condition of affairs
is due to ftolts of administration that may be corrected.
There is need of a thorough reorganization of the appraising department. - The appraiser should devote all his time and energies to the
great business institution under his charge, and this requirement shbuld
extend to all of the eniploy6s of tl\e department. When it is considered
that three-fourths of the importations of fbreign merchandise coming to
this country is entered at the port of New York, the importance of the
careful administration of the appraising department cannot be overestimated. Not only are the revenues of the GoA^ernment endangered by
faulty or corrupt methods, but business interests are disturbed, and in
some cases destroyed, by the failure of the appraising officers to make
full, uniform, and prompt appraisements of imported merchandise. It
is a serious question Avhether the existing business depression is not
more or less due to loose and unbusiness-like methods of appraisement,
whereby one merchant pays more dutiesupon the same article than
another.
The ease Avith which undervalued iuA^oices have passed the appraisers
has invited and encouraged excessive consignments from Europe. The ^
tariff laws, if impartially and absolutel^^ enfbrced, would prcA^ent impor-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
1^
4/
tations at unequal and undervalued prices, and would regulate and
restrict the introduction of foreign merchandise in accordance Avith the
healthy demands of trade.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L IIANNING,
Secretary of ihe Treasury.
Oircular No. 30.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Becember 26, 1848.
Differences of practice existing in the several ports relative to the
appraisement of merchandise, the following additional instructions are
issued for the government of collectbrs, appraisers, and other officers
of the customs, under the twenty-fourth section, act 30th of August,
1842, which is in these words: "That it shall be the duty of all collectors and other officers of the customs to execute and carrj^ into effect
all instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the execution of the revenue laws; and in case any difficulty shall arise as to the
true construction or meaning of any part of such revenue laws, the
decision of the Secretary of the Treasury shall be conclusive and binding upon all such collectors and other officers ofthe customs." ,
The interests of the country and of fair and honorable merchants
requfre that this Department should, by every means in its power, secure not only the revenue against loss, but should maintain such merchants in their business against sales of imported articles at diminished
rates, arising from fraud or undervaluation.
To appraisers the GoA^ernment looks for correct valuations of foreign
imports. On these officers, more than any other, does the success of
the ad valorem system depend. Their responsibilities are great, and
it is expected that their efforts will not be relaxed to check every undervaluatibn or fraud upon the revenue, by whomsoever attempted.
In the strict and faithful performance of their duty, at times necessarily
disagreeable, their judgment should haA^e great weight with other officers of the revenue service, and especially with the icollectors of ports,
who should in all cases render them every aid and co-operation in thefr^
poAver.
The intent of the seventeenth section of the act of 30th of August,
1842, in the appointment of merchant appraisers is evidently to give
the merchants an opportunity tb appeal from one class of appraisers
to another. But it is clear that Congress did not design to relinquish
the power in the Goverriment to select the merchant appraisers to whom \
the case might be referred, nor to give the parties appealing any more
48
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
voice in the selection of such appraisers than of any other Government officers. To consult the parties concerned, or alloAv.them a voice
in the selection of merchant appraisers, would soon result in permitting the importers to control the appraisement of their own goods, and
it is presumed is not permitted at any port.
Merchant appraisers should be particularly instructed that when acting in that capacity they are to be governed by the same rules and
regulations as provided by laAv for the direction of regular appraisers,
and are to act upon the principle that the invoice price, or even the
price actually paid for an article of merchandise, is by no means a true
criterion of the fair market value as prescribed by law.. Adopt a contrary principle, and one who is so fortunate as to have a quantity qf
merchandise given him would be entitled to receiA^e it free of duty, or
at a nominal duty, if purchased at nominal prices, and different rates
would often be assessed by appraisers on articles of the same value.
The fair market value intended by law is the general or ruling price
of the article " i n the principal markets of the country from which the
same shall have been imported." The Treasury circular of August
7, 1848, declares that "forced sales in foreign markets at reduced
prices, under extraordinary or peculiar circumstances, cannot be taken
as the true market A-alue of such goods."
To secure uniformity of action at the different ports, the merchant
appraisers are to be selected and their appraisements made' in the following manner: When the appraisers all concur, they may designate
five names, or, when such concurrence does not exist, the- appraiser
making the advance may designate five names of impartial merchants,
citizens of the United States, familiar with the value of merchandise,
and of the highest credit for integrity and fair-dealing, from whom it
is recommended that the coUector select two as the merchant appraisers, to act under the law, who shall be duly sworn as proAdded for in
the Treasury instructions of July 6,1847, omitting in the oath the name
of the importer. In the notice to be sent to the appraisers selected as
proAdded in the same instructions the name of the importer is also to be
omitted. The names of the merchant appraisers selected shall also be
withheld from the importers until such appraisers assemble for the
performance of their duty, as it is important that no ex parte statements be permitted, the sole object being to obtain a fair and disinterested examination and valuation of the merchandise. When the collector has fixed the time and place for the merchant appraisers to assemble, he Avill notify the importer of such time and place, but not the
names of the merchant appraisers. Such importer may be present if
he desires, and every proper facility should be given Inm for a thorough examination and ascertainment of values.
To facilitate collectors in settling their accounts, this reappraisement
should take place immediately, or at all events not be delayed beyond
six days from the time the reappraisement is demanded, unless in the
opinion of the merchant appraisers there are extraordinary circumstances requiring an analysis, or proof not to be procured within that
period. Should such delay extend beyond ten days, a statement ofthe
case by the collector must be forwarded to this Department for its examination. The collector, in such cases, shall also call on the regular
appraisers for a statement, and transmit it to the Department. In all
REPORT' OP TfiE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
49
Cases Avhere-the' merchant appraisers assess a loAver value than the regular aippraisers, the collector will report to the Department a full statement bf the case, to be recorded here, together with the names of the
merchant appraisers. He will also transmit at the same time to this
Department for record here a statement AvMch he will obtain of the case
from the regular appraisers.
In case the nierchant appraisers are at variance with each other in their
appraisements, and the collector compelled, according to law, to decide
between them, it is expected that he will Avithout delay, or Avithin five
days from the time the -reappraisement is made, decide the question of
value, and if he adopts the lowest appraisement made he will give the
reasons for the same in his statement to be forwarded to this Department for record as directed above.
This Department earnestly invites the co-operation of collectors, appraisers, ahd other officers of the customs in enforcing correct valuations, and will also be glad to receive information and assistance from
all honorable merchants and citizens who desire to protect the revenue,
to guard the rights of the honest trader, and to insure the faithful execution of the laws. The selection of "merchant appraisers" should
not be confined exclusively to those connected Avith foreign imports,
but, when the requisite knpAvledge exists, should be extended so as to
embrace domestic manufacturers and producers and other citizens acting as merchants, although not dealing in foreign merchandise.
In all cases where the advance by the regular appraisers is short of
the penalty, they shall report to this Department the names bf the importer, consignee, and consignor, together with the invoice value and
rate advanced.
The law requiring importers to give notice "forthwith" to the collector of a demand for reappraisement, no such reappraisement shall
take place unless notice is given to the collector, in writing, of such
demand Avithin a period not longer than the day succeeding the notice
of such appraisement, which the regular appraisers shall give in all
cases as soon as the appraisement is made.
.
.,. '
In all cases where the goods are advanced by the regular appraisers
20 per ceht. more than the invoice and no reappraisement is called
for, the said appraisers, on ascertaining that fact, shall report to the
collector, in writing, whether the interests of the GoA^ernment will best
be promoted by taking the duty with the penaltj^, as prescribed by the
laAV, or by taking the duty in kind, as authorized by the eighteenth section of the act of 30th of August, 1842, as enforced by the circular of
this Department of the 28th of November, 1846, and if the appraisers
advise the duty to be required in kind, it shall so be taken by the collector. In all such cases, also, when the goods are advanced by the regular appraiser 20 per cent, above the invoice value, and a reappraisement is made by the merchant appraisers, the collector shall make a
statement of the duty thus ascertained and fixed by him, including
the penalty, if any, to the regular appraisers, who shall thereupon report in writing to the collector whether it is the interest of tlie.Governm'ent to take the duty thus ascertained or require the duty in kind,
and if the regular appraisers adAdse the duty to be required in kind, it
shall so be taken by the collector.
.
4=.A
50
REPORT.OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In aU cases Avhei*e the dnty is taken in kind it is to be thus assessed
under the law, according^ to the several schedules, viz : If the duty be
100 per cent., the whole of the goods shall be taken; if 40 per cent.,
two-fifths; if 30 percent., three-tenths; if 25 per cent., one quarter;
if 20 per cent., one-fifth; if 15 per cent., three-tAventieths; if 10 per.
cent., one-tenth; if 5 per cent., one-twentieth; and the goods so taken
in kind are to be sold as provided in Treasury circular of 28th of November, 1846.
\
..
These regulations, whilst protecting the revenue against fraud or undervaluations, will insure correct invoices, inducing a compliance, where
necessary, Avith the eighth section of the act of 30th July, 1846, and
guard the interests of the fair and honorable merchant.
Whenever it is found necessary by the regular appraisers or merchant
appraisers to guard against .fraud or undervaluation, they AviU carry
into effect the following provisions of the second section of the act of,
the 10th August, 1846, declaring that " i n appraising all goods at any
port of the United States heretofore subjected to specific duties, but
upon which ad valorem, duties are imposed by the act of the 30th of
July last, entitled 'An act reducing the^duty on imports and for other
purposes,' reference shall be had to values and invoices of similar goods
imported during the last fiscal year, under such general and uniform
regulations for the prevention of fraud or undervaluation as shaU be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury," as enforced by circular
instructions of the l l t h of November, 1846, and 26th of November.
1846. "The last fiscal year" designated in this section intended by
Congress Avas " t h e last fiscal year" preceding the enactment of that
law, which was the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1846, to which
reference is required by the law to values and invoices of similar goods
Avhen necessary to prevent fraud or undervaluation.
Where goods are advanced in price by appraisement, the estimates
of the percentage advance, to ascertain whether the same are Uable to
the penalty as provided for in the eighth section of the act of the 30th .
of July, 1846, must be made only on the article so raised in price, and
such additional duty'and penalty must be so levied and collected. In
no case AviU the advance be estimated on the entire invoice, except
Avhere the goods are the same in quaUty, description, and value, and
the same advance of price is made on the whole.
.
E. J. WALKEE,
Secretary of tlw Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASIJRY.
51
No. 7.
N E W YORK, April 13, 1885.
SIR : In the course of our examination of the appraiser's office at this
port, our attention has been called to a practice, which is common, of
recalling invoices "fbr further consideration" after the report of appraisement has been made to the collector.
Warrant is claimed fbr this practice in various decisions of the Department and in article 470 of the Eegulations of 1884, but, in view
of its rapid groAvth, the number of invoices recalled being 1,709 in 1884,
against 667 in 1880, and its tendency to unsettle the law of appraisements, we deem it a proper subject for special report.
The right qf the appraiser to recall iuA^oices for the correction of
manifest clerical errors before liquidation of the entry has always- been
recognized. Eormeiij^, the specific reason for recall was expressed a n
the requisition upon the collector for the invoice, but, in December
1881, a form of requisition Avas adopted iii Avhich the general term "for
further consideration" is used, and no specific reason given. Under
this requisition the invoice is returned to the appraiser as a matter of
course, and he holds it competent to reconsider the invoice and reduce
advanced A-alues, although no appeal has been taken, and to change
classifications as well as to correct clerical errors.
These reconsidered appraisements are often made upon retained
samples or samples furnished by the importer, the goods having been
delivered, or they are made to conform to former reappraisements of
similar goods.
.
While it is not ^denied that the invoice may be returned to the appraiser for the correction of a manifest clerical error, it is submitted
that in the absence of appeal the importer is concluded by the first appraisement. There must be some time when the appraiser's authority
over the invoice is determined. The laAv provides that the result of a
reappraisement shall be final and conclusiA^e, and the regulations made
an original appraisement unappealed equally final and conclusive
against the importer. This seems a fair construction of the statute, and
vi^orks no harm to the importer. His remedy by appeal is saved to him,
and there is no valid reason why, neglecting this, he may resort to a
remedy of doubtliil legality, often resting in the discretion of a subordinate appraising officer. The importer is presumed in law, and is known,
in fact, to be vigilant in the defence of his legal rights, which are amply
assured to him. The law is plain, and there is no pretence that it fails
in its manifest purpose, v
The claim is made, particularly in the silk division, where the practice is most frequent, that reconsidered appraisements are in the interest
of equity to the importer, and that, where an invoice has been advanced
• slightly beyond 10 per cent., it is no more than right that the importer
should be relieA^ed from payment of the 20 per cent, additional duty if
possible. But when it is considered that he has himself disregarded
his legal remedy of appeal, and^when the statement of the appraising
bfficers is also considered that nearly 90 per cent, of imported silks are
undervalued on entry, and that, too, intentionally, the reasons for
equity intervention are not apparent. The appraising officers are not
to assume to do equity,-of which there is likely to be a A^arying standard, but'they are to appraise the goods at the time and in the manner
prescribed by law. It may be suggested that there would be no occa-
52 , REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
siori for this assumption of equity jurisdiction if the merchandise was
entered at its proper A-alue.
We are unable to find any authority for the recall of an iiiA^oice, and
the change of value by the appraiser, except in cases where the proceedings have been kept open by appeal. Pending an appeal a recall
seems to have the sanction of the courts, but it is difficult to conceive
of a case where such action by an appraiser would be necessaiy or
justifiable.
Any new infbrmation received by the appraiser may be laid before
the reappraising officers, who are a legal board of appraisement. They
have acquired control of the invoice, and it is competent for them to
sustain the original appraisement or to adA^ance or reduce the yalues in
accordance with their own judgment. They should not only be permitted, but should be required, to complete and report the reappraisement. If the appraiser withdraws the invoice and reduces his valuation,
it should be returned to them, that they may advance it in the interests
ofthe Government, if, in their opinion, justice demands it. An appeal
being taken, it should not then be recognized as within the control of
the importer. He ought not to be permitted to withdraw it pending
reappraisement, at least without the consent of the Secretary of the
Treasury.
We invite attention to two cases as examples in which the importers
withdrew their appeals, giving, as a reason that the appraiser had recalled the invoice and reduced values to their satisfaction or below a
penalty.
It is fairly gathered from these cases that the goods were entered at
an undervaluation in anticipation of an adA'^ance within iO per cent.;
but as the advance exceeded 10 per cent., an appeal was taken and
abandoned upon a satisfactory change by the appraiser. There.appears
tohavebeen no good reason for the recall. The reappraising board
should have been allowed to complete its work, and not been made a
convenience pending negotiations with the appraising officers.
We cite other cases illustrative of the practice. On November 1,1884,
the appraiser recalled eight invoices oi one firm, entered at various
times in July, August, and September previous, and reduced the appraisements by allowing discounts previously disallowed by the examiner after full investigation of the subject at the time of appraisement.
This was done at the request of an importer who had neglected his
appeal.
In August of lastyear two invoices of kid gloves imported, respectiA^ely, by G. Bossange and Passavant & Co. Avere advanced and went to
reappraisement. In the one case the merchant appraiser was a reputable merchant and a dealer in gioA^es. In the other the merchant appraiser neither imported nor dealt in the goods; his name was not on
the list sent by the appraiser to the collector with the appeal, and the
deputy collector who appointed him could give no reasoii fbr his action
except a possible'one, which Avas found inconsistent with the facts.
, The t V reappraisements ran together for some days, the same witAO
nesses being examined in each case. Although the amount of duties
i nvolved was not large, the importers were represented by legal counsel, '
Avith a vicAv, presumably, of fixing as low values as possible to control
future importations. In the case in which the merchant appraiser was
not a dealer ih gloves (that of Passavant & Co.) the examiner's advance was stricken off.. This result was apparently due, in a measure,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
,53
to the intervention and infiuence of the appraiser, who personally ap
peared before the reappraising board and opposed the advance, Avhich
was apparently warranted by the testimony of expert witness. • He giA^es
as a reason fbr his action that he had reappraised the same make of
gloves when he was general appraiser, and was satisfied that the values
then reached, which were the same as the entered values, Avere correct.
The other invoice, which embraced gloves of a different make and
quality, was then recalled by the appraiser from the reappraising board,
•and the value reduced, although the reappraisers were prepared to
make their report and objected to this action of the appraiser. There
is no reasoii to doubt that had they been permitted to make their report
they would have sustained the advance in accordance with the expert
testimony in the case.
The valuations fixed fbr the gloves, imported by Passavant & Co;
still remain as the standard of appraisement for those gloves, and large
importations have been made upon that basis. These values appear
from the testimony to be less than the prices at which similar gloves
are purchased and entered by other importers. It should be stated that
in both of the cases described, and the subsequent importations, the
goods were consigned, not purchased.
The prices fixed by the appraiser upon the Bossange iuA^oice remained
as the standard for those goods until some time in Januaiy last, Avhen
the examiner advanced another invoice, a reappraisement was "had, the
the same reputable merchant and dealer in gloves acting as merchant
appraiser, and the examiner's advance was sustained. In this instance
also the appraiser was appealed to to interfere, and he recalled the invoice, but upon investigation decided to send it back to the reappraising board for their action, upon the ground that the gloA^es in question
were superior to those of the fbrmer invoice. On the other hand, the
examiner and merchant appraiser state that the qualities were the same
in both cases.
Another case mentioned in the testimony is noticeable for IAVO recalls,
one after liquidation, when 20 per cent, was deducted by order of the
appraiser fr'om the iiwoice and entered value, as not an element or du/
tiable A-alue. This amount is represented in the iuA^oice by the word
"majoration," which, it is now claimed, fifteen nionths subsequent to
entry, was intended to cover transatlantic insurance,- although the term
itself, as we are advised, has no such meaning, but relates to value.
If it is held that the appraiser may recall invoices and reduce values,
it should not be done upon samples. The law requires him to open,
examine, and appraise the merchandise, and if he may reconsider his
fbrmer appraisement, the interests of the reA^^enue demand as full examination as is required in the first instance. The goods should be subject
inspection. The Government is denied an amended appraisement upon
samples; tho importer should haA^e no better nor higher right. He has
no ground of complaint when, upon his own election, the goods have
passed from Government control.
A new appraisement, made to correspond to a former reappraisement,
is especially objectionable. A reappraisement onl^^ settles the A-alue of
the invoice under consideration; it should go° no further. When the
methods of conducting reappraisements are considered, it Avill be understood that it is not wise to adopt them as infiexible standards for subsequent appraisements. The law conteniplates the appraisement of every <
invoice, and the examiner cannot lawfully subordinate his judgment tp
that of a reappraising board.
6i
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Authority for amended appraisements is claimed under Decisdon 3774,
and.the accpmpanying opinion of Assistant Secretary French, Avho cites
with approA'^al the then existing practice in New York, and the case of
Passavant & Co., Avhere the Department, by letter to the coUector at
New York under date of Pebruary 29, 1876, permitted the reappraising
board to review its action.
Eeference is also made to Decisions 4269 and 6563, to Department
letter to the collector at Philadelphia of May 28, 1883, and to letters of
the Dep'artment to the collector at NCAV York, dated, respectiA^ely, December 8 and 11, 1879 ; September 8, 1884; and January 3, 1885.
If these decisions are held to be of binding force, we suggest that their
application should not be left to the discretion of the appraising officers,
nor should they be extended to authorize recalls, unless for correction
of clerical errors, except upon express authority ofthe Secretary of the
Treasury.
,
.^
"
After an invoice has been advanced, and the importer, having been
notified has .neglected his appeal, it is too late ibr him to complain. It
is not decent fbr him to personally importune the appraising officer for
a rcAdew, nor is it proper for the latter to listen to such appeals.
When it is. understood that these requests are often made to examiners, whose suggestions for the recall are always recognized, the danger
of the practice as affecting the interests of the GoA^ernment and the integrity and reputation of the officers is not likely to be overestimated.
It Avill be noticed, by reference to the testimony, that the practice is
condemned by scA^eral of the assistant apprai^sers and examiners.
Whether the practice is one Avhich may be permissible under the
laAV or not, we think the statements made and the examples cited furnish ample grounds fbr condemning it as inconsistent Avith the interests
of the revenue, and as tending to demoralize the public service.
We submit that an appraisement should be carefully made in the first'
instance, and, all errors of judgment as to A-alues should be left to the
correction of a reappraisement, either upon the order of the collector,
under section 2929, or upon appeal of the importer, under section 2930
of the Eevised Statutes.
Yery respectfully,
(
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
^
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 8.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,'
New York, April 2^, 188^.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to our report of the 23d ultimo, relating
to drawbacks on bags, we beg to submit the folloAving additional information and suggestions bn the subject of drawbacks:
As shown by the tabular statement herewith enclosed, (marked A,)
the total amount of drawbacks on manufactured articles exported at
this port during the calendar year 1884 Avas $4,372,880.84. Of this
amount, $3,289,658.77 was paid on refined sugar. -
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
55
We find that the regulations £is to the inspection, sampling, and
lading of sugar exported for benefit of drawback are not frilly compUed
Avith. They require that samples shall be taken fr'om at least one package in ten, either at the refinery or at the place of lading, and that the
merchandise shall be transported forthwith, under the supervision of an'
inspecting officer, to the export vessel on bonded, lighters or trucks.
In practice, the inspector takes only an occasional sample of the suglar, and leaves the packages in the possession and control of the exporter,
to be sent to the exporting A^essel at his OAVII option and convenience,
often on a day subsequent to inspection and sampling. If convenient,
the inspector is ^present at the ship at the time he is informed by the
exporter that the sugar is to be laden, but he does not remain and supervise the lading, nor does he know that it is sugar that is put on
board, or, if sugar, that it is the same previously inspected by him. When
it is not all taken by the ship to Avhich it is sent, as sometimes occurs, the
remainder is left nominally in the custody of the district officer, but
really in the charge of the exporter or transportation company. Packages thus left over are subsequently taken up on another export entry,
but no new inspection is had, nor are they laden under the supervision
of an inspector. In any case his I'eport is based upon the statement
of the receiving clerk of the vessel that a certain number of packages
have gone on board. One of the inspectors states that he has, no
knowledge ofthe contents ofthe packages at the time of lading, '' Avhether
it is sugar or sand."
It is to be presumed that the leading houses exporting refined sugar
are above and free fr^om corrupt practices; but in a vast business, so important as to be regulated by specific and detailed instructions, it should
not be left to the discretion of a subordinate officer to modify or disregard them, thus opening a door for fr^aiid.
Although, as a matter of fact, the officer does not properly inspect,
sample, or supervise the lading of the goods, his forriial certificates in
this regard accord with the regulations. It is claimed that, owing to
the small number of officers assigned to debenture duty, it is impossible
to comply literally Avith the regulations.
I t is, however, subinitted that, inasmuch as the honesty and good faith
of the exporters constitute, under the present practice, the principal
safeguard against fraud, it would be better to accept their statements
as sufficient proof of exportation than to require or permit sworn officers of the Government to make official certificates in form which are
not true in fact.
Although information has come to us that the present drawback rates
on refined sugar are excessive, we have not fully considered the subject,
as we are advised that the Department has the matter already under
investigation. We venture to call attention, however, to the fact that
the present allowance of drawback on hard refined sugar appears to be
greater than the duty paid on importation. Sugar pays duty according
to its saccharine strength as shown by polariscopic test. If an imported
raw sugar was absolutely pure, testing 100 degrees, it would pay no more
than 2.40 cents per pound duty, whereas, upon hard refined sugar which
cannot test higher than 100 degrees, there is allowed a drawback, of 2.82
cents per pound. The law proAddes that there shaU be allowed on all
articles wholly manufactured of materials imported, upon which duties
have been paid when exported, a drawback equal in amount to the duty
paid on such material, and no more. Drawbacks on sugar are subject U
>
^ deduction of 1 per cent, for the use of the Government, •
^=^
56
' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Except upon the theory that there is a loss of crystallizable sugar in
'the process of refining, (and we are informed that there is no such loss,)
it' is not eas3^ to understand IIOAV it is possible that more that $2.40 duties^
could have been collected upon, the raw sugar entering into the manufacture of 100 pounds of refined sugar:
•
The present drawback rates appear to have been established upon the
average duty paid on all imported sugars and the estimated product of
refineries of the different grades of sugar and of sirup. We are informed that these estimates are not based upon actual knowledge of the
relative proportions of the different grades of sugar produced, as refiners
haA^e declined to give information on that subject. Whatever may be
the basis of the present rates, it is obvious that there ca^ii be no such
thing as stable and definite proportions of the various grades of sugar
produced. A refiner will make more or less hard sugar, as it may seem
to him profitable. Some will make a greater proportion of hard sugars
than others. Some may use liigii grades of raw sugars, while others
may use low grades. The proportions of the different grades produced
are wholly arbitrary and subject to fr'equent change..
For the purpose of fixing drawback rates, it is not difficult to arrange
the proportions of grades produced and to adjust a drawback not to
exceed the entire dutj^ paid in such a way as to give an excessiA^e rate
on hard sugars and an insufficient rate upon the lower grades. In such
an adjustment, if the entire output Avere exported, the Government would
pay no morethan the laAV contemplates; but if the exportation were
limited to the hard sugar, it is CAddent that it would result in actual loss
to the GoA^ernment. Whether the present drawback rates have been
properly adjusted or not, it is a fact that of the 126,026,964 pounds of
sugar exported in 1884, 125,674,303 pounds was hard sugar, paying the
highest rate of drawback.
The export of bituminous coal with benefit of drawback, to be used
as fuel upon steamers, is permitted by law. The regulations gOA^erning
such exports are found in practice to be inadequate to the protection of
the revenue. They do not contemplate continuous customs supervision
of duty-paid coal from time of importation to exportation, and the officers charged with inspection and weighing are unable to distinguish
fbreign from domestic coal by its appearance. Illustrations of the difficulties and uncertainties attending the administration of this law are
found in the two cases named below.
An export entry of 200 tons of bituminous coal, to be used as fuel on
the steamer "Yiceroy," iniported per "State of Indiana," was made
on the 28th day of January, 1885. The weigher's return of Februaiy
3, 1885, showed the weighing of 219 tons; and the inspector, February
7, 1885, certified that he had examined the coal, and that it had been
laden under his supervision on board the steamer "Yiceroy." It Avas
subsequently found that of this aniount but "107 tons was foreign dutypaid coal. The coal was brought alongside the steamer in two canalboats, one of them containing about 107 tons. It is IIOAV understood
that the coal in the other boat was domestic; but to the officers it presented no different appearance, and they acted in good faith, supposing
it to be= fbreign coal covered by the entry and their orders. They had °
just as much proof as to the foreign origin of the one as the other. B[ad
not the exporter adAdsed the collector of the mistake in this case, ^the
drawback would haA^^e been paid on the quantity entered.
J n another case an export entiy Avas made for 263 tons of coal on
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
57
March 3, 1885. The proper officer refused to certify to its shipment,
because he was not notified of the arrival of the coal in his district until
after it had been laden on the exporting vessel, and he had no opportunity to inspect it, and for the further reason that he was informed by
the engineer of the A^essel that it was domestic coal. It was subsequently i
learned from the shippers of the coal that they delivered to the vessel
459 tons, of which, as they state, only 62 tons was fbreign.
Iri view ofthe fact that the officer, by inspection, cannot distinguish
foreign from domestic coal, and that in these cases grave mistakes were
made, which might frequently occur without discovery, it is evident
that the present regulations do not stand in the way of, but rather invite,
frauC
We can see no way of insuring the protectioii of the .Government in
this matter, except to refuse the allowance of draAvback on coal which
has passed from the control or cognizance of the custonis officers.
As to drawbacks on manufactured articles, there is an inherent weakness in the chain of proof connecting the imported materials Avith the
manufactured article exported when those materials have passed from
the custody and knoAvledge of the custonis officers. This weakness becomes more apparent when the manufacturer has no actual knowledge
of the importation of the articles used, or Avhen the exporter has no
actual knowledge of the importation or manufacture, as is often the
case.
We respectfully recomniend that the regulations relating to drawbacks on articles manufactured from duty-paid materials be so amended
as to require an unbroken chain of positiA^^e evidence, resting upon the
actual knowledge of persons making the affidavits, identifying and
tracing such materials from the importation thereof to the manufacture
and exportation of the goods in question.
Where the proof of such identity rests only upon the information and
belief of the affiants, as is now the practice, there must always be a
doubt as to whether duty has been paid upon the identical articles upon
which drawback is allowed.
The testimony taken in regard to drawbacks is herewith enclosed.
Yery respectfully
<.
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
.No. 9.
N E W YORK, May 18,
1885.
S I R : We respectfully submit the following report in regard to allowances for damage on imported merchandise at this port:
Section 2927 of the EcAdsed Statutes provides that, " i n respect to
articles that have been damaged during the voyage, whether subject to
a duty ad valorem or chargeable with a specific duty, either by number, weight, or measure, the appraisers shall ascertain and certify to
what rate or percentage the merchandise is damaged, and the rate of
58
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
r
'
'
•
percentage of damage so ascertained ahd certified shall be deducted
from the original aniount subject to a duty ad valorem, or from the
actual or original number,. Aveight, or measure on which specific duties
would haA^e been computed."
Articles 575 to 595, inclusive, of the General Eegulations, prescribe
< in detail the mode of procedure by which damage is to be ascertained.
>
Examinations of merchandise for allowance of damage are under the
supervision of the assistant appraiser in charge of the first division of
' the appraiser's department, pursuant to the provisions of section 2943
of the Eevised Statutes. Certain examiners are assigned to this duty,
who inspect the merchandise claimed to be damaged wherever it may
be, either on the docks, at the merchants' stores, or in bonded warehouse. The amount of duties remitted on account of damage allowances at this port, as shown by the enclosed statement, marked A, was
in 1881, $568,635.11; in 1882, $468,598.25; in 1883, $313,333.34; in
January, February, March, and April, 1884, $112,160.2L
We were unable to obtain statistics from the custom-house covering
the time subsequent to April, 1884.
Statement B, herewith submitted, shows in detail ihe various articles
upon which allowances were made in 1883, and the rate per cent, of
damage to the amount of duty collected on each article.
The principal articles on this list are as follows: Almonds, 8i per
cent. ; almonds, shelled, 4.1 per cent. ; nuts, dutiable at 2 cents per
pound, 10.4 per cent. ; currants, 3.4 per cent. ; chiccory, 2.4 per cent. ;
dates,' 4.'9 per cent,; filberts and walnuts, 10.8 per cent.; figs, 3.8 per
cent.; fire-crackers, 10.4 per cent. ; grapes, 2.9 per cent.; oranges, 8.1
per cent.; prunes, 5J per cent. ; preserA^ed fruits, (citron, &c.,) 2J per
cent.; raisins, 2.3 per cent.
There are a number of persons knoAvn as damage brokers, Avho make
it a business to obtain damage allOAvances, and whose compensation de->
pends upon the amount allowed. Importers have come to understand
that these brokers can secure more favorable action from the examining
officers than could'be obtained by the merchants without their interposition. For this reason, the practice of employing them to. "put
through" damage claims has become general. These brokers seek to
cultivate intimate relations with the examiners, and, as we have reason
to believe, have in most cases excercised undue influence over them.
They are usually present and advising at the examinations of the merchandise upon which damage is claimed. They have endeavored to
. induce importers to make application for damage allowance upon sound
.goods, and upon the refusal of the merchant to become a party to such a
fraud haA^e threatened to use their infiuence with the appraising officers
to his prejudice. There is no doubt that the less scrupulous importers
have yielded to the importunities of the brokers, and through them,
have, obtained allowances upon goods which had sustained no damage
upon the voyage of importation.
Tlfe records of the custom-house show that of various importers re-'
' ceiving fruits and nuts during the months of October, November, and
December, 1884, certaiii of them obtained damage allowances, while it
is a fact that others, receiving the same kind of goods at the same time
by the same vessels, not only made no claim for damage, but said their
goods were sound.
As the law limits allowances to.damage which occurred on the voyage
of importation, the question whether the goods Avere sound when shipped
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE' TREASURY.
59
is an important one for the consideration of the appraising officers.
So far as Ave can learn, it has not been their usual practice to make
searching inquiiy on this point, although their reports ahvays contain
the formula '' satisfactory evidence of sound shipment.'' The return of
the officers in some cases recites the cause of the damage allowed as
"unknown." In such cases the officer arbitrarily assumes that the
damage occurred on the voyage of importation, Avhen he is ignorant of
the cause and has no evidence on the subject.
The Eegulations (article 586) require actual inspection and examination of the goods upon Avhich damage is claimed, and prescribe that it
must be a substantial and actual damage received during the A^oyage.
If the articles be^contained in packages, each package upoh which dam-'
age is claimed, except as to certain classes of goods, must be opened and
examined. The excepted classes are green and dried frTiits, articles in
sealed packages, soda-ash and caustic-soda, sugar in bags and mats, and
rice in bags. These may be examined by opening 10 per cent, or more
of the packages. These provisions of the regulations haA^e been disregarded. Not only haA^e the examiners failed to open and examine all the
packages where t/he regulations so require, but they have not examined
10 per cent, of the goods within the excepted classes. The pra'ctice appears to haA^e bBCii to open one or two packages of an importation,
and from the appearance of the contents to make up a judgment as to
the whole, giving an average allowance on all or a portion of the goods
for which claim is made, iri plain violation of article 590 of the Eegulations.
^
.
One case came to our notice where the broker, in the interest of the.
, importer claiming the damage allowance, in company with an examiner, called upon the purchaser of a part of the importation and demanded permission to^see the goods; and although such permission was
refused, Avitli the statement that the goods were sound, they were returned as damaged, and an alloAvance made "to the importer. Another
instance is showii by the testimony Avhere an allowance was made upon
tAventy cases of crockery, one of which had already been shipped from
the city. The time occupied h j the examiner in making this examination was said to haA^e been only ten minutes, less time than would be
required for the unpacking and examination of a single case.
One of the damage returns examined by us, as originally made,
showed no damage allowed on thirty cases of chestnuts.' This return
was cancelled, and an allowance of 35 per cent, made upon the same
merchandise by order of the appraiser upon samples, althohgh the examiner stated that he did not know that the, samples represented the
nuts; which he declared Avere in fine order and in no way damaged when
originally examined by him.
Another return, as originally made, disallowed damage on onehundred
bags of filberts. This return was cancelled by the assistant appraiser, evidently upon the solicitation of the broker, and a re-examination ordered,
whereupon a return was made allowing a damage of " 3 per cent, on fifty
bags, the other M t j not being found." This return Avas also cancelled
by the assistant appraiser, and another return made by different examiners, Avho made an allowance of 12^ per cent, upon the whole lot of
one hundred bags. It is evident that these officers could not have examined the whole lot, as the previous return showed only fifty bags
remaining in the warehouse. The testimony is clear that in this case
the merchandise was in sound condition, and had received no damage
whatev er on the voyage of importation.
60
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
/
It appears to be the practice of some importers of merchandise liable
to damage upon the voyage pf importation, presumably upon the representations of the brokers, to make application for allowances, and to
take the oath prescribed by the regulations, that the affiant has personally inspected and examined the merchandise described in the application, and that the same has sustained damage on the voyage of importation, without any actual knowledge ofthe condition ofthe goods..
In one case, Avhere the application and the oath had been made in due
form, and the. appraiser had made an allowance of 10 per cent, damage,
there was found indorsed upon the return a waiver of damage by the
importer, as the goods Avere sound.
It is represented that damaged havebeen substituted for sound goods
in warehouse before examination, and an instance is given where the
same lot of damaged nuts served to procure allowances on several subsequent importations. If this can be done, as we believe it has been,
the opportunity and temptation for such fraud are greater when the
goods have been fbr some time in possession of the importer, ,and are
examined at his store.
Having become satisfied, by personal examination of a large nuinber
of importations of fire-crackers remaining in warehouse, upon which
damage had been allowed, that such allowances were, in some cases,
wholly unwarranted, and in others excessive, we reported the facts to
the collector, who ordered reappraisements for damage, by three merchants, under authority of section 2929 of the Eevised Statutes. More
than forty importations were thus re-examined, upon which the damage
allowance was either disallowed entirely or greatly reduced. A schedule, marked C, is herewith submitted, showing the original allowances,
and the action of the reappraising merchants in each case. In one
instance only the merchants made an allowance greater than that of
the damage examiners.
We also reported to the collector fifteen importations, comprising dried
fr'uit, nuts, and chiccory remaining in warehouse, upon which we believed
excessive damage had been^ allowed. In these cases he also ordered reappraisements by the principal appraiser,' under section 2929, .resulting
in the disallowance of the damage upon ten of the fifteen importations
referred to, no change being made in the others.
We are satisfied that the inferiority in quality of goods when shipped
has been made the basis of damage allowance through ignorance or dishonesty of the appraising officers, when np damage had occurred on the
voyage of importation. Mistakes of this kind are liable to be made by
skilled and honest experts, especially as to nuts or fruits which are of a
perishable nature, but i t i s an unwarranted assuuriiption that all-unsoundness and imperfection found in these articles result from the voyage
of importation, as seems to have been generally accepted by the officers
at this port. The examiners seek for defects not considered by dealers
in these articles as necessarily resulting from the voyage, and make
allowances upon a different principle from that recognized in business
transactions, and the fact, as stated by those competent to judge, that
nine-tenths of this class of goods returned damaged are sold for a sound
price is thus accounted for.
We are convinced that the interests of the revenue and of honest
importers demand a repeal of the law permitting allowances for damage.
The law is equitable in itself, but its proper administation is impracticable. No better proof of this can be cited, than the fact that the im-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
61
porters who scruple to make improper- claims for dama^ge are being,
crowded out of business in certain classes of goods upon Avhich allowances are usually made by the competition of firms of comparatively
small capital and inferior advantages as buyers in the foreign markets.
The discontinuance oi these allowances by laAv would work no hardship, as the importer cah protect himself by insuring for the full A^^alue
of the goods, duty-paid, instead of the foreign value, as is now the
practice. We believe the general sentiment of the business community
to be favorable to this view. The chamber' of commerce of this city
recently adopted a report favoring the abolishment of damage allow:
ance, from which we extract the following:
"From investigations in marine insurance circles, your committee
are able to state that the insurance of the duties on goods which it is
proposed to deprive of damage allowances would be a very simple
operation-and an inexpensive charge; and, although in so far as such
insurance is additional expense it is open to objection, the small outlay
Avould be infinitely preferable to the demoralization which damage allowances, as now made, work all around."
We have laid the facts herein set forth before the appraiser, who has
given the subject his attention, and has taken steps to correct the abusesin the damage department, so far as practicable.
The conclusions stated in this report are based upon our personal investigation of a large number of importations on which damage allowance has been made upon goods still in bonded^ warehouse, as well as
upon the testimony herewith submitted.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING, V
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
.
-
No. 10.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Neib York, May 19, 1885.
SIR.: Eespectfully referring to Department letter of the 8th instant,
covering a report from Special. Agent Ayer, with enclosures, in regard
to the action of the appraising officers at this port upon an invoice of
embroideries imported by A. Eappard & Co., in January last, we beg
to report as follows:
The statement contained in the report of Special Inspector Harrison,
accompanying Mr. Ayer's report, that the examiners who make advances
from which appeals are taken are "excluded" by the general appraiser
from reappraisemeryts, is not in accordance vi^ith the facts. General
Appraiser Perry states that the examiners are present as a rule, and
that if they are not, and he needs their advice or assistance in reaching
the facts, he always sends for them.
While it is doubtless the intention of the general appraiser in all cases
to have the examiner who makes the advance present at the reappraisement to explain his action and give the reasons why it should be sus-
62
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
tained, yet invoices have been reappraised, aiid in the hurry and confusion with which business has been transacted the absence of the
examiner has not been noticed, and he has been given no opportunity to
be heard.
. We have suggested to the general appraiser that he make it a rule tb
notify the assistant appraiser of the diAdsion in which the goods were
passed and the examiner of the merchandise of the time when the reappraisement is to be held, so that they may always be in attendance.
With resp^ect to the failure of the appraising officers in tlie case of
Eappard & Co. mentioned to take action upon the report of undervaluation made by the Government expert at St. Galle, we have heard
the statement of Examiner Fitch, who passed the iuA^oice. He claims
that, in view of that report, he gave the goods upon that invoice an ^
unusually thorough examination, but was unable, after carefully counting the stitching in many patterns, to confirm the values reported by the
expert, and that he thereibre passed the invoice as correct. He admits,
however, that he did not examine the goods represented h j the particular patterns upon which the expert reported.
The mode of appraising consigned invoices of embroideries at this
port and Philadelphia appears to us to be faulty in the extreme. It
Avas adopted in 1878, upon the recommendation of the board of genera;l
appraisers, at the suggestion of the appraiser at Philadelphia, and has
received the quasi sanction of the Department.
The value of the goods in the gray plus the cost of stitching is ascertained, and to this is added 10 per cent., to represent manufacturer's
profit. To the sum of these items is added the cost of bleaching and
finishing. The value thus obtained is considered the proper dutiable
value. We thirik it clear that if these goods are to be appraised on the
basis of the cost of production, the items to be included to make up such
cost should be (1) cost of the muslin in the gray, (2) cost of stitching,
(3) cost of bleaching and finishing, (4) interest and general expenses,
say, 10 per cent., (5) at least 10 per cent, for .manufacturer's profit.
This would bring the value of consigned goods as nearly equal to that of
purchased goods as practicable by this method of valuation. But each
item of cost must be fully given. There is reason to belicA^e that the
cost of stitching, which is the principal element of A^^alue in embroideries,
has been understated in the invoices of certaiii houses receiving consigned goods, as well as the cost of bleaching and finishing, and that
the examiner, although advised of the correct figures by the consular
reports, has failed to advance the invoices, but has taken as his guide
the importer's statement as to such cost, rather than the official report
of the consul.
It appears that about one-half in number of the invoices of cotton embroideries imported here are of goods actually purchased, the others,
embracing fully two-thirds of the value of all of such importations, being
consigned to houses here by their branch houses in St. Galle.
It would seem that with the means of ascertaining market values
afforded by the purchased invoices, the examiner should have no difficulty in appraising consigned goods. But it appears that no comparison ^
of the tATo classes of invoices is made fbr the purpose of appraisement.
Consigned goods are invariably passed upon what is known as the"
'' stitch basis," above described. The examiner states that he considers
himself bound to pass the goods in this Avay, in accordance with the
long-established practice, which is understood to have the approval of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
63
the Department, and this, too, notwithstanding the fact that he found
purchased goods tested by the same rule to be invoiced invariably higher,
in some cases exceeding the consigned prices as much as 100 per cent.
It is easily seen that with different standards of valuation fbr purchased and consigned goods there will be riianifest inequality in the
rates of duty collected, and one class of importers will profit at the expense of the other, resulting in demoralization of trade and loss to the
revenue.
Serious complaints have been made to us by representatives of H. B.
Clafiin & Co., E. S. Jaffray & Co., Arnold, Constable & Co., Mai^shaU
Field & Co., Morrison, Herriman & Co., and others of the prevailing
methods of appraisement, whereby they are driven out of trade by what,
they deem dishonest competition.
We have brought this matter to the attention of the appraiser, and
are assured that he will spare no effort to correct the CAdl complained of.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Special Agents.
Secretary of the Treasury. .
INVESTIGATIONS AT SEVERAL PORTS INTO APPRAISEMENTS AND CLASSIFICATION.
No. 1.
INVESTIGATION BY MESSRS. COOMBS, HINDS, AND LAPP.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, June 21, 1885.
: You are hereby instructed to investigate the entry,
appraisement, and classification of imported merchandise at New York,
Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltihiore, for the purpose of securing uniformity of valuation and classification, and correcting such errors and
irregularities as may be discovered.
You will make careful inquiry as to persons employed at the several
ports in connection with the business mentioned, and will report the
names of all officers and employ6s found to be unfit for the proper performance of official duty, whether by reason of incompetency, indolence,
intemperance, or other cause. Upon, this branch of your inquiry, you
will consult with the several appraisers, but you will not be governed
by their views unless they accord with your understanding of the facts,
The object of these investigations is to promote the efficiency of the
public service, arid you will submit any suggestions you may deem
proper to that end.
In the course of your labors under these instructions, you will consult and co-operate with Special Agents Tichenor and Tingle, who are
assigned to the investigation of these subjects generally, and are instructed to give you such assistance and advice as they may find practicable from time to time.
^
The four general appraisers have each been directed to obtain samples
GENTLEMEN
64
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of textiles and other merchandise of which samples may be taken, which
m^j be imported into the several ports after the 30th instant, to be
scheduled, arranged, and classified, and brought together at the board
of general appraisers at New York for examination and comparison.
. At a time to be hereafter designated, it is desired that you will m<eet
the board of general appraisers and Agents Tichenor and Tingle, for the
purpose of examining and comparing such samples with those which
may be obtained by you in the course of your inquiries.
A copy of the instructions addressed to the generajl appraisers, is enclosed for your infbrmation and guidance as to retention, classification,
and arrangement of sampled.
I am, very respectfuUy,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
H. W. COOMBS, General Appraiser.
B. H. H I N D S and CHAS. H . LAPP, Special Agents.
No. 2.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, Augusts, 1885.
GENTLEMEN: In carrying out the Department's instructions of the
27th of June last, so far as relates to the port of Boston, it is desired
that you co-operate with Special Agent Bingham in making and reporting the regular examination of the manner in which the customs business is done at that port.
It being important that this exainination be made at an early date,
you are directed to proceed to the port of Boston for that purpose with
the least possible delay.
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
Messrs. COOMBS, H I N D S , and L A P P ,
TI. S. Appraiser's Stores, New York, N. Y.
No. 3.
O F F I C E OF T H E BOARD OF U . S . GENERAL A P P R A I S E R S ,
Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets,
New York] August 5, 1885.
SIR : We have the honor to report that, in obedience to instructions,
the commission appointed by Department letter of June 27 convened
at this port on the 7th ultimo, for the investigation of the subjects
sipecified therein.
It became evident to us early in our investigation that the abuses
resulting from the use of pro forma invoices had groAvn to such magnitude as to demand our first attention. We have, therefore, made an
exhaustive inquiry into the matter, and desire in this preliminary report
to lay before the Department the facts as developed.
Previous to the act of June 22, 1874, an entry on pro forma invoice
could be made only on the authority of the Secretary ofthe Treasury,
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1863. It was, moreover,
required that the pro forma invoices so presented should have been
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUTY.
65
made by the shipper of the gobds, and should correspond in all respects.
Avith the certified invoice, fbr the production of Avhich bond was required to be given.
Under the act of June 22, 1874, the privilege of entering merchandise valued at more than $100 on pro forma invoices was enlarged, and
the importer was allowed to use such invoice, or "statement in the form^
of an invoice," without application to the Secretaiy of the Treasury, by
simply making affidavit as to the reason why it was impracticable to
produce a certified invoice, and by conforming to certain requirements
of said act. This privilege was, no doubt, extended to the importer by
Congress because experience had shown that shipments of goods were
frequently arriving from points remote from consulates or consular agencies, under circumstances that rendered it practically impossible forthe
importer to procure a certified invoice, or a formal invoice of any kind,
before the arrival of the goods.
From the passage of the act of June 22, 1874, to October, 1878, an
entry by pro forma invoice was treated, as to its liability to penal duty,
in all respects the same as under the act of March 3, 1863, (section 2858,
Eevised Statutes,) and precisely the same as though the entry had been
made on a certified invoice.
It does not seem to have been understood that the enlargement of the
priAdlege of entering on pro forma invoice, or statement in the form of
an invoice, relicA^ed the importer from any of the other requirements
or penalties bearing on the entry and appraisement of merchandise.
It simply left it optional with him to make entry of his goods in the
manner prescribed, or to alloAv them to be sent to the general-order
warehouse. Under the opinion of the Attorney-General dated October
4, 1878, however, and subsequent decisions by the Department based
thereon, no penal duty has been exacted on entries h j proforma invoices,
when a bond has been taken for the production of a certified invoice,
although the value found by the appraiser may have been more. than
10 per cent, in excess of such invoice or entered value.
It is the opinion of all the prominent officials examined by us atthis
port, as will be seen by their statements submitted herewith, that the
chief abuses growing out of pro forma invoices have their origin in
this opinion of the Attorney-General and the subsequent decisions of
the Department thereunder.
It has been clearly shown, in the course of this investigation, that
unscrupulous shippers and importers made haste to avail themselves of
the loophole opened by that opinion, by abusing the privelege considerately extended by Congress, and through theip ingenuity defrauding
the revenue in the most shameless manner.
The number pro formas presented at this port during the year 1884 was
nearly 30,000; of these, 7,266 covered goods valued at more than $100.
For the purpose of making a careful analysis of the pro formas now
being presented at this port under circumstances that should excite
suspicion, we examined and tabulated all those received at the appraiser's office from the 7th to the 13th ultimo, inclusive, and also called
up all those ^mounting to over $100 received during the month of NQ-
66
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.'
vember, 1884. We find that for the six days in July there were 523'
such invoices, 165 covering amounts in excess of $100; bf these 30
covered free goods, 60 goods bearing a specific duty, and 75 gbods bear-'
ing an ad valorem rate of duty. Many of these invoices covering gobds
bearing a high ad valorem rate of duty, such as silks, gloves, laces, artificial fio wers, feathers, brushes, AA^oollens, &c., involved amounts vary-,
ing from $1,000 to $15,000. The pro/orma invoices or bills of thesegoods were in nearly every instance made on the bill-hieads of the foreign;
shipping-house, and contained a full description of the goods, with all
the particularity required on a certified invoice, and had evidently been,
forwarded by mail from the leading cities of Europe, where American^
consuls are stationed. In other word's, these bills appeared to have been
prepared by the foreign shipper in the same manner as a consular inA^oice, and the neglect to have them properly certified appears to us to
have been intentional.
This conclusion is emphasized by the fact that Certain importers,
particularly consignees, are shown, by the records of the custom-house
to haA^e been for several years habitual users of this form of invoice on
goods bearing high ad valorem rates of duty, while other importers,
purchasing or receiving thesame class of goodsfr^om.the same, points of
shipment, have uniformly made entry on certified invoices.
It will readily be seen of what advantage a pro forma invoice may
be, under the rulings of the Department, tb a shipper who consigns his
goods for sale in this country below their true maiket value. He can
in this manner, without fear of a penal duty, make an experiment as
to the value at which his goods Avill be passed by the appraiser, and,- •
should the invoicevalue be adA-anced on appraisement, his consignee at
this port can advise him of the fact so that the certified invoice can be
made to correspond with the figines of the appraiser.
Our examinatioii oipro forma invoices for November, 1884, shows that
441, covering goods exceeding $100 in value, Ai^ere receiyed during that
month; of these, 120 covered free goods, 119 specific-duty goods, and
202 ad valorem goods. These invoices showed a recurrence of the same
names of importers and the same indications as to the improper and
fr-audulent use of this form of entr^^ as in the July invoices.
We made also a careful examination of the bonds given at this port
for the production of certified invoices from Januairy 1 to July 1 of
the present year. The number of bonds executed for this purpose during that time was 3,004, and, at the ratio found to exist between ad
valorem and specific-duty goods, about 1,400 of these would cover im^
portations of merchandise pa^dng an ad valorem rate of duty.
While houses of the highest standing in this cit3^, such as H. B. Clafiin
& Co., Arnold, Constable & Co., Lord & Taylor, Bates, Eeed & Cooley,
and hundreds of others Avho purchase their goods in the open markets
of Europe, have rarely beeii obliged to resort to the use oipro fonna invoices, other houses, and chiefiy those Avhich receive goods on consignment, use them rather as a rule than an exception. To illustrate this,
Ave may say that during the first six months of the present year the
fbllowing nuniber of entries of goods valued above $100 have been made
by some of these last-named houses on pro forma invoices:
REPORT
OF T H E S E C R E T A R t
OF THE TREASURY.
Lenisohu &• Co., artificial flowers .•
^
Marx, Held. & Co., artificial
flowers
-H. Bacharach, artificial
flowers
Negroz, Portier, Gross & Co., silks
'.
Anfiinordt & Co., silks
Vietor, Achiles & Co., silks
Islin, Neeser&Co., silks.....
r-Mamraelsdorf i& Bro., laces
—
Muser Brothers, laces
—:.
Loeb & Schoenfeld, embroideries
Gnggenheim's Sons, embroideries
L; Strauss & Sons, cbina and glass ware
-
----
-
•
••••
,..
..........'
,
67
---- 36
22
17
19
16
13
27
12
15
16
14
18
' Some of these invoices covered merchandise amounting to more than
$18,000, and all of them were made out at the principal cities of Europe,
where a certified invoice can easily be procured if desired. It is incredible that regular importers, having correspondents at all these
points of shipment, should so frequently be unable to produce a certihed
invoice through accident, and much light is throA^n on the probable
cause of the failure by the fact that the market value of all the classes
of goods covered by these jpro/ormas was under investigation b y t h e
appraiser or special agents at the time these entries were made.
Undoubtedly much of the abuse resulting from the use of pro forma
invoices is due to the careless and inefficient manner i n which the act
of June 22, 1874, has been administered by the officers charged with its
execution at the custom-house. Sections 10 and 11 of that act provide
fbr the examination under oath of the importer presenting such an invoice, and authorize the collector or his deputy to require him tb "produce any letter or paper in his possession or under his control which
may assist the officer's ofthe customs in ascertaining the dutiable A-alue
of the importation or any part thereof.'' Such an examination properly
conducted would in most cases determine whether the non-production
of a certified iuA^oice was due to accident or design.
We regret to state that no such examination has ever been made at
this port, so far as we can learn. Fro forma invoices seem to have been
taken as a matter of course and in the most perfunctory manner. The
convenience of importers and the dispatch of business have been considered of paramount importance to the interests of the revenue. We
have seen several pro forma invoices where the application to make
entry contained nothing but the date, printed matter, and signature,
no reason being assigned fbr the non-production of a certified invoice as
required by the regulations.
The undervaluations and frauds successfully carried on under this
form of entry have long been notorious, as will be seen from the statements ofthe custonis officials herewith transmitted; and yet no serious
effort has ever been made.to check or control these abuses by subjecting
even suspected importers to the exaniination provided for by law. , We beg leaA^^e on this point to call attention to the statement made by
Deputy Collector Bartram, in charge of the fifth, or entry, diAdsion of
the custom-house, on pages 43 to 48 of the accompany enclosure. It is
claimed by him that the force of deputy collectors (five in numbers)
who administer oaths on entries and designate packages is not suf-
68
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
ficient to perform the other duties devolving upon them and at the
same time prbperly investigate the reasons for the non-production of
certified invoices.
While our observation convinces us that there is some force in this
claim, we are, nevertheless, of the opinion jpro/orma that inyoices have
heretofbre been treated with reprehensible neglect by the deputies receiving them. When it was found that such invoices could not be properly attended to by these deputies, some other provision should have
been made to carry out the requirements and purposes of the law.
In our examination of the bonds for the production of certified invoices we discovered that almost the only sureties whose names appear
' thereon are custom-house brokers, who are "habitually emp'lo3^ed"^by
the A^arious importers. This is in direct violation of article 1055 of the
Eegulations of 1884.
Such brokers are also accepted as sureties on penal, warehouse, and
other bonds at this port, and the aggregate amount for which some of
them are liable on bonds of various kinds is simply enormous. On
bonds to produce certified invoices alone some of them are sureties to
the amount of $150,000 during the month of February of this year.
When this departure from the regulations was called to the attention
of the officers charged, with the execution of bonds, it was claimed by
them, first, that the Department had on several occasions authorized
the practice at this port; second, that these brokers were scrupulously
particular about the default of bonds bearing their signature, as it would
injure them in their business; and, third, that it Avould be a hardship
to compel importers to.bring business men to the custom-house during
the busy part of the day merely to sign as sureties.
The facts are, howcA^er, that many of these bonds remain uncancelled
at the time of their maturity, as will be seen by the statement of Mr.
Eice, chief bond clerk, pages 71 to 75 of the testimony herewith subemitted. This officer states that there are from one hundred to two hundred, of these uncancelled bonds sent to the district attorney annually
for suit, but that, for some reason, no suit has ever been brought on
them. Mr. Eice entertains the opinion that these bonds have no validity
under the law, and we apprehend that, in consequence of such an opinion,
he is not sufficiently careful in respect to the financial responsibility of
sureties or the proper execution of the bonds.
,
Many of the bonds examined by us were found to be defective and
irregular. In some no penalty was expressed; in others the name of the
surety in the body of the bond was different from the signature thereto;
and in others the residence and address of the sureties were not stated
at all, as required by article 1055 of the regulations; so that, even if
the bond proAdded for by the regulations be a valid one in law, mariy
of these w^ould be worthless on account of informalities. Whether or
not they can be enforced, it seems to us that so long as they are required
by the regulations they should be taken in strict accordance thercAvith,
and we have so advised the chief bond clerk.
We learn on inquiry that during the year 1884 ninety-two of these
defaulted bonds for the production of certified invoice were reported by
the collector for suit, and that during the first seven months of the present year ,one hnndred thirty-seven have been so reported. Assistant
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
69
District Attorney Hasbrouck, who has charge of such defaulted bonds,
informs us that no suits have been instituted within his recollection to
collect the penalties on such bonds, but that after their default has
been officially reported by the collector, notices are sent to'the principal and sureties, and in many cases the certified invoice is then produced or the bonds ot^herwise disposed of Assistant District Attorney
Clark informed us that 90 per cent, of the sureties on these bonds are
custom-house brokers, and that 90 per cent, of ^Ctoe are wholly irresponsible.
In order that the abuse which we find to exist at this port through
entry on pro forma invoices might be speedily corrected, we deemed it
expedient to recommend to the collector that all such invoices be assigned to a deputy collector, who should be located in a room apart
from the hurry and confusion of the rotunda, where the examination of
the importers as to the cause of the non-production of the certified invoice could be properly made. He at once and heartily approved. of
the recommendation, and issued an order to garry it into effect. This
action of the collector will tend to liinit the number of such entries to
the cases contemplated by the law, and will, to a great extent, prevent
fraudulent and experimental entries on such invoices.
We believe that such an examination of importers will disclose the
fact that in many cases no satisfactory reason can be given for the noriproduction of a certified invoice, and that he will use a discretion that
has never before been exercised at this port in accepting pro forma invoices. While Ave believe that the UCAV practice adopted by the collector
will do much towards limiting the number of entries on pro forma invoices, Ave think that the CAdl cannot be entirely corrected by this means
so long as such entries are held not to be subject to the additional duties prescribed by section 2900, Eevised Statutes, and we would therefore respectfully recommend that this subject be again referred to the
Attorney-General for his opinion as to the application of said section,
in the light of the facts which have now been disclosed.
The commission, while not feeling warranted under their instructions
in pursuing their investigation at the custom-house further than'related to the entry of merchandise on pro forma invoices, discovered
that the officers with whom they were brought in contact, with few exceptions, entertain the opinion that this port caunot be subjected to the
same laAVS and regulations that are applicable to other ports, and, therefore, many of the regulations are not carried into effect, the convenience
of importers or their brokers being first considered by these officers.
As an illustration of the= careless manner in which business is dispatched, we found, during our examination of the pro forma invoices,
one covering dolls, toys, and decorated china, each in separate packages, of which the only package sent to the appraiser's store was the one
containing dolls; so that the appraisement of the toys and decorated
china was made without any examination of those goods, and the invoice
values were accepted and returned as the appraised value.
Assistant Appraiser Stearns, when it was called to his attention, expressed the opinion that the examiner was warranted under the law
in making such return if the invoice value of the dolls was^ found correct, as that would establish the honesty of the invoice. The incon-
70
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
sistency and danger of,such practice is apparent when it is remembered
that dolls pay duty at 3^ per cent, ad valorem, and decorated china at
60 per cent. Different examiners pass the respective merchandise, and
in this instance one examiner must have appraised the market value of
V the decorated china upon the statement of another that the invoice value
of dolls was correct. In our opinion, such practice is in no case justifiable, as it is the duty of examiners to appraise merchandise from their
expert knowledge, and not to pass upon the honesty of the importer.
Deputy Collector Bartram, when his attention was called to the fact
that only one package of the merchandise above referred to had been
ordered to the appraiser's store, stated that deputies had no time t o '
properly examine iuA^oices for the purpose of seeing whether they covered more than one kind of goods.
The irregularities that have come under our notice, and .are herein
reported, lead us to the belief that others of a more serious character
may exist as the result of the haste and disregard of the regulatibns
with which business is dispatched at this port. It seems clear to us
that" the interests ofthe revenue are constantly put in jeopardy by such
methods, and that steps ought to be taken at once to correct these errors
of practice. If the present force of deputy collectors and clerks is inadequate for the proper enforcement of the laAvsand regulations, more
should be appointed, for it is a false economy to allow the business of
this great port to be conducted in so hasty and hazardous a manner.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servants,
H. W H E E L E E COMBS,
TJ. S. General Appraiser.
B. H. HINDS,
0, H. LAPP,
Special Agents.
Hon.
\
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasuryj Washington, B . 0.
No. 4. •
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT^
New York, October 12, 1885.
S I R : We have the honor to report that on the 26th ultimo Appraiser
McMullen called upori us and requested us to assist him in arriving at
a basis of values for cottori embroideries and Oriental and Egyi)tiari
laces, since the result of various reappraisements a.t this port decided
on expert testimony had been unsatisfactory to the appraising pfficers
and had produced great discontent on the part of importers.
It appears that in 1878 an investigation of this question was made by
the board of general appraisers, Avith the sanction of the Department,-
.REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.71
and that an understanding was, then arrived at to the effect that the
only proper and equitable manner of determining the values,of these
gobds was to take into consideration the cost of production and to add
to such cost a manufacturer's profit. Since it appeared that in the usual
.course of trade these goods were sold at St. Galle to this and other
markets in the gray or unbleached condition, (the cost of bleaching,
finishing, &c., being borne by the purchaser,) it was decided at that time
: that the cost in the gray on the stitch basis should be adopted as the
basis, and that a manufacturer's profit of 10 per cent, should be added
thereto, and that to this sum should be added the actual cost of bleaching, finishing, and putting up for shipment.
• This standard of valuation seems to have been tacitly adopted by the
Department and appraising officers, but, sq far as we can learn, it was
never authoritatively, promulgated by the Department. Fro.m .1878
' until May of the present year, this standard was followed at the principal ports on goods purchased on the " stitch basis " or shipped by the
manufacturers. The consul at St. Galle was directed to furnish to appraising officers, from time to time, the cost of stitching, and experts to
count stitches were placed.in the consul's office and in the offices of the
appraisers.
- In May last complai-ints were made to a commissibn, then sitting at
this port, by several of the largest and. most reputable importing houses
• of this city, such as H. B. Clafiin & Cov^ Mills & Gibb, and others, to
the effect that certain manufacturers and shippers of these goods at St. Galle were enabled, under the prevailing system of ascertaining market
values, to undersell them in the markets of this country.
These merchants claimed that the 10 per cent, heretofbre added to the
cost ofthe goods in the gray Avas not a sufficient manufacturer's profit,
arid insisted that another 10 per cent, ought to be added for that purpose.
.'. It was further claimed by them that the market A-alue of these goods
could be more accurately arrived at by comparison v/ith similar goods
purchased by themselves and others, without reference to the stitch
.basis, through commission houses in St. Galle.
The testimony taken by that commission in Ma^- last is now before
us, and has been carefullj^ studied.
A report embodying the facts and suggestions of these merchants was
submitted to the bepartment by the commission, and the appraiser,
who had been consulted in the matter, at once gave orders for the advance of 10 per cent, on all invoices of these goods shipped by the manufacturers, or invoiced on the stitch basis under the arrangement made
in 1878.
. . . . .
Appeals Avere taken from this action of the appraisers, and on reappraisement tihe testimony of certain experts who had been dealing in
these goods, without reference to the stitch count, was relied bn to determine market A-alues.
.
After a considerable number of cases on reappraisement had been
decided on such testimony, it was discovered by. the appraising officers
(including the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser) that uniformity could notbe secured by such methods; that the results were
capricious,, and. that the testimony of experts was wholly unreliable.
The importers whose invoices had been advanced complained that they
had been unjustly treated by some of the experts, and that their business had been seriously injured.
It was at this state of the case that the appraiser came before us and
72
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
desired us to assist him in arriving at a.more satisfactory basis of value.
Having received the consent of the Department to iriyestigate the subject, Ave conferred with sorae of the leading and reliable importers of
these goods.
.
In order that a full and free expression bf Adews might be had, it was
decided by the importers with whom we had conferred that a meeting
of the entire trade in this city ought to be called, so that the various
confiicting interests should be represented. A call was therefore issued
by Mr. John Gibb, of MiUs & Gibb; Mr. Haager, of Albert, Haager &
Waldberger; and Mr. Jacob Steiger, manufacturer, of Herisau, Switzerland, for a meeting, to be held on the 30th ultimo, at the Manhattan
Hotel, where both the purchasers of these goods through commission
houses at St. Galle and the manufacturers and shippers niight, if possible, agree on a basis of valuation that should be at once equitable and
satisfactory to the trade and just to the Government.
A t t h i s meeting, to Avhich Appraiser McMullen, General Appraiser
Bro wer, and this.commission were invited, were represented such houses
as Arnold & Constable, H. B. Clafiin & Co., MiUs & Gibb, Bates, Breed &
Cooley, Teft, Weller & Co., Muser Bros., Eobert McDonald & Co., on
the one side, and Einstein, Hirsch & Co., M. Guggenheim's Sons, Loeb
& Schoenfeld, Jacob Steiger, and Albert, Haager & Waldberger on the
other, the representatives of some forty houses altogether being present.
Mr. John Gibb, of Mills & Gibb, who had acted as merchant appraiser *
on a large number of reappraisements, and who had in most cases
sustained the advances, made by the appraiser, presided at the meeting. Among the speakers were many of the same persons who had
complained to the co'mmission in May last about the fallacy ofthe stitch
basis, and who had demanded either an addition to the manufacturer's
profit on the invoices or an ascertainment of values by expert testimony.
Their views, howe.A^er, on this point appeared to haA^e undergone a decided change, for, without exception, they maintained at the meeting that
expert testimony was utterly unreliable, and that the cOnly proper method
of arriving at values was by the stitch basis. A number of resolutions
were introduced to this effect, and, after discussion, passed unanimously,
and a committee of five merchants was appointed to confer with the appraiser and this commission on the oty* ects had in Adew and the action
taken by the meeting.
That committee appeared before the appraiser and the commission
' on the 5th instant, and reported the resolutions unanimously adopted
by the meeting, Avhich are in substance (with one modification made
by the committee) as follows:
1. The adoption ofthe stitch basis as the method of determining values.
2. An addition of 10 per cent, fbr manufacturer's profit on the finished
goods, including the cost of bleaching, finishing, and putting up in cartons for shipment.
3. The valuation of the goods, according to the cost of stitching at
St. Galle on the day of shipment, as ascertained and reported by the
consul.
4. The employment by the consul of an expert to verify the stitch
count, so far as practicable, and the employment of additional experts
at this and other ports fbr a like purpose.
5. The selection by the consul of seven of the largest and most reliable
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
73
shippers of these goods to this market as a committee to advise and inform him as to the prevailing cost of stitching.
The standard of valuation recommended by the meeting of importers,
viz., the cost ofthe finished product estimated on the stitch basis, with
10 per cent, for manufacturer's profit, has been adopted by the appraiser, and the rule is now being applied to aU invoices, except such
' as cover fancy designs, purchased without reference to stitch count and
at higher values than would result from the stitch basis.
It will be observed that in two important particulars the rule suggested by the importers and adopted by the appraiser will work to the
advantage of the Government.
First. The 10 per cent, manufacturer's profit will hereafter be applied to the cost of the goods bleached, finished, and put up for ship- ,
ment; whereas, under the arrangement made in 1878, the addition of 10
per cent, for profit was made only on the cost of the goods in the gray.
The cost of bleaching, finishing, and putting up will average in the
common qualities, which constitute the great bulk of the trade with this
country, nearly 15 per cent., and on the more costly goods about 8 per'
cent., or an average of more than 12J per cent.
Second. The rule now in force requires that the values shall be estimated on the basis of the cost of the stitching on the day of shipment.
Heretofore, it has been.the practice to invoice these goods on the basis
of the price actually paid for stitching; and as the goods Avere frequently
manufactured during the dull season, when the cost of'stitching was
sometimes as low as 22 centimes per 100 stitches, and shipped during
the busy season, Avhen the stitch price had advanced to from 36 to 38
centimes, the Government lost a large amount of revenue that will be
collected under the present system.
We estimate that the increased valuation resulting from these t V
AO
modifications of the old standard will result in materially advancing '
th;^. average dutiable values of these goods over the invoices of former
years.
.
•...
The value of cotton embroideries. Oriental and Egyptian laces, annually imported into this country is, in round numbers, $8,000,000.'
The application of the 10 per cent, profit to the cost of bleaching,
finishing, and putting up will advance the average invoice values at
least 1\ per cent., and on the quantity imported this will amount to an
increased value of $100,000, on which the increased duty, at 40 per cent,
ad valorem, will be $40,000. We believe that the increased duties
resulting from the adoption of the stitch cost on the day of shipment
will still further largely increase the revenue derived from this
commodity.
If such an increase can be made to the revenue of the country, with the
consent and approbation of all parties concerned, simply by thje adoption of a basis of values that shall be at once uniform and intelligible to
all, it is certainly a most desirable consummation.
The testimony taken by the conimission in May last amply justified
them in reporting as they did, and their action and report seemed to
leave no room for doubt in the mind of the appraiser as tothe propriety
of adA^ancing the iuA^oices of these goods as already stated; and though
such action may for a time have been regarded as an injustice by importers, and resulted in a temporary demoralization of the trade, the
controversy has, nevertheless, been now happily settled by the adop-
;74
REPORT OF, THE
"SECRETARY
OF THE TREAStfR%.
tion by the appraiser of a basis of values which is satisfactoiy tOs
all the confiicting interests of trade, and advantageous to the GoA^ern. m e n t .
.
••• •.
.
'..,
'•,,;•
...
•
.••
-,
-'
, We respectfully recommend that the consul at St. Galle be instructed
•to avail himself of the advice and assistance of the committee of seven
inerchants and manufacturers in the ascertainment of the correct cost of
stitching, as recommended by the meeting of importers, and set forth by
the chairman, Mr. John Gibb, in a communication to the Department
under date of the 5th instant. . ;
\
Yery respectfully, your obedient servants, '
'
' '
;_ • ^ ^ " ' / . V; • P - ^ WHEELEE.' COMBS,- ;
.„
. General Appraiser..,
;
' • • B..-H.- HINDS, • :
•
•••-•'-.
: : C: H.-LAPP, - >••
••
•' .
•: •
.;...' • • , Special Agents:
• . Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
^
.•.;..•
Secretary of the Treasury, WasMngton, B: C.
- '
INVESTIG-ATIONS INTO • REAPPRAISEMENTS- AT
: NEW YORK.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
V
-
^
Washington, B. C , March 16, 188^. '
GENTLEMEN : Complaints have been made to the Department that
in the selection of merchant appraiser^, for ,the .reajipraisement of impbrted goods domestic manufacturers pf siniilar articles are usually
appbinted, and necessarily have'an, interest in advancing the A-alues of
goods in dispute ~beyond their triie foreign market value. It is also
suggested that jobbers erigaged in selling both domestic and imported
merchandise Avould be the most suitable persons to act as merchant
appraisers!
'
I desire you to thoroughly examine into the matter, and submit a
report thereon as soon as practicable, witjh such views and recommendations as you may dfeem advisable. /
.
,
'
Very respectfully,"
/
..
"^
' .: = / ^' ;. .' .: , DANIEL MANNING,' • . •
,,
';'.•,••'••• •••-•••
••• ^
Secretary.
' Messrs. GEO. C. TICHENOR, A. K. TING:LE, O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents, New York City^
RErORt OF TOE, SECR^E^Al^Y;; PS^. T H E T^
;"
lb.-
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY, . ;
/ ,
.- _•
\ Colfector's Office, March SO, 1885.
S I R : W e have duly investigated the subject of the appoinlment of
merchant appraisers at this port as required by ^Department instructions of'the 16th instant, and have the honor to report as follows:
It is understood that the coinplaints,alluded to in said instructions,.
" t h a t in the selection of merchant appraisers for the reappraisement
of imported goods domestic manufacturers of similar articles are usually
appointed," refer chiefiy to the reappraisement of silk goods, Avhich
have been the subject of a large proportion of reappraisements at this
p o r t .
. . • , . . ' -
•
.-
•;,
•
'.;
•
• An examinafionof; the.records shows that domestic manufacturers
have not been '' usually appointed'' in such, cases. Such appointments
have,, however, been more frequent during the past three months than
formerly. During that time one hundred and seventy-five invoices
were reappraised, one hundred andfiftybeing of silk goods. Domestic
manufacturers acted as merchant appraisers in thirty-two of these cases.
During the.previous three months there were one hundred arid two
appeals, upon which only four domestic manufacturers were called to
a c t .
-
.
.
•
- . •
•
• • • • • • / • ;
•^v----
••
•
; •
_
•
.
We have, obtained the views of merchants representing the three
classes of business houses, members of-AVhich, i t i s understood, are eligible to appointment as merchant appraisers::
1st. Firms engaged in the importing and jobbing trade, who buy
consigned goods in this market, but make, ho entries of consigned gobds.
at the custSm-hbuse. ;
2d. Firms engaged in the consignment trade exclusively, those who
buy no goods, but act as agents for foreign manufacturers.
3d. Merchants interested, in domestic manufactures.
We have also consulted the collectoi^. Deputy Collector Bartram, the
general appraiser, the appraiser,- and Assistant Appraiser Kent.
The Adews expressed by all of these gentlemen are herewith submitted. It will be observed that there is a diversity bf opinion among the
merchants, but that the officials substantially agree that it would be.
inexpedient to confine these 'appointments to jobbers, as suggested, and
that the selection of merchant sfcppraisers froni all classes, as has been
the practice, should be continued. .
' / .
If the appointments;should-be cbnfined to one class, the others,
equally interested in the results of ^reappraisements, might have just
cause of complaint. Appeals arealmostexclusivelf limited to invoiceS'Of consigned goods.
Nine-t^enths of silks imported are- consigned at invoice prices>rbitrarily fixed by the consignors, without reference, in many cases, to actual
values. The commission merchant who makes entry as consignee is
expected to, and does, exert aU his ability and infiuence with the appraising officers to pass the invoices at the lowest possible values. He
frequently adds a sriiall percentage'upon entry, in order that there may
be a margin for further advarice .of value by the appraisers without
reaching the 10 per cent, limit, Avhich involves additional duties or'
penalties. If, after all these efforts, and notwithstanding the additions
to the invoice value upon entry, the appraiser should advance the in->
voice further to the extent of 10 per cent, or more, the commission.
76
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
nierchant is expected by his foreign principal to appeal and make
every effort on the reappraisement to obtain a reduction of the appraiser's valuation below the penalty line. Hence the great importance bf obtaining competent' and fair-minded merchants to reappraise
the goods, in conjunction with the general appraiser, as provided by
law.
;
The proposition to confine these appointments to jobbers, and to exclude from selection members of houses receiAdng consigned goods, as
well as those of firms interested i n Anierican manufactures, appears
upori its face to be a fair one; but it is open to objection. It is claimed
that such an arrangement Avould operate to the advantage or detriment
of the iriiporter according to the business relations of the jobber Avith
the importing house whose goods are under reappraisement. Besides,
merchants of this class are not usuialiy acquainted with the foreign
market value of the larger. J)ropprtion of goods usually the subjects of
reappraisement. Their inlbrmation of such A-alue is liniited, for the
reason that they make fcAi;; if any, purchases abroad of goods consigned
to this country for sale. T|fiey are dependent chiefly for such information upori the commissionihouses with whom they have business relations, and areiiable to be influenced in their action by their feelings
towards the importer.
^
It is a fact to be deprecated that other considerations than the ascertainment of the true value of the merchandise under consideration have
so^ much to do with reappmsements; but it cannot be tiisputed that
tlie consequences of an advance of 10 per cent, or more have a certain
Aveight, in most cases, with the reappraising board, and that the appeals bf the importer not to pass the line and put him to a penalty haA^e
great influence iri the final decision. Cases have occurred Avhere, after
the reappraisement has been made and reported, the invoice has been
recalled arid the appraisement reduced, because it Avas found that the
advarice made involved a penalty, and the appraising board had no
intention of working such a result.
There would seem to be no question that members of consignment
firms whose invoices are frequently advanced, and who often appear
as appellants, should be excluded from selection as merchant appraisers. Yet such appointments are very frequent. In at least fifty
cases during the last three months of 1884 members of such houses
were selected to reappraise invoices of goods ofthe same class as those of
their own importation, and in many instances their firms had current
invoices under reappraisement. As- illustrating this, a list of some of
the firms members of which served as nierchant appraisers during a
portion of the period mentioned is herewith enclosed, (marked " A , " )
showing the number of times such persons acted as merchant appraisers,
the number of their own invoices reappraised, and of their invoices
adA-anced by the appraiser upon which appeals were not taken.
In regard to the propriety of selecting domestic manufacturers, reference is made to the testimony of the collector, the appraiser, the
general appraiser, and Assistant Appraiser Kent.
These gentlemen concur in the view that such selections are conducive to the public interests. Especially is this true, in our opinion,
since the enactment of the ninth section of the tariff' act of March 3,
1883. Proof of market value pf consigned goods is not easily obtained,
and in such cases where resort is had to the cost of production as provided by said section domestic manufacturers are best qualified to act.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
77
They know the value of materials, and keep themselves informed as to
the price of foreign labor. It is claimed that, owirig.to their interest
in advancing the valuation of foreign goods-competing with their own
productions, they canuot do justice t o t h e importers. No specific caise
of such injustice has been cited, nor is it believed that such a case has
occurred. On the contrary, many of the importers as well as appraisers
haA^e commended the fairness and moderation of the gentlemen interested in domestic manufactures who have been generally selected to.
act as merchant appraisers. Such appointments, although infrequent
in past years, have the sanction of long usag^, and should not, in our
opinion, be discontinued. If they are discreet and experienced merchants, familiar with the character and valueof the merchandise, within
the terms of section 2930 of the Eevised Statutes they cannot be legally .
excluded from appointment because of their interest in domestic concerns. An order to exclude thein, as suggested, would deprive the Government bf a valuable aid in determining dutiable values, and would
be an abridgment of the discretionary authority conferred by law upon
the collectbr.
The preserit practice of selecting merchant appraisers from all classes
of merchants having the requisite qualifications appears to have derived
its authority from a circular of Secrefary Eobert J. Walker,, dated
December 26, 1848, from which we quote: " T h e selection of merchant
appraisers should not be confined exclusively to those connected Avith
foreign imports, but, when the ..requisite knowledge exists, should be
extended so as to embrace domestic manufactiurers and producers and
other citizens acting as merchants, although not dealing in foreign
merchandise."
Urider the present regulations, the appraiser is required to send with
each appeal the names of five firms, members of Avhich would be suitable for appointment, for the inforniation of the collector. OAving to
the frequency, not.to say regularity, with which the sanie names are
sent in by the appraiser, the collector is often eriibarrassed in making
selections, especially when the names submitted are often those of firms
whose invoices are constantly advanced. We, believe a better plan
would be to require the appraiser to. furnish the collector permanent
lists of all firms importing the various classes of merchandise, such lists
to^be from time to time revised and corrected,,and we recommend that
instructions be given to that effect.
Yery respectfully, ^
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents:
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
78
REPORT OF THE 'SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
••
'.
' • / • • "
•
••"
. . . '^ • • N o .
3.
•
••;:'
Testimony Taken Concerning the Selection of Mercliant Appraisers.
,
/
:
.
;
Deputy Collector.N. B.
•
-
•
•
•
BA.RTRAM
'
^
called.
:
•
.••;_By Mr. TICHENORV. '; '^./':\- \_/..-.
Q. Will you please outline your particular duties as deputy colcolector •?—A. I am deputy-collector of ;the. fifth division, in charge of
eiitry oi: mer chandise,,.and this. diAdsion has control of the entry of merchandise for consumption and warehouse.; /I grant all fr-ee permits, and
up to abbut the middle pf January-it was my duty to appoint merchant
appraisers, and for four years prior to the. 1st of January., TheUquidation bureau forms part of riiy diyision.
• ' , .
Q. Please state the niethods pursued or the system' in vogue in the
selection of merchant. appraisers during the time that you made^the
selections.—A. The practice in the appointment of nierchant appraisers
is for the appraiser'to indorse on.the back.of the appeal the names of
five merchants Avhom he considers suitable parties to act; I generally
selected one of those men.-' LneA^er recpllect deviating from that cburse
nipre than once or tA\dce^ or three times perhaps; It is not obligatory .
upon the collector to select one of those names, but the practice has been
to do so. This .method is strictly.in,accordance Avitli the regulations.
.Q; In the cases Avhere you have- deviated frona this rule, was that on
account of any particular objection of anyofttheparties?—A. No; those
cases were purely accident^al. 1 never deviated from those iiaines for
any particular cause, that I can recollect. I- don't know but I did once
appoint a man merchant appraiser i n consequence of having receiA^ed
protests against all'the nanies,that were suggested by the appraiser. It
hias been the ha^bit of the merchants, when they would call a reappraisement, Avhere there Avas a contest going on, to lodge a protest Avith the
cbllector against the appointment, of certain named merchants to act in
their case, and my instructions from the collector in such cases as that
Avere not to appoint those men, but to. go around them and select somebody else.
. . . .
Q. Would these protests be filed against particular merchants, or^
aga^inst any certaiii class of merchants.?-T-A..,T.hey were specific, giving^
names of the persons protested in each case. . 'I never receiA^ed a general
protest, nor I .never receiA^ed a protest after a merchant appraiser had
been appointed. I always-insisted upon their making their protests.
I hierely said when they woiild come down, or I Avould send up the appeal AA^ith i h e names t o b e indorsed. They would say, " I wish you
Avouldn't appoint So-and-so." I said, "If you warit to protest against
any parties, put your protest in writing." I neyer accepted, a general
protest from any merchant.
Q. Were these protests made against the personal character of the
merchants, or on account of their particular interest?—A. These protests Avere almost invariably by importers against domestic manufacturers. They cited in them, " W e believe that these parties' business
interests are so opposed to our OAVU, they being rivals, that we do not,
consider them capable of acting in an unbiased manner in this case."
That was the gist of the protest.
Q. As I understand it, the appeals to merchant appraisements are, as
a rule, made by what are known as "consignment houses." Is not this
REPORT, GF\ THE. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY..
79
true?—A.. Yes; I think the bulk of the reappraisements are from the:
houses that receiA^e the consigned goods. There is one tiling I ihight
say has suggested itself to me, and'that was the repetition from the ap-i
prajisers of the same old nanies. You would infer that there were only
four or five qualified merchants in t^he city of New York, from the way
they sent down names for merchant appraisers. All that is necessary
is to go and get the appeals and look them over for yourself, and you
will see the class of names that 'come down continually.
.Q. In other words, the same identical persons keep coming right
along?7—A. Yes, sir.
:
Q._ In view,of your experience, what i^ 3^our opinion as to the class
of merchants, having in view those that received goods by consignment
and those generally known''as merchants connected Avith domestic manufactures, and the other merchants or jobbers in foreign gbods,, as tb
Avhich would be the best qualified to act justly and fairly as merchant
appraisers.?—A. Well, this maitter of mer chant appr aisements---of course
I haye never considered it any of my particular business—but it seeihs
to 'me that they haye drifted out of'the proper manner of makihg appraisements, and tliat they hav'e turned it into a judicial proceeding,
whereas the law originally intended and it dpes proAdde how for simply
a reappraisement by a merchant expert. They have counsel appear,
and various, other paraphernalia of courts, instead of acting as experts;
and I know that, for instance, a gentleman told me that he had a merchant appraisemerit called there^ and that there Avas half a dozen people
in.the room, and he protested against any one being present except the .
Avitness that was under examination. They cleared the room, and when
they came to call for the other witnesses there was not one of them
there; they had all gone.away, abud he said their sble object in being
there was to learn soniething of this man's business, and Avhen. they
found they were blocked in that, they found they had no further interest. '
••, .'
Q. Then your understanding is that they have really drifted away ,
from tihe intention of a reappraiseihent, reappraising merchandise as
experts into a judicial proceeding?—A. Yes, sir; that is the way I
understand it. I have never been present at a reappraisement, but
everybody pours their complaints into my ear.
Q. I observe, in. looking over the names of these parties who have
been frequently acting as merchant appraisers, (having been nominated
by the appraiser to you to ,be selected from,) that they are the same
meh over and over again, and that their invoices have been frequently
advanced by the appraiser. I n btlier words, they are knbwn as undervaluing houses themselves?—A.. Yes. You niean to say that the par-i
ties whom the appraiser has homihafed are men whpse invoices hav6
been frequently advanced.
' .
Q. What is your judgment as to the propriety of selecting merchant
appraisers from firms whose iuA'^oices are being constantly advanced ?-TA. I do not think that merchants, whose gobds are habitually undervalued, should be appointed as merchant appraisers, but at the same
time i do not consider that the fact that'a merchant'sin voices are subjected to a small advance, less than 10 per cent., is proof positive that
the invoices are undervalued. The merchant is in dread of the appraiser's office, and -rather than take the chances of delay, which is
death to his business, he accepts the small advance. They took pains
to impress upon me when I first assumed these duties that the man that
80
REPORT OF THE SECRE UARY OF THE TREASURY. ^ ,
they put down first on the list was the man that I was to appoint—that.
was the one they would prefer. As a consequence I generally avoided
them, because I didn't think it was fair to put up a job on the importer
on the part of the Government official. The Government has got the
best of it in having two officials against one importer, and it is a proper
thing that the merchant should be as nearly fair as they could be, but
if they name the merchant I don't see bnt that the party Avliose invoice
is in dispute is pretty well bound up. I can't say that I ever received
that directly from any official—I don't Avant to be so understood—'•
directly from any appraiser or any official.; but that was the.under-,
standing, and you will find that it was the understanding, and had
been for a long while, that the first-named person Avas the favorite Avith
- the appraiser's office.
Q. What would be your judgment in doing away with this regulation
ofthe appraiser sending the nanies and allowing the collector to select
on his own-judgment without this advice from the appraiser ?—A. I do
not know that I would suggest any different arrangement of the regulations to cover that at present, although I would suggest that there be a
little greater variety in respect to the names submitted for merchant
appraisers.
By Mr.
TINGLE:
Q. Would, in your opinion, it be a solution of this difficulty if the
appraisers were required to report to the collector a list each month of
the firms doing business in thedifferent classes of importations from
which the collector could make selections of merchant appraisers in
lieu of the present pactice of sending in a list of five names as required
by the regulations?—A. I thirik that plan would be a great improvement on the present one of furnishing five names on each appeal.
Q. Has your attention been called in a general way to the firms whose
invoices Avere advanced?—A. No; that is a thing I have never paid
much attention to. It was simply my duty to order the liquidation as.
adA-anced by the appraiser, and to take penalty if it was over the penalty line, and that thing had never attracted my attention particularly.
It goes into Esterbrook's bureau.
Q. You haven't taken any personal cognizance of these maters relating to advanced invoices, then?—A. I have noticed the invoices more
. since this investigation took place and. my attention Avas called to it.
Then, of course, I scrutinized them more than usual. I would take
notice of the raise and the result of the merchant appraisement, but before that they merely passed through my hand for a check. One thing
has attracted my attention during the last three months, and that is
that silk invoices that have been largely advanced by the appraiser,
from 20 per cent, up, in a large majority of cases upon reappraisement
have been reduced below the penalty line.
In regard to jobbers acting as merchant appraisers, I think it would
be unsatisfactory in its result, as the jobber who purchases from the
importer would be placed in a position from which he could ascertain
the exact cost to the importer ofthe goods sold to him, the jobber.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
J A M E S M . CONSTABLE,
81
of the firm of Arnold, Constable & Co., caUed.
By Mr. T I N G L E :
Q. What is your opinion as to the propriety of appointing jobbers
exclusively, who do not import merchandise, as merchant appraisers
at this port?—A. I think that the jobbers would be incompetent to act
in that capacity, and that they could not possibly give such attention tocustom-house business, for they have not the time to devote to it. There
are a very limited number of importers that OAVU their own goods. I
suppose we buy a larger amount of goods than any house in the country
Avho own their imported goods.
Q. How many houses, besides your firm, are there who actually import goods to this port on their own account?—A. Clafiin, Jaffray,
Dunham, Buckley & Co., Bates, Eeed & Cooley, Lord & Taylor—well,
there are a few others who import; Johnson, Stern, and Altman import^
a few. We are overrun here Avith manufacturers' agents from abroad,,
who come here and undertake to deliver goods, duty paid, at prices in
dollars and cents.
Q. The firms you have named are importers of dry-goods, are they
not?—A. Yes, importers of dry-goods.
"
Q. Does your firm import many silks?—A. Yes, largely.
Q. Standard goods?—A. Well, we import—of course Ave consider aU
silks standard. We send a man to Europe tAvice a year and buy a large
stock of goods.
Q. The class of goods he buys, are they always delivered to your
house direct—that is, do you always invoice them in francs?—A. We
haye our own house in Lyons, and we do all through that house.
Q. What proportion of. the silks that j o u sell do you import?—
A. That fs almost impossible for me to ansAver. Some seasons it may
be alinost everything; it depends upon the season; you couldn't teU.
If we have a very brisk time, we are bujdng in the market; in fact we
are always in the market buying things under price, and sometimes fuU
price.
.
By Mr. TICHENOR :
Q. What proportion ofmerchandise imported at this port is imported
regularly by legitimate importers ?—A. WeU, I couldn' t give any opinion
on it; I think probably nine-tenths of the goods imported here are consigned goods. This is my opinion simply.
By Mr. T I N G L E :
Q. As to the methods of reappraisements, have you anythingto say
on that?--A. I haA^e not. I don't know that the present mode can be
improved to my knoAvledge. These gentlemen, I believe a majority of
them, study to get at the value as well as they possibl;g can; but as to.
getting at it, you know it is utterly out of the question^
Q. As to the methods of reappraisements you have had a great deal
of experience; do you think that system could be improved?—A. I.
don't know how.
Q. For example, do you think it is a proper practice to allow the
importers and witnesses who are called to sustain invoice prices to be
present in the room, and thus obtain information concerning their rival's
invoices?—A. I don't know how that is to be avoided, I am sure. You
have but one room for the business, and the Avitnesses are summoned
6A
82
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
there for a certain time, and there they are, and they naturaUy Avill
confer Avith one another. I presume the witnesses who are summoned
deal in these goods. This is only my opinion.
By Mr. TICHENOR : .
Q. To what cause do you attribute the decline in the legitimate importations at this port?—A. I have been in the business forty-three
years. In former years this under-invoicing was hardly known. In
the first place, the duties were from about 15 to 25 per cent., and everything was on a smaller scale. There was not the incentive to cheat as
there is now. I say that this high tariff brings about this incentive to
underA^alue. If duty is 20 per cent., and suppose it is under-invoiced
25 per cent., the loss in duty is only .5 per cent., and Arnold, Constable
& Co. could stand it better, because they know the market better than
most importers know it; therefore, we could stand 5 per cent, when we
couldn't stand 15.
"
Q. Then, I understand you to say that the decline in the legitimate
importing trade has resulted from undervaluation by consignment on
account of foreign owners?—A. Yes, sir; and growing out of this high
tariff. Before the war, in 1861, this undervaluation Avas wholly unknOAvn. NOAV there is not an Anierican house importing that is not a
' jobber or retailer. We must either cheat or retire from.the strict business of importation.
Q. What remedies would you suggest for this condition of affairs?—
A. Well, as I said before, there are only tAvo: One is a lower tariff and
specific duties, instead of ad valbrem duties. I adA^^ocate the two com. bined in moderate, say 10 per cent, ad valorem, and specific afterwards.
In some goods purely specific duties are impossible.
J A M E S MCYICKAR,
of E. S. Jaffray & Co., called.
By Mr. T I C H E N O R :
,
Q. Please state whether, in your opinion, from your experience as
a mercha -•: appraiser and your knowledge of the course of proceeding
there, that system may be improved or not to the advantage of the
Government and all parties concerned.—A. The present method of
having several cases heard at one time cbuld be improved by having
one at a time.
Q. What is your judgment in regard to the proposition of appointing jobbers who are neither importers nor interested in American
manufactures as merchant appraisers?^—A. I think the present practice
of appointing merchant appraisers from all classes of merchants is
about as good for the Governnient and for the importer as could be
devised. I don'^ see anything wrong in the mode of procedure in that
particular. I think the case may come up where very often the^
American manufacturer is better than an importer, andwce versa.
So many things enter into this question. You cannot make an assertion like that, that a jobber is the only man to act as iaerchaht appraiser, or an importer either.
Q. From what you have seen as to the course of American manufacturers called as merchant appraisers, do they, in your opinion, make
fair appraisements ?—A. Of course I don't see the merchant appraisers'
results outside of my own, I can only hear Avhat they say, Qf course
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
83
I of my own knowledge couldn't tell how near they strike it; but my
opinion of the American manufacturers that I have met over there,
they are a fair body of men, and I don't see that it would be to the
interest of the Government to cut off the American manufacturers or
the jobbers iri selecting merchant appraisers.
Q. Would it, in your judgment, be practicable, and, if so, advisable,
to limit the selection of merchant appraisers to strictly legitimate importing—that is, houses importing their own goods, purchased abroad
on their own account, and jobbing houses at this port?—A. It might
be practicable, but it would not be advisable.
Mr.
J O H N GIBB,
of the firm of Mills & Gibb, called. ^
By Mr. TICHENOR :
Q. Inviting your attention to the letter from the Secretary of the
Treasuiy which I have just read to you, will you please state Avhether
you deem it practicable, and, if so, advisable, to limit the selection ofl
merchant appraisers to legitimate importing houses—that is houses
buying goods abroad and importing them regularly on their own account, and to jobbers of such merchandise at this port?—A. I should
think it advisable. No doubt about that. As to the practicability of it,
I am not prepared to speak. If it was generally known that the gentlemen such as alluded to in this question were to be merchant appraisers in all cases, there would be less undervaluing done than .at present,
and there would'be fewer cases of reappraisement. If this rule obtain,
it would go a long way tOAvards correcting this evil.
,. Q. From your experience as importer and merchant appraiser, what
is your judgment as to the advisability of excluding from selection as
merchant appraisers domestic manufacturers as well as firms whose
invoices are quite frequently adA'-anced?—A. I think it would be decidedly better if the merchant appraisers were taken from importers
who buy their goods abroad and have no consignments.
,
W I L L I A M H . D E FOREST,
agent for foreign manufacturers, called.
By Mr. T I N G L E :
Q. It has been proposed that the appointment of merchant appraisers
shall be confined to jobbers, and that merchants receiAdng goods on consignment and American manufacturers shall be excluded from such
appointment. Please state your views upon that proposition.—A. In
the first place, American manufacturers should be excluded, for the
reason "that they are prejudiced, being entirely antagonistic to the importing interest. The jobber should be excluded, for the reason that he
would show preference with the iniporter with whom h,e deals, and
would be prejudiced against the importer with Avhom, for any reason,
he cannot deal. And for another reason, that the jobbers are so few
that the position of merchant appraiser would devolve on the juniors,
who are really not competent, in many cases, to act as merchant appraisers.
Q. Please state from what class of merchants, in your opinion, merchant appraisers should be selected.—A. I think it would be better, if
84
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '.
it were possible, that a merchant appraiser should be selected from an
importer of other goods or fabrics than those to be reappraised, and Avho
ds alccustomed to the usages of trade in foreign countries.
Q. Have you any suggestions as to improvements in the methods of
reappraisement as now pursued?—A. I prefer not to answer that question just now without further reflection.
Q. Do you think it a proper thing to appoint as merchant appraisers
importers whose goods are constantly advanced and under reappraisement?-^A. It does not seem fair and just to the Governinent to do that,
but at the same tiine it is almost impossible for the Government to get
other merchant appraisers, in view of the enormous number- of reappraisements we are having.
Q. What, in your opinion, would be the remedy to stop undervaluations?—A. To correct the mode of reappraisement to a fair and just
way, to reduce the rate of dury to 35 per cent., and when it is found
goods are undervalued 10 per cent, the goods shall be confiscated to
the Government.
SATURDAY,
ANDREW
J.
By Mr.
PERRY,
March 28, 1885.
general appraiser, port of New York, called.
TINGLE:.
^ Q. Please state your vicAvs as tb the advisability of appointing domestic manufacturers as merchant appraisers, haAdng in view the proper
ascertainment of the dutiable A-alue of the merchandise.—A. My experience leads me to the conclusion that domestic manufacturers liaA^e
been valuable aids in determining dutiable value of certain kinds of
merchandise, mostly Avoven fabrics of silk or silk and cotton. They
are very infrequently selected to serve as nierchant appraisers. In one
hundred and two reappraisements in the three months ending December 31, 1884, but four American manufacturers acted as merchant
appraisers. During Januaiy, Februaiy, and March, down to the present day, there haA^e been one hundred and scA'-enty-fiA^e reappraisements,
. and from this the nuniber, of doniestic manufacturers acting was thirtytwo. When they are so selected and serve, as they always do, I have
found in them very considerable aid from their intelligence on the
general subject of the manufacture of goods and all the elements of ^
manufacture, as well as their skill and knowledge in determining t h e '
quality of the goods and the differences in qualities, and have found
them to be almost if not altogether fair-minded, painstaking, and care- •
ful men in the discharge of their duty. I ^pliould have no hesitation
in recommending, AA^ere I called upon to make any recommendation,
that they be selected with more frequency than they have been heretofore.
,
.
- Q. It has been suggested that the appointment of merchant appraisers shall be confined to jobbers or merchants Avho neither import
or are interested in American man^ifactures. What, in your opinion,
Avould be the advisability of such a rule as that?—A. I think the tendency would be detrimental to the public service. I don't see how it
could be otherAvise. ,The importers, so called, of this, class of merchandise are largely inere receivers of goods, and not purchasers.
There are a very fcAv purchasers of goods in foreigri markets now doing
business in New York city, and foreign market value is pne of the
REPORT OF THE SiECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
. 85
most difficult things to ascertain from such witnesses as' are available
in this city, from the fact that there are very few who make purchases
in the foreign markets. Where it is possible to ascertain the cost of
manufacture, the domestic manufacturer, or any one having a knowledge of doniestic manufactures, can furnish the most reliable intelli- •
gence^that we can get, except on the question of the value of foreign
labor.^ In that respect it is clainied, on the part of importers, thatthe
domestic manufacturer is at a disadvantage, and necessarily can know
very little about it, although it is clainied on the part of some of the
domestic manufacturers that they are familiar enough Avith it to approximate this element of cost in any particular fabric of silk or cotton, and I have no doubt myself that they can come very near it from
such examinations as I have made of such Avitnesses under oath. But
. the domestic manufacturer is, from the nature of his business, quite as
ignorant of the foreign market value, and perhaps a little more so,
than the receiver or so-called importer of such merchandise, the difference being that he is in more frequent communication Avith the handlers
of such goods in foreign markets than the other.
Q. In your opinion, should members of firms whose iuA^oices are
frequently before you for reappraisement be appointed as merchant
appraisers ?—A. My opinion is that if practicable to have- other persons appointed tp discharge the diities of merchant appraisers, it
would be far better that they should be so appointed, but 1 fear that
under the existing rules in practice Avith respect to the methods of
selecting the merchant appraiser it would be found very incouA^enient,
if not impossible, to select merchant appraisers who would answer the
statutory definition of a nierchant appraiser.
Q. Is it not a fact that the members of firms, usually appointed are
riot themselves experts in the goods which they are called upon to examine, but depend almost entirely upon testimony adduced in each
case?—A. No. I think it is the fact, and very generally so, too, that
the merchant appraiser is familiar Avith the goods and familiar with
their qualities, shades, and differences of qualities, but may not be so
familiar Avith the market value as some one in his employ and as some
other firm or firms or dealers in the goods.
Mr. B.
EICHARDSON,
By Mr.
of B. Eichardson & Sons, called.
TINGLE:
Q. Mr. Eichardson,'the question has been presented to us for inquiry
and report as to the advisability of excluding domestic manufacturers
from serving as merchant appraisers, and of limiting the selection of
such nierchant appraisers to jobbers engaged in selling both domestic
and imported merchandise. Please give us your viewsupon this subject, based upon your experience as a merchant and merchant appraiser.—A. I have served frequently as a merchant appraiser, and
am practically acquainted with the points at issue. I was one of the
original incorporators of the Silk Association of America, and have
been chairman of the committee on revenue laws for the last fiftee.n
years, and have been engaged in the silk business here for thirty years.
As a rule, the testimony wliich is presented before merchant appraisers
by importers of consigned goods has been hearsay and opinion. For
86 .
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
instance, A would testify for B this week, and B Avould testify for A
next week. I have seen them quote prices withiii half a centime of
each other. I should say the jobbers have no experience either way;
they have no knowledge of the foreign markets and of the goods or of
the cost of product^ion, according to the ninth section of the present
tariff law. There are many business reasons why jobbers, apart frbm
their lack of acquaintance, should not be put on as merchant appraisers.
I know a case of reappraisement where the nierchant appraiser appointed was called upon to put a value upon goods he had himself
purchased from the importer, and such cases frequently occur. Jobbers
would be affected by their relations with the persons whose goods were
being reappraised, either up or down, and by their relations to the consigned houses; but they would not be equally affected by their relations with American manufacturers, because Avith them tho market is
open arid the prices are known to everybody, while on the other hand
the price of the consigned goods is an unknown quantity and avowedly
kept as a secret. As to men having domestic interests being merchant
appraisers, I have never yet heard anybody claim unfairness, and the
importers all say that all they want is an even deal; they don't want
a man to get his goods in at 20 per cent, while they are compelled to
pay 30. In regard to carrying out the ninth section, it is impossible
for anybody but domestic experts to assist in carrying that out. They
have to carefully analyze the goods and consider the value of the ma-'
terial and the value of the labor.
Q. What means haive domestic manufacturers of knowing the value
of foreign labor?—A. They have frequent correspondence, and there
is a constant stream of foreign workmen who come over here to engage
in doniestic manufactures. These men know the wages paid at home
for all classes of labor. It is also true that domestic manufacturers are
visiting abroad every year.
Q. Is it your opinion that persons whose invoices are frequently advanced, should be called as merchant appraisers?—A. Most decidedly
not. I tiiink they ought to mark men. I think men who are habitually doing wrong should not be selected to pass upon invoices, no
matter to what.class they belong.
JAMES BOOTH, called.
By Mr. SPAULDING :
Q. What is your business ?—A. Hamil & Booth, silk manufacturers,
Paterson, N. J.
Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Eichardson. Will you please
state whether or not you agree in the views expressed by him ?—A.
Yes; I have heard Mr. Eichardson's testimony; and I think it is very
clear and correct. I believe it is a very clear statement.
Q. Have you any other suggestion to make in regard to this matter ?—
A. No; I don't know that I have, any more than Avhat has been talked
over here. I would say that the really only true way to get at this is
to enforce the ninth section in the absence of proof of market value.
REPORT O^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
> Mr. W I L L I A M
called.
H . EOBERTSON,
By Mr. TICHENOR :
87
collector of the port of New York,
"
Q. Inviting your attention to the letter of the Secretary ofJ3he Treasury, dated March 16,^ with respect to the selection of persons to act
as merchant appraisers, please favor us with such suggestions as you
deem advisable on the subj ect.--A. I think that the collector should
be permitted to select merchant appraisers from doniestic manufacturers, from importers, from consignees, from jobbers; but he should
not be restricted to any one of these classes, but be permitted to select
men that he regards honest and competent from all these classes; that,
instead of being confined in any particular appeal to five names, selected by the local appraiser, that the local appraiser should furnish
him at stated periods with a list of reputable domestic manufacturers,
importers, consignees, and jobbers, from which the selection should be
made. Since I have personally designated the merchant appraisers,
which has been within the last two weeks only, I have in a great majority of the cases made my selection from the importers, and I have
in perhaps not to exceed two cases selected any man or any class of
men against whom any appellant has protested.
A. P.
KETCHUM,
By Mr.
appraiser of the port of New York, called.
TINGLE:
Q. Please state your views as to the proposition that domestic manufacturers shall be excluded from appointment as merchant appraisers.— .
A. Well, I am' not prepared to say that domestic manufacturers, as a
class, ought to be excluded from acting as merchant appraisers; hut I
think a number of them ought to be so excluded, for the simple reason
that I don't think they are fair men. I don't want to mention any
names, but to two of those gentlemen I have said, right to their faces,
that I did not approve of their acting as merchant appraisers on reappraisement—one of them was a very prominent manufacturer—^for the
reason that I felt that they did not possess the judicial temper or frame
of mind. I thought they were tbo much infiuenced by opinions which
they had in connection with importers and with matters of home industry ; but as to a number of domestic manufacturers that I could nanie,
I think they would be as fair in their judgment towards the importers
as any men I know, and at the same time I think the Governnient would
have the advantage of a certain kind of information which is very useful on reappraisements in connection Avith the officers deciding the
reappraisement. Now, to illustrate, I would name Mr. C. Lambert as
a man in whose fairness and knowledge and experience I would always
place confidence, as a merchant appraiser or otherwise. Mr: Strange
I have always found a very fair man, a very excellent man in every
way. I don't care to illustrate on the other side of the question.
Q. Will you give us your vicAvs.as to the proposition to confine the
selection of merchant appraisers to jobbers who dealin both imported
and domestic merchandise?—A. If you mean jobbers who do not import, I should be against the proposition. If you mean jobbers who
import purchased goods only, and who ncA^er receive consigned goods,
88
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
S far as silk goods are concerned, which form the bulk of the reapO
praifiiements, your list of aA^ailable merchant appraisers AVO uld be'co.ri-1
fined probably Avitliin the limit of half a dozen or less in New York
city, and, there:fore, I could not, on the latter basis, approve the latter,
proposition. With reference to many other kinds of nierchandise,
including varieties of woollen goods, jcAA^elry, upholstery, bric-a-brac,
carpets, &c., the men Avho abt as merchant appraisers are scarcely ever
other than impprters engaged in receiving goods actually purchased.
Q. In 3^our opinion, should houses whose invoices are frequently advanced by the appraiser be eligible to appointment as merchant appraisers?—A. I do not think it Avould be advisable to select such men
to act as merchant appraisers upon the class of goods received by them
at .undervalued prices; still, it often happens that a nierchant Avho cannot: be depended upon to act on those goods which may resemble merchandise consigned to him at an underA^aluation is thoroughl}^ competent and reliable as a nierchant appraiser upon other classes of goods,
such as he ncA^er receives, except upon actual purchase. '
WILLIAM KENT,
assistant appraiser, third division, called.
By Mr. T I N G L E :
•
Q. Will you please give your yicAvs as to the propriety of confining
the appointment of merchant appraisers to jobbers who deal in both
foreign and domestic goods?—A. I should be opposed to it on the
ground that t h e j are purchasers from the very houses whose goods are
under reappraisement, and they are unwilling to bring them up to
carry a penalty. They will carry them to 9 per cent., or even if it
was carried up to 15 per cent., they would say, " I cannot punish my
neighbor; I purchase a great many goods from this house, and I will
not put him into, a penalty." I Avill cite an instance here where we
advanced ribbons from, I think, 47 to 55 centimes a line. We had au
importing and jobbing nierchant who receives no goods on consignment as merchant appraiser. The testimony was sufficient to sustain
the price we put tliose goods to. Pie objected to inflicting a penalty
upon-this merchant, and thej^ settled, i f l remember rightly, upon 53^
centimes a line, and I understood that the papers Avere signed. The importer—I am not speaking from absolute knowledge, but from the report that came to me—called upon this man to^tell him that there Avas
still a penalty. He induced him to come down here. They revised
the papers and reduced the price just below 10 per cent.
Q. Then the actual value of the goods Avas not the first consideration
in the matter?—A. No; itwas to save a penalty to the importer on
account pf their business relations.
Q. What is your judgment as to the expediency of apppinting domestic manufacturers as nierchant appraisers?—A. I see no objection
whatcAT^er to it. I liaA^e once or twice, in view that I think myself the
manufacturers haA^e been a little harsh; I think they have gone to too
great an extreme, but as a rule they are very conservative and judicious men. I should prefer them, as a rule, to any others.
Q. From what class of merchants should the selection be made for
merchant appraisers?—A. There are certain goods imported that are
not manufactured in this countiy at all; in that case an importing
jobber should be appointed.
REPORT O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY.
89
. Q. Do you regard firms whose invoices are frequently advanced,and who appear often before the general appraiser on reappraisements,
as suitable persons to be appointed merchant appraisers?—A. They
serve a very good purpose where their own goods have been advanced
at a prior date.
Q. Is that the only case Avhere you would appoint them, Mr. Kent?—•
A. No; I couldn't say that it is, because in some instances we do get
goods that are properly invoiced—we know they receive goods that
are properly invoiced. In/that event they make-excellent merchant
appraisers.
. .
Q. Why is it, when a reappraisement is called for, that you put on
your list as Government witnesses men Avhose invoices are constantly
being advanced ?^-A. Whenever I do that, I select the very best ariiong
them, according to my judgment—the soundest man, and the most
truthful man, and the most honest man; and i f l don't do it, they go
to Captain Tuzo and get hini'to do it. I couldn't make up my list long
enough without summoning some of them. They Avdll go to Captain
Tuzo,. and he will summon worse men than I do, a good deal.
No. 4.
N E W YOB,K, April 10, 1885.
S I R : Continuing the investigation ofthe methods of conducting the
customs business at this port, we have given careful consideration to
the subject of undervaluation. While there is no'doubt that the
invoices of all classes of merchandise consigned.to the United States
for sale on foreign account are as a rule undervalued, this, is notably
true as to silk goods. During the paist ten years; since the repeal of
former restrictive aud penal provisions of the revenue laws, a system
of successful evasion of duties on silks has been gradually built up and
established. This system of^CA^asion has been a subject of frequent
investigation and report at home and abroad. It is a matter of common
notoriety in official and mercantile circles. Np one familiar with the "
silk trade, here or in Europe, will contend for a moment that consigned
silks are honestly imported into this country.
One of the chief difficulties in the suppression of undervaluations is
found in the method of reappraisement prevailing at this port. The i
list of five names sent by the appraiser to the collector, from which
selection is made of a merchant appraiser, is composed in part, sometimes wholly, of firms engaged in t3he consignment business, whose invoices are habitually undervalued. It is true that the nanies of domestic manufacturers and of iniporters, who do not receive consigned
goods, are also included in these lists, but the majority of the names are
those of houses above described. The deputy collector who previous
to January last made the appointments of nierchant appraisers states
that he regarded it as unfair to select a doniestic manufacturer to ap>
praise imported goods; besides, he had received formal protests from
the importers against such.appointments, and these he regarded as
sufficient reason for ruling out domestic manufacturers. He appears,
hoAvever, to have considered it no impropriety to appoint the agents
of foreign manufacturers whose invoices of like goods were constantly
undervalued and subjects of reappraisements.
90
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
/
, When it is understood that the general appraiser possesses little OIMIO
expert knowledge of the quality or value of merchandise, that the merchant appraisers usually appointed are agents of foreign-manufacturers,
and the Avitnesses called are usually in the same business, and therefore
interested in maintaining the consignment systein, it is not surprising
that so little progress has been made toAvards reaching true values upou
reappraisements. Proper results in these cases largely depend upon
the prompt, vigorous, and intelligent action of the general appraiser.
All advances upon invoices of 10 per cent, or more are, as a rule, appealed
from. The examiners making the advances are usually better informed
than any one else as to the actual value of the merchandise. The merchant appraiser appointed to act with the general appraiser, under the
provisions of sectipn 2930 of the Eevised Statutes, must be a merchant
in business on his own account. Gentlemen Avho are partners in large
firms are usually selected. Many of these have little or no expert
knowledge of the nierchandise to be appraised; they depend for information upon the testimony adduced. The goods advanced by the appraiser are almost always consigned, not purchased. The merchants
receiving them do not profess to have definite knowledge of the foreign
market values. Their ideas of such values are based upon the invoice
prices and the value in the New York market. These houses do not
buy the goods abroad, and do not own them; they simply sell thein on
foreign account for what they Avill bring. The employes of these firms
called to testify to market values do not hesitate to fix prices at or
near the dnvoice prices, and these prices are generally furnished to
them beforehand by the importer whose invoice is under reappraisement. When questioned, they are generally found to possess no actual
knowledge of foreign market value. The same witnesses appear almost
daily and give similar testimony, There are, in many cases, reports
from the consuls shoAving the cost of production, and in some instances
this has been supplemented by the testimony of doniestic manufacturers
and experts. This testimony has in repeated instances been submitted to the reappraising board, and has been disregarded, while the
testimony of employes of houses receiving consigned goods, presumably
always undervalued, has been accepted and the goods appraised at less
. than cost of production, notwithstanding the provisions of the law.
This, hoAvever, does not ahvays occur; when the merchant appraiser
happens to be a person not himself engaged in the consignment busi. ness, or one who is not tied up by intimate business relations with firms
,of that character, due credit is given to the testimony adduced on
behalf of the Government, and examiners' advances are sustained. In
either case, the general appraiser and his associates rarely differ.
The practical result of reappraisements as they^have been generally
' conducted is thatthe consignee and his business friends, each of whom^
expects return favors from his associates, virtually fix the market
value. The idea seems to have been lost sight of that a reappraisement is to be conducted in practically the same Avay as an original appraisement, and that reappraising officers are not to rest their decisions
upon testimony obtained after the manner of law courts, regardless of
their own expert knowledge or facts procured, " b y all reasonable ways
and means in their power."
We are informed that it is not unusual for the merchant appraiser to
be known to the appealing party before taking the required oath and
entering upon duty, and. that he and Avitnesses are visited before the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.91
hearing by interested parties and furnished with the invoice prices.
Eumors have reached us that the person selected as a merchant appraiser has been known to declare at these preliminary meetings the
decision he intended to give in the case. Whatever truth there may
be in these rumors, the fact that they obtain currency is a striking commentary on existing practices.
When there are several cases set for reappraisement the same day,
it is the practice to have them all in progress at the same time. The
importer and his witnesses gather about the merchant appraiser, who,
when he reaches a, conclusion, consults with the general appraiser, and
the decision is made known in the presence of the importer and witnesses. If this is not satisfactory to the importer, he is. allowed to
protest and reargue the case, Avith a view to the modification bf the
finding, in which he is often successful. This condition of affairs suggests the wisdom and necessity of a return to the old and legal methods
of reappraisement outlined in a circular letter of Secretary Eobert J.
Walker, of December 26, 1848, a copy of which is enclosed marked
.ujj^??^
. ..
Examiners who endeavor to do their duty faithfully by advancing
invoices become discouraged after repeated failures of the appraisers
to sustain their action. In recent cases, when values have been determined upon reappraisement in the manner stated, the examiners have
b^een directed by the appraiser to pass subsequent invoices in accordance Avith the values so found. They are thus compelled to subordinate their own judgment to the findings of a reappraising board
on previous invoices, reappraised in soma cases months, and even
years before.
^
.
There is always a reluctance on the part of* appraising officers to
advance values to the 10 per cent, limit, or, as' it is expressed in the
common parlance of the appraiser's store, to "put the importer to.a
penalty." This idea runs through the entire proceeding, and, according to the expressed opinion of the appraiser, is inseparable from: it:.
The ascertainment of the true value of the goods and the appraiseinent
thereof is thus coupled with the consideration whether a^ penalty will
be involved; if so, a strong effort Avill be made to reduce the appraisement in whole or in part, so that the advance will be a shade under 10
per cent. This tenderness towards importers, this disposition of officials
to shield them from the legal consequences of undervaluation, has
tended to encourage and establish the practice.
Successful undervaluations have prevailed for so many years that the
belief has generally obtained that nothing short of legislation will suppress it. That legislation is needed in this direction no one Avill dispute. The adoption of specific duties, wherever practicable, would be
a long step towards seeming correct and uniform collection of duties,
and remedial laws are needed to enable the Government to enforce the
tariff; but we are satisfied that much of the existing conditions of affairs
is due to faults of administration that may be corrected.
*NoTE.—For the enclosed circular, see page 47.
.
92
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
There is need of a thorough reorganization of the appraising depart-.,
ment. The appraiser should devote all his time and energies to the
great business institution under his charge; and this requirement should
extend to all of the employes of the department.
When it is considered that three-fourths of the importations of foreign
merchandise coming to this country is entered at the port of New York,
the importance of the careful administration of the appraising department cannot be overestimated. Not only are the rcA^enues of the Government endangered by faulty or corrupt methods, but business interests
are distui'bed, and in some cases destroyed, by the failure of the appraising officers to make full, uniform, and prompt appraisements of imported
merchandise. It is a serious question whether the existing business
depression is not more or less due to loose and unbusiness-like methods
of appraisement, whereby one merchant pays more duties upon the same
article than another.
The ease Avith which undervalued invoices haye passed the appraisers
has invited and encouraged excessive consignments from Europe. The
tariff laws, if impartially and absolutely enforced, Avould prevent importations at unequal and undervalued prices, and would regulate and
restrict the introduction of foreign merchandise in accordance with the
healthy demands of trade.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
A. K. TINGLE,
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
Hon..I)ANiEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 5.
B.
^Fxtracts from Testimony of Appraiser McMullen and others.
[From testimony of Examiner (how Appraiser) Lewis McMullen, taken AprU 4, 1885,
before the investigating commission of special agents at the port of New York.]
Q. Please give your experience Avith respect to reappraisements
upon which appeals have been taken, and any suggestions that occur
to you looking to an improvement in the methods of procedure upon
reappraisements.—A. Eeappraisements as now conducted have, in my
RIPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
93
opinion, lost the cliaracter of reappraisements as contemplated by law
and the regulations of the Department. The present practice appears .
to be to take.the testimony of witnesses supposed to be experts in the
goods, and the decision is arrived at according to the preponderance of
testimony or the number of witnesses, thereby making the Avitriesses
called in the actual appraisers instead of the reappraising board. As
I understand the law, a reappraisement is simply the revaluation of the
goods by another appraiser or board of appraisers, and this revaluation is to be made in substantially the sariie manner as an original appraisement. The introduction of the form of court procedure and the
formal exaniination and cross-examination of witnesses, the admission
of counsel to represent importers, and the appearance of importers
themselves to act as their own counsel, do not seem to, be contemplated
by law or regulations. The ascertainment of the market value- of
merchandise by the appraiser is according to laAv—a purely arbitrary .
preceding; and when the importer is dissatisfied with that appraisement
and appeals for reappraisement, that reappraisement by another officer,
aided by the merchant called iu for that purpose, is also an arbitrary
proceeding, and conducted upon the same theory as original appraisements.
[From testimony of Assistant Appraiser Kent, taken April 4, 1885.] .
Q. What proportion of the silk goods appraised in your division are
consigned for sale on foreign account?—A. I should think from 85 to
90 per cent.
- Q. Do the invoices of these goods as a rule express the actual market
A-alue, according to the information of yourself and your examiners?—
A. They do not.
.
Q. Are they as a rule undervalued?—A. They are, according to my
best knowledge and judgment. ^ > *
^ K
.
Q. Is it true that foreign manufacturers, sending goods here on consignment for sale, conceal the foreign market value?^A. It is my
opinion thej^ do, intentionally. ^^ ^^'. -^
^
^
Q. Do you consider the results of reappraisements usually a true
guide to foreign value of the goods?—A. I do not generally.
Q. Is not this to be attributed to the fact that often the merchant appraiser himself, and nearly always the witnesses Avho appear on these
reappraisements, are either agents of foreign houses or their employes?—A. Usually it is so. Of course that would apply to such witnesses as are employed by houses here.
^
*T*
^^
^
'T*
^1^
'T^
^1^
Q. Could not, in yopr opinion, this be aA^oided if reappraisements
were conducted as the statutes contemplated instead of being conducted
after the form of procedure in courts of justice,-as' is now the case?—
A. Yes. Persons interested in the goods under reappraisement should
not be allowed in the room Avheii the goods are being exainined. The
broAvbeating of witnesses and threats of retaliation on the part of consignees would be avoided if they A ere not alio Aved access together in
V
the room during proceedings, and were permitted and required to
make up and report their A^aluation^ separately and privately. .Only
one witness at a time should appear before the general and merchant
appraisers, and the testimony of witnesses who have been "coached"
by the importers should be ruled out as evidence.
.
94
REPORT OFLTHE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
[From testimony of General Appraiser A. J. Perry, taken April 4, 1885.}
Q. Do you find, as a matter of fact, that merchant appraisers appointed, are often importers who receive consigned goods?—A. Yery
frequently.
^
^
Q. Who have appeared before you. as appellants on their own invoices?—A. Yery frequently, especially in regard to silks.
Q. What is the character of the testimony there adduced ?—A. Speaking of the same kind of goods, the most of it, so far as the'witnesses
are concerned, is from those people who receive goods on consignment
for sale in this market, who have not purchased them in the foreign
market.
Q. Have you found, upon questioning these people, that they do not
profess to have a knowledge of the niarket value ?—A. Yery frequently.
[From testimony of Mr. Lorenzo G. Woodhouse, resident partner of Messrs. Marshall,
Field & Co., taken AprU 8, 1885.]
Q. Please state your experience in respect to reappraisements at this
port.—A. I have been called here many times on reappraisement, but
there have been very few cases in which I have been called as an expert, where the advances have been sustained on the invoice, and very
largely for the.,reason that when I would come down here, whether it
was kid gloves, silks, velvets, or different classes of merchandise, I
have alwajys found the same set of witnesses on behalf of the importers,
and I have never found of late enough witnesses who were engaged
in the straight, honest invoicing of merchandise to have any weight in
an important matter with the merchant and general appraiser.
[From testimony of J. C. Wiswell, examiner of silks in.the appraiser's department.
New York, taken April 4,1885.]
.
Q. What proportion of the invoices of consigned goods that come to
you for examination do you find undervalued ?^WeU, virtually all of
them are advanced, either by the importer or myself, or both.
[From testimony of M. J. Corbet, examiner of silks in the appraiser's department,
New York, taken April 3, 1885.]
. Q. These invoices of consigned goods, are they usually undervalued,
according to your estimation of value?—A. Yes.
No. 6.
Testimony taken concerning the Eecall and Eeconsideration of Invoices, &G.
EDWARD LESEUR,
N E W YORK, Thursday, April 2, 1885.
examiner, fifth division, appraiser's department,
called.
By Mr. T I N G L E :
Q. Please state the circumstances connected with an advance made
by you upon'Jouvin gloves some months ago.—A. Some months ago I
advanced an invoice of .Bossange & Co.; they were consigned to them
by B. D. Warburg & Co., of Paris, and were Jouvin gloves, but not in-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. -
95
voiced by the Jouvins. I advanced the invoice above a penalty, and
Bossange appealed for reappraisement. Mr. HoAvell, of the firm of
Charles G. Landon & Co., Avas merchant appraiser. Witnesses were
summoned for the reappraisement, and appeared and appraised the
goods, and gave their estimate of value to the merchant and general
appraisers on the usual schedules. The witnesses, as near as I remember', were Mr. Woodhouse, of Marshall Field & Co.; Mr. John Wills,
of E. Oelbermann & Co., Goldsmith, Baccarach & Co., and, I think,
>
others. I saAv the schedules, but do not recollect now the exact prices
placed upon the goods; but I am satisfied that the prices substantially
sustained my advance.- Pending these proceedings, a representative bf
the importer appeared with LaA\yer Tremaine; the hearing was postponed. I heard no more of the case for a long time. Finally, one of
the clerks in the appraiser's office gave me a. slip of paper and said that
the appraiser Avanted that invoice recalled from the hands ofthe general
appraiser. I said, "Well, I don't want the invoice; if the appraiser
wants it recalled he can dp so." "Well," he said, "the appraiser left
word that you should see that the invoice was returned." I said to
Assistant Appraiser Auerbach, " I don't want this." I handed it to
fche clerk and said, '' You can have it.'' The chief clerk made requisition at this time, and the invoice came back to the fifth diAdsion out of
the hands of the general appraiser. They left it on my desk. I took •
it to Mr. Auerbach, and said I didn't want anything to do with it, and
after that the assistant appraiser came to me from the appraiser's office
' with that invoice. He sat down at his desk and wrote an order on a
slip of paper, the purport of which was, "Edward Leseur, examiner:
You Avill change the value on the goods represented on this invoice in
accordance Avith the figures of the appraiser." It was in accordance
with the figures Appraiser Ketchum had sent me before. This was in
the afternoon. I said to Mr. Auerbach, " I don't think I will; I won't
until I see the appraiser." "All right," he said. ' I went down to see
the appraiser, but he was out; so I did nothing with it that day, but
went home and thought the matter OA^er. I came down in the morning,,
took the invoice and made the correctibns tp correspond with schedule '
that had been given by Appraiser Ketchum. I turned the invoice
over; on the back I noted the reduction of value, as follows: "Advance
in. value corrected ori this to correspond with figures at which the appraiser has appraised the goods in question. By order of the appraiser.''
I put it on Mr. Auerbach's desk. I was sent for, and went down to
Mr. Ketchum's room; there I found Captain Chalker and Mr. Auerbach. Mr. Ketchum said: '' Mr. Auerbach informs me that he requested
you to bring me this inA^^oice and you refused to do so." I said, "That
is not so." I told him just what I did say, and that the invoice would
come to him in the regular course. Mr. Ketchum said he didn't want
those words, "By order ofthe appraiser," on that invoice. " I am appraiser, and what I order to be done I want done, but I don't want that
'' By order of the appraiser.'' I said, '' Mr. Ketchum, didn't you order
it?" He said, " Y e s . " I said, "Don't you propose to assume, the
responsibility of your action ?'' He said, '' Yes, but I will not have any
insubordination in this department." I said, "General Ketchum, this
is not a question, in my mind, of insubordination; it is merely a ndtation in writing ofthe receipt of your letter." After further conversation, I erased those words.
^
^
^
i^
.
^
^
sH
96
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF" THE TREASURY.
Q. What reduction did the appraiser make?—A. The figures will
shoAv the reduction. Oh one line of goods he ordered a reduction of
2 francs beloio the entered value.
Q. Did this action of his conform to your judgment,-or was it con-^
trary ?—A. I told him it Avas not in accordance with my judgment, but
he said " i t is Captain Chalker's judgment that this reduction is right,
and he is.the best special agent I ever worked with."
^
i^
>ii
>Ii
^
^
' ^
Q. Did you subsequently advance similar goods of the same importer
to the same figures?—A. Yes.
Q. Did the"pai% appeal fbr reappraisement?—A. They did.
Q. What Avas the result?—A. On certaiii lines the advance was suS;
tained.
sl*
*A»
**
X
*4^
*^
>!-'
^l'
*l*
*!*
*T*
**•
. *x*
By Mr. T I N G L E :
- •
vL*
^f*
"
Q. Please state circumstances connected with an adA^ance madeby
you on goods pf Passavant & Co. Avhich Avent to .reappraisement?—A.
PassaA^ant & Co. imported a gloA^e from Treafousse & Co., known as
quality De Lorme. The first importation was invoiced at 28 francs for
two-button, and 30fr-ancsfor three-button gloves. They Avere advanced
from time tSo time and reappraisements had, and finally the prices fi::^ed.
at 35 francs for tAvo-biitton, 38 francs for three-button, and 41 francs for
four-button gloves. Captain Chalker, a special agent, came to me and
said that he kucAv a gentleman that had been to Paris twice, and had
some inforniation in regard to undervaluation of Paris-made gloves, but
didn't giA^e me his name. I said to Captain Chalker that:AA^hen I had a
case of Paris goods on the fioor, I AA^ould notifj^ him. I had a case of
gloA^es, Passavant & Co. Paris-made goods, and so notified Captain
Chalker, and said that if he had any information in regard to any undervaluation of these goods he should giA^e it to me. He then took frorii
his pocket a slip of paper, which had the names of several importers of
Paris goods, and among them the name of Marshall Field & Co. I
then asked if Mr. Wopdhouse, a member of the firm, was in town. Captain Chalker said, "Yes, you go and ask him, and he will tell you all
about it. " I did not go to see Mr. Woodhouse, but I advanced the goods,
and called Mr. Woodhouse as one of the merchants or Avitnesses on reappraisement. Messrs. PassaA^ant & Co. called fbr a reappraisement;
the papers were sent: to riiy division for the names of merchant appraisers and witnesses. I gaA^^e the names of some ten or tAvelve witnesses and merchant appraisers in the glove business. The reappraisement came off, arid a man by the name of De Forest Avas nierchant
appraiser, a gentleman AA^hom I did not knoAA^; but a-fterwards learned
he Avas an importer of silks, and never imported gioA^es. The result of
the reappraisement' was that the entered value of the goods was sustained. At the time oi the reappraisement, Passavant & Co. were
represented by Lawyer Tremaine, and Special Agent Chalker, who Avas
present, expressed himself as satisfied that the entered yalue was cor.rect; that tihe advance was not correct, upon being appealed to by Appraiser Ketchum, who Avas also present.
.
^ •
H«
H^
5i;
i^
^
^
*
REPORT OF THE SEdRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
97
Mr. J O H N W I L L S , in charge of glove department of E. Oelbermann &
Co., and representative of the Perinot Glove Company, called. , .
' By Mr. TICHENOR :
'
Q. Please state what your observations in regard to the manner of conducting reappraisements have been at this port.—A. They occur inthis
manner: The moment a person has his iuA^oice advanced he goes around
to see his friends whom he expects to appear as witriesses and hands
them a copy of his invoice. By this means they acquire the market
value of the goods imported. I have had tAvo applications made to me
Avithin the last month or so, but declined to attend, as I have not been
in the market for some time, and was not acquainted Avith the goods in
reappraisement. ^ A copy of the invoice was handed me [showing paper]
for the purpose of showing me how to make my prices, and I was told
I would be fully posted. The majority of the witnesses expect the same
favor when their turn comes. The merchant appraiser is generally
looked up in the same manner.
Q. Is it known to the importer who the merchant appraiser is to be
before the time of reappraisement?—A. Yery frequently.
Q. Where is that infbrmation obtained?—A. I imagine from the custom-house.
Q. Have you known of any cases where the merchant appraiser was
known beforehand?—A. I think I have known of frequent cases of
that kind.
Q. Is there any truth in the statement that the importer whose goods
are to be-appraised has a voice in the selection of the merchant ap
praiser?—A. When there has been a reappraisement, endeavors have
been made to have the names of certain merchants put on the list that
is sent to the custom-house, I believe, for selection, and these merchant
appraisers have been appointed.
'
Q. Have there been cases within your knowledge where you were
satisfied that the merchant appraiser's mind was fully made up as to
his action before the hearing of the case?—A.. I am perfectly satisfied
of it.
?1<
-
>K
^
•
-
^A<:
>K
^
'
^
Q. In what classes of gloves are underA^^aluations most prevalent now ?—
A. My opinion is that,-with the exceptions of the brands, the value of
which was established some years ago, aU goods are undervalued.
^ Q. To what extent?—A. I think that, as a witness testifying on reappraisement, I have advanced invoices over 60 per cent.
Q. HaAT^e these advances been sustained?—A. -No, sir. Advances
are seldom made to the extent of 10 per cent.; it is not often that advances are made on reappraisement over 10 per cent. I know of a case,
however, where, after an advance was made less than 10 per cent., the
importer added to a subsequent invoice of the same goods, on entry,
$1,200, to make market value, which was not less than 50 per cent, on
the invoiced value.
,
' Q. Were you present as a witness at the reappraisement of gloves
consigned to Bossange & Co., some time in September of lastyear?—A.
Yes; I was a Avitness about that time on reappraisement.
Q. Who was the merchant appraiser?—A. Mr. Howell, pf Charles
Landon & Co.
Q. Did you examine and appraise the goods?—A. Yes; I examined
the goods very carefuUy.
7A
98
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 7.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
.Washington, B. C, Juned, 1885.
SIR : Your attention is called to the instructions of the Department
contained in Synopsis, 2655, and to Eegulations of 1884, articles 469,
474, 1407, 1416, relating to the method of procedure in reappraising
, merchandise. The law of reappraisement is precisely the same as that
of original appraisement, and there is no authority or justification for
the system Avhich, it appears, has grown up in your office of treating a
reappraisement as in the nature of a trial in a court of law, wherein the
reappraising officers sit as judges and render decisions according to the
preppnderance of testimony adduced.
The law provides that the merchant appraiser shall be familiar with
the character and value of the goods in question, and it is presumed
that the general appraiser will haye or will acquire such expert knowledge, of the goods he is to appraise as to enable him to intelligently perform his official duty with a due regard for the rights of all parties and
independently of the testimony of interested witnesses.
The functions of the reappraising board are the same as those of the
original appraisers. They are themselves to appraise the goods, and
not to depend for their information upon the appraisement of so-called
experts in the line of the goods in question.
I^ am informed that it is the practice to hold reappraisements on certain days of the week within the hours of twelve and three, and that,
OAving to the number pf appeals pending, two or more cases are often
heard at the same time by different merchant appraisers, all acting in
conjunction Avith the general appraiser; that importers and witnesses
are permitted to throng the general appraiser's office, in whose presence
the conclusions of the appraising board are often announced; and that if
such conclusions are not satisfactory to the importer, he is aUowed to
protest and reargue the case, with a view to a modification of the finding, in which he is often successful.
I t is plain that all this is a wide departure from the methods of
reappraisement contemplated by the law and regulations, and must
necessarily result in injury to the revenue and general demoralization
among officials and importers.
The local appraisers are expected to do their full duty in ascertaining,
estimating, and appraising the true and actual market value or wholesale price of imported merchandise at the time of exportation, and ih
the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported. When appeals are taken from the valuation so found, i t i s
expected that the general appraiser and merchant appraiser selected to
act Avith him will reappraise the merchandise in substantially the same
mariner as is pursued on original appraisement.
Section 2922 of the Eevised Statutes authorizes appraisers to call before them and examine under oath any owner, importer, consignee, or
other person, touching anything which they may deem material in ascertaining the true market value or wholesale price of any merchandise
imported.
It is by this law that appraisers are authorized to summon witnesses,
but there is no authority for the public examination of such witnesses
or their cross-examination by importers or counsel employed by such
importers.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
99
The appraising officers are entitled to all information obtainable concerning the foreign market value of goods under consideration, but such
information is not public property. It is due to merchants and others,
caUed to give such infbrmation, that their statements shall be taken in
the presence of official persons only. It must often occur that persons
in possession of facts which would be of value to the appraisers in determining market values are deterred fr^om appearing or testifying by the
publicity given to reappraisement proceedings.
Article 1416 ofthe Eegulations enjoins appraisers to give courteous
and due attention to the explanations and statements of importers, in
person br by representative, relating to the subject-matter under investigation; but they are to limit the privilege so accorded to one person in each single case of reappraisement, to receive only statements of
fact, and to require alLfacts to be stated concisely, and not argumentatively. This regulation has been so construed that attorneys-at-law
and custom-house brokers have appeared and acted as representatives
of the importer on reappraisement.
Such a construction is erroneous. The representative of the importer
in such cases should be his employ6 or salesman—some person belonging to his house familiar with the facts touching the subject-matter
under consideration. There is no office here for the lawyer or customhouse broker, and such persons, as well as all others not officially called
before the appraisers, should be excluded.
.
This Department expects that all appraising officers, including the
general appraisers, will co-operate in all proper measures- for the suppression of undervaluations and the just and uniform appraisement of
imported merchandise, to the end that the tariff laws may be strictly
enforced, and fair and honorable merchants protected from loss by the
dishonest practices of unscrupulous importers.
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
Mr.
A.
J.
PERRY,
United States General Appraiser, New York, N. Y.
100 . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
INVESTIGATIONS BY SPECIAL AGENTS INTO THE
GENERAL CONDITION OF THE CUSTOMS
SERVICE.
No. 1.
General Instructions to Special Agents assigned to the Buty of Examining
the manner in which the Customs Business is Transacted in the Several
Collection Bistricts.
I. Ascertain by actual count the amount of money on hand. This
must be done immediately upon the arrival of the agent at the customhouse.
II. Examine the several accounts of the collector, making a comparison of the "daily register of moneys received from all sources," with
the "impost record," the several records of payments, the records oi
accounts current, and the "daify record of balances on account."
III. Compare the records of arrivals and clearances of vessels, of
registry, enrolment, and license of vessels, of, marine-hospital money,
and of steamboat-inspection fees Avith the "daily register of. receipts
from all sources," checking off the several items, and Ai^erifying the footings of each column of figures.
IY. Examine all records connected Avith the entry of merchandise,
either for consumption, warehouse, or rewarehouse, and examine the
original entries, and all returns connected therewith, making a comparison of the entries with the several records and the manifests of A^^CSsels in which goods were imported.
Y. Examine all records and business connected Avith the withdrawal
of merchandise from warehouse, whether for consumption, transportation, or export. Exportations for benefit of drawback must be examined with special care.
, YI. Examine all records relating to marine business.
YII. Examine the public correspondence of the collector's office, and
all records relating to general business, such as records of public property, record of seizures, fines, penalties, and forfeitures.
YIII. 'Examine the business of the naval office, the surveyor's office,
and the appraiser's office, and the records and correspondence connected
therewith.
. The object of these examinations is to furnish the Department with
full information respecting the practical operations of the several custom-houses, and special agents are particularly enjoined to conduct them
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
101
in a courteous and gentlemanly manner. In making their reports,
agents will make correct answers to the following interrogatories, and
conclude the report Avith such general or special remarks as may be
deemed proper for the infbrmation of ihe Departnient. These answers
must not be based upon the unsupported statements of customs off-cers, but
must be made upon the personal knowledge of the agent as to the condition
and methods of-business at theport examined. At ports where there is a ^
naval officer, or where the volume of business is so great as to make a
minute examinatioii of CA^ery transaction impracticable, an examination
of a sufficient number of transactions will be made to satisfy the agent
of the correctness of the methods of business pursued.
*
Special agents Avill not confine their inquiries withiii the limits of the
interrogatories, but will report any infraction which may be observed
by them on the part of customs officers, of laAv, or the regulations,
orders, or instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury.
NOTE.—Where the allotted space is not sufficient for a fnll answer to aninterrogatory,
it may be written npon a separate sheet and appropriately numbered.
PORT OF BOSTON, September 12, 1885.
Eeport of examination of the customs business in the district of Boston and
Charlestown, by Special Agents N. W. Bingham) B. If. Kinds, C. S .
lapp, and General Appraiser JI. W. Combs, under Bepartment instructions of June 9 and August 3, 1885.
1. Money on hand, as ascertained by actual count, on the 6th day of
August, 1885, at the close of business hours:—None.
NOTE.—If any papers or memoranda are found with the cash on hand, purportiag to
represent money, state the character of such papers or memoranda, and the several
amounts they represent.
2. Aniount on depbsit with the assistant treasurer of the United
States, or Avith a United States depositary, under the scA^^eral disbursement accounts arid emolument account, upon said date:
'Expense collecting revenue
Excessof deposits
Debentures
RevenueTMarine Service
Steamboat fees
:
Special deposit, duties
,
Special deposit, night servdce..
Award of compensation
<
....:..
;
'.
:
.,
-
$13, 269
80,408
72,606
1, 719
9
732
135
142
69
78
55
47
00
44
00
75
169, 023 68
Less balance due collector authorized by Department letter and telegram
(C. S. F.) July 20,1885
' .
•
\
89 44
168,934 24
3. State; the balance on the several accounts as they were reported in
the last report made to the Commissioner of Customs of " m o n e y s
1.02
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
received and paid," and date of said report.—Balances per ireport
dated August 1, 1885, on account of—
Due United
States. .
Customs
,
Life-rSaving Service
,
Steamboat fees
Expense collecting revenue, current year..
Expense collecting revenue, prior years
Marine-Hospital Service
«
Excess of deposits
Debentures
Revenue-Marine Service, current year
Revenue-Marine Service, account J u n e
Official emoluments
Special deposit,^duties
Special deposit, night service
Award of compensation
Due officer.
$89 44
$9 00
14,158 34
9,396 30
•80,972 18
78,962 62
739 05
1,193 10
719 4Q
115 00
142 75
Total:
180,407 74
4. State amounts received and paid or deposited.on the several accounts since the date of said last report tothe Commissioner of Customs,
viz., from August 1, 188—, to August 6, 188—:
Received.
Customs
Lead se'als
Steamboat fees
Expense collecting the revenue
Unexpended balance expense collecting the revenue.,
Excess of deposits
Debentures
:
Weighing
Official emoluments
Immigrant fund
Special deposit, duties
Special deposit, night service
,
Storage
,
Tonnage
TotaL..
$339,774 71
89
36 10
Deposited.
Paid.
$339,774 71
89
36 10
9,396 30
15 24
646 .27
103 00
33 04
95 00
228 78
597 33
15 24
646 27
103 00
341,530 36
350,798 62
228 78
597 33
$888 65
563 40
6,356 07
212 68
20 C
O
75 00
8,115 80
5. State the aggregate of balances on the several accounts as shown
on the morning of the inspection by the "daUy record of balances on
accounts" and other records:
Due United
states.
Life-Saving Service
Marine-hosjpital tax
: Steam boat tees
'....:
Expense collecting revenue
Excess of deposits
,
Debentures
. Revenue-Marine Service, current year...
Revenue-Marine Service, account June..
'Official emoluments
Special deposit, duties....
Special deposit, night service
Award of compensation
Total.,
Due officer.
$9 00
13,269 69
80,408 78
72,606 55
526 37
1,193 10
732 44
135 00
142 75
169,023 68
89 44
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
103
6. State the result of comparison of the cash on hand and on deposit,
Avith the balances as shown by the "daily record of baiances on accounts" and other records:
tobalance per records....
Amount on hand and on deposit
$168,934 24
175, 440 32
*6,506 08
7. How often are reports of transactions and remittances of money
collections made to the collector by deputy collectors in charge of outside or sub-ports'?—No collections made at outside or sub-ports; no
deputy collectors are stationed at such sub-ports.
8. Are the details of the reports from outside ports promptly entered
o n t h e record of "receipts of moneys from all sources'?"—'No reports
received. (See No.. 7.)
9. Are all collections entered on the "daily register of receipts of
moneys from all sources" at the time of their receipt'?—They are.
10. How often are deposits of money collections made with the assistant treasurer or United States depositary'?—Daily.
11. If there is any variance from general instructions as to the deposit
of money collections, state the authority, if any, for such variance.—
None.
12. State whether the collector makes deposit of all drafts for disbursement funds immediately upon their receipt from the Department.—He does.
13. Are disbursements of public funds invariably made by checks
payable to the persons who have actually performed the service, or to
whom the money is actuaUy due for material furnished or serAdces performed'?-—They are.
14. Does the collector retain in his hands any portion of the collections at the time of making deposits'?—He does not.
15. Are the money collections ever used for payment of salaries or
other expenditures, or for the collector's private purposes'?—They are
not.
16. Do the records show the proper collection of all legal fees'?—They
do, so far as we are able to discover.
17. Are any excessiA^e or illegal fees collected'?—There are not.
18. Is the schedule of fees chargeable by law posted in the customhouse in some public place, as required by section 4383, Eevised Statutes.—It is.
19. Is the record of daily balances on his several accounts properly ;
kept, and are the entries in^the "daily record of disbursements" made
when payments are made, so that it shows the ainount disbursed daily
on the several accounts'?—Eecord of daily balances is properly kept,
and entries in the "daily record of disbursements" are made, so that i t .
shows the amount disbursed daily on the several accounts.
20. Are all duties, fees, and other collections paid at the customhouse,, and at the time entry is made or the service performed for
which the fee is charged'?—^Yes, except charges for storage, which are
collected by the permit clerk at the Government warehouse, aind reported at custom-house at the close of each day.
* Which is accounted for as follows:
Unpaid checks, general account, prior to August 1
Unpaid checks, August 1 to 6, inclusive
Unpaid checks, special deposit, duties
Total
t.
,
,
$1,778 62
4,652 46
75 00
6,506 08.
104
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
21. Are duties always paid in coin, or^ certificates of deposit of coin,
with the assistant treasurer of the United States, or in United States
notes'?—They are.
22. Are drafts, checks, or other representatives of money ever received by the collector for moneys payable at the custom-house in currency.—They ^re not.
23. Are any of the public moneys ever deposited in unauthorized
banks, or deposited elsewhere than with the assistant treasurer of the
United States or a United States depositary'?—No.
24. Are weekly reports made to the Secretary of the Treasury of
moneys received and deposited, and weekly reports to the Commissioner
of Customs of disbursement funds, as required by the regulations'? If
not made weekly, how often are they transmitted'?—These^reports are
made weeklj^^, as required by regulations.
25. How often are comparisons of the footings of the impost records
made with the footings of the column of duties collected in the "daily'
register of moneys received from all sources'?"—Daily.
26. Upon examination of the entries of merchandise for consumption,
the impost record, the records of accounts current, the records of arrivals
and clearances of vessels, and the record of moneys receiA^ed for steamboat inspection, licenses to captains and engineers, the records of licenses
of vessels, and the "daily register of moneys received from all sources,"
do you find aU the collections for duties, fees, &c., therein recorded
properly accounted for"?—A careful examination of the records and a
large number bf entries and other official papers coimnces us that
collections for duties, fees, Soc, therein recorded haA^e been properly
accounted for.
27. Upon examination of manifests on file and the record bf arrivals
of vessels from foreign countries since the date of the last examination
of this custom-house, and upon inquiry of consignees of such vessels,
are you satisfied that all manifested foreign goods brought into the port
and landed have been duly entered or taken possession of by the collector'?—We are.
28. Are entries made of all goods imported, Avhether free or dutiable,
when such entires are required by law and regulations'?—They are.
29. Do invoices accompany entries in all cases when required by law
or regulations'?—They do now. We found that under a misconstruction
of Department telegram of September 6, 1880, entries of immediatetranspbrtation goods from other ports, CA^en in the absence of original
invoices, permitted on uncertified copies. This practice is discontinued..
' 30. When merchandise of over one hundred dollars in A-alue is entered
on pro forma invoice, is a bond always taken from the importer to produce a verified invoice, and is an affidavit as to the cost or A^^alue of
such merchan'dise taken, as required by the act of June 22, 1874'?—A
bond is always taken. Gross irregularities were discoA^.ered as to applications and affidavits, the particulars of which will be set forth hereafter
in this report.
31. Are entries made in proper form, and are the estimated duties
collected in all cases before the permit is issued for delivery of the imported merchandise?—Yes.
' 32. Is a proper selection made of the required number,of packages
designated for examination, and bond taken (Form 86 oi the Eegulations)
for the return of the packages delivered to the importer before ascertainment and liquidation of duties, as required by law ?—In our j udgment, the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
l05
selection of packages for exainination has not always been judicious.
On some invoices too many packages of the same line of goods have
been designated, and on others too few packages where different lines
were represented. The attention of the collector and his deputies has
been caUed to this matter, and we believe greater care will be exercised
in the future.
33. Are these bonds properly executed, and, where the general bond
(Form No. 87) is taken, is the account of the delivery of the several
importations on said bond properly recorded thereon, and, in case the
penalty of the bond is exhausted, as shown by said record, is a new bond
always required before the delivery of other imported packages"?—Bonds
are properly executed, and the account of the delivery is properly recorded, and a new bond is required before other imported packages are
delivered, in case the penalty of the bond is exhausted.
34. Upon free entry of "household goods," emigrants''effects,"
"professional implements," "tools of trade," &c., is the personal oath
required by law in such cases always administered'? And upon free
entry of church regalia, books, &c., philosophical instruments, &c.,
for incorporated institutions, &c., are the affidavits in such cases made
in good faith at the time of entry'?—The personal oath required by law
is administered in such cases ; affidavits upon free entry of church regalia, books, &c., are supposed to be made in good faith.
35. On entry of goods paying specific duty, and of which the weight
or measure is not given in the invoice or entry, are the fees for weighing, gauging, or measuring, as the case may be, collected as required
by the regulations'?—They are, but cases of that kind seldom occur.
36. Are all weighable and gaugeable goods properly weighed and
gauged, and return thereof made without delay by the officer performing that duty; and are weighers' .and gangers' dock-books properly
made up and filed"?—From the dock-books and returns we find that
weights and gauges are properly returned, and the dock-books properly
made up and filed.
37. (1) State whether the persons borne upon the weighers' and
gangers' labor pay-rolls are actually employed for the full time charged.
(2) Are other persons borne upon custom-house labor pay-rolls actually
employed as laborers for the fall time charged?—(1) Yes. (2) Yes,
except as follows:. Geo. E. Jepson, messenger to the collector; E. C.
Bodfish, messenger to the warehouses; F. H. Pease, messenger at ap- .
praisers; B. S. Hamilton, messenger and janitor at appraiser's; Dudly
Sanborn, janitor at inspectors' room.
38. Upon comparison of the work of the scA^eral weighers and as- .
sistant weighers, do you find the average deficit greater with some
weighers than with others? Do the records show any indication that
particular importers are favored in the weighing?—We are unable to.
discover any difference in the average deficits shown by the returns of
the different weighers or assistant weighers on analogous cargoes. The
records show no indication that particular importers are favored in
the weighing.
39. Are regulations as to allowance for tare properly carried out?-^They are.
40. Are all foreign goods, except packages not designated for examination, duly examined and appraised by the appraiiser, or the of&cer
acting as such, and proper return thereof made on the invoice?—Yes.
41. Is there undue delay in making returns of appraisements?—
106
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
PrcAdous to this investigation there has been undue delay, the practice
having been to note upon the invoice (in pencil) the result of the examination and retain the invoices until a dull season, when reports were
made. This practice was discontinued upon our recomendation, and
reports of appraisement are now made when the examination is completed. There is, in our opinion, much undue delay in the execution
and return of damage appraisements.
42. Is the sampling of sugar and other goods appraised by sample
correctly performed; are excessive samples taken, and what disposition is made of samples?—Sampling is correctly performed. Excessive samples are not taken so far as we can learn. . Samples of any
commercial value are returned tq the importers as soon as the appraising officers, are done with them.
43. Are the requirements of the regulations with respect to the examination of merchandise arriving under warehouse and transportation bond duly complied with?—So far as we have been able to learn,
they are.
44. (1) Upon examination of the record of damage allowances, do
you find evidence that some importers have more claims and allowances for damage than others in the same line of business? (2) Are
excessive allowances made?—(1) No. (2) Improper allowances, in our
opinion, have been made in some cases. Further information upon
this subject will be given in this report hereafter.
45. In how many cases have invoice values been advanced iipon^ ap- .
praisement? State amount of duties arising from such advances.-^We
are unable from personal examination to answer this question, but sub,mit instead a letter herewith enclosed (Exhibit " C " ) from the assistant
•appraiser.
46. Are the liquidations carefally made upon the face of the entries,
and a fall record made of the estimated and liquidated duties in the
book provided for that purpose?—The liquidations are carefally made
upon i h e entry and properly entered upon the book kept for that purpose.
47. Is notice of liquidation of entries publicly posted in the customhouse?—It is.
48. State whether the increased and additional duties ascertained on
liquidation to be due the United States are promptly collected.—They
are as promptly as possible under the incorrect practice that has for
many years prevailed of delivering examination packages before the
liquidation of the entry and the settlement of the duties.
49. State the amount of increased and additional duties found due
the United States on liquidation of entries remaining unpaid, as shown
by the records, giving the date of the entry, the number of the eritry,
importer's narae, estimated and liquidated duties, and amount due on
each entry.—The total amount of additional duties found to be unpaid
at this date is $20,882.21. For date and number pf entry and other
particulars, see exhibit marked " A . "
50. Are increased and additional duties found due on liquidated entries collected before delivery of examined packages?—Prior to this
investigation examined packages were permitted before the invoice was
returned by the appraiser; consequently, in many instances the additional, duties were not collected before the delivery of the examination packages. We called the attention ofthe collector to Synopsis, 7047,
since which time no permits are issued until after the return of the ap^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
107
praiser; and if additional duties are found due br invoice returned not
correct, the examination packages are held until the entry has been
liquidated and duties all paid.
51. Is the excess of deposits refunded upon vouchers from importers
from moneys obtained from the Department for payment of such refunds, and is an account current of such payments rendered to the Department?—Yes.
52. Does the record of liquidation show that these refunds are
promptly paid after liquidation of entries?—It does.
53. Are proper powers of attorney always required beibre an agent
or attorney of an importer is allowed to represent him in the transaction
of custbms business, and are agents and attorneys allowed to sign for
importers who are at the time present at the port?—^Proper powers of
attorney are always required. Agents or attorneys are not permitted
to sign when the importers are present at the port.
54. Are all consumption and withdrawal entries recorded in the impost book each day as the entries are made?—They are.
55. Are the collection of increased and additional duties found due
on liquidation of entries recorded in the impost book or other proper
record, when such duties are collected and on the day they are collected?—They are.
, 56. Are all the requirements of regula;tions, with respect to the execiition and cancellation of customs bonds, duly complied with?—They
are. .
57. Are warehouse entries required to be made in accordance with
the regulations, "the dutiable value of each package of dry-goods,
hardware, or other package goods, in all cases being stated," and when
the goods pay specific duty, the quantity of each package stated?—They
are.
58. Are warehouse entries liquidated by package, so that the quantity, value, and duty of each package is stated in the liquidation?—Yes.
59. Are the warehous'e and rewarehouse ledger accounts promptly
opened and kept in accordance with the regulations?—They are.
60. Are the withdrawal entries entered on the credit side of these
ledgers as soon as the entries are made, and at the same time are they
recorded on the backs of the bonds, as required by the regulations?—
They are.
61. Are additional duties upon merchandise remaining in warehouse
more than one year from date of importation duly collected as required
by section 2970, Eevised Statutes?—They are.
62. Are the several daily registers of rewarehouse, transportation,
and exportation entries kept, and the entries recorded therein as they
are made frorii day to day?—They are.
63. Are the several registers of bonds kept, and the entries recorded
therein as they occur?—Thej are.
64. Are there any overdue transportation or exportation^bonds? If
so, give a statement of them in detail.—There are. See detailed statement (enclosure) marked " B . " ,
65. State the number of bonded warehiouses, their class and general
condition, and the number of storekeepers employed. One hundred
and one, namely: Two of Class I, fifty-eight of Class III, thirty-six of
Class IY, three of Class Y, and two of Class VI. General condition,
fair. The better class are used for the most perishable merchandise, and
the balance are fit buildings for the purposes for which they are used.
Number of storekeepers, fourteen.
108
RKPORT OF,THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY:
66. Is the compensation of storekeepers promptly collected each
month from the proprietors of the several bonded warehouses, as prescribed by the regulations?—Yes.
67. Does the collector's disbursement account show that the moneys
received for storekeepers' services are duly accounted for?—It does.
68: Do the storekeepers receive any compensation direct from the
proprietors of the bonded Avarehouses?—Not so far as we have been able
to learn.
69. Are the storekeepers' records properly kept, and do the storekeepers make d^ilj returns to the collector of goods received, permitted,
and deliAT^ered ?—Yes.
70. Are the salaries of the storekeepers paid to them for their OAVU
use and benefit?—Yes.
71. Does any arrangement exist by which a proprietor of a warehouse
is allowed to make nominal payment for salary of storekeeper, in order
that the collectbr may be enabled to obtain compensation for storage?—
Question not applicable to this port,
72. Are the bonded warehouses, while unlocked, ever left by the storekeepers in charge of irresponsible persons ?—Not so far as we can learn.
73. Is an inventory of all goods in warehouse made once a year, and
compared Avith the storekeepers' record kept at the custom-house, as
prescribed by the regulations?—Inventories made in January and July
of each year.
74. Are the storekeepers transferred fi'om one bonded' warehouse to
another at least once a year, as prescribed by the regulations?—Yes.
75. Upon a comparison of the goods in bonded warehouses with the
storekeepers' record and the record at the custom-house, is any decrepancy found to exist?—Not any.
76. In the transfer of bonded merchandise from warehouse or vessel
to cars or other vessel, for transportation, is such merchandise always
carted by a bonded dray?—Yes.
, . "
77. In the transfer of unappraised bonded merchandise from vessel to
cars or other vessel, and in the entry and shipment of such goods, are
the regulations applicable thereto duly observed?—They are.
78. Are the regulations duly complied with in respect to the receipt
and custody of merchandise arriving under immediate-transportation
entry?—Yes, except that goods arriving from New York on the steamers
of the Metropolitan Line have for a few months been permitted to remain on the wharf ibr forty-eight hours after the discharge of the steann^r,
the same as in the case of steamships arriving from a foreign port, and
in violation of article 775 of the Eegulations of 1884. The practice has
now been discontinued.
79. Are proper manifests for each car transporting bonded or unappraised merchandise always,certified by the officer Avho actually superAased the lading of the inerchandise in the car and sealed the same ?—
They are.
80. Is the lading of bonded goods for export, or goods exported for
benefit of draAvback, on board the exporting vessel, always done under
the personal superAdsion of an officer, and does he make out the certificate of lading ? State also AVhat examination is made as to the, character
and quality of goods exported for drawback, and Avhether samples of
the goods are taken and retained in the custom-house.—Goods are laden
on board the A^essel under the personal superAasion of an. officer, who
makes out the certificate of lading. They are examined by the inspectors, who send samples to appraiser's stores whenever practicable.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
109
81. What is the practice pursued with reference/to the sale of onclaimed and seized goods and warehoused goods remaining in bond more
than three years? Do the contents of the seizure-room agree with the
record of seizures?-—They are advertised. Catalogues are issued and
goods are sold at public auction. The contents of the seizure-room agree
with the record of seizures.
• 82. Is the money received from these sales paid at once to the collector
at the custom-house, or is it paid to the auctioneer; and, if so, how long
is it allowed to remain in his hands?—Paid to collector.
83. Are the contents of packages of unclaimed and seized goods carefally inventoried, accounted for, and proper precautions taken against
the substitution of inferior goods, or against pilfering, prior to the
sales?—They are.
84. Are records of the sales of these goods, as required by law,and
regulations, properly kept, and the entries made therein oh the da^
the sales take place?—They are. .
.
85. (1) From personal inquiry regarding the financial standing of persons whose names, appear as sureties on bonds for duties, are you satisfied
as to the solvency of such sureties? (2) Upon examination of bonds
for warehouses, are you satisfied that they are at this time good and
sufficient?—(1) Yes. (2) Yes.
85. Are the bonds taken for registration, enrolment, and license of
vessels fully executed before the issue of the marine papers ?—They are.
87. Is the record of registration, enrolment, and license always made ^
before the certificates thereof are issued, and are. the indexes of such
documents Avritten up to date?—Yes.
88. Is the record of the abstract of tonnage of registered, enrolled,,
and licensed vessels properly kept, and the record duly made therein
on the surrender of marine papers and the issue of new documents?—
Yes,
89. Is prompt notice given to collector of the home port of a vessel
'when a license expires and a temporary license is issued?—It is.
90. Upon change of master of A^essel belonging at some other port,
is the proper indorsement alwa^^s made on enrolment or license, as the
case may be, and notice giA^en to the collector of the home port of the
vessel?—Yes.'
91. Are all bills of sale, mortgages, and other couA^eyances promptly
entered upon the index and recorded in the record provided for that
purpose?—Yes.
' 92. Are the current daily transactions of the custom-house recorded
in the several records from day to day as they occur?—They are.
93. Are boarding officers instructed to A^erify the correctness of the
seaman's tinie-book as kept on board A-essels, and is this duty faithfally
performed ?-^They are as to vessels returning from a A^oyage commenced
before June 30, 1884.
94. Are the reports of hospital-dues alAA^a^^s verified by a comparison'
with the seaman's time-book before collection of the hospital-tax?—
They are.
^
95. Upon comparison of the public property in the custom-house with
the record and returns thereof, do you find it correct?—We do.
96. In what condition do you find the custom-house building and
premises?—In good condition.
97. In what condition do you find the weighing, gauging, and other
implements required for the customs business?—All that we have been
110
REPORT OF THE, SECRETARY OFLTHE TREASURY. ;
able to see we find in goo^ condition. The surveyor reports a l l m good .
condition..
98. Afe there any revenue boats in the district; and, if so, what is
their;condition?—There are two revenue boats stationed here, and both
are in good condition. The steamer " H a m l i n " and the cutter "Gallatin '' are also under the control of the collector of this port. The former
is in fair and the latter in good condition.
99. Do the collector and other principal officers give their piersonal
attention to the business of their respective offices, and are they in daily
attendance at the custom-house during office-hours ?^—This question
answered elsewhere in this report.
100. Give the names of all the employes of the district, their compensation, their character for competency and efeciency, and the nature of
the duties performed by each?—See enclosures marked as follows:
' Collector's department, " D ; " surveyor's department, " E ; " naval
o f f i c e , " F ; " appraiser's department, " G . "
101. Are there any persons borne upon the custom-house pay-rolls
who perform little or no actual serAdce, or who are engaged in private
business ? If so, give their names. —None who performlittle or no actual
service. :except as will be hereafter stated. The collector is proprietor
of the " Boston Evening Traveller'' and a director of a national bank,
but none of his official time is taken up thereby.
102. What reduction, if any, can be made in the force as now employed Avithout detriment to the public interests?—This question answered elsewhere in this report.
103. Considering the character of the work performed by the several
employes, and their efficiency, is the salary in any instance excessive,
and more than is usually paid in private business for similar services,
or is such salary in any case deficient?—This question answered elsewhere in this report.
104. Are certain inspectors detailed for special service; and, if so, for
what reason?—This question answered elsewhere in this report, under
head of "Night inspectors."
105. If there are inspectresses employed at the port, state the nature
of their employment and the amount of service rendered by them?—
There is one inspectress, whose duty it is to be present upon the arrival
of foreign steamers, for the purpose of searching the persons of female
passengers suspected of being engaged in smuggling.
- 106. What persons, if any, are allowed to board vessels with the boarding officer, and have access to passengers prior to the landing of passengers' baggage?—Friends of persons arriving, by obtaining a pass
from either the coUector or surveyor, signed by the former, are permitted to go on board the revenue tug, and from thence to the incoming
steamer before her arrival at the dock. Persons having passes either
from the steamship company or collector are permitted to go on the
dock and meet their friends before the landing of their baggage.
107. Are due precautions taken to prevent the improper landing of
excessive sea-stores found on board vessels from foreign ports, and is
entry of such excessive stores required to be made in accordance with
law?—Yes.
108. Are the rentals paid for buildings occupied for customs purposes as low as are paid for similar property used for private business?—
With the exception of the building in the State Street block, leased
from the Sears estate, used partially for the storage of bonded goods
-REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^111
and partially for the appraiser's purposes, we believe the rents are as
low as paid for similar property used for private purposes. The Sears
building is contiguous to the public stores, and necessary for Government purposes. The xent paid for this building is $7,500 per annum,
while similar stores in the same block are rented by private parties for
$3,000 and $4,000. By using such portions of this building as are not
. needed by the appraiser's force for the storage of bonded merchandise,
the Government receives for storage from $8,000 to $9,000 per annum.
109. Are the buildings so occupied as suitable for customs purposes
as can be obtained at the port?—They are.
110. Is the custom-house used or occupied for purposes other than
the transaction of the public business? If so, state by whom, in what
manner, and by what authority is it so used or occupied.—A small
portion of the rotanda, together with a comparatively useless room in
the basement, are used, by permission of the collector, rent free, by Mr.
Dolliver, as restaurants for the accomodation of the clerical force, under
the supposition that the prices charged shall be in proportion to the
expense incurred; but from what we learn, the prices in question are
not in accordance with said expenses, thereby debarring the clerks from
taking advantage of the accommodation intended.
111. When warehoused or unclaimed goods are stored in the customhouse or other building owned or occupied by the Government, are the
full rates of storage customary at the port charged and collected upon
such goods before deUvery?—Yes.
QUESTION 30.
Wefimdthat, in respect to applications for the entry ofmerchandise on
pro forma invoices, substantially the same carelessness exists at this port
as at New York, to which attention was called in a report of the commission under date bf August 5 of this year. An examination of all
thepro/orma invoices received here duiing the past year shows that,
as a rule, little or no care has been exercised by the deputy collector in
ascertaining the reasons for the non-production of a certified invoice,
and in no instance do we find that an importer has been questioned
under oath or required to produce letters or papers ih his possession orunder his control to assist the appraiser's officers in ascertaining the
dutiable value of the merchandise, as provided by section 11 of the act
of June 22, 1874. In many instances no oath of any sort was taken, the
form of application not being filled out with even the date, character bf
the goods, name of the ship, or signature of the importer. One firm,
engaged in the importation of kid gloves, appears to have entered a very
large proportion of its goods on such invoices, and the fact that the certified invoices and triplicates covering such importations have generally
been received within a few days after entry was made favors the belief
that such certified invoices have, as a rule, been delayed purposely in
order to evade a penal duty in case the value of the goods was advanced
more than 10 per cent, by the aj)praiser.
The statement by Deputy Collector Munroe (pages 1 to 8 of the testimony hercAvith transmitted) will show in what manner this business
has heretofore been conducted at this port. During the year 1884 there
were eight hundred and eighty-four entries by pro forma invoices where
the goods exceeded $100 in value,
112
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•
^
'
'
'
• .
'
^
, QUESTION 99.
The collector and other principal officers give their personal attention
to the business of their respective offices when in attendance. The collector is at his office constantly during business hours, and this is also ^
true of the appraiser, except that within the past few weeks he has been
confined to his bed with sickness. The naval officer, until quite recently, has, as a rule, been present at his office five .of the six working
days of the week. He resides in New Hampshire, where he has usually
spent one day in each week besides Sunday. The surveyor, as will
appear from his own statement, (pages 128 and 129 of printed testimony,) has recently been absent from his office.a very considerable por• tion of his time. This has been due to ill health, occasioned by serious
wounds received in the war. We have been informed by the collector
and others that these absences have been more frequent and cover a
longerperiod of time than his testimony, shows. It is to be regretted
that he has been compelled,to absent himself so much of the time.
Were he able to devote the whole or even the principal part of his time
to the duties of the office, the work might, as we believe, be reorganized
sp as to dispense with the services of the present chief clerk and assistant, who is now receiving a salary of $2,000. But this is by no means
the nibst important consideration. Such absenteeism on the part of the
chief officer not only necessitates the employment of an additional force,
but is productive, by its example, of demoralization among his subordinates.
Collector\s Bepartment.—In the collector's office proper there is at
present no more force than is necessary to properly perform the work
ofthe office..
In the first division, having charge of the inward foreign entries for
consumption, under the control of Deputy Collector M. A. Mum-oe, we
find the force, with two exceptions, efficient and creditable, and not in
excess of the requirements of the service. The exceptions are as foUows:
Mr. J. Duncan, one of the liquidating clerks, is of somewhat advanced
age; has beeh in office twenty-five years; is very excitable, and easily
confused, and his efficiency, which was once of a high order, has become
considerably impaired. (See Deputy Collector Slunroe's statement, ,
page 13, printed testimony.) The efficiency of the force would be
promoted by putting a younger and more capable man in his place.
Mr. J. L. Prouty, order clerk, has a very unsavory reputation as a
borrower of money, which is never repaid. We learn that he borrows
from importers and all others, indiscriminately, whenever he is able to
do so. (See statement of Mr. Munroe, pages 14 and 15.) We believe
that his example is pernicioas; that his course reflects great discredit
on the service, and that he should be replaced by a more exemplary
. officer.
The second or warehouse division, under the charge of Deputy Collector J. H. Barnes, is in exceUent condition. Tbe clerks are competent
and faithful, and their work is performed in a most creditable manner.
The only change we would recommend in this division is that the
services of Mr. George W. Warren, storage clerk, be dispensed Avith,
and the Avork of his desk consolidated with that of Mr. S. Hartwell, who
can, without difficulty, perform the labor now done by himself and,Mr.
Warren. .
In the third or navigation division, under the charge of Deputy Col-.
lector John L. Swift, there is more force than is required, and some of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
113
the clerks are.inefficient or of objectionable habits.. The vgork of J^
E. Withington's desk can easily be performed by W. H. Collins, in addition to his own, and the services of Mr. Withington dispensed .Adth.
' In that case, Mr. Collins's salary should be increased to $1,800 per annum,
The work now performed h j Frederick Grant (license and enrolment
clerk) and Willia:in Devens can easily be done by Mr. Devens, and the
serAdces of Mr. Grant dispensed with. In that CA^ent we would recommend that Mr. DcA^ens's salary be advanced to $1,400 per annum. The
work now performed by E. W. Lane and H. E. Stewart, statistical
clerks, can be done^by the latter, except the keeping of the "indexbook of clearances," which should be transferred to Mr. Collins's desk,
Avhere it properly belongs, and the services of Mr. Lane dispensed with.,
This will reduce the, expense of this division $4,000 per. annum, without impairing the effiiciency of the force.
In the auditor's office we find the work to be carefally and promptly
done, with as small a force as possible. The auditor, Mr. Frederick
Grant, is one of the most reliable and efficient of officers. In this office
there is a vacant clerkship of $1,200 per annum, which the auditor says
can reniain vacant without detriment to the serAdce. A debenture clerk
and assistant.were several years since placed in this office by the collector, and said debenture clerk (L. M. Barker) designated as chief clerk
of the office, at a salary of $2,000 per annum. We are of the opinion
that the comperisation of this officer, should be only $1,800, as his duties
are simplj^ those of "debenture clerk," and his designation of "chief
clerk" only operated to increase his salary without adding anything to
his duties, and no chief clerk is. needed in this office. A saving of
$1,400 per annum can be effected in this office by allowing the clerkship now A^acant to remain so and reducing the salary of the debenture
clerk as reconimended..
.
,'
The Naval Office.—While we find that the business of this office is
generally well conducted, and that its work results iri great benefit to
the service, through the discovery and correction of errors in liquidations, and as a wholesonie check upon the collector's office in many
other respects, we are constrained to believe that the force employed is
somewhat excessive., At our suggestion, the keeping ofthe daily record
of rewarehouse entries, No. 857, has been dispensed with, as all the
necessary information contained therein is found in other, records ofthe
office. By consolidating the work of other desks, which, from personal
examination and from the expressed opinion of some of the most experienced clerks in the office, we believe to be practicable, the serAdces of
one clerk at least may be dispensed with. We only hesitate to recommend a still farther reduction through fear that it might result in retarding the business of the public. The. clerks in this office are generally
faithful and efficient. We are advised by the naval officer that he considers Frederick S. Powers inefficient and in a measure unreliable; and
we therefore recommend that his services be dispensed with. This-will
result in a reduction of expense of $1,600 per annum., We made par-ti cular inquiry as to the officers and employes in this department, which
inquiry fully sustains the character of all except two, to wit, Mr. Powers, aboA^e mentioned, and Charles Eobinson, a liquidating clerk. As
to thelatter, the naval officer stated that he had reason to believe that
he occasionally'partook of intoxicating liquors to excess, but not during
office hours nor when engaged in public business, and that his habits
did not impair his ability to efficiently discharge his duties. In fact,'
8 A
•
^
114 / REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' he said of him that he Avas remarkably accurate, intelligent, and industrious, with especial capacity for despatch, and a thorough familiarity
withxthe laAV and regulations, and thoroughly reliable.
The Surveyor's Office.—We are unable to recommend any reduction of
the, force employed in this office, except as will be suggested further on
in this report in connection Avith the. reorganization of the weigher's
force. Should our recommendation on that subject be adopted, the services of Charles H. Gray, admeasurer of A-essels, can be dispensed with
and his work transferred to John T. Hadaway, now employed in the
examination and verification of dock-books and Aveighers' returns. Mr.
Hadaway was formerly admeasurer of vessels, and is one of the riiost
reliable and efficient clerks in the .custom-house. In the fbrce emploj^ed
under the direction of the surveyor; however, we belicAT^e that a change
of organization is imperatively demanded in the interests of economy
and efficiency, and we therefore make the following recommendations:
1. As to inspectors: At present there are eighty-four inspectors of
customs, thirty of Avhom are distributed into twelve districts, and only
fifty-four are aA^ailable for general duty. The result of this system of
districts at this port is that a large portion of the force of inspectors is
permanently located in the several districts, whethei" their services are
needed there or not, and it frequently happens that, while the Avork in
some of these districts is grea:.ter than can be properly attended to by,
the officers employed there, the officers in the other districts have little
or nothing to do. Under the existing system, these districts are used
,as harbors of refage for such of the inspectors as are feeble, incompetent, or from any cause incapacitated. The work, during the greater
part of the year, in some of the districts is scarcely more than nominal.
We are of the opinion that the force of inspectors can be far more
efficiently utilized from one central point. The necessity for the serAdces of inspectors at any particular locality in the port is alwa^^^s known
to the surA^eyor or his deputy, and the force should be distributed from
his office as occasion demands. It will be found necessary, no doubt,
tb permanently station, inspectors at a few points, such as Avharves or^
depots where bonded nierchandise is constantly being received or
transferred, or goods laden on Avhich a drawback is claimed; but, aside
from this, all inspectors should be under the immediate control of one
head. By the abolition of the district system the force of inspectors
can be reduced from eighty-four to scA^enty-six, and its efficiency at the
same time greatly increased. The surveyor, in his testimony herewith
transmitted, (pages 77 and 88,) gives the names of eight inspectors who,
from A^arious causes, are not competent to discharge the general duties
of their office, but haA^^e been for the most part transferred to districts.
It Avill be obseiwed that the deputy surveyor in his testimony (pages
167-180) makes substantiall^T^ the same statement and nanies the same
officers. From the statements of the suiweyor and his deputy, it appears that most of these officers, so named by them as inefficient, haA^^e
lost their health in the performance of their duties after years of faithful service, or through Avounds received in the Army. The names of
these.inspectors are as follows: N, H. Brown, Aaron Barton, G. A.
Brown, Geo. A. Butler, Henry B. Going, Geo. W. Barker, E. S. Buffuni,
Joseph E. Dawley.
In addition to the eight inspectors above named, the surveyor and
assistant surveyor mention the following as inefficient for substantially
the same reasons; Elbridge Harris, Ethan C. Eing, and Andrew Tower;
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
115
and we would recommend that they be replaced by more efficient men.
This reorganization will result in a reduction of salaries amounting to
$11,680 per annum.
Night-inspectors:'The force of night-inspectors was reduced from'
forty-two tb twenty-five upon a recommendation of a commission that
exahiined the custom-house in October, 1882. That comniission farther
recommended, as an improvement in the efficiency of the force, that
twelve of these night-inspectors be detailed to act in a detective capacity, under fhe direction of the captain of the night-watch, conducted
as the detective force of the city is conducted. On May 26, 1883, the^
collector, by direction of the Department, submitted a plan for such
reorganization. This plan contemplated twenty-fiA^e night-inspectors,
Avithout reference to the detail of the twelve men fbr detective^ duty as
suggested by the commission. On October 22, 1883, the collector,
Avithout any farther conference with the Department, so far as we can
find ffom the records of his office, directed the surveyor to detail
twelve night-inspectors, whom he named, to report fbr duty to Sp'ecial
Inspector Emery. The surveyor, in a letter of the following day, reported that he had detailed the twelve men as directed, but reminded
the collector that night-inspectors were by the regulations subject to
the orders of the surveyor, 'and inquired whether these men, so detailed, were entirely withdrawn from his control. This letter of the
surveyor was, on the day Of its receipt, forwarded to the Department.
by the collector, who, in his letter of transmission, requested that the
designation of these officers be changed from "night-inspectors" to,
I "detectives." The Department, in its reply of October 31, 1883, stated
that it knew of no objection to a detail of the employes named fbr the
purpose of performing the special duty indicated, but declined to accede
to the collector's request to change their designation. We find that
those twelve men have not been employed in the manner contemplated
by the commission, but, on the contrary, that they have,* as a rule, been
employed during the day, and not at night, and have been permanently ^
assigned to routes or districts, one of the features formerly reported as
most objectionable. More or less friction has occurred betAfcen these
men and the day officers, arising, undoubtedl}^,ff^omthe understanding
that the latter were under surveillance. Without discussing the propriety of employing one officer to observe and report to his superiors
the official conduct of another, or the benefits that may have resulted
from the change, (about which there is some diversity of opinion among
the members of this commission,) we are unanimously of the opinion
that the recommendation of the commission of 1882 should be carried
out, and that the collector should be instructed to direct the survej^or
to place these officers under the supervision of somp competent chief,
who should report to the surA^eyor, and that such force, so organized,
should, in the work of detecting and preventing smuggling, be operated
from one central point and be employed at night, and, as the necessities
of the service may require, in the daytime.- We believe that by such a
method much more good may be accomplished than by the employment of a much larger number bf officers upon regular routes or districts, and with established hours of service. Both these ^and the dayinspectors should be given- to understand that the object of their services is a common one, and that they should seek by all reasonable
means in their power to aid and assist each other. . We would suggest
that Inspector Emery, whom we find to be a very efficient and competent officer, be left with the coUector for such special service as may
116
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
be necessary, and that Inspector Linehan, of the night force, be put in
charge of that portion of the night fbrce thus returried to the surveyor.
2. As to weighers: At present there are three weighing districts at
this port. Each of these districts is under the charge of a Aveigher, at a
compensation of $2,000 per annum, who has control of the assistaiit
Aveighers assigned to the district. Here again, as in the case of the inspectors-, it frequently happens that the force in one of these districts is
overAvorked, Avhile in another there may be little to do. From a careful investigation of the subject, we believe that greater economy and efficiency can be secured by abolishing these districts and placing the
Avhole force under the charge of one weigher, and that his compensation
be fixed at $2,500 per annum, in view of the increased responsibility.
This should be done for substantially the same reasons as those set forth
in respect to the inspector's force. The force of weighers now employed
here is as follows:
TMree weighers, at $2,000 per annum
Three assistant weighers, at | 4 per diem
Fifteen assistant weighers, at $3.50 per diem
Fourteen assistant weighers, at $3 per diem
Total.......
$6, 000
4, 380
19,162
15,330
^
;
:
00
00
50
00
44,872 50
The three weighers have the general superintendence, each in his own
district, of assistant weighers, the employment of laborers, care of Aveighing implements, and making returns of weight. The three assistant
weighers, IIOAV employed at $4 per per diem, do very little weighing, but
have their time occupied in looking after or superintending the|other
assistant weighers. Under the sj^stem proposed by us, and approved
by many of the most intelligent and practical officers at this port, only
one chief weigher would be required for the general supervisioii ofthe
force, the employment of laborers, custodj^^ of implements, and supervision of returns. It Avould^be advisable, on accourit of the geograph'
ical situation of this port, to retain some features of the preserit district
system, so that one of the assistant weighers of the highest grade should
be held responsible, under the general supervision of the chief Aveigher,
for the accuracy of all weighing, the safe-keeping of implements, .&c.,
in each of the present districts; but all other aissistant Aveighers should
receive their orders directlyff^omthe chief weigher, AA^hose office would
be in the custom-house, arid who could, from that central point, distribute his force more intelligently and effectively than is possible under
the present system. Under the proposed change of organization, the
number of assistant weighers can, without impairing the efficiency of
the force, be reduced from thirty-two (32) to twenty-one, (21.) As the
Avork of an assistant weigher is more laborious than that performed by
an inspector, and requires as high a degree of intelligence, we would
recommend that the coinpensation of the three assistants who are to act
in a supervising capacity be fixed at $1,600 per annum, and the other's
at $4 per diem. The force would then be constituted as folloAvs: ^
One weigher
,
:
Three"assistant weighers, at $1,600
• Eighteen assistant weighers, at $1,460
;
Total
Amount now paid...."
Amount under proposed organization
33,580 00
'
Amount saved per annum under proposed orgamzation
$2,500 00
4,800 00
26,280 00
$44,872 50
33, 560 00
11,292 50
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
117
At present there is a. clerk employed in the surveyor's office, at a
salary of $1,700 per annum, whose duties consist in examining and veri- .
fying the correctness of the weighers' dock-books and returns. In the
event of the reorganization of the Aveighers' fbrce as recommended, we
• would advise that the work now done by him be performed by a chief
clerk of the weighers' office, whose duties should also consist in supervising the clerical work of that office. .
Of the present chief Aveighers, Mr. Parks is the most competent, all
things considered, to assume charge of the force of assistant weighers
in case ofthe proposed reorganization; but the man who, of all others,
is peculiarly fitted for the position, both by natural qualifications and
experience, is Mr. A. A. Sherman, recently promoted from a clerkship in the surAT-eyor's office to gauger. Mr. Sherman was for many
years an assistant weigher, and has been for six years past employed in
the surveyor's office examining and yerifying the dock-books and.returns of weighers. He has during that time had a supervision of the
weighers' fbrce, and has, i n c u r opinion, a more thorough knbwledge
of the workings of the force, and more practical business sagacity, than
any officer in the Aveighers' and gangers' department at this port with
whom we have come in contact.
We feel that we should be falling short of our duty if we failed to call
spi'cial attention to the condition of the surveyor's department at this
port. The surveyor. Gen. A. B. Underwood, whom we belicA^e to be a
thoroughly conscientious gentleman, of the strictest integrity, is, by reason of his physical infirmities, compelled to be absent from his office a
great portion of the time, thus preventing him from giving the personal attention necessarj^ fbr the efficient conduct of the office. MY.
Moulton, the deputy surveyor, who is a most estimable man, of the
highest standing for honesty and integrity, is,' however, lacking in executiA^e ability, and possessed of but little natural adaptation for the
duties of his office. The chief clerk and assistant to the surveyor, Mr.
John A. Thomas, is, as we learn, in the habit of borrowing money and
purchasing goods apparently without intending or endeavoring to pay.
This, in man^^ instances, is susceptible of proof, and among the sufferers
are, as we are credibly informed, a Government truckman, an inspector
of customs, and others dependent upon him fbr official favor. This is
notorious in the surveyor's office, as well as is the fact that he has, at
times, left his desk to dodge his creditors; at one time for tAvo hours
together. The discredit broaght upon the serAdce when an officer in
the receipt of a high salary borroAvs money or incurs debts, ^especially; ^
from subordinates, AAdiich he does not intend to pay or does not pay, is
too apparent to require discussion. It is evident that the management
of the office under such principal officers is not-efficient and is calculated to demoralize the force.
Appraiser''s Office.—The law proAddes that at this port, as well as a
few others, there shall be two appraisers. Until recently there have
been two here; but at present, through the death of Mr. Darrah in the
early part of this year, there is only one, Mr. Eice.
We believe that the policy of appointing two appraisers of equal and
concurrent authority at one port is an erroneous ohe. It inevitably
leads to a divided responsibility and a conflict of authority, just ^as the
appointment of two captains to one ship or two generals to one army
. would do.
We can see no reason why there should be two appraisers at Boston,
118
. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE-TREASURY.
Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New Orleans, while New
York, where the greater portion of the revenue from imports is collected, has but one, and think the attention of Congress should be called
to this matter.
We would recommend that the vacancy now existing in one of these
offices here should be allowed to remain, as has been the case at, Philadelphia and New Orleans for many years, and that an additional assistant appraiser be appointed, at a^compensation of $2,500 peraunum.
We regret to state that the health of Mr. Eice, the remaining appraiser, has, since our investigation began, been in such a precarious
condition that we have not been able to confer with him in regard to
the affairs of his office. There are two assistant appraisers, Mr. Joslin
and Mr. Jones.
The former has heretofore exercised^a supervision over the examiners
of dry-goods, and has, in addition, performed the work of the examiner.
His record is a most creditable one, and he is an officer of marked
« ability, integrity, and energy. Assistant Appraiser Jones has had supervision of teas and cigaa?s, and has made all examinations for damage
allowance, except on sugar. An examination of the records of the custom-house convinces us that serious faults exist in the methods pursued
by Mr. Jones in respect to damage allowances, as follbws: His returns^'
are frequently delayed, especially on certain classes of goods. This undoubtedly results, in part, from the great number of claims upon which
he has to pass, in addition to his other duties, which are largely increased at this time by reason of the death of one of the appraisers and
sickness ofthe other. In a majority of cases he makes an average allowance covering the whole quantity upon which a warrant has been
issued, which is in violation of article 490 of the Eegulations of 1884.
In one instance we find that an allowance of 100 per cent, on a case of
glass goods of small value examined at the importer's store was clearly
excessive, but an investigation convinces us that it was due to the fact
that the importer's packers placed in this damaged case broken articles
from pther cases of the same invoice .not covered by the damage warrant, and that Mr. Jones failed to discover this fact. Mr. Jones is a
man of ability and courage in the discharge of his official duties, and,
so far as we can learn, is of the strictest integrity. He wa-s formerly a
wholesale tea merchant, and his knowledge of that commodity as well
as general merchandise is of the highest order. . He lacks method, however j in the management of his office, and, in certain classes of goods,
relies rather too much, in our opinion, on the results of the auction or
private sales of damaged goods as reported to him by the auctioneer or
merchant, instead of exercising his own j udgment and expert knowledge. *
A few years ago Mr. Jones's intemperate habits led to a complaint to
the Department, and an investigation by the special agent in charge at ;
this port. It was found that Mr. Jones had reformed in this respect,
and, aside from rumors as to an occasional lapse from sobriety out of
office-hours, we can find no evidence that Mr. Jones is now an intemperate man, or that his habits interfere with the discharge of his duties..
His manners are somewhat curt and sometimes discourteous, so that
some of his associates are reluctant to come into personal contact with
him. Exaininer Grafton is a most estimable gentleman, but he is well
advanced in year's, his mental processes are slow, and his efficiency as
an examiner is very limited. He examines dress-goods, and for many
REPORT OF THE'' SECiiETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ll9
years, as we learn, has made no advances in the A-alues of such goods,
though other examiners, of substantially similar merchandise, have advanced nunierous invoices. In the examination of dry-goods, it is of
vital importance to secure the serAdces of the, best talent attainable, and
we wbuld, therefore, recommend the removal of Mr. Grafton, and substitution of a younger and better qualified officer.
With the foregoing exceptions, we find the officers connected with the
appraiser's department intelligent, faithful, and zealous. Our examination convinces us, however, that the proper dispatch of business, and
econoniy of time, requires the services of at least five additional openers
and packars to enable the examiners to work to advantage. At New
York it hg^ been found that at least two openers and packers are required by an examiner of dry or other package goods to facilitate business. Here there are ten examiners of such goods, and only eleven
openers and- packers. Three openers and packers are now urgentlyneeded in the dry-goods room, one by the examiner of crockery and
another by the examiner of fancy and miscellaneous goods. We, therefore, recommend the appointment of five additional officers of this grade,
at a compensation of $840 per annum.
Much complaint has been made by the importers concerning the enforcement of the regulations governing the delivery of examination
packages. We find that for many years past the practice here has been
substantially the same as it was at Philadelphia prior to Synopsis, 7047;
and, as will be seen elsewhere in this report, there remains over $20,000
of uncollected duties at this port, and the fact that this remains uncollected is largely due to the disregarding of the regulation above referred
to. Many of the importers think their business will be seriously interfered with by a strict enforcement of th^ regulations.
We are, however, of the opinion that they are in a great measure
unnecessarily alarmed, and that instances of hardship on this account
will be of rare occurrence, and could be avoided if the collector is authorized to exercise a reasonable discretion as to the delivery of examined packages; as, for instance, when various descriptions ofmerchandise are embraced in an invioice and a change of rate or an advance in
value is to be reported as to a portion of the merchandise only, if there
is no reason to suspect a fraudulent intent, and if the. iniporter is
known to be of good character and of undoubted responsibility, should
the hardship that would be likely to result from the detention of all
the packages under the regulations appear to b^p such as would warrant
especial consideration, the collector might permit the delivery of those
packages as to the contents of which no change or advance is reported
at once upon receiving the partial report of the appraiser to that effect.
Aside from this, we cannot recommend any modification of the regulations that would be practicable and at the same time safe.
-Iri the closing hours of our examination our attention was called to
what we fear, on such iuA^estigation as we have been able to make,
may have been an act of injustice towards a worthy, honest, and efficient
officer. It appears that in May, 1882, Assistant Weigher John McCarty
was suspended from office by the purveyor, as the result of an investi-.
gation made by that officer in the absence of Mr. McCarty, and shortly
afterwards discharged from the service by the collector. The grounds of
this action was the alleged careless and unfaithful weighing of sugar by
Mr. McCarty at the Standard Eefinery in this city, and the testimony was
mainly that of labprers who had been working with Mr. McCarty, and
120
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
who were unfriendly to him because he had overworked them, as they
believed. After his suspension, Mr. McCarty appears to have demanded
the fullest and-most searching investigation into his official conduct,
but such an investigation was never accorded him. As soon as the
facts in the case came to our knowledge, we sent for McCarty, and
learned from him many facts of interest to the Government. He feels
keenly the disgrace put upon him by the action of the surveyor and
collector, and has been sadly broken down by it. As the result of our
interview with him and our subsequent inquiries, we are., impressed
with his honesty and ability, and believe that he is in possession of facts
that would be of immense value to the revenue, but which he feels at
liberty tp make public only in connection with his own vindication. In
view of these facts, and fbr the reason that we have not the time to
investigate this matter, we recommend that an investigation of Mr..
McCarty's case be ordered by the Department.
After the investigation had been closed and arrangements .made for
departure, inforination came to us that Assistarit Appraiser Jones had
borrowed money from an importer and had been in the habit of collecting money from importers to defray the expense of carriage-hire and
fare when called to. make examination in distant parts of the port or
in places outside the port.
The truth of this statement is admitted by Mr. Jones, and also the
fact that $5 was so received by him in December last, and $3 in May
last, in cases as to which the merchandise (machinery) has not yet been
examined.
This matter is left with the resident member of the commission to examine into fally and report upon.
.Compensation.—The salaries paid to the clerks in the warehouse
division are not in all instances commensurate with the services performed or required.
'
.
From a carefal examination of the work, we are of the opinion thatthe salary of Mr. S. Hartwell is excessive, and that it will still be
excessive if to his present duties are added those of the storage clerk,
Warren, as recommended. We do not consider Mr. Hartwell a very
efficient clerk. He is a man of high literary attainments, but is not
well calculated for clerical work. His salary is $1,600 per annum.
Wm. W. Castle, one of the most efficient clerks, is employed in a
difficult and laborious work, at a compensation of only $1,000 per annum.
The compensation of Geo. W. Miller, one of the most accurate liquida]bing clerks, is inadequate. He receives now $1,400 per annuin.
The compensation of C. F. Stanwood is also inadequate. His present
salary is $1,200 per annum, while A. B. Stearns, another storage clerk,
receives $1,600 per annum, although the work of his desk is but little
more difficult or important.
We would respectfully recommend that the compensation of Mr.
Hartwell be changed from $1,600 to $1,400 per annum, and that an increase in compensation be made, as follows: Wm. W. Castle, from
$1,000 to $1,200 per annum; Geo. W. MiUer, from $1,400 to $1,600
peraunum; and C. F. Stanwood, from $1,200 to $1,400 per annum.
Considering the duties performed bythe following-named clerks in the
naval office, we are of the opinion that their compensation should be
decreased, as follows: Tristram Talbot, assistant liquidating clerk, from
.$1,800 to $1,600 peraunum; Geo. S. Shute, book-keeper, from $1,600
to $1,400 per annum.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
121
We have already recommended a reduction of $200 per annum in the
salary of L. M. Barker, at present designated as chief clerk and debenture clerk in the auditor's office. ^ The compensation of Examiner C. W.
C. Elioads, in the appraiser's office, should be increased frpin $1,600
to $1,800 per annum. This advance, we understand, was contemplated
by the comniission of 1882, and its propriety is recognized by the appraiser and assistant appraiser, as well as by this commission.
For the services rendered by John A. Thomas, in the surveyor's office,
made necessaiy, as Ave have said, by the absence of the surveyor, we
think that $1,800 per annum is ample compensation. We recommend
a reduction, in his case, of $200 per annum.
There are permanently employed at this port thirty-four laborers, at
a compensation of $2 per day, of whom six are assigned to the running
or conducting of the elevators at the appraiser's stores, and-five are permanently detailed fbr other service, as will be seen by ansAver to Question 37. We would respectfully recommend that the laborers detailed
to conduct the elevators be designated as "elevator-conductors, " a n d
that those pernianently detailed as clerks, messengers,^c., be designated
in accordance Avith -the work that they actually perform, and that the
remainder be designated as porters.
We would also recommend that, in consideration of the increased risk
in the service bf the elevator-conductors over that of the others, the
-compensation ofthe former be made $2.50 per day, as at NCAV York.
The r e ^ o n for the recommendation as to the change of designation of
the laborers permanently detailed to other duties is too apparent to require comment.
~
The purpose in recpmmending a change of the designation of the
remainder is to distinguish them from laborers employed by the hour,
Avho are naturally of an inferior grade, and to more correctly designate
their services, and especially to place them where we believe they of right
belong—that is, among those who UOAV receive the customary fourteen
days' leave of absence.
Saving in expense of salaries recommended.
By reducing the force:
Geo. W. Warren, clerk, warehouse division
J. R. AVithington, clerk, navigation division
Q
Frederic Grant, clerk; navigation division
E. AV. Lane, clerk, navigation division
Fred. S. Powers, clerk, naval office
Service of eight inspectors dispensed with
Reorganization of the weigher's department
By reducing salaries:
L. M. Barker, clerk, auditor's office
John A. Thomas, clerk, surveyor's office.....
S. Hartwell, clerk, warehouse division.
Tristram Talbot, clerk, naval office
George S. Shute, clerk, naval office
Total
;
\
-
;.;
t
'.
31^370
Increase recommended.
Five additional openers and packers, at $840 each
Increase in compensation of W. H. Collins, clerk, navigation division
Wm. Devens, clerk, navigation division
C. W. C. Rhoad^, examiner, appraiser's division.
$1,200
1, 800
1,400
*
. -.
1,400
1,600
l l , 680
11, 290
.
200
200
200
;..
200
200
$4, 200
200
400
200
122,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
W. H. Castle, clerk; warehouse division.....
Geo. W. Miller, clerk, warehouse division
.•
C. F. Stanwood, clerk, warehouse division
In crease in compensation of elevator-conductors, about.
$200
,200
200
' 900
Total
6,500
Total decrease recommended.
Total increase recommended
T
;
Net decrease in expenses recommended
$31, 370
6, 500
24, 870
The stenographer's report of testimony taken by us is herewith enclosed.
Eespectfully submitted-
•
N. W. BINGHAM,
Special Agent.
H. W H E E L E E COMBS,
TJ. S. General Appraiser.
B. H. HINDS,
C. H. LAPP,
Special Agents.
No. 2.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
.
,
New Yorlc, October 30, 1885.
-, S I R : In obedience to instructions contained in Department letter of
the 26th instant, directing us to report the result of our investigation
at the appraiser's store at this port, and thereupon proceed to our respective stations, we have the honor to report that ;since our return
. from Boston, pn the 14th ultimo, a large portion pf our time has been
consumed in investigating matters referred to us by the Department,
but not included in our original instructions, and in rendering such assistance to the appraiser and general appraiser as they have from time
' to time required of us.
Our investigation of the methods and personnel of the appraiser's
office has extended to nearly all the diAdsions in a general way, but has
been more particularly confined to the first (or damage) division, and
on that alone we are prepared fully to report at the present time.
Our exainination of the methods and system of transacting the public business in this division has been as thorough as possible. We
have not only called before us and carefully interrogated the assistant
appraiser and each of the examiners as to the manner in which business
is conducted and the methods resorted to for estimating and ascertaining the measure of damage, but we have made a personal inspection
of the records of the office, and have, in some cases, accompanied or
folloAved the officers at their work to acquaint ourselves with the absolute facts as to their ability and faithfulness. In addition to this, we
have made diligent inquiry as to the reputation for abilitj^ and integrity of all the examiners connected with this division.
When the present Appraise^:, Mr. McMullen, assumed the duties of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
123
his office in April last, there were twenty-one examiners in the .first
division; but by a judicious weeding-out process under his immediate
direction, the number has been loedueed to thirteen, and no embarrassment to the prompt transaction of public business has resulted.
The force nbw employed in the first division, exclusive of clerks,
messengers, and openers and packers, is as follows: D. J. Moore, assistant appraiser; Jas. Freed, in charge pf personal effects; W. H. MaxAvell, in charge of sample-room'; Jas. McLaughlin, in charge of packed
packages; Fred'k Cochen, in charge of wharf examinations and free
goods; J. W. Jones, damage examiner; L. P. Bostwick, damage
examiner; C. H. Townsend, damage examiner; G. W. Pratt, damage
examiner; J. T. Hathorn, damage examiner; J. A. Sherer, damage
examiner; Eodney Smith, baggage examiner at wharf; Jas. E. Welch,
baggage examiner at wharf; J o h n W . Corning, baggage examiner at
Avharf; A. E. Boiffield, sampler at wharf; J. A. Guischerdt, sampler at
AA'^harf. ^
The gobds examined in this division are as follows: Free goods on
Avharf and in store, consisting chiefly of hides, skins, &c., personal effects, passengers' baggage on shipboard or in public store, packed packages containing various kinds of goods for various parties, sample.
packages-and samples of all kinds, goods damaged on the voyage of
importation, all seized goods, and all unclaimed goods.
As the result ofthe most thorough investigation in the manner already
referred to, we feel warranted in stating that, with one, or possibly twp,
exceptions, to be hereafter alluded to, the employes in this division are
men of ability and integrity, and that the methods adopted for the transaction of business are proper and legitimate.
Assistant Appraiser Moore, with whom we have conferred, and who
is an able and painstaking officer, speaks of these employes, with the
exceptions aboA^e noted, as gentlemen of superior ^Qualifications and
trustAvorthiness. The exceptions referred to are Examiners Cochen and
Welch: Certain rumors affecting Mr. Cochen's integrity came to us
early in our investigation of this division, and Assistant Appraiser
Moore inforriied us that similar rumors had from time to time reached
him. On further iiiA^estigation in other directions, we learned the follOAving facts concerning Mr. Cochen: He was suspended from office
January 2, 1883, on charges that he had accepted bribes in returning
excessive damage-alloAvances. At the March term of court for 1883 he
Avas indicted fbr accepting a bribe to return an excessive allowance for
damage on a cargo of potatoes imported into this port by A. T. Heney
&Son, on the steamship " Yiking," in April, 1882. He was at the same
time indicted for removingfr^omthe custom-house without authority and
altering a damage warrant covering an allowance on another lot of pota-'
toes, imported on the steamship '/Crest" in April, 1882. It appears
that an allowance of 50 per cent, had been made on a portion bf this
cargo by Mr. Cochen, and that, "after the warrant had been regularly
returned to the collector, it was ih some irregular and surreptitious
manner removed from the custom-house.
.
We learn that the original warrant was not removed from the customhouse by Mr. Cochen, and that on a duplicate warrant, subsequently
issued by the collector, the original having been lost or destroyed, Mr.
Cochen returned a damage of 100 per cent, on a portion of the cargo,
based on a certificate issued by the board of health of this city, to the
^ 124
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
effect that the potatoes had been condemned and. destroyed by their
order.
On the indictment for removing and altering public records Mr.
Cochen Avas tried and acquitted at the May term of 1883.
On the indictment for accepting the bribe in the case of .the damage
alloAvance on the potatoes imported, by A. T. Heney & Son, in the
steamship "Yiking," a nolle prosequi Avas entered bythe district attorney. The charge upon which this iridictment was found was made by
George T. Heney, son of Mr. A. T. Heney, in an affidavit taken by
Mr. Charles N. Brackett, then a special agent of the Treasury Depart;
ment. A copy of the affidavit is herewith enclosed, marked Exhibit
" A . " This affidavit was supplemented by one from Gregory Burke',
an employ6 of the Heneys for occasional, service as messenger. A copy
of said affidavit is enclosed, marked Exhibit. " B . "
In respect to the $100 claimed by young Heney to have been given
to Cochen at the store, and the $200 claimed to have been sent in a
letter, there is a flat contradiction betweeii the two parties. We had a
Ipng interview Avith Heney on this subject, and, from his appearance
and statements at that intervicAv, as well as from his reputation, as we
gather it ff^om other parties, we would be inclined to place very little
confidence in his affidavit.
. As to the $85 which Heney states Avas sent to Cochen by the messenger, Burke, we find that the money was drawn from the banlc by
young: Heney, on a check made payable to "Cochen or bearer." The
original check is now in the district attorney's office, with the other"
papers in the case. Cochen claims that the check was so drawn by
Heney to deceive his father as to the i n t e n d ^ use of. the money, and
that Heney probably kept it himself
We were informed at the district attorney's office that this indictment .was ^^nolle prosequied,^^ because it was ascertained that there was
no evidence tp substantiate the charges.
The suspension of Mr. Cochen from office was revoked in July 27,1883;
We were informed by merchants Avho examined the potatoes imported, per steamship '' Yiking,'' before they wei'e Ian ded, that, in their
opinion, the damage allowance was not excessiA^e, and, indeed, was not
equal to the actual damage.
We called upon Messrs. WoodAvprth & Son, commission merchants
on Fulton street, near Water, and ascertained from them that prior
to the arrival of the vessel they had conditionally agreed to handle the
potatoes upon commission, but after examining them they declined to
do so, as they were in such a bad'condition that they would not advance the freight and duty.
^
A Mr. John E. Stowe made an offer for the cargo of potatoes which,
although less than the freight and duty, was accepted as being the best
obtainable, and the consignor lost the whole of the original A-alue,
Avhich was about $27,000.
The damage alloAved by Cochen was about 47 per cent, on part and
less than that on the residue.
We haA^e been thus particular in inquiring into the facts concerning
these transactions on account of the notoriety they obtained at the
time, and the suspicions t??.ey created as to Mr. Cochen's integrity.
While we are unable to determine that Mr. Cochen was guilty of any.
official misconduct, Ave nevertheless believe, in view ofthe opinion en-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
125
tertained and expressed to us by Assistant Appraiser Moore > and other
officials, that his further retention in office maybe prejudicial to the
good of the service.
We have carefully investigated the official conduct of Mr. Welch,
about Avhom some rumors had^come tp Assistant Appraiser Moore, and
find that he is an officer against whose official conduct nothingdiscred-,
itable is knoAvn, though vague rumors, Avhich appear to have been
inspired by personal feeling, have from time to .time been circulated
concerning him. Appraiser McMullen, who has also investigated this^
matter, confirms our view.
In making our investigations into the methods of conducting the pub
lie business in this division, we learn that where merchandise, particularly when entered as "free of duty," is ordered tobe examined on the
wharf, it frequently happens that all the packages have been delivered
to the importer before the examiner or his sampler can get to the wharf
to examine the goods or take samples. There is only one examiner and
two samplers to attend to the "wharf examinations" of goods entered
" f r e e of duty " at this port.
The number of invoices received at the appraiser's office, covering
such goods entered free of duty, will average from fifty to sixty per day.
The wharves at which these- goods are discharged are located on both
the Hudson and East rivers in the city, along the Brooklyn and New
Jersey water fronts, and at many ofthe islands in the bay and harbor.
The invoices, in the usual routine of business, dp not reach the examiner till late in the next day after entry; and we are informed that dis• charging inspectors have no orders to retain the goods on the wharf,
except in the case of liv^ animals. The bare statement of the facts
will show that it is a physical impossibility for three officers to make
so many examinations at points so far apart. It is^ not the practice
at this port for the "ordering deputies," in cases of wharf examinations, to note on the invoice the wharf at which the goods are
to be discharged, and, except in the case of goods arriving by regular
steamship lines, it becomes-necessary for the examiner or sampler to
ascertain through brokers, newspapers, or other available channels,
when his services are required. Sampler Bonfield informed us that
he had in his possession a large number of invoices covering goods
imported in sailing-A^^essels from the British Provinces, and entered
• free of duty, and that, after searching some weeks, he had been unable to ascertain where such goods had been landed. Even the district inspectors, to whom he had applied for information on the subject, had no knowledge concerning the unlading of these vessels. There
is certainly something radically wrong about such a system of doing
business, and the door is open to frauds upon the revenue.
Article 137 of the Manual of Laws and Eegulations for the guidance^
bf customs inspectors, weighers, &c., issued in 1883, providesthat "the'
inspector shall examine each and all of the packages, and if they are
found different from or of greater value than is described on the permit, he shall retain possession of the packages," and report the facts to
the surveyor; but at this port Ave learn that it is impracticable for the
inspector to perform this duty, in addition to his other work, even if
he were a judge of values, and sufficiently familiar with the provisions
ofthe tariff laws, to distinguish free from dutiable goods.
The result of the insufficient force of examiners and samplers for
126
REPORT OF . THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
such goods, and the absence of any regulation requiring inspectors to
retain possession of them until they can be properly examined or
sampled by the appraising officers, is that many invoices are returned
to the collector with the indorsement "goods not found," and then
begins a long search for them, at the importers' store or elsewhere.
Thi^ condition of things is not confined to free goods coming under
the first division, but we learn that similar troubles are experienced by
examineis and samplers in other divisions, where dutiable good^ are
ordered to be "exaniiued on the wharf."
We believe that wharf examinations ought to be avoided whenever
• the goods are of such a character as to make the femoA^al of exaniination packages to the public stores practicable, and we Avould recommend that inspectors be ordered, in all cases, to retain possession of
goods on which wharf examination has been ordered, until the appraising officers have examined or sampled them.
To make such a regulation practicable, it will be necessary to somewhat increase the force of samplers; but even that is preferable to the
present loose system of doing this work.
We had designed conferring with the collector and surveyor on this
subject, but our limited time does not render,this course practicable.
It had come to our attention that very considerable differences exist
between the several large ports in the classification for duty of sugar by
means of the polariscope.
Between the ports of Boston and Philadelphia, for instance, we found
variances of two and three degrees on sugars from the same plantation
and of the same.mark.
On a large cargo this would result in a difference in duties of from
$3,000 to $5,000. We had submitted test samples of sugar to the appraisers at the ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and were
hoping to ascertain the cause of these variances and secure harmony at
the various "ports in the polariscopic results. We beg to commend this
important matter to the serious attention of the Department.
We had also made inquiry intp the discrepancies betAveen the large
ports in the matter of the value and classification of foreign wools—
particularly those known as "Donskoi wools"—and were in communication with the officials and reputable importers at the large ports on
this subject. We have learned enough to couAdnce us that gross undervaluations at all the ports have existed for years, through a misappreliension on the part of the customs officials of- the true value of the
-currency oh which the traffic is actually based.
These wools are entered as "washed wools," valued at less than' 12
cents per pound. A chemical analysis Avas made at the laboratory connected with the appraiser's office, and the chemist reports that they
are "sco2^red5Vools." This subject is now being carefally investigated
by the appraiser of this port.
We have discovered differences in classification between the several
ports on some lines of goods and have called the attention of the
proper officers thereto. Some of these errors have been corrected, and
others doubtless will be in the near fature.
In addition to the foregoing, we had received from various importers
and others charges, both verbal and written, affecting the official conduct of several of the employes in the appraiser's office at this port.
On these we were suspending action until, in our investigations, we
REPORT OF -THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
127
reached the divisions in which these officers were located. We have
left these charges with Special Agent Hinds, who has been directed by
, the Department to remain on duty at the public stores.
At this port, both before and since our Adsit to Boston, the work of
this commission has, from time to timef been temporarily retardec^^^by
calls made on some of its members, for various pressing emergencies,
by the general appraiser and the appraiser of the port. ^ While regretting the delay to the work strictly within the scope of our instructions,
occasioned by such interruptions, we nevertheless realized that the matters thus brought befbre us were important, and therefore yielded to the
Avishes of the officers referred to in giving to such subjects the consideration requested.
^
We desire, in closing our labors, to acknowledge the uniform courtesy
Avith^Avhich we have been treated by the customs officials with whom
Ave have come in contact, both at this port and Boston, and the readiness
Avith Avhich they have adopted any suggestions tending to promote the
efficiency of their force or add to the security of the revenue.
Yery respectfuUy, youi* obedient servants, -a
H. W H E E L E E COMBS,
" General Appraiser.
B. H. HINDS,
C. H. LAPP,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. 0.
[Enclosure.]
Geo. T. Heney, being sworn, deposes and says: I am now engaged in the commission business v^ith my father, Mr. A. T. Heney, 25 Coentie's Shp, New York. I
remember a consignment or 48,000 bushels of potatoes, which arrived at this port, via
steamship '' Viking,'' during the month of April last. They were entered by me on
the 15th of said month. I made an apphcation for damage allowance on the date of
entry. ' A day or two subsequently I called at the appraiser's stores and learned that
the appraisement of said cargo of potatoes had been assigned to Examiners Frederick
Cochen and D. W. Smith. Several days subsequent to my visit to the appraiser's stores,
Cochen called at my office in Coentie's Slip, and, in reply to my inquiry as to why he
had not made his return of the aforesaid cargo, he replied that he had so much to do,
having several other cargoes, and that I could not expect him to work for nothing. I then
handed Cochen a onfe-hundred-dollar bill, which was in an envelope; he, taking it from
the envelope and looking at it, remarked in a sneering manner, '' That is a very small
amount,'' but put it in his pocket. Affcer the aforesaid visit of Cochen, I called at the
public stores repeatedly to learn whether his return was ta or not, but without success.
On or about the 16th of May last, Cochen called at my office and said that he wanted
five hundred dollars, intimating that-when he received that amount he would complete his return on said cargo. I demurred at this, and told him I did not think I
could give him so much, as the parties abroad, in my opinion, would not stand it.
Several days having passed by without my hearing from Cochen, or that he had as yet
made a return for said cargo,. I enclosed to his address by post to No. 234 Keep street,
Brooklyn, two one-hundred-dollar bills, and requested him to hurry up the return on
128
REPORT OF 'THE SJECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.
. said cargo. I did not register said letter, as Cochen told me he would receive no rnoney^
either by check or registered letter. The payment of the two hundred dollars as above
proved successful^ as Cochen made the return within a few days. . Subsequently I sent
Cochen eighty-five dollars additional. This money was sent by my messenger, a man
named Burke. Burke knew the letter contained money, as I showed it to him as I
se^^d it, and cautioned him to be careful of it. Burke told me he delivered the
same at Cochen's office, but, as Cochen was not in, he left it on his desk. I paid Cochen
three hundred and eighty-five dollars in all, in order to get him to complete his returns
on this cargo of potatoes, but Cochen considers me still in his debt for the difference between three hundred and eighty-five and fi.ve hundred dollars, and has called at my
office three or four times for the difference of one hundred and fiiteen dollars, and said
he did.not think I was acting square with him. In my opinion, I do not consider that
Cochen was entitled to a cent, but I am fully convinced that, without having made
the aforesaid payments to him, I never would have succeeded in getting the return of
said cargo from him. I will say here that the one-hundred-dollar bill handed Cochen
by me was handed to him in the street, after we left my office.
'
^
GEO. T. HENEY.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 22d day of December, 1882.
a
CHAS. N. BRACKETT,
Special Agent. [Enclosure.]
B.
Gregory Burke, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I live at 37 Front street, this
city, and am occasionally emploj^ed as messenger by Messrs. A. T. & G. T. Heney,
No. 25 Coentie's Slip, this city. I reniember going to the United States appraiser's
stores during the month of May last; can't remember the date. 1 went there by
direction bf Mr. G. T. Heney, with a letter for Mr. Cochen; said letter contained
money. I saw the money when placed in the envelope by Mr. Geo. T. Heney, but do
hot know how much it contained. I went to the public stores, inquired for Mr. Cochen ;
was directed to a room in which he was said to be located, but did not find him in. I
told the party in the room of whom I inquired that the envelope contained money, and
was for Mr. Cochen, and he told ine to lay it upon Mr. Cochen's desk, which I did. I
said to the person of whom I made the inquiries that the letter was from Mr. Heney to
Mr. Cochen.
GREGORY BURKE.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 26th day of December, 1882.
CHAS. N. BRACKETT,
Speeial Agent.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
129
REDUCTIONS IN COST OF CUSTOMS SERVICE;.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C., March 31 and April 1, 1885.
SIR : You are hereby requested to report to me in Avriting, as soon
as practicable, to what extent, in your opinion, the force employed in
your district can be reduced without detriment to the public service;
whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to
you Avhereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the
expends curtailed.
The present state of the appropriation for the current fiscal year requires your immediate attention to the above.
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 2.
CUSTOM-HOUSE,']ALBANY, N . Y . ,
^
Surveyor's Office, April 16, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
March 31, 1885. For the past few days I have given the matter referred to careful consideration, and have looked into the duties performed by the deputies and inspectors respectively. I have done this
with a view of ascertaining if any reduction in the force in this office
could be safely made.
In my opinion, no reduction should be made at this time, just as
navigation is being resumed, and the receipt of large quantities of
lumber from Ganada abput to occur. There are over five hundred boats
enrolled at this port. This, together with the lumber trade, requires
the services of at least four inspectors. I am also often, compelled, on
receipt of telegrams, to send an officer to some distant point in my district to transfer bonded merchandise, this being made necessary by the
disabling of a car. The duties in the office employ the time of the other
deputies and inspectors. The custodianship of the Government buUding at Albany adds somewhat to the labors of the employes of this office.
At this time I have no changes to suggest in the method of doing business. I think the system is a well-developed one, and it works satisfactorily at this port.
I am, respectfully,
JOHN A. LUBY,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington^ B. C.
9A
130
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
N o . 3.
.
• ,
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ALEXANDRIA, Y A . ,
Collector[s Office, April 10, 1885. '
SIR : In obedience to your instructions contained in circular letter of
March 31, 1885, I have the honor to report the condition of this customs
district and the force employed, with suggestions as to simplifying the
methods of transacting the business and ciirtaUment of expenses without apparent detriment to the service.
Eirst. The condition of the district was fully reported to the honorable Commissioner of Navigation, under date of November 12, 1884,
which was embodied in his report to the honorable Secretary of the
Treasury, and is found on pages 76 and 77 in the First Annual Eeport
of said Commissioner, to which I Avill ask permission to add that there
is ho salary connected with the office of collector of this district. His
compensation is derived from the official fees, which are nominal, or
less than $300 per year, under the present laws.
I should also state that the collector was and is acting as custodian of
public property, .under direction of the Department, in the capacity of
"agent of the Government." This service has been rendered since
June 1, 1881. The claim for this service,was first made in January,
1882, under section 2691, Eevised Statutes, and is still pending, with a
report from the chief architect in February last, which is on file in the
appointment division of the Department, with the request that in case
the Department has any question as to the value of the services rendered, an opportunity may be granted to show their value.
The force employed is one deputy collector, at a salary of $1,200 per
annum, and one inspector, of customs, at $3 per day.
The force employed and under the direction of the custodian is one
janitor, at a salary of $500 per annum; one night-watchman and fireman, at $30 per month.
In my report to the Commissioner of Navigation above referred to, 1
suggested that the Potomac river be placed in one collection district, and
in case that was done, both this district and Georgetown could be
merged into one district, with a collector at Washington, and a deputy
collector only at this port, as proposed to Congress by the late Secretary
Folger.
.
In the detail of business, it would seem to suggest that the maritime
business could be mostly (and most naturally would be) done by an efficient deputy at this port, and all of the bonded business at Washington,
where that business is only done at present. By such an arrangement
the fees collected here could be deposited in Treasury; and if an inspector is dispensed with, the saving to the Treasury would be $1,400
or $1,500 dollars annually, including the official fees.
Under the present method of reports, tMs office makes two weekly
reports, forty-nine monthly, nineteen quarterly, two semi-annual, four
annual.' Many of these are simply statements of no transactions.
The business at this office and port is largely in the coasting trade.
The importations, for present fiscal year to date, of commodities free
of duty is valued at $25,753. The A-alue of commodities dutiable $116
only.
The value of domestic products exported is $110,367.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
131
The number of steam-vessels documented at this port is 15, and 64
.'-vessels.
sailing-vessels.
Yery respectfully, your obedient serA?;ant,
J. H. GEAY, •
CoUector and Custodian.
Hon; D A N I E L MANNING, •
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 4.
CusTOM-HousE, ALEXANDRIA, Y A . ,
, Collector's Office, May 18, 1885.
S I R : In obedience to Department instructions and your Circular No.
77, dated March 31, 1885, I have the honor to report that the repeal of
the law fbr the collection of all hospital-dues, which heretofore required
close supervision OA^er all domestic vessels, and also since the law known
as the "shipping a c t " has come into fall force, experience shows that
a corresponding reduction in the force employed can be made, Avithout
detriment to the service.
I therefore suggest that the deputy collector can attend to all the
duties now performed bythe inspector, whose services can be dispensed
vith at any day the honorable Secretary of the Treasury may so order.
I have the honor to be, yours,>
J. H. GEAY,
Collector.'
Hon.. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 6.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ANNAPOLIS, M D . ,
Collector's Office April 6, 1885c
S I R : In reply to your printed letter of March 31, 1885, Form 77, as
to the reduction of the force employed under my direction, I have the
honor to say that in my letter to you dated April 1, 1885, I recommended the discontinuance of the office of revenue boatman at this port,
as his services are very rarely, if ever, required by me. The only other
officers under me are a deputy at Town Creek, on the Potomac river,
about sixty miles from here, whose serAdces are indispensable, and an
inspector of customs here, who also performs the duties of deputy collector in my sickness or absence. H e only receives one pay for both
positions. The services of this officer I deem also indispensable, looking to the best interests of the Government, the efficiency of jbhe serAdce,
and the convenience of the public.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
THOMAS lEELAND,
CoUector of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
'
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
132
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 6
CusTOM-HousE, APALACHICOLA, FLA.,-
'
'
Collector's Office, April 8, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department letter dated March 31, 1885. In reply, I have to state that the force employed under my direction cannot be reduced without detriment to the
public service, for the reason that I haA^e at present only one person
under my employment, that is my present special deputy collector,
and I fail to see Avhereby the methods of doing business can be simplified any more than they are at present.
I have no suggestions or recommendations to make whereby the effieiency of the service may be improved and expenses curtailed.
I am, very respectfully,
SETH M. SAWYEE,
Collector of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 7.
CusTOM-HousE, ASTORIA, OREG.,
Collector's Office, April 20, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
letter of the 31st lUtimo, requesting me to report to what extent, in my
opinion, the force employed in this office can be reduced without detriment to the public service.
In answer thereto, I will state that the force, in my opinion, employed in this office^ could not be consistently reduced, although th<e receipts of the office are somevfhat reduced from what they were last
year. There are employed one special deputy and one deputy collector and inspector in the office, and two inspectors, which constitute
the working force of the port.
I am compelled to appoint temporary imspectors very often, and it
. Avould add to the efficiency of the office if an additional inspector was
appointed, instead of being compelled to rely on any one that I find
idle and unemployed. I will further state that, this being the first port
of arrival for A-essels destined for Portland, tug inspectors very frequently accompany vessels to that port, and during their abscence the
deputy collector and inspector attends to the. boarding of vessels, &c.,
although two officers should board and search each and every vessel
. on arrival, if done thoroughly. .
'
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
.'
•
J. D. MEEEYMAN,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . O.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY;
.
133
. N o . 8.
•
CusTOM-HousE, BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Collector's Office, June 13, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to the Department letter of March 31, 1885, requesting me to report in writing to what extent the force employed under
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public serAdce,
and wheliher the methods bf doing busines§ can be simplified, and to
make suggestions whereby the efficiency pf the service may be improved
and expenses curtailed, I would respectfully report that the total force
employed under my direction as collector of customs is one hundred
and ninety-two. Of these, there are under the immediate supervision
and control of the surveyor of the port one hundred and two persons,
and under the local appraisers twenty-one persons. There are seveii
storekeepers, who are paid by the proprietors ofthe bonded warehouses,
and not by the Government. There are thirty-eight clerks employed
in the various departments of the collector's office; among these are
included the cashier and assistant cashier of customs, the auditor and
assistant auditor, the storekeeper and acting superintendent of bonded
warehouses at public store No. 1 and his clerk, and the clerk to the
general appraiser, the duties of whose office are not confined to this
port. The remaining twenty-four officers consist of my deputy collectors and of messengers, watchmen, laborers, engineer, and foreman at
public store.
Of the twenty-four officers other than clerks, as heretofore mentioned,
I think the office of deputy collector at HaArre de Grace might be abolished without detriment to the public serAdce. Since the abolishment
of "hospital-dues," the revenues from that office have greatly decreased,
and amount at this time to a very small part of the compensation of
the officer in charge. His duties, though always faithfully performed,
are now about commensurate with his collections.
Until recently, the clerks in this office have always been fully occupied. They are generally so now, but owing to the depression of foreign
trade at this time, there are occasional periods when they are not fally
employed. Under this state of facts, the force might be reduced, at
least temporarily, as follows: Two officers might be dropped from class
" A , " one fr'om class 1, one from class 2, and onefr-omclass 3. If this
reduction is made, I would recommend that the following departments
as now existing. Adz., "marine," "entrance and clearance," and
"record," be consolidated into one department, to be called the "marine
department." The business transacted at each of these departments
relates essentially to marine matters, and would be simplified and expedited by the proposed consolidation.
In answer to my request, the surveyor of the port has submitted to
me, in writing, his views in reference to the reduction of the force in
his office, so far as it relates to the officers appointed by the collector,
I enclose his communication herewith, and ask to have it considered as
a part of this report, as I concur in its conclusions, that said force can
be reduced as follows: Three day-inspectors, four night-inspectors,
(including one night-inspector recently deceased,) one assistant weigher,
and one foreman of laborers.
The local appraisers have also, at my request, submitted to me their
views in writing, herewith enclosed as part of this report, in which they
134
^REPORT, OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
state that the force under their immediate supervision can be reduced
as follows: One examiner and two laborers. I concur in this opinion.
i t will thus be seen that the force employed under my direction can
be reduced asfollows: In the cbllector's office, one deputy collector
at Havre de Grace, five clerks, two of class " A " and one each of
^ classes 1, 2, and 3 ; surveyor's department, three day-inspectors, four
night-inspectors, one assistant weigher, and one superintendent of laborers; appraiser's office, one^xaminer, two laborers.
The methods of doing buMness in this office, in my judgment, are correct and satisfactory, and, with the exception of the consolidation of the
several departments heretofore mentioned, I would make no further
recommendation on the subject.
In conclusion, it is proper to state that the amount of duties collected
at this port is not a fair criterion by which to judge of the actual Avork
Aone by our customs officers, or of the foreign trade of this city. There
is a large amount of dutiable goods imported into Baltimore for immediate transportation to interior ports, the duties on which are not
collected at this port. Again, there is an exceptionally large importation of coffee and fruits here, which, though duty free, impose almost
as much labor upon customs officers as though they were dutiable.
Then again, the exportation of articles of domestic manufacture Avhich
are entitled to drawback is very large, and requires much attention and
labor on the part of our officers.
Yours, respectfully,
EDWIN H. WEBSTBE,
CoUector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Seeretary of the Treasury.
No. 9.
CusTOM-HousE, BALTBIORE, M D . ,
Surveyor's Office, May 30, 1885.
SIR : I would respectfully say that the copy of circular letter issued
by the Treasury Department, dated March 31,1885, with your indorsement thereon of the 6th ultimo, requesting this office to make report
embodying the views and recomniendations of the surveyor of customs
in the premises, so far as they relate to the officers and employes of his
department, who hold their appointments from the collector of customs
of this port, was duly received, and I would respectfully submit the
following report:
The Department request to be informed to what extent the force can
be reduced without detriment to the public service.
Bay-inspectors.—Ih treating of this inquiry, I would respectfully state
that there are forty-one day-inspectors who, are employed as follows:
Three detailed Avith the collector of customs; one Avith the general
appraiser of merchandise; one with the special Treasury agent; five
who are performing district duty, under the surveyor of customs; four
who are employed as debenture officers, under the surveyor of customs;
two who are engaged as admeasurers of vessels, under the surveyor of
customs; two Avho are assigned as boarding officers, under the surveyor
of customs.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
135
It will be observed from the foregoing that eighteen inspectors are
specially detailed. Five of this number are on duty with customs
officers other than the surveyor, who, in each case better understand
than himself the necessity for their services. As to the remaining
thirteen, who are serving under the immediate direction ofthe surveyor,
the five who are performing district duty have supervision of the entire
harbor during the day, embracing a frontage of about nine miles, each
having charge of the operations of his appropriate subdivision and
keeping the surveyor constantly informed of the condition of the seryice on their respective subdivisions, and reporting any violations of
law or the non-observance of the regulations.
The four who are employed as debenture officers have charge of the
prompt'forwarding of all merchandise arriving in bond for interior or
other ports unappraised, known as immediate-transportation shipments,
and the preliminary examination of all goods entered for export for the
benefit of drawback, and the supervision of the lading of the same on
board of outbound vessels. It should be remembered that these shipments entail a large amount of labor on these officers, from which no receipts accrue to the revenue at this port.
The two who are engaged as admeasurers of vessels are kept daily employed in connection with the examination of the large number of vessels employed in the coastwise trade, and particularly those in the trade
on the Chesapeake bay and its tributaries, and in admeasi^ing and computing the compartments of ocean steamers carrying imnfigrant passengers, &c.
The two who are assigned for boarding duty, and alternate, as this
duty must be performed as the vessels arrive from foreign ports, with
the utmost intelligence and circumspection day and night, are required
to display the greatest possible Adgilance. Their duties are manifold
n-nd highly important to the service, embracing the examination of the
ship's papers to see that the naAdgation and custonis laws'are observed
and the regulations strictly complied with, place proper officers on board
of vessels and see that foreign mails are promptly delivered at the post
office, &c., and also deliver manifests, &c., at the custom-house, that
vessels may promptly enter, &c. I therefore respectfully state thatthe
services of these thirteen officers, in my opinion, annot be dispensed
with without serious detriment to the public service.
It will be further observed that, after deducting the eighteen inspectors above enumerated, there remain for discharging cargoes from
vessels, &c., but twenty-three officers, and any one familiar with the
character of this duty cannot fail to appreciate its importance and the
scrupulous care with which it should be 'performed; and I confess,
I should be slow under any circumstances to suggest a course that
would in any degree cripple this arm of the service.
The discharging officers during much of the time since my incumbency in office, now numbering more than three years, have been overworked, and the cargoes discharged in this time could not have beeh
handled by them had they not performed much of the labor by night; and
furthermore, it has not been infrequent Avhen these officers were called
to render material aid to other branches of the service, which are too
slenderly equipped when business is active, to perform this duty.
There was a marked instance of this kind within the last twelve
months, when the gauger's department was required to gauge and make
up the returns for more than thirty-seven thousand barrels of whiskey
which were exported from this port.
136
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Moreover, when the force is required to render, more service than
the men can comfortably bear, the percentage of sickness greatly increases, and the' chief officers of the customs find themselves embarrassed in directing the business of the port, and the public service is
thereby almost unavoidably left to suffer.
The recent falling off, however, in importaitions and the present stagnant condition of trade, with no present prospect of its early revival,
justify, in my opinion, a small reduction of the day-inspectors' force,
and I therefore recommend that three of said officers be dropped.
Night inspectors.—The night-inspectors' force is composed of one captain, one lieutenant, and thirty-two officers. Four of these officers are
detailed as roundsmen, and are indispensable as patrolmen on their respective districts. Several officers are nightly detailed with the revenuecutter, which lies at the barding station, to keep watch for all incoming vessels, and to be placed on board of such as arrive from foreign
ports. The remaining officers are distributed amongst vessels haAdng
on board dutiable cargoes and guarding merchandise on wharves, piers,
o and at warehouses, &c.
The chief officers of this force have general supervision of the inferior pfficers, and make their respective circuits of the harbor during
the night to see that the meh are faithfully and efficiently performing
their duty, with a view to prevent the smuggling of dutiable merchandise, or any interference with other goods requiring protection. The
value of adequateness, as well as fidelity and efficiency, in this force
cannot be overestimated, as it is at night-time the greatest danger is
to be apprehended from Avickedly-disposed persons who infest the
marts of trade and seek for plunder. The same reasons, however, that
induced me to recommend a reduction in the day-inspector's force impel me to recommend a reduction of four officers in the night-inspector's force, embracing in this number the vacancy now existing on this
force, which I think may be done without endangering the safety of
the public service.
Weighers' department.—The weighers' department is made up of one
weigher, twelve assistant weighers, three clerks, one messenger, one
foreman of laborers, and a corps of laborers, numbering about forty
men. The laborers are paid twenty-five cents per hour for the time
actually employed.
Whilst I am deeply sensible of the great importance of this branch
of the service, and would scrupulously avoid any suggestion that would
impair its thorough efficiency, yet, for the reasons already stated, I am
constrained to recommend a reduction of one assistant weigher. I also
recommend that the office of foreman of laborers be abolished, as this
officer, as it appears to me, is of no practical value to the service,
this appointment having been recently created by dropping an assistant weigher and appointing' this officer instead at a less compensation.
Gangers' department.-—The gangers' department is under the management of the United States weigher, who performs the duty of gauger,
and is assisted by an assistant weigher, detailed as assistant gauger, and
a temporary assistant gauger, who is employed only when his services
are required and paid for the time thus employed. It would be impossible to conduct this department with less force than is now employed ^
nor do I see how it could be run with less expense to the Government.
Measurer of marble.—The measurement of marble is also under fche
supervision of the United States Aveigher, who is assisted, whenever.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
13T
necessary, by an assistant weigher who has been trained for this purpose. No reduction is possible in this departmeht.
What has been said in relation to the day-inspectors' force in regard!,
to being overworked is true of the weighers' and gaugers' departments^
and this was especially the case during a large part of the year 188^
and the early part of the present year.
Methods of doing business, &c.—Secondly, as to whether the methods^
of doing business can be simplified, &c., whereby the efficiency of t h e
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed:
In response to this inquiry, I would respectfully say th^at this subject:
received the consideration to which its gravity entitled it immediately
following my entry upon the duties of surveyor, and such changes a s
were deemed advisable (reference being had to the simplification of
the methods of doing business, improvement in the efficiency of t h e
service, and the curtailment of the expenses) were from time to time
made, and therefore I have no suggestions and recommendations t o
make, beyond those already submitted, whereby the efficiency of ther
service could be improved and the expenses curtailed.
Yery respectfally,
,
HENEY CLAY NAILL,
Surveyor of Customs^
Hon.
EDWIN H . WEBSTER,
Collector of Customs, Fort of Baltimore, Md.
No. 10.
PORT OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Appraiser's Office, June 4, 1885o
S I R : Eespectfully referring to your communication enclosing a copy
of the letter bf the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury in reference
to a reduction of the force employed at this port, we think it due to thi»
branch of the customs department to state briefly that the changes whidi
have taken place during the past ten years have left this office with a
force much less in proportion than any of the other branches of the customs serAdce at this port.
In comparing the salaries of this office for the past year of 1884 Avitl^
those of the year 1874, there has been a saving of the sum of $26,674.43^
the salaries of 1884 being $56,274.43, and those of 1884 being $29,600.
In this connection, there is also to be considered the additional factthat the total expenses of the appraiser's office at this port, in comparison with the total expenses for the collection of the revenue at this poit^
amountto 9.95 per cent., while the expenses of the appraiser-s office
at the port of New York amount to 15 per cent., at port of Philadelphia to 14 per cent., and at port of Boston to 10.88 per cent.^
showing conclusively that the higher cost of collecting the revenue a i
this port, in comparison Avith some other ports, cannot be chargeable I B
any manner to this branch of the customs service at this port.
A great many of our examinations are made at vessels, and also at the
piers at Locust Point and Canton, some two or three miles distant froHn
the custom-house and appraiser's office, taking up a considerable portioB
of the time of different examiners in going to and returning from these.
' several points.
138
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
In the usual ordinary condition of the import trade, we think our
present force is as small as it should be for the prompt dispatch of public business and a due regard for the public service.
If, howcA^er, the present depressed condition of the mercantile inter<ests and of trade generally continues, we think one examiner and probably two packers or laborers might be dispensed with temporarily and
during the continuance of such depression.
We do not at present see how the existing methods of doing business
-^an be simplified or improved so far as regards this office.
Eespectfully,
HENEY H. GOLDSBOROUGH,
JNO. L. LINTHICUM,
Local Appraisers.
Hon.
E. H.
WEBSTER,
Collector, Port of Baltimore.
No. 11.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BANGOR, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 20, 1885.
S I R : In answer to Department circular of the 31st ultimo, regarding
t h e reduction of the force employed under my direction, I have to report as follows:
It has been the practice in this district to employ an extra inspector
:a part or all of the time during the season of navigation, a period of
time extending from near the middle of April to about the last of
December of each year.
While I have been in this office such extra man has been employed
-at Yanceboro', in this district, for the most part, where most entries of
importations are first made.
Until last January the accommodations there have been entirely
inadequate for the fbrce employed, the customs office being a. small
building leased of the Maine Central Eailroad Company, but under the
•direction of the Treasury Department I erected a customs building
there last season, which was completed in January last., This building
famishes good facilities for (doing the GoA^^ernment business, much of
which is night-work, and is so arranged that at least one of the inspectors lives in it all the time, thus making it much easier to do the business, especially the night-work.
After consulting with my deputy in charge at that place, he informs
:me that he can dispense with the extra inspector. I feel safe, therefore,
in saying that we can drop the officer employed for the season of navigation, and shall, at most, only need an extra man for brief periods
when there is an unusual pressure of business.
I would state, in this connection, that the office at Winterport, in this
district, was closed more than a year ago, and the officer there dismissed, the business of that place being now done at Bangor.
In regard to methods of doing business, I haA^^e at this time no sugges
tions to make.
Yery respectfuUy,
D. F DAYIS,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^139
No. 12.
CusTOM-HousE, BARNSTABLE, MASS.,
CoUector's Office, April 13, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your circular letter of March 31, asking to what extent the force employed in this district can be reduced, &c., I have the
honor to report:
That having, since my accession to office, secured the abolishing of
the office of inspector at Harwich, the boatman at Barnstable, the boatman at ProAdncetown, and the sale of the revenue-boats at Provincetown and Hyannis, I feel that there are no unnecessary expenses now attached to. this district, but would recommend that the salaries of certain
deputies and inspectors, where duties and services are similar, be equalized, as follows:
.
That the salary of the deputy collector and inspector at Hyannis be
reduced from $2.05 per day, $748.25 per annum, to $1.35 per day, $492.75
per annum; that the salary of the deputy collector and inspector at
Falmouth (Wood's Holl) be raised from $1.10 per day, $401.50 per
annum, to $1.35 per day, $492.75 per annum.This would make the salaries of the deputies at Hyannis, Falmouth,
Chatham, and the second depuc^y at Provincetown, the same, as they
should be.
Yery respectfully,
F. B. GOSS,
Collector.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C
No. 13.
. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BATH, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : In reply to circular letter of March 31, 1885, I am directed by
the collector (Jas. W. Wakefield, esq.) to say that, in his opinion, the
force under his direction cannot be reduced without detriment to the
public service. The methods of doing business cannot be simplified to
meet the requirements of the Department.
I am, sir, very respectfullv,
JOHN H. EAYMOND, ^
Beputy Collector.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
t Washington, B. C.
No. 14.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BEAUFORT, N . C ,
Collector's Office, April 4:, 1885.
SIR : I iiave the honor to report, as directed by your circular letter
of 31st ultimo, relative to the force employed under my direction, ifit can
be reduced without detriment to the public service, that there are at
present employed in this office two deputy collectors, at a salary of
per month each.
' ,-
140 • REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The business of this office consists principally in the enrolling and
licensing vessels. Imports are very rare of very small amount.
'" I beg leave to say that, in my opinion, the serAdces of these two
deputies could be dispensed with; and the appointment of a deputy
collector to be made a special deputy coUector, at a salary of $30 per
month, or such amount as you may approve, would be entirely sufficient for the management of the business of this office.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient seivant,
A. C. DAYIS,
Collector.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. 0.
No. 15.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BEAUFORT, S. C ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your letter of March 31,1885, relative tp the reduction
of the force employed under me, I have the honor to call your attention
to the letter of J. A. Camp, special agent of the Treasury Department,
referred to in the Department's letter of March 25, 1880, creating the
offices of ^inspector and deputy collector" and boatman at Port Eoyal,
and to say that, in niy opinion, the necessity for their serAdces is as
great now as it was then.
At Coosaw there is an "inspector and deputy collector" and three
boatmen., When the inspector goes off in his boat upon an inspection
tour, he leaves one of the three boatmen at the office to inform any .one
who may call upon business as to where they can find the inspector and
deputy collector; ahd the territory that the inspector has to visit is so
large that it keeps him in his boat a great deal of the time. I think
the force at Coosaw is necessary and cannot be reduced without detriment to the public service. Nor can I suggest any way to simplify or
improve the methods of doing the business here.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
G. HOLMES,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 16.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BELFAST, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 11, 1885.
SiR: In response to your letter of March 31, 1885, I have to report
that, in my opinion, no reduction of the force employed under my
direction can be made without detriment to the public service, and that
I am unable to make any suggestions or recommendations whereby the
method of doing business can be simplified or the efficiency of the service may be improved or the expenses curtailed.
Yery respectfally,
L M. BOAEDMAN,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
REPORT OF THIS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
141
No. 17.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 13, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department letter of March 31, 1885,T have the
honor to report that in July, 1883, this office was reorganized to a large
extent, in accordance with the report of a Department commission, at
which time the force was reduced from 383 to 352 men and the annual
eompensation from $542,751 to $455,157, a decrease of 31 men and
$87,594. There has since been no material increase of the force, and it
can not, in my judgment, be further reduced without injury to the pub. lie service.
Under the existing general organization' of the customs service, I
know of no method by which the details of business at this port can be
simplified or the efficiency of the serAdce improved.
Yery respectfully,
E. WOETHINGTON,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 18.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Surveyor's Office,.April 10, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the letter of the Department, under date of March
31 ultimo, requesting my opinion whether the force under my direction can be reduced Avithout detriment, and such recommendations as
may occur to me, I have the honor to reply.
The force under my direction by law is of two classes, first, the inspectors, weighers, measurers, and gaugers, who k»re nominated for appointment by the collector, and whom, it is my duty, under his direction,
to superintend and direct, in accordance with the provisions of section
2627, Eevised Statutes; second, a deputy surveyor and eight clerks
:and messengers, who are nominated by me for appointment, under Section 2634, Eevised Statutes.
Class 1.—In reference to the first class, the outdoor officers of this
customs district, I have to say that it has been reduced in numbers at
various times within the last few years, so that it cannot be reduced
farther, nor as a whole, without real detriment to the public service;
and in one branch at least it has already been reduced, in my judgment,
actually to the detriment of the public service, as I will specify in another portion of my letter.
The inspectors are divided into two bodies, according to the time of
their employment—one, inspectors employed by day, the other, inspectors employed " for service at night," under actof 1878, chaptej359,
.and act of 1880, chapter 189, called, for convenience, day-inspectors and
hight-inspectors.
There are eighty-nine day inspectors at this port, two of these, not
in fact, though in law, under my direction. One inspector, Emery, is
underthe immediate direction of the coUector; the other. Graves, is
employed in the office of Special Agent Bingham.
142
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
There is one occasional inspector of marble, and one occasional female
inspector.
The remaining eighty-five day-inspectors actually under me, as a
whole, are able, experienced, efficient, and faithful. Among them
all are a few AVIIO are not in robust health, suffering more or less physically, some from old Avounds received in the military service of the
' country, some from injuries received while in the performance of their
official duties here. From these we cannot expect as hard, continuous
Avork as a large proportion of the inspectors perform. They deserve
well of the GoA^-ernment, are rendering valuable service, and are worth
more than inexperienced strong men.
The Department allows leaA^es of absence to be granted to each of
from fourteen to thirty day^ per annum. Making alloAvance for these
leaves and for sickness, we cannot well do the public business with efficiency, and with the promptness required by the public, Avith much, if
any, less fbrce of inspectors.
Eelatively, the night force is UOAV more in need of men than the day
force. I am so convinced that the number of inspectors for service at
night needs to be increased, that, if there be.no other way of doing it,
it would be better to attempt to do the public business with eighty
inspectors, if the nuniber so saA^ed could be added to that of the nightinspectors.
A t present there are three inspectors who have been at home sick
from one-half to the whole of the month. It is probable they will
be unable to.do duty again. Other vacancies Avill occur. If the Department approA^es of the views I am about to express as to the night
force, and is unwilling to add to the numbeis at this port, I recommend
that vacancies in inspectorships as they may occur, to the number of
seven, if Inspectors Emery and Graves return to duty under me, otherwise to the number of five, be filled "by the appointment of night-inspectors. The reduction in expense will be $1 per diem per man, and
the Government will be better protected.
We have about seven miles of water front in this port where vessels
ahd boats may land merchandise day and night. Nine years ago we
had fifty-three night-inspectors guarding this Avater front at night,
while eighty-five day-inspectors now guard by day. Forty, and even
fifty night-inspectors, necessarily divided into tAvo watches, are not
too large a force to watch this water front vigilantly and protect the
Government from frauds by smuggling and otherwise, in my opinion
and in that of intelligent officers who have long been employed on the
duty.
A t the port of Baltimore there are thirty-four night-inspectors; at
Philadelphia, thirty-eight; at New York, one hundred and nineteen;
while at Boston, the second port in the aniount of its importations,
there are under the surveyor for the same kind of duty tp-day but
fourteen, though business has been on the increaise, and not on the
decrease.
I
In 1882 a commission, consisting of the then chief clerk of the Treasury Department, two special agents, and the auditor of the collector of
this port, made what they called an examination of this custom-house,
and recommended, among other things, that the force of night-inspectors be reduced from forty-three to twenty-fiA^e, and a part, if not the
whole, twenty-five be put on special detective serAdce. I have held
this office and had charge of this night,' as well as the other outdoor
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
14$
force, since the close of the war, but did not have the honor to be consulted by the commission on this subject. The recommendation ofthe
commission was carried into effect July 1, 1883, no change being made
at other ports. ' Soon after, I received an order from the collector directing that eleven ofthe twenty-five be detached from under my direction
and be placed under Inspector Emery, and be no longer subject to my
orders.
^
In my opinion, such an order was in violation of positive provisions
of law, and I respectfully protested to the collector, who informed me
that it was the Department's order.
It will be observed that section 2627, Eevised Statutes, provides that
the surveyor shall ^ ^ direct all inspectors " " within his port.'' Inspectors,
may be appointed on the nomination of a collector, under section 2621,
and directly by the Secretary, as it has been decided, under sectioii
2605, EcAdsed Statutes. In both cases they are paid simply as inspectors, under sections 2733 and 2737, Eevised Statutes, and get their
authority as such under section 3059, Eevised Statutes.
Calling Inspector Emery ^ ^ special,'' or inspectors ^ ^for night service'''
"night-inspectors," does.not change their lawful character. As inspectors the laAV places them under the immediate direction of the surveyor; he is subject to-the direction of the collector as well as that of
the Secretary; but it was decided in the Supreme Court United States,,
in the case of Morrill in error vs. Jones, (No. 5551, Synopsis of Decisions,,
1883,) that even the Secretary could not exercise his discretion in violation of the positive provisions of law. Moreover, the mode of the surveyor's appointment and many provisions of law show that the surveyor's office, in connection with the naval office, was intended to b e
a check on that of the collector's, and to strip the surveyor of any force
given him by the law, so far defeats this object, contemplated by Congress since 1789.
Aside from the law on the subject, this change, in my opinion, has^
been on its merits a mistake for the Government. Up to the change,
we had tried to keep the whole water front vigilantly watched by night^^
as well as by day, night officers regularly relieving the day officers,
carrying out the instructions of the Department in articles 406-410,.
regulations for inspectors, &c. It was claimed, as a reason for t h e
change, that there were not seizures enough made by the night force.
The results under the then captain of night-inspectors were not a safe
basis for judgment. Within a few months afterwards, in my personal
investigation, I ascertained certain facts as to his manner of doing the
business of his office, or rather of neglecting it, and as to other improper conduct, so that 1 deemed it my duty to prefer written charges^
against him to the collector, whereupon, and without a trial, which he
was offered, he resigned. I found, among other things, that a majority
of the detections made by the night-inspectors he had not reported.
Few seizures, comparatively, have been made by the reduced force
since. By the same reasoning, this fact would prove that the present
force is less effective than the former one. The so-called detective forceon duty by day have made less seizures than the night-inspectors performing their former usual duty. But the number of seizures made by
'night-inspectors is not a fair criterion as to their value and importance,,
but the amount of protection they afford to the Government's interest
and the amount of duties which they assist in collecting. "Night-inspectors are appointed for the purposeof preventing smuggling," as-
144
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
t h e Department informs US in article 410, Eegulations for inspectors.
Another reason given was, that smugglers were so vigilant, they Avould
:smuggle when a night officer turned his back and went to another part
of his patrol. What do they do how, when t h e whole water front is
left at night Avith scarcely an officer on if?
This detective force, under an officer practically independent of me,
lias been in the habit of boarding vessels and taking goods, for alleged
:smuggling, from inspectors in charge of the vessels (section 2876, Eevised Statutes) under my direction, and being an inferior class of officers,
in their pay, at least, this has caused occasional conflicts of authority
a n d irritation among brother officers, which, in my judgment, is unfortunate and unnecessary. I speak of this, not by way of complaint,
t)ut as the fcevitable result of the system. Another officer with a force
is performing the duties with which the surveyor and the inspectors
iunder him are charged. For all these reasons I respectfully recommend that this force of eleven, and all inspectors at this port, be placed
:again under my immediate direction. The entire force of twenty-five,
with the five to seven additional ones, appointed in vacancies of in.^pectorships, making, in all, from thirty to thirty-two, divided into two
watches, will enable the surveyor properly to watch the steamers at
night, which everybody regards as necessary, and sometimes we have
a s many as twelve, and do something towards watching the rest of the
water front, though I am clearly of the opinion that we should have
OUT old number of forty-two. This change will make one less superintending officer, and, I think, one acting clerk.
The force of weighers, gaugers, and measurers under my direction
4ionsists pf three principal weighers, who act also as measurers, with
three clerks and thirty-two assistant weighers, in three grades, who I
^suppose are in contemplation of law, clerks; one gauger with two as:sistants. In my opinion, this force cannot be reduced by a man witho u t detriment to the service, providing the usual amount of business
continues at this port.
The weighers and gaugers are authorized to employ in Aveighing and •
.:gauging a necessary number of laborers, who are paid by the hour for
their work. The weighers have one or more offices on their districts,
a n d at each some laborer must necessarily be employed to take care of
the office and tools and carry messages. Their pay amounts to more
than $2 per day each. In my opinion, it would be better to have authority given to employ laborers for these specific duties, not exceeding four in all, and pay them regularly $2 for every working-day. Each
of the weighers has an authorized clerk, at $1,000 per annum.
The gauger at this port necessarily has to employ a man to do a similar Avork, who is paid as a laborer, by the hour, about the same amount
:as a weigher's cleik. I recommend that authority be given to employ
a clerk fbr the gauger instead of a laborer by the hour. If the Gov-ernment will not actually reduce expenses by these changes, it will put
the payment of these men on a more correct basis, and one less liable
to abuse.
Eight night-watchmen to guard the customs buildings are placed
^nder my direction. This force cannot be reduced.
There are also four boatmen for the use of inspector's boarding ves:sels at night.
The steamer " H . Hamlin," assigned to this port for boarding purposes, is off duty two days every fortnight—necessarily, it is claimed.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
145
At these times the boatmen, with their boat, have to be on duty. The
" H . Hamlin" is off also every year some weeks for repairs; the boatmen are also on duty at that time, day and night. In certain seasons
it is very difficult'^and often dangerous to board vessels arriving at this
' port, by day even, and much more so at night, with the row-boat. Considering the amount and character of business now done ait the principal ports, it seems to me that the row-boat is too ill-adapted to ,the
purpose and quite out of date. At New York there are two steamers
assigned to this duty; at Baltimore, a steamer and a steam-launch; at
this port, the second in size, it seems to me that the Government should
furnish us with a steam-launch in lieu of a row-boat, which I recom, \ mend be done.
Class 2.—The force in my immediate office, subject to my own nomination, consists of one deputy, one assistant, (a clerk,) five clerks, aiid
two messengers. Certainly I cannot do the work of superintending
about one hundred and fifty officers, their reports and accounts, besides
laborers, with a smaller fbrce. I am quite sure that the salaries of
clerks in my office have always been smaller, in proportion to the
amount and character of the work perforihed by them, than those of
clerks in other offices in custom-houses. If I were to make any recommendation, according to my honest opinion, it would be to give an
increase of pay to some. I do not UOAV recommend an increase of expense in my immediate office.
^
As the Department calls for my opinion and invites my suggestions,
I express the opinion that it would give the surveyor a more wholesome
control over those immediately serving under him, and thereby add to
the efficiency of the service, if it were understood by them that the
= surveyor's opinion as to the merit and efficiency of an officer under him
would be required before such officer's advancement or removal, which
he does not have the opportunity of giving now. And I venture to
make the suggestion that the officers charged by law with the responsibility of administering the several branches of the custom-house be
more consulted as to their needs and the best methods of their administration, and be allowed to administer their offices according to their
best judgment, rather than have them administered by, and according
to the views of, special agents and others who have not the same responsibility for them under the laAv.
If I need to make any apology for the length of this communication,
it must be on account of the variety of the duties about which I am
called upon for my recommendations, and because I presume the Department desires not only my recommendations, but my reasons fbr them
infuU.
.
Yery respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
A. B. UNDEEWOOD,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
^
10 A
146
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 19.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, April 25, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfally referring to your letter of 1st instant, in which you
request in Avriting a report giving our views whether "the force employed under our direction can be reduced Avithout detriment to the
public seryice; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified ; and, ^in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations
as may occur to us whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed," Ave have the honor to state: That,
in our judgment" the department under our direction is in a condition
of good order and'effi ciency.
In regard to any curtailment of expense by reduction of the number
of examiners and clerks, it may be well to speak of our manner of
doing business somewhat at length.
As the trade differs at this port in amount, and somewhat in kind,
from NeAV York, so the form of our administration differs from the appraiser's office at that port. The duties received on imports entered at
this port are about one-sixth of the duties received at New York. Most
of the different kinds of merchandise entered at New York are also
entered at this port, but not in the proportions indicated by the relative
amounts received at the two ports; for, in the article of wool, for instance, there is about an equal amount entered at both ports; and about
one-third the amount of sugar and molasses is entered here that is entered at New York.
In dry-goods there are almost no importations of dress-silks here, of
Avhich there are many millions of dollars in value consigned at New
York, and we may say the same of all kinds of merchandise which is
consigned to this country for sale by the manufacturers, are entered at
that port. In dry-goods, shoe-findings, such as lastings, &c., there are
more entered at. this port than at any other. The mze of the business
at Boston is welf within the cognizance and control ofthe two appraisers, and, unlike NCAV York, the appraisers here write all reports concerning classification of the tariff rates, which at New York are writteii
by heads of divisions and simply approved by the chief appraiser; and
our assistant appraisers act as examiners of merchandise and assess the
damage on claims for damaged merchandise during ocean voyage', and
one has an oversight and fihief authority in examination-rooms for drygoods. . The two principal appraisers, of equal authority, divide the re-'^
sponsibility of overlooking the appraisal of merchandise entered at this
port, one of them (Eice) taking the responsibility of the proper appraisment of wool, sugar, iron, hardware, and all merchandise not dry-goods,
while the other principal appraiser (Darrah) takes the responsibility of
dry-goods in all their branches and varieties. They also make special
reports on the classification fbr duties according to the above allotment.
We have found the advantage of such division of duty, that we cpuld
give a particular and more concentrated attention to the values, classification, and rulings of Department on half of the imports entered, than
could be given to the values and classification of all the multiform
articles of merchendise on which we have to pass. In pursuance of the
same policy, we give to our examiners certain lines of goods, with
which they are familiar by constant practice in examining them, and .
also the Departmeht rulings of their particular classes of goods, which
makes them much more perfect and valuable in their- official work.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
147
They thence become experts as to the value and as to the classificatipn for duty of the imports assigned to them, and, according to their
inteUigence and fidelity to duty, become of increased value to the revenue service. Appointments and removals in this department have
been very rare at this port. When a vacancy has occurred, it has always
been filled with especial reference as to the capacity of the appointee to
perform the duties, and not for personal or political reasons. An employe of this office died last year, having been in the service forty-six
years. Another now in service, examiner of iron and like goods, has
been in this department forty years, still in perfect vigor and usefulness..
Several have been removed within the last twenty years who proved
incompetent, but none for any other reason.
We with confidence, from long experience, report that the present
force at this department is a staff retained, after several removals for
inefficiency in the past years, of intelligence, of faithful industry, and
of expert experience which make them of great value to the revenue
. service.
Assistant Appraiser Joslin takes the line of woollen manufactui'es
for examination, and exercises a general supervision over the dry-goods
examination-rooms. Examiner Currier takes the line of leather gloves
and all manufactures of silk goods, in whole or part. FeAv or no piece
dress-silk goods are entered at this port, as we have said, but other descriptions of silk manufactures are imported here in large variety, which,
with lace goods of all kinds, make this line of goods a very important
one for examination.
In scarcely an invoice is the duty properly entered in goods composed
in part of silk, and it becomes the duty of the examiner-expert to carefully scan the fabrics, and many times have them analyzed, to determine
the rate of duty—whether it shall be that of the silk chief, or of the
other component parts. Having determined the. question, this office reports the change from entered rates the proper duties for liquidation.
Examiner Grafton takes the women and children's dress-goods, which
is a large line of goods, requiring carefal examination to determine
their rate of duty—whether they should pay 35 cents and 40 per cent.,
as goods of that description weighing in excess of four ounces per square
yard, which requires a very exact and carefal examination, consuming
time and patience; or dress-goods of less weight, being composed of
wool alone, which pay 9 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem ; or woollen or worsted containing some cotton or other material
of less value than the wool, which pays 7 cents and 40 per cent.; or,
if costing under 20 cents per square yard, they will pay 5 cents and 35
per cent, ad valorem.
This line requires expert knowledge, care, time, and patient scrutiny
to determine the rate of duty, for frequently it is a nice point of weight
or width measurement which determines which rate they should properly
pay.
Examiner Trafton has a line of considerable variety of merchandise,
which requires great care and knowledge to properly appraise the value
of and correctly classify for duty. It embraces all hosiery of cotton,
^ woollen and worsted, and other materials; underwear of all kinds of
materials, including knit goods; gloves of all descriptions, excepting
those made of leather; cotton yarns, thready, cotton dress-fabrics, all
fabrics for tailors' trimmings, all small articles of cotton, like tapes,
braids, trimmings in large variety; aU cotton fine muslins, like muUs,
148
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
. •
nainsooks, Suisse, and figured muslins; curtain-goods in all varieties,
towels, napkins, handkerchiefs, cotton velvets, and other fabrics of cotton which it Avould be useless to enumerate only to the end that an idea
may be had of the extentof the examiner's line ^ of work. There are
times when he examines and passes upon fifty cases a day.
Examiner Wales takes the manufactures of flax, jute, and hemp,
which comprises a great variety of fabrics. Linen thread is imported
in larger amount at this port than at New York. Burlaps is also an
article of large importation, and, as it pays a less duty than that of
other piece goods of jute, requires Avatchfulness lest other goods having
a similitude of appearance should be passed at 30 iier cent, when they
should pay 35 or 40 per cent. Without enumerating the articles.composed of flax, jute, and hemp, it will suffice to say that this examiner
examines all fabrics composed of aboA^e materials named i u Schedule J,=
and many hundreds not specially named therein. As many of these
fabrics are frequently of doubtful classification, it is necessary to examine
them Avith Avatchfid care. For instance, it is of nearly daily experience,
that-fabrics are entered as buiiaps at 30 per cent, which are properly
bagging, dutiable at 40 per cent., and so reported for duty. So-called
seine-tAvines, entered a-t 25 per cent., are found to be common twines, and
are changed to 40 per cent., and so on fbr hundreds of articles made of
above materials, requiring time and care to properly examine and report
upon them fbr classification.
E. I. Henderson, examiner of samples, keeps the records of all the
samples which come by all the steamers by the hundreds. He also
keeps the records of warrants for damage allowance for the whole department. He also copies official letters and does other clerical work.
Edward Crosby ranks as clerk. His duties are A^arious—to analyze
dry-goods fabrics Avhen there is a doubt as to the component material
of chief value, which occurs very often ;. to keep the books of record
of advances for value, and prepare invoices Avhich are advanced. He
also prepares reports for all goods which paj^ a square-yard dutj^, and
goes over calculations, and certifies to the accuracy of the classification
of dress-goods, which frequently are A^ery close things, whether they
are correctly figured to pay a weight-duty as being over four ounces to
the square yard, or whether or not they are under 20 cents the square
yard, as they make a change of duty at that point. The reports of
this class of importations are of great detail, and correct reports are
of great importance for the more speedy liquidation, as well as fbr accurate classification. He is the general custodian of reported invoices
fbr the dry-goods side of the Department, seeing that all are perfected
^and accurate before they are sent to the collector's office.
Thomas Taylor acts as messenger, but also conies to office early in
• the morning tb sweep and clean office, make and feed fires on dry-gopds
side, and is post-office niessenger to the AA^hole department.
The force to do the work in invoice-room consists of three clerks. Inorder that ah idea ma^^^ be conveyed of the amount of Avork done in
this service, Ave will state that betweeii forty and fifty thousands of invoices are sent from collector's office to this office fbr our official work annually. These iuA^oices are recorded on books ruled with numerous columns, Avhich are filled by the clerks in this room, as folloAvs: Column for
iuA^oice or entry number, fbr date of entrj, when received by appraiser,
name of importer, name of vessel, Avhere from, marks and numbers, description of merchandise, invoice value, entered rate, appraised valucj
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
149
when appraised and reported to collector, name of examiner, number of
packages examined. This record must be made befbre invoices can be
used by examiners in most of the columns, and it will be seen that it
requires careful and rapid work to get through with them, as some invoices have many kinds of merchandise and many different rates of
duty. TAVO sets of books alike in their ruling are employed, otherwise
there Avould be detention and loss of time in examination of goods.
The time of one clerk is mostly employed in aiding special agents
and others in looking up invoices of past dates in reference to revenue
questions.
In our opinion, the system of this room should not be simplified by
reducing the fulness of records, which has been arrived at after long
experience of its value.
Assistant Appraiser Jones examines merchandise for claims of damage
allowance of all descriptions, not dry-goods and sugar. This is an important line of service, requiring much time and care, for the claims for damage on fruits of all kinds are very numerous. He is also cigar examiner.'
Examiner Keyes examines sugar and niolasses; and he is jequired
by the regulations to personally superAdse the sampling at the diferent wharves, to assign the different samplers to the different cargoes, to examine the samples when receiA^^ed, at the appraiser's office and
classify them according to the Dutch standard, also to supervise the
preparation of the samples which are sent to the laboratory for testing;
to keep a record of every lot of sugar classified by its color and test; to
report on all invoices of sugar, and to examine on all claims for damage
allowance on sugar, giAdng the cause of the damage and the percentage
of damage a:»llowed. He is also required to ascertain all facts in regard
to the different cargoes of sugar which are imported, such as values,
polariscopic-test guarantees under which the cargoes are bought or sold,
and other information Avhich may be of value in prOAdng the correctness of tests and rate of duties. He has under his direction eight sugar
samplers, three of whom are temporary appointments.
The number of samples drawn and examined during the past year
averaged over six hundred a day. One sampler is needed all the time
to open and arrange the sample-boxes to be returned for other cargoes.
Examiner and Chemist Learj^ has charge ofthe laboratory for testingsugar and molasses, and has with him three assistants. His duties are
to make tests of all samples sent to the laboratory, either from importers at this port or of other ports where there is no chemist employed.
He keeps a record of all tests, and reports on the different cargoes to
the examiner of sugar. He is also Obliged by regulations to make five
comparative tests with the ports of Philadelphia and New York each
month. The whole number of tests of sugar and molasses made by him
during the past year Avas 7,746. It should be understood that of the
600 samples per day, only one or more samples may-be sent to be tested.
Examiner Pinkham examines all merchandise contained in Schedule
B of the tariff, which comprises 'china, porcelain, parian," bisque,- and
crockery wares in large variety, which, with the great variety of the
manufactures of glass, with the nunierous classifications, as will be seen
upon looking at Schedule B, make his examinations an important line
of work, requiring expert knowledge and care to. report the proper
rates on so great a variety as is contained, in the schedule.
Examiner Fitch has the examination of all machinery, ales, wines,
and liquors, and all green and dried fruits. The machinery is mostly
150
:^t:PORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
examined at the mills where.it is to be used, and requires the examiner
to go into CA^ery State in New England, and nearly every manufacturing district, and many times, as far as Western New York, in fact, folloAvs the machinery to its destination; all of Avhicli he does Avithout extra compensation, the importers paying his actual travelling expenses.
More machinery comes into this port than into any- other. The liquor
samples are drawn, carefully Aveighed, and kept in his custody until
an accumulation is reached sufficient to be sold at auction, and thie proceeds, which is quite an amount annually, covered into the United
Stafces Treasury through the collector. The examiner keeps a complete record of all his invoices.
Examiner Dimond, who is unusualy well qualified to perform the
duties thereof, having had long experience in one of our largest importing wool-houses for many years, examines all imported wool and
hair, except horse-hair. A book is kept representing the invoices, in
which each importation is recorded, as to class, number of bales, pounds,
value; whether, in the case of wool, it is washed, scoured, or in the
gross. One bale in ten of each mark inevery invoice is examined;
samples are drawn of each mark and appraised, and are kept in separate papers and marked for identification. Such samples are kept for
t V years and then deliA^ered to such importers as choose to claim them;
AO
the rest are pas'sed over to the storekeeper and sold for the benefit of the
Treasury Department.
During the year 1884, there were passed through this port, samples
of Avhich were duly drawn and examined by the examiner, 74,310 bales
of wool, hair, &c. Wool of all classes pays duty, first, according to
the class to Avliich it belongs; second, as to the niarket value of the
same at the date of exportation at the place Avhence exported to the
United States, the correct determination of all which, as will be readily
seen, requires a large and varied amount of experience and information.
Examiner Nason examines nearly all the merchandise described in
Schedule C, metals, namely, under paragraphs 144, 156-160, 167-169,
171-177 to 180, and partof 182, and paragraphs 183 to 195, all iron,
steel, and other metals, all requiring expert examination and classification. On the steel and iron in bars and sheets the value rules the
rate of duty, and^ no man without experience could do the work correctly. * He also examines a great variety of other merchandise, such
as hemp, flax, and tow, rice and rice-flour, rubber, cotton, coffee,
dye-woods, sheathing felts, jute and jute-butts, cordage and wire-rope,
and numerous other articles of merchandise too numerous to particularize.
Examiners Bird, Wellington, and Ehoades examine an immense number of articles of. merchandise, altogether too nunierous to mention, iii-^
eluding large parts of Schedules A, B, C, D, E, G, M, and N, and large
numbers of articles on free list. These articles require great care and
knowledge to properly examine and classify. Many, indeed most, cases
examined by these experts contain hundreds Pf different articles of
merchandise of almost as many different classifications, requiring care
and expert knowledge to properly report the rates on such goods for
liquidation. Examiner Bird examines books, pamphlets, and printed
matter; condiments, preserAT^es of all kinds; all toilet preparations, and
other like things. Examiner Wellington takes paintings, artist materials, and all works of art; clocks and Avatches; hardware and cutlery.
Examiner Ehoades examines buttons, buckles, and like trimmings;
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY.
l5l
boots and shoes; guns, and all kinds of fire-arms; leather, and manufactures of leather; paper, and manufactures of the same; plants, trees,
and like imports.
. '
.
Examiners Dunham and Wiley board all incoming steamers and vessels ; appraise the dutiable value of the personal effects and merchandise
brought in trunks by passengers, and make all examinations of goods,
on wharves and elsewhere, which, from their bulk or peculiar character,
do not require examinatioii at appraiser's stores'. Their duty requires
a range of five or six miles from, one extreme limit of city wharves to
the other. , Their duties are important, and well performed. Drug Examiner. Young is appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate, but acts in a degree under and reports to the appraisers.
The present incumbent is a good officer, intelligent and faithful in the
performance of his official duties;
Edwin D. White, clerk, has charge of the correspondence of the diAdsion in charge of Mr. Appraiser Eice, filing, indexing, &c., of communications from the Department or other sources, and aids in the prepa-:
ration of reports called for by the Department. He is an expert
stenographer, and is employed in the^ecord of reappraisement, which
are of frequent occurrence. Examiner Smith examines all importations
from the British Provinces, and a portion from west coast of Africa.
He examines the merchandise of more than 8,000 invoices per annum.
Alexander Eichardson is an opener of all cases of machinery, liquors;
all miscellaneous goods, not dry-goods or hardware, &c., which are sent
to appraiser's stores for. examination, makes fires and sweeps out, &c.,
one-half of the offices. There are employed in the examination-rooms
eleven openers and packers, and^ four laborers to handle and place
cases. There are not too many to keep examiners employed without
detention. Merchants complain, in the busy seasons of the year, that
more examiners are not employed, so that a quicker delivery could be
made of their goods, though examiners give all their time at such seasons
to examinations and delivery of goods, reporting afterwards, when the
press of business is less, on invoices for liquidation. Simplifying mighlf
be done, but with danger of shirking careful examinations, and losses to
the revenue.
One unacquainted with the importance of the business at this office .
woul assume that all is right according to entry, and simply check the
invoice if quantity were found correct, "all right," which would be the
easiest and most expeditious Avay; but as a thorough examination of
goods by our present system results in changing some portions of seven
invoices in ten in their classification for duty rates, and in consequence
of such changes and advances of dutiable value certainly hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually are added to the revenue of this port, we
cannot advise a reduction of force which would make our methods more
simple indeed, but also make them imperfect, and, in our judgment, at
a large loss to the revenue.
By the foregoing it will be seen that, ih our belief, an employment of
a sufficient force in this office to examine iniported merchandise searchingly for quantity, value, ahd classification of duty, is not only a proper
thing, in order to give the goods with reasonable expedition to .the importer, but it is the means of a very large saving to the revenue, over the
salary expense, in carefully ascertaining the true dutiable values and
proper rates of duty, instead of employing a smaller force, which could
only haA^e time to check off the cases of merchandise with little more care
than the inspectors use, who only note marks and numbers of cases.
152
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
« We almost shrink from sending so long a report in reply to your
circular, but hardly know how to explain our reasons clearly at less
length. Indeed, though we have stated with such apparent fulness
our niethods of business, and the different kinds of work of the men
under our control, the space we haA^e used could easily de doubled, or .
trebled, without fully describing our system, which we believe to be a
good one, as it protects the revenue and giA^es the imported goods to
importers with reasbnable expedition.
Yery truly, your obedient servants,
THOS. G. EICE,
E. K. DAEEAH,
Appraisers.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
JsTo. 20.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Naval Office, April 13, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the Oth instant,
of your circular letter ofthe 31st ultimo, requesting me to report to the
Department to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service.
Since receiving the same, I have made careful examination of the condition of the office, the work at the several desks, &c., with a view to
answering your inquiries.
I beg to state that when I took charge of this office I found sixteen
clerks employed. That number, on the average, had been employed for
the fbur years (1874-'75-'76-'77) previous to my incumbenc3^ and the
^ average amount of revenue collected annually during that period had
been about $13,500,000.
Believing at that time that one clerk could be dispensed with, I immediately made the reduction, and the office was carried on the first
year with fifteen clerks. We collected that year $12,735,000.
The business then rapidly increased year by year till 1883. I present
herewith an abstract covering each year of my official connection with
the office, showing the revenue collected and the number of clerks employed in the naval office fbr each year: «>.
Year.
1878 ;.....
1879
1880
1881
1882...
1883
1884
t
'
Revenue
collected.
Nuinber of
employes.
^12,735,000
16,483,000
21,236,000
22,067,000
24,763,000
22,728,000
20,360,000
15 clerks.
16 clerks
17 clerks.
18 clerks
19 clerks.
19 clerks.
19 clerks.
This statemeut shows an average annual collection during the scA^en
years last past of about $20,000,000, and an average force in this office
of abbut eighteen clerks. I desire also to state that—
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
153
1. At this time the range and extent of the work of this office is considerably greater than it was before my incumbency. Our daily work
enibraced, by gradual additions, several branches of revision .and verification not included in its scope previously.
2. The work of this office npw, when compared with years previous
to 1878, is large, disproportionately to the mere increase of the collections. Its increase would be better represented by the total number of
entries passing annually through the office, which have increased from
about 26,000, in 1877, to about 47,000, in 1884; or, more correctly still, by
the entries annually liquidated, which have increased from about
12,000, in 1877, to about 29,000, in 1884.
This disproportionate change is due to several causes, the chief of
which is the steady and progressive displacement of large importations
by sailing-vessels by more numerous sinall importations by steamers.
It Avill be seen by the above statistics, and is well known to the Department, that the collections have fallen ,off fi?om 1882 to the present
time, and it seems probable now that the collections for 1885 Avill be
somewhat less than those of 1884, while the number of clerks in the
office remains the same.
In this connection, I would state that in April, 1883, this office was
subjected to a careful and minute examination at the hands of a very
intelligent commission, appointed by the Treasury Department to
recommend a reorganization of its force, with a view to efficiency and
economy. Under the recommendation of the commission, a reorganization was effected July 1, 1883, without any reduction of the clerical
force, but with a small reduction of the total salaries. The office was
thus put upon its present basis of nineteen clerks, with the work of
each desk fixed and defined. It has gone on very systematically since,
and while the aggregate collections have somewhat diminished since
then, I think the work done in the office has fallen off but little, if any..
It is to be remembered that the work of a custom-house is somewhat
fluctuating. There are, especially in seasons of business depression,
lively days and dull days. The force should obviously be kept at a
point where it is able tp transact the business of the active day without ^
delay to its business customers. The force, UOAV employed in the naval
office is able to do that, and is not able to do more.
Permit me to mention another consideration. Each clerk is entitled
to a.vacation of fourteen working-days during the year. These vacations for nineteen clerks are takeii regularly during three or four summer months, which are now approaching, and, with the inevitable sickness, necessitate the constant absence of from three to five clerks during
that period. With a force so reduced, we always have considerable
difficulty.in getting on with the business, and are obliged to get considerably in arrears every season with such work as can be deferred.
In view of what has been presented, it is my judgment that it would
not be advisable to reduce the force in this office at this time, and that
it cannot be done without detriment to the public service. If, however,
at the close, of the vacation seasbn the opening of the autumn business
shall show that the depression of the last fcAv months is a permanent
and continuing one, and that the present confident expectations of a
revival are not to be realized, then I think it |may appear that one or
two clerks may be safely dispensed with.
In answer to the concluding inquiries of your letter, I beg to say that
no way occurs to me in which the methods Of doing business in this
j
154
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
office can be simpUfied or the service improved. I believe the office is
in excellent condition and performing its duties efficiently, but should
be happy to have its operations examined into in any manner deemed
proper by the Departnient.
It will give me pleasure at all times to co-operate cordially with the
Secretary in any measures he may direct for promoting the efficiency of
the public service and curtailing its expenses.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
DANIEL HALL,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury^
No. 21.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BRASHEAR, L A . ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
S I R : In reply to circular letter of March 31,1 wiU state that a reduction of one inspector of customs at this port. can be made without
detriment to the public serAdce. Mr. W. B. Gray is the officer. Occasionally I may be compelled to temporarily employ such officer for a
few days at a time.
"
If Mr. Gray, inspector, is to be discontinued, I would recommend
that it take effect on 15th instant.
^
Eespectfally, &c.,
JAS. E. JOLLY,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 22.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BRIDGEPORT, CONN.,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to your favor of the 31st ultimo, I have to report that
I do not see how the force employed in the district of Fairfield can
possibly be reduced. ' There are but two officers now in the district, one
the collector, and the other the deputy collector, who also acts as inspector, weigher, measurer, and gauger; and also, I do not see how the
business can be simplified so as to curtail the expenses of this office.
Previous to October, 1883, there was an officer at Norwalk and one at
Stamford, but they were dispensed with at that time by direction of
the Department. My opinion is that there should be an officer at each
of these ports, for the reasons stated in a communication from this office
October 19, 1883.
There ought to be an additional officer at this port to act a S a permab
nent inspector and boarding officer.
I have the honor to be, very respectfally, your obedient servant, "
J. S. HANOYEE,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. 0.
REPORT OF T M E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
155
No. 23. ^
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BRISTOL, E . L ,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885. •
SIR : In answer to your communication under date of March 31,1885,
would say that I do not see as there can be any reduction in the number of employes in this district.' The present force is asfollows: One
officer at this port who fills the office of deputy collector, inspector,
Aveigher, gauger, and measurer, and in my absence as special deputy
and disbursing agent. One at the port of Warren as deputy cpllector
and inspector. One boatman for the district, and one janitor for the
building under my custody.
Yery respectfully,
JOHN COLLINS,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 24.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BROWNSVILLE, T E X . ,
Collector's Office, April 10, 1885.
S I R : In conformity with your letter of Mafch 31 ultimo, I would
suggest the follpwing reductions in the force of this customs district,
to wit:
At the sub-port of Eoma the services of the local inspector can be
dispensed with, and his duties performed by the deputy collector and
inspector, with the assistance of the mounted force stationed at the subport afbresaid.
.
At the sub-port of Eio Grande City the services of the local inspector
can be dispensed with, and his duties perfbrmed by the deputy^coilector
and inspector, Avitli the assistance of the mounted force stationed at the
said sub-port.
The sub-port of Salado can be abolished and the services ofthe deputy
collector and mounted inspector dispensed Avith. The business done at
said sub-port does not, in my opinion, justify its continuance; it is
Avithin easy reach of and can be patrolled by the mounted inspectors of
the sub-ports of Edinburg and Eio Grande City.
^
At this port (Brownsville) there are four local inspectors—three stationed at the ferry plying between this port and Matamoras, and one
inspector acting as boarding officer. For several years it has been the
custom for the ferry to be run all night for the accommodation of passengers between the cities of Brownsville and Matamoras, no goods,
hoAvever, being permitted to cross after sundown. I would suggest that
the services of two local inspectors at the ferry be dispensed with, as I
see no reason why one local inspector, with the assistance of the boarding officer, should not be able to perform the duties fr-om sunrise until
. dark, and, as the mounted force patrol alternately at night, the ferry
could be included in their beat.
At the port of Brazos de Santiago the services of the local inspector
can be dispensed with. The services of this officer can be performed by.
the deputy collector, with the assistance of the mounted inspector, in
156
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
addition to their other duties, Avithout detriment to the service. The'
arrival of foreign A-essels may occasionally require the employment of
a temporary inspector, but the business transacted at said port does not
warrant the retention of a permanent local inspector.
•>K
>1<
'
^
>\^
>!<
^
• ^'
l a m , sir, A^erj^ respectfulfy,
- '
^ JAMES O. LUBY,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 25.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BURLINGTON, Y T . ,
Collector's Office, April 14, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Depaitment letter of date 1st instant, requesting a
report as to what extent the force employed in this customs district can
be reduced Avithout detriment to the public service; Avhether the methods
of doing' the business can be simplified, &c., whereby the efficiency of
the service may be improA^ed and the expenses curtailed, I have to report
that the frontier of this district is about 100 miles in extent. Tfliere are
fifty-two public highAvavs leading directly to and from the Dominion of
Canada, and five railways, besides the waters of Lake Memphremagog
and Lake Champlain. To guard those avenues, there are fourteen outposts, which make returns to this office.- The present number of employ 6s within this district is fifty-three, distributed as follows, viz: At
seven of said outposts but one officer at each is stationed, at two of said
outposts two officers at each, and the remaining five outposts, called
. "railroad ports," two, four, seven, eight, and twelve officers are stationed, respectively. There is also pertaining to this district five
inspectors, stationed in the Dominion of Canada, on account Grand
Trunk Eaihvay, and also four tally-clerks, (boys,) one inspector, and
one watchman, which may serve during the seasoii of navigation. At
said railroad ports the hours of service are irregular, as very many of
the freight as well as passenger trains arrive at night, and, ih fact, the
the service is continuous day and night. I have very recently returned
from visiting the outposts, with a view of accomplishing what apparently is desired by said Department letter, viz., to reduce the fbrce if
possible; but I am perfectly convinced that any reduction at said custoins stations Avould be detrimental to the service, and, with regard to
this office, the number of employes is scarcely sufficient to attend to thp
impcvtations at this port and accomplish the rendering of the numerous
accounts, reports, and returns required by the Department; therefore,
unless the business can be greatly simplified in some manner, which I
am not at. present prepared to suggest, I cannot recommend any reduction of the employes in this district.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. WELLS,
Collecior of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, B. C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
157
No. 26.
CusTOM-HotJSE, BURLINGTON, IOWA,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of April 1, re
questing me to report to Avhat extent the force employed under my
direction can be reduced, and to make such suggestions as may occur
to me Avhereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and expenses curtailed.
In reply, I have to state that no person is employed at this port at the"
expense of the Department subordinate to myself; that my salary is
$350 per annum, Avith fees and commissions added, and-that these latter
have never much exceeded $100, or thereabouts, per annum, and will
hereafter probably be less; and that the only current other expense is
for rent of office, now at $9 per month, or $108 per annum. I do not
see any mode of reducing these expenses, which are already at a minimum.
Any practical suggestions for the reduction of expenses or greater
efficiency must necessarily be made by those who are at the head of
more important offices where employes are numerous, duties varied,
• and the expenses .are proportionate, and may possibly be excessive. As
I am not familiar Avith tlie details of such offices, it would be folly for
me to make any recommendation in regard to them.
. I haA^e the honor to be, your obedient servant,
GEO. FEAZEE,
Surveyor.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 27.
CusTOM-HousE, CAIRO, I I I . ,
Surveyor's Office, April 8, 1885.
S I R : Department circular letter of April 1 dufy came to hand. In
compliance with the request contained in said letter, I have to say the
business of this office has been greatly reduced since the autumn of
1883 by the following causes.:
First. In the autumn of 1875 the custom-house at Paducah, Ky.,^was
Suspended, and all business of that port was transacted here fbr the
period of eight years. The distance is only fifty miles. In the autumn
of 1883 the office at Paducah was re-established. This took away probably about one-third of our business. •
Second. By the act of June ,26,1884, (section 15,) the law for the collection of hospital-dues was repealed andthe fees fbr inspection of steamA^essels Avere reduced. Thus the business of this office was further reduced and the collections very greatly reduced. ' But, on the other hand,
the customs officer here has no assistance from other officers. We have
no local board of inspectors and no United States district attorney.
There are, I believe, more arrivals and departures of A-essels at and
from this pprt tlian from any other port of the United States, except
158
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
New York. A t least, the arrivals and departures number between
three thousand and four thousand per annum. As a result, the custoins
officer here is constantly consulted. He is called upon to give the law.
There are occasional violations of law, which he must take in hand.
Yery much time is consumed in official business which makes no show
of record.
^
The customs officer is the custodian of the custom-house. This requires much work, and constant care and drudgery.
The office must be kept open, and a competent man kept there, during
business hours.
Our custom-house was built for the future, and is six blocks away from
the centre of business in? tOAvn. This renders it more difficult for the
chief officer of the custoins to carry on other business, as he must do,
unless he is a gentleman of leisure, whieh the present incumbent is not.
With this statement, I proceed to answer the letter. I have but one
subordinate, and cannot dispense with one without detriment to the service.
I hardly think that the methods of doing business can be simplified.
I believe that the custom-house at Paducah should be abolished, and
the business of that port transacted here. I never could perceive any good
reason for the re-establishment of that office. I feel confident that the
river-men who do business at the custom-house did not generally demand it. The business of that port certainly" was done here for eight
years without friction. If permitted to name my own deputy, I believe
I could place a person in the office (a young lady) who could fill the
position, for three hundred dollars per annum.
I have made this letter long, that I might state the situation as fully as ^
possible.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
GEO. FISHEE,
Surveyor, &c.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . O.
No. 28.
CUSTOM HOUSE, C A P E YINCENT, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknoAvIedge the- receipt of your letter of
the 1st instant, asking to what extent the force in this district can be
reduced and the business simplified.
In reply, would respectfully state that I do not see how the force in
this district can be reduced any further without injury to the public service and great inconvenience to the business interests. Eeductions have
been made from time to time until we have barely sufficient to perform
the work required by the employment of extra men during the season of
sunimer travel on the river, and one at this point during the winter
months. At this point, the only place where more than one officer is
employed during the whole year, no reduction can be made, as there
are times when more help is really needed to perform the work required.
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY O J THE TREASURY.
i"
159
I have no recommendations to make relative to simplifying the
methods of doing business, as none occur to me at present.
Yery respectfally,
G. W. WAEEEN,
Collector. -,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 29.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CASTINE, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April§, 1885.
S I R : I respectfuUy acknowledge the receipt of your printed letter,
dated April 1 instant, requesting me to report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be
reduced without detriment to the public service; also asking for suggestions in relation to simplifying the methods of doing business, &c. In
reply, I respectfally beg leave to say that I should labor under embarrassment in answering the questions embodied in your letter for the
following reason or reasons, to Avit: During my term of office, embracing a period of fifteen years, I have been treated with uniform courtesy
and kindness by my political opponents in this district, and many of
them are my personal friends. Those friends, in the near fature, will
occupy the places now filled by me and my subordinates. My (probable) successor has based his arrangements, in relation to his subordinates
and other matters relating to the duties of the office, on its present status.
Should I recommend a change, whether adopted or not, that would in
any respect interfere with such arrangements, he would have reason to
think that I had given an unkind and uncalled-for thrust just as I was
leaAdng the office. It is my earnest desire to leave the office with the
same good feeling towards the incoming force that they have ever manifested towards me, and I respectfully ask that the reasons given may
excuse me for not answering the questions.
I would say that the force cannot be reduced except by abolishing
one of the sub-offices, or dispensing ^ t h the services of one deputy in
this office.
I have the honor to bCj very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. SAEGENT,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . C.
160
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 30.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CEDAR K E Y S , F L A . ,
, Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to report, as per instructions in your circular
of April 1, relative to the reduction of force in this district, that I have
but one special deputy collector, tAvo inspectors, and one revenue boatman. One inspector is stationed at the port of St. Marks, scA^enty miles
Avest of Cedar Keys; the other is stationed at Cedar Keys. In the month
of March there were seventy-nine arriA^als and departures of steamers,
schooners, and sloops, that are engaged in the coasting trade on the Gulf
coast of Florida, that do not pay any entrance fee, but require constant
watching, and requires the inspector to be continually on the docks and
beach where the vessels land for the purpose of unloading ajid loading.
The boatman, Avho acts as boatman, messenger, and janitor, cannot be dispensed with. The deputy is necessary to perform the work in the offi'ce
as required by law.
The force in this district has been reduced fr-om time to time as circumstances Avould admit. The traffic on the gulf coast is increasing very
rapidly, caused by the increase of immigration.
I cannot recomniend any reduction. If at any time we can reduce the
forcCj I will recommend it at once.
^
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. HIEST,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 31.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CHARLESTON, S. C ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : The receipt of Department circular letter dated 1st instant is
acknowledged.
In reply thereto, I have the honor to state that the force employed
under my direction in the United States custonis departnient, customhouse building, and old club-house building, is as folloAvs:
Customs departnient employs—
Salary per annum.
One special deputy collector, cashier, andclerk
One import entry clerk and anditor
One foreign clearance and liquidating clerk
One coastwise and fbreign entry clerk
One chief inspector and boarding officer
One inspector, acting examiner, weigher, and gauger
Four inspectws of customs, at |1,095 each
-.
One quarantine inspector of customs, six months.:
One messenger
Two watchmen, $600 each
Four boatmen, |480 each
Total
;
$2,000
1, 500
1,500
1,-500
1, 460
1, 095
4, 380
547
. 730
1,200
1,920
•
•;
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00,
17,832 50
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
161
The act of Congress of 26th June, 1884, abolishing the collection of
"hospital-dues," has so much reduced the labors of the desk as to warrant me in recommending that the same be abolished, and that the
remaining duties, of the desk be divided between the special deputy
collector and desks 1 and 2. By this means the services of ohe employ^
in the clerical department can be dispensed with, curtailing the expenses fiiteen hundred dollars per annum.
In the department of inspectors the serAdces of one inspector can be
dispensed with; and, to save a further expense of employing, as heretofore, an additional inspector for duty at quarantine station from Maj^
1 to October 31, I would recommend that one of the regular inspectors
be assigned to duty at that point, leaving two regular inspectors for
duty at this office, whp, with the inspector performing the duty of examiner, Aveigher, and gauger, will be a sufficient force for the requirements of the summer months. A reduction of expenses in this department of $1,642.50 per annum can thus be made.
I Avould recommend that the services of one Avatchman, at a salary of
$600 per annum, be dispensed with, one wa^tchman, in my opinion,
being sufficient for the protection of the building.
From 1st May until the 1st November, a period of six months duidng
bhe year, the services of two boatmen can be dispensed with, and in
the busy season the service of only one additional boatman would be
requirecl. The expenses of boatmen would thus be curtailed $720 per
annum.
The total reduction of expenses, as recommended, would be as follows:
Clerical force, customs department
Inspector's force, customs department
Watchmen's force, customs department
Boatmen's force, customs department
Total
| 1 , 500
1, 642
600
720
:
,.
.•
00
50
00
00
4,462 50
The customs building, employes:.
One janitor, salary per annum
Three assistant janitors, at | 3 0 each per month
Total....
*
:
|720 00
1,080 00
1,800 00
The force of "janitors" employed as above may appear unnecessarily
great, but since the removal of the United States courts and officers to
this building the work has increased nearly 100 per cent., and it requires
much labor to keep the grounds, offices, &c., in proper condition. The
old 1 club-house building" employs one Avatchman, at a salary of $480 per
^
annum.
It seems to me that the methods of doing business cannot be siinplified, and no other suggestions and recommendations than those already
made occur to me now Avhereby the efficiency of the service may be improAT^ed and the expenses otherwise curtailed.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
T. B. JOHNSTON,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MA.NNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
11 A
162
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
• ^
No. 32.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CINCINNATI, OHIO,
t
Surveyor's Office, September 21, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of
the 3d of August, requesting me to report in writing to Avhat extent, in
my opinion, the force employed in this district can be reduced without
detriment to the public service.
After carefally considering the matter, I beg leave to report that I
am unable to see how the fbrce at present employed in this office can
be reduced without injury to the service.
The business at this point has not been affected as much by the depression in trade as at some other places, and the prospects fbr a considerable increase in the near friture are good, so that it appears to me
that no reduction in the force employed here in 1?lie GoA^ernment service
ought to be made.
Yery respectfully,
WM. CALDWELL,
Surveyor of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 33.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CINCINNATI, OHIO,
Surveyor-'s Office, April 11, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknoAv^ledge the receipt of your circular of
April Ij 1885, requesting me to report as to the practicability of reducing the fbrce employed and simplifying the methods of doing business
at this office. I respectfully submit the folowing:
I cannot recommend an^^ reduction in the salaries paid. They are
quite as low as is consistent Avith the efliciency of the employes.
The work of building the new custom-house and post office in this
city is IO V nearlj^ completed. When the disbursements fbr this purpose
IA
haA^e been completed, it is probable that one clerk may be dispensed
Avith. I knoAv of no other reduction in the force that I can recommend.
The business of this office has steadily increased during the past four
years, and a further increase is probable.
I am aAvare that at times the Avork of the office could be perfbrmed
Avith fewer men, but these periods camiot be foreseen. , The force must
be kept sufficient at all times tp do the work which the public service
requires. If Ave had but one point in this citj^^ for receiving imported
merchandise, only two inspectors Avoiild be needed instead of three.
But we haA^e three depots, and often cars Avaiting at alf of them.
If any-one would maintain a pfiA^^ate bonded warehouse, the public
store might be abandoned, though the charges collected for storage, &c.,
are about equal to the expenses, considering that the appraiser's office
and examining-room are in the building rented for a public store.
I consider the public store indispensable. In the assignments of
rooms and offices in the ncAv public building in tMs city,, no provision
has thus far been made for the appraiser of merchandise. I made an
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
163
unsuccessful effort to avoid this condition of things. Unless this error
can be corrected, it Avill cause an umiecessary expense, as Avell as inconvenience in the transaction of business.
The new public building is abundantly large, not. only to allow an
office and examining-room for the appraiser, but the basement, covering nearly two acres, and thoroughly fire-proof, is ample to afford room
for a public store. If the room at command Avere utilized in this way,
it would much facilitate the work at this port, and save $3,000 per
annum.
There will be a very decided increase in the pay-roll of the custodian
as soon as the new building shall be occupied.
Yery respectfully,
D. W. McCLUNG,
Surveyor and Custodian.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 34.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Collector's Office, April 15, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknoAvledge the receipt of your letter of
the 1st instant, in which I am directed to report to what extent the
custonis force here can be reduced without detriment to the service;
whether the methods of doing business cah be simplified, and such suggestions as, in my opinion, would curtail expenses and increase the
efficiency of the service.
In reply, I Avill say, relative of a reduction of force, that, as under the
act of June 26, 1884, the hospital-dues and the tonnage-tax in most cases
are no longer collectible, I have this day recommended the abolition
of one clerkship in the marine department, class 1, No. 3, $1,200 per
annum; and in this connection I will say that since the close of navigation, January 1, 1885, seven men have been discontinued from the inspectors' fbrce, but that upon the opening of navigation it will be
necessary to ask for the usual increase for the present season.
For your information, there is herewith enclosed statement No. 1, and
in explanation of the same I Avould say that the customs business at this
port, so far as it relates to inspectors, is such that, while it requires a
large amount of work, little revenue results dfrectly from it, from the
act that no collections are made for transferring cars and attending to
exports; and I would also here state that the gradual increase of the
custonis business here indicates that thisbranch of the service will grow
fbntinuously.
In regard to simplifying the methods of doing business at this port,
I Avould say, generally, that, there being no surveyors, or naval officers
here, it would seem that the methods of collection are now as simple
as any known in the customs service, and that they are very economical will be seen by reference to the enclosed comparative statement.
No. 2.
In conclusion, I do not wish to be understood as claiming that in the
many details of the business here it cannot be improved, and I would
164 - REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE'TREASURY.be pleased to co-operate jvith the Departnient to the end that, if possible, the same may be simplified, and a further curtailment of expense
made if deemed compatible Avith the efficient collection of the revenue.
I am, Yerj respectfully,
• JESSE SPALDING, '
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
: Secretary of the Treasury, Wasliington, B . C.
•
No. 35.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CLEVELAND, OHIO,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
S I R : I respectfally acknowledge the receipt of the Department's let^ ter of the 1st instant, asking a report from this office in writing as to
what extent the force employed under its direction can be reduced, &c.
In reply, I would respectfully say that the service Avould not be impaired, in my judgment, by abolishing the office of deputy collector
and inspector at the outlying ports of Conneaut and Amherst.
My reasons for this are that the pay at these ports, for the officer is
too small for him to rely on for support, hence he cannot give his entire
attention to the business; and, onthe other hand, the aniount paid by the
United States for salaries is altogether too great for cbmpensation receiA^ed
in the Avay of receipts from ^11 sources, which from both ports will not
aniount to $25 per year combined. Practically speaking, there is no
commerce at the above outlying ports of this district. The pay of the
deputy at Conneaut is 80 cents per day, and Amherst 5 cents per day,
during the entire year.
The other outlying ports of this district are Ashtabula, Lorain, and
Fairport. The pay of the deputies at the tAvo former is $1.30 per da3^,
and at the last-named, 80 cents per day, during the entire year.
During the period betAveen the closing of naAdgation in, the fall of
year and the opening of the same in the fblloAAdng spring there is absolutely no business for the deputies to perform, and, in my judgment,
their reports could all be completed by the last of December each year,
at Avhich time their pay should cease. On or about the 15tli of March,
they might be again put under pay, and regarding such action I do not
think they could reasonably complain. In this connection, Imight state
that the practice of the Department of designating such officers as deputy collectors and inspectors is, in my opinion, productiA^e of much un-.
necessary expense to the Government. The Avord "inspector" carries
Avith it an obligation to pay such as hold the title $3 per day. Wlien
the incumbent accepted the position he Avas aAvare of the conditions,
and Avas satisfied, and yet claim agents at Washington are importuning
these deputies to place their cases in their hands, and are assured that
they (agents) can collect the difference between Avhat they receive
under the terms of their appointment and the amount of an inspector's
pay, $3 per day. By such means, a former deputy (S. Butler, Fairport) Avas paid over $600 as back pay, or arrearages. This is a;n injus
tice to the Government, and the regulations should be amended to the
extent of simply calling siich officers deput3^ collecfcors.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
165
Upon one pipre point I would respectfully offer the Department a
suggestion: That there be no "special inspector of custonis" assigned
to this port. While not actually upon the pay-roll of this office, still,
inferentially, the burden must be borne here to the extent pf $4 per
diem and travelling expenses fbr such officer, and, truthfully speaking,
without satisfactory results, and the percentage of cost of collecting the
revenue at this port is raised correspondingly.
While I haA^^e no word of disparagement fbr the special inspector
just removed by the Department, I can say that the position itself is
not essential to the proper protection of the revenue. The present
corps of three inspectors is sufficient for all of the work, and, I inight
add, haA^e performed all of it.
Yery respectfully^, your obedient servant,
GEO. W. HOWE,
Gollector.
• Hon.
D A N I E L .MANNING,
'
.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C
No. 36.
• CusTOM-HousE, CORPUS CHRISTI, T E X . ,
Collector's Office, April 22, 1885.
SIR : There has been some necessary delay in answering your cominunication of 1st instant, relative to the force of this district, owing to the
fact that it was not expedient to make the required report until I determined by personal observation of the mode and manner of doing the
business at different points in the district, as w^ell as to ascertain whether
or not the force is capable and efficient, or could be reduced Avithout
detriment to the public service.
At Carrizo I found the force inadequate to perform the duties and the
business in a proper manner. The two mounted inspectors are required
to patrol the Eio Grande for a distance of sixty miles, and, as they are
absent much of the time, the deputy not only has his clerical duties of
his office to perform, but to attend to the ferry landing, which is threequarters of a mile from his office. This at all times being impracticable, I nominated, on the 17tli instant, a suitable person as local inspector,
vice James McCullouch, resigned, and left that place on the 14th day of
oFcbruarjj last. The business and duties of the officer^ at Carrizo have
been done, it appears to me, Avithout system or discipline. The necessary books, such as daily record of moneys received, daily record of
balances, &c., have not been kept.
With a vicAV of introducing proper discipline, and to a more efficient
discharge of the duties required at that point, I have given such officers
full and explicit instructions.
In the Laredo office the clerical duties are laborious on account of the
attention required to be paid to documents and certificates to be made in
matter connected with the great quantities of bonded goods passing that
poinfc, the many impost entries passed and liquidated, and the innumerable quantities of domestic goods exported to Mexico, which require
permits to be made out and manifests to be signed and examined.
T belicA^^e with less fbrce in that office the work could not be properly
conducted, as the deputy and the clerk are often compelled to work
late at night to complete the business of the day.
166
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
At Laredo there are two mounted inspectors, whose duty it is to
patrol the Eio Grande for a distance of about 80 miles. One of these
inspectors lacks, in my opinion, the requisite inclination or ability•
necessary to be possessed by a mounted inspector in order to accomplish
satisfactory results in protecting the revenue against illicit traffic; and
the other—I am not yet positive as to his efficiency. The two local inspectors at Laredo are constantly employed—one to attend the examination, checking, and shipping bonded goods; to board all passenger trains,
examine passengers' baggage of persons arriving from Mexico. All
"bonded goods in transit to Mexico, except those that pass through Corpus Christi, have to be transferred at Laredo, one railroad being narrow gauge and the other broad gauge.
The duties of the other local inspector are to attend to the ferry at
the Eio Grande landing, where from 600 to 800 persons cross and recross
daily. His duties require his attention from one-half hour before sunrise
until 8 o'clock in the evening. This duty is too arduous for one inspector, for his constant attention is necessary, and required from 12 to
14 hours every day in the week, and the only intermission he has is when,
by chance, one of the mounted inspectors may be in town, who is sent
to relieve him for a few hours. Sometimes, when necessary for this
inspector to be absent, the porter is sent down to take his place.
Often it occurs that balls, parties, "fiestes," and bull-fights are given
in New Laredo, Mexico, or in Laredo, and then the community demand
the ferry open until late at night, which requires the inspector to be in
attendance.
For these reasons, it is actually necessary, to properly conduct the
business and guard the revenue, as well as not to overwork the officer,
that an additional inspector be stationed there.
Another duty that should be performed by the additional local inspector asked for is to visit the stock-pens of the railroads every night
and patrolling the river in the Adcinity of town. The fr-eight-train
leaves Laredo between 2 and 3 o' clock A. M. Stock can be, and is, smuggled into the pens and shipped under cover of the night. I have every
reason to believe that this has been done on quite a large scale, and on
my last visit to Laredo instructed the mounted inspector, when in town, to
visit the pens. The result was a seizure of twenty-five horses, appraised
at a value of $250. But the mounted inspectors are rarely in town. The
local inspector being busy all day, the necessity, I think, explains itself
for an additional inspector, part of whose duty it shall be to attend to
this. I therefore request aufchority to employ an additionah local inspector, at a compensation of $3.50 per diem, at Laredo.
The inspectress at Laredo has all she can do to look after the Mexican
women who attempt to smuggle mescal in bladders, and other dutiable
articles, hid about^heir person ; and the inspectress's presence has had
a good and wholesome effect upon the ladies at Laredo and in itsvicini y
who may have contemplated to introduce commodities contrary to law.
At this office I am compelled to say that a proper attention has not
been paid to the requirements of the laAv and regulations by those in
the office previous to,my taking charge.
It appears to me that the system adopted was one loose to the extreme. The record-books that are required to be kept have, in many
cases, not been opened, and the inspectors and clerks, not being instructed—so they inform me, in their duties—failed to know them, and
the business of the office, it appears to me, has been done in a haphazard manner.
.
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
167
The force here is now inadequate to do and perform the business in
a proper manner. On account of having no suitable person to nominate
for deputy at Laredo, I have been compelled to send one of the clerks
from this office there to act until I can find a competent person to fill
the position.
The duties of the local inspector at this port are to receive, examine,
and superintend the shipment of bonded goods landed from the steamers
en route to Mexico, and goods bonded at this port for export and transportation, as well as to look after the shipping, admeasure vessels, &c.
The necessity for having an additional inspector here for the protection of the revenue on the Avaters of the district is as follows: This port,
being thirty miles fr'om Aransas Pass, the entrance to the port, it is
actually important to visit the pass in order to board and examine all vessels that come over the bar. As vessels cross the bar and proceed direct
to Eockport, Fulton, Lamar, St. Mary's, and other places in the dis-"
trict without coming -within thirty miles of this port, it is important
that trips should be taken to these places and other points for the pur-'
pose of examining all vessels fbund, not only at these places, but all vessels found sailing on the waters of the district. Again, Corpus Christi
Pass, which is situated tAventy miles southeast from here, should be
visided, as Avell as Cedar Bayou, a pass from the Gulf some sixty miles
from here, and in this district, for at both of these passes vessels can
and have entered the waters of the district.
In order to guard against any attempt to smuggle, an inspector should
visit all of the places in the revenue boat where smuggling operations
can be carried on; and if you take into consideration the large extent of
the navigable waters of the district, the many tpAvns accessible to such
navigation Avhere there are no customs officers stationed, you will, I believe, consider my request for an additional inspector to do the work
just and reasonable, as well as necessary for the protection of the
revenue.
I am, very respectfully,
LOYELL H. JEEOME,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington. B, C."
No. 37.
CUSTOMHOUSE, CRISFIELD, M D . ,
Collector's Office, April 9, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter;
dated April 2, 1885, requesting a report as to what extent the force
employed under my direction can be reduced, and whether the methods
of doing business can be simplified, &c.
The business at this port is confined exclusively to the issuance of
marine documents to vessels, the admeasurement of vessels, recording
biUs of sale and mortgages of vessels, and other work of like nature
connected Avith the revenue laws. The report of the Treasury Department for the year ending June 30, 1884, places this port sixth in the list
of customs districts in the number of vessels documented, ahd every
year shows a steady increase. To perform this work I have one deputy
collector, who is compensated by the Government at the rate of f3 per
168
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TEEASURY.
day, occupy ing his entire time; also, one special deputy and clerk, who
is paid by myself from my emoluments. The business requires the
entire time of the entire force; indeed, at some periods of the year is
more than can be done, even working extra time, and the accumulated
work must lay over to a more leisure time. I therefore cannot see how
the fbrce employed can be reduced without detriment to the public
seiwice.
. The methods of doing the business connected with the office are
mostly prescribed by laAA^, and cannot be deviated from Avithout a change
in them. The money accounts are few and simple, and the expenses of
the office are kept as economically as possible, as a reference to. my
returns Avill show.
Yery respectfully,
HANCE LAWSON,
'
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 38.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, DETROIT, MICH.,
Collector's Office, April 10, 1885. .
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter
from the Department, dated the 1st instant, asking a report in writing
as to Avhat reductions are practicable in the customs force employed in
this district, &c.
As bearing on this question, and in order that the Department may
un derstand the situation here, I transmit hercAvith a tabulated list of
all employes in this customs district, showing their compensation and
duties.
An examination of this list will show that my force is divided practically as follows, viz:
How employed.
In main general office
At custom office at city ferry
At cu.stom office at AValkerville ferry
In upper end of city
In lower end of city
:
In United-States'warebouse
At express office
At freight-depot, Michigan Central Railroad
At freiglit-depot, Grand Trmik Railroad
At Michigan Central Railway ferry-boats
At Grand T r u n k Railway ferry-boats
At station,outside city in district
Total
Aggregate
pay.
$15,130 00
7,488 50
• 2,672 50
900 G
O
~ 900 00
3,825 00
900 00
3,715 00
"3,272 50
9,807 50
8,757 50
2,409 00
59,777 50
Attached to the main office are the speciai deputy, marine, bond,
clearance, entry, and abstract clerks, chief clerk, cashier, messenger,
and one deputy collector and inspector, Avhose duties are to supervise
the outside force, examine into irregularities, &c. All of these officers
are necessarj^; and Avhile it is true that during the winter months I
migkt get along with one less man, still, during all the rest of the year,
the force is fully employed.
.
REPORT
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
169
There are employed at the customs office at the city ferry eight officers. At this point boats are arriving fi'om and departing fbr Windsor,
Ontario, (a place of about ten thousand inhabitants,) every five minutes, and in the summer months oftener. These boats are in motion
from sunrise till 11 and 12 o'clock at night, according to the season.
Large cxuantities of produce and dutiable goods of greater or less value
are continually arriving by these boats daily. Hundreds, and during
the summer months thousands, of persons cross and recross on these
boats. Wagons, carriages, and vehicles of all kinds are crossing, and
recrossing Avithout cessation. All this business requires the constant
and vigilant supervision of the force stationed there. Yessels arriving
or departing within a district embracing about one mile of the river
front are attended to from this office. One officer of the force stationed
here is on duty all night during the season of navigation, to receive re
ports and grant clearances to vessels. Inspection of aU imported merchandise arriving by boat within the district above described is made
by the officers stationed at this ferry. Subtracting from this force one
female inspector, whose duties are special, another Avho, being inspector
of live-stock, and so subject to call to all points in the city, and one
deputy assigned to night duty, and there remain but five officers Avho,
can be relied upon to do all the duties pertaining to this station. This
force cannot be.safely diminished, and, in my opinion, should rather
be increased.
At the Walkerville ferry, a ferry from the upper end of the city to
Walkerville, Canada, at which is stationed two deputies and one woman,
as female inspector, the same duties, with the exception of night-clearance
business and the inspection of imported goods arriving otherwise than
by ferry-boats, are required. The boats here run from sunrise till 10,
and in summer till 11 o'clock at night.
At the upper end of the city one officer is stationed, and one also in
the lower end of the city, to receive reports and grant clearances to
vessels and inspect imported merchandise arriving in their respective
districts. The district of the first extends from the Grand Trunk Eailway depot up the river to the city limits, and of the second from the
Wabash Eailway depot down the river to the city limits, each embracing about one mile of river front. In these districts are the iron foundries, lumber, wood, sand, and stone docks, and yards.
At the express office of the American and Canadian Express one
officer is stationed to look after importations arriving by express, to
cord and seal bonded goods, and to collect duties on small articles arriAdng by express.
•
At the Michigan Central and at the Grand Trunk Erailway freightdepots are stationed six officers, three at each, whose duties are to attend
to the inspection of all importations by rail arriving at these points,
cording and sealing bonded goods, checking out contents of cars arriA^ing in transit through Canada fr*om eastern United States points^ and
which have been held for any reason, as for defective sealing, irregular
manifests, &c. These officers are employed regularly from 7 o'clock
A. M. till dark, and very often through the entire night, so that there
may be no delay to the railroad traffic. Those stationed at the Michigan Central depot, in addition to their duties at that point, also perform
the same duties with reference to cars arriving at the Wabash depot,
half a mile below their station.
Nineteen men are employed on the railroad transfer boats of the Michigan Central and Grand Trunk Eailroads. Each of these roads have in
170
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
use tAA[o boats, those of the fbrmer pfying betAveen their slip in this city
and their slip immediately opposite, in Windsor, and those of the latter
between their slip in Windsor and two points on this side, viz., their
own depot, directly opposite their Windsor slip, and the Wabash Eailroad
depot, a mile below.
The boats of the Michigan Central Eailroad each carry twenty-four
cars at a load; those of the Grand Trunk carrj^, one of them fourteen
and the other eighteen cars.
All of these boats run. nights, days, and Sundays, with no cessation
whatcA^er, the year through, and all cars in transit betAA^een east and Avest
arriAdng at and departing from this port bythe Michigan Central, Grand
Trunk, and Wabash Eailroads are crossed on iliese boats.
Six officers are employed on one of the Michigan Central, and a like
nuinber on. one of the Grand Trunk boats, divided into reliefs of two
men, and each relief Avorking eight hours. On the other Grand Trunk
boat three officers are emploj^ed, one man to each relief. On the other
Michigan Central boat four men are emplo^^ed, the extra man, when
not needed on the boat, being assigned indifferently Avhere most needed,
but ordinarily he is employed to aid the regular reliefs in clearing the
large passenger-trains arriving from the East, so that there may be the
least possible delay and inconvenience to the travelling public. And
right iiere I wish to say that, from the nature of the.services required
of these officers, by reason of exposure, especially in the winter months,
there is always more or less sickness among them; and as there is no
cessation in the crossing of cars, I deem it absolutely necessary that I
.should have at leavSt one extra man fbr emergencies.
The duties of these officers consist in sealing and certifying manifests
of all east-bound cars in transit through Canada; examining car-fasteu;
ings, and checking of manifests of cars arriving in transit from eastern
United States points; marking all cars to be held by customs for entry
and inspection from Canada, as also manifested cars arriving with broken
seals or opened, and reporting them to officers at the freight-depots for
detention and inspection; examining all passengers' baggage, collecting
duties on articles of small value found therein on passenger-trains arriving, and stamping,, all hand baggage on trains departing through
Canada; receiving manifests of other baggage, checking such baggage
by the manifests, certifying the latter, and sealing up the baggage ahd
keeping a complete record of all cars crossing each way.
The time taken up in making a trip between the Windsor slip and
the Wabash depot is about 20 minutes; the other crossings occupy between nine and fifteen minutes; so that it can easily be seen that the
officers on these boats are fully employed. Indeed, I have been importuned time and again by the railroad officials to assign more officers
to these boats, but have been compelled to decline, as I had not the men
to spare. The Wabash officials are asking UOAV that an officer may be
assigned to duty at their freight-depot, as there are officers at those of
the other roads; but I am compelled to refuse, for the simple reason
that I have no officer available.
The business of that road justifies their request, as within the past
year, haAdng changed their terminus from Toledo, Ohio, to this port,
their^business here has increased in that time almost 100 per cent.; but
I haA^e declined asking Department for an additional man, for the reason
that I understand such requests in the past have, if not absolutely declined, brought forAvard Avhat I Avould respectfully state, in my opinion.
REPORT OF. THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
171
is an unfair objection, viz., that there is less revenue collected here, fr-om
the number of officers employed, than at some pther places. This, I
submit, is not a fair test. There were crossed on the railway boats at
this port in 1884 a daily average of over eleven hundred cars. During
the past month, with the river fall of ice, over forty-two tliousand, an
average of over thirteen hundred and ninety daily, were ferried across. All
these require the supervision of customs officers. The law requires it,
though the Treasury derives little benefit from it. With the force I
have I could as easily coUect twenty times the amount I do now as to
collect what is actually collected, but the law none the less requires
certain duties to be performed by customs officers, and the performance
of these duties is not contingent on the revenue that may or may npt
be collected in connection with it.
Years ago, before this railway-transit traffic had attained any great
magnitude, the business of sealing, &c., of cars, and all the business now
done on the boats was done on the shore at the ferry-slips. As the traffic
increased, and at the request of the raifroads, in order to facilitate their
business, that they might the better compete Avith rival lines in expediting freights, the customs officers were transferred from offices on the
shore to the boats. The change took place several years ago, and Avas in
force when I became collector.
If the old order was re-established, I could dispense with the services
of four officers, and so reduce my force to what it was five years ago;
for with all the increase in the volume of business at this port, the customs force has been increased by but three officers in that time.
Whether the Department Avill order a return to the old system of doing
this railroad business on the shore, and so save the amounts paid as salaries to four officers, or whether it will order no change, Avill depend, I
presume, on the standpoint from which the question is considered,
whether viewed from that of naked economy in disbursements of public
nioneys and disregarding all other considerations, or whether viewed
fr'om the standpoint of accommodation to the great east and west railroad lines, and the expediting of their business, and, consequently, the
increased benefits to that portion of the public patronizing such lines.
At the outside stations of this district, commencing at MoM*oe, on
Lake Erie and extending to New Baltimore on Lake St. Clair, eleven
officers are employed, all this force, Avith the exception of perhaps,one
officer stationed at Ecorse, just below this city, I consider necessary to
the protection of the revenue. In summing up, I am, therefore, compelled to say that if the Department desire to continue the present system of business, affording all the facilities that are now famished railroads and transportation companies, it will be impossible to reduce this
force. In other words, a reduction of the force must necessarily be accompanied by a reduction in the facilities now afforded these lines.
Eeferring to the matter of expenditures by way of salaries, I have
no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, my force is no more than
fairly paid. In conclusion, I have to state that it has been my constant aim since I assumed the duties of collector to carry on the business of the office with an eye single to the interests of the Government,
and as economically as I could, keeping these interests always in view.
I am, very respectfally, your obedient servant,
W. LIYINGSTONE, J R . ,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
172
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
No. 39. '
CusTOM-HousE, DUBUQUE, IOWA,
Surveyor's Office, April 8, 1885.
SIR : In reply to circular dated April 1, 1885, I have the honor to
state that a readjustment of the aUoAvance for the required force for this
office Avas made on the recommendation of the proper officers, and, in
my opinion, tlie force employed under 1 1 ^ direction cannot be reduced
13
Avithout detriment to the public service, or the alloAvance curtailed with
justice to those employed. There are fifteen rooms, Avith halls, stairAvays,
and corridors, to be cleaned daily. The outside steps and sidewalks
require daily cleaning and attention, occupying the time almost constantly of the janitor and the assistant janitor. The janitor is qualified
as deputy surveyor, at a salary of $600 per annum; the assistant janitor,
$300 per annum; and I do'hot think that any change could be made to
improAT^e the efficiency of these employes, as this building and grounds
are kept in perfect order. I AVOUM, therefore, respectfally recommend
that no change be made in the force of this office.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
EOBEET AEMSTEONG,
Custodian.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 40.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, D U L U T H , MINN.,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your letter of April 1, I Avould respectfully state
that the fbrce in this office Avas reduced (one officer) one year ago, and
I do not see how it can be reduced further. There Avill be another line
of foreign A-essels (two steamers) this coming season of navigation in
addition to the old lines of last season.
Yerv respectfuUy, your obedient serA^^ant,
Y. SMITH,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 41.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, DUNKIRK, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, relating to the reducuion of the "force employed under my direction," IhaA^e the honor to
report that there is but one person so employed in this district, under
the designation of deputy collector and inspector. He is required to
travel O ^ e forty miles of lake coast, and, to do it effectuallj^, it isnecesA ^r
sary to keep a horse. He also has to go to Salamanca, whenever occasion requires, to transfer bonded freight or open bonded cars for
REPORT O - THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. : 173
F
necessary repairs. It now takes one full day to go to Salamanca, attend
to the necessary business, and return. The number of cars so opened
during the last fiscal year averaged over three a week, and I think the
average for the present year will be as great as last year. In my opinion, the necessity of patrolling the lake coast is very essential, as it
prevents a large amount of illegal traffic betweeii Canada and the United
States by parties that Avould be only too glad to engage in such;traffic
were the constraint that now exists removed, of an officer of the Government coming upon them at a time when least expected, either day^
or mght. The compensation received by said officer Avas recomniended'
by a comniission appointed to examine into the needs of this district
by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1882, and, in my judgment,,is not
too great for the faithful performance ofthe duties required of him.'
Yery respectfully,
'
A. H. ABELL,;
Collekor.
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B . C
No. 42.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, EASTPORT, M E . , I
Collector's Office, April 13, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to report, in reply to Department letter of the
1st instant, relating to a reduction of the force employed under my
direction and a simplification of the methods of doing business; that,
in my opinion, there can be no reduction of the force without detriment
to the public service; nor do I. know of any Avay of simplifyihg the
methods of doing business.
I
A change in the laAvs relating to the marine documents issued to
vessels can be made by which the expenses to owners Avill be largely
reduced, and at the same time a reduction can be made in the! fbrce
employed in custom-houses and elsewhere.
i
The register should be the only marine paper issued to vessels. The
issuing of enrolments and licenses serves no purpose jiow but to keep
an extra force at work in making them, in keeping accbunts of them at
custom-houses and at the Department.
Yery respectfully,
. N. B. NUTT,
CoUector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,-
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C
No. 43.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, EDENTON, N . C ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
S I R : In reply to Department letter, dated April 1, 1885, referring to
a reduction of the present force employed in this customs district, I
would respectfally state that this office was visited by Special Agent
174
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
George D. Weeks some time during 1883, with a view of making such
recommendations as were necessary looking to a reduction of expenditures. After a carefal consideration of the matter, he, Avith my concurrence, recommended areduction of one-half of the force then employed,
which recommendation was approved by the Department. Later, in
1884, Special Agents Tingle and Hubbs examined the affairs of this
office, and, in relation to a reduction of fbrce then emplpyed, (one special deputy and one inspector,) decided it to be at its loAvest minimum
to be efficient. The waters of North Carolina are easily accessible from
the ocean through the many inlets leading into them, and the presence
of officers as a preventive against violations of the customs laws, if for
nothing else, seenis to me to be indispensable. In view of the fact that
the force is smaU, I would respectfully request and urge that no reduc-'
tion of force be made in this district.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. E. EOBINSON,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 44.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, EDGARTOWN, MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
^ S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department's
letter, dated the 1st instant, calling fbr a report as to what extent, in my
^ opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without
detriment to the public service, and to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service
may be improved and the expenses cuitailed.
After carefal consideration, I beg leave to say that when I entered
upon the duties of this office, in 1870, the force employed'under my direction numbered seven officers and one boatman, at an annual aggregate compensation, including my own salary, of $6,001. A reduction
was made from J^ime to time in the number and compensation of these
officers until 1883, when a sweeping reduction was made, leaving me with
two officers only and a boatman. Subsequently, without my solicitation,
the Department directed me to nominate for appointment an inspector
for Tarpaulin Cove, that station having been left vacant under the reduction last named, so that the force now employed under my direction
numbers three officers and one boatman, to Avit: A special deputy collector, inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer at this port; a deputy
collector and inspector and one boatman at Yineyard Haven; and an
inspector at Tarpaulin Cove. The total compensation of these employes,
together with my salary, for one year, ending March 31, 1885, was
$2,976.
The incidental expenses for rents, fael^ and for storage of public
property for this office and for the dexmty collector's office at Yineyard
Haven are extremely small, not exceeding an average of $115 per annum.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I 175
In view of these statements, 1 could not feel justified in recommending a decrease in the number or compensation of the small forcp now
under my charge.
I
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. B. MAECHANT, :
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
i
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 45.
,
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ELLSWORTH, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1^85.
SIR : In reply to your printed letter of the 1st instant, I have the
honor to report that during the last ten years the working customs .force
in this district beloAv the collector has been reduced fr-om seven to four,
or nearly 43 per cent. I see nP way that a farther reduction can
be made without detriment to the public service. A further reduction would result not only in making the remaining officers inadequate in numbers for the performance of the customs business, but Avould
expose this district of Frenchman's Bay, with a coast-line of one hundred
and fifty miles following the sinuosities of the shore, to the successful
operations of smugglers running between Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and this district.
|
In my opinion, many of the reports from custom-houses to the Treasury Department which are now made monthly might just as weill be
made quarterly. Such a change would somewhat simplify the methods
of doing business, and in large offices curtail the expenses.
'
Yery respectfully,
J. D. HOPKINS,
Collectqr.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
;
No. 46.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, E L PASO, T E X . ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : In reply to yours of the 1st instant, I beg leave to call your attention to communications of .August 25, 1884, and February 11, 1885,
explanatory of the condition of this collection district; also, letter frojn
Mr. W. A. Daniel, resident of Bisbee, Ariz., forwarded the 12th instant, as well as report of Special Agent Evans, in December last.
When the extent of this district is taken into consideration, the! low
water of nine months of the year in the Eio Grande beloAv El Paso,| and
the line from El Paso to Yuma, Ariz., interspersed with mountain paisses,
affording CA^^ery facility for smuggling and evasion of customs officers,
the Department will, I think, see that the present force is inadequate
for the protection of the Government's interests, and much revenue to
the Goverment is lost, while the honest importer is brought into competition Avith the smuggler.
176
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I have attempted fco station my force to the best advantage, yet the
number cannot possibly protect the whole line. My impression is that
Bisbee, Ariz., and the Eio Grande betAveen El Paso and Presidio clei
Norte, a distance of about three hundred miles, are the most important
points not covered, I have one mounted inspector between El Paso and
Presidio del Norte, Avithout an allbAvance for horse. I cannot expect him
to patrol the three hundred miles.
The increase of bonded business at this port keeps one inspector engaged ; another patrols the river; and the third is on duty at the bridge
during the day. The bridge is unprotected at night, and needs another
inspector there. Men who desire to smuggle, knoAving my inability to
guard the bridge at night, no dpubt avail themselves of this opport unity.
The clerical force in the office are competent men, and with their increase of duties are fully employed. I know of no manner in which
the expenses of the district can be cartailed, excepting in the lease of
building for custom-house, which expires June 30. I think a more
suitable building can be had, and cheaper rent, as rents have declined
since present lease was made.
Yery respectfully,
W. A. SAYLOE,
Collector-.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 47.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, E R I E , P A . ,
CoUectors Office, April 6, 1885..
SIR : In reply to Department's letter of IvSt instant, I beg leave to state
that the present force in this office consists of the collector, the deputy collector, and the janitor. The inspectors are appointed for and during
the season of navigation. Last season Ave had three inspectors.
The Anchor Line of this port has a'splendid fleet of twenty-one vesvels. This is also the home port of iium.erous other merchant A-essels;
also, of a large fleet of fishing steamers and ^^achts and of numerous pleasure steaniers and yachts. The Anchor Line docks and elevators are thelake terminus of the Philadelphia and Erie Eailroad. This line, Avith
its docks, elaA^atbrs, fleet of vessels, connection with the Philadelphia
and Erie and other railroads, in addition to its immense carr^dng trade
of graJin, flour, and general merchandise, is ^Iso a bonded line, and
transfers, and expects to transfer this season, large quantities of bonded
goods from bonded cars to their vessels at this port. The docks and
eLef ators of this line are situated about two miles east of the Pittsburgh
docks, and betAveen them are three intermediate docks and landings.
The Pittsburgh docks are the terminus on the lake of the Erie and
Pittsburgh Eailroad. This road carries an immense tonnage of coal to
this port fbr shipment on the lakes, and receiA^^es for return freight the
large cargoes of ores constantly arriving here.
We h'^ive the bonded warehouses of I. Weschler and of the Erie Forge,
Company, Avhich are tAvo miles from the custom-house, and which, in
the receipt and Avithdrawal of goods, require the services of iiivspectors.
Our nearness, to Canada, the frequent excursions back and forth, and
the five docks here at Avhich A-essels can land, offer peculiar temptations
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
177
to violate the United States laws by smuggling, and create a necessity
for vigilant and efficient inspection.
| '
In addition to the foregoing, there is a fine hotel, with elegant | surroundings and scenery, at the head of the bay, four miles west of ithis
city, OAvned by the Hon. W. L. Scott. Eegular lines of steamerswill
this season run almost hourly between the public docks and this widelyknown and popular resort. On public days and occasions the pleasuresteamers are liable, against the efforts and remonstrances of owners and
masters, to be dangerously overcrowded, and require the care and presence of inspectors to prevent danger.
In Adew of the important facts herein stated, my opinion is that three
inspectors at this port are absolutely necessary during the seaspn of
navigation, and also that the other regular officers mentioned are a-bso- ^
lutely necessary, and am unable to see how thepresent force can be'
lessened or expenses diminished.
;
I would respectfally state that, in my opinion, if a board or commission could be appointed to codify and arrange the laws and regula1]ions
relative to United States vessels navigating the waters on the northern,
northeastern, and northwestern frontiers othervrise than by sea, I the
methods of doing business could be simplified and the service generally
benefited.
'
I
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
i
HENEY C. STAFFOED,
Collectdr.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 48.
CusTOM-HousE, EUREKA, CAL., ;
Collector's Office, May 1, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department' circular letter of the 1st of AprU, 1885, requesting me to report in writing
as soon as practicable to what extent the force employed under my direction couLd be reduced without detriment to the public service, i&c.
In reply, I would respectfully state that, besides the collector, there
is but one other permanent officer employed in this district, viz.' an
inspector of customs, residing at the port of Crescent City. The port
of Crescent City is about sixty miles from this port, and*while there is
no foreign trade there, there is considerable local business, Avith a pbssibility that contraband goods might be landed were there no officer
stationed there. Still, suph a possibUity has seemed to me so unlikely
that in a former letter to the Department, of date January 5, 1885, I
recommended that, temporarily at least, no officer be appointed there.
TheDepartment, however, considered that itwas best to have one there,
and one was recommended and appointed. Under existing circumstances, I have no recommendation to make, but would refer the Department to the prcAdous correspondence had in relation to it.
\
Yery respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
I
WM. H. PEATT, i
OoUector of CM^tom§^ ~
• Hon,
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of tM Tf^mwy,
•
•
\
178
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
No. 49.
CusTOM-HousE, GALENA, I I I . ,
Surveyor's Office, April A, 1885.
SIR : In compliance with Department letter dated April 1, 1885, ^
relatiA^e to the force employed at this office, I would respectfully state
that only oneperson is employed, acting as clerk and deputy, and myself
as surveyor of customs at this port, which, in my opinion, could not be
more simplified.
Yery respectfally,
,
CHEISTOY BAENEE,
Surveyor of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
^
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 50.
CusTOM-HousE, F A L L E I V E R , MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 3, 1885.
S I R : I n compliance Avith 'directions contained in Department letter
of the 1st instant, I respectfally submit the foUowing arrangement of
the force of this district, viz:
Present arrangement:
,'
One deputy collector and iospector, per annum
One inspector, per annum
One clerk, per .annum
One boatman
$1, 460
1, 095
600
. 300
Total......
,
Proposed arrangement:
' One deputy cohector and inspector
OneiQspector
One boatman
•
3,455
,
$1,500
1,200
355
—
Difference in favor of Govemment
3,055
400
Yery respectfally,
JAMES BEADY, J R . ,
CoUector.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
^ •
Washington, B . C.
No. 51.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, FERNANDINA, F L A . ,
Collector's Office, April 11, 1885.
S I R : In reply to Department's letter of the 1st instant, I have to say
that I know of no way at present by which the force employed under
my direction can be reduced Avithout detriment to the public service.
Should it become possible to do so, in my judgment, consistent with
the public interest, I will communicate the same to the Department ait
once.
With reference as to whether the "methods of doing business can be
simplified, whereby the efficiency of the service n a y be improved and
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
{179
the expenses curtailed," I have to say that I do not think of anything
at present that would materially improve the present system npw in
use.
^
I
I am, sir, your most obedient servant,
'
J. W. HOWELL, :
° Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
CoUector ofCustdm.
Washington, B. C.
• " .
\
No. 52.
r
CUSTOM-HOUSE, GALVESTON, T E X . , |
Collector's Office, April 20, 1885. SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, inquiring if the
force of employes now on duty in this district can be reduced without
injury to the public service. In replj^, I have to state that the business
of this port has so decreased in the past nine months as tp Avarrant a
reduction; and I therefore recommend the discharge of one clerk and
four inspectors, two each from the day and night forces. I would also
suggest the discharge of the inspector at San Bernard, as it is believed
his duties can be performed by the mounted inspector a.t Yelasco,^ who'
is but ten miles distant.
'
|
Yery respectfully,
'
\
•
A. G. MALLOY, I
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Collector.
. Secretary of the Treasury, Wasliington, B. C. . .
\
No. 53.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, GEORGETOWN, D . C ,
;
Collector's Office, April 10, 1885.
SIR : Your letter of the 1st instant, requesting a report as to a reduction of the force and a simplification of the business methods of this
office, has been receiA^ed. The force in the custom-house proper consists of the collector, one deputy collector, and one inspector. Thetime
of myself and the deputy is fully employed in the office. The inspector
is. employed partially in the office, and. when not engaged in the office
or in measuring vessels, gauging liquors, &c., looks after and bbards
vessels in Georgetown harbor, and attends to other outdoor matters.
The outside force consists of one deputy collector and inspector,; who
has a desk at the foot of Eleventh street, Washington, where he receives inanifests on entry of coastwise vessels, and indorses newimas-oers of vessels which come to the Washington wharves. He boards vessels fbr the purpose of examining papers, and during the excursion
season keeps a watch over the excursion'steamers, with a view toi prevent overcrowding. He also attends the freight-depots every morning,
in order, when necessary, to release and receiA'e bonded merchahdise
arriving from outside ports.
,
The several matters contained in your letter have receiA^^ed my Careful consideration, and my conclusion is that the force cannot be reduced
Avithout impairing the efficiency of the service, nor the business meth
ods of the office be simplified or improved.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
'
J. HENEY WILSON,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Collector}
Secretary of the Treasury.
•
'
l80
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 54.
. ' •/
CusTOM-HousE, GLOUCESTER, MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 3, 1885.
SIR : In accordance Avith the circular letter of the Department of
April 1, I would respectfully report that the service of this distriot
. comprises one collector, one deputy collector and inspector, bne clerk,
four local inspectors, one inspector and boarding officer, one revenue
boatman, and one inspector located at Lockport. The district comprises
the ports of Gloucester, Eockport, Essex, and- Manchester. The number
of A-essels belonging to the district is 497; tonnage of same, 31,609.
The number of vessels entering and clearing fbreign ports is 249.
There are sixteen private bonded warehouses fbr the storage of foreign
salt. The clerical business of the office is as follows: 285 entries and
clearances, 1,109 entries of merchandise, 3 8 admeasurements, 1,200
*
warehouse returns requiring service of inspectors, 84 enrolments, 500
licenses, 66 boat licenses, also, a large amount of clerical work in making up returns, &c.
In the administration of this office I should recommend, first, a fixed
salary for the Collector. He is now paid a nominal salary of $250 per
annum and his emoluments, limited to $3,000, obtainable from fees
and commissions. The large amount of business done atthis office has
invariably produced a sum in excess of this amount. I have previously suggested this course to the special agents, but they wer.e more
disposed to favor consolidation of the districts, which has ahvays failed
of legislative indorsement.
In regard to the inspectors and clerical force at the office, I do not
see how it can be reduced so long as the duty remains on salt and the
present system of warehousing in bond and delivery upon certified returns exist.
For sixteen years my officers have been the custodians and dispensers pf the immense quantities of salt used by our fishermen, varying
in quantity on delivery from 100 to 500 hogsheads, and I have yet to
hear the first complaint of lack of honest measurement from importer
or consumer. This service necessitates the experience of trained men,
as the confiict of interests in the matter of fi-eight, importation, and.
deliA^ery are all valued and settled b y t h e officers' returns, which are .
accepted by all the parties.
v
The expiration of the Treaty of Washington, July 1, 1885, by Avhich
English fish and mackerel become dutiable, necessitating the actual
weighing of all the imported fish by the inspectors, will introduce an"^other large element of service.
During the winter months it mi ght be-possible to dispense with the ser:AQce of one or more inspectors, but it would be highly probable that numerous exigencies, would require temporary employment. As a matter
of actual economy, I should be disposed to say that the present force
would not be in excess of the duties required by the laws and regular
tions of the Department, especially as tbe most active portion of the
season is at hand.
.
•
1 Avould also state that under tbe warehouse system it requires a much
larger amount of service on the part of the Government officials than
if the duties were paid on arrival and deliA^ery. But as the regulations
prescribe a constant custody of the use and disposition of the salt up to
%]\Q t w § Qf tl^o p3'R0§tt^ttQft Qf tb§feoniis.)t^b© MAm of %o offtc^^s ^ n
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, 181
largely increased; and as the Government remits the entire duty on
salt used in curing fish, the office is without that financial return that
should otherAvise accrue to its credit.
!
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
I
F. J. BABSON, ;
Collector^
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . C.
\
; :
No. 55.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, GRAND HAVEN, M I C H . ,
^'
Collector's Office, April 3, 18^5.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of and to reply to
Department circular of the 1st.instant, relative to the advisability of
reducing the force of employes under my direction, &c.. The only force
under my direction consists of deputy collectors and inspectbrs of customs, and, with the exception of two in this office, are employed at subports in the district. Previous to 1884, the fees receiyed at the variouS:
ports paid all expenses and a surplus, with the exception of Mackinac,
Holland., and perhaps Saugatuck ; but, under the present law, chapter
• 228, acts of Oongress, approved July 5, 1884, the ports of Mackinac,
Frankfort, Pent Water, Saugatuck, and Holland, if continued, will not
pay expenses, but will be an expense to the Government. I s^e no
reason why th(^se" offices should be continued,' and I recommend' that
they be discontinued and abolished.
\
The officer at Cheboygan is paid $2.50 per day during the year. From
about the 1st of December until about the first day of May he has nothing
whatever to do. I therefore recommend that the office at Cheboygan
be kept open only during the season of navigation of each year; and
that during that time the officer be paid $3 per day. Further permit
me to say that at St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, on the river, within
about t V miles of each other, are two deputies. I am of opinion one
AO
of the offices should be abolished, as the business and income will not
justify a continuance of both. I would recommend that the office at
St. Joseph be abolished, and that all the business on the, river at St.
Joseph be done at Benton Harbor.
i
I have the honor to be, A^ery respectftdly, your obedient servant.
D. MCLAUGHLIN, I
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
\
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 56.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, HOULTON, M E . , " \
Collector's Office, August 8, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to report, in answer to your letter of August
3, 1885, that the force employed in this district cannot be reduced Avithout detrimeht to the public service. Having been in office less than
four months, I do not yet feel competent to suggest any simplification
of the methods of doing business. The expenses of the district are ;now
182
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY^
reduced t o ' a minimum. The force is sufficient to do the busihess of
the district, but insufficient fbr protection.
The only suggestion that I have to make UOAV has already been madeby me—that is, to. create a deputy collectorship at Fort Kent or Madawaska, and to abolish the inspectorship at Madawaska. I believe that
the revenue of the district would thereby be increased. There are
people in that district who would report their importations and paj^
duty on them, Avho UOAV smuggle them, and who would rather take this
risk than travel fifty iniles to Yan Buren to enter their goods, and fifty
•miles back again, making their journeys with teams. The Department
allows goods to be imported by lumbermen from Canada to the S^ven
Islands without inspection, and to pay at Yan Buren when they come
out of the woods in the spring on what the^^ say they have consumed,
as I am informed by the last collector. Some seasons they import large
quantities, as I am informed. From Yan Buren, our most northern
port of entry, the boundary stretches one hundred miles along the rivers
St. John and St. Francis, through settled districts, and I believe that
the inhabitants trade indiscriminately on. either bank of the riA^er fbr
much of that distance. A deputy collector ot Fort Kent could do much
to remedy these evils.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN P. DONWOTH,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 57.CUSTOM-HOUSE, INDIANOLA, T E X . ,
Collector's Office, April 10, 1885.
SIR : EespectfaUy referring to your circular letter of 31st ultimo, in
which I am directed to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force
employed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the
public serAdce, and whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, &c., I have the honor to report that very recently the force of
this district was considerably reduced and the expenses curtailed as
' follows:
By tbe provisions of Department's letter of 7tb ultimo, tbe oflS.ce of deputy
collector and mounted insiDector at San Antonio, at a compensation of
$3. 50 per diem, was abohsbed and tbe oflicer discbarged, making an
annual saving of
,
%1, 277
And tbe boatman at Indianola, at a compensation of ^40 per montb, making
an annual saving of
'.
;...
480
Also, by tbe provisions of Department's letter of lOtb ultimo, tbe. allowance
of |20 per montb for rent of customs ofl&ce at San Antonio was discontinued," making an annual Sciving of
240
And tbe allowance for rent of a customs o£Q.ce at Eagle Pass reduced from |30
to $20 per montb, making an annual reduction of.
120
On tbe 8tb instant, in answer to Department's letter of 1st instant, I recom-.
mended tbat tbe revenue boat at tbis port be disposed of, and tbat autbority be granted me to bire a boat and. boatman sbould occasions arise
requiring tbe use of a boat.. Sbould my recommendations in tbis respect
be approved, I estimate tbat a saving will be effected on account of repair,
' &c., of boat of (peraunum)
-.
50
Total reduction...
,
50
00
00
00
00
2,167 50
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I 183
The foregoing reductions are all that can be made without: great
detriment to the service. My force now consists of eleven persbns all
told, Adz: Three at Indianola, six at Eagle Pass, and two at Deb Eio.
The divStrict extends several hundred miles along the Mexican frpntier,
which requires constant guarding and patrolling. This cannot be
effectually done with my .small force. I have always coiisidered that
the force on the frontier was too small, but have not succeeded in having
it increased.
I
'
The couipensation of employes is no more than should be paid, living
expenses in Western Texas being very high, as we produce coniparatiA^ely nothing but beef, cotton, and wool.
'
Eeferring again to the abolishment of the office of deputy collector
and mounted inspector at San Antonio, I have to say that the commission appointed in accordanceAvith Department's circular lettpr of September 23, 1882, to inquire into the requirements of the customs service of this district, recommended the abolishment of said office, (which
recommendation was heartily concurred in by me,) but for some reason, unknown to me, no action was taken in regard to the matter.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
'
FEANCIS A. YAUGHAN, |
Collector.
Hon.
' .
D A N I E L MANNING,
\
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. O.
.
:i
No. 58.
CusTOM-HousE, KANSAS (i)iTY, Mo., \
,
Surveyor's Office, April 3, 1885.
SIR : In response to Department letter of 31st ultimo, requesting "report as to what extent the force in this office could be reduced without
detriment to the public service," I answer that myself and one deputy
are all that are employed here, ^nd that the^deputy is constantly pn the
go from the points on the Mississippi river where eastern raibvays
centring here crbss that river to the western border of Kansas,| looking after broken-down and damaged cars carrying bonded merchandise
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or engaged in transferring bonded merchandise from cars that arrive here from both east and west, generally
disabled after the long run from either coast or the Mexican border, and
that my whole time is required in this office; consequently it seems to
me that no possible reduction of the present force can be made without
serious detriment to the public service. On the contrar^^, this:being
the gateAvay of an immense traffic east and west, the demands pf the
various railways centring here for assistance from this office, and its
constantly increasing tendency towards more business, would hdnestly
justify an addition of at least one inspector of customs to the present
fore3 here employed, and thereby increase the efficiency of the service.
All of which is respectfully submitted. ;
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
;
EOB. C. CEOWELL, 1
Surveyor and Custodian.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. 0.
!
184
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
^
No. 59.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, KENNEBUNK, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Department letter of the 31st ultiino, in regard to. a
reduction of the fbrce in this district, I would say that there is but one
•person employed, who fills the positions of inspector, Aveigher, gauger,
measurer, deputy collector, and special deputy collector, at a compensation of $1.60 per day.
There were formerly three other inspectors, at outside ports, but they'
have been discharged from time to time.
There does not seem to be much room for further reduction without
detriment to the service.
Eespectfully, your obedient-servant,
P. C. WIGGIN,
CoUector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 60.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, K E Y W E S T , F L A . ,
Collector's Office,^ApHl 11, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt of Department circular letter of the 3d instant,
requesting to be informed to what extent the customs force employed in
this district can be reduced; also, to make such suggestions and recommendations whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and
the expenses curtailed.
In reply, I beg to submit a statement showing in detail the number
of persons at present employed, their desig^nations and compensations,
together with the changes proposed in the number and payof the force,
which, in my opinion, would result in material benefit to the customs
serAdce in this district.
It Avill be observed that the discontinuance of the serAdces of several
emplo3^6s is recommended. The two special inspectors at Tampa, whose
employment was made necessary during the past winter in consequence
of a line of passenger-steamers plying between New Orleans and Havana,
Cuba, putting in at said port, will not be required after the 1st proximo,
Avhen the said steamers will probably haul off for the summer. The
services of'one revenue boatman at each of the ports of Tampa and
Manatee can be dispensed with without detriment to the service. The
two special night-inspectors, who have been employed almost continuously during the past year to patrol the south beach of this island, at
a compensation of $3 per diem each, may be discontinued if the Department deems the curtailment pf this expense necessary, although I feel
satisfied the nightly presence of these officers has had the effect of deterring smugglers from attempting their nefarious operatibns on this^ heretofore unprotected portion of this island.
The salaries of the clerical force in the general business office should
be increas(^d and graded, according to the nature of their several duties,
the length of service, and ability of the incumbent. The amounts
paid them at present, which were fixed several years ago, when the busi-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, i ^ 185
ness of the port was comparatively small, and have since remained unchanged, are now,inadequate to the labors performed or their family
needs, and the matter of grading the salaries has appeared to me essential to improve the efficiency, of the office, inspire the incumbents with
renewed energy, and instill a spirit of friendly rivalry for personal adA^ancement.
'.
• ,
.|
This subject was fully represented in a communication from this
office, dated October 28, 1884, to whi.ch I now desire respectfully to invite attention, and from which I quote the fbllowing:
^ ^ In conclusion, permit me to invite attention, in support of my request for additional employes and increased salaries, to the collections
of this office during the year ended September 30,1884, over the corresponding period during the previous year, amounting to $61,929.02.
This increase of receipts, representing increased business at this port,
which there is every reason to believe, from the flburishing condition
of our cigar industry, will continue, naturally augments the duties of
all the employes; hence, additional labor is necessary, in order to a
proper and efficient administration of this district."
..
The manifest indications at the date of the above-mentioned letter
that the increased customs receipts at this, office Avould continue has
been fully confirmed by subsequent collections, which for the six
months ended March 31, 1885, exceeded by $64,769.14 the receipts for
the corresponding period ended March 31, 1884. There can ibe no
doubt of the permanent commercial advancement of this island, with
' corresponding increased business and customs receipts at this office, as
the following figures collated from the records will show:
i ^
Total receipts during October, 1884
Total receipts during November, 1884
Total receipts during December, 1884
Total receipts duriQg January, 1885..
Total receipts during February, 1885
Total receipts during Marcb, 1885
;
-.,.......
$271,068
33,792
35,110
44, 958
33', 307
46,099
52
00
90
05
19
84
I therefore ask favorable consideration by the Department on the increase of salaries.
i
Yery respectfully,
D. EAGAN, j
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
i
No. 61.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, L A CROSSE, W I S ; , |
•
Surveyor's Office, April S, X885.
S I R : Eeplying to Department circular .of dabte March 31,1 beg leave
to. report that the force employed under my direction consists of one
deputy, without compensation, and consequently no reduction can be
made Avhich would curtail the expenses.
:
Eespectfully,
i
WILLIAM E. FINCH, i
Surveyor.
Hon.
T H E S E C R E T A R Y ' O F T H E TREAStJRY.
i ,
186
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ,
•
•
No.'62.
,
• , •
CUSTOM-HOUSE, LOUISVILLE, K Y . ,
Surveyor's Office, April, 4, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your circular letter of the 31st ultimo, I would state
that the present arrangement of this office is UOAV very satisfactory, and,
in my opinion, it is not practicable to reduce the fbrce employed under
my direction.
There are but seven persons in the surA^eyor's and five in.the custodian's'departments. A special deputy and clerk, who has general oversight of the work in both departments, acts as cashier and liquidating
clerk, and has charge of the correspondence; a deputy and book-keeper,
who is also entry clerk, and makes out all accounts to be forwarded to
the Department;, an inspector, examiner, and storekeeper, who is acting
appraiser, and has charge of the receipt and delivery of all bonded goods
at the custom-house; an inspector, weigher, and gauger, who attends to
the receiAdng and transfer of all bonded goods at the wharf and depots,
and to the Aveighing and gauging of merchandise ; a deputj^ and clerk,
who has charge of the admeasuring and documenting of steamboats; a
messenger, Avhp acts also as copying clerk; and a laborer, who attends
to the disposition of bonded goods in the ware-rooms and appraiser's
store. • In the custodian's department there are an engineer, who is also
night-watchman; an assistant engineer, employed eight months in the
year; tAvo janitors, and an elevator-conductor.
Yery respectfully,
J. K. FAULKNEE,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 63.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, MACHIAS, M E . ,
Collector's Officer, April 8, 1885.
SIR : Department letter dated March 31, 1885, is at hand. I am requested to report to Avhat exfent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service,
&c. i have the honor to reply that the force in this ciistrict consists of
bne deputy collector and inspector employed as special deputy collector
in this office; one deputy collector and inspector stationed at Jonesport ; and another officer of like designation stationed at Cherryfield.
The officer employed here is paid $3 per diem, and is on duty every
da3^ He is on office duty six days in the Aveek, but on Sundays, and in
faet at all times, holds himself in readiness to go Avherever his services
majT^ be required. I do not see how his services can be dispensed with
any part of the time, nor can I recommend any reduction in the pay.
The officer stationed at Jonesport (twenty miles distant from this
office) is paid $2.25 per diem. He rents an office at his own expense, where he enters and clears A-essels, collects hospital-money, takes bonds
and administers oaths in cases where vessels are required to change
their papers; sends them to'this office, where the papers are made and
returned to him to be delivered to the OAvners or masters of the vessels.
He is on duty every day. The station is an important one, being sit-
187
RiEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
uated on Mooseabec Beach, where vessels are passing and repassing
at all times. The presence of an officer at that point doubtless prevents a great deal of smuggling. Some time in the year 1882^ while
serving as a deputy collector, I was designated by my predecessor to
examine the needs of the service in this district, and report what
changes or reductions could be made without detriment to the service.
I then recommended that the pay of the officer stationed at Jonesport
be reduced to $300 per annum. I fear, however, that that sum; would
not be sufficient to command the services of a competent persofi, who
could and would devote the time and attention to the office which its
importance demands. I think $450 per annum would be a fair compensation for the officer stationed there, and that a proper persofi could
be found to serve for that sum.
\
••
The officer stationed at Cherryfield, 28 miles distant from this office,
is also paid $2.25 per diem. His duties -are the same as those of the
officer at Jonesport, and he also provides an office at his OAVU expense.
The station is not so important as the one as Jonesport. It is situated
at the head of navigation on the Narraguagus river, and during the
Avinter months, while naAdgation is closed, there is little fbr au; officer
to do, although he must be ready at all times to look after Adolations
of the revenue laws. I think a competent person might be fpund to
serve at the Cherryfield station for $300 per annum.
The officers now employed are sober, efficient, faithfal, and attentive
to their duties. I have no furMier suggestions to offer at present.
Yery respectfally,
i
J. L. PIBECE,;
Collector.
The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
^
.
Washington, B. C.
i
|
No. 64.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, MARBLEHEAD, MASS.,;
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
SIR : In reply to yours of the 31st of March, would most respectfully
state that, in my opinion, it would be detrimental to the public service
to make reduction of employes under my direction although, during
the winter months, there is but little foreign trade, still there is about
fifteen miles of sea-coast to guard, and some considerable timp of the
officers is employed in preventive duty. In summer we have more than
one thousand vessels of all descriptions calling into the district, stop a
few hours, and depart. The foreign trade with the provinces 'during
the summer months is of such a nature that I should not deem it wise
to recommend the reduction of the force in this district. Having held
the position of collector of customs for so short a time, hardly feel myself competent to recommend the simplification of methods of doing
business.
|
I am, sir, very respectfally,
•
F. A. OSGOOD,!
Collector of Customs..
Hon.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
I
188
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE tREAStJRt.
No. 65.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, MARQUETTE, MICH.,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Department's instructions of the 31st ultimo, I have
the honor to submit the folloAving report relative to the force of employes
in the district 'of Superior, Avhat reduction in the number can be made
^without detriment to the public service, whether the methods of doing
business can be simplified and the expenses curtailed.
The number of employ6s in the district, compared to the length of the
coas-tline and the business done,^ is already too limited for the proper
administration of the revenue and navigation laws. Following is a list
of the offices, stations, and compensations:
Employes, .District of Superior.
s^
otfice.
Collector
"
.
Special deputy inspector...
Deputy collector and inspector.
Do
Do
Do
Do
. .
Do
.'.
Do......
Do
Bo
Do
Inspector
Do
Station.
Compensat on.
Remarks.
Marquette
do
.. ..do
$2,500 per annum.
$l,200per annum. Cashier, book-keeper, customs. &G.
$1,000 per annum. Navigation, rnarine documents, &c.
Sault Ste. Marie..
Detour
Escanaba
Hancock
Menomonee
Superior City
Ashland
Bayfield
L'Anse
Sault Ste. Marie..
.do
S3.30 per diem
In chargi port of delivery.
$1.05 per diem
In charge sub-port.
80 cents per diem.
Do
80 centsper diem.
Do
80 cents per diem,
Do
75 cents per diem.
Do.
25 cents per diem.
Do.
25 cents per diem.
Do
25 cents per diem.
. Do.
>
$3 per diem
1 Frontier inspectors on River St.
/ Mary, night and day.
The district includes the entire south shore of Lake Superior, the
St. Mary's river, and the waters of Green bay, a distance of one thousand miles, approximately, and nearly all of it adjacent to Canadian
waters; and the officers are located at most important places along the
coast. It will be observed that the salaries paid are not extravagant or
excessive, Avhen takeii in connection with the duties to be performed.
Commercial intercourse with the subjects of Great Britain is annually
increasing on this frontier, and Avill soon be very largely increased on
the completion of railways now constructing. I do not see how the
nuniber of employes at outside ports can be reduced, for a reduction
would iuA^olve the abolition of sub-ports; nor can I recommend a reduction of the force employed at the port of entry, where day and night
service is requisite, Avherr all the records are kept, and from which all
accounts and reports to the Department emanate.
From January 1, 1884, to January 1, 1885, disbursements were made
in the district for salaries, $10,135.10; rents, $350; contingentexpenses,
$243.88—total expenses, $10,728.98. During thesame period the collections were $15,535.51.
Expenditures for rents and contingent expenses are reduced to a minimum, and cannot at present be further curtailed Avithout detriment to
the service.
Yery respectfully,
C. T. OSBUEN,
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
CoUector.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 66.
CUSTOM-HOUSE,
189
;
MEMPHIS, TENN., '
Surveyor's Office, April 14:, 1885.
S I R : In obedience to Department letter of April 1, 1885, requjesting
me to report to the honorable Secretary, in writing, to what extent, in
my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be r(3duced
Avithout detriment to the public service, &c., I have the honor tb state
that at present the force employed under my direction cannot be reduced
without detriment to the public service. The only employes und|er,my
direction are one clerk and deputy surveyor and one porter, the sprAlices
of which are necessary to the prompt and efficient transaction ofthe public
business at this port. However, the occupancy in the near future, to
wit, about September 1,1885, of the new custom-house at this port will
render the service of a porter for this office unnecessary, when his services may be dispensed with without detriment to the service. I have
the honor to state, also, that as soon as the new custom-house is ready
" for occupancy the rooms now rented by the Government for customs
offices and examination-room, for the examination and storing of bonded
goods, may be dispensed with, which will largely curtail the exppnse of
collecting the revenue at this port, and, with the intention of so dispensing with the use of the rooms referred to, in my renewing the lease
for this year I have reserved to the Government the right to terminate
.the lease whenever the custom-house is ready for occupancy. As to^
recommendations whereby the efficiency of the serAdce may lie improved, I have the honor to state that, owing to my very short experience in the customs service, I would feel extremely delicate in inakig
suggestions for its improvement.
Yery respectfally,
T. F. CASSELS, i
Surveyor of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary, Washington, B. C.
No. 67.
'
CUSSTOM-HOUSE, MIDDLETOWN, CONN., \
Collector's Office, April 10, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully referring to Department circular letter of April 1,
1885, requesting a report as soon as practicable to what extent, in my
opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced wifthout
detriment to the public service, and also in' relation to the methods of
doing business, to make suggestions whereby the efficiency of the service
may be improved and the expenses curtailed, I have to state that the
force employed during the past ten years consists of two deputies and
one clerk, who have been fully occupied with the current business, but
that since December 1, 1883, when the facilities for receiving merchandise without appraisement were extended to this district, the business
of importing has constantly increased, and to such an extent that it is
impossible for the present force to properly discharge the duties of the
office. Eeference ibo the accounts sent to the First Auditor and tb the
J^iir^ai^ Qf Statistics, m w^U m to ^oxm Ifo? 198^ rendered to tbplpffio§
190
REPORT OF 'THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
ofthe honorable Secretary fbr the past three months, will show t h e .
nature and extent of the importing at this port compared with the same
period in 1884. During the first quarter of 1884 there were twenty-one
entries of imports fbr consumption, amounting to $10,621.52, Avhile'
during the first quarter of 1885 there Avere fifty-nine entries for consumption, amounting to $20,,052.67, besides scA^^en entries for warehouse,
Avith a total pf nearly seventy invoices, passing through the hands of
these officers for appraisal and collection of duties.
^ ^
So far as the methods of business are concerned, it may be necessary'
only to say that the present special deputy has been employed here for
more than fifteen years, and the other two employes for more than hve
years, and that the business is systematized in such a Avay as to have
met the thorough approval of the agents of the Department who have
examined the office, and to secure the prompt settlement of accounts,
Avithout notice- of error by the Auditor.
In AdcAv of the state of business in this district, as described, I cannot
therefore repommend the curtailment of force or expenses, but must,
rather say that an additional clerk is much needed, which has already
been authorized by the Department. As soon as a person suitable in
all respects can be found fbr the position, his name will be forwarded
for approval.
.
This matter itself Avould have received earlier attention, only that the
business ofthe office, including the monthly and quarterly returns, has
taken every minute of the time of all the force up to the present for its
accomplishment.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. PUTNAM,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 68.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, MILWAUKEE, W I S . ,
Colletcor's Office, April 8, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt of Department circular dated April 1, 1885, requesting a report in regard to possible red^iction of the force emplo^^ed
under my direction, and curtailment of expenses Avithout detriment to
the public seivice.
I have given the subject careful attention, and beg leaA^e to respectfully report as follows:
.
" •
The subordinate employes at this port consist of one special deputy
cpllector and cashier, at $1,800 per annum; one clerk and acting appraiser, at $1,600 per annum; one clerk, at $1,200 per annum; one
inspector and clerk, at $4 per day; one inspector and clerk, at $3 per
day; one opener and packer, at $600 per annum.
In addition to these, there are employed at outside ports of deliA^ery
in this district deputy collectors and inspectors as folloAvs :
At Green Baj^, Wis., one, at $1.75 per day; at Manstpwoc, Wis., one,
at 80 cents per day; at Sheboygan, Wis., one, at 85 cents per day; at
Eacine, Wis., one, at $1.15 per day; at Kenosha, Wis., ono, at 40 cents
, per day.
REPORT OF THE
SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY. ! 191
i
'
During the year ending December 31, 1884, 763 entries of imported
merchandise, valued at over $500,000, on Avhich the duties were nearly
$200,000, were made at this office. Yessels to the number of 8,;963 reported arrived, and 9,163 cleared; 350 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of about 70,000 tons, were licensed for the coasting trade. The
percentage of cost of collections was about 5 per cent.
It will readily appear that, considering the business transacted, the
force employed is not excessive, but, oh the contrary,, is less than that
at many other ports of equal or less importance. In i'act, the cpllector
finds it necessary to himself perform a large amount of clerical labor
which does not usually fall upon that officer at other ports. The employes at this office are efficient and faithfal in the discharge bf their
various duties, and I do not see how the present small force can be reduced without seriously impairing the efficiency of the service; in fact,
I am of opinion that one or two additional inspectors can be advantageously employed during the season of navigation.
Yery respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
• ^
A. W. HALL,
CplUctor.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
,Washington, B. C.
No. 69.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, MOBILE, ALA.,|
Collector's Office, April 15, 1885.
SIR : I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your conimunication
of the 1st instant, in reference to the reduction of the forces at this port,
the simplication of the details of business, and other matters tending to
the improvement of the public serAdce, and to say that I have thoughtfully considered the entire subject, as follows:
.1. There are in the office here a deputy collector and cashier; a (ieputy
collector who also performs the duties of impost clerk, auditor, and
general book-keeper and accoantant in all matters relating to thelpublic
business; and one clerk, (marine and statistical.) The salaries paid
those gentlemen are only onthe same scale as their services woul^ comr*and in private business, and this force has been reduced for three
years past to the least number "compatible with the public interests.
II. Barge office.—There are UOAV on duty in this department six inspectors, assigned asfollows: One as bparding officer; one as acting chief
inspector, in charge, whose duty it is, in addition-to his regular duties,
to examine the marine papers of all water-craft; and four others on
general service, down the bay and in the harbor, as the exigency demands ; and three night inspectors, whose beats during their hpurs of
dutj^ cover three miles of the wharf front.
Three years ago I found nine inspectors on duty-here; I recommended
the reduction to six, (two regular and one special.) Since that time
there have been periods of dull business when all were not actually
necessary; but, considering the wide extent of territory to be' guarded,
and the vigilance necessary to prevent, as well as to detect, frauds; on tho
revenue, I do not deem it safe or wise to lower this fbrce.
:
192
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
' III. Fublic store and appraiser's office.—The office of storekeeper and
acting appraiser is filled by Mr. George Coltin, who is inspector, at $4 per
diem, and who is also admeasurer of vessels. . The duties of this office
are often very critical, but in the present state of business are hot onerous. They are, however, A^ery necessary, but I am of opinion that
the per diem of the incumbent may be justly reduced to $3.50 per diem.
In times of pressure of business Mr. Coltin takes his time of duty as
regular inspector.
.
Long ago I recommended the abolition of the barge office as a useless
expense to the Government. I respectfully nbw renew the same, thus
saAdng rent, light, and fuel. The inspectors m a y b e furnished with
good quarters in the custom-house, where they will be under the personal snrAT^eillance of the collector. As acting surveyor, I much prefer
this. The night-inspector at the office may take the place of watchman at the public building, for which the GoA^ernment has been paying, during winter months, $60 per inonth.
Fublic building.—There are on duty three janitors^two at $45 per
month, and one at $30. This building is heated by open fireplaces, and
in winter three men are absolutely indispensable; but in summer, I am
of opinion that two men can, by proper diligence, keep the building
clean.^ I therefore recommend the discharge of the janitor at $30 per
month.
,
^
In my view of this matter, I am governed by the principles that
would prevail with me if I were acting in the matter of my own private
affairs, and I am respectfiUly of the opinion that those changes only can
be made with due regard to the interests of the public serAdce and the
proper protection of the revenue.
Yery respectfully,
J. W. BUEKE,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No.. 70.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NANTUCKET, MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the Department circular of April 1, asking for information relative to the force employed in this customs district, I have
the honor to state that there is but one deputy attached to this office,,
who also acts as special deputy collector. Inspectors are only employed
in the event of a wreck, or other exigency requiring extra service.
During the past year this has occurred twice, aggregating about one
month's extra service. I do not see how I could get along with less help.
Yery respectfully,
ALBEET A. GAEDNEE,
CoUectori'
pon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Tremwy^ W(tslm0Q'^^ J), G,
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'193
- No. 71.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.,
Surveyor's Office, April 6, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of
April 1, 1885, requesting me tb report to what extent, in my opinion,
the force employed under my direction can be reduced witliout detriment to the public service; whether the methods of doing business can
be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service
may be improved and the expenses curtailed.
In reply, I beg to report that the force under my direction cannot
be reduced any without detriment of the serAdce.
I have no suggestions to make, for the reason that everything is
moAdng smoothly and being done Avith as little expense to the Government as possible.
'
Yery respectfully,
i
J. M. KEECHEYAL, :
Surveyor ofVustoms.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
i
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
\
No. 72.
Miss., '
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : Your letter of April 1, requesting me to repprt in Avriting to
what extent the force in my employ could be reduced, beg leave to state
that I have no employes in my office which are paid by the Government.
Yery respectfully,
I
ANSELM NEUBEEGEE, !
Collector.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NATCHEZ,
The Honorable SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
"
^
Washington,.B. C .
L
\
No. 73.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEWARK, N .
J.,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to circular letter dated the 1st instant, in relation to
reduction of force employed, simplification of methods of doing business, suggestions and recommendations whereby efficiency may be,improved and expenses curtailed, I would respectfully report that i the
force of this office consists of three persons; that, in addition to the
regular duties connected with,customs, there devolves service as superintendent of lights, and as custodian of the building, in which are three
departments of the Government service, viz., customs, post office, and
internal revenue; that I have a general supervision of the office; tfiat
13 A
-^'
I
194
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Mr. Martin, the deputy collector, gives his whole time and attention
to the duties connected AVith the service stated; and that his compen-.
sation of $1,200 per annum is certainly a moderate sum for the service.
The service of the inspector is very necessary in connection with the
duties of that position, viz., superintending the discharge of vessels
from fbreign ports, of which eighty entered during the year 1885, and
examination of coasting vessels as to compliance Avith all the-requirements of the coasting trade. Mr. Yan Wagner, the inspector, is an-old
employe of the office, and his pay is $3 per diem.
I cannot suggest any improvement in the service or recommend curtailment of expenses, and believe the force of the office necessary while
continuing a separate port of entry.
Yery respectfully,
WILLIAM A. BALDWIN,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
>
Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury.
.
No. 74.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W BEDFORD, MASS.,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to your letter of the 1st instant, asking me, to report
^ ^ to what extent the force under my direction can be reduced without
detriment to the public service,'' &c., I beg leaA^^e to reply, that in this
district there are only two inspectors employed. Formerly each putport had an inspector at a small annual salary. These have all been
removed, only the two at this port remaining.
From this district one hundred vessels are employed in whaling and
foreign trade, sailing under a ^' register;'' also, one hundred and eleven
vessels under ^ ^ coasting'' and ^ ^fishing- licenses..'' The Philadelphia
and Eeading Coal Company have ^^coal-packets" here for the supply
of a large section of NCAV England. These vessels require the superAdsion of inspectors. Large and increasing quantities of merchandise
(cordage, nails, &c.) are exported for drawback. . Goods imported and
warehoused require the services.of weigher and gauger, (who also
measures vessels fbr tonnage.)
In view of the above, I am strongly of the opinion that no further
reduction of the force employed can be made without detriment to the
public service.
Yery respectfully,
J. A. P. ALLEN,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B. G.
No. 75.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEWBURYPORT, MASS.,
Collector's Office, A p r i l l l , 1885. DEAR S I R : In reply to Department letter dated April 1, 1885, I
would say that the-force under my charge at the custom-house at this
port ponsists pf pne inspectpr, wlio p^cts as deputy ppUeetpr, ^t | 3 -per
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY'OF THE TREASURY.
195
day, and two inspectors and weighers and gaugers, at $i.65|per day.
The deputy collector is constantly employed in.the office, and'the other
two inspectors attend to the out-door duties. During the Avinter months
there is very little out-door work, but in the summer there is more work
than one man can attend to. While the Government does nbt receive
much revenue from this district, still there is considerable work for the
officers during eight months in the year. About four hundred poastwise
vessels annually arrive at and depart ft'om the different ports in the district, which extends frbm Haverhill, eighteen miles from Newt^uryport,
on the Merrimac river, to Ipswich, twelve iniles in the opposite direction. During the summer months there are twelve steamers running
on the river, and each of these requires the attention of the officers to
see that the regulations of the Department are complied with. \ For the
year ending June 30, 1884, forty-six vessels with cargoes arrived in the
district from foreign ports, some of them discharging at IpsA^ich and
some at Haverhill, but all requiring the attendance of customs iofficers.
In December, 1875, one inspector was discharged, but it becanie necessary to reappoint him a few months afterwards, and he was employed
two hundred days in the year, at $3 per day. In December, 1882, the
pay of the two out-door inspectors was reduced to $1.65 each per day,
making the time cover the whole year, and reducing the compensation
of these two officers from $2,190 to $1,200 per annum. As I havie before
stated, one man cannot perform all the out-door duty for the district for
the largest part of the year, and it appears to me that the present arrangement is as economical as any that can be made.
i
With regard to the methods of doing business, I cannot see how they
can^be simplified; neither can I make any sugg*estions whereby the
efficiency of the service can be improved and the expenses furtlier cur-,
tailed.
;
I am, very respectfully, yours, &c.,
WILLIAM H. HUSE,
Collector of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
"/
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
\
No. 76.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W HAVEN, CONN.,
Collector's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
letter of the 1st instant, in which I am requested to report to the Secretary of the Treasury in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public serAdce; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified;
and to make suggestions and recommendations whereby the efficiency
of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed.
;
In reply to the above and agreeable to request, I have to report that
I have given the matter due consideration, and cannot find in any partiPular where the forceemployed under my direction can be reduced
Avithout detriment to the public service. In fact, the customs affairs
at this port, since I have had particular knowledge of them, have ibeep
196
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
conducted on a very economical basis. . No appointments have been
made or recommended, except when the exigency of the service actually demanded they should be.
The business of the Government at this port is conducted entirely in
accordance Avith business principles. Not one cent is spent or authority
asked fbr but what is actually necessary. Every employ^ is held to a
strict performance of his duty.
The general business of the port has been much increased within the
last few years, and that without additional expense to the Government.
I will note two particulars—theincrease i n t h e number of rewarehouse
entries, ahd issue of marine documents: Number of rewarehouse entries
at this port for fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, was 15, for fiscal
year ending June 30, 1884, numbered 89, thelast calendar year, 106.
The issue of marine papers has largely increased by the large number
of barges now owned at this port; and right here I will say that 120
barges are enrolled and licensed at this port. The yearfy renewal of
all these the Governnient receives no compensation for whatever. I
fail to see the justice or consistency of charging fees for the issuing of
marine papers to one class of vessels and not to another, both being engaged in. the same trade, and of corresponding tonnage. Furthermore,
I fail to see the necessity at this day of the issuing at all licenses to enrolled vessels to pursue a coastwise trade. Formerly, I find, registered
vessels were likewise licensed. Why should not the law be repealed
Avhich requires coastwise vessels to take out a yearly license, the enrolment being sufficient. Thus Avill the Government be saA^ed a great expense for clerical work, and a t t h e same time relieve the-embarrassed
shipping interests from the petty fees now collected.
Finally, as to the simplifying of and improvement of the present
methods of doing the business: The present system is evidently an old
one, which has been engrafted onto from time to time until it has become
cumbersome. The improvement, in my opinion, should be begun at the
root, or a new system should be adopted, after a carefal exaniination by
a competent commissioner, and one more in accordance with the modes
of doing business at the present day., I have no doubt one could be
devised less complicated and giving equal protection to the Government.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. J. BEEES,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . O.
No. 77.
CusTOM-HoysE, N E W HAVEN, CONN.,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
letter of the 4th instant, in which I am instructed to furnish a full and
comprehensiA^e report relative to the nuinber, condition, and necessity
for service of any revenue boats in my coUection district—questions to
the number of twelve being given, to which I am instructed to subinit
answers, Avhich are thus given:
1, Number of boats.—Answer. ~Two ^ 1 sail-boat and 1 row-boat
• KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
! 197
2. Where stationed.—Answer. This port.
\
3. Originalcost.—Answer. Sail-boat, $136; row-boat, $15.
4. When and where built.—Answer. New Haven, Conn., 1879.
5. Kind and rig.—Answer. One row-boat; one sail-boat, spit sail.
6. Style of build.—Answer. Sail-boat, jolly-boat style.
7. Material of which built.^-Answer. Sail-boat, oak and pine; roAVboat, entirely of white pine.
I.
8. Dimensions.—Answer. Sail-boat, 18 by 4 J feet; row-boat, I about
8 by 3 feet..
/
9. Size,"" description of sail, and condition.—Answer, twelve feet
each way; condition, good.
""
'
10. Number of oars.-—Answer. Three pairs.
'
11. Present condition of each boat.—Answer. Good, except^ both
need painting.
'
.
:
12. When last repaired.—Answer. No repairs to either since'built,
Avith the exception of a coat of paint to each every spring.
|
The necessity for the service of the revenue-boats exists in the fact
that it is, and always has been, the practice at this port from time to
time to board vessels bound inward with foreign cargoes before they arriA'^ed at the wharf, and if suspected of being engaged in smuggling,
bpard them three miles or more outside and before they were taken in
tow. The Adgilance of the boarding officers at this port for some!years
has been such that substantially all smuggling is prevented. The boats
are also necessary for boarding vessels lying at quarantine, and coastwise vessels lying in the stream. They are used in transferring officers
from one wharf to another; half mile in ohe case, in another one' mile
intervening. Now, in reference to their sufficiency, I will sa3^ thalt the
small row-boat is but of very little use, being entirely too small, and was
only intended for a tender fbr the sail-boat. It is wholly unsafe, CA^en in
the harbor, when it is at ^ all rough. I would recommend it be sold
and a row-boat of larger dimensions be purchased-for use at this Iport.
The boatman at this port is an old sailor, and is appointed as nightwatchman and boatman, at a salary of $400 per annum. When ;more
than one foreign vessel is in port, he is employed in assisting the nightinspector. On the whole, I am fully persuaded that the present 'good
efficient service could not be maintained Avith less expense for the same
than at present.
,
In closing, I beg again to call attention to the matter of replacing the
row-boat and painting of sail-boat, or both if retained.
,
;
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
I
'
A. J. BEEES, !
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
|
Washington, B. C.
No. 78.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W LONDON, CONN., \
Collector's Office, April 8, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your communication of April 1, I have the honor to
report that the only practicable reduction that can be made in the force
employed in this district is by the abolition of the office of inspector at
J^orwich. Such a reduction is not only practicable, but, in my opihion.
198
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF IHE TREASURY.
should be made in the interests of economy, and would not in the
slightest measure impair the efficiency of the service. The office is a
sinecure, and all the duties devolving upon inspectors in this district
can be discharged by the two inspectors stationed at New London. At
this time I have no further suggestions to make to the Department.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
JOHN A. TIBBITS,
Collector.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 79.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W ORLEANS, LA.,
Collector'^s Office, April 16, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of Department's letter
of the 1st instant, asking for a report, as soon as practicable, as to what
extent the force employed in the customs service at this port can be reduced without detriment to thepublic interests ; whether the methods
of doing business can be simplified; and for any suggestions and recommendations whereby the efficiency of the service may be improA^ed and
the expenses curtailed.
While I am aAvare that the percentage of cost of collectiiig the reve' nue from customs at this port is comparatiA^'ely large, I beg to call attention to the fact that a large portion of tlie merchandise entered,
appraised, and, weighed at this port is destined for transportation in
bond to other ports in the United States. While this port bears the
expenses of handling such merchandise, the port of final destination is
credited with the duties collected thereon. In the matter of exports,
.' this port is second in the country, and much clerical labor is necessarj^
to prepare the statistical reports for the Bureau of Statistics.
The force at this port has been reduced from time to time during the
six years of hiy incumbency, until it seems difficult, with the present
volume of business, to point out where farther material reductions can
be made without impairing the efficiency of the service. In 1883, (vide
Department's letter of May 5, 1883,) a material reduction was made in
the force of employes, at this port; and again in 1884, (vide Department's letter of January 12, 1884,) a further reduction was made. In
recent years thQ;>expense of collecting the revenue from customs at this
port has averaged about 10 per cent, annually. For twenty years prior
to my administration the cost of collection Avas from 15 to 18 per cent,
annuallj^
•
In letter from this office daled Noveinber 30, 1883, among other reductions I recommended '' that the services of one assistant appraiser at
this port (^A. F. Eiard) could be dispensed with without detriment to
the service." It is proper to add that this is a Presidential appointment. Appraiser Souer, in his report, enclosed hercAvith, suggests that
the services of this assistant appraiser could be dispensed with and ah
examiner appointed in his stead. I concur with the appraiser that the
services of Mr. Eiard can be dispensed with, but, in my opinion, the
appointment of an examiner is not necessary, at least for the present.
A farther reduction in the number of clerks Avould militate against
the prompt transaction of business. In the coUector's--department
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.- ' 199
proper the clerical force has been reduced from time to time to its jiresent
skeleton condition. (See Deputy Collector Crawford's report, enclosed
herewith.) It is believed, however, that a slight reorganization may
be had in Mr. Crawford's department, to the end that the work: in all
the divisions be fully kept up by temporarj^ transfers or assignment ofclerks from one division to another. This is hardl^^ practicable until
the extra Avork entailed b^^ the Exposition business has been dispbsed of.
A small reduction can be made during the dull summer season; in the
force of inspectors and weighers, but it is questionable whether it is
expedient to discharge experienced officers of these grades, whbre the
force of such offi cers Avould haA^e to be increased to the original niimber,
and possibly inexperienced persons taken for that purpose, on the
revival of business in the fall. It is suggested, however, that tfie services of three inspectors, four night-inspectorsj" and two assistant
weighers be dispensed Avith, say, to take effect on the first of July, the
vacancies thus created to be. filled, when necessaiy, in the fall, j
No reference is made above to the large number of temporary bfficers
and laborers on the register of employes at this port, Avhose employment was necessitated by the examination, &c., of fbreign merchandise
at the ^yold's Exposition, and whose terms of service expire :at the
close. '
^ 1
The business at this port is trans"acted strictly in accordance with the
revenue laws and customs regulations, and conforms to the practice at
all the large ports of the country. I have no farther suggestijins to
offer Avhereby the methods may be simplified, or where expenses pan be
curtailed beyond the recommendations before mentioned in this report.
I am of opinion that a further reduction of compensation of employ6s
here' Avould be false economy.
:
Eeports from the appraiser, the special deputy collector, the deputy
collector, and the auditor are enclosed herewith.
:
Yery respectfully,
'
A. S. BADGEE, ,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
i
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
!
No. 80.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W ORLEANS, L A . , j
Collector's. Office, jFprill6, 1885.
SIR : In reply ^ to your inquiry, I beg to state that, in my opinion, the
force now employed in the customs service here cannot be reduced
Avithout detriment to the public interests. . As you are aware, thp number of employes has been reduced frbm time to time until now, at many
of the desks, the clerks are compelled to work OA^ertime in order to
keep up the current business.
;
I have no recommendation to make looking to a change in the present
methods of doing business.
i
Yery respectfuUy,
;
THO. C. ANDEESON, I
.
Special Beputy Gollecfor.
Gen. A. S. BADGER,
Collector of Customs, New Orleans, La.
I
.
200
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 81.
PORT OF N E W ORLEANS, LA.,
Naval Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR :JDepartment circular dated April 1, 1885, relatiA^e to reduction
of force and simplification of the method of doing business, is this day
received.
In reply, I would state that, in my opinion, no farther reduction of
the clerical force of this office, nor of the compensations paid, is practicable without detriment to the public serAdce. 1 am unable to suggest
any^ change in the methods of transacting the business of the office
whereby the expenses may be curtailed and at the same time the
efficiency of the service maintained or improved.
Yery respectfally,
A. J. DUMONT,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 82.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W ORLEANS, LA.,
Surveyor's Office, April 7, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 1st instant, requesting me to report to what extent the
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the
public service, &c.
In my opinion, the present force of my office cannot be reduced without detriment to the public serAdce. It has been from time to time
reduced in numbers, and the compensation also lov^ered, to an extent
hardly equalled at any port, covering the extent of area and transacting
the amount of business done here. This is evidenced by the fact that
for the year 1872 the force of customs inspectors numbered 131, at a
compensation of $3 and $4 per diem; for 1873, 102 inspectors, at $3,
$3.50, and $4; and for 1874, 105 inspectors, at the same rates of compensation, while the present force consists of but 52 inspectors, at
greatly reduced salaries.
The fluctuations of arriA^als at this port slacken business at intervals,
but the lull is counterbalanced by the rush of business which folloAvs,
Not infrequently, I liaA^^e been compeUed to place tallymen, 'outside of
the regular force, on the wharves, and call upon my clerks, who could
be iHj spared from their office duties, to superintend transportatipns
under bond, which branch of the business is very large at this port.
' In the ^estimate of cost for the collection of duties at this port as com,pared. with the amount of cash received for same, it should be remembered, to our adA^antage, that vast quantities of imports in transportation
to other custom-houses under ^immediate," ^^warehouse," and transportation bonds entail a heavy amount of labor at this port, without any
credit for the amount of cash collected on this merchandise at the port
.of final destination.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ! 201
It does not occur to me that any change in the methods of transacting
the business of this office could be made which would improve the efficiency and lessen the expenses entailed.
Yery respectfally,
i
P. B. S. PINCHBACK,
Surveyor vf Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
'
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, B. C.
i
.
No. 83.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEWPORT, E . L ,
Collector's Office, April 21, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Departnient
letter of 1st instant, and submit the following report:
!
The only reductipn that can be made is in the offices of inspectors and boatman. Newport has a long range of unprotected shore, ahd the
harbors in the district are continually Adsited by foreign and domestic
A'-essels, and it seems necessary to maintain the offices of inspectors and
boatman, Avhose duties are in the line of prcA^entive service, unless it is
considered by the Departnient advisable to abolish or reduce the expenses of the same, the expediency of which is a question. It is true
that Newport is a non-paying port, but if it could have the benefit of"
the act of June 10, 1880, ^ immediate transportation of dutiable! merchandise in bond without appraisement," (which could be done by the
designation of an officer as appraiser,) its receipts would be largely increased and its inhabitants greatly accommodated.
The force under my direction, payable from the appropriation ^ ex^
penses of collecting ofthe revenue from customs," and their duties, are
as follows:
''
1
One deputy collector and clerk, salary $1,000 per annum, employed
daily at the custom-house in attending to the routine business pf the,
office, and it is essential for the proper conduct of business that no
change be made.
\
One inspector at Newport, salary $3 per day, say $1,095 per annum.
One occasional inspector at Newport, salary $3 per day wheh employed, say $360 per annum, (only employed in superintending the unlading of A'-essels, or remaining on vessels from foreign ports that arrive
for a harbor.)
'
'
One boatman at Newport, salary $400 per year; in regard to whom
would refer to my letter to the Department dated September 10, i 1884.
One inspector at North Kingstown, salary 80 cents per day, say $292
per year.
!
These officers are employed in the line of preventive duty, and should
be retained unless, in the opinion of the Department, they can be reduced without detriment to the interests of the Government. .
On inspector at Dutch Island Harbor, salary $1.65 per day, say
$602.25 per annum. This harbor is about four miles from Newport, and
is a resort for a large number of foreign as well as domestic vessels as a
shelter from storms, &c., and it is absolutely necessary that a chstom^"
officer should be statipned there.
•
-
^
\ -
.
202
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In addition to the foregoing officers, payable from the appropriation
named,, employed in this district, there are—
One acting assistant surgeon. United States Marine-Hospital Service,
salary'$250 per annum, who is daily employed in attending to all seamen admitted to the hospital, and also in treating such seamen as require
^ ^ out-treatment,'' and it is certainly to the. best interests of the Government that the office be maintained.
;
One janitor, salary $600 per annum, on duty at custom-house dailj^,
^ employed ih keeping building clean and attending to the steam-heating "
apparatus, &c., and it is necessary fbr the proper care of the building
that no change be made.
I haA^e given as concisely as possible a list of offices and the duties,
and can suggest no curtailment without detriment to the service, preferring to leave the matter entirely to the Department with above explanation, all of Avhich I sincerely trust Avill be approved.
Eespectfully,
J. H. COZZENS,
Collector.
Hon.* SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
'
'
Washington, B. C.
No. 84..
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEWPORT N E W S , Y A . ,
Collector's Office, April 6, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
letter of April 1, 1885, requesting me to report to Avhat extent the fbrce
of this office can be reduced without detriment to the public service,
and if the methods of doing business can be simplified, &c.
In reply, I desire to say that, in my opinion, it is not advisable to
reduce the force of employ6s attached to the office, as they are all
requisite for the proper performance of the routine business of this
- office.
As to the method of doing business, I have nothing to suggest thai
would seem to improve the efficiency thereof.
Yery respectfully,
H. D E B . CLAY,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 85.
"
*
203
.
|
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK, \
Collector's Office, May 29, 18^85.
SIR : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st ultimo,
calling upon me to repbrt to what extent, in my opinion, the force em'ployed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the
public service, and whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and Avhether I have any recommendation to make, whereby the
efficiency ofthe seiwice maybe improved andthe expenses curtailed.
I herewith submit reports from the heads of the several divisiPns of
the collector's department, and one from the surveyor, from Avhich it
Avill be seen that, in the opinion of these officers, no reduction can be
made at this time Avithout detriment to the service. These reports are
based upon the present condition of the fbrce, making due allowance
fbr such temporary absences on account of sickness as are reported
monthly to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury.
!
I submit a list of sixty-nine vacancies now existing in this office,' most
of Avhich liaAre occurred at intervals ^during my term.
i
The salaries of these positions aggregate nearly $90,000 annualljrj and
the list represents the reduction of fbrce which I have been able to make.
Any further reduction at this time would, in my opinion, be injudicious.
" The expense of collecting the revenue at this port has been during 'my
term at a lower rate than fbr any previous four years, and for the first
fiscal year of that term about one-quarter of 1 per cent, less than for
any previous year. The simplest methods of business consistent with
the safety of the revenue have been adopted from time to time as| they
have suggested themselves, and I have, therefore, no recommendation
to make at present in that respect.
1 am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,'
W. H. EOBEETSON,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
.
.
Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury.
. '
No. 86.
'
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, April 11, 1885. SIR : In compliance with your request of April 8, to report in writing to what extent, in my-opinion, the force employed under m j direction can be reduced without detriment to the public serAdce, I A^^^onld
respectfally state that I see no way in which the fbrce under my direction can be reduced. In fact, the labor force could be increased to great
advantage by the appointment of four women to do scrubbing. But if
the system of heating and lighting the building should be changed to
steam and electricity, four firemen and one engineer could be dispensed
with. Whether that would be a reduction of expense or not I am. unable to say without further facts as to proposed changes.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
\
GEOEGE HILLIEE,
Superintendent.
Hpn. W. H. EOBERTSON,
CollectorJ &c.
^
^
|
204
REPORT- OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY^
No. 87.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK,
U N I T E D STATES PUBLIC STORES,
402 Washington Street, May 18, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to your letter of the 8th ultimo, wherein you direcfi
, me to ^ report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force em^
ployed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the
public service," ^^whether the methods of doing business can.be
simplified," &c., I would respectfully state that the following constitute the present force in this division:
Salary.
One cliief clerk
One clerk and cigar inspector
One correspondence clerk
Four clerks
'.
Eight clerks...^
Sixteen clerks
One clerk
Two carpenters...
Nine messengers
Three messengers..
One scrubber
Thirty watchmen
One watchman..*
One engineer
One assistant engineer
Seven foremen....,
r
Two searchers
'
Six book-keepers
' Seven elevator-men
:...^
Eighty-two laborers
\
".
.»
-.
\
1
.'
:
$2,500 00 per annum2, 000 00 per annum1, 800 00 per annum.
1, 600 00 per annum.
1, 400 00 per annum.
1, 200 00 per annum.
1, 000 00 per annum.
3 00 per diem.
840 00 per annum.
720 00 per annum.
45 00 per month.
3 00 per diem.
2 75 per diem.
1, 200 00 per annum.
3 00 per diem.
2 50 per diem.
2 50 per diem.
2 50 per diem.
2 50 per diem.
2 00 per diem.
Since March 1 there has been a reduction of two clerks, by resignation, at salaries of $1,200 and $1,400, respectively, and I am informed
that another intends to send in his resignation, to take effect on June 1
proximo. Another vacancy occurred on May 1 by the death of Lewis
McLoughlin, watchman.
As the business of the stores is comparatively light at this time, I
would recommend that the four vacancies thus made remain unfilled,
thus making a reduction of four in the division.
i think of no changes that could be adopted at this time that would
materially add to the efficiencj^ of the serAdce, as I have already, from
time to time, made such changes as, in my judgment, might contribute
to that end.
As you are perhaps aware, the present classification and organization
of the force in this diAdsion was arranged and perfected some fbur years
ago, by a commission appointed by the then Secretary of the Treasury,
and of which Mr. E. O. Graves was the chairman. Yery few changes
have since occurred.
*
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. A. JONES,
Beputy CoUector. ^
Hon. W. H. EOBERTSON,
,
CoUector of the Fort.
'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
| 205
I
No. 88.
\
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK. |
Collector's Office, AprU 14, 1885.
SIR.: In compliance with direction in your letter of the 8th instant,
that report be made as to what extent the fbrce emploj^ed in this (seventh)
division can be reduced AAdthont detriment to the public service, and
whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and to make
suggestions whereby the efficiency of the serAdce may be improved and
the expenses curtailed, I beg to say:
*
!
, First. That in my judgment the.force now employed in the diyision
is inadequate to perform the service required by the laws and regulations?
'
"
Second. I can hardly see how the methods of doing the busihess of
the diAdsion can be made more simple than now, having in view the
safety of the revenue. '
Third. In my opinion, in order to enable the division to perforin the
services required of it, the expenditure should be increased rather than
diminished.
I am, very respectfully,
'.
GEO. W. PALMEE, |
Beputy CoUector, Seventh Bivision.
Hon. W M . H . EOBERTSON,
Collector,
No. 89.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK, I
Collector's Office, AprU 11, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your communication of 8th instant, requiring me
to report in writing ^ ^ to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public
service; whether the methods of doing business can be simplified,; and,
in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur
to me whereby the efficiency of the serAdce may be improved and the
expenses curtailed," I desire respectfully to submit the following statement:
I
The present force of this division consists of twenty-five employes,
including one messenger. While the business of the division during
the last few years has materially increased, the force composing it remains
about the same numerically as when I first took charge of it, in 1873,
and is no greater at the present time, in my opinion, than is absolutely
required to discharge properly the duties of the various desks. The
amount of work to be performed in the division depends on the number
of invoices receiA^ed: The total number received during the. last three
years exceeds that of the preceding three years a little over 19' per^bent.,
and the total number of the last five years exceeds that of the precedingfiA^^eh j 51 per cent. The triplicate invoices received from the yari, OUS consuls haA^e, of course, proportionately advanced in number. : Certain changes in the records kept of the latter, chiefly growing out of the
requirements of the Fifth Auditor's Office, have also added largely to
the duties of the diAdsion.'
.
;
206
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In relation to the methods of transacting the business of the division,
such changes have beeh made in that respect, from time to time, as were
founds expedient, and the present system is, I. consider, as near perfect
as can well be arranged.
I have no important suggestions or recommendations to make.
Yery respectfully,
/
.
B. F. WYMAN,, .
Beputy Collector, in charge of Sixth Bivision.
Hon.
W M . H . EOBERTSON,
Collector.
No. 90.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, April 15, 1885.
SIR : In accordance with your instructions of the 8th instant, I have
the honor to report that the force of entry clerks employed in this division consists bf one chief entry clerk and thirteen entry clerks. This
number has been reduced since the 1st instant—^by resignation, one; by
death, one—leaving the actual working force in the rotunda at eight
entry clerks, three entry clerks being on special duty, viz., ..one at
free-permit and appraiser's desk, and IAVO on steamer duty.
This force is sufficient for the present state of business here, and I
therefore recommend that these two vacancies remain open.
The bond and minor clerks and messengers are not in excess of the
demands of the division, and I have no changes to-suggest in regard to
them.
'
The report of the chief of the liquidating bureau is enclosed and approved by me.
•
;
Yery respectfally,
N. B. BAETEAM,
Beputy Gollector, Fifth Bivision.
Hon.
W M . H . EOBERTSON,
-CoUector, &c.
No. 91.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, March 11, 1885.
_ SIR : In compliance with your instructions of the 10_th instant, as indorsed upon letter from the collector dated the 8th instant, .and addressed to you, I haA^e the honor to report that the number of clerks
and messengers assigned to the liquidating bureau is not in excess o f
its requirements for a prompt and efficient discharge of the public business; that no simplification in the ^'methods" of doing business suggests itself except the following, viz :
That warehouse entries and invoices, which at present are separatelyfiled ill the auditor's department, the sixth division, and record-room,
be filed together for a period of one year, or until the closing of the
|}pnclj eitlier in the fiuditor's department or the thir(l division,
• I
REPORt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. \ 207
If the plan suggested is adopted, it would facilitate the busiiiess.of
this bureau in checking the correct dutiable value of wi tlidrawals for
export, which, in many instances, necessitates the use of the original
warehouse entry and invoice.
' ,
' "Yours, respectfully,
'
H . ' E . ESTEEBEOOK, i
, Col. N. B. BARTRAM,
Chief Liquidating Clerk.
Beputy Collector, Fifth Bivision.
'
\
No. 92.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, AprU 13, 1^85.
SIR : I have received your requisition of the 8th instant, based upon
letter of the Secretary of the Treasury. .
•
'
;
The fourth division is small and compact, and I am unable to recommend any reduction. I have never favored the addition of superhameraries. It was cut down some years ago, and there has been no addition to its clerical force since, although, in my judgment, an additional
clerk has been needed. The methods of business seem to me tos be as
simple as is consistent with orderly and accurate dispatch of business.,
and the salaries are below rather than above appropriate rates. ' ^
Yery respectfally,
\
EICHAED WYNKOOP, \
Beputy Collector, Fourth Bivision.
Hon. W M . H . EOBERTSON,.
|
Collector, Bistrict of the City of New Yorlc.
i
No. 93.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,.:
Third Bivision, AprU 22, 1885. .
S I R : I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, requesting a
•report as to what extent the force of this division can be reduced without detriment to the service, and whether the methods of transacting
the business can be simplified.
' v .
:
I have carefully considered the subject, and am fully cohyinced
that the numerical force employed in this division cannot be reduced
without detriment to the service; but I am prepared to recommend
scA^eral changes in the personnel of the fbrce which would greatly enhance its efficiency. The bulk pf the business in this division is the
current work of the day, and for its prompt and intelligent performance
the clerks employed should be punctual, and be interested in their work.
With few exceptions, such is the condition of things in this division.
The work has been simplified as far as possible in past years, and no
new changes suggest themselves at present.
|
•
I am, very respecfally,
'
F. H. WIGHT, I
Beputy Collector, and ex-officio Storekeeper of the I*f)rt.
Hon. WILLIAM H.
EOBERTSON,
OolleetQr of the Fort,
208
. RBPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No.- 94..
• '.
•
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
•^
'
Second Bivision, April 17, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, I would say that, in my
judgment, the force now«eniployed in this division cannot be reduced
without detriment to the interests ofthe Governinent, or without incoiiA^enience to the importers. It is true that on days when business is
dull, and during the early morning hours, all the clerks may not be
actively employed. But on busy days, and during the closing hoars of
every day, there is abundant Avork fbr all, and the effect of a reduction
Avould be to detain importers, to delaj^ our deposit at the sub-treasury,
and to increase the liability of errors.
' "
The method of doing business in this office is the result of many years'
study and experience on the partof my predecessor, and I have notliiug
to suggest by way of improving or modifying it. I believe it to be Avell
adapted to the purposes to be accomplished, and as simple as is consistent with safety to the vast interests involved.
Yery respectfully,
JOSEPH BAEEETT,
Hon. W. H. EOBERTSON,
Cashier.
'Collector, &c.
No. 95.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
Fi7^st Bivision, Auditor's Bepartment, April 13, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your communication of the 8th instant, I haA^e the
honor to state that in conducting the affairs of this diAdsion, the business of which, in addition to the disbursement of moneys, includes the
verifying, condensing, and correct rendering of all the accounts of yonr
office, it has ahvays been my endeavor to take advantage of every suggestion, from whatever source, tending to simplify and expedite the
routine of business, so that changes having been made from time to
time as occasion arose, at present I can think of no improvement to
recommend.
In a modern building, with all the clerks of this division located in
convenient proximity tb each other, the work could be more advantageously distributed and the force doubtless be reduced. At present
the clerks are scattered all over the building, occupying ten different
rooms on four separate floors, so that, notAvithstanding the most careful
supervisipn, the business of the division is conducted under great disadvantages, and I do not think any reduction could be made without
detriment to the public service.
Yery respectfully,
CHAELES TEEICHEL,
Auditor.
Hon.
WILLIAM H .
EOBERTSON,
Collector of the Fort.
It is proper to add that the above was written on the understanding,
that the vacancies caused by the death of Mr. Horton and the promotion of Mr. Morrison are not to be filled.
C. TEEICHEL,
Auditor,
201)
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 96.
I
•
• •
.j
'
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK CITY, j
Surveyor's Office, May 16, 1885.
S I R : Your letter dated April 8, 1885, referring to a letter from the
honorable Secretary of the Treasury, dated April 1,1885, requesting from
you a report in writing as to what extent, in your, opinion, thej force
employed under your direction can be reduced, and requesting me to
make a similar report to you ^^so far as it relates to officers, althbugh
appointed by the collector, are under your [my] supervision and direction," was duly received.
I
Sectioii 2627 of the Eevised Statutes provides ^^that it shall be the
duty of the surveyor, Avho shall in all cases be subject to the direction
ofthe collector, first, to superintend and direct aU inspectors, weighers,
measurers, and gaugers within his port," and as to the said officers I
have to report as follows:
i
Weighers.—The number of weighers is 4; assistant weighers authorized, (Department letter of February 19, 1885,) 84; the number now
employed, 66; v^acancies, 18; foreman of assistant weighers, 4; andlthere
are employed, as occasion requires, a valuable number of sworn temporary assistant weighers and laborers, at a fixed compensation per! hour
when employed.
.
I
.The following statement shows the quantity, in tons, of weigliablo
merchandise returned by the weighers, and the expenses of weighing,
in the years stated, viz :
^ I
Expenses.
Year ending J u n e 30—
Number of tons AVeighers, assistreturned b y
ant weighers,
weighers.
temporary assistants, a n d
repairs.
Tons.
2,085,224
2,056,000
1883
3884
For labor.
Total. .
Cost pes
ton.
bents.
' 14
14 8-iO
1
f Labor at 30 cents per hour, (Department letter
.
j .
$160,721 43 *$131,225 29
150,751.60 1154,574 10
* Labor at 26 cents per hour, when employed,
to collector, dated May 9,1883.)
$291,946 72
305,325 10
Gangers.—The number of gaugers is 3 ; assistant gaugers, 12; labbrerts,
44. The following statement shows the quantity, in gallons, of gaugeablv
merchandise returned by the gaugers, and the expenses of gauging, in
the years stated, viz:
I
1
Exports.
Calendar year—
1883
1884
Imports.
Gallons.
17,060,981^
14,868,058
From warehouse.
Spirits.
. Gallons.
2,643,914
4,480,4283^
Gallons.
2,760,838
6,989,484
Expenses.
Transportation to other Gaugers, asports.
sistants, and Forjlabof.
repairs.
Gallons.
96,200>^
29,667
•121,077 06
19,719 56
$28,307 50
37,475 50
The number of stamps affixed (on the whaiwes or in warehouses) to
packages of imported distilled spirits, wines, and malt-liquors | was,
appoximately, 129,000. (Section 11, act of March 1,1879, and Synopsis,
3939.)
i
14 A
!
210
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Lispectors.^—The number of inspectors authorized (Department letter
of February 19, 1885) is 320; number at present employed, 313; A^acancies, 7. The daily average number employed in the year 1884 was 319,
Avho were assigned to various duties, viz :
A. As discharging officers of vessels with geueral cargo
B . To the debenture-room
C. Staff officers, acting deputy collectors
T>. As boarding officers
'.
E. To the gaugers
.,
F : AS officers of the night-Avatch
Gr. To CastleGarden
H. As district officers
I. To other departments
J. On special duty searching vessels
K. On other temporary special duties..
L. There were sick and disabled
M. Absent with leave
154
32.
^ 10
•3
3
3
8
84
4
3
4
4
7
The whole number of A-essels that arrived from fbreign ports in 1884
was 6,035, of which 2,137 were steamships, and 3,898 Avere sailing-vessels.
Ofthe steamships, 1,^813, and ofthe sailing-vessels, 937 Avere discharged
under the supervision of inspectors (A) specially assigned (in rotation)
thereto. [Eegulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952,) articles 42-236, inclusive. ]
The discharging inspectors were also detailed, Avhen •* Avaiting for
assignment" to A-essels, to examine the baggage of 69,100 cabin-passengers arriving in steamships. The entries of cabin-passengers' baggage
are made under the direction of the staff inspectors designated by the
collector as acting deputy collectors, (C.) Baggage entries are usually
made on the vessels arriving before the passengers land therefrom.
The inspectors assigned to the debenture-room (B) examined and
supervised the transfer of merchandise fbr which 59,352 entries had been
made and recorded in the debenture-room. [Eegullitions of 1883, (Cat.
No. 952,) articles 293-301, inclusive, and articles 435-545, inclusive.]
Exports from warehouse, &c
15, 719
Exports from warehouse, (drawbacks)
255
Exports from manufactory warehouse, class 6
2, 571
Exports for internal-revenue drawbaclc
5, 327
Exports for tariff drawback
16, 832
Transportation to other ports, immediate transportation and from warehouse... 18, 648
The boarding officers (D) [Eegulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952) articles 24-21, inclusive] examined and certified the manifests and copies
of 4,647 vessels, Avhich were boarded by them from the rcA^enue steamers,
and of 1,388 vessels whose manifests and copies were delivered by the
masters of the vessels to them at the barge office.
The inspectors assigned to the gaugers to supervise the shipment of
domestic distilled spirits entered for export (E) [Customs Eegulations
of 1884, articles 797-801, inclusive] certified to the lading under their
supervision of 161,639 barrels and other packages.
The inspectors designated to be officers of the night-Avatch (F) [Department's letter to collector, dated March 2,1875] perfbrmed the dutie<s
required of them as set forth in articles 406, 407, and 408 of the Eegulations of 1883, (Cat. No. 952.)
The inspectors assigned to duty at Castle Garden (G) examined upon
the wharves where it was landed the baggage and effects of 320,,807
steerage passengers.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. I 211
The port of NewYork is divided in fifty-two inspectors' districts, and .
they include all the wharves, piers, and bulkheads on the North and
East rivers, NewYork; also, of Brooklyn, including Williamsburg, Green
Point, and Long Island City; alsb^ of Jersey City, Hoboken, WeehaAvken, and Bayonne, in the State of New Jersey ; also, of Staten Island,
all being within the collection ^^district of the city of NCAV York."
[Eevised Statutes, section 2535, s6C07id]
°
i
The inspectors assigned to duty as district officers (H) [Custonis Eegulations, 1883, (Cat. No. 952,) articles 250-292, inclusive] supervised
the discharge of cargo from 324 steamships and 2,961 sailing-vessels;
and they also supervised and certified to the shipment of merchandise
described in 54,389 entries delivered to them for that purpose by debenture officers, Adz: Exports for drawback, 21,009; immediate transportation and transportation in bond to otlier ports, 18,322; exports
from bonded warehouse, 15,058. The number of raUroad-cars (of bonded
carriers) Avith dutiable merchandise laden and unladen under their
supervision was 12,866.
Four inspectors (I) were assigned to other departments by direction of the collector, three (J) wbre detailed to search sailing-vessels
and Havana steamships for concealed merchandise not on the manifest,
and four (K) were employed in various temporary special 'duties for
the prevention and detection of frauds upon the revenue, and for other
special duties in ^^aid ofthe revenue."
;
The inspectors reported ^^sick and disabled" (L) produced satisfactory evidence of their disabilities, and those ^'absent" (M) were granted
leave under the regulations in force prior to Department order dated
March 18, 1885.
:
Night-inspectors.—The whole number authorized is 121, (Department
letter dated February 19, 1885,) and the number of vacancies (report to
collector dated May 11,1885) is six.
i :
The duties of night-inspectors and their manner of assignment to
steamships and other vessels and to wharves, are set forth in Customs
Eegulations of 1884, article 1434, and Eegulations of 1883, (Cat. No.
952,) articles 409 and 410.
;
Coast-inspectors.—The number is four, who reside on the south coast
of Long Island. Their duties are stated in Customs Eegulations', 1884,
article 1427. The compensation of each is $3 per diem when employed, '
but the aggregate compensation of the four is not to exceed $730 per
annum. (Department letter to collector, dated August 20, 1879.!)
Female inspectors, (E. S., sec. 3064.)—The number employed is nine;
who are required to be in attendance at the barge office and; at the
wharves in New Jersey when vessels arrive with, cabin and steerage
passengers, for the purpose of detecting frauds and of searchiiig the
persons of their OAVU sex when necessary. They also attend ati Castle
Garden to. perform the same duties when the steerage passengbrs are
brought thereto from vessels. The number of female inspectors detailed
fbr each A^essel arriving is directed by the deputy surveyor according to
the necessities of the serAdce.
^
,
•
I
The measurer.—The duties of this office are set forth in Ciistoms
Eegulations, 1884, articles 1484 and 1485, and all marble imported is
measured and returned by him.
;
I have stated the number employed, and, in a general way, the services required of, and performed by, the officers of the customs I in the
surveyor's department. All the officers, except those temporarily sick
212
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
or disabled or absent with leave, have been actually employed; and the
method of rotation and assignment of officers is such that their services
have been and are utilized to the best advantage of the public business
and in the manner that experience and observation has from time to
time suggested.
•
. It is m}^ opinion that the number of officers employed has not been,
and is not now, greater than was and is necessary for the due and prope.r
performance of the public service, as required by the laAvs and regulations.
I am not yet prepared to make any suggestions or recommendations
as to Avhether the methods of doing business can be simplified or-Avhereby
-the efficiency of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed.
I Avill give the subject my consideration, and AAdll report thereon as soon
as practicable.
Very respectfally, 3^our obedient servant,
\
JAMES L. BENEDICT,
Surveyor.
Hon. W M . H . EOBERTSON, Collector.
No. 97.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEAV YORK,
Surveyor's Office, AprU 8, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to the Department letter dated April 1,1885, requesting me.to report in writing to w^hat extent, in my opinion, the force
employed in this office can be reduced, &c., I haA^e to state:
When I entered upon my duties as suiveyor, on the 15th day of
March, 1883, the force employed in this office was as follows:
One deputy surveyor
Twenty clerks, (aggregate)....Eight messengers, (aggregate)
"
Ten inspectors for measurement of vessels, (aggregate)
•
•
Total
$2, 500
34, 300
5, 680
14, 600
57,080
Since the date named the force has been reduced by death, resignanations, and transfers, and now stands as follows:
One deputy surveyor
Seventeen clerks, (aggregate)
Eight messengers,. (aggregate)
•.
'Seven inspectors for measurement of vessels, (aggregate)
Total
:
:
$2, 500
^29,100
5, 780
10, 220
48,100
In my opinion, the force cannot be farther reduced without detriment
to the public seiwice.
The collector, in a letter of this date, has called upon me to make
report in relation to the customs fbrce under my superintendence and
direction, (EcAdsed Statutes, section 2627;) and so much of theDepartment letter afbresaid as refers to the methods of business, and calls for
suggestions and recommendations relative thereto, will be made in my
report to the collector.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
JAMES L. BENEDICT,
Hon. DANIEL MAISTNING,
Secretary of. the Treasury.
Surveyor.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
213
i
No. 98.
PORT OF N E W YORK,
•
I
|
Naval Office, April 14, 1885.
SIR : In conformity Avith the directions contained in your circular of
the 1st instant, I have the honor to submit the following report, i As a clear comprehension of tbe legal status of this office is essential
to a proper estiniate of the force required in its administration,^ I' will
first briefly describe its functions.
'
\
The receipts from customs at this port during the last fiscal year Avere
over $138,000,000, and during the preceding fiscal year over $15i, 000,000.
This vast sum Avas paid directly into the hands (.f the collector of the
port, and disbursed solely by him. In addition to his liability for nioneys
actually receiA^ed, the collector is required to secure the paj^nient of
all imposts due the Government," and to enforce at this port ail laAvs
and regulations relating to customs. The thoroughness of this work
largely depends upon his efficiency, intelligence, and fidelity. I It is
not possible to provide in advance any standard by which his accountability may be measured, because the latter depends upon conditions of
business which cannot be predicted. For the security of the Government it therefore becomes imperatively necessary to ,maintain at this
point a co-ordinate officer, who shall act concurrentl37^ Avith the cbllector
and report all transactions from complete and independent records. In
order that this officer may secure vigilant cognizance of the collector's
proceedings, th6 statutes have Avisely provided that all papers involving
the leA^ying of imposts or the deliA'-ery of imported merchandise shall
be valid only when countersigned b y t h e naA^-al officer, and thatj there
shall be in the naval-office divisions corresponding to those in tlie collector's office which have supervisioii over such matters. Iii| these
diAdsions, although the initial point of each transaction is the same in
both offices, distinct methods of treatment are pursued, and accuracj^
is indicated by agreement in final results. To this end it becomes essential that the work of the collector should be rcAdewed, revised if necessary, recorded, and certified in the naval office. Thus duplicate manifests
of cargo and duplicate inspectors' returns are filed in the naval office,
and. furnish the means of tracing the disposition of CA^eiy article arriA^ing from a foreign port. Duplicate A^ouchers are filed at CA^ery step in
the entry and Avithdrawal of merchandise, and enable the naval officer
to exact and record the correct imposts. The assistant treasurei- furnishes daily certificates of deposits credited to the collector, a4d all
vouchers fbr his disbursements must, before payment, be audited hy the
naA^al officer. It is thus made practicable, at any time, for the naval officer to declare the collector's liability without recourse to the colleetor's
accounts.
•
The utility of a coincident rcAdsion of official papers is demonstrated
by the enormous aggregate of corrections thereby effected, some account
of which I will include in this report. It is an axiom among customs
officers that an^^ error in the initiatory steps of a transaction reciuires
the serAdces of ten men to adjust it. It is certain that no subsequent
examination and audit could approach in probability of accuracy, economy, and sufficiency of record the concurrent action of this office as
provided by statute.
i
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, the naval office emplo3^ed
an average of ninety-one clerks ahd messengers, at an expense for sal
214
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. -
aries (including the naval officer's compensation) of $160,138.29, being
less than twelve-hundredths of 1 per cent, of the receipts at this port.
I have carefully investigated the conditions, with a Adew to the curtailment of expenses, but I am forced to the conclusion that no reduction is possible, except at the risk of detriment to the Government. In
fact, the present force is inadequate to the demands upon it, and it is
only by working over-hours and by arranging the clerks in a mobile
organization, transferring them from point to point as the exigencies of
current business require, that this office is enabled to avoid accumula. tions. In justice to my subordinates, I must be allowed to testify to
their unusual capacity, zeal, and intelligence. I can produce abundant
testimony from persons haAdng business Avith them, from special agents
of the Treasury, and other officers of the Government, as to the promptness and accuracy which characterize their work, and the methodical
and accessible conditions of the naval-office records.
The seven clerks comprising the entry division of this office practically perform the same amount of labor as is done by the fifteen entry
'clerks in the coUector's office. That theu^ revision of entries is not
superfiuous is illustrated by the fact that during the last fiscal year
they returned 18,072 errors for correction, of Avhich 10,696 Avere money
errors, involving an aggregate of $3,589,237.51.
The liquidating division exhibits a record, during the same period,^
of 16,579 corrections enforced, with a duty A-alue of $1,003,739.39.
Proportionate results might be quoted in the remaining divisions of
this office.
It should he noted, in this connection, that in 1881 an additional
bureau, requiring six clerks, was established in this office, at the special
request of the Commissioner of Customs, for the purpose of securing a
verified monthly abstract of the warehouse-bond account, an account
Avhich formerly carried along a balance unaccounted for of $1,668,000,
but Avhich, under the system thus inaugurated, now produces the exact
balance on every open bond at the beginning of each month. •
Consideration should also be giyen to the enormous and progressive
increase of work in certaiii branches of the'service. The number and
amount of drawback certificates has doubled since 1881, and, under
constant changes of legislation, bids fair to expand in the same ratio.
The transportation of goods through this port without payment of
duty entails a A^ast amount of labor upon the customs officers without,
adding one dollar to the receipts of money, and is increasing year by
year.
Desirous as I am of administering this office with the utmost practicable economy, I am obliged to report that I am unable to suggest any
reduction of its present cost which would not interfere Avith its efficiency
and value.
Yery respectfally,
CHAELES K. GEAHAM,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 99.
.215
I
O F F I C E OF U. S. GENERAL APPRAISER,
Corner of Washington and Hubert Streets^
- .
^
New York, ApHl 16, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
letter dated April 1, 1885, requesting me to report—
'
1st. To what extent the force employed under my direction can be
reduced without detriment to the public service.
'
2d. "V^Hiether the method of doing business can be simplified;, and,
in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improA^ed and
the expenses curtailed.
.
'
'
\\
I have given the subject considerable thought during my two-yeais'
incumbency of this office, and especially since the receipt of ybur request.
I
As to the first inquiry, I answer in the affirmative, but beg permission, to make the reasons and details for any proposed change the subject of a communicatioii to be soon^made, and the making of which I
haA^e fbr some time contemplated. The exigencies of the service in my
office are such that the eight clerks (one of whom is^clerk to the board
of general appraisers and one a professional stenographer) and the one
opener and packer and the one messenger attached to it are at tim^s fully
and necessarily employed, but I believe, with a rearrangement and; redistribution of duties, I can lessen the number and also the expense, and
will, as before suggested, hereafter place before the Department my
plans to that end.
.
^
As to the second inquiry, whether methods of doing business ban be
simplified, it opens a field for examination which iiiA^olves statute law
and Departmental regulations having all the force of statute laAv, and
also the wide range of discretion which is necessarily and inevitably
given to the incumbent of the office of general appraiser, especially needful to be exercised at the port of New York. While I shall cheerfally
respond to any inquiry of the Department, for the present I presume
it isnot desired that I shall attempt to give more than a few suggestions,
and those pertaining to the raore prominent and most frequent subjects
for improvement.
I
The revision of the tariff law by the act of March 3, 1883, which was
just atthe time I became general appraiser at this port, introduced upon
reappraisements (as Avell as upon appraisements) two new elements for
investigation—one, cost of production of nierchandise, the other the question of charges for transportation, packing, &c., as being elements of
dutiable or non-dutiable value. As to the first of them, there is up to
this time no Departmental regulation as to its ascertainment. It seems
to be by the language of the statute subordinate or secondary to the inquiry. What is market A-alue"? and is to be entered upon only in case
the latter cannot be ascertained.
' I
The second—that is, charges for packages, Avrappers, coverings, transportation, &c.—has been the subject of frequent decisions of the Depart- •
ment, and which greatly aid the appraisers in the discharge of their
duties., Nevertheless, in the variety of transactions, in the ingenuity
of shippers, receivers, and importers of merchandise, and the shifts and
changes constantly going forward to lessen the sum to be paid for duties, scarcely a day passes that some new and complicated case under
216
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
this head does not arise before me, (and many more must arise before
the local appraiser.) I do not tliink it is possible to do exact justice
under existing regulations.
The chief subjects for inquiry upoh appeals to me for the reappraisement are—
1. What is the true and actual market value of the merchandise at
the place and date of exportation'? Tf that cannot be ascertained, then—
2. What was the cost of production of such merchandise'?
3. What charges, if any, stated on fhe iuA'^oice A\ hich it is sought to
' have deducted as non-dutiable ought under the laws and the regulations to be adjudged dutiable'? .
^ As a A^ery large majority of the cases comiiig up for reappraisement
arc of silk and silk and cotton fabrics, in writing of methods and making recommendations I shall have in mind more particularly expeliences and,observations with that class of goods, although all goods dutiable ad A^alorem will come within the scope of my remarks.'
I can almost say there are no importers of silk and silk and cotton
fabrics. A fcAv honestly buy in the foreign market, but only a few,
^ and they hot through the whole range of such fabrics, for the reason
that they do not buy them except through agents in this country.
There are consignors and receivers of them, but where the property in
them is lodged is a problem that may be found out, but its difficulties
are very great and are ncAv at every turn.
The competition between receiA^ers of goods here fbr the agencies of.
vaiious foreign manufacturers is very great in many instances. One of
the most powerful nieans to determine who shall be the successful competitor is ^^the cheapness Avith which the goods can be got through the
custom-house." These riA^alries haA^e a tendency very rarely to benefit
the effbrt to administer the law correctly, but in the main and in the
end it is the reverse. The usual condition is a mutual regard for* each
other's interest, to the detriment of the Government's. The foreign
manufacturer will iuA^oice his goods as low as he can, his consignee will
quite likely (almost always does) enter them at an advance and to a figure Avhich he hopes the local appraiser will not exceed by so much as
10 per cent., (the penalty line.) If he does, there is certaiii to be an
appeal..
It is next to impossible to get those as experts who are not in a situation similar to the appellant. The result is evidence, under oath, reducing the adA-anced A'^alues at least below the penalty line, and as much
lower as it is possible for ^ n j one to give rein to the purpose of going
lower. These experts are selected, and necessarily selected, from among
the receiA^ers of the goods, because there are so few or no buj^ers of tl; em,
and in many cases there is aiCtuaUy no conclusive testimony as to market
value. If driven to seek for cost of production, the situation is usually
Averse.' There is no element in the production of these silk goods which
cannot be with reasonable certainty ascertained here, except that of
labor, machine and hand. But there is no method provided for analyzing fabrics, save only to invoke the aid of domestic manufacturers. This has been done; but as there is no law to compel them to do the
work for nothing, and no means to pay them for it except so far as it
may serve their OAVU interests, such successfal efforts as have been made
in that direction are few in number, and are limited to the lines of goods
which they make, and which are vastly fewer in number than the whole
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, i 217
r<inge of importations. I am having in mind somewhat extreme cases
ofthe worser sort; but the clear ones are-rare, the doubtfultoo numerous, and the dark abundant.
i
There have been recently brought tb my attention, as to alleged oost of
production, reports made by Government experts in the foreign places
of manufacti^ire of these goods—Lyons, Zurich, and Crefeld, more especially—which pui'port to give details of their elements and the cost~of
putting them together. In the absence of any instructions by the Department as to what weight 1 should giA^e to such reports, I weigh them
as I weigh all other evidence and infbrmation touching these matters,
to wit, by those salutary rules learned by long experience, obserAration,
and reading in a profession which makes evidence of facts one of its
chief studies. Guided by such rules, l h a v e not found those reports
altogether satisfactory, though they have been in some instances of considerable value. Their A^^alue might doubtless be considerably increased
by an enlargement of the scope of inquiiy on the part of the Government agents making them, and more minute instructions as to their
duties and powers, and a clear direction as to the value to be placed on
their returns. Under the present system of reappraisements, always
Avhen demanded, for the sole purpose of lessening dutiable value, this
anomaly is presented : The appeal is from an adA^ance or a disalloA^^ance,
inaking an advance on dutiable A-alue. The advance or disallo^vance
has been made by a sworn and presumably competent public officer.
Nevertheless, the Government calls experts to sustain its own permanent
and previously selected officers, who, from their very position, haye the
best opportunities for observation, comparison, and correct determination. I have already given hints enough of the too fi^equent results.
I will not presume to declare that any recommendation I at this time
make can be made practical except by action of Congress. NcA^ertheless, I recommend that the burden of showing market value uponi reappraisement be shifted from the Government to the importer. That the
manufacturer, shipper, consignor, or other person sending forward to
this countrj^ mercliandise dutiable ad valorem shall in his consular invoice state upon oath the price at which he has made an actual sale or
sales of such as the invoice designates, (or the fact that he has maide no
sale of them at any time,) and the price at which he, without restriction,
offers them for sale and is willing to sell them. That the iniporter or
receiver or consignee of the goods shall on entry of them make oath as^to
his true relation to them as agent, owner, consignee, or what other name.
That a general rule should be made fbr Government officers, oh the
disclosure of falsehoods in any such statements, to direct seizure pf the
goods ahd such prosecutions as the law authorizes. That the impbrter, *
consignee, agent, or other person who enters the goods shall be personally responsible for the correctness of the statements on the face of
the invoice, except so far as they are modified by his own statements at
the time of entry.
;
Yours, very respectfully,
.
'
A. J. PEEEY,
General Appraiser.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
;
218
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 100.
CusTOM-HousE, NORFOLK, Y A . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 14, 1885.
^ SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 1st instant, asking for a report of the extent to which the
force employed may be reduced without detriment to the public service.
I beg to state that during the summer months veiry little business
is done at this port, and the service of some of the employes—say two,
the assistant marine clerk and one inspector—may be dispensed Avith;
but I question the propriety of dispensing with the services of trained
employes when it may be necessary to re-emploj^ thematthe beginning
of the season, or, more probably, supplj^ their places with new and in'experienced men. Then, too, there has just been started here an enterprise by the Norfolk and Western Eailroad Company, Avhose agents
are now making arrangements for an immense coaling-station at Laniibert's Point, about three miles beloAV the city. The probabilities are
that this point Avill be visited by numbers of foreign A-essels, and the
protection of the rcA^enue would require the stationing of an officer
there almost continuously. In Adew of this fact, I Avould recomniend
that, for the present, no decrease be made in the force.
I shall have pleasure in seconding the efibrts of the Department at
:a curtailment of expense, and will recommend a reduction whencA^er,
in-my opinion, it can be properly done, as I did in the case of the Suffolk inspector, on the 1st instant.
Yery respectfully,
G. E. BOWDEN,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 101.
CusTOM-HousE, OMAHA, NEBR.,
Surveyor's Office, April 18, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring further to your circular letter dated April 1, 1885,
relative to areduction, if possible, of the force employed under me,
to which I responded by letter under date of the 10th instant, I desii?e
now to state that since then I have been able to giA^e to the subject-matter of your communication more careful study and consideration, and,
as a i-esult, liaA^e reached the conclusion that if the business of this
port does not increase over Avhat it is at the present time, I shall be able
to' dispense with the services of my regular deputy, provided I can
swear in the watchman of this building as a deputy, with whose assistance I shall, as I believe, be able to perform the work. He (the
watchman)' is on duty from 8 A. M. until 11 P. M.—that is to say, he is
in the building during that time; but it is from 5 p. M. until 11 P. M.,
Avheii he closes and lo'cks the building for the night, that his serAdces
are more especially required, as it is then that the roughs and hoodlums of the city attempt to congregate in the lobbies and corridors of
the building and cause disturbance. Hence, being available during
the day, the watchman, if qualified to act as deputy surveyor, could
jender service as such, and, if allowable under the rules of the Depart-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
219
ment, I beg to recommend that such action be ordered by you, and, for
such additional services, I also recommend that he (the watchman, H.
Kirby) receive an increase of $200 per year to his present salary, which
will make his entire compensation $800 per annum, which, in my judgment, would be about a just and right remuneration for his combined
services, and, further, that, from the-date of such action, the services
of J. N. Phillips, my present deputy, be dispensed Avith, thereby effecting a saving to the Department of $895 per annuni. I desire also to
state that the services of the engineer of this building are actually required for only about seven months of the year, say from September 15
to April 1^; but inasmuch as it is sometimes a difficult matter to obtain
the services of an efficient and competent engineer for only a portion of.
the year, it perhaps would not be a wise policy to attempt a curtailment in this particular, which, however, if done, v/ould effect a further
saving of some $400 per annum. I simply bring this latter matter to
your attention by Avay of suggestion, but regard it as scarcely proper
for me to make any recommendation in the premises at present, as possibly the Department contemplates making some such change in the
payment of engineers in buildings of this class throughout the country,
which, as I believe, could be made practicable, either by adopting a
system as indicated, or by reducing the annual salary to a sum that
wUl more nearly correspond with the length of time that they (the
engineers) are actually occupied.
Yery respectfully,
JOHN CAMPBELL,
Surveyor of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 102.
OusTOM-HousE, OGDENSBURG, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, May 6, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknoAvledge the receipt of your circular
letter of the 1st ultimo, requesting me to report the practicability of
reducing the force in this collection district, without detriment to the
public service; if the methods of doing business can be simplified, and
such other suggestions and recommendations as may suggest themselves
to me.
In this cbllection district we have the following, or outside^ sub-ports,
viz : Chippewa Bay, Morristown, Lisbon, Waddington, Louisville, and
Massena, covering a distance of between sixty and seventy miles bn
the St. Lawrence river.
At Morristown there is one ferry, from Brockville, Ontario, running the
entire year, and two boats nine months in the year. The business at
that port is large, keeping the three officers stationed there A^ery busy.
I am frequently obliged to send an officer from here to assist them.
At Waddington a ferry-boat from Morrisburg, Ontario, runs the entii'C
year. The business there keeps the deputy busy all the lime, and a
large portion of the time he is assisted by an inspector.
At Louisville there is a ferry from Aultsville, Ontario, during the season of navigation, and a constant crossing and recrossing of small boats,
which require more or less looking after all the time.
220
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
At Massena there.is a steam-ferry part of the year from Cornwall,
Ontario; also a horse-feriy, tbat lands on Barnhart's Island, and then
reaches the main-land by another ferry from the island. These two
latter ferries are wide apart, and the geography of the country is such
in the town of Massena that two officers are required there during the
season of navigation.
At Lisbon a scow is used as a ferry from EdAvardsburg, Ontario. There
is considerable property imported at this point. ' A deputy coUector
has been stationed there for years. The Department abolished the
office at one time, but there was such a demand for its re-establishment
that the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, after giAdng the matter^ considerable attention, stationed an officer there again. It is certainly needed fbr the convenience of the people.
At Chippewa Bay there is no regular i e r i j ; but in this vicinity, during the season of naAdgation, steamboats are constantly aiTiAdng and
departing, and the number of row-boats going and coming is A^ery great.
At this port, Ogdensburg, we haA^e two officers stationed at the Ontario
and Lake Shore Eailroad all the time, and during the season of navigation
three. TAVO officers at the ferry-landing, one day and one night officer,
and this office is alwaj^s open. One officer at the Eome, Watertown
and Ogdensburg and Utica and Black Eiver depots, andfiA^eofficers at
the main office—in fact, only four; fbr while one inspector d^eeps certain records and papers, he also acts as a supernumerary, assisting at
Morristown at the Ontario and Lake Shore depot on night duty, and
taking the place of officers sick or unaA^oidably detained at home, &c.
. Soon after naAdgation closes the ice forms a substantial bridge at
numerous points in the district, and forms perfectlj^ safe crossing for footpassengers and loaded teams, which require constant watching and
looking after.
I find that it is the same in public as in private business—at times
somcAvhat dull, and employes not very busy—but it soonreviA^es, and then
you must have your full fbrce of trained men to meet its demands.
I cannot see IIOAV the fbrce in this district, just on the opening of
naAdgation, can be reduced Avithout impairing the service. Possibly
after the close of naAdgation a slight temporary reduction at certain
points could be made.
In reference to simplifying the methods of doing business, I have no
suggestions to make. Y^^hile Ave render a large number of reports to the
different bureaus^ I suppose they are all required, to conform with the
system of checks and balances adopted by the Department.
Serious illness on my part has delayed my replying sooner.
I am, sir, yours, very respectfuHy,
W. H. DANIELS,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 103.
CusTOM-HousE, OSWEGO, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 11, 1885...
' SIR : Pursuant to request contained in printed letter of April 1,1885,
I have the honor to report that, so far as said letter relates to the force
" employed under m j direction and the suggested reduction of the same
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
221
Avithout detriment to the public service, the number of employes atthis
date is very low, the season of navigation not having arrived yet, Avhen
a much larger force is usually employed to meet the increased demands
of the service. I therefore assume that the information solicited more
particularly has reference to a more economic collection of import
duties generally within my district.
The practicability of reducing the force withiii this district, in my
judgment, depends very largely upon the reply to your second inquiry,
Avhether the method of doing business* in this district can be simplified
without detriment to the public service.
The questions have upon many occasions engaged the attention of the
Department so far as relate to this and a fcAv of the largest and most'
important luniber and grain importing districts along the. north and
northwestern frontier, where, as a rule, the cargo consists of a single
commodity, the importing vessel comparatiA^ely small, the distance
travelled short—often the span of a river, at most a lake:—trips are
often made and repeated under the influence of rapidly shifting winds,
and the 3^ear's business is crowded into a short season of navigation, (see
letter of Secretary McCulloch, April 10,1866,) and have led eA^entually
to the promulgation of special rules and regulations for the coiwenience
and simplification of business at the larger lake ports for reasons assigned
under the head of ' ^ measurements of grain and lumber imported at ports
on Canadian frontier.';' (See printed circular to collectors, July 23,
1878; also Synopsis of Decisions, Treasury Department, 1873, No. 1636.)
That the port of Oswego Avas the port demanding this simplificatioh
of existing rules and regulations in 1873, and has so continued more than
all others, there can be little doubt when we compare the receipts of both
grain and lumber annually received at Oswego with that of other lake
ports and districts upon the Canada frontier. The receipts of imported
grain during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, within the districts
of Oswegatchie, Cape Yincent; Genesee, Niagara, Buffalo Creek, Dankirk, Erie, Cuyahoga, Miami, Sandusky, Michigan, Huron, Detroit,
Superior, Chicago, and Milwaukee combined was 4,973,541 bushels, and
an aggregate of lumber at the same ports amounting to 105,418,000 feet.
The aniount received Avithin the district of Oswego for the same year
Avas, grain, 3,916,518 bushels; lumber, 184,413,000 feet; or, in other
Avords, the importations into this district amounted to 44 per cent, of
all grain and 63.6 per cent, of all lumber received within these districts
for the fiscal year aforesaid, as shown by above exhibit, including the
district of OsAvegatchie, east of Lake Ontario.
The aggregate receipts for the district of Oswego, season of 1884^
are: Grain, 4,455,612 bushels ; sawn lumber, 192,306,843 feet; shingles,
16,210,975 ; lath, 19,547,100 pieces; pickets, 247,500 ; heading, 725,992
pieces; besides miscellaneous commodities of wood, such as cedar posts,
door-panellings, mouldings, strips, deal-ends, &c.
To apply the measurer's rule to each board and secure actual measurement of this vast quantity of lumber Avould seem quite impossible,
Avould tend to .seriously embarrass trade, and could, as stated in-said
circular letter, prove of ^^no corresponding advantage to the reA-enue."
The district of Oswego is so situated that importations of IMs class
haA^e hitherto been limited to the season of navigation. Unlike those
districts lying contiguous to the Eiver St. LaAvrence, where the frontier
is crossed by rail and team during the entire year, my force of inspectors
are appointed, as a rule, only fbr the season of navigation, about eight
222
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
months, with per diem pay no greater than that usually paid to inspectors holding through the year at Suspension Bridge, Plattsburg,
Ogdensburg, Buffalo, Burlington, Chicago, &c., the number corresponding to importations during those busy months being less, as we understand, than of other revenue districts, in so much that the district of
OsAvego has received the compliment of having collected the rcA^enues
of the Government at less per cent, than that of anyother district within
the United States. . ^There has, indeed, been times when this district has
been subject of criticism, by reason of the limited number of men em.ployed. Under my immediate predecessor in office, the late Collector
Daniel G. Fort, as Avell as myself, this reduction, Avith a view to economize collections, was carried to that extent, Avhich caused Special Agent
J. A. Camp and Special Inspector Norris Winston of the Treasury Department to visit this port in the summer of 1882 and to note the manner of doing business Avithin our lumber district, since considerably
extended, and to report, as the result of their joint observation, that the
force of inspectors Avas quite too limited to meet the demands of the
public service, even under such simplification or modified requirements;
whereupon a larger number of inspectors were appointed, (see collector's letter, September 12, 1882;) andthis force raised from eleven to
fourteen September 15, same year, and to sixteen for the entire district
in 1884. In oase of emergency, temporary inspectors have also been
employed. (See collector's letter, September 27,1884, and official report
Special Agent W. F. Howell, about that date.)
In a seiwice so extended upon either side of the OsAvego riA^er, more
recently along the shore bordering the new harbor, the lumber district
at Oswego being divided by intervening hills, a broad harbor, with
islands used also for lumber pui-ppses, where many docks, slips, and
piers are owned and controlled by different firms and individuals engaged in the same business, it may be a question of doubtful propriety
for the Government to materially lessen the usual force of lumber in- spectors here employed.
My predecessor in office seemed to have trusted in a measure to the
integrity of the importers regarding qualities and A-alues. Without
desiring to reflect upon the integrity of any, I have deemed it a dut3^ to
know with greater certainty and firom official sources regarding the
same facts.
I am Ihlly in accord with the Department in its laudable desire to
retrench and curtail expenses of collection wherever such can-be done
without detriment to the public serAdce. I shall deem it a duty, as well
as a pleasure, to aid such retrenchment so far as the same can be practicably applied to this dRJstrict; the success of the effort, however, in
^my judgment, largety depends upon the degree of care and attention to
"be given the several cargoes of lumber and grain arriving at this port
during the period of unlading. As to grain, all is weighed by the storekeeper at expense of Avarehouse. An inspector of customs is deemed
indispensable on such occasions. Each favorable Avind is likely to bring,
and often does bring, a large fleet of importing vessels into our harbor,
each demanding to be unladen preparatory to return trip. Should it
be deemed essential that each cargo on such occasions receive the individual attention of an inspector during such unlading, then the force
of inspectors is seemingly none too large for this particular work.
Under the regulations, as modified to meet the requirements of this
port July 23, 1873, an experienced officer soon becomes familiar Avith
"REPORT OF THE SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'2t?)
the carrying capacity of a vessel from observation and official experience, and the privUege here conceded to measure lumber in bulk Avhen
actuaUy landed, or to determine the quantity by estimating the same
upon arrival, leaving much, to the sound discretion of customs officers,
in such cases the same officer (if experienced) can estimate and with
reasonable accuracy determine the quantities of several cargoes within
a few hours and make report of the same, thereby preventing the perpetration of fraud upon the revenue, and at the same time not unneces>
sarily embarrass trade.
Should liberty also be granted to the attending inspector to remain
within reasonable proximity, niake frequent visits to the importing A^essel while being thus unladen, supervision might be extended over two
or three vessels at the same time, thereby supplying a means whereby
to lessen the force of inspectors somewhat within this district without
material detriment tothe service, barring increased opportunity on the
part of vessel-OAvners to avoid observation should they desire concealment within their respectiAT^e cargoes.
Unlike some of the frontier districts, we have not shared the benefits
of a localized sp(^-cial officer. Till recentlj^, Special Inspector S. L. Norton has been at this port, with expectations to remain. With such assistance, a corresponding reduction of the ordinary inspectors' force
might follow, Avithout injury to ihe service.
In 1884, the Northern Central Eailroad was bonded, with expectation
that importations at Fair Haven would be greatly augmented. This has
not been realized. Deputy Collector and Inspector Geo. P. Knapp can
discharge the duties at that port the greater portion ofthe season, save
in emergency, and even then, with telegraph and railroad communications, assistance can be rendered from Oswego, if necessary.
I learn that no passenger-steamer is to comiect with the New York,
Ontario and Western Eailroad at this port during ihe season of 1885.
Should this prove true, one ofthe inspectors (there were two in 1884)
performing night duty, might also be jdispensed with, assistance, in
cases of emergency being rendered from the dock office, kept open
nights, at this port.
The night or dock office mentioned is of service only during the
season of navigation. One of the annual appointees has fbr man3^
years been in charge, with salary fixed at $1,000. Without material
injury to the service, this could properly be changed to a season appointment, with compensation fixed at $3 per diem, effecting an annual
saAdng of about $250.
The navigation desk in this building has for many years been supplied by two season appointments. Ex-Deputy Gardner informs me
that one deputy cannot possibly discharge the duties at that desk.
Ex-Deputy Thomas Moore thinks otherwise, providing the appointee'
shall be familiar with the duties pertaining to that desk, with priAdlege
to work after office-hours when pressed. Mr. Moore has had eleven
years' experience. I beUeve him competent.
With facilities existing at this port for shipping merchandise in bond
OA^er the different railroads of late centring at this point, and ma
Oswego and Erie canals, it has become of frequent occurrence for inspectors to be summoned to different and distant points in case accident
to bonded car or boat, to superintend transfer of merchandise, &c. A
system has also grown up of importing small pine pieces from Canada,
known as match-stock, generally consigned to Diamond Match Com-
224
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
pany, at Frankfort. These blocks are too small and numerous to be
measured by rule,, or to render the unlading of the canal-boat at this
port practicable, Avhich seems to necessitate the attendance of an inspector at Frankfort whenever the emergency arises. I would suggest
that the privileges granted in circular letter to collectors, July 23, 1873,
regarding measurements, be extended to this commodity, unlading to
take place at point of destination, under supervision of ihspector or
special officer at expense of importer, including per diem pay of such
officer, and that the same rule as to expenses be applied in case of
accident to merchandise in transit under bond.
I am, very respectfully,
JOHN J. LAMOEEE,
Collector.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 104.
' CusTOM-HousE, PENSACOLA, F L A . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 15, 1885. °
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circulardetter
dated April 1, 1885, and respectfiilly report that the office force (two
deputies and clerk) could not be reduced without detriment to the public service. The regular force of inspectors is seven. The term of
service of one of them,- Mr. Scarritt Moreno, will terminate on April 30,
1885. (Department lett-er dated February 4, 1885.) I can also make a
reduction of one more inspector after the 31st of May, 1885, Avhich will
leaA^ej^^6 inspectors—one to be sent to the quarantine station, with boat
and two boatmen; one to be left at Barrancas station, with one boatman,
to guard against landing smuggled good and take care of the public
property; three inspectors and three boatmen, to attend to boarding
duty and discharging cargoes; at Pensacola. There are two night-watchmen, one at the barge office and one at the custom-rooms; also, a messenger and janitor. The services of all these are absolutely necessary.
The foregoing constitute the entire force of employes in this district.
The full force of seven inspectors will be required for duty during the
winter season.
Should the work be commenced as contemplated on the railroad from
Chipley to St. Andrews Bay, it would be necessary to re-establish that
station by the appointment of an inspector and boatman for that point.
I knoAv of no Avay that the methods of doing business could be simplified, and the efficiency of the service improved, or the expenses farther
curtailed.
Yery respectfally, your obedient servant,
J. M. TAEBLE,
Collector.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . 0.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
225-
No. 105.
OusTOM-HousE, P E R T H AMBOY,.^N. J.,
Collector's Office, AprU 13, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Department letter of April 1,1885,1 haA^e the honor
to report that the material imported in this port is chiefly iron ore and
manufactures of iron and steel, and the present regulations of the Department, are so plain that I have ho alterations to suggest. In reply to
youi' question as to Avhether the present force of this office can be reduced without impairing the efficiency of the service, I have the honor
to report that the term of service of Wm. T. Hopper (the inspector who
has had chai'ge of the inspection of that portion of the district lying' between Sandy Hook and Manasquan inlet) expired by limitation, on
April 1, 1885. His duties Avere largely preventive; and while I have
found Mr. Hopper a capable ahd efficient officer; if the Department
thinks that the Llife-SaAdng Service forms a sufficient coast guard to prevent fraud on the revenue during the summer season, his further'service might be dispensed Avith by extending the duties of Wm. T. Brown,
the inspector now on duty from Manasquan to Barnegat, to include that
portion of the coast from Manasquan to Sandy Hook.
Yeiy respectfully, your obedient servant,
M, A. EDGAE,
CoUector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 106. .
CusTOM-HousE, PHILADELPHIA, P A . ,
Collector's Office, May 13, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to report that I have "examined the subject of
the reorganization and reduction of the force now employed in the customs serAdce at the port of Philadelphia, referred to me by the circulai'
letter of the Department of AprU 1, 1885, and find that considerable
reduction has already taken place in view of the decrease in receipts
during the first part of the current fiscal year.
This reduction amounts to over eighteen thousand dollars per annum,
Avhich is about proportional to ihe decrease of receipts up to March 1^
1885. In addition, five places, aggregating fifty-five hundred dollars,
are UOAV in abeyance, on account of the absence from sickness and other
causes of the incumbents, without pay. Three of these will undoubtedly
become vacant, and a recommendation for their abolishment has been,
withheld pending only the determination of the question of receipts.
The decrease of receipts ceased with February, but since that time
the customs have increased over any corresponding previous period.
The reduction began and kept pace with the decrease in receipts, bat
Avith a positive return to and above the old figures. I would not deem
it advisable to make any further reductions other than as vacancies
occui' may be found practicable in the current course of business, and
not inconvenient to the serAdce or the public.
15 A
226 - REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^
This reduction is principally in the outside force of the service, in
which changes and vacancies happen more frequently than in the inside
clerkships. Owing to the extent of territory coA^ered by the customs
districtof Philadelphia, the proportion of outside force to the gross
amount of customs must necessarily be somewhat larger than in more
compact districts^ For this reason also, re-enforced by the AdcAvs of the
surveyor of the port, the reductions made in this part of the force haA^e
brought it to the verge of efficiency, and until a reasonable experience
has demonstrated that the reduced force can adequately guard the iu;
terests of the Government and answer the just claims of importers for
prompt inspection and deliverj^, it does not seem judicious to force a
reduction.
The resignation of Deputy Collector Wm. D. Smith, to take effect
not later than JUne 1, 1885, which has come to my hand since the receipt of the Department circular, will necessitate a reorganization of the
clerical force of the custom-house proper. It may be possible to make
a further slight reduction in this part of the force also, in addition to
the slight saving effected by the changes heretofbre made.
This matter I have UOAV under consideration, and Avill have the honor
to present to the Department in a few days a definite plan for the reorganization of this force, and, if adAdsable, its reduction without detriment to the service.
I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully,
J. F. iaAETEANFT,
.
'
Gollector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 107.
PORT OF PHILADELPHIA, P A , ,
Naval Office, AprU 3, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 1st instant, and, in compliance with the requests therein contained,
1 respectfully submit hercAvith (1) a statement of the present fbrce of
this office, (attached to this letter and marked '^A;") also, (2) a statement of the percentage of expense of this office on the duties collected
at this port, (attached and marked ^ ^ B ; " ) also, (3) a comparative statement for the years 1880-' 84, inclusiA^e, of the expenses and number of
employes of this office, (attached and marked ' ' C ; " ) and (4) a comparative statement of the fbrce and expenses of the six naval offices bf
the United States, (attached and marked ' ' D . " )
The present force of this office is UOAV, in my judgment, as small as
is consistent with the faithful and proper performance of the work required of the office. . One clerkship (No. 5) is, and has been for OA^er a
year, vacant, and it has consequently been necessary to utilize our mes
senger.as a clerk. It has been my purpose and rule tohaA^e the duties
of this office perfbrmed actually as Avell as nominally, and CA^ery man
in it has been and is expected and required to do his full share of the
daily Avork; consequently, Ave have no superfiuous people about the
office. The proper auditing of the entire clerical work of the collector's
office requires this office practically to go carefully over the work of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. . 227
tnat large force and to correct all errors, if any are found to exist. If
our present force Avas not efficient and expert, it could not possibly perform this labor properly and promptly and ^without delay and inconvenience to importers. It has been my aiin to accomplish this result
fbr the public convenience, and at the same time with a strict regard
fbr economy ; and I consequently cannot see how any reduction of our
fbrce could, in the interest of the people of the Government, be advantageously made at present. If, however, a reduction in the expense of
the office (which is now less than that of any other naval office except
the office at NCAV Orleans) is deemed essential, I would respectfally
recommend that the salaries rather than the number of the clerical
force should be reduced.
The present methods of transacting the business of the office are believed to be as economical and satisfactory as any others that I could at
present suggest, and we have not had a single complaint made by any
importer or broker during the past year,, which would seem to indicate
their satisfaction with our present methods.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Yery respectfally,
EDWIN H. NEYIN, J R . ,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
DANIEL MANNING,
Seeretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
[Enclosures.]
A.
Present force employed in the Naval Office, PMladelphia. .
Name and duty.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Edwin H. Nevin, jr., naval oflScer
.....:
Fraud L. Irwin, deputy naval oflBlcer.,
Charles R. Roberts, estimating clerk
Henry B. Geissinger, cashier and fee clerk
Edward C. Reed, liquidating clerk
IrvenSmith, warehouse clerk
(Vacant.)
Harry H. Shautz, ahstract clerk
Thos. H. Chapman, messenger
Total.
Salary per annum.
,
%
;..
| 5 , 000 00
2, 500'00
2,000 00
1,800 00
1,800 00
1,400 00
1,200 00
720 00
:.....
:......
16,420 00
B.
Amount of Duties collected at the Port of Philadelphia for the fiscal years 1880 to 1884, inclusive.
Year.
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
.:
Total
...'.
, Average for the five years, $12,233,859.21.
Average percentage of the expense of the nav
...13 of 1 per cent.
Amount.
'.
^
$12,757,987
11,231,598
11,969,157
12,250,556
12,977,995
37
80
72
72
43
61,169,296 04
of^ce on revenue collected, about
228
KEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASURY.
r
•
•
c .
,.
^
•
.
..
.
Comparative statement of the force and expense of the Naval Office, Philadeljohia, for theyears
1880-'84, inclusive.
E r r o r s corrected.
• .
No. employed.
Year.
Compensation.
E n t r i e s liquidated.
Number.
1880 .
1881
1882
1883
1884
...
;
;
8
8
8
8
8
$15,120
15,120
15,320
16,420
16,420
13,307
12,247
13,690
14,293
13,883
Amount.
175
128
132
195
146
$18,936
8,736
4,548
5,223
3,200
14
35
15
71
88
D.
Compardtive force and expense of the Naval Offices of the Uniied States.
Deputy
N a v a l oflScer. n a v a l officer.
Location,
New York
;
86
19.
5
8
6
3
;
Total..........«
6
6
127
Pay.
Messengers.
8
'
r-lr-liHr-l
Philadelphia
S a n Francisco...".
Baltimore
N e w Orleans
Clerks.
12
$162,890
38,100
16,420
22,925
16,620
14,300
00
00
00
00
00
00
271,255 00
No. 108.
PORT OF PHILADELPHIA, P A . , A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
No. 134 South Second Street, AprU 6, 1885.
I am in receipt of your letter of the Ist instant, requesting me to make report to what extent, in my judgment, the force
'employed in this Department can be reduced without detriment to the
public service; also, whether the methods of doing business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions and recommendations
whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and expenses
curtailed.
In reply permit me to say, first, that the force now employed in this
Department does not exceed by a single individual, what is absolutely
necessary to a proper discharge of the duties of the office. Indeed,
occasions frequently occur when it is entirely too small to meet the
demands made upon it. This is especially the case when sickness occui^s.
Under such circumstances, goods are sometimes not delivered to merchants with that promptness that they otherwise would and should be,
but I have never felt justified in recommending an increaseof force
that would provide for these ' ^ pinching'' periods. Two vacancies exist at the present time—one of them a clerk, with an authorized salary
of 1900, the other a packer, with an authorized salaiy of .1900. Both
of these vacancies occurred several months since. The speciaV duty of
the clerk was that of counting the stitches in Hamburg edgings, to compute tfieir foreign market value. Messrs. Loeb & Schoeiifeld, who
were formerly very large importers of this class of merchandise through
this port, removed their business to New York, and thus reduced the
extent of this business to such a point that I did not feel justified in
MY DEAR SIR :
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
229
asking for the continuance of this clerk. Another firm, Messrs. M. H.
Pulaski & Co., commenced several months since the importation of this ^.
class of merchandise. Their business has grown very rapidly, and it
is not impossible that in a short time the T^ork will become so large as
to require the reappointment of this clerk. The vacancy of the packer
resulted from a nomination and election to the legislature of Pennsylvania. As the importing business fell off last faU considerably, I did
not think it advisable to fill this vacanc}^
Philadelphia has a very extended customs district, not only embrac- :
ing the Delaware river fronts on both sides, from the city of Chester to
the highest point of navigation, but likewise the Eiver Schuylkill.
The grain-elevators on the Schuylkill are located some five miles from
this office, and are inaccessible for a great portion of the distance by
street-railway. We are compelled to make frequent trips to this point
for the examination of bags, barrels, iron, and other heavy articles of
merchandise. Gibson's Point, Greenwich Point, Point Breeze, and
Port Eichmond are locations on the Eivers Delaware and Schuylkill
where oil is loaded and. empty oil-barrels returned. All these places
are from four to five miles distant from this office. To attend to the
business of these places requires the services of several men and a very
great deal of time.
The system of examining and testing sugars and molasses under the
act of March 3, 1883, largely increased the force of this department.
During the year 1884 three refineries were in operation in this city,
and which largely augmented the importations of sugar. The total
imjiorts of sugars for the year 1883 were as follows: Hogsheads, 89,214;
bags and mats, 135,635. For the year 1884: Hogsheads, 125,892; bags
and mats, 279,216.
You will notice from these statements that there was an increase of
36,678 hogsheads and 143,581 bags and mats in the importations ofthe "
year 1884 over those of 1883. This labor required the employment, on
an average, of four samplers ahd as many laborers constantly on the
wharf, together with the exaininer who superintends the sampling of
the sugars. In the laboratory there are some five persons employed,
independent of Assistant Appraiser Gaw, who supervises the work.
This makes a very heavy drain upon our force.
Second. I was under the impression that some modifications in the ,
present system of sampling sugars might be made without detriment
to the service.. Twenty-five per cent, of all hogsheads received are set
aside by the collector to be sampled. Each hogshead is required to be
bored from the centre of the head, and a sample of sugar taken therefrom extending from the head to the foot of the cask. Each sample
thus taken is placed in a small tin box and a paper label attached thereto,
giving the mark and number of the hogshead from which the sample
was taken. All this, you will notice, involves very considerable time
and labor. I am assured by Assistant Appraiser Gaw, however, that
it is necessary to a correct sampliug of the cargo, as well as to attain
reliable results from the system of polarizing, that the present system
should be continued; and from the statements made, I am inclined to
accept them as correct. The amount of money involved is too great to
make experiments of doubtful results. This is the only department in
which I thought a change of system could possibly be made..
The assistant appraisers, in addition to their other duties of inspecting examiners' returns made upon invoices, are required to perform the
230
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURIY.
duties of examiners with reference to certain classes of merchandise.
If this was not required of them, the force of examiners would have to
be enlarged. In looking over the entire business of this office, I do not
see that the present system could be advantageously changed; nor do
I see how it Avould be possible to transact the business with any degree
of satisfaction to the mercantile community with a smaller force than
is-now employed.
Yours, truly.
E. B. MOOEE,
United States Appraiser.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of ihe Treasury.
No. 109.
CusTOM-HousE, PITTSBURGH,'PA.,
'
'
Surveyor's Office, July 2, 1885.
SIR : In I'cply to letter of Department, 30th June, requesting me to
name the inspector of customs whose service can be dispensed with, I
would state'tiiat, owing to the fact that the services of Frank W. Tallon
and Charles McEnulty have been dispensed with since June 30, and the
nominations of their successors have not yet been approved by the Department, I have but two inspectors on duty, viz., John S. Dravo, on outside duty, and Thomas N. Christy, detailed for office duty, As the persons nominated are not familiar with the duties incumbent, it will re^
quire some time to render them effective. Owing to the additional
duties and work in the office in closing the busines of the past fiscal 3^ear,
I would prefer to not reduce in number the force.at present employed.
Yery respectfally,
D. O. BAEE,
'•
Surveyor of Customs..
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 110.
.'
^CUSTOM-HOUSE, PLATTSBURG, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 18,' 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department letter of the 1st instant, requesting me to report in writing to what extent,
in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced
without detriment to the public service; whether the methods of doing
business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions
and recommendations as may occur to me whe'reby the efficiency ofthe
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed.
The fbrce employed in this district at present consists of one collector, one deputy collector, and twenty-one deputy collectors and inspectors; also, a janitor forthe Government building at Plattsburg. The
latter, of course, should not be included in taking an account of the
force engaged in collecting the revenue, which amounts to twenty-three
officers aU told.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
231
In order to understand, the requirements of the district, I beg to call
attention to the following facts: The district of Champlain comprises
all the land frontier in the State of New York, extending from Lake
Champlain at Eouse's Point to Hogansburg, on the St. Lawrence river,
nearly seventy miles.
'
'
Between Eouse's Point and Hogansburg there are nine sub-ports
where duties are collected ; there is also a port of delivery at YTiitehall,^
the head of the lake, where large quantities of lumber are discharged,
counted, and measured from vessels arriving from Canada via Eouse's
Point.
In addition to the commerce carried on by boats from Canada via
Eouse's Point, the New York and Canada Eailroad enters the district
at that point. This road makes direct connection with New Yorlc and. ^
other intermediate cities.
Large quantities of freight are imported by this route;. the goods of
the National Express from Montreal also come by this line. This
road does an extensive passenger business also, and in the summer
season it is one of the favorite routes for pleasure travel.
The Canada Atlantic Eailroad, recently opened, has its American
terminus at Eouse's Point also.
Two other branches of the Grand Trunk Eailway enter the district,
one at Mooers. Junction and one at Fort Covington. In addition to
the ordinary land traffic at Fort Covington and Hogansburg, St. Lawrence river vessels touch and trade, and some enter and clear. With the exception of Eouse's Point, there is but one officer stationed
at each outside frontier port,* and there is one officer stationed at Malone,
a large town a little in rear ofthe cordon of frontier ports, whose duty
is to look after smuggling and assist other frontier officers, as occasion .
may require.
There is one officer stationed at Montreal, associated with officers,
from the Yermont district in the examination of passengers' baggage
and the transfer of goods in transit.
One officer is required to run constantly on the passenger-trains arriving at Eouse's Point from Montreal, and sometimes two officers,
are required, especially in the summer-time, during the period of pleasure travel.
Two pernianent officers are employed at Whitehall, in addition to two
summer men. In the winter, one of the permanent Whitehall officers
is transferred to Eouse's Point for dut}^
There are employed at Eouse's Point, in addition to the men on the
train, six officers, and during the seasoii of navigation two additional
officers. ,.
,
During the fiscal year ended June 30,. 1884, there were at Eouse's Point.
1,271 vessels entered from foreign ports, 1,034 vessels cleared for foreign
ports, 853 coastwise clearances, 2,316 entries of merchandise for duty,
1,781 free entries, 642 warehouse and transportation entries, 66 entries
for transportation and exportation via New York, and there was collected duties on imports, $262,763.83'; tonnage, $9,704.89. I think it
y/ill be apparent from these facts that the force employed at Eouse's Point
is barely sufficient for the labor required. The'force at Whitehall is required to count and measure lumber discharged at that port, and has not
been found heretofore too large for the labor required. Of course, the
amount of lumber delivered at that port would govern as to fbrce required.
It maybe possible ^that trade on the lake during the coming season will
232
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
be lighter, owing to a constantly increasing business by rail and a probability of a falling off in the aggregate importation of lumber from Can^ ada. In such case, if the demands of trade would permit, there might
be a reduction of the force employed during the season of navigation
only.
At Plattsbui^g I have with me a special deputy and two deputy collectors and inspectors, which force I find barely adequate for the
. preparation of all reports, returns, and accounts required by the De
partihent, the keeping of the records of the entire district, the enrolment, licensing, and measuring of vessels, correspondence, reappraisement^, and the collection of duties, &c. My officers work harder than
persons employed in assimUated private business, and, I believe, compare favorably in ability with persons in station in civil life or in the
employ of the State of New York.
Notwithstanding the large amount of frontier protected by my force,
and the large amount of services required growing out of passenger
travel, which of course renders but little revenue to the Government,
and with one of the largest lists of vessels on the frontier to emboli and
licence, I find, by an examination of the finance report for 1884, (page
67,) that the rate for expense of collecting the revenue in this district
. was from 20 to 25 per cent, lower during the fiscal year ended June 30,
1884, than in either of the two contiguous districts, viz., Oswegatchie
and Yermont, my district standing within sixteen of the lowest in point
of rate of expense in some 137 ports reported in the statement referred to.
I enclose a list of my force, showing designation, compensation, and
station, and indicating briefly the nature of the duty performed.
As regards the simplification of business, I beg to state that many of
the proceedings in customs m a t t e r are in pui^suance of statutory provisions, and of course do not admit of modification.
Such matters as are subjects of regulations only are susceptible of immediate change. I find, however, that many of these regulations are
' in pursuance of special statutes authorizing the Secretary to provide
regulations in the case, and that usually such regulations have been
carefully prepared by the proper authorities.
I am, very respectfully,
S. MOFFITT,
Collector of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretaiy qf the Treasury, Washington, B . O.
>
[Enclosure.]
•
List of Officers employed in the District of Champlain, April 18, 1885, giving designation, station, compensatioii, <&c.
Pesignation.
Name.
Station.
Stephen Moffitt..*...
John Martin
Plattsburg..,
Collector of customs
Deputy collector and inspector,
do,..:...
special deputy.
Deputy collector and inspector..
..do..
S. B. Miller....
do.
..do..
Henry H. Parmerter,,
Deputy collector and clerk
Robert E. Casey...
Rouse's Point.
Deputy collector and inspector,
Eug:ene Viele
do
.do.
Theodore Farlin ..
do
Wm. D. Merriam..
..do.
do.
..do.
Reuben Barton
do
..do.
E. A. Adams
do
Hiram F. Gaines..
..do..
..do..
J. W. Haynes..,
S. E. Blood
..do..
..do..
..do..
..do..
C. Bosworth.
..do..
Mooers .Junction..
W. S. Alvord..
S. D. Mix
P. H. Shields..
..do..
..do..
..do..
Chateaugay
Ellenburg Depot..
Malone '.
Charles Deal
D. W. Shurtleff....:
Carter J. Crippen...
Geo. W- Davis
H. C. Jillson.
,
..do..
..do..
..do..
..do..
..do..
Champlain
Mooers Forks..,
Trout River
Hogansburg
Whitehall
A. M. Hoit..
..do..
Compensation.
$2,500 00 per annum,
1,800 00 per annum,
Nature of duty performed.
H a s general supervision of district, correspondence, &c.
Cashier, makes all accounts current, assists in correspondence,
&c.
Abstract clerk, returns and reports to Bureau of Statistics, &o.
1,400 00 per annum
2 45 per diem..., Enrolment and licensing of vessels, inspection of goods, copying, &c.
4 C per diem ..., In charge of office at Rouse's Point, cashier, &c.
O
900 00 per annum
Bond clerk.
900 00 per annum
Keeps import-book, abstracts, entry clerk, &c
900 00 per annum
Examines hand baggage and express goods on trains.
2 45 per diem..., Inspects merchandise arriving by rail and boats.
2 45 per diem..., Inspects merchandise arrivingbyrail, land, and boats, records
ofexports.
2 45 per diem.... In charge at railroad depot, inspecting and appraising merchandise.
3 00 per diem..., Examines baggage at Montreal.
1,000 00 per annum
In charge of office at Fort Covington ; has trains and boats to
look after.
900 00 per annum
In charge at Mooei-s Junction; has goods by land and rail to
look after.
'
In charge of office at Chateaugay; goods by land.
900 00 per annum
In charge of office at Ellenbing Depot; goods by land.
, .
700 00 per annum
2 45 per diem..., On preventive service at Malone, and assisting at frontiesr
ports, &c.
2 20 per diem... In charge of port at Champlain; goods arriving by land.
2 20 per diem..., In charge of port at Mooers Forks; goods arriving by land.
2 20 per diem..., In" charge of port at Trout River; goods arriving by land.
2 20 per diem..., In charge of port at Hogansburg; goods arriving by land.
2 20 per diem..., In chargeof office at Whitehall; inspectibn of lumber, clearances, &c.
2 a)i>erdiem.... Inspecting goods at "V^^iitehall in summer; in winter inspect
uig goods at Rouse's Point.
w
o
d
CO
a
O
05)
OS
234
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. i n .
CusTOM-HousE, P O R T HURON, MICH.,
CoUector's Office, AprU 8, 1885.
I bave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
circular ofthe 1st instant, requesting me to ^^^eportin writing to what
extent the force employed under your (my) direction can be reduced
without detriment to the public service; whether the methods, of doing
business can be simplified, and, in general, to make such suggestions
and recommendations as may occur to you (me) whereby the efficiency
of the service maybe im proved, and the expenses curtailed."
In reply, I have the honor to state that I have, received the resignation of John W. Brakeman, written on the 15tli day of March, to take
effect on the 1st instant; I have also received the resignation of Ezra
Hazen, written on the 14th ultimo, to take effect on the 1st instant. I,
have accepted the resignation of both of these officers, and shall make
no recommendation to.fiU their places.
For many years an officer has been stationed at Lexington, on the
shore of Lake Huron. I have made a careful investigation of the business done there, and am satisfied that the officer at that point may be
relieved without injury to the service. I do not think that there is any
other outside port in this district where an officer cah be relieved without injury to the service, or without greatly discommoding those engaged in commerce on these lakes.
At this season of the year the business trainsacted by the custonis
force stationed at this port is the greatest, and just at present is unosuallj^ large. I can discover no way in which I can reduce the force
at present more than I have done already as shown above, except the
officer at Lexington, (Mr. Anthony M. Oldfield, deputy collector and
inspector, at 50 cents per daj^)I^will carefully watch the business of the district, and will make further reduction if the condition of the business will warrant it.
I can at present see no way by which I can improve the efficiency of
the service here.
'
I am, very respectfallj^, your obedient servant,
WM. HAETSUFF,
Collector.
SIR*.
' Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 112.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, PORTLAND, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 8, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting me tp report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public
service, and to make such suggestions and recomniendations as may
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved
and the expenses curtailed, I have the honor most respectfully to reply
that it will be borne in mind that this is a port where the transit, reware-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
235
house, transportation, and exportation business (which does not show in
the matter of duties collected) bears a very large proportion to our other
business, and entails a large expense without corresponding receipts.
To illustrate: While the duties which have been collected at this port
during the five months ending March 31, 1884, amount to $145,415.72,
the duties assessed upon merchandise warehoused, rewarehoused, transported, and exported, including merchandise bonded at the port during
thesame period, amounted to.$1,920,323.92, and upon this business,
represented by the last-mentioned amount, it will be seen that the clerical
labor and supervision at this port is greater^ than if the above duties
were actually collected. But for the sugar business of the port, the
duties actually collected here would be reduced to an insignificant
amount, yet the absolute cessation of that business would reduce the
expenses but a comparatively slight degree.
. If the business at this port was equally distributed as to days and
seasons, or if a due regard to the interests of importers would permit
delays more or less extended in the delivery of their merchandise, a
reduction in the force in this district farther than as suggested below
might with propriety be made. But the problem of being always able
to attend to business above the average in amount with that promptness
which seems the right of, and which is often necessarj'^ to prevent serious
loss to, the importers, and avoid having on the force spme men not
actually employed when business is below the average, has not yet been
solved (in every department) satisfactory to my mind at this port.
^ Collector's olfice.—In this department, where the work is largely
clerical, no diffi cultj^ was encountered in accomplishing it, and since I
assumed my office the work is done with two less clerks ,than former! 5^,
save that during the past winter a clerk, whose term will expire April
30, has been temporarily employed. Those now emplp^^ed are, without exception, competent, diligent, and faithful, and, after carefully considering the subject, I do not think it practicable to fui^'ther reduce the
force and perform the work of the office, make the required reports to
the Department, and accommodate those doing business at the port with
the promptness and accuracy essential. In emergencies, it is true, the
force in the collector's pffice has sometimes been re-enforced temporarily
by the services of an inspector, who could be spared for the purpose
from the surveyor's department.
Surveyor's department.—I append herewith a copy of a letter, niarked
^ ^ A , " from the surveyor, in answer to inquiries addressed by me. The
so-called ^ permanent" force of inspectors to which he refers numbers
^
fifteen. There are two others borne on our rolls, who report to and are
pjiid at this office, whose duties are not connected with the service in
'this district, viz., one at Danville Junction, (that of the Grand Trunk
with the Maine Central Eailroad)—in regard to this officer, I am of
the opinion that the compensation allowed him is excessive for the
dulies performed ; and another stationed at Coaticook, P. Q.
lieferring to the statement of the surveyor to the effect that the force
is now ^Hoo small for a thorough supervision of the business of the
port," I have to say that thus far I have been unwilling to recommend
any addition thereto.
«
'
Temporary force.—It is customary and necessary to employ at this
port every winter inspectors in addition to the ^'permanent" force for
a period commencing in November and expiring April 30, or during
the time ni the arrival of foreign. vSteamships at this port.
286
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, '
It is impossible always to forecast the number of men that inay b©
necessary. When I assumed my office, in the winter of 1882-' 831 found
fifteen temporary day-inspectors on the rolls n,nd six night-inspectors.
That winter, in connection with our other work, thirty-nine foreign
steamers'entered, discharged, and took in cargoes at and cleared from
this port. The next winter, that of 1883-' 84, in the belief that that force
could be reduced without detriment to the service, I nominated but
twelve temporary inspectors. But the business of the port unexpectedly increased very much, there being fifty-one entrances and clearances
of foreign steamers, against thirtj^-nine the year before; and it was with
great difficulty that the necessary supervision was performed.
At the opening of the present winter season, I nominated eleven
temporary inspectors, (of whom ten are now in service,) and, for reasons
stated in a letter of October 17, 1884, to and after the approval of the
Department, in addition thereto, four watchmen. But the business of
the port decreased this winter, the number of foreign steamships falling from fifty-one last to thirty-eight this season.
I have dwelt thus at length on this point for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that it is not always possible to anticipate the amount of
service that may be required, and to suggest a method whereby, if it is
deemed practicable and desirable by the Secretary, an opportunity for
a reduction of expenses may be afforded, and, at the same time, provision made for unexpected work. It is, that not more than sevens men
should be appointed on the temporary or winter force, and that it should
be understood that the collector is to designate, under article 1363 of
the EegiUations of 1884, a number of men to act as occasional inspectors, who should report for duty only as they should be summoned,
where exigencies of the service should require it. Under this system,
the winter force can be made adjustable to the varying exigencies which
may arise in the business of the port; and I believe that it would not
be difficult to find upon the list of eligibles for appointment those who
. would accept such places, though the employment and compensation
AV^ould be intermittent.
Shortly after my accession to office, upon representations made to
me and for reasons stated in my letter to the Department of March 2,
1883, I recommended an increase of the force in this the surveyor's
department of one weigher and gauger. Since that time the business
of the port in that particular line of work, owing in part to more immediate-transportation business at expense of the consumption entries
and decrease of coal business, has fallen off, and the reasons which then
obtained for three weighers and gaugers are not as strong as then. ^ At
times the service of three men are still needed to avoid delays to importers, and the necessity for expert, competent^ and thoroughly reliable men in that department of work seems to render the employment
of tempcyrary weighers objectionable. If the suggestion which I shall
make as to polariscopic tests of sugar, under the head of the appraiser's
department, should be approved, I think the retention of the three
weighers and gaugers would be warranted; otherwise, I am of the
opinion that a reduction of one in that department should be made.
Appraiser's department.—The expenses in this department have been
increased since my accession to office by'the employment, under the
authority of the Department letter of May 8, 1883, of an examiner, at
a salary of $1,000 per annum, to make polariscopic tests of sugar andN
molasses. I enclose herewith a copy of a letter of the appraiser, marked
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
237
^^B." It is the fact that the importations of sugar and, molasses at this
port, together with samples of such which from time to time are sent
from other ports for such tests, are not sufficient to employ all the time
of the examiner appointed for such purpose, and but for the.necessity
under the law of polariscopic tests, his services could be dispensed with.
It is possible that such tests could be made at the Boston office; but
such/ a change would necessarily involve vexatious, and in some instances, doubtless, expensive de.ays to the importer, and afford them
more or less just ground for dissatisfaction and complaint.
I think that the examiner in that office can be discharged, and that
the polariscopic tests can be made by one of our weighers and gaugers
in leisure, hours, who possesses knowledge of the business and those
peculiar qualifications which will enable him to perform those tests to
the entire satisfaction of the Government and the importers. If this
recommendation should be approved by the Department, it would save
the salary of the examiner, of $1,000.
Lowelltown.—Owing to the fact that the Lake Megantic Eailroad has
been building across the Canadian border at Lowelltown, in the northern
part of this district, it has been necessary to station an officer there.
His salary, $1,000, is out of proportion to the duties collected, but his
presence there seems absolutely indispensable to transact the necessary
business, which will be constantly increasing, and to prevent smuggling,
which before his appointment could be carried on with impunity. The
prejudice existing on the border against customs officers was such that
I was unable to find a suitable person engaged in other business in that
vicinity who would attend to the requisite work, and the necessity for
sending a man therefrom a distance, who could engage in no other
business, required the payment of a salary which would secure competency and reliability.
In furth'er illustration of the,variableness in quantity of the business
at this port, I may state that, as. it is largely done by a few large concerns, any change in the methods of one of them may make a very great ^
proportional difference. For instance, during the year 1883-'84, the^
Grand Trunk ,Eailroad and one line of foreign steamers imported all
their coal. This last year the coal used by these concerns has been
largely of domestic origin.
After the 1st of July, when the duty on Canadian fish will obtain,
liusinessdn that line will naturally increase to some extent. How much
cannot be predicted^ but during the last year, in which duties on fish
from the provinces were collected, over thirteen millions of pounds
were weighed here.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ED.^
D
FEED.^ N. DOW,
Gollecto7\
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
- [Enclosure.]
CusTOM-HousE, PORTLAND, ME., •
Surveyor's Office^ April 7, 1885.
SiE: In reply to yonr letter of the SOth instant, I have to say that onr permanent
force of inspectors cannot be reduced without po.sitive .detriment to the seryice, the
fbrce being now too small for a thorough supervision of the business of this port.
238 . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The employment of the temporary inspectors is-somewhat irregular, in consequence of
the movements of the steamers plying between this port and Liverpool. When three
or more steamers are in port at the same time, the force is closely employed; but when
but one or two steamers are in port; we tiave from two to four superfluous inspector's.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
STANLEY T. PULLEN,
Surveyor.
Hon.,F. N. Dow,
Collector.
No. 113.
CusTOM-HousE, PORTLAND, M E . ,
Appraiser's Office, April 7, 1885.
S I R : In answer to your letter of the 3d instant, relating to the practicability of reducing the force in this office, and asking whether the
methods of doing business can be simplified, I beg to say, fbr some
3^ears prior to the appointment of Mr. Brenning as examiner, especially
for the purpose of making polariscopic tests of sugar and molasses, the
appraiser, assistant appraiser, and one opener and packer and sampler
were able to do the work of the office; and were it not for the necessity of making these tests, the services of Mr. Brenning could be dispensed with; but when he is hot employed with the polariscope, he
assists in the other duties of the office, and Avhen the business is pressing,
as is often the case, his assistance facilitates the work and prevents delay
in the delivery of goods to the importers.
In relation to the methods of transacting ithe business pf the office, I
have endeavored to adopt from time to time such improved methods as
have appeared practicable, and no change in that regard occurs to me
as desirable at present.
Yery respectfully,
SIDNEY PEEHAM,
Hon. F R E D . N . DOW,
Appraiser.
Collector.
No. 114.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, PORTLAND, OREG.,
Collector's Office, AprU 18, 1885.
O SIR : In reply to your letter dated the 1st instant, I have the honor to
r
say that the customs service in this district has been organized under
my personal supervision during the past twelve years, as chief deputy
and as collector of customs.
It has always been my endeavor to administer the office as economically as the best intereste of the service and the prompt and efficient
transaction bf business would permit. The records of the Department
will, I think, show that the per cent, of cost of collecting the revenue
in the district of Willamette is as low, in proportion to the amount collected, (viz., .078 per cent.,) as in any other district, excepting the few
large districts of New York, San Francisco, &c. (See report of the
supervising special agent for the year ending June 30, 1884.)'
U^he inside force of the office consists of one special deputy, in charge
ofthe collection of duties, liquidation of entries, and disbursing accounts;
one deputy, in charge of the custoins, registration, hospital-dues, marine
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
239'
hospital, custodian and shipping commissioners' accounts, and the admeasurement, of vessels; two clerks, one in charge of reports for the
Bureau of Statistics, permits, and drawback accounts, and one in charge
of warehouse and bond accounts and general recording and copying.
• These several officers are constantly enipl03^ed during office-hours, and
frequently long after office-hours, in the discharge of their respective
duties. I do not consider it for the best interest of the service to recommend any reduction in this force; in fact, the business of the office
could not well be conducted with a less force.
The force of weighers and gaugers consists of one weigher and one
weigher and gauger, both of which officers are-necessary, as their duties
extend along the river for three miles at points where vessels are discharging cargoes.
The present force of inspectors at this port consists of four day-inspectors and four night-inspectors. I t is true that at times the entire
force of inspectors is not engaged discharging vessels, but when not
thus engaged it is employed looking after immediate-transportation and
in-transit merchandise arriving by rail, examining vessels arriving in
ballast, and guarding against the unlawlhl importation of merchandise
from ships' stores, &c. I deem it quite as important that experienced
officers be employed for this purpose as for the unlading of foreign cargoes. Were this force reduced, the requirements of the service would
compel the employment of temporary inspectors, and reliable men cannot usually be found for such duties when wanted.
In view of the foregoing, and of the number of vessels arriving at
and the extent of the limits of this port, I am of the opinion that the
number of inspectors ought not to be reduced.
The appraiser's department has but one regular employ6 to assist the
appraiser, (the opener and packer,) whose services are requii?ed in the
opening and repacking of goods to be examined for the assessment of
duties.
V
As to the salaries of the officers employed in this district, I am satisfied that their compensation is not greater than that paid by private
individuals and corporations for similar services, and at which responsible and reliable employes can be obtained.
In conclusion, I have to say that there are no superfluous -or unnecessary officers employed in this district, and I know of no method of simplifying the transaction of business in this office under the present system of accounting established by the Treasury Department.
Ver}^ respectfully,
F. N. SHUETLEFF,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 115.
C U S T O M - H O U S E , PoRTSMotJTH, N . H . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 11, 1885.
S I R : In reply to circular letter of the 1st instant, relative to the reduction of the force employed under my direction, .1 will say that while
the business of this office has fallen off during the past winter, jet, with
the prospect of increase during the spring and summer, I am not in-
240^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
d i n e d at this time to recommend a reduction. ^ One change, howeverj
could be made which would increase the efficiency of the service. At
present, Deputy Collector Wm. B. Morrill has charge of the^interior
ports of Dover, Exeter, and New Market, and resides at Exeter. Dover
being the-only one of these places where any considerable businesses
transacted, this officer should, in my opinion, reside at that place in-,
stead of Exeter. As Mr. Morrill is permanently located at Exeter, auf I
would not remove to Dover, I would respectfully recommend that the
present position of deputy' collector and inspector at Exeter be abolished. I would also nominate and solicit your approval to appoint
Joshua L. Foster, oi Dover, as deputy collector and inspector of customs at that, port, at a compensation of $1.90 per diem, which is the
"present compensation of Mr. Morrill. Mr. Foster is not an applicant for the position, consequently the written application and certifi
cates are omitted. Mr. Foster is editor of '^Foster's Democrat," and
is one of the ablest Democratic writers in New England. His age is about
50. He is of excellent character, and in every respect AveU qualified
for the position. He has never served in the Army or Navy, was born
born in New Hampshire, and would be appointed from the same State.
Very respectfully,
A. F. HOW AED,
Hon. D A N I E L M;ANNING,
CoUector.
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 116.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, PORT TOWNSEND, W A S H . ,
Collector's Office, Apnl 22, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Departmett
circular of the 1st instant, requesting to know if, in my opinion, the
force under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public
service, &c. In reply, I have to state that I do not think the force can
be reduced without material injury to the service, and I know of no
way by which ^'the service m a y b e improved" and at the same time
^^the expenses curtailed."
I do not think the efficiency of the service would be increased by in
creasing the force and reducing the remuneration of the ofiicers. The
cost of living in this district is higher than in most others, on account
of the great distance from manufacturing centres and the high rates of
freight. On the contrary, I think the service could be much improved
by having a larger force. This would necessarily involve an increase
in the expenses, but the revenue I think would be increased, and the
service and Government be benefited more than the additional cost of
the extra officers, by the prevention to a greater extent of the illegal
importation of merchandise. We have here a very large district, with
a frontier line on land of some 350 miles, and a coastdine of not less
than 1,000, and including islands, 2,000 miles, to guard. .
The customs force in this district is at the present time but little
larger than it was thirteen years ago, while the amount of business
transacted has iucreased between two and three fold. I beg to subinit
for your consideration the.following brief statement or comparison of
business transacted thirteen years since and during the last fiscal jefa>v:
In the years 1872, 1873, and 1874 there were from nineteen to twent}'
e^ciploy6s, and the number of entrances and clearances averaged 753 a
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.241
year. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, the entrances and clearances amounted to 1,748.
In the year 1880 the number of employes was 18. Vessels entered
and cleared, 723; total collections, $17,864; total expenditures, $24,495;
rate per cent, for collecting, $137.
In the year 1884 the number of employes was 19. Vessels entered
and cleared, 1,748; total collections, $67,245; total expenditures, $26,108;
rate per cent, for collecting, 38—a very remarkable increase'in the
period of four years.
In comparing the present number of employes in this district, and
the work pierformed by them, with the number of the force, and the
work performed in the years 1872 to 1880, it should be noted that during the last two years the '' Chinese restriction act'' has added greatly to
the duties of nearly all my officers, and without adding a single dollar to
the revenue. The completion of the Union Pacific Eailroad, and consequent opening of an in transitu bonding business, necessitates the almost undivided attention of one officer at Tacoma, and of one clerk at
this office, and a large portion of the time of three inspectors travelling
on steamers—not increasing the revenue, but taking the employes away
from their regular duties of guarding the frontier and searching vessels;
and, finally the near approach towards completion of the Canadian
Pacific Eailroad has already began to cause work for our officers on the
border-line. At present we have but three officers stationed near the
line—one at O'Sooyoos lake, exactly on the line in Eastern Washington ; one at Fort Colville, also in Eastern Washington; and one at
Sehome, on Bellingham Bay, about thirty miles from the line. It is
impossible for these three of&cers efficiently to guard the whole territory under their charge. I think the officer at O' Sooyoos is well placed,
as the principal trails to and from British Columbia in that section of
country converge at that point, and probably one officer there is at
present sufficient.
The officer at Colville, Eastern Washington, is absolutely necessary
in consequence of there now being a steamer running from Colville, on
the upper Columbia river, into British Columbia. The officer at Sehome is also much needed. Two trails from British Columbia converge at Bellingham Bay, and four regular coasting steamers ply between that point and other cities on the Sound froin one to three times
a week each, thus affording excellent facilities for quickly removing
contraband goods which may be brought overland. It is almost impossible to prevent smuggling by water in this district, on account of
its close proximity to British Columbia, and nothing but a strong force
of cruising inspectors will render the business so hazardous and unprofitable that it will seldom be attempted. By land it is much easier
to prevent it, and with the addition of a ie^Y more inspectors, at points
which I will designate, I think the service would be as effective as
would be necessary for some time to come.
I would recommend that a mounted inspector and a boatman be at
once appointed at Semiahmoo, the extreme northwestern point of this
Territory, and adjoining the boundary-line. ^ This is a most important
point, and an officer should be permanently stationed there.
The town of Blaine has recently been laid out on the American side,
close to the line, and one will. soon be loca,ted on the English side,
directly opposite. Semiahmoo bay, or Drayton harbor, is a small but
safe harbor, about half a mile wide at the entrance, and entirely on the
American side of the line, but, being so close to the line, is often used by
16 A
242.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
British vessels as a port of refage in bad weather, under the plea <d
^ stress of weather;" and it is easy to see that an extensive smuggUng
^
business may be done there in the absence of revenue officers.
Another inspector and a boat, I think, should also be placed at Sehome,
so that one officer can always remain at Sehome to attend to the shipping,
and the other (mounted) to patrol the roads and trails leading towards
the line.
I would recommend that an officer with a boat be stationed at La
Conner, a smally town on the route of steamers and small craft passing
between points" north towards the boundary-line and the cities of
Seattle and Tacoma. This also is an important, station, this route in
past years having been much used by smugglers, and if rumor is correct
is stiil being used, the waters being very shallow and unapproachable
by the revenue-cutter.
From Port Townsend to the entrance of the Straits of Fuca, a distance of ninety miles, we have a shore line lying from fifteen to twenty
miles distant from the British shore, and no revenue officer inthe whole
distance. I think an officer should be stationed at Port Angeles, a
town about midway from here to the sea, with instructions to make
frequent trips on the steamers to Neah Bay, at the entrance to the
straits. . I also think that, for a time at least, it would be well to place
an officer at Sand Point, in Idaho, on the Une of the Union Pacific
Eailroad, until it is seen what kind of a trade will be developed there.
Eailroad and steamboat routes are projected and mines being opened,
and more or less trade will be carried on between the British side and
our own territory.
. The clerical force in this office certainly cannot be reduced without
injury to the efficiency of the service, and at times, when there is a
pressure of business, I have to call in assistance from some one or more
of the outposts, which should be avoided.
I would suggest that if the Department declines to allow me to.appoint an officer at Semiahmoo at once, I be allowed to transfer one of
the officers at Seattle to that point. Also, that if an officer be temporarily appointed at Sand Point, he be placed under the charge of the
deputy collector at O'Sooyoos Lake, with instructions to report to him.
If desired, I shall be pleased to enter more into detail as to the working of the force in this district,, and to offer further suggestions. This
is a new country, rapidly developing, and destined to become one of the
most important of all the customs districts. The establishment of steamship lines between Puget Sound and China and Japan is already under
consideration, and will no doubt be carried out. It is also more than
probable that lines wUl be established between the terminus of the
Canadian Pacific Eailroad and China and Japan.
Whatever increase of force, if any, be aUowed this district, I feel
assured that the rate per cent, of the cost of collecting the revenue^will
not be increased beyond the rate of the last fiscal year, viz., 38 per cent.,
because bf the rapid gain in the business of the district, and consequent
gain in receipts, and it is more than probable that it will even be reduced.
I enclose a communication just received from Semiahmoo, relative to
smuggling.
I have the honor to remain, very respectfully,
A. W. BASH.
Collector of Gustoms.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
243
No. 117. •
CUSTOMHOUSE, PROVIDENCE, E . I.,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter of
the 1st instant, requesting me to report to what extent the force employed in this district can be reduced, and whether the methods of doing
business can be simplified, &c.
In reply, I have to state, after careful consideration, that, as there has
been a considerable fialling off in the business here, the services of the
following officers ca-n be dispensed with without detriment to the public
servdce so long as the depression continues, viz: One deputy collector,
at $2,000 per annum; one inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer,
at $3.50 per diem; two inspectors, at $3 per diem.
I have also to state that I do not at this time see how the methods
of doing business here can be simplified in such a manner as to improve
the efficiency of the service or curtail the expenses. I consider it to be
my duty, however, to call your attention to the imperfect protection
from smuggUng afforded by the present system of boarding and inspecting vessels from foreign ports now in operation in this district.
The boarding-station is located at Pawtuxet, about five miles below
the city, but vessels enter the bay either by the east passage, passing
Newport, or by the west passage, at Dutch Island, about thirty miles
from this port.
.
No officer is placed on board until they arrive at or near Pawtuxet,
consequently there is no protection whatever for some twenty-five miles,
and nothing to prevent the landing of smuggled goods at any point fpr
the whole distance.
The boarding officer is placed on board at or near Pawtuxet, and remains on board until relieved by the discharging officer, who superintends the discharging of the cargo in the dajd^ime, but leaves at night,
and as there are no night-inspectors here, there is no protection from
smuggling during the night.
I see no way to secure perfect protection unless an officer is placed on
board of every vessel from a foreign port as soon as she enters the bay,
and remains on board until the vessel arrives at her dock and he is relieved by the discharging officer, who is, in turn, relieved at night by
a night-inspector.
Whether any plan can be adopted by which perfect protection froin
smuggling can be afforded, as indicated above, without incurring so
great an expense as to render it impracticable, the Department can
determine much better than myself.
If, however, such a system could be carried into effect, the boardingofficers and boatmen at Newport and Bristol, as well as at this port,
might be dispensed with.
Very respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
CYEUS HAEEIS,
CoUector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
244
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 118.
^
»
CtrsTOM-HousE, EICHMOND, V A . ,
Collector's Office, April'9, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to Department circular letter under date of^ April 1,
1885, in which, as collector of this port, I am requested to report to you
at once what reduction can be made in the force employed under my
direction, I have the honor to report that no further reduction in the
number of officers assigned to duty in this district can well be made
than was made in the early part of the present fiscal year^ which was
one permanent inspector and gauger, one special inspector, and one
night-watchman dropped. This left on duty in this port one deputy,
one clerk, two inspectors, one boatman, one janitor, one watchman,
and one engineer, and at West Point, port of Eichmond, one deputy.
These officers are all on duty daily. The services of assistant engineer,
allowed during the winter months, will be dispensed with on the 15th'
instant. .The number of officers in this district, as you will readily see,
is the minimum in each case, and could admit of ho fiirther reduction.
The only suggestion that occurs to me which would improve the
service and curtail expenses is the discontinuance of the practice of
appointing special inspectors without the collector's recommendation,
and assigning them to districts where they have no other duty to perform^ than to draw their pay at the end of each month, as was done in this
district on several occasions.
Very respectfully,
OTIS H. EUSSELL,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 119.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, EOCHESTER, N : Y . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
> S I R : Eeferring to Department letter of the 1st instant, requesting
me to report as to what extent, in m^^ opinion, the force employed in this
district could be reduced without detriment to the public service, &c.,
I would respectfully state that in this district there is a regular annual
force employed, with but little change from year to year, but at the
opening of lake trade an additional force is appointed for the season of
navigation, which usually commences during the month of April and
closes in December. When appointed collector I retained, with but few
exceptions, the force employed under my predecessor. I found them
competent and attentive, most of them having occupied their positions a
number of years.
This district covers about sixty miles on the lake shore, extending
south to the Pennsylvania line. It includes this office, the ports of
PultneyviUe, Charlotte, and Oak Orchard, on the lake, and Waterloo,
N. Y., at which place there is established a private bonded warehouse
for the storage of imported wool. A deputy collector, acting as storekeeper, is stationed at this point. PultneyviUe and Oak Orchard are
ports of entry, requiring a deputy coUector at each place during the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
245
season of navigation. Charlotte is the principal lake port in the district,
and the importations and exportations are large and increasing. There
are two bonded elevators at this place, in which considerable grain is
stored under warehouse bond, for withdi:awal for consumption or transportation during the winter. The number of appointments for the
season of navigation, excepting those named, are governed by the requirements of this port.
I have not yet recommended these appointments, as I do hot think
trade on the lakes will commence before the 15th instant or the 1st of
May, but shall endeavor to submit the names of persons who will meet
your approval, and^ reduce the force to the actual requirements of the
service.
Under existing laws and regulations, 1 do think the methods of doing
business in an office of this class, which is not extensive enough to be
divided into departments, as larger offices are, can be simplified to any
great extent.
It has always been my aim to work in accordance with the laws and
regulations, and at the same time cause the importer as little inconvenience as possible.
Very respectfully,
0. E. MOEEIS,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
•
Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 120.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SACO, M E . ,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your communication of the 1st instant, requesting
a report as^to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under
my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service, I
have to report that until within a few years the force employed under
the collector of this port consisted of a deputy and two inspectors, but
the fbrce was reduced, and the services of the inspectors dispensed with,
so that the extra force now under me is one deputy, at a salary of $450
per annum. The cities of Saco and Biddeford contain a population of "
20,000 inhabitants, and, with the towns of Old Orchard and Scarboro',
are on the sea-coast and in this, district. Two hundred and thirty
merchant sailing-vessels arrived and departed from this port duringthe
year ending June 30,1884, a part of them for.eign vessels engaged in
trade between here and the British Provinces; and besides we have one
passenger and two propellers, the passenger-steamer making regular
trips in the sunimer season between Saco and Biddeford Pool. It is
often necessary for an officer to proceed to different and remote parts of
the district on official duty, and it is also necessary that one officer at
least be in constant daily attendance at the custom-house during the
hours required h j the customs regulations for the purpose of receiving
entries of vessels, foreign and coastwise, to record bills of sale of vessels, to make marine documents on exchange or otherwise, and attend
to such business as comes to the office. If the force were reduced it
would be necessaiy to close the.office often during the hours of business,
when it is absolutely necessary that an officer should be on duty there,
and thus cause delays, perhaps, of clearance or entrance of vessels,
which would be injurious to the public interests. .
-
246
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
For these and other reasons, I unhesitatingly report that, having only
one subordinate, the force cannot be reduced further without serious
injury and detriment to the public service. The expenses have been
cut clown within a few years so that they are now as follows: Pay of
collector, $250 per annum; deputy, $450; rent, $100, (of customs
office;) fuel, about $25 per annum—total, about $825.
I cannot see how the expenses can be, curtailed consistent with the
interests^ of the service, and I cannot make any suggestions at this time
whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved. My only subordinate is a capable and efficient officer, and familiar with all the details and'work of the office and customs business generally.
Very respectfully,
GEOEGE PAECHEE,
GoUector.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . 0.
No. 121.
CusTOM-HotrsE, SAG HARBOR, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 10, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your circular letter of the 1st instant, in regard to
a reduction of the force employed under my direction, would say that
it is .impossible to discharge the duties appertaining to customs with a
less number than I now have, as there are about two hundred and fifty
vessels in the district.
I do not see how the expenses can be curtailed, as our salaries are
very small, aind the other expenses, I think, are as small as can be made.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM LOWEN,
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
.
. Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 122.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SALEM, MASS.,
.
Collector's Office, June 18, 1885.
S I R : In reply to Department letter of April 14, 1885, referred to me
by my predecessor, requesting this office to report to the Department
in writing, as soon as practicable, to what extent, in my opinion, the
force employed under my'direction can be reduced, &c., I have the
honor to state that, in my opinion, the force cannot possibly be reduced
at the present time without detriment to the public service, as the force
consists only of six men, one of whom is constantly employed as deputy
collector and weigher, gauger, and inspector, ahd one constantly employed boarding vessels, leaving but three men to perform inspectors' .
duty, both at Salem and Beverly; and I would recommend to the Department that the present force of this office be retained.
Very respectfully,
E. F . DODGE, .
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Collector.
Washington, B . C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
247
No. 123.
- GusTOM-HousE, SAN DIEGO, CAL.,
Collector's Office, AprU 25, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your letter of AprU 1,1885, requesting me ^ ^ to report
to what extent, in my opinion, the fbrce employed under my direction
can be reduced without detriment to the public service; whether the
methods of doing business can be simpUfied, and to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to me whereby the efficiency
of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed,'' I have the
honor to say:
I. In regard to a reduction offeree.—I do not see how any can be made
without serious detriment to the pubUc service. The force consists of
only three persons, namely, the deputy collector and one inspector at
San Diego, and a mounted inspector on the boundary-line between the
United States and Mexico. The mounted inspector, with power of
acting deputy coUector, is stationed at the principal road-crossing, about
fifteen miles from here, and he has about forty miles of the boundaryline to look after. I t is his duty to count aU the animals that cross,
whether for export or import, to note their brands, and to inform the
collector. He also collects duties on petty importations that otherwise
would escape.
The deputy coUector and inspector at San Diego must necessarily act
in many capacities and do much work, even when small collections are
made. The transactions are numerous and of a varied character, many
of them about articles of little value, or which prove to be free of duty,
but requiring examination to establish their character, and consuming
the time of the officer. San Diego has both overland and maritime
trade. Persons are continually coming from the Mexican line with
animals and other Mexican products. They may elude the officer on
the line, and cross at night, or at other points. It is an easy matter
to smuggle cigars and supply our retaU dealers. Single animals also
may easily be imported without paying duty, ihe rider clainung the
animal to be for his use on the journey, but leaving him here and returning to Mexico by some other conveyance. Animals imported in
good faith are driven to a corral, where they are counted by the officer,
examined as to condition, and appraised and held till duties are paid.
So much for the overland business. San Diego being a seaport also, the
duties of the officers are multiplied accordingly. From the entrance
to the harbor, seven miles from the city, there is a stretch of twelve
miles before we reach the head of navigation. Four miles distant, on
one side ofthe bay, is the anchorage for Chinese junks, eighteen of which
are engaged in fishing outside of the harbor, and are liable to alien tonnage-tax every time they enter. These require constant watching. '^
Four miles distant, on the other side of the bay, is National City, the
depot of the California Southern Eailroad Company, to which a large
numberof vessels engaged in the coasting trade go with lumber, coal, &c.,
some of these vessels sailing under register. These and the other coasters
wnich discharge at San Diego must be looked after, to see that they are
what they purport to be, and that they are truly engaged in the ceasing ^
trade alone. American vessels also, which sail under afishing-Ucense*
require watching and examination. They generally come from the coast
of Lower California, Mexico, and, having a permit to touch and trade,
not unfrequently bring dutiable articles.
248
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Less than two subordinate permanent officers at San Diego could not
perform aright all the duties of boarding, surveying, and measuring
vessels, supervising the discharge of the small vessels, acting as general
detectives, in regard to both overland and maritime trade, and at the
same time attend to the office-work, keeping the records, writing official correspondence, giving infbrmation to inquirers, making out ihe
weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports, changing documents of vessels,
entering and clearing vessels, receiving entries of nierchandise, both
free and dutiable, calculating duties, receiving entries fbr export, and
supervising the exportation, &c.., and this where nearly all the writing
must be done by the officer, because there is no custom-house broker in
the place, and there is ignorance of the proper forms, and often inability
to write.
When a large vessel arrives with dutiable cargo, requiring the services
of an inspector for some time, I have been accustomed to nominate a
temporary inspector, whose pay ceases with the discharge of the cargo.
, I I . In regard to the methods of doing business.—I do not see how these
can be simplified.
III., Suggestions for increasing the efficiency of the service and curtailing
expenses.—Uneer this head, I most respectfully reffer to my letter of
March 26, 1885, in regard to a revenue boat, and renew the suggestion
previously made that the present heavy boat be sold and a,Ught Whitehall boat be substituted—a boat that one man can easily handle. By
this change expenses will be curtailed, and at the same time the effir
ciency of the service promoted. My previous letters have shown that
repairs to the present boat have been frequent and expensive, while the
property is continually diminishing in value and is of little real utility
for revenue service. The deputy collector, acting as boarding officer
and surveyor, has no crew at his command, and he cannot well handle
tfthe present boat alone. To furnish a barge office and bargemen would
add to the expense. As before stated, the eighteen junks which are
engaged in fishing anchor four miles from the shore, which gives opportunity to elude the officer and cheat the Government. They should
pay an alien tonnage-tax of $1^03 per ton every time they enter the
harbor. But they all look alike, and from a little distance it is impossible
to distinguish one from the Other. A loaded junk may come in at night
and at the anchorage take the place of another that goes out the same
night. The only way to know this is to visit the anchorage frequently
in a light boat that can easily be handled Jby one person. The additional tonnage-tax that would be collected Vould soon pay the cost of
such boat.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEO. A. JOHNSON,
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Collector.
Washington, B . G.
No. 124.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SANDUSKY, OHIO,
Collector's Office, AprU 9, 1885.
SIR : As requested in your favor of the 1st instant, I beg tp state that'
the force now employed in the customs service in this district is as
follows:
At the port of Sandusky: Collector, (salary, $1,000 and fees,) maxi
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE, TREASURY.
249
mum compensation, $2,500 per annum; one deputy collector and inspector, compensation $1,000 per annum..
At the port of Huron: One deputy collector and inspector, compensation $300 per annum.
> <
At the port of Vermillion: One deputy collector and inspector, compensation 30 cents per day.
At the port of Marblehead: One deputy collector and inspector, compensation 55 cents per day.
»
«
.
At the port of Port Clinton: One deputy collector and inspector, compensation 55 cents per day.
At the port of Kelley's Island: One deputy collector and inspector,
compensation $1.10 per day.
At the port of Put-in Bay: One deputy collector and inspector, compensatioii $1.10 per day.
As all of these ports are on the shore of Lake Erie, but a few miles
distant from the boundary-line between the United States and Canada,
I am of the opinion that no reduction in the force now employed within
this district can be made without detriment to the public service. The
methods now employed in conducting the business of the district, both
foreign and coastwise, are such as to cause the least inconvenience to
the business community consistent with existing law, and at as small a
cost to the Government as is possible, without impairing the efficiency.,
of the service.
Very respectfully,
CLAEK EUDE,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 125.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Collector's Office, May 1, 1885.
SIR : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of Department letter of
1st ultimo, requesting me to report in writing as soon as practicable to
what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my direction can
be reduced without detriment to the public service, &c. ^
In reply, I beg to say that immediately upon receipt thereof, I caused
an investigation to be inaugurated into the methods of transacting the
business in the various divisions of this office, which has just been completed, and I find that the business is well conducted with a limited
number of employes, who devote their whole time to their duties during
office-hours, and longer whenever the necessities ofthe service demand it.
In the first division, comprising the entry of merchaindise, entrance,
clearance and enrolling of vessels, there can be no reduction of the force,
but in the second or warehouse division, I am satisfied that while to do
so would involve some extra work upon the assistant storekeepers and
the ex-officio storekeeper of the port, the position of superintendent of
warehouses, at $1,800 per annum, can be abolished, also that of watchman No. 15, (old number,) at $900 per annum, without detriment to
the service.
As I do not wish, however, to dismiss the present superintendent from
the service, I have in another letter submitted his nomination to a
vacancy caused by the death of one of the employes.
250
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In the third division no reduction can be made; and in the fourth,
which embraces the preparation of the various accounts, liquidations,
statistics, &c., I have already (on the 31st January last) submitted some
suggestions in regard to simplifying tlie method of transacting the business, with a view of reducing the clerical labor, and I now forward a
report from the auditor making recommendations as to further changes
in the methods of rendering returns, which, it is thought, if adopted,
will reduce the labor, and possibly enable the office to dispense with
one clerk; but that cannot be definitely determined until it has been
tried.
In the cashier's office all are employed daily during office-hours, and
I am satisfied no reduction can be made there without detriment to the
service; nor in the appraiser's division, where I have recently found i t .
necessary to extend the hours of labor in order to facilitate the transactions and insure prompt deUvery to the importer of his examined pack-.
ages.
^
In connection with the force employed under the supervision of the
surveyor, embracing weighers, gaugers, inspectors, &c., I enclose herewith a report from him in detail of the workings of his branch of the
service, the conclusion arrived at being that, while he can manage to
perforni the work devolving upon his division with the existing force
under the methods now in vogue, any reduction thereof would endanger
the revenue.
In general I desire to say that, from personal observation since I
assumed the duties of this office, I have become satisfied that there are
no drones or sinecures; that the force, as a rule, renders as efficient
service and performs as much labor during the same hours as is usual
in private concerns of like nature; and, taking into consideration the
extra labor devolved upon this office by reason of the handling of large
quantities of ^immediate-transportation" goods, fr-ee entries of tea and
coffee, raw silk, &c., inspecting and stamping prepared opium, andthe
execution of the Chinese act, for wliich no corresponding credit appears
in collections, the expenses of the office are less in proportion to the
amount collected than at some of the eastern ports, such as Baltimore,
Philadelphia, Boston, and New Orleans.
So far as the administration ofthe office is concerned, the' civil-service
law and rules have been strictly observed, both in letter and in spirit.
When a vacanqy has occurred from any cause, I have made it a rule to
promote in rotation from lower grades to the higher, and then fill th-e
vacancy in the lowest grade from the ^'eligibles" certified to me b y t h e
local ^^board of examiners," the latter being appointed for the probationary period of six months.
In making promotions I have selected those who had performed long
and faithful service, where they possessed the requisite ability and fitness
for the advanced position; and I have also at times transferred officers
in the same grade where one possessed better qualifications to perform
the duties than the other; and by pursuing this policv T feel assured
that the efficiency of the service has been increased.
I am, very respectfully,
WM. H. SEAES,
Oollector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
251
No. 126.
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Naval Office, AprU 15, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your favor of the 1st, requesting this office to report
in writing to what extent the force now employed can be reduced without detriment to the service, &c., I beg to state that, in my opinion, any
reduction would result in inefficiency and delay in the discharge of the
business with the public. There are no sinecures or supernumeraries
in the office.
The force now employed consists of one clerk who acts as messenger,
and\has charge of checking manifests and comparison of bills of lading;
two entry clerks, one of whom is about half the time employed on drawback entries; two warehouse-entry clerks, who have no spare time; two
liquidating clerks, who must quite frequently be assisted by other clerks
of the office in order to keep the work up promptly; one invoice
clerk, who compares and computes all invoices, and whose duties often
employs him both day and evenings; one import clerk, who, in addition to his duties at the desk, superintends the appraisal and collection
of duties on passengers' baggage at the wharf, in conjunction with a
clerk fromthe collector's office; ohe clerk who acts as cashier, and who,
in addition to usual duties, assists in liquidation of drawback entries. ,;
There are times when some of the clerks are not busy, but it occurs
only when there is a lull in business. - At other times there is a rush,
and with less force business would be delayed and the service made
inefficient. Always having had a short force for the work, we have
adopted the system of transterring clerks from one desk to another
when work accumulates at one desk and is short at another.
I do not know that I can suggest any improvement in the present
methods of doing the business of the office. It has been simplified
whenever the opportunity occurred, and now, I believe, is as complete
and methodical as it can be made.
With great respect, I am, yours, truly.
B. J. WATSON,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 127.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SAVANNAH, GA.,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
S I R : Acknowledging receipt of your instructions to -report in writing upon the possible reduction of force in this custom-house, I have
the honor to make the following statement:
1. The building is cared for by a janitor, at $700 a year, assisted by
a laborer and fireman, at $360 per year; l h a v e also in my office a
messenger, at $720 a year. These three offices may be consolidated
into two by making a '^janitor and messenger," at $800 per year, and
an assistant to same, at $600 per year—total, $1,400, instead of $1,780;
reduction, $380.
252
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
2. We have at this port ai wharf front of nearly three miles, which
requires at least six night-inspectors for its proper protection. As we
have but three night-inspectors, one of whom has care of the custo^mhoiise building at night, the protection of the wharves from smuggling
is more pretence than reality. Temporary officers could be employed
at night when needed for a vessel which could not be sealed, and two
night-inspectors dispensed with, leaving one night-inspector for duty
at the custom-house—a reduction of $1,460.
3. There are three day-inspectors for the discharge of cargoes. One
might be dispensed Avith May 1, and his place supplied early in the fall
by a temporary—a reduction of, say, $547.50.
As to the clerks, as I have but three, and this is the most important
custom-house in the South, with the exception of New Orleans, I think
it evident that the clerical force is not excessive.
As the Department seems desirous of making some reductions, I respond to that desire with the above suggestions, recommending the
change in the night-inspectors' force, not because it is too large, but be-'
cause it is too small to be of any value..,
The business as conducted in this custom-house is perhaps as simple
as it can be to present sufficient checks upon the officers handling the
funds of the Government, and that it is sufficiently simple to.be understood and carried out efficiently is evidenced by the fact that every
special agent who has examined the office during my incumbency has
r'^ported it infiLrst-classcondition in every particular.
I am, very respectftdly,
T. F. JOHNSON,
Collector.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washingtion, B. C.
No. 128.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ST. AUGUSTINE, F L A . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 12, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully replying to your communication of the 1st instant,
I would say that, in my opinion, it is impossible to reduce the force
employed in this district without being detrimental to the public service,
and give the following reasons:
^ This district has an extended coast-line of about two hundred miles,
and is protected only by customs officers at either end, leaving a vacant
and unprotected coast of over one hundred miles.
It is true that there has been no transactions incurred at the Indian
Eiver office, where a deputy collector and one boatman are stationed,
but we have no assurance that a valuable foreign cargo or cargoes may.
not at ^ n j moment demand the immediate attention and protection of
customs officers in the interest of the Government by occasion of wrecks.
The life-sa^dng stations are unable to furnish any protection to the
revenue, for, in the event of wrecks, their attention is necessarily given
to the saving of life and rescue and care of passengers, if any. Consequently, it is very easy for wreckers to carry away dutiable merchandise, &c., whereas a good and efficient customs officer on the grounds
wouId.be a preventive and a satisfactory protection.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
253
" I always am in favor of a reduction in force and expenses where it is
prudent, but in .this easel deem it very unwise, and perhaps dangerous
to the interests of the Government and to the proper protection of the
revenue, to recommend any reduction in the force employed in this district.
I am, yours, very respectfuUy,
FEANCIS E. WITSELL,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 129.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ST. JOSEPH, MO.,
Surveyor's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
SIR : Eesponding to your favor of the 1st instant, I have to answer
that this port is now conducted upon the most economical basis possible
to its growing importance, increased labors, and efficiency.
The manifold duties now performed by myself and one deputy are
impossible at less expense. Those natural duties are constantly increasing, and to be added to them soon are the work and responsibilities
of the erection of the public building in this city. It was thought we
must have additional help, but, cheerfully responding to the desire of
the Departiuent to economize, no such request shall be entered until
forced by such excessive labors as will place it beyond all reason not to
have it allowed.
No simplification of methods are within the scope of our recommendation.
I am, very respectfully,
JAMES HUNTEE, ,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 130.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, ST. LOUIS, MO.,
Surveyor's Office, April 15, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department's circular dated April 1, 1885, requesting me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public
service, I have the honor to state that, upon the receipt of theletter, I
referred it to my special deputy, Mr. Herman Key; Mr. Nelson Young,
deputy surveyor in charge of the marine division under me; to Mr.
Louis Haynes, cashier; and also to Hon. L. G. Metcalf, appraiser, requesting a written report to me from each of them upon the matter
mentioned in said circular. Their reports are herewith enclosed. From
these reports it will be seen that the force is as small as the best interest
of the service will permit. " It would appear wisest that the force should
be sufficient to transact the public business with dispatch at aU times,
254
'REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
although on some days a less number might do the work. I shaU be
glad, however, to conform to any suggestion in the way of economy.
The late ruling in respect to pay of inspectors will work a slight de-^
crease in expenses.
The business in this office is well systematized, and the expense of"
collecting the revenue light, and my experience does not suggest any
change of importance.
Very respectfully,
CHAS. M. WHITNEY,
' Surveyor of Customs.
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B . C.
.
[Enclosure.]
CusTOM-HousE, ST. LOIJIS, Mo., SUEVEYOB'S O F F I C E ,
Marine Department^ April 4, 1885.
D E A R S I E : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yonr letter of the 3d
instant, requesting a report concerning the marine department of yonr ofi&ce, with reference to t h e reduction, of force, without detriment to the service, simplific.ation of
business, efi&ciency of service, and curtailment of expenses.
As the result of a very careful and conscientious consideration of every point suggested by you, I respectfully submit the following report:
1. As to simplification: The present details of the work' are the result and development of,many years of continuous service, aud, whilst of course subject to future
changes as may be necessary, are at present satisfactory, as far as I can see.
2. Curtailment of force and expenses, without detriment to the public service. The
force of this department now i s : Nelson Young, deputy in charge, entered the service
in 1867 ; George Schuster, deputy and inspector, entered the service in 1869; Beverly
A. Sturgeon, clerk, entered the service in 1882.
In the fall of 1883, Inspector H. H. Ghlum resigned, and his place has not been filled,
thus showing a reduction in this department of one inspector, $1,460 per annum.
The river frontage of this port proper is about ten miles; of this distance over six
miles consist of paved wharf, where, vessels arrive and make their departures.
The port also embraces the Illinois river to PcQria, 111., the Missouri river to Rocheport, the Mississippi to Louisiana, Mo., above, and Grand Tower, 111., below.
The enrolled tonnage i s : Steam, 138 in number, of 55,025 tons; barge, &c., 132
in number, of 113,498 tons—total, 270 vessels, aggregating 168,523 tons. Under actJune 30, 1879, enrolment of barges is optional with owner. At this port the barge
interest is so great and important that, in order to secure admeasurement. and customhouse record, the owners insist on documenting. A low valuation of this tonnage, in
round numbers, i s : Steam, $2,500,000; barge, $1,000,000—total, $3,500,000.
Through this department of your office is applied to this large and. important interest the various requirements of the navigation and inspection laws in relation to the
protection of life and property, admeasurement, enrolment and license, record of
property interests, boarding of vessels and inspection of sailing-papers, inspection certificates, hcense of .officers, carriage of passengers, space for crew, and the multitudinous and important duties imposed by said acts on this department, the performance of some of these duties often requiring the presence of the officer at some
remote point within the limits of this port.
I t should be stated as a matter of fact that since the above-mentioned reduction of
the force of this department in 1883, occasions have arisen where the present force has
proved barely sufficient, and this without regard to sickness or accident.
In conclusion, permit me to state, in view of the foregoing facts and with a proper
regard to the interests of the Government and the public in the enforcement of these
important laws affecting hfe and property in relation to vessels, I see no room for a
curtailment of force or expenses in this department.
Very respectfully,
NELSON YOUNG,
Deputy Surveyor,
C H A S . M . W H I T N E Y , Esq.,
Surveyor of Customs, St. Louis, Mb.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
. '
,
255
[Enclosure.]
CusTOM-HousE, ST. Louis, Mo.,
Su/rveyor^s Office, April 3, 1885.
SiE: Replying to your request, of this date, for suggestions looldng to the simplification of the work of this office, I have the honor to say that I have been greatly impressed with the importance in that dhection of two changes from the present
regulations, viz:
1. Vest in the surveyor the authority to incur expenditures on account of expense
in collecting revenue from customs for articles required not exceeding $10, or even, say,
$5 in cost.
2. Authorize payment in cash of vouchers not excieeding, say, $20 in amount.
The first change would dispense with requisitions upon the Department for authority
to purchase needed articles of trifiing cost, which requisitions are never refused approval, and which, while they requhe comparatively httle work in the individual offices
making them, must necessarily greatly swell the aggregate clerical labor to be performed
L the various Departments at Washington.
Q
The second change would, in this office, dispense with four-fifths of the checks drawn
upon the assistant treasurer, and, if the experience with disbursing officers in other
cities and places should be'similar, would, in the aggregate, greatly reduce the clerical
labor of the various sub-treasuries, as well as reduce the habOity to clerical errors in
drawing and paying checks.
Very respectfuUy,
L. HAYNES,
Cashier.
CHAS. M . W H I T N E Y ,
Esq.,
Surveyor, dte.
[Enclosure.]
^
CusTOM-HousE, ST. Louis, l^Co.,
Surveyor's Office, April 11, 1885.
S I E : As requested in your letter of 3d instant, to report about the working of this
office, and to state whether any reduction in the present force of the employes could
be made without detriment to the public, service, I would very respectfully say that,
after thoroughly considering the question and the business dorie in this ofifice, I thinli
it would be a very wrong policy and would seriously afifect the working of this ofifice
iu reducing the force, which only consists of one liquidating clerk, one warehouse clerk,
one entry clerk, one assisting entry clerk, one statistical clerk, one general clerk, one
weigher, measurer, and gauger, one assistant weigher, measurer, and gauger, one chief
inspector, five inspectors—a very small force of clerks regarding that the collections
amount to over one million and a half dollars at this port per annum, and require a
great deal of clerical work. The books are kept in the best style, and the whole business
conducted in a good, systematical, and most economical way.
Considering the situation of the different raUroads over tlie river and on this side,
the adequate.force of inspectors is often put to the utmost to'attend to their duties.
Very respectfully,
HERiyiAN KEY,
.^
Special Deputy Collector.
C H A S . IVI. W H I T N E Y , Esq.,
"^
Surveyor of Customs^ St. Louis.
[Enclosure.]
APPEAISEE'S OFFICE,
St. Louis, J.i>n710,1885.
SlE: In reply to your communication of the 3d instant, requesting a report from me
as to the practicability of reducing the force now employed in the appraiseip^s department. I have the honor to reply that I have fully considered the matter, and conclude
that the forpe cannot be reduced without injury to the service. The force now employed ,
in the appraiser's department is as follows: Charles JVIesnier, examiner, salary $1,400
256
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
per year; R. L. Hines, clerk, salary $900 per year; Frank Heer, opener and packer, $60
"per month; and two laborers, "who alsp perform messenger service, each $40 per month.
The above is the enthe force in this department, and is a small one when it is considered that this force not only perform the service connected with the appraiser's store,
but also receive and discharge all merchandise in the bonded warehouse, and perform
the work of keeping it in order.. Since the bonded warehouse was combined with the
appraiser's store, the first of last December, nothing has been paid by the Government
for extra labor, the force in the appraiser's store doing the work for both, when heretofore they were employed exclusively i n t h e appraiser's store.
With reference to R. L. Rhines as a clerk in the ofifice, I will say that, while his
salary is small, he is a very valuable man, whose ser-^dces are required as an assistant
to the examiner and in attending to outside work, and, by his faithful and industrious
habits, greatly relieves the force in the appraiser's store. The work in the ofifice is
thoroughly systematized, and without his services I do not see how it could be kept
up to the standard. I am aware of a falling off in custom-house receipts in the last
year, but by reference to our record I find that, while invoices have been smaller in
value, the number passing through the appraiser's;, ofifice has been maintained up to
January, 1885, and when it is considered that a small invoice involves nearly as much
labor as a large one, the work in this department is not materially affected.
Very respectfully,
L. S. ]y[ETCALFE,
^
U. S. Appraiser.
IVIajor C. IVI. W H I T N E Y ,
Surveyor of Customs, St. Louis, Mo.
No. 131.
CusTOM-HousE, ST. MARY'S, GA.,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Department circular of April 1, relative to reduction
of expenses in this district, I have the honor to state that the principal
customs business arises from the export of lumber manufactured on the
St. Mary's and St. Ilia rivers. There are four lumber-mills on the St.
Ilia river, from twenty-two to twenty-six miles from this office, which
have to be looked after. The customs money has' to be taken to Fer-.
nandina, Fla., to forward by express for deposit. The force now
employed here consists of a collector, deputy, and one boatman, and, in
my opinion, this force cannot be reduced and the efficiency of the service preserved.
Very respectfully,
JOSEPH SHEPAED,
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Gollector.
Washington, B. G.
No. 132.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, .ST. VH^CENT, Miira^.,
Collector's Office, May 23, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department circular letter under daT^e of A p r i l l
last, relative to reduction in force, simplification in business, and curtailment of expenses withiii this customs district, I have the honor to
state thafi* at all the sub-ports, with the exception of St. Paul, but one
person is employed. Within the last two years the force at the chief
port has been reduceci froni eleven to eight, Avhich l^^tter number em-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
267
braces the mounted inspector, inspector on the train, and the inspector
superintending the transfer of freight from cars to boats on the Eed
river and the village inspection, leaving but five at the office for night
service, the local business by railway, and the making and compiling
of reports and keeping of records for the entire district.* Further reduction could not be made without detriment to the efficiency of the
service. The work has been so systematized that no time is lost in
useless or accumulative labor. Having from time to time reduced the
force of the district to the lowest possible number compatible with the
prompt and efficient discharge of the public business, I am unable to
recommend further reduction.
It is the constant desire of the collector to so manage the business bf
the district as to secure the greatest efficiency with the smallest expenditure.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOSEPH BOOKWALTiEE,
Hon. DAJSTIEL MAISTNING,
GoUector.
Secretary of the Treasury.
'
No. 133.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, SHIELDSBORO', MISS.,
Collector's Office, AprU 24, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting me to report—
1. '^To what extent, in my opinion, the force employed under my
direction, can be reduced without detriment to the public service.
2. ^' Whether the methods of doing bnsiness can .be simplified; and
3. To make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to
me, whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and the expenses curtailed."
•
1 have the honor to report that the force employed under my direction
consists of four officers, each at a compensation of $3 per day—one
special deputy collector and inspector of customs stationed at this office,
two deputy collectors and inspectors at Pascagoula, Miss., fifty miles
from this office, and one inspector at Ship Island, twenty-five or thirty'
niiles distant. One of the inspectors at Pascagoula performs the duties
of boarding officer at that port on all incoming and outgoing vessels,
whilst the other is confined principally to office-work. Owing to the
extent of the foreign lumber trade there, and the long distance &om the
shore (about nine miles) to the main anchorage-grounds of vessels, combined with the vigilance required to prevent and detect offences against
the revenue laws, the present force employed cannot be reduced ^ ^ without detriment to the public service.'' The same facts apply to the case
of the inspector at Ship Island, where the Gulf Quarantine hospital is
located, under the supervision of the United States Marine-Hospital
bureau, and whose services could not be dispensed with without detriment to the public service.
Upon my special deputy at this office devolves the functional duties
of collectQ/,^uring my absence, and who is mutually charged with my.sel%^i^vi?ll clerical and officiail labor, the making and transmission of
reports and accounts to, and correspondence with, the Department at
Washington.
^^. ^-^ .^:>^-^'''>^fy^v ^^ .
^
'. •
17 A
258
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
I do not think thafc the methods of doing business in this district can
be simplified, and can make no suggestions towards an improvement
in the efficiency of the service and the curtailment of its expenses.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. G. HENDENSON,
Gollector.
Hon. D A N I E L M A I L I N G ,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 134.
CusTOM-HousE, SITKA, ALASKA,
Collector's Office, May 20, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to Department letter, April 1, 1885, requesting me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the forceemployed
under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public
service, &c., I have the honor to state that in this district the customs
force is organized as foUows:
At Sitka there is one collector, with salary of $2,500, with fees and
cominissions; one special deputy collector, with salary of $1,200; one
watchman employed on vessels, at $3 per day, when necessary, but not
to exceed eight days in the month, and one boy, called a janitor, who
makes fires and sweeps the office, at a salary of $6 per month.
At Tongas is a deputy coUector, with salary of $1,500 per annum; at
Wrangel a deputy collector, at $1,500 per annum, and a watchman, at
$3 per day, not to exceed six days in the month; at Kodiak and Ouualaska, a deputy collector, with salaries of $1,500 each.
The salaries of $1,500 for the deputy collectors is in full for salary,
fuel, furniture, and rent of office.
At Juneau is one inspector, with salary of $3 per day; and on the
mail-steamer, our only regular means of communication, is an inspector,
^ with a salary of $3 per day.
None of the deputy collectors can be removed 'without abolishing the
offices.
The watchmen are employed only when necessary to protect the revenue and prevent smuggling.
The inspector at Juneau has but little to do, although constantly on
duty, and I think his services can be dispensed with. Juneau is the
headquarters of the mining interest in this district, ^nd its future is not
yet determined. If the mines in its vicinity are successful, Juneau will
become the most important place in the district, and the service in that
case will be greatly benefited by appointing a deputy collector for it,
and placing the port on the same footing as Tongas, Wrangel, Kodiak,
and Ouualaska.
.
•
The small revenue force stationed in Alaska does not and cannot prevent smuggling in canoes from British Columbia, and a revenue-cutter
ought to be permanently stationed in this district and employed in patrolling its waters.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
PETEE FEENCH,
Collector,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
259
No. 135.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, STONINGTON, CONN.,
Collector's Office, AprU 2, 1885.
SIR : In reply to youi* favor of April 1, relative to force employed in
this district, I would respectfuUy state: The force in this district has
been reduced from six to four in the past two years. As the ports of
Westerly, Mystic, and Noank are in this district, four are as few as we
can employ without detriment to the public service.
As far as simplification of business is concerned, it would seem that
the vast number of blanks to Bureau of Statistics marked ^'no transactions " could be dispensed with.
Very respectfuUy,
H. N. TEUMBULL,
Collector.
^ Hon.
SECRETARY OF TREASURY,
Washington, B . 0.
No. 136.
CusTOM-HousE,
N. T.,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to your communication of the 1st instant, asking a
report as to what extent, in my opinion, the force employed in this
district can be reduced without detriment to service, &c., I have to state :
This district extends from the mouth of the Tonawanda creek, on the
Niagara riyer, to the east bank of the Oak Orchard creek, on Lake Ontario, a distance of over seventy miles. Suspension Bridge is the port
of entry where the principal business of the district is transacted. The
outside ports or places where officers are stationed are Tonawanda,
where a large lumber business is done, both foreign and coastwise; Port
Day, where there is no business of importance, but considerable crossing is done in small boats to Chippewa, in Canada; Niagara Falls,
where there is a ferry, and also a carriage-bridge across the river to
Canada; Lewiston, the head of navigation on the river below the falls,
seven miles from Lake Ontario, has a regular steamer line to Toronto,
Canada; Youngstown, at the mouth of Niagara river, has a ferry to
Canada and occasional steamers from Canada; Wilson is a regular lake
harbor, and some considerable foreign and coastwise business; Olcott
is a harbor, and has a light-house; Oak Orchard, while actually in this
district, is at its extreme east end, and for years the officer there has^
been under the direction of the collector of the district of Genesee, to
whom he reports.
There are employed in the collector's office at this port one special
deputy collector, salary $2,500 per annum, who has charge of the correspondence, makes the collector's accounts, and has a general charge
of the business of the office; one deputy collector and clerk, at $1,500
per annum; two deputy collectors and clerks, at $1,400 each; one
deputy collector, at $1,200; one messenger, at $600. The duties of these
officers are general, one acting as cashier, one as entry clerk, one as
bond clerk, and one as liquidating clerk. They keep aU records, pas^
SUSPENSION BRIDGE,
260
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
entries, make abstracts and reports, &c. There are ten deputy collectors and inspectors, who attend on the arrival and departure of pas- ^
senger-trains, make manifests on baggage in transit through Canada,
make examination of passengers' baggage, searching trains on the
Canada side for examinadon of hand baggage and packages in the cars
as trains cross into the United States. These officers each receive $3
per diem, but the railway companies reimburse the United States for
two-thirds the amount paid to three of them, who were appointed to
superintend transfers of baggage in Canada for the especial accommodation of the railways.
Bight officers are employed at the different freight-houses and yards
of the railways, to inspect imports, seal cars, make manifests, &c. At
each of these yards and freight-houses there is an officer in charge, who
also acts as appraiser for the collector, there being no appraiser at this
port. This officer at the New YorkCentral receives$1,800 per annum,
and the two others $4 per diem each. The five remaining officers receive $3 per diem each.
There are three inspectors stationed at the railway-bridges, for the
examination of trains from Canada, seals, manifests, &c., and to keep
reports of cars arriving, for use of the officers at the yards. Their compensation is $3 per diem each.
Two deputy collectors and inspectors are stationed at the carriagebridge from Canada, to receive reports of pedestrians and teams arriving.
Compensation, $3 per diem each.
There are two storekeepers, at $4 per diem each, paid by owners of
the warehouses, and one female examiner, ^ at $2 per diem.
At this port there are two railway-bridges, across which trains arrive
and depart continuously night and day, and one carriage-bridge, this
and the carriage-bridge at Niagara Falls being the only ones across
Niagara river. The officers here are required to be on duty night and
day, a part working by day and a part at night, and changing about.
At Tonawanda there havebeen two officers, one during the season of
navigation only. At the ferry, Niagara Falls, one officer during season
of navigation. This officer also looks affcer matters at Port Day. At
the carriage-bridge, Niagara Falls, two officers, on duty night and day.
At Lewiston, two officers, one during theseason of navigation. At
Youngstown, one officer. At Wilson, one officer during the season of
navigation. At Olcott, one officer, during season of navigation. These
officers are all paid $3 per diem, and their duty is largely preventive
along the Niagara river and Lake Ontario.
At Collingwood and Midland, in Canada, officers are stationed during
the season of navigation, in connection with the transit business over
the Northern Eailway and the Grand Trunk Eailway, and paid by these
companies.
I have endeavored, in as concise a manner as possible, to state the
condition of affairs in this district as to the work performed, the disposition and compensation of the force.
I am unable to see how the manner of transacting business can be
simplified or the number of employ6s reduced, though as yet I have not
renominated officers at Tonawanda and Lewiston for the present season
, of navigation, and shall not do so unless I find their services cannot be
dispensed with.
The female examiner, who is paid $2 per diem, may be discontinued if
I be authorized to enter into an arrangement with her or some other
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
261
suitable person, to be paid at the rate^ of $2 per diem when actually employed. The employment of such an examiner continuously does not
now seem to be necessary.
The compensation paid to officers at this port, with one exception,
seems to me reasonable only, when the hours of service and night-work
are considered 5 but, in my opinion, the compensation paid to officers at
the out-ports, where the cost of living is not so much and the duty less
onerous, may very properly b.e reduced. I therefore recommend that the
compensation of M. A. Hull, deputy collector andinspector, employed
at the New York Central freight-house, be fixed at $4 per diem instead
of $1,800 per annum, which will be the same compensation paid to other
officers performing like service; that the compensation of Frederick
Sommers, deputy collector and inspector at Tonawando; Joseph E.
Whitman, deputy collector and inspector at Lewiston; and A. Judson
Eaton, deputy collector and inspector at Youngstown, be each fixed at
$2.50 per diem instead of $3 per diem ; and that the compensation of
the ofhcers nominated in my communicatioii of March 26, 1885, viz.,
Ealph Stockwell, Henry Kenney, and John Chambers, nominated for
the season of navigation at Wilson, Olcott, and the ferry at Niagara
Falls, respectively,, be fixed at $2.50 per diem.
I also recomniend that I be authorized to discontinue the continuous
service of Mrs. Catherine Sweeney, female examiner, and to make the
arrangement before mentioned.
Very respectfully,
BENJ. FLAGLEE,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
»
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 137.
CusTOM-HousE, TAPPAHANNOCK, V A . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 4, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, and in reply I
have the honor to state that, in my opinion, the force employed under
my direction (one deputy) cannot be reduced without detriment to the
public service. The multifarious and unremitting labors of the office
are sufficient to engross the time and care of two men, with every regard
to industry, efficiency, and dispatch. The business of this office is confined almost entirely to issuing documents to vessels, collecting hospital
tax and fees, the admeasurement and inspection of vessels, the entrances
and clearances of vessels, and making up weekly, monthly, and quarterly returns to the Department; and I do not think the methods of
doing business could, under the existing laws, be simplified, the efficiency
of the service improved, or the expenses curtailed.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
BENJ. UPTON, J R . ,
Gollector of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
262'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURE.
No. 138.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, TOLEDO, OHIO,
Collector's Office, AprU 10, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter oi
April 1, (delivered in this office April 4,) asking me to report in.
writing to what extent the force employed under my direction can b€)
reduced without detriment to the public service, &c.
The permanent force employed in this (Miami) customs district con
sists of three men besides the collector, viz., one special deputy, one
^ deputy, and one inspector. During the season of navigation, one deputy
collector additional is employed in the night office. Prior to the beginning of my term of office, one outside inspector was dropped from the
rolls. Under the existing arrangement, the deputy collector peiforms
the duties of cashier; the inspector has charge of the statistical work,
and is on duty on the docks and at the depots, (of which there are now
five in the different parts of the city,) when circumstances permit;; and
the work of the clearance desk during navigation is divided between •
the different members of the force.
Since our force^was diminished as stated, two new railway depots have
been established in Toledo, and the importations under the immediatetransportation act have materially increased, requiring additional outiside work. To secure the proper observance of the steamboat and inspection laws, it would seem really desirable that we should devote more
time to outside inspection than we are able to do with our present force.
I beg leave, in this connection, to call attention to the report of the
supervising special agent for the fiscal year ending June 30,1884, shoaving that the expense in this district for collecting the revenue for the
period named was only 12 cents on each doUar, far below the average.
Very respectfuUy,
JOSEPH B. BATTELLE,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
No. 139.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, TUCKERTON, N .
J.,
Collector's Office, AprU 3, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department circular letter dated April 1, 1885, in which I am requested to ^^report in
writing, as soon as practicable, to what extent, in my opinion, the force
employed under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the
public service, whether the methods of doing business can be simplified,
and, in general,, to make such suggestions and recommendations as may
occur to me whereby the efficiency of the service may be improved and
the expenses curtailed," and in reply thereto, I would respectfully
state that no reduction can be made in the force employed in this district without detriment to the public service.
We have a sea-coast of about twenty-five miles in length, with an inlet
at either end, both of which have to be looked affcer, and during most
of the year only one inspector is employed in the district, but during
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY.
263
the winter and early spring months it has been deemed advisable to
have two inspectors of customs—one at Tuckerton and the other at
Barnegat. The term of the Barnegat inspector ended on March 31,1885,
and the force now stands as follows: One collector, one deputy collector,
and one inspector of customs, and, in my opinion, any futher reduction
would be detrimental to the public service, and greatly impair its
efficiency.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEOEGE'W. MATHIS,
Collector of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 140.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, TRENTON, N .
J.,
Cdlector's Office, April 4, 1885.
SIR : In your printed instructions of March 31, 1885, requesting me
to report in writing to what extent, in my opinion, the force in my office
employed cbuld be reduced without detriment to the public service, I
would say that I have no force to dispense with in my office, as I attend
to the duties of my office myself. '
On the 2d day of February last, I nominated Edwin F. Lenox, my
son, for a special deputy, in accordance with the enclosed blank forms
sent to me, and one copy of which I returned to the Department filled
up. I have not yet received from your Department the approval of the
nomination that I made and forwarded to your Department on the 2d
day of February, 1885. As it is necessary that I should have a special
deputy in case of sickness, I will be pleased to hear from you, if the
nomination I made meets with approval.
Very respectfully,
H I E AM LENOX,
Collector.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
No. 141.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, VICKSBURG, MISS.,
* Collector's Office, AprU 14, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department letter of 1st instant, I have to say that
there is but one person receiving compensation in the customs service.
in the district of Vicksburg; therefore, the force cannot be reduced without abolishing the customs district.
The collector receives a salary of $500 per annum and fees and commissions, which in the future will aggregate about $550. The hospital
dues having been abolished, he will receive no commissions, and' his
fees will not probably be more than $50 per year. Therefore, I do not
think a competent collector could be secured for a smaUer compensation. The office-rent for custom-house is but $100 per annum, which
264
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I think ,is very reasonable, and probably as cheap as a good room for
the purpose can be secured; therefore, I cannot recommend any curtailment of expenses.
As for the methods of doing business, they need no simplification, if
strict attention by a competent person is given to the duties of the
office.
Ver.y respectfully,
• JOSEPH W.. SHOET,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 142.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, WALDOBORO', M E . ,
. Collector's Office, AprU 20, 1885.
SIR : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 1^
1885, xequestiug me to report to what extent, in my opinion, the force
, under my direction can be reduced without detriment to the public service, also suggestions as to the practicability of simplifying the methods
of doing business, improving the efficiency of the service, and curtailing expenses.
In answer to your request, I have to i eport that I have carefully considered the matters referred to, taking pains to make special examination
of the work and records of the several ports within the district. As a
result, I am satisfied that no reduction of the force now employed is
practicable, and I think a brief statement of the circumstances existing
will make this apparent to your satisfaction.
The Waldoboro' district embraces five ports—Waldoboro', Damariscotta, Thomaston, St. George, and Eockland. Of these, the first four
have one officer each, and Eockland has two. The accommodation of
commerce requires the presence of one officer at least at each port of
delivery', Avhile the larger business at Eockland renders the services of
two men absolutely indispensable. To make this obvious, I need only
cite the fact that the latter is the home port of one hundred and eighty
sail and steam vessels, mostly engaged in the coasting and fishing trade,
and that during the calendar year 1884 there were 329 foreign entries and
347 foreign clearances at this port. The amount of labor involved in
' the documenting and recording this large domestic fleet, boarding, and
transacting other business for the foreign commerce, with making all
the official reports, Aveekly, monthly, and quarterly, as required, will
be sufficiently understood to demonstrate the need of the force now
employed.
The salaries of the various subordinate officers remain as they existed
at the death of Mr. Kennedy, my predecessor as collector. While but
slight reduction is practicable, there is a disparity existing in the compensation allowed to some of the persons employed, not based upon any
just grounds that I can discover, certainly not upon the character or the
amount of service performed.
I think the compensation of Mr. Bliss, special deputy at Waldoboro',
and that of Mr. Crocker, the very competent and efficient deputy at
• Eockland, are but just, and should remain as they are.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
265
As the business of Damariscotta and that of Thomaston are very similar in character, the latter equalling or exceeding the former, I respectfully recommend that the compensation of Artell A. Hall, deputy
collector, &c., at Damariscotta, be reduced from $3 to $2 per day, and
that the compensation of James H, Hewett, deputy collector at Thomaston, be made $2 per day instead of $1.90 per day, as it now is.
While the record and other office-work of deputy collector at St.
George is about the same as that, of Damariscotta, its position as a harbor
of common resort on the coast renders the service somewhat more laborious, and vigilant attendance more necessary. He is also at times
obliged to visit Port Clide and other points, requiring a horse, so that
his pay cannot be considered excessive.
Assuming that you would as readily authorize an increase as require
a reduction of compensation, in case justice requires, I take the liberty
to recommend that the compensation of Wyman W. Ulmer, deputy
collector, &c., at Eockland, be increased from $2 to $2.25 per day, a
large increase in the foreign commerce at that port having added much
laborious work to his duties as boarding officer. He is a faithful man,
attentive to his work, which engrosses his entire time, and I should
consider such increase well earned and as meagre justice.
While the laws and the regulations of the Department maintain the
existing system of supervising and accounting for vessels and commerce,
I am unable to perceive how the business of the custonis districts can
be much simplified.
Very respectfully,
EDWIN SPEAGUE,
Collector of Gustoms.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 143.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, WHEJ^LING, W E S T V A . ,
Surveyor's Office, AprU 4c, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor, in reply to the request contained in Department letter of the 1st instant, relative to reduction of the force employed in this office, &c., to inform you that this office has only one
clerk, salary $500 per annum, whose services, in my judgment, cannot
be dispensed with. The salary is not excessive.
This customs district extends from the Pennsylvania line to the Kentucky line on the Ohio river, including the Muskingum river, in Ohio,
and the Kanawha, of this State. We have more steamers than the
Cincinnati district, but less tonnage; but the business connected with
these steamers is largely done by correspondence, as a larger majority
of them never come to this place.
There are two boards of local inspectoi-s of steam-vessels:—one situated here, and one at Gallipolis. Ohio. The business of the latter
office is all done by letter with this office, which makes a large amount
of writing. The two boards are so situated that a considerable number of steamers belonging to the Pittsburgh and Cincinnati offices, or
districts, are inspected in this district, thus increasing the work of 4his
office.
266
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY.
The clerk employed has had a vacation of ten days in two years, but
em])loyed a substitute at his own expense.
Since my. appointment, I have been off duty but one day, never
having seen the time when I thought I could leave the business for a
vacation.
As custodian, I have only one janitor, who has not been absent a single
day since bisappointment, two and one-half years ago. The,work,
especially in the winter, is more than one man should do, and occasionally, when United States court meets, or when there have been heavy
snows, I have asked for extra help for a few days, but have not thought
bhere was work enough for two janitors so long as the night-clerk in the
post office replenished the fire at night and swept the post office. ,
I do not think of any suggestions that could improve the service at
this point, or where expenses could be curtailed.
Very respectfully,
A. H. BEACH,
Surveyor of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 144.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, WILMINGTON, CAL.,
Collector's Office, AprU 27, 1885.
SIR : As requested by your letter of the 1st instant, I have considered
the subjects of ^ the possible reductions of the force employed under my
^
direction; whether the methods of doiug business can be simplified, and
what changes, in my opinion, can be made whereby the efficiency ofthe
service may be improved and the expenses curtailed."
This district (Wilmington, Cal.) was established by the act of June
16, 1882, and by that act the officers to be appointed were named, as
follows:
A collector, who shall reside at Wilmington; a deputy collector,
who shall reside at Wilmington; and one inspector, to be appointed by
the collector, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, for
each of the ports of Santa Barbara, San Buenaventura, and Hueneme."
In addition to the officers named in the act, one inspector, who acts
as boarding officer and boatman, has been permanently employed at
this port, under authority of Department letter, February 12, 1883.
In my opinion, the only reduction that can be made in the force
without detriment to the public service could l^e made by having one~
inspector for the two ports of San Buenaventura and Hueneme. The
commerce at the two ports is entirely domestic, and as both are in the
same county and onlj^ ten miles apart, one inspector could probably
transact all necessary business.
There is a probability that the construction of a railroad in Ventura
county may require the importation of material from foreign ports
hereafter, but it is "iiot probable any such importations will be made
withiii a year.
The services of permanent inspectors at Santa Barbara, San Buenaventura, and Hueneme are not required for the collection of the revenue, but are beneficial in protecting the revenue to a limited extent by
the prevention of violations of the revenue laws.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
267
The inspector at Santa Barbara, by special appointment, acts as deputy collector in the business connected with several small schooners
that are engaged in the coasting trade between that port and the islands
off the coast of Santa Barbara county. I think the interests of the public service require an inspector at Santa Barbara.
The foreign trade at this port, Wilmington, with collections of nearly
$60,000 annually, is at present transacted with the ships at an outer
anchorage, about two and one-half miles from the wharf.
The necessity of boarding these ships on their arrival, and frequently
visiting them while in port, requires the services of the one permanent
inspector, who acts as boarding officer and boatman.
The coast-line of the district (the shortest distance from point to point)
is two hundred and eighteen miles, and the total force of inspectors
now employed is not excessive, on the theory that their services prevent violations of the revenue laws.
. The efficiency of the service may be improved in this district, in my
opinion, by the appointment of three or four permanent inspectors of
customs, to be paid in the same manner that temporary inspectors are
paid, in accordance with ,^section 2733 and section 2737, Eevised Statutes of the United States, a per diem for each day he is actually employed.
' : .
The efficiency of the services of inspectors of customs would be increased by permanent appointments, and, in my opinion, an increase in
their compensation from $3 to $4 per diem would secure the services of
better men, who would remain in the service and become familiar with
their duties.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883: I have only from November 6, 1882, to June 30, 1883, to report as to compensation of inspectors on vessels discharging cargoes from foreign ports—
Total days' employment of inspectors
Overtime, paid by consignees
331
59
Net time, paid by Government
272
The last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1884, the discharging inspectors
were employed as follows:
Total days' employment
Total days' overtime
Net time, paid by Government, days
737
94
:
643
To increase the compensation of inspectors from $3 to $4 per diem
would, on the basis of payments heretofore made, require from $600 to
$650 annually, increased expenses, at this port. The United States
Treasury Eegister, July 1, 1883, shows that inspectors at the ports
of San Francisco, Cal., Portland, Oreg., and in the district of Port
Townsend are paid $4 per diem. The inspectors at this port remain
on board the ships at the outer anchorage day and night, and perform
the duties of weighers as well as inspectors. I therefore think they
should receive the same per diem paid at the other ports on the coast.
The greatest number of days any inspector was employed at this port
the last fiscal year was 147. Even with payment at the rate of $4 per
diem, there is but moderate compensation for competent men.
268
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The recommendations I have made to have the compensation of inspectors increased are, in my opinion, mbre favorable for the efficiency
of the service than any proposing to cui'tail expenses.
Eespectfully, yours,
JOHN E. BEIEELY,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Collector.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 145.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, WILMINGTON, D E L . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 7, 1885. '
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department letter of the 1st instant, requesting me to report to what extent, in my
opinion, the force employed under my direction can be reduced without
detriment to the public service; whether the methods of doing business
can be simplified, and in general to make such suggestions and recommendations as may occur to me, whereby the efficiency of the service
may be improved and the expenses curtailed- In reply, I beg leave to
state that the force at present employed in this district, including the
collector, consists of eleven persons, as follows, viz: At Wilmington,
the port of »entry, one collector, one deputy collector, cashier and clerk,
and one deputy collector, inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer;
at New Castle, one deputy collector and inspector, who issues marine
documents; at Seaford, one deputy collector,.who issues marine documents ; and at Lewes, one deputy collector and inspector, and five boatmen, who board and inspect inward foreign vessels arriving at the Delaware breakwater, seal their hatches, certify their manifests in accordance with existing regulations, and perform such other duty as may be
required and necessary for a proper protection ofthe revenue.
After a careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the force as
at present employed is as small as it is possible to be for a proper discharge of the duties required without impairing the efficiency of the
service, and am therefore unable to recommend any reduction.
The method of doing business is as simple as it is possible to be, and
I am unable to make any suggestions whereby it could be made more so.
I am, very respectfully,
HENEY F. PICKELS,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
No. 146.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, WILMINGTON, N . G ,
Collector's Office, AprU 8, 1885.
SIR : In response to Department letter of the 1st instant, in which an
opinion is asked as to the practicability of a reduction in the force of
employ<§s ahd a simplifying of the methods of business, I have the honor
to report as follows: .
There are at present the following officers at this port, to wit: One
special deputy collector, one deputy collector and clerk, one clerk; three
inspectors—two on duty in this city and one on duty as boarding officer
at SmithviUo, N. C.; four boatmen—two here and two at Smithville.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY- OF THE TREASURY.
269
In my opinion, a reduction can be made in the number of employes,
without detriment to the service, by increasing the duties of those remaining, and I respectfully recommend that the number of inspectors
be two in the place of three, and that the services of Abram Hawkins,
on duty as boarding officer at Smithville, be discontinued from the 30th
instant, the duties to be performed by one of the remaininglnspectors,
as may be selected by this office.
As there is only a limited amount of business at this port, no delay
in its transaction occurs. I have therefore no recommendations to make
as to changes in the methods now employed.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. J PENNYPACKEE,
.
Gollector.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 147.
CusTOM-HousE, WISCASSET, M E . ,
Collector's Office, AprU 6, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the circular letter of the Department of the 1st instant, and to say, in reply, that it is
not practicable, in my opinion, to make any reduction in the force employed under my direction without detriment to the service; nor can
I make any recommendation whereby the efficiency of the service may
bedmproved or the expenses curtailed, all possible reductions having
been made after a recent careful examination under the direction of the
late Secretary Folger.
Very respectfully,
GEO. B. SAWYEE,
'
Collector.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . G.
270
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
No. 148.
Statement of Eeductions effected in the Customs Service since May 1, 1885,
(with theport and the number and designation of officers.)
Amount per annum.
San Francisco, Cal.:
One auditor
Twenty-seven clerks
;
Twenty-five inspectors
One superintendent of warehouses
Two examiners
One doorkeeper
i
One storekeeper
Three messengers
Seven watchmen
' ' Twenty-nine laborers
,...;
r.
Total
$200
19,700
27,740
1,800
4, 000
1,200
200
420
2, 400
2,180
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
59,840 00
New.Orleans, La.:
One deputy collector
One gauger
Four clerks
Three boatmen
Five night-inspectors
^ $3,000
1, 500
1,625
1,800
3, 650
00
00
00
00
00
Total
11,575 00
Philadelphia, Pa. :
Four inspectors.:
One night-watchman
One laborer
$5,475 00
72 50
700 00
TotaL.
6,247 50
Portland, Me. :
One inspector
One examiner
°.
Total
Boston, Mass.:
Eight clerks
Two weighers..,
Eleven assistant weighers
Eight inspectors
2,277 50
:
$5, 500
4, 000
7,792
11, 680
Total
Baltimore, Md. :
Three clerks
One assistant weigher
Three inspectors
Two messengers
Two night-inspectors
One foreman of laborers
One deputy collector
Two laborers
,
00
00
50
00
28,972 50
,
$4,600
1, 200
3, 832
1, 900
2,190
840
800
1,440
^
Total
Burlington, Vt.:
Two deputy collectors, inspectors, and clerks
$1,277 50
1, 000 00
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
• 16,802 50
«
$1, 905 00
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
271
Amount per annum.
Fall River, Mass.: ' .
Oneclerk...
NeAV Redford, Mass.:
° One clerk
Bristol, R. I.:
One .deputy-collector and inspector
^
.=,
$600 00
.,
"
100 00
255 50
Providence, R. I.:
One messenger, clerk, and sampler
One deputy collector
One inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer
One inspector and boarding of&cer
Two inspectors
$1,200
2,000
1, 277
1,095
2,190
Total
7,762 50
New London, Conn.:
One inspector, weigher, gauger, and measurer
$1,095 00
Ogdensburg, N. Y.:
Twoideputy collectors andinspectors
Two inspectors
.-.
Total
$2,295 00
2,190 00
4,485 00
Plattsburg, N.Y.:
Two deputy collectors and inspectors
Annapolis, Md.:
One boatman
$1, 697 25
180 00
Georgetown, D. C.:
One deputy collector andinspector
One inspector
$915 00
1,095 00
Total
2,010 00
Alexandria, Va.:
One inspector
New Berne, N. C.;
One messenger
$1,095 00
180 00
Wilmington, N. C.:
One inspector
One messenger
^
'
:
$1,095 00
600 00
,
Total..
Charleston, S. C.:
Oneclerk
Two boatmen
One watchman
00
00
50
00
00
1, 695 00
'
'
$1,500 00
960 00
600 00
.,
Total
3,060 00
Savannah, Ga.: Two night-inspectors
Fernandina, Fla.:
One inspector.....
$1,460 .00
1, 095 00
Mobile, Ala. :
Two inspectors.One night-inspector
„ One boatman
Total.....
$2,190 00
730 00
480 00
\
3,400 00
272
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
Amount per annum-
Brashear, La. :
One inspector
...'.....
Brownsville, Tex. :
One deputy collector and mounted inspector
Two inspectors
::
Total
$1, 460 00 •
2,190 00
.^
3,650 00
Galveston, Tex. :
Oneclerk...
;
..One weigher, gauger, and measurer
One mounted inspector
Four insijectors
Three night-inspectors
Total
$1,600 00
1,800 00
1, 460 00
5, 037 00
3,285 G
O
"
.
.-
13,182 00
Indianola, Tex. :
One deputy collector and inspector
$1,277 50 '
Cleveland, Ohio:
Two deputy collectors and inspectors
One inspector
$310 25
1, 095 00
Total
1,405 25
Cairo, 111., (of&ce abolished:)
One surveyor
. One deputy surveyor
$800 00 .
600 00
" Total
'.
1,400 00
St. Louis, Mo.:
Oneclerk
One inspector....One sampler
$900 00
1,460 00
912 50
Total
3,272 50
Grand Haven, Mich.:
One deputy collector and inspector
Port Huron, Mich.:
Two deputy collectors and inspectors
Omaha, Nebr.:
One deputy surveyor
:
St. Vincent, Minn.:
One deputy collector and inspector
Eureka, CaL:
One inspector
Portland, Oreg.:
Two inspectors....:
One inspector and weigher
Oneclerk
Two night-inspectors
Total
Grand total
$1,095 00
:
$602 25
1,731 50
1, 095 00
«
1,095 00
1,000 00
$2,920
1,460
1,4.50
1,825
00
00
00
00
7, 655 00
$196,251 25
273
REJPORT OF THJ) SECRJETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 149.
SEPTEMBER 30, 1885.
List of Customs Districts examined by Special Agents, and reductions recommended, since
May 1, 1885.
By whom.
Date.
Amount
saved.
D a t e of reference to
A p p o intm e u t Div.
Bingham, N . W .
do
do
.do
..do.
..do.
,.do.
..do .
Combs, Hinds, Lapp, and
Bingham,
Howell, W . T
Howell and Winslow
Winslow, Morris
do
Ayer and Peck
C h a m b e r l i n , S. E
Tingle and Tichenor
A d a m s , C. C
do
;,.
do
do...
;,.
do
Hubbs, E
do
;..do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
,do
do
,,„....do
Nevin, D, A
do
do
do
do
:
do
do
do
B a r n e y , A, M
.r..„.„.
do
do
Williams, . Lapp,
and
Phenix.
Williams a n d Whit ehead.
...do
do
S p a u l d i n g , O. L
do
do.,.,
do
Evans, J. F
do
,
,.„.
do
do
do
Winslow, N
Williams and Phenix
do
do
do
do
J u l y 1, 1885
J n n e 29. 1885
July
1885
J u l y G, 1885
J u l y 10, 1885
J u l y 28. 1885
J u l y 31 1885
A u g . 5 1885
S e p t , 12, 1885
^ 5 5 50
5G0 00
5,777 75
J u l y 9,1885
J u l y 3,1885
J u l y 11,1885
100 00
J u l y 16,1885
A u g , 0,1885
1,153 50
24,870 00
6,485 00
A u g , 6,1885
S e p t . 23 a n d
24,1885,
J u l y 21,1885
4,003 50
17,482 50
A u g . 12,1885
S e p t , 5,1885
915 00
J u l y 10,1885
Districts examined.
B r i s t o l a n d W a r r e n , R . I..
Fall River, Mass
P r o v i d e n c e , R. I
Gloucester, Mass
N e w Bedlord, Mass
Edgartown, Mass
Nantucket, Mass
Barnstable, Mass
B o s t o n , Ma.ss
Oswepro, N . Y
Cape Vincent, N . Y .
Champlain, N . Y
Burlington, Vt
Albany, N . Y
Alexandria, Va
Georgetown, D. C
Little E g g Harbor, N. J .
Bridgeton, N. J
Burlington, N. J
D e l a w a r e , Del
G r e a t K^^ H a r b o r , N. J..
Albemarle, N. C
Pamlico, N. C
Beaufort, N. C
Wilmington, N. C
G e o r g e t o w n , S. C
.
Savannah, Ga
C h a r l e s t o n , S. C
B e a u f o r t , S. C
Brunswick, Ga
St. M a r y ' s , G a
Fernandina, Fla
St. J o h n ' s , I^la
St. A u g u s t i n e , F l a
St. M a r k ' s , F l a
:.
K e y West, Fla
Pearl River, Miss
N e w Orleans, L a
Mobile, Ala
Pensacola, Fla
Apalachicola, F l a
Vicksburg, Miss
Natchez, Miss...
Teche, L a
Indianola, Tex
Corpus Christi, T e x
Galveston, Tex
Niagara, N. Y
Erie, P a
Genesee, N. Y
Cuyahoga, N. Y
Superior, Mich
S a n d u s k y , O h i o ....,..,
Miami, Ohio
H u r o n . Mich
Yaquina. Oreg
Willamette. Oreg
Oregon. Oreg
Puget Sound, Wash,.
San F r a n c i s c o , Cal....
Oswegatchie, N. Y
Evansville, Ind
P a d u c a h , ICy
Memphis, Tenn
C a i r o . Ill
Pittsburgh, P a
*One increase. f B u r i n g
B During winter.
summer.
J u l y 17 1885
A u g . 11 1885
A u g . 5, 1885
A u g . 27 1885
S e p t . 7 1885
J u l y 7, 1885
J u n e 2, 1885
A u g . 21 1885
A u g . 28 1885
A u g . 28 1885
S e p t . 2 1885
S e p t . 12, 1885
J u n e 17 1885
J u n e 2 C 1885
J u n e 2 S 1885
J u n e 27 1885
J u n e S C 1885
J u l y 14 1885
J u l y 4, 1885
J u l y 8 1885
J u l y 2C, 1885
J u l y 24 1885
J u l y 22 1885
J u l y 25 1885
J u l y 27 1885
J u l y 3C 1885
A u g . 8 1885
J u n e 22 1885
J u n e 12 1885
J u n e 24 1885
J u n e 26 1885
J u l y 2, 1885
J u l y 11 1885
J u l y 1 1 1885
J u l y 6 1885
J u l y IC 1885
J u l y 2C 1885
A u g . IC, 1885
J u n e 15, 1885
A u g , 15, 1885
A u g . 18, 1885
S e p t . 12, 1885
J u n e 23, 1885
J u n e 3C 1885
J u l y 9, 1885
J u l y 25 1885
J u n e 13, 1885
J u n e 17, 1885
June
1885
J u n e 25, 1885
A u g . 5, 1885
M a y 24, 1885
M a y 24 1885
M a y 23. 1885
M a y 26. 1885
M a y 28, 1885
M a y 28, 1885
1,460 00
2,460 00
July
J une
July
July
July
July
3,1885
29,1885
2,1885
8,1885
21,1885
9,1885
300 00
J u l y 28,1885
"432 "50
J u l y 29,1885
365 00
1,095 00
'2,'623 56'
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
11,1885
12,1885
17,1885
21,1885
J u l y 3,1885
J u l y 1,1885
J u l y 9,1885
J u l y 17,1885
(t)
§422 50
2,125 00
547 50
J u l y 27,1885
A u g , 1,1885
S e p t , 4,1885
J u l y 3,1885
2,190 00
2,555 00
Sept,
Sept,
1,358
99
45G
3,857
55
25
00
00
J u l y 3,1885
J u l y 9,1885
J u l y 16,1885
A u g . 12,1885
9,155
2,9] 0
4,147
54,213
00
00
50
00
J u l y 2,1885
J u l y 23,1885
J u l y 14,1885
S e p t , 3,1885
600 00
J u n e 10,1885
J u l y 3,1885
t Transfer a n d consolidation with Vicksburg.
T o t a l r e d u c t i o n of e x p e n s e s r e c o m m e n d e d , J157,876.55.
18 A
1,050 00
48C 00
1,800 00
7,1885
5,1885
§ Increase
274
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ANNUAL COST OF SPECIAL AGENTS' AND
^^FRAUD" ROLL SERVICE.
2^0.1.
WASHINGTON, D . C , October 19, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your letter of the 13tli instant, we liave tlie lionor
to submit tlie following information respecting the appointment, compensation, service, &c., of special agents ofthe Treasury in the customs
service:
First; Section 21 of the act ofMarch 2,1799, (vol. 1, pp. 643, 644, Statutes at Large, sec. 2640, E. S.,) provided, amongst other things, that
collectors, naval officers, and surveyors of customs should '' at all times
submit their books, papers, and accounts to the inspection of such persons as may be appointed for that purpose." From all we can gather,
it was under this statute, ahd perhaps under the general authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by the act of September 2,
1789, (chapter 12, section 2, volume 1, page 65, Statutes at Large, section 248, E. S.,) that persons were employed to act as special agents
and assistant special agents in the customs service prior to the passage
of the act of May 12, 1870.
As affording light upon this subject, we quote from the reported proceedings in the House of Eepresentatives (vol. 90, part B, page 1496,
Congressional Globe) pending consideration of the act last above named
the following, viz:
^^ TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 12, 1870.
^^SiR: I herewith communicate, as far as sdems to me compatible
with the public interest, the information required by the following
resolution of the House of Eepresentatives, adopted on the 2d of February instant, namely:
^^^IN THE H O U S E OF EEPRESENTATIVES,
'''February 2, 1870.
^''On motion of Mr. Ferris,
^ ^ ^ Eesolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to furnish
the House of Eepresentatives with the names of all special agents and
assistant special agents of the Treasury Department on the rolls of the
Department on the 4th day of March, 1869; the compensation, mileage,
and expenses paid to each since that date; also the names of such agents
or assistant agents appointed since March 4, 1869; amount of compensation for salary, mileage, or expenses paid to each, including officerent or any other expenses incurred by the Department for the use of
such offices; when incurred; the place where such officer is now stationed ; ahd the several appropriations from which such officers' compensation, mileage, or other expenses on their account were and are
severally paid.
^^^Attest:
^^^E. MoPHEESON,
'''Clerk.'
'' On the .4th of March last, there were sixty-four special agents in the
service of the Treasury Department, and fifteen special inspectors, or
REPORT Of THE SECRETARY ' OF THE TREASURY.
2 75
seventy-nine persons in' all, whose business related to the customs
.revenue. .,.; • . - - . • '
: • ^.: '
••/'•.•
'' The daily compensation, in the aggregate, of the special ageiits was
$371.10, and of the special inspectors $76.50, OF $447.60 in all. As »
near as can be ascertained, the daily expenses, exclusive of the per diem,
amounted to between $150 and $160, or an aggregate expense of rather
more than $600 per day.
/^ On the 1st of February instant, there were fifty-one special agents,
at a daily cost of $335, and three special inspectors, at a cost of $15.30
per day, or $350 in all. Adding to this sum the mileage and other expenses of the agents, amounting to about $150 daily, we have a total
daily expense of rather more than $500. The total payments on that
account from the 4th day of March, 1869, to the 1st day of February,
1870, have been $171,976.47.
^ ^ One of these agents has been paid from the appropriation for the
collection of cMms, two irom the steamboat fund, and the remainder
from'the appropriation for collecting the revenue from customs.
'
^'The largest compensation is $5,000 per annum paid to one agent,
the least is $4 per day paid to one agent. Three agents receive $10
each, two receive $9 each, eight receive $8 each, seven receive $7 each
per day, and the remainder receive $5 and $6 per day.
^^On the 4th ofMarch, 1869, the average per diem was $5.79, and on
the 1st of February it was $6.59, my object having been, as stated -in
my annual report, to reduce the number of men,-and, by increasing the ^
compensation, to secure the services of more competent persons. The '
amount of expenses incurred and claimed to be due for office-rentj furniture, &c,, from the 4th of March, 1869, to 1st of February, 1870, was
'$4,390.54. Of this amount, $3,112.61 was incurred at the port of IsTew
York, and $1,277.93 at the port of Philadelphia* I omit in this report
to give the names of the special agents, also the places where they are
einployed. Some of the persons employed are not known to the public
generally as revenue agents, and I believe that the service will be injured
by disclosing their names. If, however, the House shall desire, the
facts will at once be given.
'^The consideration of this resolution furnished me an opportunity
to state to the House more fully than I have thought proj)er to do in
my annual report the views I entertain in reference to this branch of
the public seryice.
.^
^
;'Special agents of the Treasury Department have been employed
and recognized by law almost from the organization of the Government.
The extension of the territory of the United States, the increase of its
commerce, and the high rate of of duties, furnishing a temptation to
smugglers, have rendered the services of special agents or inspectors of
customs indispensable to the collection of the revenue. There can be
no doubt, l i h i n k , that in.the aggregate the result of their services is a '
saving, directly and indirectly, to the Treasury of many millions of
dollars annually.
\
^/As stated in my annual report, I have made an effi)rt to organize
and loca;lize these officers by dividing the country into sixteen districts, *
and assigned to each a superintendent, and in most cases one or more',
assistants. There are also in the service of the Department some agents
who are not assigned to particular districts. It is, however, obvious
that the system as it exists at present is open to abuse and is likely to
occasion serious complaint. I take the liberty of suggesting in this
276
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURT.
connection that a law be passed limiting the number of special agents
to be appointed, dividing them into three grades, specifying the number
to be apiiointed in each grade, and giving to each office a fixed compensation computed by the day or by the year.
^Minder the independent-treasury laws, the Secretary of the Treasury
is authorized to appoint, and occasionally does appoint, special agents
to examine the books and accounts of the assistant treasurers of the .
Dnited States.
^' There is also an agent of the Treasury Department whose duty it is
to superintend the manufacture of blank note-paper, and to keep the
accounts of the receipts of paper from the manufacturers and the delivery ofthe same to the bank-note companies and the printing bureau
of this Department, whose salary is paid from the loan funds.
^^I am, with great respect,
^ ^ GEO. S. BOUTWELL,
'' Secretary of the Treasury.
"Hon.
JAMES G . BLAINE,
"Speaker of the Souse of Eepresentatives, Washington, B. C.
"Mr. P A I N E . I should like the chairman of the committee to explain
to the House how this bill would change the law on the subject.
'' Mr. POLAND. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ferriss)
to give that explanation.
"Mr. F E R R I S S . Mr. Speaker, I thinic I can answer the question of
the gentlemaixfrom Wisconsin. The original bill was introduced by myself. Before introducing the bill my attention had been called to the
subject of the appointment of special agents by the allegation that they
were appointed without authority of law. I entered upon an investigation of that question, and had some difficulty in ascertaining what I
now believe to be the facts in regard to it. All the pfficers of the De-'
partment were very reticent when inquiry was made of them as to the
appointment of these special agents, and h j what authority they were
appointed, but after a good deal of difiBculty I learned the facts which
I will state.. In the law of 1799, which organizes the customs department and provides for-the appointment of collectors, naval officers, and
surveyors, there is a clause which requires that the books, papers, and
accounts of these officers shall be at all times opeif to the inspection of
some person appointed for that purpose. It is under that clause^
and the implied authority there given, that all of these officers now
known as special agents of the Treasury Department are appointed.
I learn that for many years the practice was to appoint, just what the law
contemplated, some officer, clerk, or other employ^ of the custom-house
to examine the books and papers and report to the Treasury Depart- ~
ment. Such was the custom down to the time of the administration of
the Treasury Department by the late Eobert J. Walker. Under Mr.
Walker a different system was adopted. Somebody thought that here
were nice snug little berths for some favorites, and the two gentlemen
from my own State, the State of JSTew York, were appointed by Mr.
Walker special agents of the Treasury Department, with salaries I think
of eight dollars a day and travelling expenses. They travelled together.
They travelled all over the country. They went in couples, and they
took those routes where they could travel the fastest. They had mile
age allowed them, I believe, and they made out a bill against the Government, which was allowed, amounting, in the aggregate, to over seventeen thousand dollars. Well, other persons discovered' that her«
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
277
were nice berths for some favorites. More special agents were appointed
under the implied authority, until one distinguished Senator from one
of the Western States had, as I am credibly informed, secured the appointment of seventeen persons as special agents in the Treasuiy Departmeni.
That thing has continued, with no authority of law for it whatever except
the implied authority contained in the section I have referred to, until
at the present time, or at the coming into office of the present Secretary
of the Treasury, there was the number of special agents mentioned in
his letter. In conversation with the Secretary, he stated to me that
there was an absolute necessity for these special agents. I protested
against their being appointed without the authority of some law. He
admitted the propriety of it, and desired that there might be a law authorizing and regulating their appointment. GSTothing further was done
until I introduced the original bill, which provides, not for the appointment of any special agents, but for the prohibition of the employment
under the section I have referred to of any special agents except those
already in the employment of the Government, and those without any
additional pay. The attention of the Secretary was called to it, and
his views having been laid before the committee, I withdrew the bill
and introduced the substitute, which the committee adopted and now
report. The bill is based upon the assertion Or declaration, which we
believe to be trua that there is a necessity for the appointment of such
special agents. It will be perceived that this bill limits the pay of these
special agents. As they are now employed, it is not limited at all.
Some of them, I am informed, are paid $5,000 a year, with their travr
elling expenses; and I presume that their travelling expenses include
fares over railroads where they ride on free passes.''
In the further discussion of this bill, (vol. 1^ part 4, pp. 2992, 2993,)
Mr. Welcker said:
" A section of the law of 1799 requires the books, papers, and accounts of these officers to be opened to inspection by some iierson appointed for that purpose, and under that clause these appointments
have all been made. It is a question for serious consideration whether
that law authorizes the appointment of this class of agents at all; but
it is a practice that has grown up in the Government, and perhaps it is
now too late to say that there was no authority for the appointment of
these agents. ^ ^
.
i
The act of May 12, 1870, (vol. 16, page 122, Statutes at Large, sections 2649, 2651, Eevised Statutes,) was the earliest statute which ih
exp.ress terms authorized and recognized the appointment of special
agents of the Treasury to be employed in the custonis service proper.
This statute authorized the Secretary ofthe Treasury "to aiipoint special agents, not exceeding fifty-three in number, for the purpose of making the examinations of the books, papers, and accounts of collectors
and other officers of the customs required to be made pursuant to the
provisions of the 21st section of ^ An act to regulate the collection of
duties on imports and tonnage,' approved March 2, 1799, and t o b e
employed generally, under the direction of said Secretary, in the pre-,
vention and detection of frauds on the customs revenue." They were
to receive salaries, viz: Two of them, $10 per day; seventeen, $8 per
day; sixteen, $6 per day, and eighteen of them, $5 per day, and expenses necessarily and actually incurred in the discharge of their official
duties; the same to be paid from the "appropriation to defray the
expenses of collecting the revenue from customs."
278
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
By an act approved August. 15, 1876, (ch. 287, vol. 19, page 152,
Statutes at Large,) the number of such special agents was reduced to
twenty, each to receive not exceeding $8 per day and actual travelling
expenses when actually employed, &c.
The act of June 19, 1878, (ch. 329, vol. 20, pp. 187-8, Statutes at
Large,) authorized the Secretary ofthe Treasury to employ eight additional special agents in the customs service, at a compensation not
exceeding $6 per day and actual travelling expenses when actually
employed in the duties of such agency. This increase was authorized
in' accordance with the recommendation of Secretary Sherman in his
annual report to Congress in 1877. (See page 38, Finance Eeport, 1877.)
Second. Until the completion of inquiries now in progress, we shall
be unable to report the number, compensation, &c., of special agents
of the Treasury in the customs service from July 1, 1860, to July 1,
1869.
As near as we have been able to ascertain, the greatest number of
persons employed as special agents and assistant special agents of the
Treasury in the customs service at any one time during the'fiscal year
ended June 30, 1870, was 53, and their total compensation was, viz:
Salary, $120,618; expenses, $40,706.14—total, $161,324.14.
The statement following shows the niaximum number of special
agents of the Department in the customs service, and their aggregate
allowances for salary and expenses, during each of the fiscal years
named:
Number.
Year ended J u n e 30—
53
53
53
53
53
53
1871,
1872.
1873
1874,
1875.
1876,
Salary.
$122,866
121,195
123,697
124,699
124,602
123,633
Expenses.
00
00
00
00
00
00
$43,964
40,262
42,013
49,538
38.503
28,689
42
56
05
93
44
12
Total.
$166,830 42
161,457 56
165,710 05
174,237 93
163,105 44
152,322 12
From July 1 to ISTovember 1, 1876, the maximum number of such
agents employed at any time was 53, and from the latter date to July
1, 1877, the highest number in service at any one time was 20. Their
aggregate allowances for salary and expenses during that fiscal year
were, viz: Salary, $75,945; expenses, $20,191.80—total, $96,136.80.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1878, the number of these
agents in service was 20, and their aggregate compensation was, viz :
: Salary, $58,400; expenses, $18,124.86—total, $76,524.86.
The following statement gives the maximum number of such agents
employed, and the total amount paid them as salary and expenses, each
fiscal year from July 1, 1878, to July 1, 1885, viz :
Y e a r e n d e d J u n e 30—
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
Number.
,. . ..
.'.
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
Salary.
Expenses.
Total.
$75,914
74,680
74,8^8
71,536
73,338
75,120
73,308
$21,957
20,868
17,863
17,380
15,590
15,213
14,158
$97,871
95 548
92,701
88,916
88,928
90,332
87,466
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
88
77
72
54
52
50
42
88
77
72
54
52
50
42
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
279
Total salary and expenses from July 1, 1869, to July 1, 1885,
$1,959,415.67.
.
Third. The tabular statement herewith gives the name, date of appointment, station or place of service, salary, expenses, and other allowances of each special agent of the Department in the customs service
employed at any time during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885.
Fourth. Special agents of the Treasury in the customs service proper
since 1860 have, so far as we can ascertain, been paid from the permanent appropriation for defraying the expenses of collecting the revenue
from customs. The act of May 12, 1870, provided for their payment
from this appropriation.
At no time since 1860 has Congress made other specific provision for
their payment.
Fifth. It has not been usual since 1860 for special agents to report
through the coUectors of customs of the districts where employed; they
have always reported direct to the Department.
It has been usual, however, for them, and they are so required by the
regulations, to report all matters relating to frauds and irregularities
requiring immediate attention to the collectors of the districts where
employed, as well as to the Department.
Yery respectfuHy,
L. G. MAETI:N^,
GEO. C. TICHEl^OE,
Special Agents.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
ITo. 2.
to
.
OO
o
Statement shoioing name, date of appointment, station, salary j expeTises, aiid other allowances of special agents during the fiscal year ended June 30,1885.
Name."
D a t e of a p pointment.
station.
-Martin, L. G..
J u n e 10,1876
Supervising special ag't.
- A d a m s , C. C .
A y e r , I r a , jr...
S e p t . 30,1875
M a r . 3,1870
- B i n g h a m , N . W..,
Apr. 13,1869
^ B r a c k e t t , C. N . . .
'Barney, A. M
Salary.
$2,920 00
Expenses. Awards.
2,614 00
2,920 00
Boston, Mass
369 97
1,912 00
2,920 00
Jan. 1,1871
Feb. 10,1873
253
184
2,920 00
Philadelphia, P a
New York, N . Y
109
574
B u r n s , A. M
Bates, W. R
C h a l k e r , .las. S
' C h a m b e r l i n , S. E . .
Douglas, J n o
Davis, Jas. W
Evans, Jos. F
New York, N . Y
Galveston, Tex
J u l y 10,1877 C l e v e l a n d , O h i o
M a r . 10,1881 P o r t H u r o n , M i c h
D e c . 15,1870 N e w Y o r k , N . Y..
D e c . 3,1875 B a l t i m o r e , M d
J u l y 2,1878 St. P a u l , M i n n
D e c . 11,1869 B o s t o n , M a s s
F e b . 4,1875 S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l
2,192
1,632
1,434
2,472
2,432
1,374
2,920
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
125
330
74
77
470
307
1,276
-Gavett, W m .
•Gray.C. H...,
H i n d s , B . H...
M a y 3,1882 D e t r o i t , M i c h
M a y 16,1883 N e w Y o r k , N . Y
A p r . 15,1869 P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a
1,530 00
2,192 00
2,920 00
55
223
780
H o r r , .las. C
.Howell, W m . T
Hubbs,'Ethelbert..
K i m b a l l , R. M
Nevin, D. A
Mar.
Oct.
June
Dec.
May
2,192
2,920
2,190
1,644
2,920
00
00
00
00
00
258
727
640
122
415
2,192
984
1,950
2,920
00
00
00
00
2
119
94
1,931
1,1881 P o r t T o w n s e n d , W a s h ..,
1,1882 O g d e n s b u r g , N . Y
19,1882 S a v a n n a h , G a
11,1869 B o s t o n , M a s s
3,1876 N e w O r l e a n s , L a
O ' N e i l l , .Jno
F e b . 26,1877 P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a
S c h e r m e r h o r n , I . M. J a n . 15,1883 T u c s o n , A r i z
•Swift, G e o . B
J a n . 21,1884 C h i c a g o , 111
J u l y 3,1878 A t l a r g e
T i c h e n o r , G. C
,
T i n g l e , A. K.........
S e p t . i o , 1872
A t large.....
2,920 00
1,205
W h i t e h e a d , G. W . .
F e b . 12,1884
Suspension Bridge,N.Y.
2,190 00
621
I n c h a r g e of all m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o
s p e c i a l a g e n t s , b o n d i n g of w a r e h o u s e s
and common carriers, a n d transportation business.
General duty, Philadelphia
,.-.
I n c h a r g e of s e c o n d s p e c i a l a g e n c y d i s trict. N e w Y o r k .
I n c h a r g e of first s p e c i a l a g e n c y d i s t r i c t ,
Boston.
$467 35
Remarks.
N a t u r e of s e r v i c e .
133
o
H
O u t F e b r u a r y 24,1885.
104 57
$6; p r o m o t e d t o $8 p e r d a y .
o
g
I n c h a r g e of e i g h t h s p e c i a l a g e n c y d i s trict, Galveston.
cn
W
R e s i g n e d M a r c h 31, 1885.
O u t M a r c h 31, 1885.
O u t F e b r u a r y 24, 1885.
O u t M a y 5, 1885.
O u t A p r i l 30,1885.
D i e d F e b r u a r y 14,1885.
R e s i g n e d J a n u a r y 20,1885.
O u t M a r c h 31,1885."
263 26
o
o
I n c h a r g e of f o u r t e e n t h s p e c i a l a g e n c y
district, San Francisco.
I n c h a r g e of f o u r t h s p e c i a l a g e n c y d i s trict, P h i l a d e l p h i a , a n d special d u t y ,
New York.
"
•^
Out
Out
Out
Out
M a r c h 31,1885.
A u g u s t 15, iaS5.
A u g u s t 15, 1885.
M a r c h 31,1885.
I n c h a r g e of s e v e n t h s p e c i a l a g e n c y d i s trict, N e w Orleans.
O u t M a r c h 31, 1885.
O u t O c t o b e r 31, 1884.
O u t M a r c h 31,1885.
A s s i g n e d t o d u t y in E u r o p e , b u t for
nearly a year has been engaged on
special service at Philadelphia, N e w
York, Boston, a n d Department.
Special a g e n t at large. D u r i n g t h e p a s t
y e a r h a s been on special d u t y at n e a r l y
all t h e p r i n c i p a l p o r t s .
On d u t y a t Suspension Bridge
W
H
W
a
Williams, W. H
1 J u l y 1,1881 I Cmcinnati, Ohio,
2,614 00
712 80
P o x , Geo. H
Kiefe, T. H
Lapp, C. H
Mahon, Jno. J..
Nov.
Mar.
May
Apr.
1,1884
1,1885
4,1885
1,1885
New Yoik, N.|Y..
Chicago, 111
Cleveland, Ohio...
Baltimore, Md
1,936 00
-732 OC
348 OCI
728 00
60
87
152
• 13
24
83
41
35
Moore, H. A
O'Beirne, Jas. R .
Parker, Geo. H....
Peck, J n o . B
Phenix, Legare...
Power, Jas. D
Sachse, Theo. C...
Spaulding, O. L...
Apr.
Mar.
May
June
May
Mar.
Apr.
Aug.
1,1885
3,1885
1,1885
6,1885
1,1885
3,1085
1,1885
7,1875
New York, N .Y...;
New York, N. Y...
St. Paul, J n n
N e w Y o r k , N. Y..
Chicago, 111
N e w Y o r k , N. Y..,
New Orleans, La.,
Detroit, Mich
,
546 00
720 00
366 00
150 00
366 00
720 00
546 00
1,210 00
63
49
217
17
199
67
141
554
70
85
70
43
64
45
50
03
In charge of thirteenth special agency
district, Cincinnati.
$6; promoted to $8 per day.
Out August 15,1885.
Out September 25,1885.
118 20 On duty at Chicago
New agent
In charge of the fifth special agency district, Baltimore.
92 21 On duty. New York custom-house
On duty. New York appraiser's stores... Resigned October 31,1885.
Out July 15,1885.
On duty, New York custom-house
On duty, Chicago
On duty. New York appraiser's stores..,
On duty, Ne^v Orleans
,
In chorge of eleventh special agency
; promoted to $8 per day.
district, Detroit, and special service at
New York.
hJ
O
w
H
O
m
W
o
>
c
H
W
xn
to
GO
282
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
^ 0 . 3.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, November 2, 1885;
SIR : In our report to you of the the 19th ultimo, we gave the following figures as showing the maximum number of special agents and
assistant special agents of the Department in the customs servicej and
their compensation, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 187.0, viz:
ITumber, 53; salary, $120,618; expenses, $40,706.14—total, $161,324.14.
These figures were gathered from certain rather imperfect and fragmentary records kept by the Commissioner of Customs, under whose
immediate direction such oflScers were during that period.
We now find, from quite thorough inquiry in the .appointment division and in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, that the figures
above given should be increased to, as follows, viz: JNumber, 56; salary,
$128,615; expenses, $46,776.49—total, $175,391.53.
As the result of diligent search of the records of the appointment
division, inquiry in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, and
reference to such other data as was attainable on the subject, we present
the following statement as showing the highest number of persons employed at any one time as special agents and assistant special agents of
the Treasury in the customs service, and amounts paid them as salary
and expenses, during each of the fiscal years ended as follows, viz:
F i s c a l y e a r e n d e d J u n e 30—
1861
1862 ..
1863.
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
."
Number.
;........
Total
'.
Salary.
8
720
36
26
25
42
49
58
$14,346
13,366
22,934
54,428
28,845
30,062
58,034
90,971
101,022
Expenses.
00
00
48
69*
20
35
29 '
83
19
$8,099
10,248
17,506
32,929
24,513
39,893
63,000
78,169
62,781
02
56
56
96
62
39
37
46
18
T©tal.
$22,445 02
23,614 56
40,441 04
87,358 65
^ 53,358 82
75,955 74
121,034 66
169,141 29
163,803 37
757,153 15
This statement includes eight special agents, (J. P. Tucker, W. G.
Brownlow, B. F. Flanders, Thos. Heaton, E. L. Pierce, W. P. Mellen,
T. H. Yeatman, and D. G. Barnitz,) serving for periods varying from
three months to four years, who appear to have been appointed (in
1863) under the acts of July 13, 1861; May 20, 1862; and March 12,
1863, (pp. 255-8, 404,'5, and 820,^1, vol. 12, V. S. Statutes at Large.)
It also includes two agents (P. F. Wilson and H. A. Eisley) who are
understood to have been apiiointed under the aet of August 6, 1846,
(sec. 11, p. 62, vol. 9, U. S. Statutes at Large,) and who, for a time at
least, were paid from the appropriation for the collection of claims.
It appears from their letters of appointment and instructions that
four other agents, included in this statement, (Joseph Mmmo, Lorin
Blodgett, J. D. Andrews, and J. W. Taylor,) were employed in collecting statistical information relating to foreign and domestic commerce, &c., and that another (H. J. Anderson) was assigned to duty in
connection with the quarantine and health laws. Another agent (J. F.
Morse) Avas paid in i^art from the appro]iriation for the repairs and
preservation of public buildings, and in part; from the marine-hospital
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
283
fund. It is probable he served in some way in connection with those
matters.
All of these persons are included in the statement furnished you by
the Commissioner of Customs.
Of the other agents included in the latter statenient and in our own
above, four (Montgomery Gibbs, W. B. Farwell, Louis W. VioUeis,
and E. H. Hudson) served either mainly or wholly in Europe, and one
(Wm. Jones) in Cuba. As quite a number of these agents and assistant agents were at different times during the years 1863-' 66, stationed
at interior iioints in the Southern States, it is presumed their service
related to cotton and other captured, abandoned, or confiscated property.
Two of these agents were assigned to duty for a time at Quincy, 111.,
and Michigan City, Ind., in charge of public property and customs
records at those places.
In so far as we can learn, the remainder of these special agents and
assista'nt special agents served chiefly—either actually or ostensibly—
ii? connection with the customs-revenue service in the States and Territories of this country or in the adjacent foreign territory of Canada,
New Brunswick, or in the British Possessions on our northern frontier.
Whilst a considerable number were assigned to duty at the principal
ports and in the more important collection districts, where they appear
to have been actively and usefully employed, either in inquiring into
the methods of conducting the customs business, the conduct of officers
and employ 6s, examining the accountsof the principal officers of custoins,
and attending generally to the detection and prevention of frauds u]ion
the customs revenue, a large number were either stationed in the Territories of Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Washington, or Alaska, or were
deployed along our northern, northeastern, or northwestern borders,
apparently for the purpose of preventing smuggling.
The compensation of these agents varied greatly. For example, two
of them were salaried for a time at $5,000 per annum, whilst two
others only received $1 per diem. A few had salaries ranging from
$2,000 to $3,000 per annum, but generally their salaries were per diem,
all the way from $1 to $10. All were allowed their actual expenses, or
mileage in lieu thereof—chiefly the latter. You will observe that these
^^expenses^' were very large as a rule,^aggregating more than the sala- *
ries in 1866 and 1867, and being nearly equal thereto in other .years.
By referring to the statement fiirnished you by the Commissioner of
Customs, you will see that such allowances to certain agents were uniformly large, and in instances surprisingly so. For example, the
amount paid Agent S. D. Jones as salary for sixteen months was $2,892,
whilst he was allowed $13,036;06 as ^^expenses'' for that period. The
allowances to Agents Gibbs (abroad 1863 to 1869) and Farwell (abroad
1865 to 1869) as expenses were also exceedingly generous, the former's
ranging from $2,800 to above $21,000, and the latter, s from $2,800 to
near $10,000 annually, whilst Agent Yiolleis (who assisted them in the
^^wine cases") was paid during the years 1868-'69, $14,640 as salary aind
expenses.
;
The terms of service of the great majority of special agents and assistant special agents during this period (I860 to 1870) were comparatively
brief. ISTone served continuously throughout that period; a large number only from one to two years, and a good many only for one to six
months. In fact, a great many were appointed for terms of only thirty
to sixty days. It is a significant fact that the letters of appointment of
284
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASTJRY.
these short-term agents were usually addressed to them at Washington.
Whatever may have been the motives jDronipting their appointment, it
is probable the Government derived but little benefit from their service.
In .general sense the same remark would apply to those serving only
from one to two years, for it is only in exceptional cases that agents
without previous experience in the customs business have become really
efficient within such periods.
ISTeither our statement above nor that furnished you by the Commissioner of Customs includes a large nuinber of persons who, during or
immediately following the war of the rebellion, were ai)pointed special
agents of the Department to serve temporarily, either as collectors,
naval officers, or as deputies, in the various customs collection districts
of the South. Nor do these statements include a vast nuniber of persons whose employment was authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury for service as ^^aids to the revenue" duiing.the war of the rebellion at numerous points within or bordering upon the insurrectionary
States, along the Canadian fi^ontier and elsewhere, and whose salaries
(ranging variously from $3 per week to $3 per diem) and expenses were
paid by the local officers of customs in whose districts they were employed.
These statements do not include, either, three persons ai^pointed in
1869 as special Treasury agents to serve as collectors of customs at
points in Alaska; nor one agent (W. D. Steward) appointed for duty
in connection with the Marine-Hospital Service, and who was iiaid from
that fund. As your instructions to us related only to special agents of
the Treasury in the customs service, we have not included in our statement any special inspectors of customs, quite a nuniber of whom are
included in the statement you have from the Commissioner of Customs.
As these officers' salaries have been paid by the collectors or surveyors
of customs in whose districts they have been assigned to duty, their expenses, however, have generally been paid by the Departnient.
Some of the special agents having been paid at different times by collectors of customs, we are satisfied that some such jiayments do not appear in the Commissioner of Customs' statement, having escaped the
search made in preparing the same. It is probable, also, that the names
of some persons appointed and serving for short terms as agents during
this period were not found either by the Commissioner or ourselves,
We found in the records of the appointment division a number of appointments and removals of special agents and assistant special agents
whose names do not appear in the Commissioner's statement. At the
same time, there are a nuinber of names of such officers in that statement that we did not find in the records of the appointment division.
We apprehend, however, that the number omitted is few, and the aggregate amount paid them hot very large.
Department clerks were in instances detailed for special service in
connection with the customs revenue at some of the ports, their expenses
being paid from the appropriation for defraying the expenses of collecting the revenue from customs. We have not included these in our
statement.
It appears from the records of the appointment division that quite a
number of persons were appointed at different times within this period (1860 to 1870) as special agents of the Department without compensation. It is presumed these parties derived, or expected to derive,
some benefit from their appointments, either from moieties in cases of
285
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
fines, penalties, or forfeitures, or in some other way. These appointments are not included in our statement.
Very respectfully,
L. G. MAETIN,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
Secretar^ of the Treasury.
Special Agents.
No. 4.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ^
-
Washington City, B . V., October 26, 1885;
S I R : In answer to your letter of October 15 instant, requesting ''a>
full and accurate statement of all payments ior salary and expenses' to
persons employed as special agents of the Treasury, in the customs service for each year from June 30, 1860, to July 1, 1869," I have the
honor to transmit the following statement: -^
i
With the meagre data at my command, I have endeavored to furnish
you with the information you ask for, but am only able to present what
I regard as an imcomplete report.
This office was not furnished during the years covered by your letter
of inquiry with a list of officers appointed or detailed foi* special service.
Neither has there been any definite rule established for the payment of
these employes, and, as a result, I find that their claims were settled
either by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, the disbursing agent
of the Department, or by some collector of customs. In a number of
instances, one special agent paid several other agents assigned to his
direction.
To furnish the exact information asked for, it is hecessary to have
the date of the beginning and termination of each term of service' of
every person in relation to whom this information is required, and
where and by whom they were paid. This I have been unable to iirocure, and, therefore, submit this report as a result of the examination ^
of two thousand and ninety-two accounts, which were withdrawn from
the files of the office of the Eegister of the Treasury.
Yery respiectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN S. McCALMONT,
Commissioner of Gustoms.
To the Honorable the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
* Statement below marked No. 5.
'
No. 5.
Statement of Compensation and Expenses of Special Agents and Special Inspectors, United
States Treasury, by fiscal years ended June 30, from July 1, 1860, to June 30, 1869.
Year.
1861....
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
Number.
•
G r a n d total
;.
14
10
22
46
41
34
70
71
93
Compensation.
Expenses.
Total.
$14,346
13,366
23,099
54,428
28,845
37,850
65,751
99,297
107,341
$8,099
10,248
17,722
32,929
24,513
44,449
72,579
89,512
67,573
$22,445
23,614
40,821
87,358
54,358
82,299
138,330
188,810
174,915
00
00
48
69
20
35
83
66
29
444,326 50
02
56
18
96
62
13
06
37
93
367,627 83
02
56
66
65
82
48
89
03
22
811,954 38
286
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
No. 6.
Statement of Compensation and Expenses of Svecial Agents United States Treasury, hy fiscal
years ended June 30, from July 1, 1869, to June 30, 1885.
Year.
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880.
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
Number.
Salary.
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
20
28
28
28
28
28
28
^28
$120,618
122,866
. 121,195
123,693
124,699
124,602
123,633
75,945
58,400
75,914
74.GSO
74,838
71,536
73,338
75,120
73,308
.'.
.
.
Total
Expenses.
13
11
00
32
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
1,514,385 56
Total.
$40,706
43,964
40,262
42,013
49,538
38,503
28,689
20,191
18,124
21,957
20,868
17,863
17,380
15,590
15,212
14,158
$161,324
166 830
161,457
165,706
174,237
163,105
152,322
96,136
76,524
97,871
95,548
. 92,701
S8,916
'88,928
90,332
87,466
14
42
56
05
93
44
12
80
86
88
77
72
54
52
50
42
445,036 67
27
53
56
37
93
44
12
80
86
88
77
72
54
52
50
42
1,959,412 23
No. 7.
MEMORANDUM.
Concerning the " Fraud E o l V
SPECIAL AGENTS' DIVISION.
In the sundry civil appropriation bill approved March 3, 1879, it is
provided ^^that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby,
authorized to expend out of the appropriation for defraying the expenses of collecting the revenue from customs such amount as he may
deem necessary, not exceeding $100,000 per annum, for the detection
and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue."
, Under the authority of the provision referred to, there was expended
for salaries and expenses as follows:
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
year
year
year
year
year
year
ended
ended
ended
ended
ended
ended
June
June
June
June
June
June
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
1880...
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885—First quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Fourtli quarter
Fiscal year ending June 30, 1886—First quarter
| 2 3 , 389
33, 641
36,281
64, 603
64,857
| 1 3 , 742
23, 038
22,848
10,237
25
84
70
15
74
92
10
75
37
69, 867 14
1, 798 40
Thehighest number of persons employed and paid under the provision quoted was 50, who were on the roll November 1, 1884. The
number now employed is 11, of whom 5 are experts employed in Europe
L. G. MAETIN.
OCTOBER 20,
1885.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 286^
^ ^ .No. 8.
.
';
Statement showing Annual Expense of the Sxiecial Agents, Special Inspectors, and ^^ FraudBolV^ Employes for tlte last five years, each year heginning July 1 and ending June 30.
Special agents. Special inspec- " F r a u d r o l l . r
tors..
Year.
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
'.
$92,701 72
88,916 54
88", 928 52
90,332 50
87,460 42
.'..
.
;
448,345 70
Special agents
Special inspectors
" F r a u d roll"
$25,762
31,966
46,818
46,713
• 52,672
54
99
72
0902
203,933 36
$33,641
36,281
64,603
64,857
69,867
/
84'
70
15
74
14
269,251 57
$448,345 70
203,933 36'
269,251 57
Total for five years
,
Average per year
921,530 65{
184,306 13-
No. 9.
List of Special Agents, Special Injectors, and ^^Fraud EolV^ Employh in Service December, 1885.
SPECIAL AGENTS.
Name.
Martin, L. G., (supervising special agent)
Adams, C. C
,
Ayer, Ira, j r
Barney, A. M
Cowan, D. S
Crowley, J . J
Harden, Mark
Hanlon, Marcus
Hiiids, B. H
Jerome, L. C
J
Jewell, Jas. A
Lapp, C. I t
Mahon, Jno. J
Moore, H. A
Peck, J. B
Phenix, Legare
Power, J. D
,
Sachse, Theo. C
Tichenor, Geo. O;
;..
Tingle, A. K
Whitehead, G. W
Williams, Wm. H
Young, W. S
Station.
Washirigton, D. C...
Philadelphia, Pa....
New York, N. Y....
Galveston, Tex
Savannah, Ga
Chicago, III
Boston, Mass
New York, N. Y ...,
NewYork, N : Y . . . .
ElPa.so, Tex
NCAV York, N. Y....
Cleveland, Ohio ....
Baltimore, Md
,
Tucson, Arizona....
NewYork, N.Y...
Chicago, 111
NewYork, N.Y...
New Orleans, La...
At large
At large
.,
Suspension Bridge
Cincinnati, Ohio....
Ogdensburg, N. Y.,
Compensation.
$8 per diem.'
$8 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$6 pel- diem.
$6 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$0 per diem.
$0 per diem.
$6 per diem.
$8 per diem.
$8 per diem.
, $6 per diera.
$8 per diem.
$0 per diem.
286*^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
SPECIAL INSPECTORS.
'(Sections 2605, 2606, and 2999, Revised Statutes.)
Baltimore, Md
Norfolk, Va
Cape Vincent, N. Y .
New York, N. Y
Rochester, N. Y
Rouse's Point, N. Y.
Detroit, Mich
Albany, N . Y
NewYork, N . Y
Savannah, Ga
New York, N. Y
New York, N. Y
NewYork, N . Y
Buffalo, N . Y
Philadelphia, Pa.....
New Orleans, La ....
Philadelphia, Pa..'...
New York, N. Y
Barnstable, Mass
Ogden, Utah
New York City
Philadelphia, P a
Erie, P a
...,
Chicago, 111
Panama, U. S. C
Aspinwall, U . S . C .
Caulk, Jas. T
Chamberlin, S. E
Cole,W. H . .
Cummings, J. C
Church, J . B
Delaney,'P. K...
Dupont, Chas
Dyer, Bradbury
Fallon, Jno. J
Gibbs, Jas. J
Harrison, D. B
Kruyezanowski, W.
Lowery, T. H
Martin, F r a n k
Malone, T. G
Oliver, Sanders N . . .
O'Neill, J n o
Passegger, Francis..
Phinney, S. B
Silva, U. M . C
Simmons, Geo. H....
Thornton, W . H
Walker, J. W . .
Whalen, Wm......
McClemon, J a s
Montgomery, L. M..
perdiem.
per diem,
per diem. ,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per dfem.
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem,
per diem.
,500 per annmn.
,500 per annmn.
' F R A U D R O L L " EMPLOYl&S.
(Act March 3,1879.)
HaU, Raymond, Volerin
•McSweeney, Daniel
Richter,C. S
Schmidt, John
Schneider, Wm
' Winslow, Norris
Lyons, France, (silk experts)
San Francisco, Cal
Basle, (silk expert)
Horgen, (silk expert)
Zurich, (silk expert)
Watertown, N. Y
$1,500 per annum.
$4 per diem.
$800 per annum.
$650 per annum.
$900 per annum.
$6 per diem.
Estimated Annual Cost of Present Force of Special Agents, Special Inspectors, and ^^ Frauds
RolV^ Employes.
Special agents:
Salaries
| 5 8 , 400
,. Expenses
8,000
Total
66,400
Special inspectors:
Salaries
Expenses
'
'
,
$40,040
5,000
Total
45,040
** Fratid r o l l " employ6s:
. Salaries
Expenses
;
•.
Total
Special agents
Special inspectors
''Fraudroh"
8,500
;
1.
Total
$7,500
1,000
$66,400
45,040
8,500
119,940
NoTB.—Salaries, actual; expenses, estimated.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
287
No. 10.
OCTOBER 13,1885.
Statement showing the number and compensation of assistant appraisers and
examiners in the several divisions ofthe appraiser's department at theport
of New Tork, the classes of goods examined in each division, and the invoice
value of such merehandise, and amount of duties thereon, for the first six
months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885.
F I R S T DIVISION.—Merchandise, on which damage allowance is
claimed; packed packages, except watches, jewelry, and precious
stones; personal effects, sample packages, seized goods, living animals,
building material, casks, shooks and hoops, chalk and plaster, coal, felt
for roofing and sheathing, guano, gutta-j)ercha, unmanufactured indiarubber, hides, hide cuttings, hoofs, horns, ice; ivory, unmanufactured:
ivory-nuts. Junk, laths, lumber, mother-of-pearl, oakum, ^ paper-stock,
rags, shells; skins, not furs; spars; spiling, veneering, wood, cabinet.
Value of invoices passed in six montlis
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 8,950.
$923, 507
194,826
Number and compensation of examiners employed.
One assistant appraiser, in cliarge, $3,000; two examiners, at $2,500; one examiner,
$2,300 ; one examiner, $2,200 ; two examiners, at $2,000; three examiners, at $1,800;
thr^ee examiners, at $1,600; one examiner, $1,400.
Free goods, $68,260,000.
SECOND DIVISION.—Albums, antiquities, artists^ materials, bronzes,
clocks, fancy goods of every description, fancy boxes, gold and silver
ware, jewelry of all kinds, marble and spar, small and fancy manufactures of mosaics, musical instruments, opticals, opti-cal and philosophical instruments, tiles, photographic aiiparatus, paintings, paper, precious stones, porcelain-ware, printed matter, sealing-wax, stationery,
statuary, toys, Parian types, watches, watch materials, works of art,
glassware, alabaster, glass and porcelain, small manufactures of crock- ^
ery, drain-pipe, earthenware.
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 27,514.
,
$10,251,078
2,922,031
i
Number and compensation of examiners employed.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; two examiners, at $2,500; five examiners,
at $1,800; one examiner, $1,400.
T H I R D DIVISION.—Braids and bindings, buttons; silk and worsted
button material, cut; embroideries, except of gold and silver; hatters'
plush; laces and lace goods of every descrixition, except lace curtains;
mosquito and other nets; ladies' silk wearing-apparel; silk, raw, tram,
and organzine, and all manufactures of silk, trimmings.
Valueof invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon.
Number pf packages, 15,550.
.$18,626,598
8,640,554
Number and compensation of examiners employed.
|
One assistant appraiser, 3,000 ; two examiners, at $2,500; one examiner,', $2,200 ; five
examiners, at $1,800.
i
,
F O U R T H DIVISION!—Bags, bagging, binding, curtain-holders; guttapercha and india-rubber, manui'actures of, except toys; ladies' linen
288
REPORT OF THE SECiiEJARY OF THE TREASUttf.
and cotton wearing-apparel, lace curtains, linen and cotton tape; man
ufactures of cotton, flax, grass, hemp, jute, or of which either of these
articles shall be a component of chief value, excej)t carpets, carpeting,
mats, matting, and oil-cloth; mosquito and other nets, rope and cordage,
school-bags of hemii, grass, or jute; thread of linen or cotton, tidSs,
twine, webbing.
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 13,562.
$11, 338, 600
4,145,417
Number and compensation of examinei'S employed.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500 ; two examiners, at
$2,200; two examiners, at $2,000.
F I F T H DIVISION.—Baskets, bonnets, bunting, corsets, corset-laces;
feathers, crude and ornamental; feather-beds, new; flowers, artificial or
natural, dyed and dried; gloves, hair braids, hats, hosiery, hoods, knit
goods, jerseys, stockinets; knit goods in piece, of whatever material,
and all garments made thereof; millinery goods, parasols, regalias,
straw-braids, umbrellas, willows, willow-ware, worsted dress-goodjs,
German and English; woollen yarn.
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 13,622.
.N
$11, 688j 444
-6, 609,100
Number of examiners and their compensation.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500; one examiner,
$2,200 ; one examiner, $2,000; one examiner, $1,800.
SIXTH DIVISION.—Bristles; canes, unmanufactured; carpets, carpeting; coir, esparto and sisal-grass fibre; flax,.flocks; furs, and all manufactures of fur; hair of all kinds; hemp, istle, jute, mats, matting, oilcloths, palm-leaf, rattan; shoddy-wool, and all materials which enter into
or form a component part of textile fabrics, except cotton and silk; shawls,
all except cotton and silk; upholstery goods of wool, worsted, or hair;
whalebone; all kinds woollen cloth, and all manufactures of wool, worsted,
or hair; worsted dress-goods, French.
Value of invoices passed in six montlis
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 15,774.
$18,733,200
8,410,541
Nuniber and compensation of examiners employed.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,500; one examiner,
$2,000; two examiners, at $1,800.
SEVENTH DIVISION.—Anatomical preparations, apothecaries' glassware, asphaltum, bituminous substances, brimstone, cardamom-seeds,
chalk, chemicals, chemical apparatus, clay, corks, cork-tree bark,
dextrine, drugs, dye-woods, dyestuffs, earths, extracts, gelatine, gums,
gypsum, isinglass, leeches, lemon-peel, lime, medicines, mineral water,
mustard-seed, paints, perfumery, plaster of paris, printing-ink, pumicestone, quicksilver, resinous substances, saltpetre, soap for toilet, specimens of botany and natural history, sponge, spunk, squills, surgical
instruments, sulphur ore, varnishes, vanilla-beans, vinegar; wax, bees'
and vegetable; water-colors, moist and dry.
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 10,642.
^.
$4,389,285
1,328,518
KEtOEt OF THE SECREtAEt OF tHE
TEEASOEY.
289
Number and compensation' of examiners employed.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one 3xaminer, $2,500: three examiners,
at $1,800.
E I G H T H DIVISION.—Boots and shoes of leather, bricks, confectionery, glass, glucose, honey, leather, melado, molasses, sugar.
Value of invoices passed in six months
$31, 088,400
Duties thereon
,
18,270,821
Number of packages, 2,588.
Number and compensation of examiners.
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; two examiners, at $2,500 ; one examiner,
$2,200 ; four examiners, at $1,800.
;
N I N T H DIVISION.—Asbestos, blacking, bronze-powders, busks; but-
tons, except worsted and silk; carriages, coach hardware, cutlery, Dutch
metal, emery, epaulets, gold and silver leaf, gold and silver galloons,
gold-beaters' skins, hardware, hones, harness; iron, and manufactui'es
of iron; jews-harps, machinery, metals, marble monuments of all
kinds, mica, models, needles, ores, pen tips and holders, pins, saddlery,
slate; stone, for building; burr, grind; steel, and manufactures of steel;
' flint, polishing and lithographic steel-pens, watch-makers' tools. ;
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
,
Number of packages, 9,418.
$13, 788, 398
4, 554,132
Number and compensation of examiners.
',
One assistant appraiser, in charge, $3,000; one examiner, $2,000 ; two examiners, ,at
$1,800; one examiner, $1,600.
•
" !'
Laboratory.—One examiner, $2,500; one examiner, 2,200 ; four examiners, at $1,800;
three examiners, at $1,200. ^
TENTH DIVISION.—Ale, beverages, cigars, cigarettes, cocoa, coffee,
cordials, fireworks, food,fruits, furniture, grain, grease; groceries, except
molasses and sugar; gunpowder, hops, lemon and lime juice, malt;
nuts, not drugs; oils, except essential, medicinal, and painters'; plants,
porter, seeds; soap, not toilet;, soap-stock, sapoline, spirituous liquors,
snuff, tobacco, wafers, edible wines.
Value of invoices passed in six months
Duties thereon
Number of packages, 17,774.
-
}
$18, 368, 200
8,143, 871
Number and compensation of examiners.
One assistant appraiser, $3,000; five examiners, at $2,500; one examiner, $1,800. ^
V
RECAPITULATION.
Divisions.
First division
•Second division
Third division
Fourth division
Pifth division
Sixth division
.Seventh division
Eighth division
N i n t h division
Tenth division
,
-
Total
iPree goods, $68,260,000.
19 A
Value.
$923,507
10,251,078
18,626,598
11,338,600
11,688,414
18,733,200
4,389,285
31,088,400
13,788,398
18,368,200
Duties,
No. of
packages..
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
$194, 826 00
' 2,922,031 00
8,640,554 00
4,145,417 00
5,609,100 00
8,410,541 00
1,328,518 00
18,270,824 00
4,554,132 00
8,143,871 00
8,950
27,514
15,550
13,562
13,622
15,774
10,642
2,588
9,418
17,774
139,195,710 00
62,219,811 00
135,394
290
KEPORT OP THE'SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
THE BARGE OFFICE AT NEW YORK.
No.l.
fMemorandum.]
Mr. John H. Starin writes as follows:
'^ 1 wish to assign my contract with the Government for the transportation of baggage to the Barge Office, which was made on August 16
1884, to ' Starin's Oity, Riiver and Harbor Transportation Company.'
As it now is, the contract appears in my name.
" I am anxious to make this assignment, but a clause in the contract
reads: ' This contract shall not be assigned without the written authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, and any assignment without such
authority shall cause a forfeiture of the saiiie.''' 1 assurne that it is simply a formality, but at the same time, in the
rush of busines_s,the Secretary of the Treasury might not have time to
give the necessary written consent unless it was pressed upon him.''
No.2.
F E B R U A R Y 25,
1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York:
S I R : The Department is informed that Mr. John H. Starin, who holds
the contract for transferring baggage to the, Barge Office at your port,
desires to transfer or assign his contract to the " Starin's City, River,
and Harbor Transportation Company."
The contract contains a clause that it shall uot be transferred or assigned without the consent of this Department. I see no objection tt)
the transfer of the contract to the company referred to, it being understood that the work will continue to be done with the same class of
boats as at present. The question of a new bond by the contractor
intervenes, and it would seem as though a new bond should be exacted from the parties to whom the contract is to be assigned, leaving
the old bond, of course, to stand as regards past liabilities. Please confer with Mr. Starin on the subject, and advise me ii you see any objection. If you do not, you will consider this letter as ^n approval by this
Departmentof the proposition. You will forward a notification of the
action taken, and send a copy of the new bond to the Department.
Very respectfully,
H. McCULLOCH,
Secretary.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'•
^
^v
•
•
.
291
'
•
'
No. 3.
C U S T O M H O U S E , N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, February 28, 1885.
- S I R : I have to report that upon authority of your letter of the 25th
. ultimo, the contract for transferring baggage to the Barge Office has
this day been transferred from Mr. John H. Starin to '* Starin's City,
Eiver, and Harbor Transportation Company."
A oipy ofthe new bond is herewith submitted as requested.
Yery respectfully,
/
W. H. EOBERTSON,
Collector.
Hon.
H. MCCULLOCH,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
[Enclosure.]
Know all men by tliese presents, that we, John H. Starin, John Walsh, aud Howard
CarroU, the executive officers of Starin's City, River and Harbor Transportation Company, as principals, and John H. Starin, of Fultonville, Montgomery County, State
of New York, Anuing Smith, John Leuox, aud William C. Egerton, as sureties, are
held and firmly bound unto the United States of America in the penal sum of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000), for the paymentof which well aud truly to be made t o t h e
said United States, we bind ourselves, our aud each of our heirs, executors, and administrators, j o i n t l y aud severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and
dated this 28th day of February, A. D. one thousaud eight hundred and eighty-five.
The condition of this obligation is such t h a t if the above bounden, Starin's City,
River, and Harbor Transportation Corapany, shall well aud truly perform, fulfill, and
keep each and all of the covenants, conditions, and agreements specified aud contained
in a certain contract and agreement, bearing date the 16th day of August^A. D. 1884,
aud made between the said John H. Starin, ofthe one part, and William H. Robertson,
as collector of customs at the por tof New York, acting for the United States, by direction aud with the approval o f t h e Secretary ofthe Treasury of said United States, of
the other part, which said contract and agreement relates to the labor and service to
be performed by the said John H. Starin in the trausfer of passengers and their baggage from incoming steamers to the new Barge Office dock at said port of NewYork,
commencing ou the 27th day of August, A. D. 1^84, and ending on the 27th day of
August. 18b7, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain iu full force and
value.
JNO. H. STARIN.
ANNlNG SMITH.
JOHN LENOX.
;
WILLIAM C. EGERTON.
HOWARD CARROLL.
Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of—
J
H U G H SMITH.
STATE O F N E W YORK,
City of Neiv York ss :
John H. Starin, of Fultonville, Montgomery County, N. Y.,cAnning Smith, John
Lenox, William C. Egerton, and Howard Carroll, the sureties named in the within
bond, being duly sworn, each for himself, and not one for the other, deposes aud says,
t h a t he is a resident and freeholder withiu the State of New York, and is worth the
sum of ($25,000) tweuty-five thousand dollars, over and above his just debts and liabilities, in unincumbered property, situate within this State, which is not exempt
from execution and forced sale.
JNO. H. STARIN.
[L. S.]
ANNING SMITH.
[ L . 8.^
JOHN LENOX.
[L. 8.- '
WILLIAM C. EGERTON. [L. 8.]
HOWARD C A R R O L L .
[L. S.]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of Februarv, 1885.
[L. 8.]
HENRY L. JOYCE,
Commissioner of Deeds, New Yorh.
292
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 4, .
\ -^ •
< ^
^
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E ,
O F F I C E OF THE SOLICITOR OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C, March 9, 1885.
S I R : I hav^e the honor to return herewith, without my approval, the
bond for the fa ith ful performance of a contract forthe transfer pf baggage
to the barge office, at the port of New York, originally executed by John
H. Starin, on the'16th of August, 1884, and subsequently assigned by
him to Starin's City, Eiver and Harbor Transportation Company of
New York. The objections to the bond are:
(1) The bond is not signed and executed by the principal.
(2) No evidence is furnished that John H. Starin, John YV'alsh, and
Howard Carroll are the executive officers of the company, and as such
were authorized to execute the bond.
(3) The name of Howard Carroll, who signs the bond as a surety, does
not appear in the body of the instrument as one of the sureties.
(4) The sufficiency of the sureties is uot certified; and
(5) It may be doubted whether the contract, for the faithtul performance of which by the assignee the bond was executed, could be
legally assigned under section 3737 of the Eevised Statutes, which prohibits the assignment of public contracts. (See also 9 C. Cis. 155, 11
Id. 638, 5 Op. A. G. 502.)
It has been held, however, by tbe Attorney-General, that the statute
in question was intended for the benefit of the United States by making
such contracts void at the option of the Government. (16 Op. A. G. 277.)
No opinion is expressed by the Attorney-General as to the authority
of the Secretary to accept the bond of the assignee for the performance
of the contract. It is believed, however, that such instrument would
be valid as a voluntary bond should the Secretary elect to recognize
the assignment. In this event the bond of the original contractor
would probably be vacated by the acceptance of the bond of the assignee.
Very respectfully,
J. H. EOBINSON,
Acting Solicitor of the Treasuryo
The Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
No. 5.
[Memorandum.]
^
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R M E N T , March 11,1885.
In re-assignment of contract J. H. Starin. To be reserved for the
consideration of my successor.
.
By direction of the Secretary.
H. F. FEENCH,
Assistant Secretary.
No. 6.
March 14,1885.
The first question in this case is whether the present Secretary consents to the proposed assignment of this contract. Second, if he does,
does the law permit it.
•
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
293
The other points suggested by the Solicitor are minor ones, which
can be easily remedied.
H. B. JAMES,
Chief of Customs Bivision.
No. 7. .
MARCH 20,1885.
There being no apparent advantage to the Government in allowing
assignment of this contract, and the legal power to do so being doubt-'
ful, as well as the eEeet upon bondsmen, I advise that the assignment
be not allowed.
'
C. S. FAIECHILD,
^
Assistant Secretary.,
No. 8.
MARCH 21,1885.
The opinion of Assistant Secretary Fairchild is approved. The Department declines to approve the assignment of the contract.
^ . •
•
D. MANNING,
;
Secretary.
No. 9.
MARCH 23RD, 1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
Neio York:
S I R : Eeferring to your letter of the 28th ultimo, inclosing a bond,
submitted in connection with the transfer of the contract for taking
baggage to the Barge Office, from Mr. John H. Starin to the '^ Starin's
City, Eiver, aud Harbor Transportation Company," I have to state that
the bond in question was referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who
points out several defects in it, and adds that it may be doubted whether
the contract could, in view of section 3737 of the Eevised Statutes, be
legally assigned.
;
There being: no apparent advantage to the Government in allowing
assignment of this contract, and the legal power to do so being doubtful, I decline to approve the assignment of the contract.
Very respectfully,
»
D..MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 10.
,
MARCH 16,1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York, N. Y.:
S I R : The representations and complaints growing out of the treatment of passengers and their baggage arriving by water at the port of
New York require the immediate attention of this Department. In or-,
der that I may be fully and officially informed of all the facts and circumstances, you are directed, in association with the naval officer and,
surveyor of the port, to make immediate inquiry into the alleged evils
294
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of the existing system in the management ofthe barge office, and into
the remedies of those evils if they shall be found to exist,.and make
report to me in writing.
Very respectfully.
D. MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 11.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, March 26, 1885.
SiR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 16th instant relative to complaints growing out of the treatment of
passengers and their baggage at the barge office at this port. As
therein suggested, I immediately conferred with the naval officer and
the surveyor in the matter, and they urged that we should sit as a commission and invite persons to come before us and give testimony as to
their experience.
It appears to me, however, that the present plan of affording passengers an opportunity of employing one express company to transfer their
baggage is capable of decided improvement, and that, too, in a way thatuo
room will be left for complaint; and acting upon that conviction, I submitted to the surveyor, on the 20th instant, certain suggestions to that
end, and asked him to report his views thereon. He informs me to-day
that his report is in course of preparation, and will be presented as soon
as it is completed.
I took this course, believing that an extended inquiry would develop
only what is already manifest; but if it be your pleasure that persons
shall be invited to appear and give testimony, I shall promptly comply
with your instructions.
The taking of testimony would naturally be tedious, and the parties
interested in the present system would perhaps not be averse to having
the investigation prolonged for their benefit.
Very respectfully,
.
W. H. EOBEETSON,
Gollector.
Hon. D. MANNING,
Secretary of the Tieasury.
No. 12.
CUSTOMHOUSE, N E W YORK,
Surveyor's Office, March 28,1885.
b^^ v^our letter, dated March 20,1885, transmitting a letter from the
bonoicMtc Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 16th iostant, ''relative
to the treatment of passengers and their baggage when landed at the
Barge v)ffice," and inclosing a memorandum of the deputy collector
assigned to duty at the Barge Office, *'in which he suggests certaia
Jnanger^i to secure to the passengers an option in the employment of ex. press companies for the removal of baggage " and for exchanging money,
and requesting my views thereon, and also requesting me to make thorough investigation and report whether the transfer of the pssaengers
REPORT OF T H E
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
295
from steamers to the Barge Office has been satisfactorily performed, has
received my consideration.
I have to state that on the arrival of every steamship bringing passengers an order is issued by the collector and naval officer directing
the surveyor or an inspector of customs to examine the baggage of the
passengers, and, if dutiable articles are found therein, to report the same*
to the collector.
For 30 years past successive surveyors have represented to the collectors and the Department the difficulties encountered in performing
their duties on the steamship wharves, and have strenuously urged that
a place controlled by the Government should be provided for that purpose.
In the years 1866-1870 Cougress made appropriations amounting to
$220,000 for a barge office in New York. The sums appropriated were
expended in the purchase of lands and the construction of retaining:
walls, &c. By the act approved June 15, 1878, Congress appropriated
$220,000 for the purchase of an additional piece of ground for the extension of the sea-walls and forthe erection ofa barge office with suitable
sheds, in which to examine the baggage of passeugers. The sum being
insufficient, other appropriations, amounting to $120,000, were subsequently made for the same purpose.
The Barge Office building, although unfinished and unfurnished, was
occupied for customs purposes on the 1st day of January, 1883.
In January, 1884, inquiries were made by the Department relative to
the condition of the Barge Office annex. The information was given,
and in a letter to the collector, dated March 12, 1884, the Department
informed him that *' when ready, it is proposed to occupy it for the examination of baggage." The successive steps that were taken by the
customs officials in conference Avith the steamship agents and the
health officer of tbe port relative to the transfer of the passengers froiri
vessels to tbe Barge Office were reported to the Department on or about
the 13th May, 1884. After advertisement for proposals for the transfer service, a contract was made with Mr. John H. Starin, which went
into effect on the 27th day of August, 1884.
The steamship wharves are leased from the city and are under control of the agents of steamship companies. They admitted upon the
wharf when a steamship arrived whom and as raany persons as they
pleased, without regard to the convenience of the customs officers or
the protection of the revenue; and as the wharves are invariably incumbered with merchandise and by vehicles receiving and delivering
merchandise, the space in which baggage was examined was restricted
to a narrow Iiassage w^ay lengthwise the wharf or to vacant spaces between piles of merchandise. Although the principal steamship companies have within the few years past provided themselves with more
capacious wharves for the transaction of their business, it has not, because of the greater numberof passengers coming in larger steamships,
afforded any more room for the examination of baggage.
As soon as it was known thai it was intended to concentrate the examination of baggage at the Barge Office, a vigorous, opposition by persons who were pecuniarily interested in continuing the landing of passengers' baggage at the wharves was developed. These included the
employes of the steamship companies, and the pcLsons having the monopoly of, or an interest in, the conveying of passengers and their baggage from the wharves, and also the proprietors of lodging and drinking
bouses in the neighborhood.
^
J^his opposition in New Jersey yv8i,s siifficient to have the pass^ngerg
296
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of steamships whose landing place is in Jersey City and Hoboken exempted from transfer to the Barge Office.
On the arrival of every steamer with passengers at the Jersey wharves
a fbrce of customs inspectors, appraisers, and clerks are necessarily sent
to perform duties relative to the examination of baggage. The German
steamship agents affbrd all the facilities within their power to aid the
customs business and to prevent the intrusion of unauthorized persons
on the spaces required for examining baggage.
It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the examination of baggage at the
Barge Office was begun in the season of the year when the greatest num
ber of passengers with the largest amount of baggage comes to this port
because it gave an opportunity for those who were opposed to the change
to exaggerate the alleged defects in an untried system; and the few^ instances soon after the beginning of the Barge-Office exainination, when
the incoming of several large steamers on the same day, and nearly at
the same time, caused some necessary delay, and consequently complainti
by impatient passengers and their friends, are still quoted as a ground
for abolishing the system.
In striking contrast to the unclean and crowded steamship wharves,
the Barge-Office annex has a floor area of nearly 20,000 square fe^et; the
floor is laid and caulked like a ship's deck, and is unencumbered except
by the small customs office for the use of the deputy collector and his
cleiks, and by'^an inclosure containing urinals, &c.,for the accommodation of male passengers. As much space as can be afforded is railed off',
so that persons can step from the large waiting-room in the building to
the floor to meet their friends.
The annex is tolerably well warmed in cold weather by steam, is
well lighted by gas. The fixtures are so arranged that baggage can be,
as it often is, examined after sunset. The Government roadway in
iront'of the premises is lighted by three electric lights, and an adequate
police force, in charge of a suxierior officer, was provided by the police
commissioners in August last, for the protection of persons and property
while on the Government premises.
Your letter directs me to make an investigation and report as to the
transfer of passengers. In regard thereto I have to state: By the
terms of the contract, the transfer service is to be performed by and
with '^ suitable barges, steamboats, or other vessels, according to the
condition of the weather, and subject to the approval of the collector
of theport." The vessels employed by the contractor are three sidewheel steamboats, two of which are each above 400 gross tons burden,
and the third above 500 tons. Each steamboat is provided with the
• official certificates required by the ''steamboat act." During the winter
season the cabins and saloons are kept warm by stoves and steam heat,
and each boat has a stewardess for the care of the "ladies' cabin."
These steamboats were formerly employed summer and winter in making regular hourly trips between the city and the north shore of Staten
Island. They are well equipped passenger boats, and each of them is
fitted up for the accommodation of a much larger numberof passengers
than is brought by any steamship. When an incoming steamship has
anchored in Quarantine, one of the transfer steamboats—which are held
in readiness at the Quar an tine,dock—is put alongside of and secured to
the steamship aud the transfer of baggage is begun as soon as the officers of the steamship are ready to deliver it. The tirae required to
make the transfer of baggage at Quarantine depends upori the quan^tity of baggage, the preliminary measures taken to facilitate its delivery
by getting it out of the hold, and the alacrity with which the work is
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
297
done by the steamship employ6s. Before, eras soon as the baggage is
delivered to the transfer boat, the passengers go from the steamship to
the transfer steamboat, over a short railed gangway, securely fastened
to both vessels, and from the upper deck the passengers descend to the
saloons of the transfer boat by stairways. The time occupied in running to the Barge Office dock (about five miles) is about twenty-five minutes. As soon as the transfer boat is raade fast alongside of the Barge
Office bulkhead, the baggage—which is carried on the forward part of
the main deck of the transfer boat—^is taken into the Barge Office on
hand trucks ; and in this work both the deck handsof the transfer boat
and the Barge Office laborers are employed, and it is rapidly done.
Since the beginning of the transfer service to the present date there
has been no damage done to the person or property of any passenger,
except two slight injuries to frail baggage. Compensation for the damage was, in each case, promptly made by the contractor. Nor has the
severity of the weather hindered or prevented the transfer boats from
pefforming their daily service iri the usual time.
In my opinion the service has been well performed, and I can suggest
no practical improvement therein.
In regard to the removal of baggage after it has been examined, I
have to state that the New York City Transfer Company, represented by
Messrs. Biglin & McCord, have been allowed the exclusive privilege,
within the building, of booking baggage for delivery. This privilege
was accorded by me as custodian ofthe building, at the suggestion of
the late Secretary, Judge Folger, when he visited the Barge Office with
me in July, 1884. It is a x)rivilege which can be revoked at any time
The memorandum of the deputy collector is to the effect that the privilege so accorded is an objectionable monopoly, and that other express^
companies should be allowed in the building to solicit patronage. I be-^
lieve that a similar "monopoly" exists on every railroad, and did exist
on every steamship wharfin this city; that is to sa'y: instead of admitting
upon the premises all baggage carriers to solicit custom, one person or
company is selected and granted the privilege.
If a passenger prefers to employ any other express company or baggage-carrier—and they can always be found standing in the roadway
in front of the Barge Office—there is no restraint or objection to his
doing so, and on request his baggage will be removed to the street by
the 'Government laborers. I am inforraed that the raaxiraura rates for
carrying baggage by expressraen are regulated by city ordinances; but
usually the price is raade a raatter of agreement between the passenger
and the baggage-carrier. The first-class passengers of steamships are
usually persons of intelligence, and they are fully informed on shipboard in relation to all the business processes ofthe Barge Office.
Each of the "trunk-line" railroads leading out of this city is now,
and has been since August last, represented on the Barge-Office floor by
an authorized agent, designated by the name of the railroad on his cap,
to affbrd to passengers information in regard to the railroad he represents.
My opinion and the opinion of the custoras officials at the Barge Office
with whom I have consulted on this raatter is, that it is not desirable to
have in the Barge Office annex any greater nuraber of persons for soliciting passengers or booking baggage than is necessary for the reasonable convenience of the passengers and the prompt removal of baggage.
I have stated the facts as they appear upon the official records, or as
can be substantiated. I am in favor, and so expressed myself at our
298
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
first conference, with the naval officer, of a public and comprehensive
inquiry relative to the Barge Office business, and of any and all complaints alleged to have been made in regard thereto. Any further action deemed by ray official superiors necessary to be taken by rae in
regard to the matters mentioned in the Department letter dated March
16 will receive my immediate attention.
I return the papers referred to me. .
.Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JAMES L. BENEDICT,
,
Surveyor.
Hon.
W M . H . EOBERTSON,
Gollector.
[Memorandum.]
C U S T O M H O U S E , N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, March 18,1885.
The question, whether the landing of passengers and baggage at the
Barge Office is an improvement over the old system of landing at the
diff'erent docks, must be answered by all candid observers in the affirmative.
It is true, fault is found, and criticisms passed upon the Government,
for this expensive though successful outlay of money, in order, not only
to facilitate the landing of passengers, but provide the most decent and
convenient, as well also the most imposing in all its appointment and
surroundings of any landing place to be found in any nation on earth.
Without discussing the underlying motives of the attacks on the
"Barge Office" (which are pretty well understood, and may be, nearly
all traced to one source), it is suggested that the problem of satisfying
the deraands of the public in reference to the handling of baggage raay
be solved by admitting to the " Barge Office " the agents of the prominent baggage expresses now in existence, viz : The New York Transfer
Company (late Dodd's), Westcots, Biglin & Co., and possibly one or two
others. Let these agents be assigned a place (by lot) near the exit, each
have a sign over their station displaying their designation, and tariff of
prices for the delivery of baggage to diff'erent points. The natural competion between these expresses will be a safeguard against extortion or
overcharge. None of these agents to be allowed to circulate amongst
passengers to solicit business; but, when a passenger engages any one
ofthe companies, let the agent go and check his baggage, and immediately return to his post. This plan will prevent confusion.
Exclusive privilege to handle baggage should not be granted to any
one company or express, whether that privilege is attained by public
bidding or otherwise. What the public demlands is open competition
and a free choice; it will be satisfied with nqthing less. Without discussing the merits of the case, it is undeniable that the present system
of handling baggage is variously denounced as a " monopoly," a " favoritism," " un-American," and " undemocratic."
Careful observation and inquiry have demonstrated that the three
great bonded express companies,* viz, Wells-Fargo, the American, and
the National (each under a half million dollar bond) should be
allowed to have an agent in attendance on the arrival of steamers to
receive all dutiable baggage in transit through the United States. It
often happens that families, whose honies are in the interior, arrive
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
299
with ten, twenty, or thirty trunks. They wish to remain in the city a
day or more. They can turn over their extra baggage to these express
companies, which would relieve them df a great burden and expense.
At present it costs much more to get their baggage from the Barge Office
to their hotel and thence again to the depot, and then, in addition, the
extra railroad charge tor all over 150 pounds, than it does to send it
direct from the Barge Office by express. Again, these agents would be
of infinite advantage to strangers as a general information bureau.
Their lines running to all sections of the country, they are necessarily
well-informed men. These express companies have a national- reputation and are quasi-bankers; therefore they could be, with perfect safety
authorized to exchange foreign money for passengers without the least
exposing the administration to unfriendly criticism, admitting these
bonded express companies would be of the greatest benefit in many
ways to passengers, and be correspondingly popular with the public
as a move in the right direction.
Eespectfully submitted.
N. G. WILLIAMS,
Beputy Colleetor.
No. 14.
Hon.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , NAVAL O F F I C E ,
i). MANNING,
March 31,1885.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washingtoh, B . C.:
S I R : I have the honor to report that, in accordance with the collecto r s request, dated March 16, 1885, I appeared at his office on Friday,
the 20th instant, and there met the surveyor and himself. The collector
inquired if I had read your order to him respecting proceedings at the
Barge Office, and was informed that I had. A discussion followed relative to the proper method of. conducting the investigation demanded
by your order. Both the surveyor and myself favored an open examination; but while the former desired the presence of representatives
from any newspaper office, I advised that only agents of the Associated
Press should be admitted.
On the following day we met again, and I urged a thorough and public inquiry into the whole subject alluded to in your order. At this
meeting the collector read a communication addressed to him by Deputy Collector Williams, making certain statements in regard to the
conduct of business at the Barge Office. After I h a d comraented upon
this communication the collector turned it over to the surveyor with a
request that he would reply to it if he saw fit.
Nothing further has been done by me in pursuance of the inquiry desired by you until to-day, when, having met the collector in accordance
with his request, I was surprised to learn that he had received an elaborate report from the surveyor, which he desired rae to read. As noioint proceedings had taken place in accordance with the terms of your
order, I did not consider it incumbent upon me to read the report of the
surveyor to the collector.
The collector then read to me a letter which he proposed sending to
you; but as this letter only embodied his personal opinions, without reference to data or authorities, I declined to unite in it, and stated to him
that I would make an individual report to you.
Thesubject of the investigation proposed by you has been freely dis
300
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
cussed by people iri clubs, hotels, and other public places, and has likewise filled many eolumns of the public press. Whether justly or not,
many of our worthiest people believe that the methods of landing passengers and treating their baggage is attended with delay and danger,
and is open to gross extortions. While I beheve that most of these
charge's are untrue, I cannot attach my signature to an official report
which does not indicate the evidence upon which it is based. It does
not appear to rae that any action has taken place in pursuance of the
inquiiy desired by you, but I will subrait to the Departraent some conclusions based upon five years' experience as surveyor of the port, and
upon.a general knowledge of the facts.
In my judgment there are ample accommodations at the Barge Office
except on those extraordinary occasions when many large steamers with
heavy passenger lists arrive simultaneously.
This occasional difficulty raight be avoided if the surveyor were empowered to permit, in case of absolute necessity, the landing of passengers and their eff'ects at the steamer's wharf. The force of inspectors
is large enough to permit the assignment of a sufficient number to disc h a r ^ this special duty when required.
In regard to the transportation of passengers from steamer to wharf,
my impression is that the work is carefully performed and that the
vessels employed are well adapted to the purpose, and that the facilities furnished are superior to those enjoyed in any foreign country.
I would, however, advise that the contract for distributing baggage
should be given to one party, under heavy bonds and subject to the restrictions of public carriers, to be selected by you, or perhaps given
through advertisement to the lowest bidder. Such a contract should
specify the charges authorized to be ma'Se. The Barge Office does not
aff'ord room for more than one company to transact this busiuess.
I can raake no report upon the personal behavior of officers at the
Barge Office, nor upon the subject,of extortions practiced by them, because the collector has called for no investigation on thesepoints. It
is certain that the pretext for extortion is much diminished since the
wide liberty afforded by Judge Blatchford's late decision, and I suspect
that more is given in the shape of gratuities than as enforced fees.
The proceedings are easily overlooked from the galleries of the Barge
Office and improprieties can readily be detected.
As the hour is late, and I desire this letter to reach you to-morrow, I
am not able to pursue the subject at greater length.
Very respectfully,
CHAELES K. GEAHAM,
Naval Officer.
MARCH 27,1885.
Hon. W M . H . EOBERTSON,
'
Collector of Customs, New York City, N. Y.:
SIR : I am in receipt of your letter bf the 26th instant relative to the
investigation which you are raaking into the conduct of aff'airs of the
Barge Office, and stating that you have subraitted to the surveyor, with
directions to give you his views thereon, certain suggestions relative to
an iraprovement in the present conduct of the baggage express business. You also state that you believe that " an extended inquiry would
develop only what is already manifest;" but that if it be the pleasure
of the Department that persons shall be invited to appear and give testimony, you will promptl}^ comply with such instructions, although, in
REPORT
6 F T H E SECRETARY
OF THE TREAStJRY. ' §01
your opinion, " t h e taking of testimony would naturally be tedious,
and the parties interested in the present system would, perhaps, not
be averse to haviug the investigation prolonged for their benefit."
In reply to these remarks, I beg. to say that having placed the conduct of this investigation entirely in your hands, and recognizing you
as being responsible for the proper conduct of the customs service at
your port, I do not at this time care to off'er further suggestions. It is
but proper to say, however, that in my opinion the course you have so
far pursued is best calculated to attain the end desired.
Very respectfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 16.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, March 31,,1885.
S I R : Eeferring to your letter of the 27th instant (just received'], further relative to the treatment of passengers and their baggage when
landed at the Barge Office in this city, I now transmit herewith a report
in the matter from the surveyor of the port, dated the 28th instant (received on the 30th).
I subrait that the use of the Barge Office as a ijlace for the exaraination of the baggage of passengers arriving frora abroad is in compliance with the statute. (See act of June 15, 1878, vol. 20, Statutes at
Large, page 133.)
I have in person visited the Barge-Office annex, and that it affords
accomraodations and conveniences for the orderly and decent examination of baggage and for tbe personal comfort of passengers far superior
to those given by steamship companies, when baggage was examined
on their wharves, cannot, I ara satisfied, truthfully be denied. More-,
over, a systera and watchfulness can there be raaintained for the protection of the revenue and for the prevention of tarapering with officers,
while the exaraination on the wharves was fruitful of coraplaints not
creditable to the Governraent.
The giving to one express company " the exclusive privilege within
the building of booking baggage for delivery" was without consultation
with me, and, therefore, without ray approval. The public inquiry suggested by the naval officer and the surveyor is not, to ray mind, necessary to establish that such privilege is, as the people term it, " a monopoly." That it is " a monopoly" is quite raanifest in itself.
As stated in my letter to the surveyor of the 20th instant, arrangements should, in ray judgraent, be raade which will give the passenger
an "option" in the employraent of an express for the transfer of baggage ; and to this end I propose that three representative and responsible local express corapanies, each, have a closed-in space near the exit
just large enough for one man and ^ desk, at which shall be displayed
the name ofthe corapany and its tariff' of prices, the agents of the express companies not to be allowed on the.examining floor, but the baggage to be checked when, in its passage out, it reaches the stand of the
employed company.
I also propose that the representatives of express companies, bonded
as common carriers, shall have stands inside the building, so that they
may take charge of the baggage of passengers in transit to foreigQ ter-
302
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ritories; and that to such compames shall b e given the privilege of
opening money exchanges for the accommodation of arriving passengers, and thus remove all necessity for appeals by passengers to customs employes for the exchange of raoney.
If to satisfy yourself of the feasibility of these suggestions you shall
call upon the speciaFagents, now sitting in this city as a commission to
investigate and report, I am satisfied that you will have from them ati
intelligent and unbiased expression of opinion.
Another plan, if those suggested do not meet with favor, is to publicly
invite proposals and give the privilege to the express company which
shall make the lowest off'er for tbe transfer of baggage.
The transfer of baggage from the Quarantine to the Barge Office is by
contract with the Government; and the surveyor reports that that service is satisfactorily performed. I t has occurred to me that a ch^ange in
that particular might be secured through Congress by an enactment that
steamships shall land their passengers at the Barge Office.
I also transmit herewith a meraorandura on the subject from my
deputy who is assigned to duty at the Barge Office.
I have afforded the naval officer a perusal of this letter and its inclosures. He inforras rae that he proposes to address you on the subject.
I return herewith the communication from Mr. J. C.Carbonell, which
w^as referred to me byyour indorsement thereon under date of the 27th
instant.
I am, with high respect, your obedient servant,
W. H. EOBEETSON,
Collector.
Hon. D. MANNING, .
Secretary of the Treasmy.
TEnclosure. ]
N E W YORK, March 23, 1885.
The Honorable SECRETARY O F T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
Washington, D. C. :
DEAR S I R : The many complaints about the exorbitant price charged for carrying
baggage from the Barge Olfice to the residence of persons arriving into this city authorizes me to trouble you in making the following offer, v i z : I will take the baggage of
passengers arriving daily at the Barge Office to any place in the city south of 59th
street for 25 eents per package not over lOO pounds.
I have ten large wagons and six single ones, with sufflcient hands to attend, and
will begin at auy time convenient to the custom-house service.
Whereas t h e people coming is composed in its greater part of English, French,
Spanish, aud Italian and German, aud I possess those languages, I consider myself
not only useful, but convenient.
An early answer will be thankfully received by,
Yours, truly,
J . C. CARBONELL,
357 W. U t h Street.
[Endorsement.]
TREAsmiY.DEPARTMENT, March 27, 1885.
Respectfully referred to the collector of customs at New York for examination in
connection with t h e pending investigation of t h e Barge Office and the transfer of
baggage.
Return of this paper is requested.
D. MANNING,
Secretary.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
303
No. 17.
-
CUSTOMHOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, April 4, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to my letter of the 31st ultimo relative to the treatment of the baggage at the Barge Office in this city, I transrait herewith
for your further inforraation a iirinted copy of a comraunication on the
subject addressed by Mr. John H. Starin, under date of November 25,
1884, to the special committee on reform of the Chamber of Commerce.
Very respectfully,
W. H. EOBEETSON,
Collector.
Hon*. D. MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
fEnclosure.!
STARIN^S C I T Y , R I V E R AND H A R B O R TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
P R I N C I P A L O F F I C E S , P I E R 18, N . ' R . ,
New York, Novemher 25, 1884.
Messrs. JACKSON S . SCHULTZ, D A N I E L C . R O B B I N S , J O H N R . W A T E R S ,
Special Committee on Eevenue Eeform:
GENTLEMEN: Under date of 10th of the present nionth, I received from the special
committee on revenue reform of t h e Chamber of. Commerce a communication,
asking me to give my views upon the present inethod of landing passengers aud their
baggage from oceau steamers arriving a t this port.
I take pleasure in complying with this request, not only from the standpoint of the
Government contractor responsible for one part of the system, b u t as a member of the
Chamber of Commerce of many years' standing, and as a business man whose interest
in the harbor of New York an'd the commerce of the port is perhaps quite as large as
that of any other individual.
In the outset, i t may not be amiss to draw the attention of the committee to the^
fact that for many years prior to the establishmeut of the existiug sj^stem there was
loud and continued complaint in regard to the old method of landing passengers and
their baggage on the piers of the various steamship companies. I t was claimed—and,
as there can be no doubt, justly claimed—that t h e docks iu question were in every
respect unfitted for the reception of first-class passengers and the examination of their
baggage. The piers referred to were then, as they are now, a t all times lumbered
with freight, cotton, bacon,, rags, oil, pig-iron, indeed coarse merchandise of every
description. They were also crowded with teams, thronged with 'longshoremen, were
damp and dirty at all seasons ofthe year, and during the fall, winter, and early spring,
cold, dark, and positively uu healthy.
Upon these piers, situated at various points more or"^less inaccessible to the residence and business centers of the city, passengers were obliged to land, aud frequently
to remain for hours broiling in the summer sun, freezing in the cold of winter, while
an inadequate number of inspectors (inadequate, because the force was widely scat- ,
tered) examined their baggage.
During such exa.miuation it is matter of record t h a t valuable dresses and other
belongings of passengers Avere from time to time soiled and seriously damaged by falling out of opened trunks upon the frequently Avet and always damp and dirty docks.
In addition to these crying objections, there were others which, from the Goverument
standpoint, were regarded as even more serious. You are doubtless as familiar with
the objections to which I refer as I am. To them i t is not my province to refer in detail.
Their discussion must be left to the well-informed officers of t h e customs who are
thoroughly familiar with the subject.
To do away with these and various other complaints. Congress, i n 1879, passed a
bill which, if I am not mistaken, was warmly supported by the Chamber of Commerce,
and which provided for the erection of the new Barge Office at the Battery, and directed t h a t the baggage of cabin passengers on incoming ocean steamers should be
transferred from Quarantine to tbat Government office and there examined.
Under the provisions of this bill the.Treasury Department during the last spriug
advertised for bids from those iu a position to do the work of transferring baggage, and incidently of such passengers as desired to accompany their baggage to the i}arge
offlce. My supepintendent of steamboats, during my abseuce from the city, bid
among others. His bid being the lowest the contract was given to me.
304
RiEPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
In regard to the terms of the agreement thus made, I find t h a t many people hold
the most laughable, a n d n o t a few people the most idiotic, notions. I have seen it
stated, for instance, t h a t Mr. IStarin was to receive $1.05 for every man, woman, and
child who entered the port of New York, and t h a t his profits would be not less t h a n
a half million dollars a year.
r
The fact is, t h a t I am not paid one penny for transporting the cabin passengers,
with whom alone I have to do. Of such passengers it is estimated that 50,000 will
arrive at the Barge Office during this year—this is a liberal estimate—and as the
average number of pieces of baggage brought by each passenger is two and one-half,
for each piece of which (excluding hand-baggage carried by passengers or their servants) the Government is under contract to xDay 67 cents, it will readily be seen t h a t
the gross sum—I repeat, the total sum which I am likely to receive—cannot greatly
exceed |80,000, and it may be very much less.
I may say in passing t h a t I am informed the Government will, by the concentration of inspectors and the iucrease in duties collected under the new system, save a
sum much in excess of this. As to my so-called ''immense x^rofits," let me draw your
I attention to the fact t h a t under the terms of my contract it was originally contemplated that the work of trausfer should be done with barges and tugs. But this
was found impracticable, and I have beeu compelled to j^lace at tho service of the
Government three and sometimes four boats, and now have in thafc service three
large, strong, and seaworthy steamers, the " Laura M. Starin," the ''Thomas Hunt,"
a n d t h e *'Pomona," which, because of their great extent of deck room forward, have
been selected from my fieet as being particularly well adax)ted for the work of transfer.
They are each capable of carrying, under Government inspection, from 800 to 1,000
persons, and they represent a capital of $120,000 actually iuvested—invested, it may
he well to add, in steamboat property, which depreciates, as is well known to ail
those familiar with tho subject, at'the rate of not less t h a n 20 per cent, per year.^.
The exigencies of the transfer service are such that my superintendents have found
it necessary td keep these boats ''fired u p " and ready at a moment's notice to meet
incoming steamers—it being specially stipulated in j n j contract that between sunrise
and sunset my boats shall meet without delay all foreign passenger steamers arriviug
at Quarantine. The result, from a money stand-point, is such t h a t I am by no means
sure t h a t my much-talked-of Government contract will yield me even a small profit.
There seems to be a geueral impression t h a t about every steamer which is met by
the contractor's boats is loaded down with baggage. The exact ox)posite is the case.
The great majority of arriving ships—which must be served, let it be noted, with as
much care aud dispatch as the " c r a c k " Atlantic racers—bring less than fifty pieces
of baggage each.
Following is a list of several which brought Jess than twenty-two pieces each—not
enough to pay for the wood used in keeping up the fires of the steamboats which met
them.
Date of
arrival.
Aug. 30
Sept 6
9
Oct. 13
N 21
25
28
28
31
Nov 3
6
Name of steamer.
State of Alabama
Kamon De Herea
State of Alabama
Nia^'ara
Stat1> of Pennsylvania...
Neustorea
Teutonia
Biela
Muriel
..
Athos
No. pieces of
baggage.
Date of
arrival.
21
17
21
15
21
16
6
9
8
16
4
Nov. 11
12
14
14
16
19
20
20
22
23
21
Name of steamer.
Pascal...'..
Katie
Principie
State of Nevada
Finance
Bristol
Bermuda
Sidonia
Nebraska
Scandinavian
Glenfyne
No. pieces of
baggage.
7
16
21
18
11
7
6
9
20
3
6
To this table may be added the statement t h a t on fifteen days during the past two
months there were no arrivals of passenger steamers. Y e t m y boats were obliged to
be fully manned aud "fired" upon those days as upon others, ready for business which
did not come.
When these figures are taken into account; when the great risk of navigation is
considered; when it is remembered t h a t I am responsible for all baggage which is received on my boats; t h a t I am liable for all duties which may be lost to the Government on stray baggage—fortunately not one piece has yet been lost—that I am under
a penal bond of |50,000 to carry out my agreement to thfe letter, it will be seen t h a t
my contract is not quite the " b o n a n z a " which people with vivid imaginations, who
know nothing about the matter, seem to believe. So much for t h a t part of the subject.
Looking a t t h e Barge Office system from t h e standpoint of a citizen of New York,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
305
largely interested in harbor transportation, I am most eraxjhatic in my belief that it
is a very great improvement upon the old system.
I t is not yet by any means perfect—it ueeds several additions to inake it perfect—
b u t nevertheless it is a great success so far as it has gone. Passengers are now transferred, not to wet, dirty, and cold docks, situated in out-of-the-way places, but to a
.central point, the terminus of all the elevated railroads, at the foot of the city's great
artery of travel, to a clean, well-lighted, well-aired, and in winter well-heated waiting-room, which is especially adapted for the purpose, and which has, with three excexDtions, been found more than large enough for the business to be done. The exceptions were occasipned by an unprecedented rush of xiassengers at the very height of
the season, and it is a question in rny mind whether the confusion which resulted
would have been less had these passengers been conveyed to the steamship piers.
Take the case of the City of Rome, for instance. That mammoth steamer arrived
here on August 31, with 626 passengers.
I t was claimed t h a t the Barge Otfice was not large enough to accommodate this
number, yet pier 41, North River, one-half of which the agents of the steamer City
of Rome rent from me, and to which the ship under the old system would have taken
her passengers—there to mix them with trucks, railroad freight, cotton bales, and
350 longshoremen—is not in its entirety nearly so large as the J3arge Ofiice.
Still auother advantage of the new system must be borne in mind.
Under the old arrangement it was uot possible to examine the baggage of ships
after sunset. Such vessels were comxielled to lie in the stream with their passengers
until morning. Every one who has returned frequently from Euroxie can recall more
than one such experience. Now the passengers and baggage of every ship which
passes the health officer are on the same evening transferred to the Barge Office.
The following may serve as examxdes: On August 31 the City of Rorae arrived at
Quarantine 4.30 p. in., could not possibly have been made fast to her dock before 6.30
X . ra. (sunset 6.34 p. m.), and custom-house officers would have refused to examine
>
baggage. Under new system passengers w^ere allowed to land and leave with their
baggage on the sarae evening.
September 19, the Queen, w^ith 102 x:>asaengers, arrived at quarantine 5 p. m., could
not havebeen docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset, 6.03 p. m.), and passengers would have
been obliged to stay on board all night. Under new system they were all xiassed the
same evening.
September 20 the Germanic, with 195 passengers, arrived at Quarantine 5.30 p. m.,
could not have been docked until 7 p. m. (sunset 6.01 p. m.), passengers would have
been obliged to reraain on board all night. Under new system they were allowed
to land aud leave for their homes same evening. .
October 12 the Arizona, with 200 passengers, arrived'at Quarantine 4.30 p . m . ,
could not have been docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset 5.25 p. m.), and passengers would"^
have beeu obliged to remain onboard all night. Under new system they were passed
with their baggage same evening.
October 26 the Orinoco, with eighteen passengers, arrived at quarantine 4.50 p.m.,
could not have been docked until 6.30 p. m. (sunset 5.04 p. m.), x'>assengers w^ou.ld
have been obliged to remain on board all night. Under the new system they were
all, Avith their baggage, out of the Barge Office at teu minutes x^ast 6 o'clock.
November' 16 the Alaska, with 126 passengers, arrived at Quarantine 4.30 p. m.,
could not have reached her dock until after 6 p. m. (sunset 4.41 p. m.), and passengers would have been obliged to remain ou board all night. Under the new system all the passengers, with their hand baggage, were xiassed at 5.50 p. m. In addition to these cases, if sxjace permitted, many others of the same character might be
cited.
I may also draw your atteution to the fact t h a t first-class xiassengers coming from
infected ports, as from Paris, for instance, need not now remain on the quarantined
ship until sent for by the steamship companies' tugs, as was formerly the case, but can
come to the city on the transfer boats as soon as passed by the doctor. Still further is
to be noted t h a t there is now no delay to passengers caused by waiting for the unweildy
Atlantic steamers to get to doclk. It frequently happens t h a t from one to three hours
are cousumed in this task, and I have known it to take five hours. Indeed, I have in
my raind the case of one famous ship of a great line which arrived about five weeks
ago, and whose passengers were landed in the Bfjrge Office in two hours and fifty-five
minutes after they arrived at Quarantine. Despite this expedition, it was complained
by some t h a t they were delayed by the new system. As a matter of fact, the ship \
ux^on which they came, because of a strong flood-tide, did not succeed in getting to
her dock until two hours and forty minutes after all her passengers had left the Barge
Office wdth their baggage. Had they remained on the steamer their baggage would
not have passed until next day. A number of such instances could be cited. Indeed,
I am assured t h a t under the new system there is in every case a gain in the time of
lauding and examining baggage of from one to four hours.
I am also informed that there is a verv great advantage to the steamship companies
§0 4
306
. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
in being 'ableto get to work unloading the moment the shix3 is docked. Mr. liouis De
Bebian, o f t h e Compagnie G6n4rale Transatlaniique, has informed me that the saving
to his line iu this direction amounts to thousands of dollars a year. I am informed
t h a t Mr. R: J. Cortis, of the White Star Line, and other steamship agents, are warm
advocates o f t h e new system. I also know trom my own department of lighterage of
foreign freight, which delivers on an average upwards of 1,000 tons a day to steamers
destined for foreign ports, aod which receives from them on their return about 1,200
tons a day, that because of the f a c t t h a t the steamship docks are no longer hampered
with incoming passengers, there is much greater expeditiou in the receipt and delivery of shipments.
These are, in my opinion, some of the advantages of the Barge-Office system. As I
have said, I think it is a success. Still there can be no doubt that it maybe improved.
To this end I would suggest t h a t the examination-room be enlarged in the nianner
which has already, as I understand, been recommended to tho Department at Washington by the surveyor of the port, and especially t h a t greater facilities be ofi'ered
incoming passengers to meet their waiting friends.
So imx:)roved, I believe t h a t the uew system of lauding passengers''and their bag^ gage would be as perfect, as free from annoyance, as any system can be.
I have the honor to be, &c., very respectfully, yours,
~
JOHN H. STARIN.
No. 18.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, April 14, 1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York, N. Y.:
SIR : I have to request that you will have prepared and forwarded to
this Department a statement showing—
First. The comparative cost of inspecting passengers' baggage at,
your port before and since the establishment of the Barge Office, tak;, ing as a basis of comparison the period since its establishment and the
average of four corresponding periods in the four years previous to its
establishment.
Second. A comparison of the number of inspectors employed during
the same periods.
Third. If possible, a comparison of the number of passengers landed
during the same period.
Fourth. A comparison of the amount of duties collected on baggage
under the old and new systems; and,
Fifth. Date of opening of Barge Office.
Very respectfully,
C. S. FAIECHILD,
Acting Secretary.
No. 19.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K ,
Collector's Office, April 24, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt of your communication of the 14th instant,
relative to the. comparative expense of examining passengers' baggage,
before and since the establishment of the Barge Office.
1 herewith transmit a report of the surveyor, which, as it covers all
the inquiries of your letter, seems to require no comment from me, except to refer to his statoment that no separate record is kept in his
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
307
office ofthe duties collected upon baggage ordered to £he public stores
for appraisement, and to add that no record is kept anywhere from
which such data can be obtained.
^
Very respectfully,
W. H. EOBEETSON,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury.
CUSTOM H O U S E , N E W Y O R K ,
Surveyor's Office, April 21, 1885.
S I R :. The Department letter dated April 14, 1885, relative to the
expense of examining passengers' baggage, having been referred to
me April 16,1 have to submit a tabulated statement embracing the period from the date when a portion of passengers' baggage was first examined at the Barge Office—to wit, August 27, 1884, to and including
March 15, 1885, and for corresponding periods in four previous years,
when all baggage was landed on the steamship wharves—viz :
A u g u s t 27 t o - A p r i l 15.
All wharves:
1880-'81
1881-'82
1882-'83
1883-'84
N u m b e r of
steamships
with
passengers.
,
N u m b e r of
passengers.
Duties
collected.
•
Packages
sent to
public store
for a p p r a i s e m e n t , &c.
511
690
831
1790
Packages
s e n t to
seizure room
for investigation.
B a r g e Office:
1884-'85
New Jersey wharves:
1884-'85
789
844
875
812
30, 225
36, 574
34,423
40, 580
482
27, 627
59, 759 00
820
8
323
11, 298
11,785 99
253
3
, 805
"^
.
..
38, 925
71, 544 99
1,073
11
$111,
102,
80,
80,
387
470
283
078
68
31
79
12
•
'
36
23
25
83
The increase in the number of packages sent from the wharves in
1882-'83 and 1883-'84 to the appraisers' stores was partially caused by
the greater number of packages brought by passengers in transit to
foreign .countries, and because a more strict compliance with article 94
of the Customs Eegulations of 1883 Jcatalogue No. 952) was necessary
for the proper examination of packages. The amount of duties collected
upon merchandise from baggage appraised at the public store cannot be
stated, as no record thereof is kept in this office.
As will be seen from the foregoing statement, the amoant of duties
collected from x>assengers' baggage in the period from August 27,
1884, to April 15, 1885, inclusive, has decreased from previous years
during the same period, and for the reason that the Department, by
circular dated April 29, 18''84 (S. S. 6317), promulgated the decision of
the Supreme Court in the Astor case, which practically admits free of^
duty all wearing apparel, old or new, brought by a passenger. Whether
the wearing apparel conforms in all respects to the several requirements of the Department circular cannot be ascertained except by the
general oath of the passenger attached to his entry of baggage, or by his
answers to such questions as are put to him by the inspectors or ap-
308
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
praising officers. Yery few passengers admit that the wearing apparel
in- baggage does not conform to the decision of the Supreme Court. 1
am informed that the quantity of new wearing apparel brought by passengers (and passed "free of duty" under the aforesaid decision) has
greatly increased.
As to the comparative cost of inspecting passengers' baggage before
and since the establishment of the Barge Office, I state that the Department has expended, from 27th August to April 15, inclusive, the following sums, to wit:
To Starin for transfer of baggage
'
'.
For laborers employed in handling bagjgage at the Barge Office
|52,217 79
7,883 01
60,100 80
No other specific payments have been made for the examinatioii of
baggage.; none of the inspectors of this port have been exclusively engaged in performing this duty. All inspectors-who are '^discharging
officers" (Kev. Stat., Sec. 2875) report at the Barge Office for assignment to vessels; they come and go every hour in the day ; but there is
an average number of 30 ^' waiting for assignment." This average is not
constant, and varies according to the daily and hourly arrival of vessels. In 1884 the average daily arrivals of steamships was 6, nearly,
and of sailing vessels 10, nearly. To promptly provide officers for vessels arriving, ten of the inspectors ^'waiting," are, by rotation, placed
upon what is called the ''posted list," and remain subject to immediate
call, until assigned to a vessel; and as each is assigned, others in order
are added to the list. All other inspectors " waiting for assignment"
are subject to detail for the examination of baggage; and as many are
detailed to each vessel arriving at wharves, as is supposed to be sufficient. In case a sufficient number is not available at the Barge Office,
messengers are sent to district or other officers to report for this temporary duty. For the examination of baggage at the Barge Office, all
inspectors in the building, whether " posted," " waiting for assignment,"
or "makihg out returns," are available for this temporary duty.
It will be seen that the examination of baggage is an incidental duty
to be performed by inspectors when not otherwise assigned, and that
it forms only a portion of the daily employment of an iuspector. A
comparison of the cost of inspecting baggage by inspectors cannot
therefore be made.
If the second question iu the Department letter refers to the whole
nuniber of inspectors employed at this port during the period stated,
1 state the average number was as follows: In 1880-'8l, 230; in 1881'82, 284; in 1882-'83, 296; in 18S3-'84, 310; in 1884-'85, 312.
I return the Department letter referred, tb.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JAMES L. BENEDICT,
Surveyor.
Hon.
W M . H . EOBERTSON,
Oollector*
REPORT OP THE SJSCRETARY OE THE TREASURY.
309
Ko. 21.
MEMORANDA OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES OF i3ARaE OFFICE.
v^rce employed in the United States Barge Office, New York City. • Appropriation '\for pay
of assistant custodians and javiitOrs.^^
Designation.
No.
Compensation.
Aggregate.
Total.
(a.) 'Salaries.
'A.ssistant c u s t o d i a n
Engineer
Firemen
Cleaners
.
.
...
..
.
..
1
1
2
3
2
1
Janitrix
$1, 500 p e r
1, 200 p e r
60 p e r
60 p e r
60 p e r
60 p e r
annum
annum
mouth
mouth
month
mouth
$1, 500
1,200
1,440
2,160
1,440
720
$8,460
(&.) I n c i d e n t a l expenses.
Removing ashes and rubbish
W a s h i n g towels
Kemoving ice and snow
52
120
40
-•
212
8,672
Grand total
•
\
Appropriation^^ fuel, lights, water^ and miscellaneous items.^^
1884.
1883.
$473
301
115
306
Fuel
Gas
.
. u
Ice
Miscellaneous
Total
1
$835
00
690
51
00 c, 123
80
137
1,196 31
20
52
13
00
1,785 85
1885.
$745
1,290
135
384
Grand.
aggregate.
47
90
57
23
$2, 053 67
2, 282 93
373 70
828 03
2, 556 17
5,538 33
•
Appropriation ^^furniture, and repairs of furniture.^^
Grand
aggregate.
1883.
Total
1885.
$3, 676 03
860 17
943 38
$771 68
$681 75
130 75
728 20
$5,129 46
990 92
1, 673 58
5, 481 58
Oifice furniture—desT^s &c
..
M i s c e l l a n e o u s office f a r n i t u r e — c a r p e t s , c u s p i d o r s , «fcc
Gas-fixtures
1884.
771 68
1, 540 70
7, 793 96
Amount paid John H. Starin from August 27\ lS8i, to Fehruary 15, 1885, under contract
for transportation^ of baggage. New York.
August, 1884
September, 1S84
October, 1884
November, 1884
December, 1884
January, 1885
.•
•.
February (1 to 15), 1885
Total
:....
$2,336
13,386
10,866
6,419
4,811
2,859
96
60
06
27
94
56
40,680 39
2,369 79
43,050 18
310
RER(mT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Supplies furnisiied Vnited States Barge Office, New York, furniture and repairs of same.
Date.
Articles.
FIKST
1883.
J a n . 25
8
2
1
4
3
4
2
7
2
7
1
4
Amount.
FLOOR.
t h r e e - l i g h t c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $22
six-light c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $37.50
four-light c h a n d e l i e r
one-light h a l l c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $7.75
t w o - l i g h t h a l l c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $3.25
one-light b r a c k e t s , a t $3.60
r e v o l v i n g stools, a t $3 e a c h
s e t t e e s , N o . 25, a t $23 e a c h
c a b i n e t s t a n d i n g d e s k s , N o . 27, A . B., a t $120 e a c h
w a r d r o b e s , N o . S.28, a t $45.50
p r e s c r i p t i o n case. N o . S. 30
r e v o l v i n g stools, N o . 23, a t $12
00
00
00
00
75
40
00
00
00
50
50
00
220
75
6
62
00
00
50
00
26
3
28
5
36
50
00
00
00
00
3 dozen c u s p i d o r s , a t $2.40
2 door-mats, 17" x 35", a t $12 p e r dozen .
4 door-mats, 4' x 6', a t $12 e a c h
6 door-mats, .3' x 4', a t $6 each
2 door-mats, 3' x 6', a t $4.50 e a c h
7
24
48
36
9
20
00
00
00
00
60 c o n g r e s s i o n a l c h a i r s , a t $9.80 e a c h
6 t a b l e d e s k s . N o . 1 a, a t $28.50 e a c h
3 t a b l e s , N o . 1 B, a t $33 e a c h
1 table, No. 2 a
4 t a b l e s . N o . 3 a, a t $42.5 e a c h
6 water-cooler s t a n d s , N o . 4, a t $14.50 e a c h
1 l e t t e r - p r e s s stand, N o . 5, a t $18 e a c h
5 d e s k s , N o . 6, a t $77 each
2 d e s k s . N o . 7, a t 496 e a c h
1 desk, No. 9
•
5 office l o u n g e s . N o . 12, a t $53.50 e a c h
30 office c h a i r s . N o . 14a, a t $5.75 each
12 u p h o l s t e r e d office chairs, N o . 18a, a t $9.50 e a c h .
1 b o o k - r a c k . N o . 22
588
171
99
43
170
87
18
385
192
124
367
207
123
12
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
00
50
00
36T^TJ feet iron railing, a t $3.20
1 water-cooler, 6 g a l l o n s
3 water-coolers, 2 gallons, a t $2
2 water-coolers, 3 gallons, a t $2.50
4 u m b r e l l a - s t a n d s , a t $3.75
,
1 bulletin-board, 6 b y 6 feet
,
2 b u l l e t i n - b o a r d s , 3 b y 6 feet, a t $6
4 rollers for t o w e l s , ait 50 c e n t s e a c h
2 p i n e cases for s t a t i o n e r y room
1 w a l n u t a n d g l a s s c o u n t e r , screen, a n d door, i n c l u d i n g d e s k s , close t s , &c., for b o a r d i n g officers' room
1 m i r r o r glass, 24" x 30"
1 m i r r o r glass, 4' x 2' 6"
:
1 o p e r a t i n g t a b l e , T 6" x 6 feot
,
1 head-block
1 w a l n u t case for p a p e r files
42 y a r d s linoleum, a t $1 p e r y a r d
3 d o o r - m a t s , a t $3.50 e a c h
Repairing 3 tables, a t ^8 each
,
1
$176
75
25
31
9
14
6
161
240
318
134
48
50 one-light b r a c k e t s , a t 53 c e n t s .
1 dozen smoke-bells
8 dozen c u t globes, a t $3.50
1 dozen c u t globes
24 ball-joints, a t $1.50
May
Total.
115
4
6
5
.15
12
12
2
107
47
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
246
15
45
18
3
52
42
10
24
50
00
00
00
75
00
00
50
00
SECOND
FLOOR.
10 t h r e e - l i g h t c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $22
3 four-light chandeliers, a t $25
2 t w o - l i g h t c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $3.25
8 one-light c h a n d e l i e r s , a t $7.75
CELLAR AND ATTIC.
$793 15
124 00
Mar. 1
May .1
2,487 00
June
735 20
140 02
19
3
§0 s h a d e s , b l u e o p a q u e cloth, H a r t s h o r n r o l l e r s
A m o u n t on a c c o u n t of 17 ball-joints, a t $1.50 e a c h
L e s s 4 1-light b r a c k e t s n o t used, M i t c h e l l , V a n c e & C o .
25 50
2 12
15
17 w i n d o w - a w n i n g s , a t $5 e a c h
4 l a r g e w i n d o w - a w n i n g s , a t $10 e a c h
85 00
40 00
23 38
125 00
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THii TREASURY.
311
Supplies furnished United States Barge Office, Neiu York, ^c.—Continued.
Articles.
Date.
1884.
June 15
12
5 feet rubber hose, at 15 cents per foot.. ^
Running pipe on ceiling for chandeliers and bronzing same, 22 days'
labor, $99; car-fare, $3
Material used for same
Amonnt.
Total.
$0 75
102 00
26 85
$129 60
May 16
Altering and laying 75 yards Brussels carpet, at 10 cents . . : . . . , . .
Altering and laying 133 yards Brussels carpet, at 5 cents, $6.65;
girl's time sewing same, $1.88
7 50
Aug. 9
Sept. 25
Laying 41 yards carpet, at 5 cents
3 dozen chair casters, screws and wasbers .
1 black walnut table. No. I A .
1 black walnut table. No. IB .
1 desk, No. 6
6 office chairs. No. 14A
1 book-rack, No. 22
2 05
3 00
8 53
16 03
Oct. 29
25
25
74
22
13
5 05
00
00
04
80
50
. 160 30
1884.
Mar. 31 20 tables (white pine) each 10 feet long, 3 feet wide, 2 feet 6 inches
high
July 30 Repaiiing and covering with enameled cloth. 1 large double table.
7 yds. linoleum laid
1 step-ladder for stationery room
290 00
8 00
7 00
3 00
10 00
Aug. 14 Running pipe for reflectors and lanterns
to Oct. 8 lantern orackets, at $6
16.
1 84-inch reflector, no keys
3 60-inch reflectors, no keys, at $51
1 15-foot alcohol torch ...*....
46 two light-iron brackets per sketch, at $2.50 ..
14 four light-iron pendants per sketch, at $3.50.
11^-inch gas cock, with key and labor
Extending two brackets for corners
1 two-light lantern difference in exchange
221
48
96
153
7
115
49
8
3
28
00
00
00
00
20
00
00
00
00
00
728 20
July 30
Sept. 29
Oct. 7
Sept. 18
20
Dec. 29
Nov. 24
1885.
Feb. 5
Mar. 13
Aug. 1,
1883, to
Mar. 24,
1885.
Removing ice-box from annex building and rebuilding same in
cellar
3 black walnut desks, as per specifications, at $20
4 water-coolers (4 gaUous each), porcelain lined (nickel faucet)
6 dozen continental wood arm office chairs, at $21 per dozen
2 walnut standing desks, at $12, $24; 2 screw stools, at $3.25, $6.50
8five-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot
•
'
3 eight-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot
0 six-feet settees $25, at $3 per foot
.^
Repairing, bracing, and blocking, thereby strengthening 20 large|
pine tables in use in Barge Office, at $3.40 eacb
33
78
19
126
30
120
72
108
35
00
40
00
50
00
00
00
68 00
2 mirrors, at $10.75, $21. 50; March 13, 1 rattan lounge, $17. 50.
2 walnut folding screens 5 feet high by 7^ inches long
1 black walnut desk No. 0
39 00
43 75
56 50
Carpets furnished.
316 33
Supplies furuished United States Barge Office, New York—fuel, light, and water.
Date.
Jan. 25
27
Articles. ^
100 (gross) tons Lehigh egg coal, at$4.73 . . .
5 gallons sperm oil, at $1.50
10 dozen extra corn brooms, at $3.50
10 dozen lamp-wicks, at 7^ cents
'.....
1 dozen hair dusters
1 dozen mop handles .."
12 dozen cotton mops, at $4 per dozen
i dozen turkey dusters at $12.60 per dozen .
1 dozen oak i)ails
i dozen chamois skins, at $6.50 dozen
2 dozen tuniblers, at 75c. per dozen . . . . .
i dozen galvanized iron ash-oans. at $50.40.
Amount.
$7 50
35 00
75
4 00
6.00
48 00
6 30
8 00
3 25
1 50
12 60
Total.
$473 00
312
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY.
Suplies furnished United States Barge Office,^New York, c^-c.—Gontinued.
Date.
1884.
July 27
May 22
Articles.
1 box castile soap . . .
1 box brown soap . . .
5 pounds sponge, at $3.
^ dozen dust-pans, at $1
2 watchman's lauterns,
4 dozen scrub-brushes, at $2
1 machinist's vise
1 dozen assorted files...
1 machinist's hammer..
6 assorted chisels
1 pipe vise
1 pair extension tongs.
do
'
6 pounds valve packing .
20 po unci s waste
8 gaskets
2 cast steel scoops ..
1 set fir^e-irons
1 iron wheelbarrow .
2 oil-cans, $1; 1 quire emery cloth, $1
6 galvalized iron ash-caijis, $24; 1 pair steel gas-pliers, $1.50 .
1 alligator wrench, $2; 3 screw-wrenches, $4
1 pair chain tongs
I
Total.
$4 00
6 00
17 50
50
6 00
8 00
15 00
9 00
1 00
3 00
8 00
1 75
2 75
9 00
2 40
6 50
3 00
12 00
20 00
2 00
25 50
6 00
5 00
30 Ice for May, 13,345 pounds, at 10 cents per 100 pounds, $13.34;
(June 30) "l6,660 pounds for June, $16.66
1 ice-box for Barge Officb
June 30
1883.
Mar. 31
Juue 30
Amount.
Gas from January 2 to March 31,1883 .
Gas from March 31 to June 30,1883....
Sept.-29 Gas frora
Dec. 31 Gas from
1884.
Mar. 31 Gas from
June 30 Gas from
$174 90
30 00
85 00
156 38
145 13
301 51
June 30 to d a t e —
October 1 to date .
99 68
218 24
January 1 to date .
April 1 to dato
224 78
147 82
690 52
1883.
Dec. 31 76,450 pounds ice, from July 1 to date
1884.
J u n e 30 46.695 pounds ice, from January 1 to date .
76 44
46 69
123 13
Oct. 24 99J tons coal (egg size), at $4.64
1884.
Feb. 21 80^ tons coal (egg size), at $4.64
1883.
Sept. 25
Stocks and dies for pipe, i inch to 2 inches...
Cutters for pipo :
1 set machine stocks, flies, and taps
1 aclj ustabJe tap-wren ch
1 brace and bitts, aud 8 a.gsorted twist-drills.
Forgo and an\^il
3 pairs tongs and 2 chisels
1 shovel and poker
1 solder pot and ladle
1 rip saw, $2; 4 wood chisels, $2
1 pair side-cutting pliers
^
2 pounds solder ancl soldering copper.,
3 hand-lamps and 2pounds wickiiig
1 hand vise
461 68
373 52
30 00
10 00
15 00
5 00
8 00
43 00
10 00
5 00
1 50
4 00
1 00
1 50
2 00
1 00
137 00
1885.
Mar. 31 Gas from July 1,1884, to date
- -.
1884.
Dec. 31 77,470 pounds ice, from July 1 to date.
Feb. 25 Janitors' supplies to date
Jan. 17 Fuel to date
Weighing fuel
Total.
..:.
1, 290 90
135
384
711
33
57
23
67
80
5, 538 r
I
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I
(ISlo. 22.)
I
i '
.313
'
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E ,
O F F I C E OF THE SOLICITOR OF T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
I
Washington, B . C, April 22, 1885.
! SIR : I have considered the qaestion of shipment of passen^ers^ baggage under the provisions of the immediate-transportation act of June
10, 1880.
j Section 1 of this act provides that when merchandise imported into
Certain named ports appears by the invoice or biU of lading and man-,
ifest of the importing vessel to be consigned to and destined for
c|ertain other named ports the collector of the port of arrival shall allow
such merchandise to be shipped immediately.
I This action is mandatory.
I It will be seeu that this shipment applies to goods which appear eiither by the invoice or bill of lading and manifest to be destined to
one of the named ports.
I When there is an invoice by section 2 the collector of the port of'
arrival retains as a record a copy of the invoice and au eutry not sworn
tp, whereon the duties are estimated, and thereupon delivers the goods
tothQ common carrier provided for in section 3.
' If there is an invoice by section 4 it must be in quadruplicate with
the consular certificate provided for in section 2858, E. S.
I While the act is explicit that goods without an invoice but which
alppear by the bill of lading and manifest to be destined to the named
ports shall be shipped at once, section 2 does not specify what shall
lie done in such cases before such shipment, and therefore the question
arises whether imported personal baggage can be so transported.
i I think it can.
1 Such baggage is merchandise, because by statute goods capable of
bpVifi imported 2iTe merchandise. Personal baggage must, therefore, on
importation be entered, but by section 2799, E. S., it may be entered
without an invoice on taking the oath therein prescribed.
. By the subsequent act of June 22, 1874, the right to enter personal
baggage, as also goods not exceediug one hundred dollars in value,
without a certified invoice is recognized.
i Passengers' baggage, however, will appear, by virtue of the provisions
cJf law, on the manifest ofthe importing vessel.
; Section 2806, E. S., provides that no merchandise shall be brought into
the United States unless the master has such manifest which, among
qther things, must specify the passengers ahd description of baggage
belonging to each.
j Keeping this section in view, the reason is seen why it was provided
ill sectioii one of the immediate transportation act that merchandise destined b}^ the manifest and bill of lading for a port other than that of
arrival should be shipped thereto at once.
j A law may often require a thing to be done and fail to ijrovide in
detail how it shall be done. Especially is this true of customs laws
when the details rest so largely on regulations.
' It will not be doubted that such a iaw must, if possible, be executed,
4nd ill the present case it can be fairly executed under that general
power which directs the Seern tary of the Treasury to make rules^ not
inconsistent with law for carryiug out the provisions of the revenue
laws, and to prescribe forms of entries, oaths, bonds, and other papers
to be used in the enforcement of such laws. Section 251, E. S.
I There is, therefore, no practical difficulty in making a regulation to
314
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
cover this case, which will fully protect the revenue and give a privilege to personal baggage which section 1 of the immediate transportation act recognizes.
The rule should be substantially as follows:
When an entry of personal baggage provided for in section 2799,
,E. S., has been made, and it appears from the manifest or .bill of
lading that the baggage is destined to a port other than the port of
arrival, the record to be retained by the collector under the immediate
transportation act, shall be the entry and a certified extract from the
manifest relating to passenger's baggage. That thereupon the duties,
if any, shall be estimated and the baggage delivered to the common
carrier to be transported as provided in the act.
The only difficulty in the present case arises from the fact that Congress did not detail the steps to be taken in the entry of such merchandise for immediate transportation.
In cases of difficulty as to the construction of revenue laws the Secretary must decide, and his decision is conclusive and binding on all
officers of the customs. (Section 2652, E. S.)
V Eespectfully,
A. McCUE,
Solicitor of the Treasury.
^0.23.
[Circular.]
Immediate transportation of passengers' baggage without appraisement.
1885.
1
Department No. —. >
Division of Custbms. )
'
.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , April
T o COLLECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS :
25, 1885.
The immediate-transportation ac,t of June 10, 1880, is held by this
Department to apply to and cover passengers' baggage imported into
the ports named in section 1 of said act which shall appear by the
manifest of the importing vessel to be destined to either of the ports
specified in the seventh section of said act.
The collectors of the ports named in said section 1 will allow such
baggage to be shipped immediately to said ports mentioned in the seventh section of said act, upon a baggage entry thereof being made, in the
form hereinafter prescribed, by the owners of said baggage, personally
or by agent or consignee.
Such entry shall be in triplicate and consist ofa general description
of the contents of the said baggage and its value, and each of said trip-,
licates shall have attached thereto an extract of the manifest of the
importing vessel relating to the baggage set forth in said entry, certified by the collector of customs or his deputy, one copy of which entry
and a certified extract of the manifest shall be filed in the office of the
collector of the port of entry as a permanent record.
Thereupon the entry and the required extract of the manifest must be
compared by the collector or his deputy, who will estimate the duties,
if any, thereon, note the estimate on the face of the entry, and transmit
the papers to the naval officer, if there is one, who will, by himself or
deputy, make a similar comj)arison, estiuiate the duties, if any, and re
j
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
iturn the papers to the collector with his estimate thereon.
I shall be the following form:
; The entry having been
ishipment, transportation,
jto the regulations of the
lerning the transportation
I
i
^
315
The entry
completed, the subsequent proceedings as to
and delivery shall in all particulars conform
Treasury Department of June 10, 1880, govof merchandise without appraisement.
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
j
No. 24.
I
i [Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique, 6 Bowling Green, Louis de Bebian, agent. P . O. Box 200.]
\
^
;Hon.
NEW^ Y O R K ,
June 22,1885.
S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
I
Washington, B . C :
I S I R : I beg leave respectfully to represent that the interests of this
jcompany are injuriously affected by the Barge Office system nowin
practice at this port.
i I find that we are constantly losing passengers by it. Many parties
iwho would forraerly purchase round-trip tickets now object to do so,
jgiving as their reason the dislike they have to returning to their native
ishores and passing through what they are pleased to call the ordeal of
jthe Barge Office.
'
It is not for me to consider whether their objections are well founded,
jnor would it alter the fact. Their conclusions are arrived at, and their
!opinion of returning and passing through the Barge Office decided—the
jresult is practical discrimination against our line, and a consequent loss
jof business to our company.
! The difficulty lies in the dislike of the traveling public to the sysItem. My complaint is simply that the compelling us to land our passengers and baggage at the Barge Office discriminates unjustly against
jus, the public refusing to return by our line, preferring to take other
lines, by which they can avoid what they object to.
I I therefore respectfully request permission for our steamers to land
I their passengers and baggage at our own dock, and that the examinaI tion of the same be conducted there as heretofore.
' I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
I
^
LOUIS DE BEBIAN.
No. 25.
.1
I
(Cunard Steamship Company (limited), Vernon H. Brown & Co., agents, 4 Bowling Green.l
N E W Y O R K , June 22, 1885.
jThe Hon. S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
;
Washington, B . C :
I Sir: Our experience with the workings of the Barge Office since its
iinception has thoroughly convinced us that the present system has led
316
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE^ TREASURY.
I
to a serious discrimination against some of'the steamship lines who
have been forced to adopt it.
The great detention in transfer of passengers and baggage, with the
vexatious delay and fatigue to which passengers have been subjected,
has caused many of our patrons to cancel return engagements, and
prevented others from purchasing round-trip tickets for the reason, as
they frankly state that they prefer to land at Jersey Giey or Hoboken
rather than be subjected to the discomforts of the Barge Office route.
We protest against this arbitrary act of the Treasury Department,
which is causing us serious loss, and beg to inquire if there is any law
compelling us to transfer passengers at Quarantine or. elsewhere. If
not, we respectfully request that the order now in force be rescinded,
that our ships may be permitted to land passengers and baggage at our
own dock as formerly, and that the customs officers be instructed to
there examine all baggage so landed.
Eespectfully, your obedient servants,
YEENON H. BEOWN & CO.
(No. 26.)
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, June 27, 1885.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
SIR : In accordance with the directions contained in-your letter of the
ISth instant, I proceeded to New York for the purpose of conferring with
the agents of the several steamship companies in regard to transferring
passengers and baggage at that port, and beg respectfully to submit the
following report:
>
The principal passenger lines which deliver their i^assengers and baggage at Quarantine to transfer boats, to be landed at the wharf of the
BargeOffice, are the Cunard, White Star, French, Inman,G-uion, National,
and'Anchor.
In pursiiiug my inquiries in regard to these transfers, I first called
upon Mr. Yernon H. Brown, the agent of the Cunard Line, which brought
to the port of New York last year 10,788 passeugers. Mr. Brown informs me that the passengers generally traveliug by his line complain
bitterly of the danger, fatigue, and vexatious deiay to which they are
subjected in having their baggage passed through the Barge Office, and
numbers of his patroiis have notified him that hereafter they will return
from Europe by tlie steamships landing on the Jersey side rather than
undergo what they term the ordeal of the Barge Office.
Mr. Louis D. Bibian, the agent of the French line of steamships,
which last y'ear brought into the port 3,725 cabin. passengers, and
whose company is now building Ibur more fine stearaers of much larger
size than their present ships for the passenger trade, also states that
passengers by his line are bitterly opposed to the Barge Office, and for
reasons similar to those given by Mr. Brown.
Mr. Hurst, the agent of the National Line, stated that his experience
with the Barge Office had been anything but satisfactory, and that there
were many complaints from his passengers, but as three of his vessels
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURE.
317
are now chartered by the British Government his company has practically gone out of the passenger trade.
Mr. Cortis, the agent of the White Star Line, stated that while he
AYOuld much prefer to have passengers by his line landed at the company's dock, rather than transfer them at Quarantine, to be landed at
the Barge Office, should other companies be accorded that privilege,
yet he had no particular fault to find with the Barge Office, and did not
personally know of any complaints by passengers brought b}^ his steamers. He said that the Barge Office relieved his company of the expense
and trouble of landing their passengers at their own docks, and he
therefore had no objection to the present arrangement.
Mr. Underhill, agent of the Guion -Line, had ho fault to find with the
Barge Office, and preferred landing his passengers there, because it was
less troublesome than landing them at their own dock, and moreover
saved some expense. He said, however, that the passengers generally
complained of landing at the Barge Office. This company has withdrawn
three of its ships, which will reduce its passenger trade to such an extent
that it will make little or no difference where its passengers land.
I did not call upon the agent of the Inman Line, because this company
has arranged to land its passengers at the Pennsylvania Eailway dock
in Jersey City, and will soon give up their dock on the New York side.
Of course this will place the compauy out of the jurisdiction of the
Barge Office, and.consequently they Avill have no further interest in it.
I was unable to find Mr. Coverley, of the Anchor Line, but Mr. Brown
of the Cunard Line, inforraed me that fhe Anchor Line would much
prefer to land their passengers at their own dock, in order to avoid the
inconveniences and annoyances of the Barge Office.
It will thus be seeu that the Cunard, French, and White Star Lines
will practically control the passenger trade of the lines now using the
Barge Office, and that the Cunard and French lines are decidedly in
favor of the old system of landing their passengers and baggage at
their own docks; and that while the White Star Line is not opposed to
the Barge Office, it desires the privilege of landing its passengers at
its own dock, should such privilege be accorded to the other lines eii.g'aged in the passenger trade.
I am satisfied, from my inquiries among these agents, that the traveling Iiublic generally are bitteii}^ hostile to the Barge Office, and the
steamship corapanies landing their passengers and baggage there feel
that they are being unjustly discriminated against by the order permit-.
ting the North German Lloyds, Eed Star, and Hamburg comxianies to
discharge their passengers and baggage at their Jersey docks.
I would therefore recommend that, in view of the expense of maintaining the Barge Office, say one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in
round numbers, the danger, fatigue, and vexatious delays attending the
transfer of passengers and baggage at Quarantine, that the permission
to land their passengers and baggage at their own docks, asked for by
the Cunard and French Steamship companies' applications inclosed be
granted, and that the same privilege be accorded to the other steamshi])
compares which now land their passengers and baggage at the Barge
Office. Should this be granted, the sixty days' (60) notice, provided for
in the contract for receiving passengers and baggage at Quarantine,
and delivering them at the Barge Office, should be given the contractor,
and the collector should be directed to cause the necessary detail of
officers to make the passenger baggage examinations required by law
at the docks of the steamship companies,
318
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
It is suggested^ that the Barge Office could be used for the storage of
seized, unclaimed, and other goods in the custody of the collector.
I am, very respectfully,
L. G. MAETIN,
Supervising Special Agent. ,
No. 27.
J U L Y 2,
1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York:
. S I R : The Department is in receipt of letters from the Cunard SteamshipCompany and the ^'Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique,"dated the
22d ult., in which they ask that the steamships of said lines be permitted to land their passengers at their respective docks, as heretofore
practiced, iustead of transferring them at Quarantine or elsewhere, for
the purpose of having the baggage transported to and examined at the
Barge Office. Both companies represent that the present practice of
transferring baggage at Quarantine and having it examined at the
Barge Office results in great detention in the transfer of passengers and
baggage, as well as unnecessary and vexatious annoyances, and that it
seriously interferes with the regular business of these steamship lines,
so much so that they state the passengers prefer to land at Jersey City
or Hoboken rather than to be subjected to the discomforts of the Barge
Office.
After careful investigation of the matter, and in view of these representations, I am of opinion that the application may properly be
granted, and that the steamships of said lines may be allowed to land
their passengers at lhe docks of the sail companies, respectively, and
to have the baggage examined thereat.
You will be governed accordingly, and see that proper examining officers are detailed for the purpose of making such examination on the
arrival of the steamers of these lines at their docks, in the same manner as was practiced prior to August last.
Yery respectfully,
D. MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 28.
M E S S R S . YERNON H . BROWN &
Co.,
Cunard Steamship Company,
No. 4 Bowling Green, New York:
J U L Y 2,
1885.
In reply to your letter of the 22d ultimo, you are informed that the collector of customs at New York has been this day
instructed to permit the steamships of your line to land their passengers
at the dock belonging to said company, and to have the baggage examined and passed thereat.
Yery respectfully,
GENTLEMEN:
Assistant Secretary.
(Similar letter to Louis Bebian, esq.. No. 6 Bowling Green, New York.)
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TELE TREASURY.
,
.
319
No. 29.
J U L Y 9,1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York:
.
S I R : Eeferring to Department's letter to you of the 2d instant, concerning the landing of passengers and baggage at the docks, respectively, of the Cunard Steamship Compauy and,the Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique, you are hereby authorized to extend the same privileges to any other steamship companies whose vessels arrive at your
port and who mav request permission to land their passengers and baggage at their own docks.
You are also requested to take immediate action for the purpose of
terminating the contract entered into between William H. Eobertson,
collector, and John H. Stariu, in relation to the landing of passengers
and baggage at the Barge Office in accordance with the terms of said
contract, which reads ^'that this contract may be terminated by either
party hereto, upon sixty days' notice, for good and sufficient cause."
Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter and report-your action
thereunder.
Yery respectfully,
D. 'MANNING, ,
Secretary.
No. 30.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, July 10,1885.
S I R : I have °to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the Oth
instant, and to report that I have this day furnished the surveyor with
a copy thereof for his information and guidance, and also that I have
this day notified Mr. John H. Starin that his contract for. the transfer
of passengers' baggage from steamships to the Barge Office will be terminated at the expiration of sixty days from this date.
Yery respectfully,
E. L. HEDDEN,
'
Collector.
\
Hon.
D. MANNING,
I
Secretary of the Treasury.
I
No. 3 L
'
V
-
C U S T O M H O U S E , N E W YORK,
I
Collector's Office, July 15, 1885.
I SIR : Eeferring to my letter ofthe 10th instant, reporting action upon
I your instructions of the Oth instant, 1 transmit herewith a copy of my
lletter to Mr. John H. Starin relative to the termination of his contract'
I for the transfer of passeugers %nd baggage to the Barge Office.
; I also inclose a letter from Mr. Starin in reply, dated the Mth instant.
j
Yery respectfully,
E. L, HEDDEN,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
320
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•-
-
(EudorsemeBt.)
Eespectfully referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury for advice. .
C. S. FAIECHILD,
Assistant Secretary.
[Enclosure,]
C U S T O M - H O U S E , N E W YORK,
•
Collector's Office, July 10, 1885.
S I R : By direction of the-honorable Secretary of theTreasury, I hereby notify you
that your contract for the tran.sfer of baggage from steamships to the Barge Office will
be terminated at the expiration of sixty days from this date.
Very respectfnlly,
E. L . HEDDEN, Collector.
Hon. J O H N H. STARIN,
Pier 18 North River, New York. .
[Enclosure.]
J U L Y 14, 1885.
The Hon. E. L. H E D D E N ,
CoUector of Customs, Port of Neiv York :
SIR : I have received your note ofthe lOfch instant, in which you say t h a t by direction of the Secret.ary'of the Treasury you notify me t h a t my contract for the transfer
of baggage, from incoming oceau steamships to the Barge Office in this city will be
terniinated at the expiration of sixt-y clays. I resj)e ctf ally decline to accept such no- •
tice as haviug any force or effect under t h e contract to which you refer. The Barge
Office was established, and now exists, by act of Congress, and I am advised that you
have no legal right to difscontinue the examination of j)assengers' baggage there.
My contract provides for a term of three years, unless sooner terminated upon notice, '^ for good and sufficient cause." No such cause exists or is as.serted. No complaint
has ever been made by any officer of the Government respecting my services uuder the
contract. Every stipulation on my part ha,s been fully and faithfully performed.
The contract Avas awarded to me as the lowest bidder upon pubMc proposals. I have
given heavy bonds to taithfully perform the service required of me by its provisions.
F h a v e expended large sums in preparation for its continuance, and I shall expect
the officers of the Government, upon due consideration of the facts, to respect my
rights and discharge the obligations which are imposed upon them by the law.
I have the honor to be, etc., etc., very respectfally yours,
JOHN H. STARIN.
No. 32.
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E ,
O F F I C E OF T H E SOLICITOR OF T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
Washington, B . C, July 24, 1885.
S I R : It is provided in a contract made b y t h e collector of custom^
for the port of New York, acting tor the United States, by direction.and
with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, and John H. Starin,_
forthe transfer of baggage from passenger stearaers arriving fromforeign ports to the Barge Office, dated August 16, 1884, that the contract may be terminated by either xiartj^ thereto upon sixty days' notice,
for good and sufficient cause.
- In accordance therewith, the collector by your direction on the 10th
instant notified Mr. Starin that the contract w^ould be terminated in 60
days from that date.
Mr. Starin in his letter of July 14,1885, to the collector, admits receipt of notice, but declines to accept it as having any force or eftect
under the coutract.
When either party desires to terminate the contract, 60 days' notic(5
of such purpose is required^ and th^t is all that is required.
•
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.^
321
i
I The good and sufficient cause which may have induced the giving
•notice.of termination need not be set out in the notice itself.
! I think therefore the notice in the present case sufficient to terminate
the contract at the date specified therein.
j
Yery respectfullv,
I
A. McCUE,
I
Solicitor of the Treasury.
\ Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
i
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 33.
J U L Y 25,
1885.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
I
Neio York: »
I S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant,
reporting your action under Department's instructions of the Oth instant
concerning the termination of the contract with Mr. John H. Starin for
the transfer of passengers and their baggage, brought to your port by
foreign steamships, to the Barge Office.
i You report, and it appears from the enclosures of your letter that
Mr. Starin refused to accept the notice of the 10th instant to him, of the
termination of said contract within sixty days from that date.
: I t will be seen from the opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury, dated
the 24th instant, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, that such notice
wjas sufficient to terminate the contract at the time specified therein.
\ You are instructed to notify all foreign steamship companies who propjise to use the Barge Office for the landing of their passengers and baggage after the expiration of the said contract, that the expense in furnishing transfer boats or steamers and of landing passengers and baggage at the said Barge Office will in no event be borne by the Goveifument.
1
Yery respectfully,
I
D. MANNING,
i
Secretary.
No. 34.
I
1
STARIN'S C I T Y , E I V E R , AND H A R B O R TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, P I E R 18, N O R T H E I V E R ,
:
Neio York, August 12, 1885.
H Q U . D A N I E L MANNiNa,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C :
.
S I R : With great respect I hold that the officers of the Treasury De-"
partment are violating the written contract made by the Government of
the United States with me for the transfer of baggage from incoraing
foreign steamships to the Barge Office in this city, and that they are also
violating the act of Congress under which that contract was made.
Against this action I now respectfully protest to you in writing, as I
haye already done orally.
T\xe examinatiou of passengers' baggage has long been the weakest
point in the collection of our customs revenue. Committed to squads
of Subordinate officials, acting without proper supervision upon the
21 A
322
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
numerous steamship piers surrounding the city, it was characterized by
many annoyances, petty black mailings and corruption, which irritated
travelers and threw the whole system into discredit. These facts are
notorious.
In 1878, the Congress of the United States, after mature deliberation,
resolved upon the abolition of this antiquated and vicious system, and
adopted the new policy of examining all incoming baggage—as all
merchandise is examined—in one place, under the control of the Government and the immediate direction and supervision of the superior officers^
of the custonis. To provide a xilace for this purpose. Congress, on the
15th of June, 1878, appropriated $210,000. Under concurrent legisla-.
tion, previously obtained from the legislature of the Stateof New York,
the city of New York granted for this purpose a most admirable site.'
The money appropriated was expended, ahd in May of last year the
new Barge Office was ready for use. The act of June 15, 1878, was
passed by both houses of Congress and was signed by the President.
The new policy, thus clearly declared, met with concurrence and obedience on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, the surveyor, and
the collector of this port.
On the 23d of May, 1884, the collector, uuder direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, advertised for proposals to carry out the law of
Congress, and for the transfer of baggage of saloon iiassengers upon
incoming steamships from foreign ports to the new Barge Office. In response to this advertisement I was the lowest bidder, aud the contract
for the service required was regularly awarded to and made with me
on the 16th of August, 1884, to continue for three years. At large exI)ense I altered three of my steamboats to* fit them for the service, and.
on the 27th of last August, entered upon the discharge of the contract.
Every requirement of that contract has been faithfully carried out by
me.' No complaint respecting my service under the contract has ever
been made by any officer of the Government, and I am authoritatively
informed by your Dei)artment that no complaint is now made, that
there is no claim or pretense that I haA^e not fully and faithfully discharged every obligation assumed by me under the contract.
The new system was, however, very distasteful to one English steamship company, which company enjoyed, let it-be particularly noted, the
monopoly of expressage of baggage from its own iiier; and the agent of
that company in this country early avowed his intentiou of breaking up
the new system and forcing the Government of the United States to retreat from the position which it had taken and to return to the former
method of following the steamship companies from place to place and
/waiting upon their convenience and pleasure. The uew system was
also distasteful to some of the Government inspectors, wht) regretted the
threatened interference with their former independent sources of revenue which its adoption involved. From these two sources and their
sympathizers came every possible eftbrt to make the new system work
badly. Delays and annoyances were intentionally created, and explained
as being the fault of the new method, while all the irritation, delays,
and annoyances which are necessarily incident to the submission of
Iiassengers' baggage to examination anywhere were so vociferously and
so repeatedly charged against the Barge Office that the charge was believed by many new passengers who had never experienced the greater^
evils attending an examination upon the company's piers. It was natural
that the trial of the new system should develop defects calling for correction and improvement. Itwas inevitable thattheknown hostility of some
of the most important participants in the system should magnify and mill
REPORT OF T H E
SECEETARY OF THE TREASURY.
323
ti ply these defects. But after ten months' trial, which, under the adverse
circumstances to which I have referred, and involving also the disturbing element of a change in the national administration, was in fact no
trial, instead of attempting to correct the defects, to improve and perfect the good system adopted by Congress, instead of making the malcontents understand that this American law was to be enforced and
must be respected, the Treasury Department submits to the Cunard
Steamship Company, at the instance of that company retreats from the
position which it had assumed, abandons the policy which the Government of the United States had formally adopted, repudiates the solemnly
declared will of Congress, and nulhfiies the act of June 15, 1878, under
which hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money had been
expended.
I can draw no other inference from the conduct of the Department toward me. The contract w^hich the Government made with me provides
that it shall continue for three years unless sooner terminated, upon
sixty days' notice, for ^' good and sufficient cause." On the 10th of July
uotice was given me that the contract would be terminated sixty days
from that date, but no cause was assigned for this action, and upon inquiry as to whether any unexpressed cause exists, I am informed that
there is none resting on any act or omission on my part, and none anywhere, except in a willful change of policy.
I can see in this notice only an arbitrary declaration by the Treasury
Department of an intention to violate the obligation of the Government
towards me, in entire disregard of my rights. Even before this notice
was given the Department had commenced to ignore the contract with
me, and, to my detriment, to violate its most important provisions.. The
contract requires me, under heavy bonds, to meet, with a suitable steamboat, at Quarantine, every incoming foreign passenger steamer, except
those which had usually lauded iu theState of New Jersey, and to receive from every such steamer aud transfer to the Barge OfSce, all the
baggage of the cabin passengers, together with such cabin passengers
as choose to accompany their baggage. And the Government agrees by
the contract to pay me a stipulated sum for each article of baggage other
than that whicli is commonly kuown as hand-baggage. But, before the
sixty days'notice, to which I have referred, had beeu given, and without
any notification from the Departmeut to me, I find, first, the Cunard and
then the French line ignoring the law and refusing to send their baggage to the Barge Office, doing this under dispensations which they had
received from the Treasury Department. I was bound by the contract
to meet these steamers, to furnish the steamboats, the crews, and the
coal, to underg.0 all the expense ou my part necessary to do the business;
but, under your order I am deprived of pay for the service. Moreover,
l a m to be left bound to meet all the smaller steamers which have not
baggage enough to pay for the coal used in transport, while the baggage
uijon the larger.steamers is arbitrarily withheld.
Of course this means but one thing, irrespective of the sixty days'
notice, whether that be good or not, 1 am to be forced to abandon the contract by a violation of its obligatioas on the part ofthe Governmeut, whose
offiers assume that they can so violate it withi mpunity because, they
have the power. I am told that this is for no fault of mine. My respect
for you forbids the supposition that it is in order to substitute a contract
with some more favored person. The only remaining inference is that
my rights are to be swept away, because the will of Congress, upon
which they rest, is overruled by the will of the Department.
1 am advised by my lawyer that I can recover from the Government
324
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
compensation for all the baggage which I am bound to carry, and am
ready to carry, under the contract, a delivery of which is refused to me
under the orders of theDepartment. But, a law-suit, sir, is a poor substitute in any matter of business for honest and prompt xiayment.
This contract has not been a profitable one. I could at the beginning
of this season have chartered the three steamboat swhicli are employed
in the Goverment service for more money than they can earn under the
most favorable construction of the contract. Let it be distinctly understood that I did not seek the contract. I was invited, in common with
other owners of steamboats, to make proposals for it. I responded as I
would in any matter of business, and J have conducted the business in
tlie same manner and upon the same x^rincixiles which have proved satisfactory tothe people of New York throughout a wide experience of many
years.
Of course I expected the Government to fulfill its obligations fairly
and honestly. I understood that it was bound by a contract just as
any ordinary citizen is bound. I had supposed that the Government of
the United States was a continuous one, and that no change of administration involved the repudiation of the obligations of a previous administration; and I understood further that it was the duty of the Treasury
Departnient to execute and not to nullify the laws of Congress. This
contract with me is, of itself, but of little importance, but the action
of the Department in its relation to the action of the x'>cist administration, and to the law of Congress, under which that action was taken is,
it seems to me, of the gravest moment. Indeed, I cannot believe that the
full import and true character of the course taken by your Department
in this matter have received, as I hope they will receive, your deliberate xiersonal consideration. In this view I respectfully insist:
First. That so long as the contract continues, and I am bound by its
provisions to meet and transport the baggage of the company's steamships, to which it relates, 1 am entitled to receive, transport, and be
paid for the baggage brought by such steamships to this x^ort, and the
Department has no right to authorize them to refuse delivery of such,
baggage, and I hold that any orders or permits to that efi'ect should be
revoked.
. Second. That the sixty days' notice of July 10, has no force or
eftect under the contract, and should be treated as void; and, that the
contract must continue, and should be treated as continuing, during the
term of three years, or until such time as some default on my part
shall furnish "good and sufficient cause" for its termination.
I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, &c.,
JNO. H. STAEIN.
(Endorsement.) .
^
UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
August 14, 1885.
Eespectfully referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury.
.• E. B. YOUMANS,
Chief Clerk.
[Enclosure.]
This agreement, made this sixteenth day of August, in the year of onr Lord one
thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, to carry out the provisions of tlie act of
Congress dated June 15th, 1878, making appropriations for the building of a Barge
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
325
Office, ^' for the examination of passengers' baggage," by and between John H. Starin,
of Fultonsville, Montgomery Co., State of New York, of the first part, and William
H. Robertson, as collector of customs at the port of New York, acting in this behalf for the United States, by direction and with the approval of the Secretary of
the Treasury of said United States, of the second part. W'itnesseth:
First. That said party, of the first part agrees to provide suitable barges, steamboats, or other vessels, according to the condition o f t h e weather and subject to the
approval o f t h e collector ofthe port, to meet between sunrise and sunset every day,
each and every passenger steamer from a foreign port upon her a-rrival at quarantine,
save and excexit such steamers as have their usual places of landing in the State of
New Jersey.
Second. And to receive from every such passenger steamer all baggage belonging
to the cabin and saloon passengers, furnishing the labor to receive and xiroperly and
safely stow such baggage on such barges, steamboats, or other vessels when delivered
to him from said steamer on board the vessels of the party of the first part, said delivery to be made by the employes of the steamship companies.
Third. Aud to transport such baggage from each and every such before-mentioned
passenger steamer (except those having landing-places in New Jersey as aforesaid),
by such barges, steamboats, or vessels, t o t h e wharf of the new Barge Office, at The foot
ot'Whitehall street, in the city of New York, and there to unload such baggage upon
the bulkhead of said wharf.
Fourth. And the said party of the first part, as a necessary incident to the transfer of
suchbaggage, agrees toprovide, ou each vessel used by him to transfer baggage, suitable
accommodations, to be approved hy the collector o f t h e port, for the transfer, free of
expense either to the Government or the passengers, of all cabin and saloon passengers, and also the hand-baggage of said passengers arriving on such befbre-mentioned,
steamers, and who are desirous of accompanying their baggage on the transfer boat.
In consideration whereof the party of the second X)art agrees to pay the i^arty of
• the first part the sum of sixty-seven cents for each piece or package of the aforementioned baggage, except such pieces as are commonly known as hand-baggage.>
And it is agreed b y t h e xiarties hereto t h a t this contract shall commence and take
eifect from the twenty-seventh day of August, in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and shall terminate on the twenty-seventh day of August, in
the. year eighteen huudred and eighty-seven.
And it is also agreed t h a t the xiarty of the first part shallbe paid semi-monthly by the
party of the second part at the custom-house, upou bills to be rendered by hi'm specifying the number of packages of baggage transported from each steamer, and verified and approved by the surveyor of the port.
And it is also agreed t h a t the party of the second part shall have the right to send
on every such barge, steamboat, or other vessel, such ofiicers of the customs as may
be deeraed by the collector necessary to protect the revenue; aud t h a t no baggage
shall be received from the before-men tioned incoming steamers, or unladen at the
bulkhead of the Barge Ofiice, except in the presence of, or by the consent of, the
Xiroper officer of the customs.
And said party of the first part further agrees t h a t without the consent of the
proper ofiicer o f t h e customs in writing, as x>rovided in section 9 of the act known as
the '^ Passenger act," axiproved August 2, 1882, he will allow none, except such as are
actually employed on such barges, steamboats, or vessels, ofQcers of the customs
. duly designated, to board, take passage, or remain on such vessels while engaged in
transporting passengers and their baggage.
And it is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the party o f t h e
first part shall assume all the liability o f a common carrier; and, in addition thereto,
shall pay t o t h e United States the amount of duty that might accrue on any package
of baggage lost through his negligence, or the negligence of, or theft by, any emploj^6
of his, while the trausfer of sucli baggage is being made from the incoming steamer to
the Barge Office wharf.
And it is further expressly agreed t h a t this contract may be terminated by either
party hereto upon sixty days' notice for good and sufficient cause.
And the said party of the tirst part further agrees and covenants to execute a good
and sufficient bond in the penal sum of fifty thousaud ($50,000) <lollars, with at least
two sureties to be axiproved by the Secretary of the Treasury, conditioned f o r t h e
faithful performance of this contract and all and every of the covenants o f t h e same
on the part o f t h e party o f t h e first part to be kept and perlbrmed.
And it is mutually covenanted between the parties hereto t h a t i t is an express condition of this contract t h a t no member of Congress, or officer or employ6 of the customs, or other person whose name is not disclosed in this agreement, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract, or any benefit to arise therefrom, and t h a t
this contract shall not be assigned without the written authority of the Secretary of
the Treasury, and any assignment without such authority shall cause a forfeiture of
tbe eame.
326
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
In testimony whereof the parties hereto have hereunto subscribed their names and
affixed their seals this sixteenth day of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred a u d .
eighty-four.
WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON, [SEAL.]
Collector.
JNO. H. STARIN. [SEAL.]
Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of—
H O W A R D CARROLL.
J O S E P H TRELOAR.
No. 35.
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E ,
O F F I C E OF T H E SOLICITOR OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B . C, August 22, 1885.
S I R : I have read a letter of Hon. John H. Starin, of the 12th instant,
in regard to a contract with the Government for the transfer of baggage from incoming foreign steamships to the Barge Office in the city
of New York.
In a letter of July 24, 1885, I advised the Secretary of my opinion in
the premises.
I see no reason in Mr. Starin's present letter to change the views I
then expressed.
^ I therefore return the letter.
Yery respectfully,
A. McCUE,
Solicitor.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of'the Treasury.
No. 36.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, COLLECTOR'S O F F I C E ,
Neiv York City, August 19, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to report that upon receipt of your letter of
the 25th ultimo, all the steamshixi companies, excexit those from which
written axiplications had been received for the privilege of using theirown docks, were notified that after the 8th day of September next, the
date upon which Mr. Starin has been informed that his contract wiU
be terminated, the expense attending the transfer of baggage to the
Barge Office "will in no event be borne by the Government."
I transmit herewith copy of a letter addressed to me by the surveyor of the port, in which he inquires whether, after the 8th day of
September next, " i t is optional with any vessel to land the baggage of
its x>assengers at its own dock, or at the Barge Office."
I understand from your letter that the Barge Office is to be kept in
readiness for the reception and examination of the baggage of any
steamships the owners or agents of which may elect to send the same
there at their own expense, and shall so direct the surveyor, unless I am ,
otherwise instructed.
Yery respectfullv,
AETHUE BEREY,
Special Beputy Collector.
Hon. D. MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
327 ^
[Enclosure.]
CUSTOM-HOUSE,
SURVEYOR'S
OFFICE,
New York City, August 15, 1885.
S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of t h e 13th instant (C. T.),
informing me that the contract with Mr. John H. Starin will terminate at the expiration of sixty days from the 10th ultimo. I respectfully request that I m a y b e inIbrrned if after t h a t date it i« optional with any vessel to land the baggage of its
passengers at its wharf without specific instructions from you, as in the case of the
Cunard and other liues, or at the Barge Office. I t is to be presumed t h a t any
steamer arriving at the upper Quarantine, and not finding a transfer boat ready to
take ofi" the baggage, will xiroceed to her Avharf; but the question will undoubtedly
arise as to steamers which are compelled by the health officer of the port to
anchor at lower Quarantine and which send up their xiassengers from that place by
tugs. There will be many questions as to reductions of force at the Barge Office, &c.,
which wall depend on your instructions as to whether or not any baggage is to be,
after the Sth proximo, examined there.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
H. S. BEATTIE,
a Surveyor.
To the Honorable the COLLECTOR OF THE P O R T .
(No. 37.)
A U G U S T 26,
1885.
S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter ofthe 19th instant,
transmitting a comraunication from the surveyor at your xiort, in which he
inquires whether, after the Sth day of September next, when the contract with Mr. John H. Starin regarding the landing of baggage at the
Barge Office expires, it is optional with any vessel to land the baggage
of its passengers at its own dock or at the Barge Office..
The Department concurs with you iu the opinion that on the expiration of such contract the Barge Office should be kept in readiness for the
recexition and examination of the baggage from any steamships which
the owners or agents of such steamshixis may elect to send there at
their own expense, and the inquiry is therefore answered in the affirmative.
Yery respectfully,
C. S. FAIECHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
New York.
3'28.
R E P O R T O E THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
THE EXAMINATION OF BAGGAGE OF PASSEN-^
GERS AT NEW YORK.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, March 16, 1885.
S I R : The Department invites your immediate attention to sections
5444, 5450, 5451, 5452, and 5501 of the Eevised Statutes, and directs
that yon and your officers take especial care that each and all of those .
sections are faithfully executed.
In order, however, that the x^rohibitions and severe penalties of these
sections may be notified to the public, and especially to arriving travellers who - are accomxianied by baggage or personal effects to be examined by inspectors of customs and imported into the country, the
Department will cause a suxiply in printed form to be sent you to-morrow, embodying so much of said sections as are deemed pertinent;' and,
nntil further orders, a copy lliereof will be delivered to each person
arriving at the x^ort of New York, at the time such xierson shall make
the declaration required b^^ existing laws and Treasury Eegulations.
You are also directed to require all customs officers and agents at
the port of New York to be vigilant in the enlbrcement of these sections,
and to make immediate report to you of any violation or attempted
violation thereof; and whenever it shall axixiear to you that an offence
against these salutary laws for the protection of the revenue has b.een
committed, you will immediately report the facts to the United States
attorney at New York ibr proper judicial proceedings, and if any customs officer has been criminally implicated, you will forthwith report
the facts to this Department.
Yery respectfullv,
DANIEL-MANNING, •
Secretary.
Hon.
W I L L I A M H . EOBERTSON,
Collector of Customs, New York.
No. 2.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, B. C, September 24, 1885,
SIR : In March last, and immediately on taking charge of the Department, I directed the attention of the collector at the port of New
York to what I had reason to think was a very defective and a very
scandalous condition of affairs respecting the examination of the baggage of arriving xiassengers, and the criminal payment of money to^
insxiectors of customs by such xiassengers. I have reason to feel that
the deplorable conditioii then and for a long time existing has not yet
been thoroughly reformed, although there has been, I hope, somewhat
of improvement.
The tariff law has put on, the free-list a class of articles when brought
into the country by their owners and ais a portion of their luggage, and
the law requires the executive to examine each piece of baggage in order
to ascertain and decide which of articles therein contained shall be ex
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
329
empt from duty. I appreciate the difficulty and, in many cases, the
delicacy of the task which the Treasury has, in this relation, confided
to the inspectors. The Treasury Eegulations, the interxireta^tion of the
statute in question that has been recently given by the Supreme Court,
and the tests applied thereunder by the customs officials, are extremely
liberal to the arriving passenger, so liberal as to bring to us complaints
from American manufacturers of articles like those thus exempted from
duty, and from American dealers in them, who are comxielled to x^ay
duty on their own importations. Indeed, it is believed that this Government is, in that regard, more liberal to travellers than is any other
government that levies so high a rate of duty on so many imported articles of clothing as we do.
I am certain that I fully appreciate the circumstances of hurry and
confusion in which the ocean steamers are now landing such great numbers of fiirst-class passengers in New York with so many large pieces of
luggage.
My recent order permitting luggage to be entered in bond, and to be
forwarded to destination at ports of entry in the interior, without examination in New York, was intended to alleviate, somewhat, that hurry
and confusion. The baggage, however, that is to be delivered to the
passenger and owner in New York must be as faithfully and reasonably
examined by the cnstoms officers as the xiackages entered by importers
are examined, in order to verify their contents, as declared by the .xierson making an entry. If the number of pieces of luggage brought by
those coming from Europe or the character of the contents were similar
to what usually accompanies a traveller from place to place in the United
States or Europe, the work of the customs officers would be comparatively easy and simple. While, therefore, I am disposed to be reasonable and xiatient over complaints, on one side and the other, respecting
the liberality with which articles are, on the wharves, included in the
fre<e-list, I wish the utmost energy and vigilance used to prevent the
scandal of money payments by passengers to customs inspectors. I am^
told that inspectors demand such payments in a way to make the de-'
mand not much else than blackmail, and that the sums paid range as
high, in some instances, as an hundred or more dollars, while the payment of five or ten dollars is a common and general fact.
I am snre you will agree with me that such scandal and snch
violation of law should be stopxied. If it cannot be arrested in any
other way, the Department will consider the necessity of sending the
luggage of passengers to the apxiraiser's stores to be examined like merchandise regnlarly imported and entered. These gifts of money cannot
be without the guilty co-operation of those who are not customs officers,
who are among our most law-respecting citizens, and who really are
the tempters. No merchant or corporation would xiermit its agents to
be thus tampered with by outsiders. A casual passenger cannot be
permitted to pay money to a customs officer who examines his Inggage,
any more than can a regular importer be permitted to ' ' t i p " an apxiraiser. The transaction is suspicious on its face, and is quite indefensible and intolerable in every point of view.
I have alluded to this condition of affairs in New York in order to
ask your aid and co-operation, as the chief Federal law officer at that
Xiort, in putting an end to it. I believe that the existing Federal criminal law is adequate to bring about the arrest and imprisonment of the
330
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
guilty, whether passengers or customs officials, if the facts are as rexi,' resented to me.
If the existing law shall be found by you to be inadequate, I shall be
glad to receive your views thereon at an early day. But, meanwhile,
my desire and hope are that you will, so far as it .may be within your
sphere of official influence and control, take efficient steps to cause the
arrest and xmnishment, criminall^^, of any and every passenger, without
regard to social or xiolitical influence, who pays, or offers to pay, or of
any customs official who receives, any money or thing of value in connection with the customs examination, under the statute, of arriving
luggage.
Yery respectfully, yours,
•DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
Hon.
W M . DORSHEIMER,
TJ. S. Attorney, New York.
No. 3.
O F F I C E OF THE U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF N E W YORK,
New York, September 26, 1885.
: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 24th instant, in which you call my attention to the very
defective and very scandalous condition of affairs respecting the examination of the baggage of passengers arriving at this x^ort and the
criminal payment of money to inspectors of customs by such passengers,
and in which you ask my aid and co-oxieration in putting an end to
these violations of law.
I beg to assure you that your instructions will be zealously carried
out, and that all the power of this office will be used to break up this
.pernicious and most disreputable xiractice. The first xierson who shall
be found paying an officer money and the first officer who shall be found
receiving money in contravention of the laws will be presented to the
grand jury, and the indictments against them will be promptly brought
to trial.
I think that timely notice should be given of your determination to
institute' this reform, and therefore I have taken the liberty of sending
your communication to the x^ress for publication.
Believe me, very truly, your servant,
. WILLIAM DOESHEIMEE,
United States Attorney.
MY DEAR SIR
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
INQUIRIES.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C,
, 188-
SiR: In order that T may have before me, in preparing my annual
report to Congress, a correct appreciation of the results and the effect
of our recent investigations of custorn-house affairs, and in order that
I may decide how much and what xiortion, if any, of the record shall
be sent to Congress, I desire that careful and official rexilies to the following inquiries, with adequate completeness of details of facts and
figures, be prepared for my use at the earliest xiracticable day.
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
1. Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty and dutiable values, what evidence is there, if any, that the former have not
within the last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed?
^
2. Is there satisfactory evidence (and, if so, what is it) that on articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without refer-;
ence to values, the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not
been collected?
3. In what manner, and b what tests, are the invoiced measurements of textile fabrics verified in the usual course of custom-house
business?
4. What evidence is there, if any, of collusion between the persons
making entry of several packages of similar goods on one invoice and
the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the axixiraiser for examination a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every ten?
5. What evidence is there, if any, of false, or incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves'?
6. In respect to rates of duty, and differences between importers and
collectors, growing out of decisions by the latter and the Treasury
which have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendment?
331
332
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Plow many such collectors' suits are now xiending in Boston, New York,
Philadelxihia, and Baltimore? If they can be classified and the legal
. question at issue identified, how many suits are there in each classificition, and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for
trial? Cannot a x^lan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorneys and the judges, by which
these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they
come up, be sx3eedily xiut at issue and tried? Does the existing law
in respect to the xiayment of interest as a part of the damages and costs
in '' collectors' suits'' need amendment? Is there a necessity for a new
tribunal to tiy judicially questions growing out of rates of external or
internal taxation levied by the executive when tax-xiayers are dissatisfied, or can the existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be
worked efficiently?
7. Specify the class of articles, if any there be, on which the recent
investigations or the existing facts now'susceptible of xiroof conclusively show that the Treasury Department has, during recent years,
failed to levy and collect in New York the entire and full amount of
duty that the law prescribed. Is the evidence of failure of a character
to be controverted successfully? And, if so, how,' and why?
8. How has the failure come about? Has it come of the ignorance,
or of the indolence, or of the dishonesty of Treasury officials? Is there
any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the failure, or a
conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of Treasury or customhouse officials?
9. If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the ai^x^i'aiser
(not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector false dutiable
values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in operation, (2) on
what class of articles, (3) from what xilaces, (4) and were the articles
shixiped by tlie makers or xnu-chasers, and (5) has the same general.
condition of things existed in the larger ports? If the proof of the
false returns of dutiable values made by the local appraiser dexDcnds
on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury or consular
agents, what evidence is there to cori-oborate the latter as against the
official action of the axipraising department?
10. Is there now, or has there recently been, confusion or doubt or
conflict of opinion in the axix^^'aisers' dexiartment resx3ecting any of the
elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the clutiable
value; and, if so, what? Is not the x)lace and time, and the standard
to be axiplied, already defined by the statutes in the oxiinion of the examiners, deputy axixiraisers, and axipraiser?
11. Can a safe average estimate be n'oio made of the percentage of
such undervaluation by the axipraisers-in any year or series of years,
and the articles or invoices be identified?
12. As between the examiner, deputy apxiraiser, and axipraiser, which
is x^iTinarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual, course" of business,
for a false return of value to the collector ? What is the salary of such
officer? Is the axipraiser much else ordinarily and in fact than one,
who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and reported to
him by the examiners and depnty appraisers ?
13. is there satisfactory evidence that any Governnient officials in
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to,
or connived at, the presentation to the axipraisers of such false evidence
of foreign values? If so, what officers; when, and how?
REPORT OF
Tin-r SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY^
333,
14. If, under the previons administration of the Treasury, false,
values have been habitually and systematically reported to the several
collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully executed, and
if the full aniount of duty has not been collected, can it fairly be said
the failure has come of dishonesty, and been accompanied by guilty
knowledge on the part of Treasury or custonis officials ; and, if so, of
Avhom? If nioney has been x^aid to American officials to get false reports of dutiable values, who has furnished and xiaid it? By what
means and agency, and where, has such corruxitiou-fimd been raised
and disbursed?
15. If the false valuations have come of bribery or venalitj^, what
reason is there to think that similar corrupt and venal influences are
not noAv bronght to bear, or that they will not be successful in the
future as in the past?
16. Wauld a change from ad valorem to specific rates be a benefit to
the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, provided the
existing cfuantity of duty is to be levied in the future; and could sxiecific
rates be apxilied to all textile fabrics?
17. Have the false reports by the apxiraisers been increased by the
repeal, in 1874, of the "moiety law," and b y t h e customs legislation
of that date modifying the existing law, and esxiecially modifying that
of 1863 res])ecting seizure of books and paxiers ?
18. Would it be practi cable in, the large American consular districts,
such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consular agents, no
matter how numerous and alert, to xiersonally examine articles to be
shixiped from thence to the Americaii ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values? In which consular districts can Americaii
consular officers safely and surely ascertain and rex:)ort the true invoiced
values of every shiximent? Is it likely that foreign governments in
which snch American consular officers are stationed wonld abstain
from comxilaints to this Government if American consuls made vexatious delays in examining values and certifying invoices? What fees
are now exacted on each shipment in London, and in England, by our
consuls for certifying invoices, even of small articles and of little
value?
19. Under the law as it now is, the rates of duty levied by a collector
can be supervised and revised by the Secretary of the Treasury, and
finally by the Federal judicial power, but—according to t h e analogies
of State taxing laws—neither the Treasury Department, nor the President, nor the judicial power can interfere with, or revise, or set aside
the decision of the axipraising department respecting dutiable valuesif the forms of law have been comx")lied with. Would it be safe, or
nseful to the revenues and j ust to imxiorters, that the executive or the
judicial powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the
collector is to levy ad valorem rates?
20. The existing rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad
valorem and a sxiecific rate. I.desire to have xirepared, ahd presented
to me, a very careful and accurate analysis of the history ofthe several rates of duty on wool since 1860, and of the working of the complicated rates on wool that are now in force.
21. Is it believed that at the larger Atlantic ports the practice generally^ prevails, or prevails at all, of the paynient of nioney by arriving
p^issengers to customs inspectors of° baggage either to prevent, or
334
REPORT, OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
; facilitate, or hasten an exaniination of luggage to ascertain whether or
not it contains dutiable articles; and if such a x'>i'actice exists as the
law condemns and forbids, can it be xirevented, and how?
22. Does the evidence tend to show that, in resxiect to the articles on
which the Treasury has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed hy the
law, the rate hasbeen carried by Congress beyond and above the line
which the Government can surely protect, and into a region where smugglers and dishonest shippers Avill be very xiowerful in evading the law?
23. Has what has been true of the failure of the Treasury Depart^ ment to enforce the revenue law in New York been generally true, and,
for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports?
24. If false returns or reports to the collectors of dutiable values'
have been made during a considerable time past, Avhy have not the xiersons or officials concerned therein been complained of, arrested, indicted,
^ and punished?
LETTERS OF REPLY.
No. 2.
/
L. G. MARTIN—Entered the Department as a first-class (^1,200) clerk AugustlO, 1868.
Promoted subsequently to second, third, fourth class, Assistant Chief, and ax)poiuted
Chief of Appointment Division July 14, 1875. Appointed Special Agent May .18,
1876, and afterwards designated as Supervising Speeial Agent.
A. K. TINGLE—Entered theDepartment as a first-class clerk in the Fourth Auditor's
. Of^ce July 1, 1867. Promoted subsequently through all the different grades. Appointed Special Agent September 10,. 1872.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, B. C, Septembers, 1886.
SIR : In response to inquiries contained in your circular letter relative
to evasions of custonis revenue, we resxiectfully subniit the following:
Inqitiry No. 1.—As to-the rates of duty, it should be remembered
that Avhenever an imxiroper fate is exacted to the detriment of the
iniporter, he is prompt to protect his rights by axix^eal to the Dexiartment and the courts. When, however, an improxier rate is assessed
to the detriment of the Government, there is no such motive of xirivate
interest to correct the Avrong. Errors of this kind against the Government may, therefore, often occur Avithout detection. It is true that
the appraising officers and the collectors at the several xiorts are expected to see that the revenue is protected. But entries of merchandise are passed through the custom-house at the x)i'i"cixial xiorts Avith
great rapidity; appraising officers, Avliose duty it^ is to advise the collector of proper classifications, are sometimes incompetent, careless, or
dishonest, and custonis brokers are ahvays alert to secure an advantage
for their clients. For these reasons^ there is no doubt that inerchandise •
is, in some cases, passed at a less rate than the law xirescribes.
For instance, some years ago, at Boston, aniline colors were for a long
time passed, under various nanies, as merchandise not otherwise xirovided for, dutiable at 20 per cent., Avhen, upon investigation, it Avas
discovered that the goods Avere aniline colors, dutiable, under the former tariff, at 50 cents per pound and 35 xier cent, ad valorem.
Within a few Aveeks the Dexiartment has corrected the classification
of cashmere-goat hair, Avhich Avas passed at Philadelxihia for three
years as carpet-Avool, dutiable at 2J or 5 cents x^'^i' pound, according
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
335
• to value, when the rate prescribed by law was 10 cents per pound.
So, too, in regard to flax, dutiable at $20 per- ton, which A^as passed
at one of the xiorts on the northern frontier upon the misrexiresentation
and false invoicing of the importers as tow, as $10 per ton. In these
cases there is no doubt that proper vigilance on the part of the appraising officers wouldhave prevented loss to the Government, Other
cases have been discoA^ered where the same merchandise was classified
differently at different ports.
No. 2.—Sxiecific rates can only be evaded (1st) by the assessment of
a lower rate than the law prescribes; (2d) by false weight or measure,
and (3d) by improper or excessive damage allowances. There is evidence on file in the Department in the form of affidavits that the
weighers at New York, with the avowed object of making a good showing of economy in the expense of weighers' labor, have omitted to
actually Aveigh large quantities of weighable goods, and instead have
taken the weights as marked on packages or stated by importers as the
proper weights, and made return thereof accordingly. A practice of
this kind long continued cannot fail to furnish an inducement to fraud
by false invoicing and false marking of packages. It is shown by the
evidence accompanying a report on file in regard to damage allowances that it is an habitual xiractice of some importers of fruits and
nuts, which pay specific duties, to claim an allowance for damage upon
sound goods, and that such allowances have been made in many cases.
Instances of fraudulent collusion between the Aveigher and importer
have been knoAvn to occur in past years, notably in the weighing of
sugar.
It was developed by the investigation of the ^ Jay Comniission," in
^
1877, that corrupt and irregular practices prevailed in the Aveigher's"
department at New York, and that illegal fees in the nature of perquisites to the weighers were exacted from the importers upon every
cargo weighed. As a result of subsequent reforms instituted in this
branch of the ser Adee, it was claimed that there "^as a large increase
in returned weights of sugars, showing that the full duties had not
been xireviously collected.
No. 3.—From such information as we have in regard to the measurement of tex:tile fabrics, we are of opinion that such measurements are
seldom, if ever, verified by customs officers. This question, however,
can properly be answered by the apprais:!ng officers at the several
ports.
No. 4.—Instances of fraudulent collusion between importers and
entry clerks or deputy collectors have been discovered in past years.
One case, known as t h e ' ' Lawrence frauds,'' at New York, iuA^olved great
loss to the Government. Upon the discovery of these frauds, the collector adoxited a plan of assigning a deputy collector to designate the
exaniination packages ux^on iuA^oices for each vessel arriving, such assignment being made on the day of the arrival of the vessel, so that
there could be no preconcerted arrangement betweeii the iniporters
and the officers so assigned, a different deputy being assigned for each
vessel. How far this dcAnce has prevented fraudulent collusion is not
known. Some years ago, at Boston, it v/as discovered that frauds of
this character to the extent of about $70,000 in duties were perpetrated
by collusion with officials. In one importation at that xiort, where the
invoice described seven packages of cotton hosiery, six of the packages
contained lastings, Avhile the one package Avhich was designated for
336
REPORT.OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
examination contained cotton hosiery, in accordance Avith the description in the invoice. The fact that such frauds are known to haA^e been
carried on in the past Avonld seem to Avarrant the assumption of their
possibility at any time. Doubtless the success of the Lawrence frauds
in New York was suggestiA^e to the Boston xiarties, who adpxited similar methods.
'
^
Another method at Boston was to invoice the goods, which were in
reality lastings, subject to high duties, as hide cuttings, Avhich were free.
By arrangement with the dexmty cpllector or entry clerk, an order was
made for the inspector on the wharf to examine the merchandise, which
really meant no examination at all, and the goods were not seen by the
appraiser, and were delivered Avithont the packages being opened by
customs officers.
Nothing' but the absolute integrity and Adgilance of the officers intrusted with the duty of designating the exaniination packages, or the
examination of all packages in the invoice, can prevent this kind of
fraud.
No. 5.—See answer to the second inquiry.
No. 6.—This inquiry can be properly ansAvered by the collectors and
district attorneys at the principal xiorts.
No. 7.—It cannot be successfully controverted that all silks consigned
to commission houses j.n New York are, as a rule, undervalued in the
invoices, and that in most cases the appraising officers have failed to
advance the A-alues sufficiently to meet the true market value and
secnre the collection of the full amount of duty that the law prescribes.
This is also true as to laces, embroideries, gloves, fine earthen and glass
ware, and, to a greater or less extent, as to all other goods which are
sent to this country for sale on foreign account, commonly known as
consigned goods.
No. 8.—The reasons-4'or this failnre ma^^ be stated as follows: ^
First. Importers who make entry of this class of merchandise are
bound together by mutual interests to prevent advances of consigned
goods to such figures as would enable > bona fide purchases to be made
abroad by American merchants.
Second. There being few, if any, actnal purchasers in the foreign
markets, there is great difficulty in obtaining evidence of actnal market
value.
Third. Fictitious values are established by the united testimony of
importers whOse business is dependent npon a continuance of the consignment system.
Fourth. The views of the appraising officers themselves as to market
values have become warped and incorrect because of the fact that the
o'nly values Ayith which they are acquainted are those stated in invoices
of consigned goods, so that when eAddence of undervaluation is. presented, the appraisers are reluctant to use and act upon it. They assume that their advances will not be sustained on reappraisement,
owing to the combination of importers referred to, who, by frequent
personal intercourse with the examiners, exert a powerful influence
over them, and override the evidence of undervaluation. - The appraising officers haA^e not only failed, for these and other reasons, to nse testimony officially furnished to them as to actual foreign market value,
REPORT OF'THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
337
but have also failed to use the means giy;en them by law (section
2922, E. S.) to ascertain all the facts,relating to imxiortations, by calling before them the importer and examining him on oath, and requir-.
ing him to produce aU letters, x^ax^ers, invoices, &c., relating to the
importation.
It is a well-known fact that many of the importations embraced in
•consigned invoices represent actual orders previously taken by the importers at fixed prices in dollars and cents; and if the apxiraiser had re-^
quired the xiroduction of these orders and the prices at which the goods"
were to be delivered, there would have been no difficulty in ascertaining
the true market value of the merchandise, and the collection of the duties
thereon. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the appraising
officers to avail themselves of the means thus conferred upon them by
law for ascertaining the facts in regard to any importation upon any
other ground than that they do not wish to disturb the existing order
of things.
No. 9.—As to silks, velvets, laces, embroideries,, gio ves, earthenware,
&c., inadequate values have been reported by the appraisers for a number of years past. It should not be said, however, that their failure to
return full values has be^n wholly intentional on their part. . WhHe
they have-known, in a general way, that the merchandise was undervalued, they claim to have been unable to secure such proofs of actual
market value as would sustain their advances upon reapxiraisement,
owing to the practice, so long in vogue, of appointing members of consignment houses as merchant appraisers, and of taking the testimony of members of such houses to sustain the integrity of the
invoices.
The appraising officers must, however, be held largely responsible
for the groA^h of such a practice, because, under the regulations, it
was their duty to furnish to the collector the names of suitable persons
from which to select the merchant appraiser, and bf proper persons to
be caUed as witnesses. The records show that, in a large majority of
cases, firms whose invoices were known to be nndervalued have appeared upon the list sent to the collector by the apxiraiser, and in many
cases the members of firms receiving consigned goods for sale on foreign account were selected as merchant appraisers. It is not easy to
understand how the appraising officers expected to arrest false valuations so long as they pursued this xiractice. The class of articles most
largely nndervalued are those mentioned above, and are generally
shixiped by the manufacturers to their agents in New York, direct from^
the place of inanufacture, usually continental Euroxiean xiorts." There
have not been so many undervaluations from England as from France
and Germany, owing to the system in England of requiring an oath to
the invoice, to be taken before an officer duly authorized by the laws
of Great Britain.
Still, there are some classes of English goods, notably hosiery and
linen, which have been consigned by the manufactiirers to this country for sale, iuA'^oiced at prices below the actual market value. Purchased goods by reputable houses are seldom, if ever, found to be
tainted by these fraudulent xiractices. The xiroof of undervaluations
of the articles above mentioned does not rest wholl3^ upon the statements of Treasury or consular agents, but is to be fonnd in the testimony taken upon reappraisements before the general axipraiser at New
22 A
338
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Y ork, and before commissions appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to investigate the subj ect.
No. 10.—There is UOAV and has been since the passage oi the tariff
act of 1883, much confusion in regard to the elements of dutiable value
where questions are involved as to the dutiable or non-dutiable
character of coverings. The exemption of charges from duty has
given rise to a system of undervaluation by overstating the cost of the
covering and packing charges ih the invoices. Innumerable questions
have arisen upon such cases, and an immense amount of litigation witli
the Governnient will be the result.
We do not think that the examiners, assistant appraisers, and appraiser are absolutely clear or harmonious as to the elements to be
ascertained in order to fix dutiable value. It has been a favorite
doctrine in the appraiser's department for many years that the price
paid for an article settles the question of dutiable value of that article,
no matter whether the invoice of one importer for the same article was
above or below that of another, and in the face of the requirement of
the statute, which provides that the appraisers shall appraise the true
and actual market value and. wholesale price of the merchandise at
the time of exportation, and in the principal markets of the country
whence the same has been shipped, any invoice to the contrary notwithstanding. The invoiced price has governed as to purchased goods,
if the appraisers were satisfied that the xirices in the invoice represented
the actual cost, it being held that the price paid for any given article
at any particular time was the market value so far as that importation
was concerned. As suggested by Secretary Eobert J. Walker, in a
circular issued by him in 1848, under this doctrine, if merchandise was
acquired by gift, there would be no dutiable value attached.
It frequently happens that a merchant may be able, by reason of his
purchasing an unusually large quantity, or of his agreement to take
the entire product of a factory during a season, to obtain merchandise
below the price at which it is usually sold in the principal markets of
production and sale. H e thus not only obtains an advantage over his
competitor as to the price he pays for the goods, but he obtains the
further advantage as to' the tax he pays upon it in this country. It is
believed that that provision of law which requires the appraisement
at the actual market value or wholesale price in the principal markets
in the country of production at the time and place of shipment was
intended to equalize the taxes collected upon importations by different
importers, and that where an importer, buys in the usual wholesale
quantity, and at the usual wholesale prices in the foreign markets, he
should notbe placed at a disadvantage because his competitor has bought
an unusual quantity, and has thus obtained an unusual discount.
No. 11.—We think a safe average minimum estimate of the undervaluation of silks, to which special attention has been given, can be
made, and that such undervaluation is not less than 20 per cent.;
that is to say, there should be 20 per cent, added to the value of all
consigned invoices of silks to approximate actual market value, and
this for at least ten years past. It must be remembered, however, that
during these ten years there have been frequent spasmodic efforts to
correct the undervaluation of silk by investigation and advances upon
appraisement, which advances have, in some cases, been sustained and
large amounts of increased duties and penalties collected. But these
.KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
3§9
advanced values have not been consistently maintained bythe appraising officers.
The merchandise having gone into consumption, there could be no
identification of particular invoices and articles.
No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the
'nsual course of business, for the values returned on axipraisement.
The assistant appraiser, to whom such examiner reports, however,
should also be held responsible for long-continued erroneous valuations.
The system in the appraiser's office at New York, whereby^one examiner has exclusive charge of a particular line of goods, furnishes^an
opportunity for fraudulent collusion between examiners and importers,
and if the assistant appraiser does not personally and carefully supervise the work of the examiners, there is no check upon such a xiractice.
In our judgment, examiners should be changed periodically from one
class of goods to another, and from one division to another. The objection made to this in the appraiser's dexiartment is, that when an examiner becomes an expert in one line of goods, it is unwise to put him
in charge of some other line with which he is not so familiar. In reply
to this, it may be said that at the ports of Cincinnati, Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, and Philadelphia examiners become expert in various
lines of goods, and there is no reason why such a course should not be
adopted at New York. In this way the monopoly of knoAvledge as to
the values of particular lines of goods, now kept within the breasts of
particular examiners, A^^uld be broken up.
The maximum salary allowed to examiners is $2,500 per annum.
When it is remembered that examiners at New York receiving this
salary pass npon goods upon which duties are collected aniounting to
from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 per annum, it is seen that the salary is
ridiculously low as compared with the compensation paid in private
business for similar services.
The appraiser at NewYork is necessarily an executive officer, whose
signature to returns of values is merely formal, and is of necessity xilaced
uxion invoices by a stamp, except in cases where values are disputed.
The nuniber of invoices that pass through the axipraiser's office in New
York in one year is about two hundred and twenty thousand.
No. 13.^While we know of no evidence that Government officials, in
the consular department or elsewhere, have assisted, or consented to, or
connived at, the presentation to the appraiser of false evidence of foreign value, it must be stated that, with but few exceptions, consular
offices have during many years performed their duties with reference
to invoices in a perfunctory and indifferent mariner, and have shown
but little disposition to inquire into questions affecting the revenue.
The assignment of a special agent to duty in Europe about four years
ago had a tendency to quicken the understanding of consular officers
as to their duty in this regard, and excellent results have followed in
some instances,, x^articu larly at points where exxierts were appointed to
aid the consuls in the ascertainment of values.
No. 14.^From the knowledge that Ave have on this subject, we do not
think it can be fairly said that the failure of the appraising officers to
axipraise goods at their full market value has come of dishonesty and
has been accompanied by a guilty knoAvledge on the part of Treasury
or custonis officials.
In the case ofthe appraisement of certain wool at Philadelphia, where
the evidence of the correct market value was conclusive, the appraiser
34®
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
persisted in passing the wool at a valuation which wonld bring it in at
the lower rate of duty instead of the higher rate, which an axi)praisement of its actual value Avonld have imxiosed. This was.also the case,
as to the classification of cashmere-goat hair as carpet-wool, referred to
in answer to Inquiry No. 2, AA^here the ax')Xiraiser, although upon his
original report upon the invoice he classified the merchandise as cashmere-goat hair,,and dutiable as such, in his reports to the Dexiartment,
upon the apxieal of the iniporter, earnestly took the view that his classification was Avrong, and that the nierchandise should be xiassed as carliet-wool. Even in these cases there is no evidence outside of the facts
cited of improper motives on the part of the apxiraiser, although in
Ms report and in the decision of the Department which followed it
^the facts in the case Avere obviously misstated. Some instances have
occurred at New York in which xiroof of corruption of appraising
officers was obtained, and the officers themselves dismissed from the
service.
No. 15.—If false A'^aluations have come of bribery or venality, there is
no reason why such bribery and A^enality may not be repeated. ' ^ Whenever there is a coincidence of temptation, frailty, and opportunity,there can naturally be but one result."
No. 16.—There can be no doubt that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates would help to diminish the tendency to corrupt action
and loss to the reA^^enue b y t h e incompetency or indifference of appraisers. The apxilication of specific rates to all textile fabrics would
undoubtedly be a work of great difficulty, particularly as to woollen
goods, but it is believed that a schedule can be prepared by the skilled
officers in the appraiser's department, with the aid .of manufacturers
^ and merchants, which would be satisfactory to all interested, except
those who are profiting by the present system of undervaluation.
No. 17.—The consignment system as it now exists has largely grown
up since the enactment, in 1874, ofthe law known as the ^^anti-moiety
act." A careful examination of the provisions of this law will show
to any unprejudiced mind that, if it was not designed for that object, its
tendency is to promote the very conditioii of affairs as to values which
_noAv exist. It xiractically ties the hands of the Government, and prevents the enforcement of the tariff laws, in that it prcA^ents its officers
from obtaining proofs necessary to establish fraud by undervaluation.
Proof of such frauds could be usually obtained under the old law by an
examination of the books and paxiers of the importer, where such examination was made Avithout.giving him an opxiortunity to sequester
the xiapers. There is a proAdsion of the act of 1874 under which books
and paxiers of an imxiorter may be examined by the attorney of the
Government after suit is commenced, but notice must be given to the
importer of the particular books and papers desired, and this gives an
oxixiortunity to those who are dishonest to supxiress proofs of guilt.
Then, too, the sixteenth section of that act, Avhich requires submission
to the jury of the question of fraudulent intent as a separate proposition and a separate verdict thereon, operates.as a barrier to successful
prosecutions. In addition to this, the courts have held that the twelfth
section of said act, providing penalties and forfeitures, which, for reasons
stated, in the majority of cases cannot be enforced, repealed section
. 2864 bf the Eevised Statutes, providing for the forfeiture of the value
of merchandise fraudulently entered. If, therefore, the importer succeeds in accomplishing his fraud and obtaining pos^eg^ion of the goods^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
341
although possibly an action wonld lie against him for duties, he is
clear of all other liability, unless a criminal prosecution can be successfully maintained against him, and in such cases the difficulty of
obtaining the necessary xiroofs is CA^en greater than in civil suits..
Under former laws, inforihers in customs cases were assured of 25
per cent, of the sum realized by the Governnient from the information
furnished. Under the present law their compensation is dexiendent
upon many contingencies. If the fraud revealed consists of undervaluation, they are not sure of any reward, because ofthe difficulty of
collecting even adA^-anced duties, not to sxieak of the imxDOssibility of securing forfeitures; and the amount in any case dexiends upon the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, and cannot exceed $5,000.
When a great fraud has been succevSsful, those having knowledge of it
find it more profitable to treat with the guilty xiarties than with the
GoAT^ernment.
No. 18.—We think it practicable—and the ground of our judgment
is found in the actual experience of the consuls at London, Liverxiool,
Bradford, Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, Basle, Marseilles, Geneva, St. Galle,
and Manchester—for consuls to give tlieir xiersonal attention to the
value of articles shipped from their ports to the United States, particularly Avhen such officers are aided by experts axixiointed for that
purxiose; not that consuls can personally examine every shiximent, but
they can keep themselves advised generally of the market value of
staxile articles shipped from their consulates. The late Consul Packard,
at Liverxiool, caused to be prepared and furnished to the appraising
officers at the principal ports a printed price-list of all articles shipxied
from his consulate from week to week, and there is no reason why other
consuls might not folloAV this example as to all staple goods. A uniform consular fee of $2.50 is charged for verifying invoices, regardless'
of 'the value of the goods, and in Great Britain, in addition to this, a
fee is charged for administering the oath.
No. 19.—We do not think it would be practicable or judicious to'
clothe the executive or judicial power of the Government with jurisdiction in the matter of the ascertainment of dutiable values. Existing laws, if properly administered by appraising officers, furnish adequate remedies for injustice, in ordinary cases of appraisement, to
both importers and the Government.
No. 20.—The information called for by this question can be obtained
from the appraising officers at the principal ports.
No. 21.—It is believed that at the port of New York the practice of
taking money by inspectors from incoming xiassengers for facilitating
the exainination of their baggage, and for passing dutiable articles
Avithout xiayment of duty, has been a general one. Its suxipression is
attended with the greatest difficulty, owing to the fact that it has been
long established, and passengers of respectability and wealth, understanding it to be a necessary evil, are willing to pay money to avoid
detention and trouble. An effort was made by Collector Merritt, some
years ago, to break up this practice, and for that purpose he employed
a detective, who obtained proofs of the actual paynient of money to
inspectors in a number of cases, in each of which the officer was dismissed from the service. The system of espionage which Avas necessary to the detection of this class of offences was distasteful to Surveyor
Graham, at whose instance it was finally discontinued.
342
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
We know of no way to break np this practice, except the employment of inspectors of known integrity, under the supervision of a
competent deputy surveyor, possessed of earnest convictions on the
subject, and determined to put an end to a system of petty brib^ery and"
extortion which has done more than any one thing to bring disgrace
upon the public service.
No. 22.—It is a self-evident proposition that the, higher the duty the
greater the temptation to evade it. This is illustrated by the operation
of the tariff of 1883, which increased the duty on opium from $6 to $10
per pound. Under the previous rate of duty, which was equal to 100
per cent, ad valorem, the amount of smuggling Avas enormous; and
nnder the present rate, according to the best information obtainable,
more than half of the amount consumed by the Chinese on the Pacific
coast is smuggled. In past years the great profit of opium smuggling
at San Francisco led to the formation of extensive combinations between smugglers and custonis officers, reaching to even officers of the
courts. It is believed that these combinations are not wholly broken
up, although successful prosecutions have had a beneficial effect.
As to undervaluations of goods paying high ad valorem rates, taking
silks as an example, those^best informed on the subject express the
opinion that, while the nominal rate of duty is 50 per cent., the actual
rate collected is not more than 30 xier cent. But undervaluations are
not confined to articles paying high ad valorem rates, and it is not to
be expected that honesty in invoicing will be secured by reducing the
rate of duty. Wherever a profit of 3 to 5 per cent, can be obtained by
nndervaluation, with little or no risk, unscrupulous importers will take
advantage of the opportunity.
No. 23.—Under valuations-have not prevailed so extensively in proportion to the amount of business transacted at other ports as at New
York, for the reason that the consignment system has not prevailed at
other ports to such an extent.
No. 24.—There has been no satisfactory evidence, as hereinbefore
stated, that the incorrect returnsof values made by appraisers have
-been made knowingly and corruptly, except in the cases mentioned in
No. 14, where the officers were dismissed from the service. In those
cases indictments were procured, but, for reasons unknown to us, the
parties were never brought to trial.
^
Yery respectfully,
L. G. MAETIN,
A. K. TINGLE,
Special Agents^
Hon. D A N I E L MAiiinsriNG,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 3.
Additional Inquiries to Special Agents Mai-tin and Tingle.
1. Specify each and every article on Avhich, within your own knowledge, and within two years last past, a less rate of duty has been levied
than the law required, and name the port of entry of each article.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
343
2. Sx3ecify each and every article on which, within your own knowledge, and within the last two years, the full amount of purely sx3ecific
duty has not been collected, and the port of entry, excluding damage
allowance.
4. Specify each case of collusion, referred to in the fourth question,
that has happened within the last two years, and the port.
7. Am I to understand you as saying that all goods -^ which are sent
to this country for sale on foreign account, commonly known as ' consigned goods,'" are now underinvoiced, and that in most cases correct values of such goods are not now rexiorted by the appraiser at
New York to the collector? If not, please make your reply plain and
direct as to the present date.
° 9. This question refers to ^^false dutiable values" reported b y t h e
appraiser. Let it be answered, and the articles specified, and the
evidence indicated, on which falsehood is affirmed. What special
validity and influence over a shixixier has an oath because taken before a British otf cer instead of the American consul'? Does that oath
now prevent false invoices, in Great Britain or Ireland, of consigned
goods'? Is it your opinion that in England prosecutions would, or
could, be carried on for perjury committed in enforcing the American
tariff law?
10. Apart from ^ ^ coA^erings," how will the tenth question be answered by you? What appraising officer at the present time thinks
and says that '^price paid" is the same as the '^ dutiable value" of
the statute?
11. Are the values of the articles referred to in your answer to the
eleventh question now falsely returned to the collector of New York
by the appraiser?
13. Give the names of the consular officers, now in office, referred to
in the first part of your answer to the thirteenth question. Who was
the sxiecial agent to whom you refer?
15. HaA^e you any reason to believe that bribery or venality in New
York noio prevent true and full returns of dutiable values by the appraising department?
17. Specify more fully '^the very condition of affairs as to values,"
referred to in the second sentence of your answer to the seventeenth
question?
18. The eighteenth question refers to the personal examination of
merchandise by consular officers. Please confine your reply to those
oificers. Besides the fee of $2.50, what fee is charged in Great Britain
for the oath, and has such fee been paid into the Treasury, and is it
noAv so paid, or has any portion of it been reserved by any consular
officer or clerk, or by the xierson administering the oath; and if so, by
whom ?
24. State whether or not, in your opinion, dutiable values are now,
in New York, not ti uly reported to the collector; and if so, on what
articles^
344
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.
.
No. 4.
'.Reply to Additional Inquiries.
. WASHINGTON, D . C , September' 19, 1885..
SIR : In answer to additional interrogatories contained in memorandum herewith returned, we respecfully submit the following :
1. Certain proprietary medicines, including about one hundred different articles, Avere passed by the axipraiser at New York for a nuniber
of years as medicinal preparations, at 25 per cent., AAdien the legal rate
was 50 per cent. This erronous classification was brought to the attention of the Dexiartment by Special Agent Tichenor, then in Euroxie,
more than a year ago, and the classification A\^as some time afterwards
corrected by the apxiraisers. The importers appealed, and the Dexiartment sustained the adA-anced rate, deciding that the merchandise
should be classified as '^proprietary medicines" dutiable at 50 per
cent. (See Department decisions 6687, 6837, 6915, 6917, and 6921,
wherein the articles are described.)
Lower rates than the law requires Avere collected at the port of Philadelphia for a number of years upon certain wools, mohair noils,
and cashmere-goat hair. The classification in these cases Avere corrected by Department decisions 6998, 6999, and 7034, all dated in July
last.
The erronous classification of ''flax".as "tow," referred to in answer to first inquiry, occurred at the x^ort of Suspension Bridge, N.
Y., about a year ago, and the merchandise was seized at Paterson,
N. J., by officers from the New York custom-house, on the ground
that it had been fraudulently entered.
In the month of June last, upon investigation by Special Agent Ayer,
it wa^ found that the apxiraising offieers at New York Avere in the habit
of classifying certain ''glazed ornamental tiles" as "paving-tiles,"
dutiable at 20 -per eent. ad valorem, when, according to the judgment
of exx')erts, they should be classed as "glazed earthernware," dutiable at 55 per cent, ad valorem. The appraiser having acceded to
this view and changed the classification accordingly, the importers
axipealed, but the X30int was decided against them -by the Department,
as shown by Decision 7051, dated July 30 last.
For a long period "scoured wool," in the form of "laxis, "broken
toxis," "slubbings," and "fine rovings," was admitted in large quantities at Boston and NCAV York as ordinary wool waste or spinner's waste,
at 10 cents per xiound, under the provisions of the tariff for "rags,"
" m u n g o , " "waste," '"shoddy," "flocks," &c. Upon investigation,
made at the instance of the consul at Liverpool and Special Agent
Tichenor, the merchandise was classified as "washed AVOOI, " dutiable
at 20 cents per pound. (See Synopsis, 5820.)
Upon further investigation, it was decided by the Departn^nt that
the merchandise in question should be classified as "scoured AVOOI,"
dutiable at 30 cents per pound. (See Decision 6884, dated April 29
last.)
There are two firms in New York, A. Diepenbrock & Co. and Benziger Bros., who import what is known as "church statuary," being
moulded figures of religous subjects, made of mineral substances
and decorated. The character of the importations in both cases is
practically identical. Those of A. Diepenbrock & Co. were formerly
REPORT OF THE" SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
345
passed at 10 x^er cent., and are now passed at 30 per cent, ad valorem,
as works of art, while those of Benziger Bros, are classified as "manufactures of mineral substances," dutiable at 40 per cent. The action of
the appraiser in both cases is in accordance with the sxiecific instructions of the Department. The ruling in the case of Diepenbrock & Co.
was based upon a judicial decision (see Departnient decision No. 5549)
made, as isnow admitted, uxion an insufficient presentation of the facts.
Benziger Bros, have protested against this discrimination, but without
avail, the higher rate being deemed the legal one as to their importations, notwithstanding said decision. It would seem that, inasmuch
as there is no appreciable difference in the character of the merchandise, the classification should be the same in both cases.
The foregoing embrace the only cases which we are able to recall to
mind at this time, occurring within the last two years, in which a less
rate of duty has been levied than the law required.
2. The only case« within our own knowledge now occurring to us, in
which within the last two years the full amount of purely specific duty
has not been collected, exclusive of allowauce for damage, are those
mentioned above, namely, "wool," "noils," "cashmere-goat hair,"
- imported at Philadelphia, "scoured wool," imported at New York and
Boston, and "flax," imported at Suspension Bridge. Inthese cases
the insufficient collection was due to the imxiroper assessment of rate,
and not to a false return of quantity.
4. We have no knowledge of any case of collusion between an importer-and an entry clerk or depnty collector, whereby the Government has been defrauded by the designation of packages for examination within the last two years. The cases cited in our answer to No. 4
occurred several years ago, at New York and Boston, and were referred
to as indicating the possibility of this class of frauds.
7. We do not hesitate to express our conviction, from all the facts ^;
we have been able to obtain, that all goods subject to ad valorem duty
consigned by European shippers to regularly established agencies in
the United States, chiefly at the port of New York, for sale on foreign account, commonly known as '' consigned goods,'' are noAV underiuA^oiced, and that while in some cases the axipraising officers may report
the full dutiable value, as a rule correct values of such goods are not
reported t o the collector. There may be exceptional cases, where the
invoices express fair values, but the rule is as we have stated. The
articles of greatest importance thus imported are silk goods, leather
gloves, hosiery, German and French woollen and worsted goods, cotton
embroideries and laces, lintos, and crockery. The importation of silks
especially has received careful investigation from time to time by consuls abroad, as well as by special agents and others. Eeference is made to the report of Messrs. Tichenor, Tingle, and Sxiaulding, on the subject
of undervaluations, dated the 10th of April last, in which it is shown
that consigned silks are invoiced below the cost of labor and materials ^
used in their manufacture, the difference ranging from 1 per 'cent, to 50 ^
per cent.; that at least 10 per cent, should be added to the cost of labor
and materials, to cover waste, insurance, interest, and other operating
expenses, to reach cost of production; that the average invoice prices
were about 23 per cent, below cost of production; that the additions"
made for market value by importers on entry and by examiners on
appraisement amounted, in the aggregate, to no more than 8J per cent.,
leaving 14i per oent.'of the difference between the cost of production
346
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and appraised value upon which duty was not paid, Avithout taking into
account the manufacturer's profit, which should be represented by not
less than 5 per cent, additional. The latest reports from the appraiser
at New York show that the exaininers have now reached an aggregate
valuation of silks equal to about the (5bst of labor and materials only.
According to the best information obtainable, this is stiU from 15 to 20
per cent, below actual market value. There may be occasional invoices upon which the full valuation is returned, but they are rare.
Merchandise, such as crockery, linens, hoisery, machinery, hydraulic
hose, various manufactures of metals, knit goods, various cotton fabrics, notably velveteens, worsted yarns, woollen and worsted goods, books, manufactures of paper, &c., is shipped in large quantities byBritish manufacturers and shippers to the United States invoiced at
prices below those at which the same goods are sold to the home trade
and for export to other countries than the United States. This is the
result of what is believed to be a policy adopted by British manufacturers to relieve their home markets of over-productions. They are
thus enabled to keep their mills running, as well as to control the
markets of the United States. The goods thus shipped to this country
may be actually sold at prices which represent no more than the cost
of manufacture, and even less in many instances, the manufacturers
depending for their profits upon their sales in the home and other
markets. In cases of this kind, when the appraising officers are satisfied that the invoice and entered value represent the actual price paid,
it has been usual to pass the goods without additions to make market
value, although it has been in many cases conclusively shown that
these prices were below the actual market value in the principal British markets. Oaths to such invoices are believed to have been made
in many cases in good faith, under the impression which prevails extensively in the mercantile community, both at home and abroad, that the
price paid represents the dutiable value in all cases. This principle
has been adopted largely by appraising officers, under sanction of de. cisions of the Department. (See Decision No. 3238, dated May 15,1877,
and letters to collector at Boston, dated in April, 1884, not published.)
9. The phrase "false dutiable values" seems to imply guilty knowledge or corrupt motive on the part of appraising officers when making
returns of inadequate dutiable values. It is rarely susceptible of proof
that the action of an appraising officer which is supposed to be based
upon his judgment is dueto dishonest motive. We therefore prefer
to attribute the failure of appraising officers at New York to make returns of full values to errors of judgment, indifference, negligence, and
misconception of the law, rather than to venality or corruption.
With regard to oaths to invoice declarations, it should be stated that
it is only in Great Britain that such oaths are administered. This is
done pursuant to a conventional arrangement between our Government
and that of Great Britain, which has not been made Avith other countries. Invoices from the continent have attached to them a declaration before the consul, but which is not made under oath. It is thought
by those who are qualified to judge upon the subject that the oath administered by a British officer, as is the practice in Great Britain, does
tend to prevent false invoicing of consigned goods. There should be
this qualification, however, that such invoices are frequently made below the market value in the home market, but at the same time represent the prices at which they are to be sold in the United States, as
hereinbefore explained. Shippers taking the oath in such cases do so
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
347
in good faith, according to their constructionof our tariff laws,-and
according to the construction adopted in many cases by our own officers. We have good reason to think that prosecutions for perjury,
where it could be showii that the^a^ffiant deliberate^ made a false statement, could be carried on and enMrced in the courts of Great Britain.
We are informed that competent legal counsel in Great Britain have
so advised some of our consular officers.
10. We reaffirm our answer as to the confusion in the minds of appraising officers in regard to what constitutes "dutiable value." We
recall recent statements of Assistant Appraiser Birdsall and Examiners
Angevine and Corbet, holding to the doctrine that the actual price
paid was the dutiable value, no matter what might be the general market value in the principal markets of the country of production. We
do not think they are alone in this Adew, but that the doctrine thus
stated^^prevails generally among the officers of the appraiser's department. Appraiser McMullen, however, holds that the appraisers are required to axipraise and return the actual market value in the principal
markets of the country of xiroduction, in accordance with the statute,
and that an exceptional price beloAv such market A-alue at which merchandise is sold for export to the United States, to meet the competition
of American producers, cannot be regarded as the market value if below the price at Avhich the goods are sold to all the world.
11. As stated in answer to No. 4, we believe that consigned goods of
all descriptions are still passed at New York at inadequate values,
although improvement has been made in this regard since the present
^appraiser has been in charge of the business. The combined opposition of those interested in maintaining low valuations, and the want of
sympathy on the x^art of some of his subordinates in his efforts for reform, make his task one of great difficulty.
13. In stating that consular officers during many years performed
their duties with reference to invoices in a perfunctory and indifferent
manner, we did not desire to have it understood that these officers
were unwilling, as a rule, to do their full duty with resxiect to the revenue. Acting under and receiAdng their instructions from a Department not directly interested in the customs, and receiving but little'
encouragement from the Treasury Department or cnstoms officers when
they did make efforts in that direction, it Avas not surx^rising that the^^
should become indifferent.
The special agent who was sent to Europe four years ago, referred to,
was George C. Tichenor, and the readiness with which consular officers,
as a rule, adopted his suggestions and became interested and active in '
matters pertaining to dutiable values is an indication that their previous failure to look after the interests of the revenues was due ^to a
want of definite instructions on the subject rather than tp any other
motive. The only consnlar officers now in the service, so far as we are
informed, who failed to take an active interest in these matters, are
,
, and
. We are informed by Special Agent Tichenor that Mr.
took but little personal interest in matters pertaining to invoices presented at his consulate for certification. This is
unfortunate because of the great variety of merchandise and large
amounts invoh^ed in invoices shipped from that consulate and the universal disposition and practice of French shippers to understate values.
15. I n t h e absence of proof sufficient to convince an unprejudiced
mind, we cannot say that we have reason to believe that bribery or
348
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
venality now prevent true and full returns of dutiable values by the
appraising officers.
17. By "the very condition of affairs as to A-alues which now exists,"
as stated in the second sentence of^ur reply to Inquiry No. 17, we
mean the prevalent practice of undemnvoicing consigned goods which
has been for some years past and is now so general as to many lines of
merchandise. We think that the comparative immunity from all risk
of punishment, either in pocket or person, enjoyed by importers since
* the passage of the anti-moiety act has tended to encourage the fraudulent practices by which the revenue laws are so largely evaded.
\ 18. It would be impracticable for consular officers at the larger consulates to personally,examina all merchandise shipped from their districts, but it is practicable for them to inform themselves generaUy of
market values. The regulations of the Department of State provide
that consuls shall require shippers of textile goods to present with, their
invoices samples ofthe goods described therein, which samples are forwarded to the appraising officers, with the trixilicate invoices. There
are usually attached to the larger consulates a corps of clerks and assistants, whose serAdces might be utilized in personally examining these
samples and procuring information as to market values, so as to enable
the consul to certify the invoices intelligently.
In Great Britain the fee charged for the oath is equivalent to $1. This
fee is paid to the British officer who administers the oath, and is not paid
into the Treasury or in any way accounted for by consuls. Whether or
nbt it is shared by consular officers we have no knowledge.
24. The great increase in the number of appeals and reappraisements
within the last few months would seem to indicate that the appraising
' officers are more active and Adgilant than for some years past. We are
still of t h a opinion, however, that the actual market value is not fiilly
reported to the collector upon articles hereinbefore mentioned, regularly
consigned by foreign manufacturers to their agents in New York.
Yery respectfully,
L. G. MAETIN,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
A. K. TINGLE,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Special Agents.
I concur in the foregoing as weU as in the answers of Messrs. Martin
and Tingle, heretofore submitted, to the questions contained in the
'• printed circular.
Yery respectfuUy,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
Special Agent.
• No. 5.
Additiorial Inquiries.
Please supplement your reply of the 19th instant, by giving date and
text of the "conventional agreement" therjein referred to, andthenameof
t h e ' ' legal counsel,'' Anth the text of his opinion, to whom given, and when.
SEPTEMBER 25,
'
•
1885.
No. 6.
WASHINGTON, D . C , September 29, 1885.
SIR : Since the receipt of your memorandum, relative to answer to
Question No. 9, in regard to oaths to invoices, we have sought access to
the records of the-Department of State for the purpose of obtaining the
precise data respecting the origin of the custom in A^ogue in Great
Britain of requiring shippers to make an oath or solemn declaration to
their invoices before a British officer, and the failure of consular officers
on the continent to require oaths to invoices.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
34f
We find that we were in error in the statement that the practice in
Great Britain was the result of a "conventional arrangement" betAveen
that government and ours.
It appears that for a long time^prior to 1869 it was the custom of the
consular officers in Great Britain to administer oaths to shixipers, and
that in that year the consul-general at London, in a dispatch dated
May 8, reported that " i n Great Britaiii a declaration or oath to be
legal and render a xierson liable to xirosecution for niaking false declaration or taking a false oath, must be made before a British subject duly
axipointed or authorized to administer oaths or receive declarations^
Consequently, all declarations and oaths made before American con^Js'^
when not duly authorized by the laws of Great Britain, are of no more
. legal or moral effect than if they were takeii before a private citizen,
and consuls are, in reality, liable to a fine for so acting."
On the 26th of June, 1869, the consul-general rexiorted that he began
to require oaths to be taken before a British commissioner on the 1st of
June, 1869, and it axipears that since about that date this x^i^actice has
been unifornily followed by all our consular officers in the Unitecl
Kingdom, A\:ith the sanction of the Dexiartment of State. It is gathered
from the official correspondence that, at the instance of the consul»general, Mr. Joshua Nunn, a British subject, then acting as vice-consulgeneral, and Avho had for a long time prcAdous been attached to the
consulate, Avas apxiointed by the,British authorities-a commissioner to
administer oaths, although Mr. Nunn did not possess the qualifications
usually required in such cases, namely, that he should be a solicitor of ten
years' xiractice. This act of courtesy on the part of the officials of Her
Majesty's Government, couxiled with the fact that it was only in Great
Britain that such oaths were administered, led to the conclusion that
that practice had been adopted by reason of a conventional arrangement
between the two goA^ernments. While it does not apxiear that the
subject has been one°of conventional agreement in.the strict meaning
of the term, it is a fact that it has been expressly sanctioned and authorized by our Government and tacitly recognized by officers of the British
Government.
With reference to the oxiinions of legal counsel in Great Britain to the
effect that x^rosecutions for x^erjnry, where it could be shoAvn that the
affiant deliberately made a false statement, could be enforced in the
courts of Great Britain, it axixiears that the subject Avas one of correspondence between the Departnient of State and.the consuls at London and Liverxiool, in the year 1876. On the 26th of Axiril, in that
year, the consul-general at London rexDorts that " t h e laws of this
country do xirovide that the xitmishment of xierjury shall axixily to false
oaths taken under the circumstances mentioned, Avheii the oaths were
taken before a duly qualified officer. * * > i believe, hoAvever,
<
i
that in case of a legal prosecution great difficulty would be°found in
procuring evidence sufficient to convict, and the probabilities are that
it Avould prove imxiossible."
The consul at Liverpool, in a disxiatch dated May 8, 1876, rexiorts
as folloAvs: '.'I have given thesubject therein nained the best consideration I could, and I have enix:)loyed an English laAA^yer here to examine the laws and decisions of the courts of this country relating theretOc
As the result of such inA^estigation, I have to say that, in my oxiinion,
there is a very great doubt whether or not a xierson is liable to xmnishniejil3 .fer swearing to false or undervalued consular invoices. I have
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
become aware that there is a difference of opinion among laAvyers here
as to such liability, and I have not found that the point has been settled
by the highest English courts. Therefore, the question may be considered in some degree an open one, with, I think, the probability
strongly against such liability. There seems to be no doubt that persons making false declarations to such invoices are liable to a punishment undei5>the laws of this country."
It should be here stated that the form used is a solemn declaraition
made before a duly authorized commissioner, in accordance with the
provisions of the statutes of Great Britain, (5 and 6 William IY.)
We are informed by Special Agent Tichenor that, in the course of
his investigations of frauds in various classes of merchandise by shippers in Great Britain, who had made their declarations before British
commissioners, he made inquiry of several different solicitors whether
prosecutions for perjury could be maintained in case the fact of false
invoicing could be established, and the uniform answer was in the
affirmative. Among those so consulted were Mr. Thomas Hewitt,
solicitor, London; Mr. J. T. Doyle, solicitor, Manchester; Mr.
—
Eichardson, solicitor, Bradford; and Mr. William Gibson, solicitor,
Glasgow. These opinions were verbal, and we do not know of any
formal written opinion by a British laAvyer on the subject. On the
strength of these opinions. Special Agent Tichenor recommended in
his official reports the prosecution of certain persons whom he believed
could be convicted of perjury.
While it thus appears that it has been, and is the practice to have
oaths or solemn declarations to invoices administered in Great Britain,
it seems that efforts to establish a similar practice in France, Germany,
and other continental countries have failed because it was found to be
impracticable under the laws of those countries.
The Department of State some three years ogo addressed circular
letters to certain consular officers upon this subject, and we have
examined the replies received from a number of them, from which it
appears that in France, Germany, and Austria there are no officers
corresponding to those employed for this purpose in Great Britain who
can administer such an oath or declaration as would be valid and would
. subject the person taking it falsely to punishment. The consul-general
at Paris, in a dispatch dated May 4, 1882, states that he has submitted
the question as to the administration of oaths to invoices in France to
Mr. Edward Clunet, an eminent advocate of the French bar, whose
opinion he submits. After an exhaustive discussion of the subject, the
consul-general concludes as follows: " I must confirm tiie opinion
expressed by my predecessors, Mr. Bigelow and General Torbert, that
oaths to invoices of merchandise to be exported to the United States
cannot either legally or usefully be administered by American consular
officers, and that there is no French functionary authorized to do it in
their stead; and that if such authority existed in theory it would be
quite impossible to invoke its exercise in practice."
The consul-general at Frankfort-on-the-Main, under date of February
21, 1881, reports that a prosecution for perjury or false swearing could
not be maintained in a German court where the oath was administered
by a consular officer of the United States. He bases this opinion upon
information received from reliable authorities on the German law, whom
he had consulted. Generally speaking, only the courts are authorized
to administer oaths in Germany, and that in open session. A notary
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
351
cannot administer an oath or certify the same in such a Avay as to form
a basis for a prosecution for perjury. According to the understanding
of the oonsul, the right of a consular or diplomatic officer of a'foreign
country to administer an oath to a German subject is not recognized
by the Imperial GoA^ernment.
The consul-general at Berlin, February 21, 1881, reports that in the
German Emxiire the crime of perjury axiplies only to false oaths or
affirmations administered in the trial of criminal or civil causes, and
that only judges can administer such oaths.
The consul at Barmen rexiorts that in Germany oaths are only administered in criminal or civil cases and in various departments of the
Government, and submits a legal oxiinion of Dr. H. H. Adami, an advocate, who says: "Perjury will be x^tinished in Germany if the oath
was imposed by xmblic authority. International law does not grant to
consuls in Europe the right to impose oaths, nor is any such authority
to be found in the consular convention betAveen the United States and
Germany. German laws, likcAvise, do not furnish any xiublic authority
for the administration of such oaths on invoices. Oaths sworn without
public authority before a notary, consul, &c., are void in Germany.'-^
The consul-general at Yienna, February 12, 1881, reports that oaths
administered by consuls in Austria-PIungary are void; that the crime
of xierjury as well as the extra-judicial administration of oaths are unknown to the jurisprudence of that country. Only judges of courts
are authorized to administer oaths.
Th'e consul at Aix-la-Chapelle, under dates respectively of May 4 and
July 23, 1874, reports that he had issued a circular to shipxiers to require them to appear and in xierson sign and SAvear to their declarations
to inv^bices before him, (which had not xireviously been the xiractice,)
and also having summoned certain shixixiers to axixiear before him and
give testimony under a commission from the United States district
court of New York, the parties refused to apxiear in consequence of
certain xmblications in the German newspapers advising them not to
do so and of a communication from the foreign office of the Imxierial
Governnient at Berlin, addressed to certain German citizens, which
communication is as follows:
" O F F I C E OF FOREIGN A F F A I R S ,
'^Berlin, June 24, 1874.
" I n reply to your agreeable information of the 8th and 18th of this
fnonth, regarding the trial brought out against your firm by the customs administration at New York, I have to say that the (in the article nine of the consular convention between the German Emxiire and
the United States of America, formed December 11, 1871, E. G. B. L.,
1871, S. 95) mentioned power of American consular officers to take
statements under oath refers only to citizens of the United States, and
that therefore for German citizens there is no cause nor obligation to
comply to the summons of an Anierican consul to give information on
them. I suppose that this real matter of fact is known by your German correspondents' whose examination is wished by the American
court.
" T h e Chancellor ofthe Imperial in rexiresentation,
" Y . BULOWe'^
352
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
\
The consul at Basle, SAvitzerland, in a dispatch dated February 18,
1881, says: " T h e oath administered to a shixiper by a consular officer
in Switzerland is not, in the opinion of the best available authority,
of such a nature that a prosecution for perjury could be maintained
under it. * * >^ There are in the city and canton of Basle six
}
notaries empowered to administer oaths and legalize sworn declarations. H * * It should, howcA^er, be clearly understood that the
<
oath used in Switzerland in business transactions is nierely a shake of
the hand, and is of precisely the same force and meaning as that taken
in an invoice declaration made before a consular officer. * * *
A solemn oath,^such as is taken in the United States, in which the
Deity is invoked, is here regarded quite too sacred to be used in any
matter of business. It can only be administered by a court of law, and
after the person taking the oath has been solemnly prepared for it by
a personal conference with an ordained clergyman. Such an oath is
very rarely administered in Switzerland; never except in cases of Adtal
importance. It Avould be quite impossible to use it with invoice declarations. "
We submit herewith ExecutiA^e Document No. 122, containing a report from the Dexiartment of State showing the xirovisions of law and
the instructions of that Departnient to consular officers relating to the
verification of invoices, together with reports of consuls as to fees collected.
Yery respectfully,
L. G. MAETIN, '
A. K. TINGLE,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
; •^'
N o . 7.
Additional to Special Agents Martin and Tingle.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 3, 1885.
I have your communication of the 29th ultimo, correcting
your previous statement respecting " a conventional agreement," and
informing me that the existing practice of levying in Great Britain a
tax of some 5 shillings sterling, above the $2.50 fee of the statute, on
shippers of merchandise to the United States, began with the consulgeneral at London in 1869. The tax is a serious one on invoices for a
small amount, and I wish to be further informed concerning it. There
S€\ems to be no such tax levied outside of Great Britain. In the Senate
resolution of May 19, 1881, (Ex. Doc. No. 122, 47th Cong., 1st sess.,)
the inquiry is made by the Senate whether any consular officer has been.
benefited by the additional tax said to be paid to British notarial officers. In London and Belfast the total sum must be verydarge, and I
observe that neither Consuls-General Badeau nor Merritt, nor Consul
Wood, reply, as to themselves, definitely to that inquiry. You are
directed to inquire, and report to me forthwith, what information is
attainable by yon in the Auditor's office, or elsewhere, on that point;
and also IIOAV much has, in your opinion, been, in London,' the total
yearly amount received for that tax thus required by the oath.
SIRS:
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
353
You Avill also inform me Avhether, in the light of the new inforniation
resxiecting the probability of xmnishmeiit for xierjury, your previously
expressed oxiinions resx3ecting the necessity and efficacy of an oath, in
addition to a declaration before an American consular officer, are affirmed
by you.
Eespectfully yours,
DANIEL • MANNING,
Secretary.
Messrs. MARTIN & TINGLE,
Bivision of Special Agents.
No. 8.
'
•
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, B. C, October 6, 1885. ^
^
S I R : In compliance with directions contained in your letter of the
3d instant, addressed to Mr. Tingle and myself, I have the honor to
subniit the following inforniation concerning the amount xiaid annually
for administering the oath to invoice declarations (in addition to the
$2.50 fee of tlie statute) at London and Belfast, as Avell as, in all the
other consular districts of the United States in the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland.
Herewith enclosed is a tabular statement from the Fifth Auditor of
the Treasury, from which it appears that the total nuniber of invoices
certified in all the United States consular offices in the United Kingdom duringthe fiscal year ended June 30, 1885, was 75,971, in Avhich
London's share was 19,444, and Belfast and its agencies, (Ballymena
ahd Lurgan,) 4,362.
It also axipears that the number of iuA^oices certified at London during the fiscal years 1882 to 1884, inclusiA^e, was as follows: 1882,16,351;
1883, 20,887; 1884, 22,077. Add, 1885, 19,444. Total during four
years, 78,759.
The sum collected for administering the oath to each invoice is understood to be 45. 6d., equivalent to, say, $1.10, at Avhicli rate the amount
thus paid at London during the above four years Avould equal ^$86,634.90,
and in the entire United Kingdom for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1885, the sum total would be $83,568.10.
As the consular'officers do not rex3ort, either, to the Treasury or to
the State Dexiartment, the fee collected for administering this oath, the
above is the only data attainable for arriving at the araount of such fees.
I consider this estiniate, however, substantially correct, it being understood that the oath is administered in all cases, and that the fee
charged has Availed but little from Is. 6d. for each declaration, being
45. 6d. for each set of invoices made out in trixilicate.
Where the merchandise is to be sh.i.x3Xied in bond from x^ort of first
arrival to an interior xiort, the invoice is required tp be made in quadruplicate, in which case the total fee xier set Avould be increased to 6s.,
proAdded the additional Is. 6d. is charged for the extra invoice, which
I ,assume is the case; These are not taken into account in the estimate
above niade, there being no definite data resxiecting the same, hence
the amounts estimated are the minimum.
23 A
354
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I have been unable to obtain from the Auditor's office, or definitely
from any other source, any inforniation as to whether Consuls-General
Badeau or Merritt, at London, or Consul Wood, at Belfast, have shared
in these fees. Special Agent Tichenor, however, informs me he will
make a sxiecial report to you on this subject.
From all the information at my command, it would seem that the
proportion of fraudulent invoices from the United Kingdom are fewer
than from the continent of Europe, which fact, together Avith the further fact that an oath legally and solemnly administered, as this one
appears to be, operates, as a rule, to restrain men from making false
or reckless statements. I am still inclined to adhere to the vicAv previously expressed to you respecting the "efficacy of an oath in addition to a declaration before an American consular officer.''
The absence of Mr. Tingle in New York accounts for his failure to
join me in this rexily.
Yery respectfully,
.
L. G. MAETIN,
Supervising Special Agent.
-. Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Numher of Invoices Certified at each Consular Office in the United Kingdom of Cheat Britain
and, Ireland during the Fiscal Year ended June 30,1835, as shown hy Eeturns to the Fifth
Auditor of the Treasury.
C o n s u l a r offices.
Belfast
" Ballymena
Lurgan....
B i r m in g h a n i
Kidderminster....
Redditch
AVolverhampton .
Bradford
Bristol
• Cardiff
I/lanelly
Milford H a v e n . . . .
Newport
Swansea
Cork
AVaterford
Dublin
Limerick
Numberof
invoices.
N o i n v o i c e s certified.
144
621
75
542
5
Sli£
Dundee
2,728
A b e r d e e n ..
Dunfermline....
Kirkcaldy..
Falmouth
Glasgow
335
1,140
313
28
4,103
Greenock..
Gloucester
Hull
Leeds
20
120
312
1,242
Huddersfield..
Leith
Galashiels
Liverpool
1,783
585
99
9,873
Holyhead...
St. H e l e n ' s . .
Remarks.
N o i n v o i c e s certified.
N o r e t u r n s for t h e
A'laich q i i a r t e r .
N;) i n v o i c e s certified
during J u n e quarter. N o other returns.
2 em igTant certificates
issued.
14 e m i g r a n t -certificates'issued.
1 e m i g r a n t certificate
issued.
20 e m i g r a n t certificates issued.
N o i n v o i c e s certified.
EEPOET
OF THE
SECEETAEY
OF THE
TEEASUEY.
355
Numher of Invoices Certified at each Consular Office in the United Kingdom, &c.—Cont'd.
Numberof
invoices,
Consular oflfices.
19,444
London..
Dover ..;
Londonderry
Manchester
Newcastle-upon-Tyne..
Carlisle
ord Hartlepool
Sunderland
Nottinghan.1
Derby
Leicester
Plymouth
Dartmouth
Guernsey
Jersey.....
Sheffield..*......
Southampton
Portsmouth
Weymouth
Tunstall
,
6,867
458
178
95
. 41
3,243
319
469
33
5
3
11
1,849
14
6
1
3,156
Eemarks.
22,077 certified during
fiscal year 1881, and
20,887 in 1883, and
16,351 during 1882.
No invoices certified.
No returns.
75,971
Total..
No. 9.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B . C, October 12, 1886.
SIR : Eeferring to our several letters, dated the 6th instant, relating
to the fee charged for the oath to consular invoice declarations in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Ave have the honor
to hand you herewith a letter, dated the 10th instant, from the Fifth
Auditor, showing that the number of invoices certified at the United
States consulate-general at London during the fiscal year 1882 was
21,303, instead of 16,351, as set forth in the tabular statement furnished
you.
This makes the total number of invoices certified at that consulate
during the fiscal years 1882 to 1885, inclusive, 83,711, instead of 78,759,
and the aggregate sum received for the oath, say $92,082.10, instead
of $86,654.90, within that period.
As shown by the Fifth Auditor's letter, the 4,952 invoices omitted in
his tabular statement furnished you A\^ere certified from July 1 to September 16, 1881, General Badeau having been succeeded by General
Merritt on the latter date.
Yery resxiectfully,
L. G. MAETIN,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
Special Agents.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
3 5 6 ^ . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 10.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, F I F T H A U D I T O R ' S OFFICE,
Washington, October 10, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to the nnmber of invoices reported by this office, on
the 5th instant, as certified at London during the fiscal year 1882, namely,
16,351, I haA^e the honor to state that 4,952 should be added thereto",
making the correct nnmber 21,303 for that year. The additional invoices were issued by the outgoing consul-general, froiii July 1, 1881,to Septeniber 16, 1881, and were overlooked in the hurry of niaking
the statement, because the account was recorded at a much later date,
the returns not having been received until December, 1882.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
ANTH. EICKHOFF,
Auditor.
Hon.
C. E. COON,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. I L
GEO. C. TICHENOR—Originally appointed Special Agent Jnne 28,Q1878.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, October 6, 1886.
S I R : Eeferring to your verbal request for such information as I
Xiossessed or could obtain respecting the particixiation of any of our
consular officers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
in the fee there i^aid by shipxiers for the oath administered by British
officers to invoice declarations, I resx3ectfully submit the following:
My usefulness as an agent of the Dexiartment Avhilst I was abroad made
it necessary that I should cultivate and maintain the most agreeable
relations possible with such of our consular officers as my official duties brought me in contact with.
"^
In the United Kingdom I succeeded in establishing cordial official
relations with most of our consular officers, and in fact enjoyed the
close friendship of a nuniber of them. Whilst these relations afforded
me oxixiortunity for acquiring inforniation respecting the precise arrangements existing between some of these consular officers and the
British officers by whom the oath in question Avas administered, my sense
of xiropriety led me to avoid rather than pursue such inquiry under the
circunistances. Therefore, the little inforniation I became xiossessed
of on the subject whilst abroad reached me unsought, came in more
or less fragmentary and indefinite form, and A\^as chiefly communicated
in such way as to render its disclosure on my part a breach of confidence.
Addressing yoii, however, in the utmost candor and freedom, I can^
not say that I have absolute, or at all direct, knowledge that any Unified
States consular officer.in the United Kingdom has at any time shared
directly the fee in question ; at the same time, I am constrained to say
that the impression in my mind is very strong that some, at least, of
them have, and do at this time. I will state briefiy my reasons for so
believing:
.
• REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
357
About the year 1869, Mr. Joshua Nunn, a British subject, was appointed United States vice-consul general at London, having been
nominated thereto by Mr; Morse, .then consul-general there. About
this same time Mr. Nunn, although not eligible thereto under the
British statutes, was created a commissioner by the proper authorities
of Her Majesty's Government to administer oaths and authenticate
declarations. For a long time xirevious to this, according to my information, Mr. Nunn had been an emxiloye of the London consulate,
receiving, I assume, only the A^ery moderate comxiensation usually xiaid
such employes by our consular officers, ranging, I think, from about
$300 to $1,200 xier annum.
During General Badeau's term as consul-general at London, Mr.
Nunn Avas continued as vice-consul general, acting at the same time as
commissioner to administer the oath to invoice declarations. General
Badeau having been largely engaged in literary pursuits, Mr. Nunn
was actively in charge of the consulate much of the time. In fact, so
far as the essential business details Avere concerned, particularly as related to invoices, he was acting consul-general, and the fee for administering the oath to shipxiers was paid to him tvhile he was so acting. Even
if General Badeau allowed him to retain the whole or chief part of the
fee collected for this service, it was doubtless in consideration of his
administering the office as vice-consul general, and, even in that view
of the case. General Badeau certainly benefited by the fee. I deem it
highly improbable, however, that Mr. Nunn retained the Avhole or chief
part of these vast fees for his own use. I learn from the Fifth.Auditor's
office that during the time he (Mr. Nunn) was acting as vice-consul
general and as commissioner he received pay regularly from the Government for services as clerk at the consulate-general.
After General Merritt succeeded to the ofiice of consul-general at
London, Mr. Nunn was renioved from office as vice-consul general,
being succeeded by Mr. Mitchell, an American citizen. He A\^as a;lso
succeeded as commissioner, by Mr. Thonias Hewitt, a young English,
gentleman, who is engaged in the practice of his profession of solicitor,
having an office near the laA¥ courts in Chancery Lane, London, and
who attended at the con sulate-general daily for a time during business
hours to administer the oath to invoice declarations. It is shown by
the records of the Fifth Auditor's office that, there Avere certified at
the London consulate-general during the fiscal years 1882 to 1885, iu:
elusive, no less than 78,759 invoices of merchandise, the total sum received for administering the path to Avhich could not have beeii less
than about $86,635, and probably exceeded that sum, since a considerable xiroxiortion of these inA^^oiees Avere made out in quadruxilicate.
I^never inquired nor learned Avhat arrangenient General Merritt had
withMr. Hewitt. I assumed, however, that some understanding existed
between them Avhereby the former Avas liberally benefited. It does
not look reasonable that .a shrewd man like General Merritt Avould
voluntarily afford a young English stranger an opxiortunity to realize
UXDonan average above $21,000 per annum outright for services requiring but a coraparatiA^ely small share of his time, and no iiiA^ested
caxiitial. I As^onld consider $2,500 per annum most liberal compensa- tion indeed for such serAdce.
.
,.
I am quite sure that Avhile I was abroad the United States vice-consuls
at most, if not all, the princixial consulates in the United Kingdom, except at London, were English solicitors holding the office of commis-
358
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
sioner, and as such administered the oath to invoice declarations. As
a rule, these gentlemen had their offices either at the consulates or adjacent thereto, and certain of them within my knowledge frequently
served actively as vice-consuls on account of the absence of the consuls.
By reference to the tabular statement Mr. Martin has furnished you
fromthe Fifth Auditor's office, yon will see that.in the Liverpool,
Manchester, Bradford, Belfast, Glasgow,. Nottingham, Birminghani,
Tunstall, Dundee, Leeds, and Sheffield consular districts the amounts
received for the oath to iuA^oice declarations during thefisoal year
ended June 30,1885, exceeded in instances very largely the salaries
allowed by law to the consuls.
I am well satisfied there are at all places where Ujiited States consulates are established in the United Kingdom respectable resident
solicitors, either holding the office of commissioner or eligible thereto,
who, for the sake of the distinction the title would confer and on
account of the advantage they would thereby derive in pursuit of their
profession, would gladly accept the office of United States vice-consul
and administer the oath to invoice declarations for a bare moiety of
the fee charged. In this view, it seems unreasonable that the consuls,
whose salaries are so small, wonld afford their vice-consuls and commissioners ox)po.rtunity to derive such princely incomes as it appears
this fee yields in several instances.
Mr. Darlington, a young solicitor, and a commissioner, was appointed
vice consul at Bradford, upon the recommendation of Consul Grinnell.
Early in the year 1883, in consequence of a misunderstanding between
Consul Grinnell and Mr. Darlington, the former asked for the latter's
removal as vice-consul. Pending this controversy, Mr. Darlington
informed me that when he was nominated as vice-consul he entered
into a written agreement with Mr. Grinnell to pay over to the latter
80 per cent, of the fees he (Darlington) received for administering
fche oaths to invoice declarations, which agreement he subsequently,
for certain reasons, sought to annul or modify, and this, led to the misunderstanding between them. He informed me it was his intention to
report all the facts to the State Department, as well as give publicity
to them at Bradford. At the time Mr. Darlington made these statements to me he was visiting London for the purpose of conferring with
Consul-General Merritt on the subject. Mr. Grinnell is one of the most
industrious, ^faithful, and painstaking consular officers we have abroad,
and if he made the arrangement mentioned with Mr. Darlington, as I
assume he did, it is not improbable he had some precedent therefor,
and considered the transaction entirely proper.
The State Department has expressly sanctioned and authorized the
payment to the British officer of a fee of one shUling and six pence
*^for each of the triplicate or quadruplicate copies of tfie invoice," as
compensation for his services in administering the oath. Article 641
of the Consular Eegulations of 1881 provides: '^ All such invoices.mnsfc
be in triplicate; the three copies to be regarded as one invoice, and subjecttoonlyone charge for consular certificate." . Since the declarations,
whether in triplicate or quadruplicate, relate to but one invoice, I can
see no propriety in treating each declaration as a separate and distinct
instrument. There is but one oath administered, hence I consider there
should be but one fee of one shilling six pence charged for administer-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
359
ing such" oath. The jurat is either printed or stamped upon the blank
forms of declarations, which are furnished by the Government, and the
officer administering the oath has only to fill in the date and affix his
signature thereto. I am satisfied arrangements could be readily made
with the British pfficers to accept the single fee of one shilling six pence
for this service. This tax (say, 36 cents United States currency) would
certainly not be sufficiently onerous to cause serious complaint in any
case.
I hand you herewith a rex3ort I made to Secretary Folger in September, 1882, which was referred to and printed by the Tariff Commission,
then at work. O.n page 6 of this rexiort I gave my views respecting
the efficacy of oaths to invoice declarations as adminiBter.ed in the
United Kingdom. Subsequent exxDcrience has not caused me to modify
these views.
Inasmuch as the consular service of tlie United States is supported
mainly from invoice fees, and the chief or more important duties of
otir consular officers relate to the customs revenue, I am decidedly of
the opinion that this branch of tlie service should be attached to the
Treasury Department. From my exxierience abroad, I am entirely
c ctisfied that such transfer would result most beneficially to the Government. '
I am also satisfied that our consular service requires remodelling and
reorganization. This, I am sure, conld.be done in such manner as to
largely .elevate the tone and efficiency of the service without increasing
the expense thereof.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. C. TICHENOE, ^ .,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 12.
A. M. BARNEY—Entered the service as Collector of Customs, BroAvnsville, Tex., April
12, 1869. Was commissioned Collector of Internal Revenne in Texas February 29,
1872, but never acted. Appointed Special Agent February 1, 1873.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TRE.A.SURY DEPARTMENT,
Galveston, Tex.^ September 6, 1886. ,
SIR : I am in receipt of confidential printed Dexiartment letter dated
on the 27th ultimo, calling for answers to twenty-four separate inquries.
^
In reply, I have to say that I am not in xiossession of data which
would enable me to give intelligent replies to all the points raised, for
the reason that I have not been stationed at any of the large ports of
the country, excexit Chicago, since 1875 to 1877, and New Orleans from
May, 1877, to October, 1877, and in New York on temporary and
special service on tAvo or three occasions in 1878, 1879, and 1880, and
was engaged there on those occasions for a few weeks only at a time,
and was never on duty at any of the other large Atlantic ports, so that
I have had but little opxiortunity to examine into the manner of doing
business at the larger xiorts of the country.
While on duty in New York, a larger portion of my time was employed in the examination of accounts of the various small customs col-
360
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
lection districts which were then included in the second special agency
district. I ansA^er the inquiries made as follows, to wit:
1. At the ports in the districts Avhere I have served I know of no
instance nor evidence that the rates of duty on imported articles have
not been levied and collected as the law prescribes. In niany instances, .
owing to the intricacies of the tariff laws and the difficulties of interpreting the same, different rates have been collected in different districts on the same class and quality of goods.
Merchants themselves differ from each other in the classification and
rates of duty legally chargeable upon nierchandise imported by them.
2. If there has been a failure to collect the purely specific duties on
imported merchandise, I attribute it to a failure on the part of those
charged with ascertaining exact quantities, either from a lack of attention to their duties, or a failure to appreciate the responsibilities devolving upon them.
In my experience, no satisfactory evidence of such failure exists jbo '
an appreciable extent.
3. In Chicago, Detroit, and Galveston, the only ports with which I
have been connected where textile fabrics have been imported to any
considerable extent, the practice hasbeen to actually measure a certain
percentage of such fabrics. Also in cases of goods, paying duty ac-^
cording to the fineness of the thread, the number to the square yard,
&c., or when the duties are determined in part by the weight, an actual
count of threads or the weight of the goods has been made by the ap. praiser, or officer acting as such, or by the examiners. In none of these
ports, except Chicago, are there .any examiners, the work being performed by the appraiser in person. In Chicago, while I was there,
this work A\^as done under the immediate and personal supervision of
the ax)praiser, he performing a considerable part of the labor incident
to such examination.
4. While I was in New York on special service the subject of collusion between parties making entry and the officers charged with a selection of packages tobe sent to the appraiser's stores for examination
and the examiners was frequently discussed by the agent in charge
. and others, and several investigations were niade, Avhich resulted in the
dismissal of three or four clerks and deputies in the collector's office,
the arrest and conviction of some of the examiners, and the flight to
Canada of others before arrest. But as I was not engaged in these investigations, I am unable-to give details.
5. In the course of an investigation of the Spietzer weighing contract,
which Avas made by me, assisted by Special Agent Nevin, evidence
was presented showing that three or four assistant weighers and foremen had taken money from importers and the contractor for giving
out lists of weights takeii in advance of the time of making returns of
the same to the custom-house.
The name of one of the assistant weighers is Spicer; his foreman was
another. His name, as well as others involved, I do not now remember.
The superintendent was also included. All of which appears in the report of Sxiecial Agent Nevin and myself. It was believed at the time
that false weights Avere returned to the custom-house; but as the goods
had gone into consumption, had lost their identity, we were unable to
procure evidence to support this belief. As proof was made, however,
that money had actually been paid by importers and the contractor
for extra services, as it was clainied, the natural conclusion was that
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
361
fraudulent practices entered into the transaction, as business men do
not pay oiit nioney to GoA^ernment officials A\^ithout receiving value in
some form. Not having a copy of the report, I am unable to giA^e details at this time, nor names of individuals, but they should be of record
in the sxie.cial agent's office in NCAV York and at the Department.
It was further shoAvn in the rexiort that the contractor's foremen and
laborers had in numerous instances been alloAved to read the weights
from the beam, instead of that work being performed by the assistant
weigher or his foremen in person.
6. I think the law in resxiect to rates of duty and differences betAveen
importers and collectors which have resulted in suits can be amended
so as to advance the interests of the Government and simplify the business, but am not xirexiared to submit any views upon the subject at
this'time. I have no knowledge as to the number of suits now pend-.
ing in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore; nor whether
they can be classified, &c.; nor the nnmber of suits; nor of the time
each suit has been at issne and ready for trial.
I believe a x^lan can be devised by the officials named in the inquiry
by which these suits and new suits as they come up may be more
promptly disxiosed of. One element of the pl^iR, it seems to me, should
be that this class of suits be given precedence on the docket so far as
is consistent with pnblic interests.
It Avould seem that if the Government collect interest as a x^art of
damages and costs in suits brought on bonds for recovery of duties,
that the Government is in equity bound to pay interest at the same
rates on suits brought against collectors for recovery of duties adjudged
to have been illegally collected.
. I am of the oxiinion that the existing judicial system can be made
sufficient if worked efficiently, and to that end a better class of district
attorneys than those that have been apxiointed in some districts in the- .
past should be selected, who have beeh mere politicians, and paid little
or no attention to, or at least were indolent and inefficient in, the xierformance of their official duties.
7. I have no knowledge upon this subject.
8. I answer as above, not having been in New York for several years
X3ast.
9. As to New York and the other large Atlantic xiorts, I am unable
to answer this question.
*
As to Detroit and Galveston, and other ports in this special agency
district, I answer:
There Avas ho evidence that the appraiser at Detroit ever rexiorted to
the collector false dutiable values during the time I was in charge
there. Neither A7as there such evidence at the other, ports in that'
agency district, nor is there any such evidence in the eighth agency
district.
I cannot answer the latter part of this inquiry, as I have no knowledge uxion the subject, having heen stationed at points remote from .
other special agents.
.
10. I have reason to believe that there is now, and has recently and
for several years past been, much confusion, doubt, and conflict of
opinion among local appraisers, also among collectors acting as such,
respecting the elements to be ascertained in order to fix dutiable values.
The tariff is so comxilicated ih/its nature that men may honestly
differ in regard to the niethods to be used in ascertaining dutiable
values, the proper classification, and rate of duty to be assessed.
362
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Take the matter of istle, which is imported to a large extent from
Mexico. I understand that some of the general axipraisers declare it
to be free, under 636 of the act of March 3, 1883, while others say it is
dutiable at $15 per ton, under 333 b of the same act, in which latter decision I agree. Heyl, in his ^^Import Duties" book for that year,
places it at $15 per ton. The xireponderance of the decisions, however,
place it upon the free-list, and the Departnient, in Synopsis No. 6293,
changed its ruling previously made^upon the subject.
I see no reasoii to doubt that the time and place and the standard to
be apxilied are already defined by the statutes, and yet different appraisers and examiners at remote distances from each other may, differ
in their construction of the statutes. It Avould seem that those examiners and appraisers who are located near the place of production
or manufacture, or both, of an imported article, and are familiar with
it, are the best judges of its character, and, consequently, are the besto
judges of its proxier classification and the rate of duty to be assessed
uxion the same.
. 11. I do not see how a safe average can now be made of the percentage of undervaluations, except in recent importations, which have
not lost their identity by reason of manufacture into the completed
article of nierchandise.
12. The examiner, I think, is primarily resxionsible, except ih those
cases where the deputy appraiser or the chief makes or superintends
the examinatioii in xierson, for any false returns of values to the collector. .The salary ofthe appraiser at Detroit, who makes his own examinations, is $3,000 x^er annum. There are no appraisers or examiners
in the State of Texas, the various collectors acting as such, although
they trust the most of the work to the deputy collectors and inspectors.
In such,cases, I should say that the collector would be primarily resxionsible for any false valuation that might be placed npon imported
merchandise. The appraisers, as a rule, in my opinion, merely certify
to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by his deputies
and examiners, except in appeal cases or in case of a difference of
opinion arising between the deputy and examiner and the importer.
13. I have no knowledge upon this subject, although it has been a
matter of common report that consular officers, in Canada especially,
have been suspected of assisting importers and shippers in false evidence of foreign values, and it is a notorious fact that not one in ten of
our consuls in Canada or Mexico ever see the goods to which they
certify before their exportation to the United States, but merely sigh
the certificates of foreign value as they are presented by the shipper,
except in those cases where the shipper has his certificates prepared
for him in the consulate, for which a fee is charged. In such cases
they usually make some inquiry as to the xilace and time of purchase,
prices xiaid, &c. Even then the consular officer seldom ever puts himself to the trouble of niaking a xiersonal inspection of the goods, although
they may be going through under consular seal.
14. I do not know that false values haA^e been habitually and systematically reported to the scA^eral collectors. If such has been the
practice, then it can/aw'Z?/ be said, I think, that the failure to collect
the full amount of duty conies of dishonesty and a guilty knowledge of
such false valuation on the part of the appraisers, deputy appraisers,
and examiners, and it folloAA^s that no official would be guilty of making false returns of values without compensation pf some sort from the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
363
beneficiaries. It has been a notorious fact for years past that corruption of this character has existed in New York. If in NCAV York, there
is no good reason for believing that the same practices have not preA^ailed at other xiorts as oxiportunity presented. I do not know that
a regular corruxition-fund was CA^er raised for this purxiose, and can
hardly believe that merchants, regular importers, would, be willing to
openly subscribe to such a fund, although it is quite probable that certain brokers have xirocured moneys from importers to be used for this
xmrxiose. I haA^e heard it stated for a fact, no names being used, that
such Avas the case ; also, that money was nsed at the Dex)artment with
chiefs of divisions, who pass upon such questions primarily, in procuring decisions favorable to the brokers' clients. ,
15. There is no reason to believe that if false valuations in the past
have come of bribery or venality, the practice may not be as successful
in the future, unless an exceptionally honest set of officials are employed at remunerative salaries commensurate Avith the duties they are
called uxion to xierform.
If business firms can afford to employ- experts at salaries ranging
from $5,000 to $10,000 per annum, with expenses added while abroad
making xDurchases for their respective houses of a single line of goods,
the Government cannot expect to procure the same sort of intelligence
and experience and integrity in the person of one who receives at the
highest as appraiser $4,000 per annuni, and who is expected to be an
exxiert as to all lines of goods imported in his district. Examiners, Avho
receiA^e a salary of $1,800 per annuni, cannot be expected to be as proficient in their duties, or so far above temptation simply because of
their holding a Governnient position and conimission, as are those
who, engaged by business firms, receive double or treble the amount
of Avages the Government official receives.
16. I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would
be of benefit to the revenue, and would put a stop to bribsry and corruption, so far as values are concerned, and would only give a chance
for it on the part of those officials charged with the duty of ascertaining quantities. So far as I am advised, the chief cause for complaint
against officials, has been against those charged with the duty of ascertaining values. Of course, weighers, gaugers, and others may be
bribed under specific as well as under ad valorem rates of duty, but
the number so thrown in the way of temptation in the form of bribes,
&c., for false returns would be reduced, and I believe that the working force ill the appraiser's department could be curtailed to a great
extent without a corresxionding increase in the other departments.
The benefit to be derived from a change to a strictly specific rate of
dnty, wherever practicable, wonld be very great in the smaller collection districts, where few importations are had, and the officials have
but scanty means of ascertaining values, whereas, if the rates were
specific, no such difficulties would be encountered. . '
I do not think, however, that specific rates of duty can be applied to
all textile fabrics, though to many of them it can be.
17. So far as my experience goes, there has been no perceptible
increase of false reports by appraisers since the repeal of the so-called
^'moiety law," in 1874, although there has arisen since that time a distrust on the part of appraisers and others of their ability to force an '
increase in values honestly believed to be dutiable, as by the repeal of
that act the burden of proving intent has been thrown upon the Gov-
364
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ernment, and the right to examine books, papers, invoices, &c., has
been takeii aAvay from the Governnient, or so hedged about with diffi^ culties as to render it inoperative and void.
'
The repeal of the '^moiety act" has also had the effect to decrease
to a large extent the number and value of seizures for undervaluation
and in smuggling cases.
»
The United States seems to be the only civilized country on the globe
that does not offer a premium for inforniation in regard to an infraction
pf its laAVS.
18. I hardly think it would be practicable in large consular districts, snch as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consuls to
Xiersonally examine articles to be shipped thence to American ports,
. and to verify the correctness of invoiced values in each individual instance, but I believe it can be done in a sufficient number of cases, so
that the consular officer would be enabled to arrive, approximately, at
correct values. At the smaller consulates in Euroxie and in Canada
and Mexico I believe such an examinatioii and verification can be had
without delays of a vexatious nature. I think it very likely that foreign governments would not abstain from making complaints to this
Government if Americaii consuls made vexatious delays in examining
and certifying invoices.
I find, in looking over the invoices on file in the Galveston customhouse, that the consular fees for certifying them in London, Liverpool,
and. other points in England is fifteen shillings, (155.) Inquiries made
of importers ih town confirm these
figures.
19.' I have to say, in reply to this inquiry, that I can see no good
reasoii for withholding from the executive or judicial powers greater
jurisdiction than UOAV exists to interfere with the ascertainment of the
dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy
ad valorem duties. It seenis to me that the Secretary of the Treasury
should be endowed with xiOAver to rehear any case that may have been
Xireviously xiassed upon by the axixiraisers, and that authority should
be A^ested in him to revicAv all such cases nxDon proper axixieal, and that,
his decision should be final, subject only to a further hearing by the
judicial poAvers. A limit as to time and amount involved might, in
justice to the Government and importers, be established.
20. A sexiarate paxier in response to this inquiry Avill be submitted
as soon as practicable.
2,1. It has always been my belief that in New York especially,
passengers have x^aid insxiectors for facilitating and hastening the
landing and examination of their baggage; also as bribes to pass
articles subject to duties withont the payment of the same. In one
case Inspector Gilchrist was detected and dismissed the service.
Boarding officers have also been treated to meals while on board vessels arriving at that port, including wines, liquors, and cigars; and I
hold that Avhen such faA^ors are bestowed upon a Government official
by the ofiicers or OAvners of such vessels, some sort of compensation is
exxiected in return. As before stated, in answer to another inquiry,
there is no way of xireventing such x'>i'actices except by placing the.
most tried and trustAvorthy insxiectors in charge of the work, and by
changing them off from time to time, so that no one officer or set of,
officers shall be exclusively employed on that duty; and that when an
officer is caught in such dishonest practices he be arrested and tried
for the offence; also, that the passenger paying the bribe be prosecuted
and punished.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF.THE TREASURY.
365
22. I believe that the rate of duty on many articles is too high,
thereby offering a xiremium to smugglers and dishonest shixixiers, and
officials as well, to attempt an CA^asion of the law. 23. So far as my knowledge extends, Avhat is true of New York in
regard to the failure to enforce the rcA^enue laws is generally true, and,'
for the same or similar reasons, at all the Other large Atlantic and interior ports of the country.
24. The only reason I can give for the failure to conixilain of and
arrest and try the persons or officials concerned in niaking false returns
or reports to the collectors of dutiable values is, that the guilty parties
have made interest Avith higher officials through friends in Congress
and out^obbyists—Avhich has been sufficient to protect them from
punishment and discourage the xierson who makes the comxilaint.
I am, sir, very resxiectfully, •
•. ^
A. M. BAENEY,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C. .
No. 13.
.OFFICE OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Galveston, Tex., September 19, 1885.
SIR : In reply to Dexiartment confidential circular of the 27tli ultimo,
and especially to Query No. 20, I have the honor to subniit the following report, xiremising the same by the statenient that my office is• not
suxiplied with the statutes, comxilete, Avhich give the information
npon Avhich to base a comxirehensive view of the subject; neither does
the custom-house records furnish the desired data upon Avhich to found
a satisfactory relation of facts uxion thesubject, to wit: ^'The existing
rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad A^alor.em and a sxiecific
rate," &c. So far as the records show, the rate of duty on imported
wool, imported from foreign conntries previous to and including the
year 1860, was 30 per cent, ad valorem. (Act of July 30, 1846.)
Under the act of July 30, 1864, the rates Avere increased as follows:
Yalue 12 cents per pound or less, duty 3 cents per xiound; value over
12 cents and not more than 24 cents x^er pound, dnty 6 cents xier xiound;
over 24 cents per pound and not more than 32 cents per xiound, duty
10 cents per pound and, in addition, 10 per cent, ad valorem; value
over 32 cents per pound, duty 12 cents xier xiound and 10 per cent, ad
valorem. Scoured wool, three times the above rates.
In other than ordinary condition, as heretofore x^i^actised, br if
•changed for the purpose of evading duties, or value reduced by admixture of dirt or other foreign substance, then the duty on all classes to
be 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Different qualities
placed in same xiackages, the average value of which shall exceed 24
cents per pound, the duty is to be 10 cents x^er pound and 10 x^er cent,
ad valorem. If different qualities in same xiackages, invoiced at same
price, average less than 10 per cent, of the value of the best quality, as
per appraisement, then the value of the best xiiece fieece or quality shall
be taken as the standard of value of the whole bale, or invoice or bales,
as the case may be.
366
REPORT O F - T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Under act of March 2,1867, the rates of duty on imported wool were
fixed as follows:
CLASS 1. Clothing-wool—Value at last port, excluding port charges
at last port of importation, 32 cents or less per pound, duty 10 cents
per xiound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 32 cents per pound,
12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. CLASS 2. Combing wool.—Thirty-two cents per pound or less, duty
10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 32 cents
per pound, duty 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem.
CLASS 3. Carpet-wools.—Vsilne 12 cents per pound, duty 3 cents per
pound; value more than 12 cents per pound, duty 6 cents per pound.
The act of July 14, 1870, adds to class No. 2 ^^Canada long wools."In other than ordinary conditions, by attempts to evade payment of
the higher rates of duties, by admixture of dirt, &c., twice the rate of
duties provided for is to be charged; mixed grades to pay duties according to the appraised value of the best bale, fleece, or package in
any one invoice. Wool of the first class washed, to pay twice the rate
charged for the same quality umvashed, and wool of all classes scoured,
to pay three times the rate on unwashed. Wool on the skins of sheep
or the Angora goat, unmanufactured, washed or unwashed, to pay duty
at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem.
The act of June 6, 1872, reduces the rate of duty on all classes of
wool to 90 per cent, of those heretofore xirevailing.
Under the act of March 3, 1883; the rates of duty on imported wool
were fixed as follows, to wit:
CLASS 1. Clothing-wool. —Invoice value 30 cents or less per pound, duty
10 cents per pound; value over 30 cents per pound, duty 12 cents per
pound, and if washed, twice those rates.
CLASS 2. Combing wools.—Yalue 30 cents or less per pound, duty 10
cents per pound; value over 30 cents per pound, duty 12 cents per
pound.
CLASS 3. Carpet-wools.—Value 12 cents per pound or less, duty 2J
cents per pound; value over 12 cents per pound, duty 5 cents per
pound.
In all classes, if the wool is scoured, the rate of duty is to be three
times that to be assessed npon umoashed wool; and if the several classes
are imported in any other than their ordinary condition, as to the admixture of dirt or other foreign substances, or an attempt is made to
evade the payment of duty according to the true grade or quality of
the goods, then twice the rates of duty specified in the act are chargeable. Wool on the skin to pay same rates of duty as clipped wool,
nnder such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
It seems proper to inquire what is the true intent and meaning of
the language of the statute as to the remoteness of the strain of improvement in the breed of sheep which will operate tb carry the higher
rate of duty? It is a well-known fact, I believe, that the original importation of Merino sheep was made into Mexico by Cortez or his followers, after the conquest of that country by him, acting under the
authority conferred by the Spanish Government. If a remote strain of
blood is to be carried back to that period, then all AVOOI imported from
Mexico shonld be classed as improved.
I am led to make this inquiry or suggestion from the fact that several
importations of Mexican wool have been made in bond for transporta-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
367
tion and exportatioii to Canada, thence, as I believe, to be reimported
into this country as pf the lowest grade of Class No. 3, carpet. AVOOIS,
paying duty at the rate ,of 2^- cents x^er pound, as unimproved wool of
that class.
I am not able to give any definite ideas or suggestions as to the working of the present complicated rates of duty that are now in force, other
than those embraced herein and in my rexDort of the 5th instant.
I am, sir, very resxiectfully,
A. M. BAENEY,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
•
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C,
No. 14.
B. A. NEVIN—Originally appointed Special Agent May 18, 1876.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
New Orleans, September 8, 1885.
S I R : I haA^e the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular
letter of the 27th ultimo, niarked ^^confidential," desiring rexilies to a
series of tAventy-four interrogatories relating to customs laws and practices of customs officers, and respectfully subniit the following, with
the remark that my exxierience for the pastfiA^eyears has been confined
to such business as is found at the Gulf and South Atlantic ports, at
which points less than three millions of revenue is now collected annually.
To first interrogatory: I believe that in the main ipiports have been
properly classified, the one imxiortant exception being that of paper
cut into form for use in making '' cigarettes.'' On the 6th of March,
1884, on an apxieal from the action of the appraiser at this x>ort in
assessing an importation of paper cut into forms for use as cigarettes
at 70 per cent., as smokers' articles, the Department decided that, as
the paper was not the cigarette-paper of commerce, it should pay 15
per cent., as a manufacture of xiaxier. In June last a large importation of paper cut into the same forms was made by H. Isaacs. Under
the decision referred to, the apxiraiser of this port passed the goods at
15 per cent., as a manufacture of xiaper. A sample of the goods having
been submitted to the Department from this office, with a statenient of
the case, the Department decided, July 2, that the goods should xiay 70
per cent., as smokers' articles. The difference between the two articles
was this: the former Avas imported to be manufactured into a cigarette
and then sold for consumption ; the latter was imxiorted to be manufactured into a cigarette-book and then sold for consumxition. The
amount involved in that one invoice was $1,007, for which the Government must sue. The bulk of importations on this coast pay specific
duties.
.
N
2. There is no evidence in my possession to show that articles xiaying
specific duty have not xiaid the full amount of duty.
3. Invoice measurements are tested by actual measurement until the
character of the manufactory for accuracy is established, after ivhich
less measurements are taken. Of the heavier fabrics, sections are
368.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
measured and the iveight taken, then the weights of whole pieces are
estimated. False invoice measurements are usually the work of the
purchaser or his foreign agent. In my experience I have never detected such practice in hianufacturers' invoices.
4. At the smaller ports it is the practice to send all packages of textile fabrics and fancy goods to the axipraiser. The rule of sending
one in ten is axixilied only to wines, case-liquors, fancy groceries, &c. •
I have no evidence of fraud or attempted fraud in this respect on the
Xiart of either imxiorters or officers.
5.- I have no evidence of false Av^eighing or measuring. There has
been a xiroportion of incompetent assistant Aveighers employed at this
]iort at all times, but their Avork has been closely Avatched and supervised by competent men, go that I know of no recorded evidence of
loss from this cause. The importance of this branch of the service is
not always fully considered in niaking appointments for it.
6. It is my opinion that differences between collectors of customs
and iniporters growing ont of decisions by those officers or the Treasury
Departnient, which have resulted in suits, are due mainly tothe interference of brokers or revenue laAvyers; that as a matter of fact it is not
important to a general merchant what duty he pays or on what value,
so the demand on him is made legally and is nniform in its operation;
that as a matter of fact his wares are sold at a. price based on the duty
he pays, and not on what he ought to have paid, unless perhaps by •
error or collusion he has procured the xiassing of them at a rate less
than the accepted lawful duty. Protests of the character which now
pester the Department are not the outpourings of an oppressed merchant, but the apxieal of a broker who is after contingent fee. I think
the law for disposing of such suits does need amendment in such a
manner as to necessitate their settlement ivithin a fixed period of time;
the interest question woul d then be a less important one. The ' ^ Charges
and conimission cases" a t N e w Y o r k is a notorious instance in which
brokers and attorneys receiA^ed hundreds of thousands of dollars bf
interest on claims for money first paid by consumers, then sued for,
and recovered from the United States, as unjustly xiaid by importers.
I think if these suits Avere summarily disposed of as they arose, there
Avould be less of them; but how to accomxilish this lawfully I am unable to suggest. '
^
7. Have no knowledge A'^ithin hve years.
8. Have no knowledge within five years.
9. Have no knowledge within ^ve years.
10. There must be.confiicting opinions among appraising officers and
elsewhere regarding the elements comprising the true market value of
merchandise, although the laAV seems to be quite clear. This is evinced
by confiicting reports by the former and confiicting decisions by the
customs division of the Dexiartment. In my oxDinion, revenue bills
should, before being finally xiassed on by Congress, be subniitted to a
committee of practical customs officers, Avho Avould be most likely to
detect ambiguities which, if not removed, Avould lead to grievous complications in their enforcement. The most difficult points to^satisfactorily establish are '' the niarket'' and what charges .are to be considered
as included in the value of'^the article—i. e., the box containing a certain number of cigars, or a carton containing a dozen hose, &c.
11. I do not think a safe estiniate of undervaluation in any period
of time can be made, for the reason that it is exceedingly doubtful if
toiPORt OF tHE SECRETA/RY OF THE TREASURY.
369
we have in any case of consigned merchandise reached the true market
value, unless that value was arrived at from a calculation based on the
true ^^dollar price" in theUnited States.^
12. In my opinion, at a port like New York the responsibility for a
return of value must lie with the examiners, for the reason'that, without
more delay than would be tolerated, no assistant appraiser in any division could re-examine all merchandise xiassing through it, or even samples of it. The salaries of these officers vary from $1,800 to $2,500 per
annum. Excexit when cases are specially called to their attention,
appraisers are necessarily (at. the large ports) ignorant of the values
' certified by them, and in many instances the assistant appraiser is
equally so.
.
13. I have no knowledge on this point.
14. While I can state that within my experience at New York false
values were habitually certified to the collector, I do not think that as
a rule such action on the part of axixiraising officers has.come of dishonesty. I know that sharp lookout was kept for collusion, and officers Avho were discovered xiromptly rexiorted by officers of the Dexiartment. In view of the many temptations that surround an examiner
on small pay, it would be manifestly unjust to allege fraud in the absence of proof that his action was not based on ignorance. -I believe
that where nioney or other valuable consideration is tendered to an
officer, it is done individually, and usually by representatives of foreign establishments, who, having little to fear in the way of competition from American imxiorters a t this time, are exceedingly jealous of
each other.
15. I think that so long as a duty remains some will seek to avoid it
by bringing corrupt influences to bear, and soihe officers will succumb
to those influences; and nothing is so tempting to an officer Avith large
responsibility in the form of a family and a small salary than a liberal,
credit at a dry-goods store with almost a certainty that the bills will
not be presented if everything runs smoothly for the proprietor. It
makes things pleasant for him at home; he has received no bribe, has
taken no present, bought nothing at less than retail price; his conscience is easy, and he is in no danger, for the merchant dare not move
in the matter for reasons that are obvious.
16.
.
17. Undervaluations have been on the increase since the passage of
the act of June 22, 1874. It was comparatively nothing before that
time. The law of 1863 relating to the seizure of books and papers was
a great protection to the revenue, and was only objectionable in the
manner of its enforcement by certain officers. Instead of correcting
the abuse, the anti-moiety act was conceived and became a law, at
once destroying the importing trade in the hands of American merchants and turning it over to foreign manufacturers, and costing the
revenue untold inillions.
18. I have never placed any reliance on consular certificates to invoices, for the reason that I have rarely found their representations as
to values correct. They have no weight with merchant appraisers, iu
case an advance is made, and I believe it physically impossible for a
consular officer at any of the larger foreign ports outside of Canada to
arrive at information in regard to values of shipments in a form that
would be a reliable basis for action by an appraiser in time to make
it available, even if the officer was inclined to risk his social position
24. A
370
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
by adopting the methods necessary to procure it. I would greatly prefer a value or price arrived at by presenting samples to the special buyers
of the large American importing houses in New York. A well-organized sample burean in New York, with a branch in Boston and, say,
two other ports, would be of great assistance to the service in arriving.
at true values and detecting fraudulent undervaluations. The consular fee for certifying invoices, withbut regard to amount of invoice,
is $2.50.
19. I believe that any plan adopted for the ascertainment of the
true dufciable value which would command the respect of merchants
wonld be a benefit to the service. To be just, it must only result in
treating all alike.
^
It is the attempts of the few to gain an unjust advantage in trade that
creates the present confusion.
2 0 . —•
.
21. There is no doubt of t h e ' payment of money by passengers to
inspectors of customs to facilitate the xiassing of their baggage, as well
as to conceal smuggling in baggage; and I have never been able to
devise but one X)lan for the prevention of this abuse, and that is a severe
one. Treat the baggage as axipraiser's xiackages, cause it to be examined separate and axiart from the passenger, and change the examiners frequently.
22. The duty on many articles has been largely reduced, but smuggling and undervaluation continue. It is not so much the desire to
avoid the law and get goods cheapen that impels the smuggler as it
is to gain an nnfiiir advantage over his fellows in the trade, consequently, whatever the duty, he will endeavor to avoid it, in whole or
in part. I think the evidence will show that there Avas more smuggling in x:)roportion to volume of business before the war than since
the tariff acts of 1861.
:
23.
.
24. There are numerous reasons why the.guilty parties in the numerous fraudulent transactions which have been brought to light in the
past few years have not been punished, among which are—
First. Want of such discixiline in the Department as would at once
dispense with- the services of an incompetent, lukewarm, or corrupt
official, and xirotect those who are competent and willing to act.
Second. Lukewarmness on the part of the prosecuting officers of the
Government.
Third. The difficulty of procuring evidence sufficient to convict, for
want of power to search for and seize books and papers.
This report is submitted somewhat hurriedly, owing to my having
been engaged on some special local matters continuously since its receipt on the 2d instant, and now a telegraxihic order requiring me to
proceed to Key West Avould necessitate a longer delay than the special
instructions in regard to the circular seemed, to contemplate for a
reply.
Very respectfully,
D. A. NEVTN,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasuiy.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
371
No. 15. )
E. H. HINDS—Appointed Special Agent April 15, 18G9.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
New York, September 18, 1886.
S I R : I havejfche honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department's
printed circulair of the 27th ultimo, and to submit the following in response to the several inquiries contained therein:
Inquiry 1.—Whenever an error is made in the rate of duty against
the importer, it is quickly detected by him or his broker, and an appeal
taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, as provided by law. In case
the error is against the Government, however, it is not so likely to be
discovered, for the importer is not apt to find fault with such an assessment, and the advisory classification of the axipraiser usually passes as
correct in the ordinary course of business at the custom-house.
On some articles the rates of duty prescribed by law have not been
collected within the last few years at some of our ports. To illustrate
this fact, I need only refer to wool at the ports of New York and Philadelphia, and proprietary medicines at New York. At Philadelphia
large quantities of cashmere fieece and cheviot britch, clearly dutiable
under the law as wool of class 2, have for several years been passed as
wool of class 3, whereby one-half of the legal duties have been evaded.
Another evasion of the proper rate of duty on wool at New York and
Philadelphia has occurred as follows :
The duty on this article is a specific one, levied in an ad valorem
manner. The law has always provided, since the act of June 30, 1864,
that all charges at the last port of shipment were fo be excluded in
estimating the dutiable value. Within a few years certain shippers
and importers have conspired to have wool, whose actual value rendered it dutiable at the higher rate, invoiced at a price Avhich Avould
admit it at the lower rate, and to add to the invoice as commissions or
^^charges at the last port of shipment" a sufficient sum to cover the
discrepancy between the nominal invoice price and the price actually
paid. The proof of this assertion is found in the various reports of
consuls and special agents, printed in Executive Document 101 of the
Forty-eighth Congress, first sessioh. The efforts of eonsiils and special
agents to correct this abuse by bringing the facts to the attention of
the appraisers at NCAV York and Philadelphia, and their fiiilure to
accomplish that result, are shown, to some extent, in the above-named
document, and are otherwise known to the Department.
The evidence as to the improper rates at which a large line of proprietary medicines have heretofore been passed at New York is set
forth in a report submitted by me nnder date of April 21 of the present
year, and the fact that the importers now acquiesce in the levying of
a duty of 50 per cent, on goods that Avere formerly entered and re-^
turned as dutiable at only 25 per cent, is conclusive proof of the incorrectness of the former classification.
I have learned within a few days that certain merchandise imported
for sale and clearly dutiable at 45 per cent, as ^' manufactures of metal"
is being regularly passed in New York as ''collections of antiquities,"
free of duty.
I might cite many other instances of erroneous classification, but the
foregoing are believed to be sufficient for the purpose.
372
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Inquiry \2.—There is evidence that on goods paying a purely specfic
rate of duty the full ainount of dnty prescribed by law has "not been
collected in some instances. This has arisen, for the most xiart, from^
carelessness on the part of weighers and gaugers, a disregard of the.
provisions of the regulations, and the adoxition of incorrect niethods
of ascertaining Aveights or gauge.
/
.
.
For example: In August of last, year, I received information that
•sugar Avas being incorrectly weighed at Philadelxihia. On investigation, I discovered that an arrangenient had been made between the
collector and the imxiorters Avhereby a certain allowance in Aveight was
made on each hogshead for drainage, evaporation, &c. On a large
cargo the duty thus saved to the iniporter Avould aniount to from $300
to $500. I at once rexiorted the facts to the Department, and the xiractice was discontinued.
At Boston, between the years 1867 and.1872, extensive Irauds Avere
perpetrated by the return of false Aveights of sugar by the Government
weigher, through which loss to the .revenue Avas estimated at some
$40,000. The facts in this case are set forth in Dexiartment decision,
Synoxisis 4588. I believe that these cavSes of false, or incorrect weights
are coniparatively rare, and can be xirevented by a xiroper suxiervision
of the Aveigher's force.
Inquiry 3.'—Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are tested by
examiners, from time to time, by actual measurement of some xiortion
of the invoice.
Inquiry 4.—I am unable to give any evidence of collusion in the
past f A years betAveen imxiorters and entry clerks or deputy collecCV
tors in the ordering of false or bogus examination xiackages. Several
years ago this practice Avas prevalent at thA xDort of New York, but the
adoxition of a new practice, wherebj^ entri LH were distributed indiscrimI
inately among the ordering deputies, .resulted, as was believed, in the
b?eaking up of this system-of fraud.- It is true that snch frauds are
, still xiossible, and could'only be detected by accident of by the ordering of other packages on the invoice by the apxiraiser; but I have recently had no susxiicion of their existence.
Inquiry 5.—I know of no false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing
on the wharves of recent date, excexit that referred to in resxionse to
Inquiry 2. The actual Aveighing at the large ports is done by assistant
weighers, Avho receive from $3.50 to $4 per diem. Between the different assistant weighers at any port there Avill be a great difference in
respect to judgment, accuracy, and dispatch of business. It is the
duty of the chief Aveigher to supervise and instruct these assistant
weighers, and to occasionally test their Aveights. Where this duty is
properly and fiiithfully xierformed, I believe there is little danger of
loss to the revenue throngh either dishonesty or carelessness on the
part of assistant weighers.
Inquiry 6.—As I am now situated, I have not access to the data that
would enable me to make a suitable response to this inquiry.
Inquiry 7.—The classes of articles on which there has been a failure
to collect the proper amount of duty at New York during recent years,
through undervaluation, are mainly as follows: Silks, gloves, embroideries, hosiery, Avorsteds, dress-goods', china and glass Avare, aniline dyes, varnishes, and linens.
The evidence of the failure to collect the proper amount of duties on
these goods cannot Successfully be controverted. Not only wiU tho
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY^
873
testimony of honest imxiorters be unanimous as to the fact that they
have been practically excluded from the inixiortation of these articles
through the undervaluation inaugurated and successfully carried on
under the consignment system, but the records of the courts and the
testimony presented to the reaxipraising boards bear conclusive proof
on this point.
Inquiry 8.-—This failure to check undervaluations at New York has
come about X3artly through the ignorance, xiartly through the indolence,
and, I susxiect, partly through the dishonesty of custonis officials. The
tap-root of the Avhole evil, however, is ih the system of consignment.
Previous to 1870, American merchants purchased in the markets of
Euroxie and imxiorted into this country all the classes of goods before
mentioned. Little by little, however, they found themselves undersold and outstrixixied in our markets by a new class of comxietitors,
Avlio receiA^ed their goods directly from the foreign manufacturers at
invoice prices greatly below the true market value, to be sold on commission. B[ad a vigorous effort then been made by our custonis officials,
aided by honest imxiorters, the danger might have been averted or
reduced to a minimum; but, unfortunately, this Avas neglected, and in
a very short time the Anierican merchants^were compelled to procure
the goods needed in their trade from these consignees, and, as the foreign manufacturers were then so strong in their xiosition as to refuse to
sell to American imxiorters excexit through their consignees, apxiraising
officers soon lost the means of ascertaining the actual niarket values.
It is, perhaxis, Avorthy of remark that the gross abuses of this consignment system sxirang uxi directly after the xiassage of the act of
June 22, 1874, ''to amend the customs laws and to rejieal nioieties,"
which act rexiealed substantially all former acts xiroviding for the seiz^
ure of books and papers, and rendered the xmnishment of offenders or
the confiscation of goods extremely difficult, by xiroviding in section 16
that the intent should in all cases be subniitted to the jury as a sexiarate
Xiroposition.
It is true that the act referred to seems to proA^de for the seizure of
books and xiapers, but under such conditions as to enable the dishonest '
importer to supxiress the evidences of his crimes and baffle the ends of
justice.
But CA^en with all the disadvantages arising from that act, the revenue need not have suffered to-so great aii extent, nor the business of
honest importers been so seriously affected, if apxiraising officers at New
York had availed themselves of the xiower xilaced in their hands by
section 2922, EcAased Statutes, which authorizes them to call imxiorters
before them and examine them under oath, and compel them, under
penalty, to xirocure all xiapers and records tending to show the true
market value of any iniported merchandise. The facts that might
have been elicited from such an examination Avould have enabled the
apxiraising officers, in most cases, to xirotect the interests .of the Goyernment.
It is very difficult to discriminate between dishonesty and ignorance
on the x^art of appraising officers in their action as to niarket values.
By section 2902, Eevised Statutes, appraisers are made the sole judges
of value, and it is next tb impossible to examine the mental operations
which have led to aJny conclusion on their jpart. What would seem to
one apx')raiser to be conclusive proof of undervaluation would perhaxis
fail to convince another who was equally honest; and even when a
374
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
false return may have been procured by bribery, the appraiser or examiner can usually find "reasons as plenty as blackberries" to justify
or excuse his action ; and in that case his judgment, not his honesty,
is usually called in question.
I knoAV of no reliable legal evidence to show guilty knowledge or
"consxiiracy on the x'>art of the higher class of Treasury or customs officials, though my susxiicions have often been aroused at what appeared .
to me to be most extraordinary conclusions and actions on their part.
The articles affected by such a practice AA^ould -be those mentioned
in my response to Inquiry No. 7, and nearly all others bearing a high
ad valorem rate of diity. The places from which these articles are
shixiped are chiefly as follows: Lyons, Zurich, Horgen, and Elberfeld,
for silks.; St. Galle, for embroideries; Berlin, Naxiles, Brussels,Aix-laChapelle, ahd Paris, for gloves; Bradford, Breslau, Kiel, and Brunn,
for worsteds; Berlin and Paris, for dress-goods; Chemnitz, for hosiery.;
Prague, Sonneberg, and Limoges, for glassware and china; London
and Liverxiool, for varnishes ; Belfast and Dunfermline, for linens;
Berlin, Basle,- Lyons, and London, for anilines. These articles are fbr
the most x^art shipped by the manufacturers to their agents or consignees in NCAV York. At the other large ports there are occasional
instances of undervaluation and incorrect returns by appraising officers,
but not in the same x'>i"OXiortion nor as systematically conducted as at
New York, for the reason that there are very few consignees of foreign
merchandise outside of that xiort.
In cases Avhere consuls or sxiecial agents have called attention to undervaluations , and false or incorrect reports of values by appraisers,
they have usually submitted x:)roofs of actual market values, frequently
over the signatures of, the very shippers Avliose goods are claimed to be
nndervalued.
Inquiry 9.—As to the conclusiveness of the evidence that false dutiable values have been returned by the apxiraisers to the collector, I
Avould say substantially as iu resxionse to Inquiry 8, that it is, in almost
all cases, difficult to prove Avhether the A^-alues have been returned
falsely—i. e., corruptly—as the result of bribery, or are due to the carelessness or ignorance of the axipraising officers. In the case of bribery,
(which I firmly believe has, to some extent, prevailed in New York,
though i am unable to present legal proof of it,) the only parties who
woufd liave a knowledge of it are the iniporter and the official, and
only the merest chance Avould ordinarily lead to its detection.
From 1869 to 1874 several, instances of such corrupt payment of
money by imxiorters to customs officers were discovered through the
seizure of the imxiorters' books and papers, under the then existing
laAVS; and as recently as 1880, in a case of imxiroper classification of
church vestments bronght to light by Special Agent Tichenor, it was
fonnd that the importing firm had paid an assistant axDpraiser and an
examiner large sums of money '-in the ivay of loans."
The rexiorting of false or incorrect values to the collector, either corruptly or through ignorance, has undoubtedly been in operation ever
since a high ad valorem rate of duty Avas imposed, and will exist as
long as such a tariff remains in force. The temptation of .large illegitimate gains, offered by such a tariff, are too great to be resisted by
many imxiorters who are otherwise considered honorable men, and nnder A'-arious guises of loans and xiresents they do not hesitate to influence
the action of appraising officers when occasion offers.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.'
375
Inquiry 10.—There is considerable doubt or confusion in the minds
of many examiners, assistant appraisers, and appraisers as to whether
they ought not* to take the sale price of a commodity purchased bona
Me in open market as the dutiable value, even Avhen such sale price is
known by them to be below the ruling market value, and has been
purchased at a discount conceded to the purchaser in consideration of
the extent of the purchase, the retention of his custom, or other outside considerations. Even the Department has in one notable instance taken the ground that such sale xirice Avas to be considered the
inarket value; for in a letter to the cpllector at Boston, dated AprU
21, 1884, ( " H . B. J . , ' 0 relative to a very large importation.of worsted
yarn at that port by the Washington Mills, at an invoice value notoriously below the rniing price at Bradford, the Department decided that
if there Vere two Avholesale prices, one for the English market and
another and lower price for the United States, J^he latter might be
taken as the basis for the assessment of duties.
I beg leave to call particular attention to this extraordinary letter,
which, though it seemed to revolutionize the methods prescribed by
laAV for the ascertainment of. market value, was never published in the
synoptical series. The tendency among appraising officers in cases of
bona fide purchases is to take into, consideration what appears to them
to be the equity of-the case, and to adopt the sale price as the market
value.
5
It is true that the time, place, and standard to be applied in determining dutiable values are already defined by seetion 2900 of the Eevised Statutes, which makes it the duty of appraising officers, "by all
reasonable ways and means in their power, to ascertain, estiniate, and
appraise the true and actnal market and wholesale price Cany invoice
or affidavit-thereto to the contrary notAvithstanding) of the merchandise at the time of exportation and in the principal markets of the
conntry whence the same has been imported into the United States."
In the majority of cases, however, the examiner, either through
Avhat he considers to be an "equitable vicAv of the matter," through
ignorance of the ruling niarket rates, or confidence in the integrity of
the importer, is content to accept such invoice values as correct.
Inquiiy 11.—On the classes of goods named in response to Inquiry 7,
I believe it Avould be safe to say that for the past eight years there has
been an average nndervaluation of 20 per cent., and on silks not less
than 30 per cent. It wonld be impossible to identify the articles now,
except such as may be represented by sample at^ the appraisers' offices.
The invoices can be in most cases identified, but in the absence of the
goods or samples they would be of little nse.
Inqitiry 12.—In the ordinary course of business, the examiner is
primarily and chiefly resxionsible for a false return to the collector. At
New York, for instance, the appraiser's office consists of ten divisions,
and these again are subdivided so as to secure an expert examiner for'
each class of goods. Except in cases where information is received
from outside sources, the appraiser would not be likely to have his
attention called to the values returned by the various examiners. At
this port, where from 800 to 1,000 invoices are acted upon daily, it will
be seen that it is physically impossible for the appraiser to scrutinize
all the invoices and correct erroneous returns of values, even if he had
a universal knowledge of market A-alues.
376
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The assistant appraisers are obliged to devote a considerable portion
of their time to the general business of their office, preparing reports
on cases bf appeal from their decisions as to rates of duty, official correspondence, and meeting importers or their agents on current work, so
that only a small part of their time can be devoted to the question of
values. It generally haxDpens that an assistant appraiser is particularly
familiar with the market values of certain lines of goods in his division,
and will give personal attention to those lines, but rely on his examiners for the correct appraisement of other lines. I am now speaking
of the ordinary course of business in the absence of suspicion or outside information. Of course, both the appraiser and assistant appraiser, on the receipt of information as to the undervaluation of anyparticular line or invoice, would give the matter their personal attention.
The salaries of examiners at the principal ports range from $1,200 to
$2,500 per annum. Ordinarily the apxiraisers at the large ports do
little more in respect to. market values than to certify to the facts found
by the examiners.
Inquiry 13.—I have no knowledge that any Government officials in
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or
connived at the presentation to the appraiser of false values, except
as hereinbefore stated.
Inquiry 14.—As indicated in response to Inquiry 8, it is generally
difficult to determine whether the reporting of false or incorrect values
'to the collector has resulted from.the dishonesty or ignorance of the
appraising officers. Obstinacy or stupidity on the part of an assistant
appraiser or his personal relations with the importer are sometimes
liable to be^construed into dishonesty. Actual bribery, from the very
nature of the case, is extremely difficult of legal proof. My belief is
that it has been resorted to in various ways, though I am unable to
furnish such legal proof as would be sufficient to convict. If money
has been paid to procure false reports or returns as to market values,
it has most undoubtedly been paid by the importers or consignees directly interested in the transaction, and the corruption-fund has been
raised a-nd disbursed by such dishonest imxiorters and consignees. Each
case has had its own peculiarities, and each importer has acted on his
own account. I have no suspicion that any general fund of this nature
has ever been raised for such purpose. Corruption of this sort known
to a large number of persons would almost inevitably leak out by accident or through the malice or fear of some one of the conspirators.
Inquiry 16.—So far as the false undervaluations have come from venality or bribery, there is little reason to hope that, nnder similar conditions, they will not be as siiccessful in the future as in the past.
So far as they have resulted at New York from ignorance or indolence,
I believe they will be in a great degree overcome by the methods adopted
and the changes in the personnel of the office that may be reconimended
from time to time by Appraiser McMullen.
Inquiry 16. —A change from ad valorem to specific rates would greatly
helxi to diminish a tendency to bribery, or atleast make it more diflicult to accomplish fraudulent results by such means, for the reason
that while it is next to impossible to guard against false A-alues where the
axipraiser is constituted by law the sole judge, it is comparatively easy,
with proper supervision, to control the matter of weight, gauge, and
measure. A false weight is a physical fact; easily susceptible of proof.
REFORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
377
but the detection of false values requires expert knowledge, sound
judgment, and untiring vigilance. ^
I believe that a specific rate can oe applied to all textile fabrics
after xiroper iuA^ esti gation and analysis; but unless extreme care be exercised, a sxiecific rate of duty on such goods will result in very disproportionate amounts or percentages of duty on goods of the same lines but
of different grades and values. If, hoAvever, it should be found that a
Avholly sxiecific rate Avould work unjustly on a few lines, so as to amount
to a phohibition on the lower or less valuable grades, then the difficulty
might be obviated by imposing a compound duty Avherein the ad valorem rate imposed shbuld to some extent equalize the percentage of
duties betAveen goods of inferior and superior qualities and values. This:
ad valorem rate, if any be found necessary, should not exceed 15 per
cent., so that no benefit could result to importers from undervaluations
unless such undervaluations were so gross as to be detected.
Agzm^i/17.^Undervaluation and false or incorrect rexiorts by'appraisers have undeniably increased since the passage of the act of
June 22,1874. That act so modified all previous legislation, especially
in resxiect to the seizure of books and papers and the kind and amount
of xiroof reqnired to convict an offender or confiscate his goods, that
defrauders of the rcA^enue have had A^ery little fear of the laws from
that day to this.
Inquiry 18.—In the large consular districts it Avould not be practicable for consuls to xiersonally exainine the articles shipped to this country or to verify the iuA^oice values, except in the case of staple goods
Aviiose values are Avell known. The late consul at Liverpool published
Aveekly, fbr several years, for the inforniation of collectors and appraising officers, a price-list of the leading articles of this character
sliix3ped froin his consnlar district, and the information so furnished
Avas frequently found to be of great valne. In respect to goods Avhose
price depends on newness or desirabilifcj^ of xiattern, or other adventitious reason, the consuls Avould not be able by any means at their
command to report the true value of every shipment.
^
It is quite xirobable that foreign governments would, through their
proxier rexircsentatives, protest against unnecessary and vexatious delays to which their citizens, shipxiing goods to this conntry, might be
subjected by the consuls if an attemxit should be made to Verify the
correctness of CAT-ery invoice.
The fees now exacted on CA^ery invoice is $2.50, andin addtion to this
there is, in the United Kingdom, a fee of 2 shillings, or 50, cents, for
the oath administered by a local magistrate as to the correctness of
the invoice. Elsewhere than within the United Kingdom no oath is
required on an invoice—only a declaration. Certified invoiceSsare not
usually xirocured on shipments of less than $100 in value, as collectors
are by law authorized to admit such goods to entry, in their discretion,
without a certified invoice.
Inquiry 19.—Whilfe there may be objections to the present method
of ascertaining and finally determining dutiable values by a general
appraiser and merchant apxiraiser, on the ground that the general apxiraiser is not usually an expert, and the nierchant may be either a
rival or a confederate of the importer, I am, nevertheless, of the opinion
that substantial justice is generally secured both for the Government
and the imxiorter when proper care has beevi exercised by the collector
in selecting the merchant appraiser. A decision of such questions by
378
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the judiciary, under the rules of legal xirocedure, would necessitate the
creation of a new court, or at least additional judges; the expenses attending such trials Avouldbe e n o ^ o u s in theaggregate, and the delays
Avould be more serious to importers than any inconvenience they may
now suffer from an occasional error on the part of the reappraisirg
board.
' At New York there are from 1,000 to 1,500 appeals annually from
the axipraiser's returns of values. The amount involved in cases of
reaxix)raisemeiit is not usually very large, and an apxieal from the action
of the appraiser to a court would involve so large an expense to the
iniporter, in the way of court and counsel fees, as, in most cases, to
discourage him from taking such an appeal. The xiresent systeni is
plain, practical, and inexpensive, and neither the Government nor
honest importers have occasion to comxflain of it.
Inquiry 20:—The first legislation after 1860 in respect to the duty on
wool was the act of March 2,-1861, Avhich x^i*ovided that on all wools
of less val ue than 18 cents per xiound there should be levied a duty of
5 per cent, ad valorem; on AVOOIS valued at above 18 and not exceeding
24 cents x^er xiound, a duty of 3 cents x^er xiound, and on all valued
above 24 cents x^er xiound 9 cents per xiound. It will be observed that
there Avas no distinction made between the different classes of wools,
but the duty was levied according to value alone.
By this act the duty oh cheaxi AVOOIS was only 5 per cent., while on
the more valuable qualities it ranged as high as 38 per cent. Evidently the home xiroducers were dissatisfied with this low rate of duty
on cheap AVOOIS, for in the next revision of the tariff, by the act of June
30, 1864, the lirait to the value of low-duty wool was reduced from 18
cents to 12 cents xier pound, and the rate advanced from 5 per cent, t o '
3 cents per pound—an equivalent of 25 to 50 xier cent., according to
value. The rates on higher-priced AVOOIS were also advanced, but not
in the same proportion, and no reference was made to different classes
ofwooL
'
It was undoubtedly anticipated' that only the lowest grade of wools,
viz., caipet-wools, could be imxiorted at the rate of 3 cents x)er pound,
but it was soon discovered that merino wool, Avhich, by this time, was
being extensively raised by our farmers through an improvement in
.their flocks stimulated by the great demand for better wools, was
coming into the country at the lowest rate in competition with our
blooded AVOOIS. TO xirevent this, theact of March 2, 1867, was framfed,
on an entirely UCAV xilan, and xiroAdded for the division of wools, according to character, into the three classes, viz., clothing-wool, combing
wool, and carpet-wool.
The rate of duty on carpet-wools Avas retained substantially as fixed
by the act of June 30, 1864, but on merino and other blooded wools it
was materially advanced to xirotect the blooded wools then constituting
so large apart ofthe home product, and by doubling the rate on washed
and trebling it on scoured the duty on clothing and combing wool was
made xiractically prohibitory on low-priced wools of these two classes.
This classification of wools by character or blood, which, seemed to
render an evasion of duty impossible, has been cpntinued froni that
day to this Avithout alteration, and the identical language of the act of
March 2, 1867, as to the manner of classification is reproduced in the
act of March 3, 1883.
^ REPORT OF' THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
379
The-only other legislation touching the rates of ^ duty on wool is theact of June 6, 1872, Avhich simply ni^de a uniform reduction of iO per
cent, in the duty on all AVOOIS, as Avelfas on many other classes ofmerchandise, and the act of March 3, 1883,^ ivhich reduced the duty on
carpet-wools from 3 and 6 cents xier xiound, according to value, to 2J and
5 cents per pound, without changing the line of demarcation betAveen
the high and low duty values.
On clothing and combing AVOOIS, on which the act of March 2, 1867,
had levied a compound duty, the ad valorem rates of 10 and 11 xier
cent. Avere renioved ; but this Avas to some extent offset by reducing the
line between the high and IOAV duty limit from 32 to 30 cents xier xiound.
At xiresent, therefore, the duty on all classes of wool is purely sxiecific.
The amount of the duty under the act of March 3, 1883, expressed in
an ad valorem form and on AVOOIS of average values, is axixiroximately
as follows:
On wools of class 1, cl othin g-Avools, 40 to 50 x^er cent.
On wools of class 2, combing-wools, 40 to 50 xier cent.
On wools of class 3, carpet-wools, 25 to 35 xier cent.
Except as stated in response to Inquiry No. 1, very little difficulty
has been experienced in administering the laws governing the rates of
duty on wools of'classes 1 and 2, for, excexit in cases of Avilful ignorance,
or contempt ot inforniation such as was exhibited in that instance, axipraising officers have always been able to discriminate between' the
different classes of AVOOI specified in the A^arious tariff acts. In respect
to wools of class 3, however, much trouble and confusion has arisen
at the principal xiorts of the country as to the niarket value and the
consequent rate of duty.
The dividing line between AVOOIS of this class Avas fixed at 12 cents
•per xiound. This is a most unfortunate xioint, for it so haxipens that
the market value of Scotch White Highland, Donskoi, and Cordova
Avools, that constitute this class, is usually hovering very closely arpund
this very figure, more often above than below it, and the temxitation to
evade the pajnnent of the legal rate of duty, Avheii the cost price hi.is
been a trifle above the low-duty limit, by having the AVOOIS invoiced at
a sinall fraction below 12 cents x:>er xiound, and suxiplying the deficiency
between thetrue cost price and the nominal invoicevalue by fictitious
commissions or "charges at the last port of shipment," has already
been adverted to in my resi^onse to Inquiry No. 1.
If the dividing line could be fixed at 15 cents per xiound instead of
12, it Avould obviate much of the trouble, for the reasoii that the average quality of White Highland, Donskoi, and Cordova carpet-wools,
Avhicli come A^ery little in comx^etition Avith American AVOOIS, would
then be admitted at low duty, and there Avonld be less difficulty on the
Xiart of axixiraising ofiicers in determining the true market A-alue of such
Avools of this class as Avere worth moj'-e than 15 cents per pound.
Even if all cai*pet-wools, irrespective of value, should be admitted
at, say, 3, or x:>ossibly 2h, cents x>er pound, I believe that the revenue
from this source Avould.be as great as at. x^i'esent, and a sufficient xirotection afforded to American AVOOI groAvers, Avhile much perjury on the
part of shippers and importers Avould be avoided and the rights of honest imxiorters better protected..
Inquiry 21.—The only instances that have CA'-er come to my notice of
the xiayment of money by xiassengers to inspectors for the purpose of
having their baggage expeditiously examined, or for the purpose of
380
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF-THE TREASURY.
preventing an examination of such baggage, haA^e occurred at New
^ork. That such a xiractice formerly was quite general at that port
is well known, and that it exists" now, though in a somewhat subdued
form, is a matter of belief.
The only efficacious means of extirpating this illegal practice lies in
^the constant vigilance of the chief olficials in the surveyor's ofiice at
that port, and the immediate discharge and puriishmeiit of any inspector detected in accexiting such bribes.
Inquiry 22.—As a general rule, it is obvious that dishonest shixiXDcrs
and smugglers will be incited to evade the law in xiroportion to extent
of the rate of duty levied on a given article.
Tliere are many considerations, howcA^er, that modify this general
rule. With respect to the successful x3erpetration of frauds in nndervaluation, for instance, not only must the inducement for evading the
high rates of duty exist, but the goods must be of such a character or
manufactured under such circumstances as to effectually conceal their
actual cost or market value, and render a false statement as to their real
value plausible. On staxile articles whose A-alues, except as affected by
the legitimate fluctuations of trade, are well knoAvn, successful undervaluations are not xiracticable, except through the A^enality of appraising
officers.
The duty on steel and its manufactures, for examxile, is very nearly
as high as on silks, but the actual inarket value of steel in England is
in most cases knoivn to the trade and to appraising officers, and undervaluations are comparatively rare.
.
'
In respect to smuggling, not only must the rate of duty be sufficiently
high to induce the risk of detection, but the articles must be such as
can be easily handled, valuable in xiroportion to their bulk, and such
as command a ready sale among a class of xmrchasers who are not disposed to be too curious about the nianner of their imxiortation.
The duty on diamonds is only. 10 xier cent, and on sugar 80 per cent.,
but large quantities of diamonds are smuggled annually, on account of
the ease with Avhich they can be handled and disposed of, while sugar
is too bulky for such manixiulation. Forthe purposes of the smuggler,
it matters little whether the duty on an article be ad valorem or a
specific, x^'ovided the other essential conditions attach to it. For example. The duty on "oil of bay leaves," from Avhich bay-rum is manufactured, isa sxiecific one, $2.50 x^er pound, and Avhile every toilet-stand
and barber-shoxi in the country is bountifully suxiplied Avitli bay-rum,
the records of the custom-houses will show that the quantity legitimately imported is infinitesimally small. The smuggler has had.a
practical monoxioly of this article for many years.
. Most undoubtedly, hoAvever, other things being equal, the dishonest
shipper and the smuggler will both be powerful in the successful
evasion of the law in xiroxiortion to the rate of duty levied on a giA^en
article of nierchandise.
Inquiry 23.—What has been true of the failure of the Treasury Department to fully enforce the revenue law in New York has been also
true, to some exte'nt, and for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic
ports, and at some of the interior x^^orts as Avell.
The proportion of undervalued invoices is not so large at any of the
other ports as at NCAV York, for rejisons that ivill naturally suggest
themselves, yet the fact remains that undervaluations are being constantly attempted and often discovered at all the larger ports of the
country.
REPORi? OF THE SECRETARY OF M E TREASURY.
3S1
Inquiry 24.—My responses to Inquiries 8, 9, and 14 travel over some
of the ground COA^ered by this inquiry.
Wherever apfiraising officers have been detected in making false
reports or returns, through bribery or-venality, as in the case in New
York in 1880, cited by me in resxionse to Inquiry 14, and others of an earlier date, they have been x>i*omxitly dismissed and indicted. In
some cases they liaA^e been convicted, b u t l regret to say that in many
instances political and social infiuence has succeeded in shielding them
from the x^unishment due to their crimes.
It is not easy, hoAvever, to secure sufficient proof to couAact in «most
cases, since the only xierson Avho can usually testify to the corrupt receixit of money-by the officer is the only person Avho has a Antal interest
in suxipressing such testimony, and the officer can always claim that
while he may have been mistaken, he acted according to his best judgment and Avith an honest purxiose.
.The chief and almost only remedy hitherto found effective in such
cases is a dismissal of the officer on the ground of ignorance or indolence, but Avith a reserved suspicion of bribery.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. H. HINDS,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 16.
IRA AYER, JE.—OriginaUy appohited Special Agent March 3, 1870.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
New York, October 6, 1886.
S I R : I am in receipt of Department circular, dated August 27,1885,
and marked "strictly confidential," calling for official rexilies to certain inquiries, twenty-four in number, relative to the administration
of the customs laws.
In reply, I beg to state that the questions are so comprehensive that
it will be impossible for me to answer many of them with that detail
which is desired. This is particularly true for the reason that my time
has been so fully occupied, as agent in charge of the district, with current important work, that I have been unable to devote any time whatever to the specific inquiries as made. I will answer, however, the
best I can the interrogatories in the order propounded.
:
Answers.
1. I was stationed at the United States xmblic stores at this port from
July, 1881, to January, 1885, when I was placed in charge of this office.
During that time it^was my duty to look after appraisements. After
the late Axipraiser Ketchum was appointed, and before he had long
occupied the position of appraiser, the feeling became generally prevalent among customs officers and in the trade that it was useless to attempt
382
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
to secure just and xiroper valuations bf imported merchandise. ,Goods
were not unfrequently advanced by intelligent and earnest examiners,
Avho knew their duty, but who Avere subsequently instructed by the appraiser to pass the goods at the invoiced A-alues. It was generally belicA^ed, and was a matter of general comment, that certain lawyers, influential at Washington and near the appraiser, exercised strong control over
that officer, i> control and influence AA-hich conld only be accounted for
upon the hypothesis that there were mutual interests and obligations—
personal, political, and moneyed—that bound them together. It is impossible to proA^e these things, because the whole business of undervaluations was carried on under the forms of law. EAH dence that shouid
have satisfied an honest and faithful officer of the GoA^ernment that
goods were undervalued was, so to speak, thrown into the Avaste-basket
as so /much trash, Avhile agents of the Department at home and abroad,
and rexiutable merchants, A ^ o complained that their business Avas being
Ah
ruined by the system of undervaluations, ivere either coldly repelled
or Avere subject to open or covert indignities and slurs.
2. I have no evidence that such is the case.
3. By actual measurement, but I am of the opinion that these verifications are not as thorough as they should be.
4. I have no evidence upon this point.
5. I have no eAddence uxion this point.
6. I ansAver the last clause only, as there are many whose position
and exxierience will enable them to answer the inquiries x^i^eceding
more intelligently than myself.
In my opinion, the present system of reappraisement on appeal in
the matter of values, and the existing judicial system, in cases of appeal to the courts uxion questions of classification, are sufficient if
worked efficiently. A court might be established at this, port whose
sole business should be to attend to all customs cases, but I doubt the
desirability of such a court elsewhere.
7. Silks, Hamburg edgings and laces, bisque, china, and glass ware,
Avool, aniline dyes, A^arnish, and linens. It is not.
8. In the case of the three lines of goods first named, chiefiy through
the manufacturing and consignment system, and in the case of bisque,
china, -and glass ware, by false packing charges, improxier discounts,
and false values on the face of the invoice. In the case of kid gloA^es
and aniline dyes, varnish and laces, by false values on the face of tbe
invoice. In the case of wool, by false x^acking and other charges, and
false face values. The evidence as it axixilies to axixiraising officers at
this port, under the foismer regime, is to my, mind strongly circumstantial. (See answer to the first interrogatory.)
9. (1) Under Axipraiser Ketchum's administration.
(2) * Articles as stated under Interrogatory No. 7.
(3) Chiefly France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Eussia, Scotland, England, and Ireland.
(4) Generally consigned to agents or "sole agents" to sell on commission, or to xiersons owning a. part interest or a controlling interest
in the foreign manufactory.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ; 383
(5) My statements apxily princixially to the x^ort of NCAV York. A
strong presumxitiA^e evidence of the correctness of the foregoing statements is the fact that under the x^i'esent axixiraiser values have been
advanced upon practically the same xiroofs submitted h j agents of the
Department, consular officers, and others, as were submitted to Axixiraiser Ketchum without results. Axipraiser Ketchum gave only a
fraction of his time to his official duties, and assigned certain lines of
goods to certain examiners, Avhoin he expected, axixiarently, to be
diligent only in getting the goods off from their floors with suxierficial
examinations. I refer x^articnlaiiy to the examiners, Lawrence ^and
O'Hara, in charge of bisque, china, and glass Avare. The contrast
between the manner in Aviiich these officers did their ivork and the
present efficient examiner does his is A^ery striking, while the gratifying results are observed with pleasure by all who are interested in the
cause of good government.
10. There has been axiparent confusion of ideas in regard to ivhat
constitutes true foreign market value, but it is believed that the law
and regulations are as exxilicit as necessary nxioii this xioint. Much
confusion has arisen from the xiroidsion of the new tariff relatii^e to outside xiackages. These are beliei^ed to be in xirocess of adjustment.
11. Estimated undervaluation of silks, 12^ per cent.; Hamburg edgings and laces, 25 per cent.; bisque.ware, (some houses,) 50 x^er cent.:
chinaware, (some houses,) 25 per cent.; glassAA^are, (some houses,) 25
per cent.; kid gloves, (some houses,) 20 x^er cent.; aniline dyes, 25 x^er
.cent.; linens, 15 per cent.; wool, third to second class; varnish, 12 per
cent. Articles could not be identified. Invoices might be, biit without
practical benefit.
12. The examiner, but frequently the dexiuty apxiraiser, and in many
special cases the appraiser.
Salaries of examiners, $1,800 to $2,500 per annum; of dex3uty appraisers, $3,000 per annum; of apxiraiser, $4,500 per annuni.
He is, and should have intelligent and controUing charge of questions of A-alues, as t h e j are constantly raised. Where no questions are
raised, his approA^al of the returns to the collector is generally xierfunctory.
13. I know of no such evidence.
15. The qnestion is easily answered. The reason is, that under A])
Xiraiser McMullen ei^erything is changed. That officer is at his x^ost
during office'hours, and gives his sole attention °to his official duties.
His methods are direct and Adgorous. He only inquires as to law and
fact. His decisions are quickly reached, and boldlj^ announced. He is
a man of single xmrpose. He has brought about many reforms in his
department, both in its personnel and its organization. He is honest,
fearless, just, and faithful, and his influence for good is necessaril}^^ felt
throughout his dexiartment, and indeed throughout the entire custonis
service at this port.
16. It would be a benefit undoubtedly A\dth sonie lines of goods, and
would certainly aid to diminish a tendencj'^ to bribery in ax")praisements. ° 1 am not xirexiared to answer the last inquiry under this head.
17. I am unable to answer directly, not having been on duty at a
large port prior to 1874. It is generally considered that the repeal of
384
REPORT OP THE SECRETARJ OF THE TR£:ASURY.
the "moiety law" has done much to encourage undervaluations. I do
not think the modified legislation of 1874 respecting seizure of books
and papers has mnch to do with false returns by appraisers.
18. To the first inquiry I should say not, with anything like a reasonable force. The second inquiry I am unable to answer, being unfamiliar Avith the business of the various consulates. To the third inquiry
I answer that I think many complaints would be likely to arise. The
last iuquiry will be better ansivered by those entirely familiar with the
facts.
19. On the other hand, I think that a change which should enable
iniporters to appeal to the courts on questions of value would be highly
Xirejudicial to the interests of the custonis revenues. We have already
had the experience of court methods on reaxipraisement at this port.
This systeni Avas carried to a high degree of perfection nnder General
Appraiser Ketchum, Avith probable loss of hundreds of thousands of
dollars to the Treasury.
Under our present system, merchant axipraisers of brains and character should be selected, Avho themseh^es have intimate knowledge of
values and of commercial usage, they will ai^oid being misled by the
interested testimony of witnesses, and will, with a good general appraiser, be enabled to reach xiractically correct results.
20. I beg to be excused from answering this question, as I have had
but little to do with wool apxiraisements.
21.. This practice has very generally prevailed, and still prevails,
at this port. It is a most degrading and demoralizing feature of the
pnblic service. It can, no doubt, be checked by a careful supervision,
through the agents of the Departnient, acting nnder the immediate
orders of the Secretary. Such officers, if they do their duty, will for a
time awaken the strongest antagonisms, and they must, therefore, have
the strong supxiort of the Dexiartment. I have the most reliable and
direct information that inspectors, in speaking of their "good days,"
have clainied that they haA^e made $50 in " t i p s " in a single day.
They seldom get less than $5 from a passenger, and quite often $10.
Sometimes a card is taken, and if valuable goods have been passed
with a "convenient" form of examination, giving the wealthy and
high-toned passenger " no trouble," the "gentlemanly" inspector may
natura^llA^ look for $20 or $25. The honest officer is at a discount, and
must be strong indeed to refuse ivhat he conies to believe all accept.
22. I think not. There may be cases ivhere it would be better to
have the rates of duty lb wer for the reason referred to, but I have none
in my mind at present.
23. It has, but probably not nearly to the same, extent. The influences at other ports hai^e been very different from those at New York.
Here they have been combined and powerful.
24. As before shown, these returns have been made under legal forms.
It is well known that, under the present laiv, an undervaluation of
merchandise, even to the extent of 100 per cent., would not of itself be
regarded as such evidence of intentional fraud upon the part of the
iniporter as to. Avarrant a district attorney in a criminal ^prosecution.
It Avould be equally difficult to secure an indictment, mucfi more a conviction, of an appraising officer for failing to advance goods 5,^10, 15,
or 20 per cent., or even more, although good reasons niight be shown
why such advances should be made. A shrewd appraising officer Avill
always be armed with counterbalancing considerations, which he wUI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, -p
•
^
385
*
claim, with some show of reason, raised a dpubt in his mind, and the
"benefit of the doubt," using the phrase in its proxier connection,
would beyond question be given to the accused.
I am, Very respectfully,
I E A AYEE, J E . ,
Special Agent in Charge.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Wasliington, B. 0.
No. 17.
N. W. BINGHAM—Entered the service as Deputy Collector of Customs in Vermont,
June 10, 1861. Axipointed Sx)ecial Agent Axiril 13, 1869.
-
O F F I C E SPECIAL A G E N T , TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Boston, Mass-., September 21, 1886.
S I R : In response to Department's circular letter ofthe 27tli ultimo,
(marked confidential,) submitting certain interrogatories in relation to
the tariff and the administration of the law in relation to the collection
of duties, I have the honor to submit the folloAving answers:
I regret that the pressure of other x:>ublic duties has xirevented me
from devoting to the subjects the time and attention that their importance demands, b u t l am consoled by the reflection that AvhatcA^er
is omitted in these will undoubtedly be supplied in the responses of
others, to whom I understand the same questions have been submitted.
Question No. 1.—There is abundant evidence in the records of the
Dexiartment and the several custom-houses that various kinds of imported nierchandise have within the last few years been entered and
passed at rates lower than those prescribed by law. Notably among
these are aniline dyes, AVOOI, marble monuments, proxirietary medicines, and breeding-animals; as to each and all of which the x'>articulars of the false classification are fully set forth in the reports of
the special agents, particularly those of Special Agents Tichenor and
Hinds, and of this oflice.
Eeference is made as to AVOOI to the rexiorts of Special Agents
Tichenor and Hinds, found in Ex. Doc. 101, 1st Sess. 48th Cong., and
reports from this office dated November 12, 1879; February 12, 24, 28,
1880; March 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 1880; and July 10, 1883.
As to aniline dyes, see reports from this office dated May 15, 1880,*
also reports of Special Agent Tichenor, of various dates. As to
monuments, see my report dated May 26, 1879; and as to breedinganimals, see my report of May 7, 1883.
The articles above enumerated and the rexiorts relative thereto are
instanced nierely as illustrations of improper classifications. The fact
(that appears of record) that the efforts of the special agents resulted
in most cases, wool of the third class excexited, in securing a change
of rate uxion the full presentation of the facts, in connection with the
law, is evidence of itself of the impropriety of the original assessment,
especially ivhen it is considered that the importers have in most cases
acquiesced in the assessment at the higher rate. It is believed that if
the efforts of the agenfs had received proper recognition by the appraising officer at Philadelphia, the result as to wool would have been
equally satisfactory.
21; A
386
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
Question No. 2. —There is satisfactory evidence that through ignorance,
carelessness, or fraud, merchandise subject to specific duty has been
imported at the ports of Boston, Neiv York, and other ports, upon
^ which dnty has been collected nx^on less than the true quantity.
The practice prevailed at this port for many years, and until corrected
through the efforts of this office, of aUoAving arbitrarily eight pounds
on every draft in the weighing of hogsheads of sugar.
Woollen and worsted goods have also been entered at less than the
,true weight. This is true also of cigars, leaf-tobacco, and many other
articles subject to duty by the pound..
- It was discovered and reported to the Departnient by this office on
the dates of January 19, January 23, and September 27, 1880, respectively, that through collusion between the imxiorters' weighei'S.and the
United States weigher false weights had been obtained upon importa-tions bf sugar by two importing houses in this city, by Avhich the Government lost in duty nearly thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000.) The
improper ganging of molasses at this port has also been discovered.
On the 21st day of Jnly, 1885,1 reported the imxiroper return by the
United States gauger at this port of the dutiable quantity, of doniestic
distilled spirits which had been exported and had been returned to
the United States, the correction of volume required by laAv having
been omitted. The investigation resulted in collecting neaily two
thousand dollars ($2,000) in delinquent duties from one importer, and
the great discrepancy between the foreign gauge and the gauge nx:)pn
importations furnished well-grounded reason to suspect, at least, that a
much greater loss had occurred through fraud.
The fraudulent weighing of a cargo of tobacco at this port was discovered by this office in 1871, and the cargo, valued at one hundred
thousand dollars, .($100^000,) was seized and forfeited. Still greater
frauds were discovered by this office during th.e same year in the false
weighing of and the false damage allowances obtained npon spices,
which resulted in a verdict for-the Government against the importer
of fonr hundred thousand dollars, ($400,000.) .
Question No. 3.—At this custom-house tests are at present made by
actnal measurements of portions of goods contained in the exaniination
packages and sometimes by more extended tests. Formerly these tests
were not so carefully made, and the fact was reported to the Department and the practice was corrected.
Question No. 4.—While there is no evidence such as would probably
enable the Government to maintain an action in court against an entry
clerk or depnty collector at this port charged with having, during the
last few years, consxiired with others to defraud the revenue by sending
to the, appraisers for exaniination false or bogus packages, there is.
evidence tending strongly to show that such a practice prevailed at this
port during the years 1876 and 1877, by which large quantities of silk,
lastings, laces, and other valuable goods were entered and passed as
hide-cuttings, &c.
:
Extensive frauds of this character were brought to the attention of
the Department by the Meredith Conimission in their report, dated
January 25, 1878, a copy of. which was sent to Congress January 15^
'1879.
• . . • • •
These frauds are not as easy of accomplishment as formerly, espcr
daily at New York, for the reason that the importer is not now permitted to select the officer who shall order np his goods for ^exami.
nation.
'
:
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
3S7
Question No. 6.—I have no evidence of false, or incompetent, or
inadequate weighing that has occurred A^ery recently, and none as to
former xiractices in this respect, except as mentioned in my reply to
Question 2.
Question No. 6.—This question can better be answered by the law
officers of the Government.
I learn from the United States attorney for this district that there
are xiending in the courts here, suits as folloivs:
Three involving the question of duty on AVOOI.
Fourteen involving the classification for duty of wool and webbing.
Five involving the classification for duty of manufactures of marble.
Eight involving the question of duty on aniline dyes.
Sixty-seven growing out of the act of March 3, 1883, in ivhich the
question of the dutiable character of boxes, cartons, &c., is involved.
Three involving the classification of Avhite enamel.
Three involving the classification of albums bound in silk x^lush.
Eight involving the question of the duty on gilling-twine.
Six involving the question of the duty on iron show-cards.
Three involving the classification of hosiery, &c., manufactured of
merino.
Twelve that cannot be easily classified.
Of these, the first seventeen are before the Suxireme Court on appeal.
The marble cases are continued under advisement as to the effect of
recent decisions. The aniline-dye cases and ^ve of the miscellaneous
cases are before the Supreme Court, and the remainder are ready for
hearing.
The oldest suit among the above named was cammenced April 13,
1874. A few only are older than Septeniber, 1880.
The suggestion of erecting a separate tribunal for the trying judicially of actions growing out of impositions of custonis duties and of
internal-revenue taxes impresses me as one worthy of special consideration, and one that might well engage the attention of the Department, the courts, and of Congress.
It is of the utmost iinportance to importers and manufacturers, as
well as to the Government, that disputed questions arising under the
adniinistration of the impost and excise laws should be sxieedily determined, and more especially does it interest the importers a n d t h e
manufacturers, because such decisions are often necessary in order to
enable them to make proper settlement with their customers and to
safely determine as to the continuance of their trade.
More correct conclusions would be likely to* be reached 'by such
courts,' because they would naturally become more familiar ivith the
laws and customs of trade, nnder which questions presented for their
determination would arise.
I can conceive of no practical objection to the systeni suggested,
and the benefits which ivould result from it are self-evident.
Question No. 7.—The class of articles as to which I beliei^e it to be
susceptible of proof sufficient to convince a reasonable mind that the
entire and full amount of duty xirescribed by law has not been collected
at New York are silks, gloves, woollen and worsted dress-goods, hosiery,
embroidery, linens, aniline dyes, varnishes, chinaAvare, cutlery,
ribbon-isinglass, lumber, and a great many other articles; indeed, there
may safely be embraced among these all, or nearly all, merchandise
tiiat is consigned by foreign manufacturers and jobbers to their agents
and representatives in New York.
388
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The evidence of undervaluation is in most cases pf snch a character
that it ought not to be snccessfully controverted. The Dexiartment is
already in x)OSsession of an overwhelming aniount of testimony showing these iiiidervaluations, which has l.ieen collected by its agents and
consular agents abroad, and it is further more Avel I known, and Avillnot
be contradicted, that as to most of the leading articles of ii.nx)ortatioii
from Europe, and esx)ecially from the continent, Anierican merchants
desiring to deal honestly are absolutely x^reclnded from the iinx)orting
trade. And this is equally true as to the houses of highest reputation
and most nndoubted reputation. There are practicfil difficulties which
will readily occur to^the mind in the way of an attempt to establisli
before a reappraising board u]^on an appraisement, or before the court
ux')on a libel for forfeiture, the trne and actnal Avholesale Y)v\ce or
market value in a foreign conntry, because of tlie fact that legitimate
importing trade has ceased, and there are few, if any, actnal transactions of purchase and sale between foreign and American houses by
which the ax)X">™sers or the court may test the integrity ofthe invoice
and entry. And again as to reax')X^i"aisement, it has been the xiractice,
to a large extent, for x)ersons to act as merchant appraisers Avho were
themselves engaged as agents or consignees in similar transactions.
Question No. 8.—The failure to collect tlie^ x^i'oper duties has come
ubout xiartly through the reasons suggested in my last answer, xiartly
Vhrough ignorance or a v/ant of care and x)atient attention, and undoubtedly in part through the dishonesty of cnstoms officials. Instances of
dishonesty among the custom-house officials ^have occasionally come
to light, lint, from the very nature of the case, guilty knowledge or intent on their xiart is most difiicult to discover, especially in case of undervaluation, in Avhicli the act of the officer is supposed to be based
upon his opinion and judgment, and this x^i'b^eiple, equally or in a
higher degree, apxfiies to the question of the integrity of the action of
the higher class of Treasury officials. I may be xiermitted to gii^e it
as my opinion that the heaviest iveight of blame for these irregular
and disastrous proceedings lies at tlie door of Congress. The xiassage
of the act of June 22, 1874, A ^s the signal for the inauguration of a
Aa
general raid upon the public revenue and the honest importing interests. The readiness with Avhich evil-intentioned men resxionded to the
invitation marks one of the saddest and most disgraceful eras in the
history of the importing trade of this country.
Question No. 9.—I have already answered, in substance, that the axipraisers have reported to the collector false dutiable values—i. e., values
that Avere less than the actual ivholesale pviee or true niarket. value.
These incorrect values have, to a greater or less extent, undoubtedly been
reported ever since the first imposition of ad valoi-em rates of duty
based upon foreign values, but especially since the imposition of high
rates of duty made necessary by tlie expenses of the ivar of the rebellio'n,
and more esxiecially during the era of false invoices, dating from the
passage of the act of 1874. This axiplies to all classes of merchandise,
but particularly to carpet-wool, and those articles nientioned in my
answer to the seventh interrogatory.
Silks are iniported chiefly from Lyons, Zurich, and Horgen, Embroideries from St. Galle. Woollen and Avorsted dress-goods from Paris.
' (This includes German goods.) Hosiery from Cheinnitz, Germany, and
Nottingham.^England. Linens from St. Galle, Switzerland; Hamburg,
Germany; Belfast, Ireland; Dunfermline and Dundee, Scotland. Ani-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF. THE TREASURY.
389
line dyes from Berlin and Hamburg, Germany; Lyons and Paris,
France; Basle, Switzerland; and London and Liverpool, England.
Varnishes from London, England. Chinaware from Dresden, Sonneberg, Frankfort, Coburg, Wallendorf, Tetton, Suhl, EichAvald, Schleusingen, Eudolstadt, and Sittendorf. Cutlery from Sheffield, England,
and Solingen, Germany. Lumber from Canada. Kid gloves from Berlin,
Brussels, Grenable, Aix-la Chax:)elle, and Prague, Paris. Eibbon-isinglass from Hamburg. Carpet-wool from Eosario, Cordova, Eio Grande,
and Valparaiso, South America; Smyrna and Alexandretta, Turkey;
Marseilles, France; Odessa and MOSCOAV, Eussia; London and LiverX:)00l, England; and GlasgOAv, Scotland.
As I have already replied, these goods, except carpet-Avool, have
recently been shipped principally by the manufacturers or foreign jobbing-houses. The evil has xirincipally been confined to New York, for
the reasons heretofore statecl, but to some extent it exists at the smaller
Xiorts.
I have already submitted, in a general way, an outline of the corroborative xiroof of the charge of undervaluation made by special
. agents of the Treasury and consular officers—the fact that merchants
of large exxierience, high reputation, and unquestioned credit heretofore loyally engaged in the imxiorting trade have, by reason of these
undervaluations, been forced to purchase their goods in this country,
and to abandon the importing trade. Aside from this general fact is
the evidence that in most cases has accompanied the reports of the
speeial agents and consuls as to the cost of xiroduction, actual sales,
and prices demanded or advertised abroad.
Question No. 10.—There is UOAV and has recently been considerable
confusion, doubt, or conflict of oxiinion in the ax)Xiraiser's department
respecting elements upon ivhich to base their reports of values, and it
arises in part from Avhat I deem to be a misaxix^rehension of their duties,
in this: Avhile the law defines their duties in distinct terins to be to
ascertain and rex;)ort the Avholesale price or true inarket value of imX:)orted merchandise, they have to some extent, at least, been led to
believe that their duty ivas to rexiort the dutiable value, which may
or may not be in excess of the market value. The laiv xirovides that
duty shall in no case be assessed uxion a sum less than the invoice or
entered value, and it also provides that goods obtained by purchase
shall be invoiced at the actual xirice xiaid.
It has come to be a pretty general x^i^actice with the axixiraisers to
return invoice V-alues correct, ivlien for any reason they are above the
market lvalue, as in case of small xmrchases at exorbitant prices, and,
by a parity of reasoning, some appraisers have come to consider an
actual sale xirice, although for any reason it is less than the usual wholesale xirice or true market value, to be the proxier standard for their
axixiraisement, while others have regarded it only as an element to be
considered in ascertaining values.
.
AVith some appraisers proof of actual sales at a higher than invoice
price is considered necessary in order to Avarrant an advance, notwithstanding the fact that the goods havebeen manufactured and sold
for years at«a cost of manufacture inconsistent with the invoice value.
Differences of oxiinion have also arisen to a very large extent since
the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, as to ivhether the cost of the
cartons and embalage, ivhich constitute a xiart of the xmrchase price,
shall be included in the xirice which they return. The intent of that
act should be more clearly defined by Congress,
390
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Question No. 11.—I think it safe to estimate the average nndervaluation of all merchandise subject to ad valorem rates of duty to'be 20
per cent. On those enumerated in answer to Question 7, I believe it
to be above rather than beloAv 25 per cent.
Question No. 12.—The examiner (who is ordinarily the only officer
in the appraiser's dexiartment who sees the gojids) is, as a rule, primarily and chiefly responsible for a false return or value.
At the large ports I doubt if the in\'oices andthe examiners' reports
are, as a rule, A'ery carefully scrutinized, the report upon the invoice
made bythe appraiser being based Avhollj^ upon the return of the examiner, and a thorough scrutiny and xiersonal examination only occurs
in cases especially brought to the axipraiser's attention.
The appraiser is supposed to be provided ivith special and comxilete
information, so far as is xiractical, of foreign market values, and if he
fails to imx)art this information to his assistants and to the examiner,
then he is so far xiriniarily and chiefly resxionsible.
The salaries of examiners at the xirincix3al xiorts range from $1,400
to $2,500 x)er annuni. The salabiy of apxiraisers at the port of Boston
is $3,000.
•
.
•
- As a matter of fact, the axixiraisers at the x^idncixial xiorts do little
^
more than to sign the reports in a xierfunctory manner, to construe the
law and dexiartment decisions as to classifications in adidsing as to them,
and to make special examinations in cases as to ivhich their attention
is particularly directed.
Question No. 13.—I have no such evidence.
Question No. 14. —As to this interrogatory, I can add nothing to what
I liave already written.
Question No. 15.—As to this interrogatory, I think it may safely be
said that, while the frailties of human nature exist and the temptations
to sin continue, until the nieans of detecting and securing the punishment of fraud abolished by the act of 1874 are restored, the success of
false Ai^aluations AVUI continue in the future as in the, xiast, unless the
Department, by its own action in the Avay of encouragement and supX")ort, shall more thoroughly than heretofore sustain its officers in their
endeavors to effect a.faithful execution of the law.
Question No. 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty,
as far as practical, would, in ^my judgment, greatly simxilify the ascertainrnent of duty and the detection o.f fraud, but such a change should
be accoinpanied by a thorough reorganization of the force of officers
employed, so that officers of higher grade, and therefore commanding
higher salaries, Avould be employed in the ascertainment of quantity,
which A O uld then be the sole basis upon which duty would be assessed.
V
I axiprehend no xiractical difficailtyln applying specific ratesof duty
tb a large portion of textile fabrics, although it might, and xirobably
-'Would, be found necessary, as to some ofthe finer and more expensive
fabrics, to add to the specific rate a slight ad valorem rate for the xmrpose of equalization.
For illustration: a duty based upon the weight of plain xiiece-silks
would, as a general rule, be not only practicable, but it would result
in special benefit to the consumer, beoause it Avould xirevent the importation of Aveighted and adulterated silks, that are of little value to the
XDurchaser, and give to them instead soniething more desirable and
valuable. But as to figured and fancy silks, the principal cost of ivhich
consists of labor and design, a slight ad valorem rate, but not so great as
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF "THE TREASURY.'
391
to furnish a teinptation to undervalue, might be added. Such a recommendation was made by the Meredith Conimission, of ivhich I ivas a
member, and.ivhich was composed of Officers of the Treasury Department and prominent importing merchants in the cities of NCAV York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Chicago, and at the
invitation of the Secretary of the Treasury we presented our vieivs in
person to the Committee of Ways and Means of Congress.
Question No. 17.—I hai^e already stated that, in myjudgment, the reX^eal of the moiety laAv has resulted in largely increasing the nnderA^aluations in im^oices and entries, and has resulted, naturaUy, in the
increase of incorrect rexiorts by the apxiraisers, for the reason that the
invoice, in the absence of contradictory evidence, would be takeii as conclusive eviden ce of value. But the evils resnlting from the repeal of the
moiety laAv extend beyond this; they are not alone found in the encouragement given to illicit transactions, Avhereby the axipraising officers are
deceived, bnt the encouragement to give, inforniation is withdrawn,
except in matters of comxiaratively small imx3ortaiice, and with those
who are Avilling to be published in the courts, and annually to Congress, as informers, and the officers are dexirived of the incentive to
especial vigilance and the means of obtaining testimony from the books
and xiapers of the importers. And, furthermore, the laAv is. so cunningly devised as to make it almost imxiossible in the plainest case of
fraud, to secure a verdict for the Government, because of that unprecedented requirement that the jury shall return as a separate and distinct proposition the question of intent. Question No. 18.—It Avould not be practicable in the large American
consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., forthe consuls
or their agents, howcA^er numerous and alert, to personally examine all
articles to be shixiXDcd from thence to the Anierican ports, and thereby
to verify the correctness of the invoice values, but as to a large majority
of importations, and especially as to those of standard quality and value,
it could be done.
I think it not unlikely that foreign governments would make complaint to this, should vexatious delays occur in examining values and
certifying invoices; but if the consular force ii^as sufficiently numerous
and alert, and exercised proper discretion andjudgment by confining
their inquiries to the principal articles of production and sale, or to
those particularly brought to their attention, no such delays would
occur.
.
'
The consul's fee for certifying an invoice is $2.50, and in the United
Kingdom, I understand, there is collected an additional fee of 50 cents
for administering the oath.
Question No. 19.'—As already stated, the appraising officers are only
anthorized by law to find the ivholesale xirice or true market value of
imxiorted merchandise.
The dutiable value, where goods are obtained by pnrchase, may be
in excess of the value which the appraising officers are by law required
to find.
To be sure, nnder section 2930, Eevised Statutes, which was compiled
from the acts of August 30, 1842, and March 3, 1851, it is provided that
the decision of the collector, when the reappraisement board shall disagree as to value, shall be final, and be deemed to be the true value,
and that duties shall be levied thereon accordingly. . But this section
should be construed in connection with sections 2838 and 2854, Eevised
392
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
Statutes, which provide that merchandise subject to ad valorem duty
shall be invoiced at the actual cost or price paid, and with sectioii 2900,
Eevised Statutes, which xirovides that duty shall not be assessed upon
an amount less than the invoice lvalue.
It would seem that the only decision of the collector as to value that
is by law made final and conclusiA^e is that provided for in section 2930,
Eevised Statutes, and that xirovided for in section 2932. In th^ latter
the exactions bf duty by the collector are only made conclusive in the
absence of protest and axixieal, and in such cases are only conclusive
against the xiersons interested in such exactions, which does not include
the Governnient, since it cannot be said to be a person.
The action of the collector, ivhich is made final under section 2930,
is only that wherein he decides between the members of the reappraisement board, and can only enibrace the subject-matter which, by law,
that board may consider, namely, the ivholesale xirice or true market
value of the nierchandise in the xirincixial markets of the country
whence shix^XDCd at the date of shipment to this country.
I doubt whether it ivould be safe or useful to the revenue, or would
work any greater measure of xiractical justice to importers were the
executive or judicial powers given greater jurisdiction to interfere
with the ascertainment of dutiable value.
The question of market value, or of actual cost, (which, considered
together, form the dutiable value,) is one of fact, and one that would
not naturally call for the intervention of the executive or the courts.
And, again, if the door were open to such appeal, there would be danger of interminable delays in the settlement of duties, and the multiplication of costs and other vexations which the importing interests
desire above all things to avoid.
It might possiblV be well to xirovide that at ports where there are
naval oflicers the naval officer, instead of the collector, should decide
as to niarket values between disagreeing appraising officers.
There is some degree of inconsistency in the arrangement by which
the collector is to decide between the merchant appointed by himself
and the general appraiser, but I doubt the existence of any such evils
or hardships as to require a modification of the present systeni.
Question No. 20.—The necessity for raising increased revenue, which
was forced ux^on the country by the inauguration of the late civil war,
was nndoubtedly seized upon by the wool-growing interests of this
country as furnishing an oxiportunity to secure greater protection to
that particular industry, and Congress, by the act of March 2, 1861,
placed upon the duty-list low-grade, wools which were then free, and,
to a very considerable extent, increased the duty npon the higher
grades. The interests of those engaged in the production of Merino
and other high-grade ivools seem .to have more particularly engaged
the attention of Congress.
On January 30, 1864, the low-duty limit was reduced from 18 to 12
cents per pound, and the rate advanced uxion wool costing 12 cents or
less per ponnd from 5 per cent, ad valorem to 3 cents per pound, which
was an advance equivalent to from 20 per cent, to 45 per cent. On
higher-priced wool the rate was also advanced, but to a less proportionate extent. It seenis that the ivool-groAving interests of the country were not satisfied Avith the protection afforded by this act, and that
they complained, among other things, that Mestiza or Merino AVOOI,
Wbicli had been intended to be excluded from the low rate, had actually
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
393
come in at the lowest classification, and, as they claimed, in ruinous
com -etition with the fine-ivool-groAving interests of this country.
A conference Avas had between the National Wool-Growers' Association and the National Association of .Wool Manufacturers, which resulted in formulating the tariff of 1867, which was mutually agreed
upon substantially as passed by Congress. In this act wool was divided
into three general classes, viz., class 1, clothing-ivool; class 2, combing
wool; class 3, carpet and other similar wools. But the distinguishing
features of the AVOOIS of the various classes were not so well described
by the title as by the text. Particular mention was made in each class
of the blood, and, as to wools of Merino blood,o whether immediate or
remote, they ivere classed ag clothing-Avool.
At the date of the passage of that act no machinery had been invented
by which Merino ivools or other wools of short staple could be successfully combed.
Improvements have since been made which enable manufacturers to
comb Avools of coniparatively short staple.
By crossing the long-wool sheexi of NCAV Zealand, Australia, and
other countries with fine Merino bucks, a very large amount of fine
combing ivool is grown abroad.
The question of blood, immediate or remote, is one, in many instances,
most difficult for the axipraising officer to determine, and it has been
found necessary for the Departnient to aid them by furnishing typesaniples of the various kinds of imported wools mentioned in the tariff,
Avhich sami^les have been selected from time to time by commissions
appointed by the Departnient for that purpose, thus to a great extent
Xilacing the determin.ition of the duty under the tariff practically in
the hands of other than officers ivho are by law charged with this duty.
One of the most unfortunate features of the act of 1867 is that the
dividing line between the higher and lower i'ate of duty in wools in
class 3 is placed so very near the xirice at Avhich those wools have for
years been held for sale in foreign countries, thus affording a special
inducement to undervalue, or to reduce the apparent value upon the
invoice by the substitution of false and ficDitions charges at the last
port of shipment.
. •
The act of June 6, 1872, simxily reduces the duty 10 xier cent., without niaking further changes. This act was repealed in March, 1875.
The act of March 3, 1883, abolished ad valorem duties, reduced the
duties on carpet-Avools from 3 cents and 6 cents to 2J cents and 5 cents
X3er pound, respectively, and lowered the dividing line between wools
of the first class xiaying lower and those xiaying higher duty from 32
cents to 30 cents value, but the classification by race or blood remains
the same as in the tariff of 1864.
Question No. 21.—It is not beliei^ed that at any of the larger Atlantic
XDorts, excex3t New York, the practice prevails to any extent among
inspectors of baggage or other officers of the customs of accepting
money orother valuable things from passengers arriving from abroad
as a consideratioii fpr malfeasance or misfeasance on their xiart, or for
any other purpose.'
The only inoney believed to be received by officers npon the dock is
that which is collected by the proper officers as duties upon goods subject to duty contained in the passengers' baggage.
It is, and has been for many years, an open secret that such reprohensible and illegal practices have prevailed at the port of New York.
394^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
This was fully commented upon by the Jay Commission, in 1877, and
Avas specially brought to the attention of Congress'by the Secretary of
the Treasury in 1878.
•
The only remedy that occurs to me would be by the appointment of
honest and trustworthy persons as inspectors, by a-watchful and constant supervision, and by subjecting the offenders in every instance to
the severest xoenalties of the law.
It is an element of Aveakness in the laAv that in giving and accepting
valuable considerations for official services the offence is the same, so
that the passenger cannot testify against the officer Avithout criminating himself.
,
Question No. 22.—Of course, the higher the rate of duty the greater
is the temx:)tation to evade it. The duty on bay-oil at one time was
$17.50 a pound, and while this laAv existed none Avas legitimately imported. The high rate of dnty formerly imposed upon ottar of roses
and many varieties of essential oils, and upon quinine and morphine;
Avhen taken in connection ivith their lvalue and the ease Avith which
they can be handled and concealed, resulted in extensive smuggling of
those articles.
It is also trne of diamonds that, although the rate is but 10 per cent.,
large quantities are smuggled. Sugar is one of the largest articles of
iniportation, and its rate of duty is among the highest, and yet substantially none is smuggled because of its bulk. Articles of standard lvalue
are not so often undervalued as are tliose whose lvalue depends upon
the fancy of the hour. As to the latter, ivhatever the rate of duty provided, unless it Avere the minimum, ive niight fairly expect undervaluation, because of the fact, well known to the importer, that the integrity of his invoice ordinarily could not successfully b'e challenged.
Question No. 23.—What has been true of the failure to enforce the
revenue laAv at New York has, to some extent, been also true at the
other large American xiorts, but in a far less degree.
When the importing trade ivas driven from its legitimate channels
bythe pernicious consignment system, it naturally drifted to NewYork,
the great business centre of the East; and, as the successful consummation of one system of frauds is likely to invite the inauguration, of
others and result in evil and powerful combinations, it follows as a
natural result that, as to fraudulent importations, that great xiort has
become distinguished above all others.
Question No. 24.—No instance has come under my observation in
ivhich an appraising officer has made a false or fraudulent report to
the collector of dutiable values and has not been complained of and
XDunished..
As I have before stated, since the action of the appraising officer is,
or is presumed tb be, in every instance based uxion his opinion and
judgment, it would be most difficult to establish ordinarily any guilty
knowledge or intent on his part, however erroneous his expressed
ox)inioii might be.
Very resxiectfully, your obedient servant,
N. W. BINGHAM.
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B, C^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^
395
No. 18.
Additional Inquiry to Special Ageyit Bingham.
I
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, Oetober 2, 1886.
SIR : Your communication of the 21st ultimo, giving a very clear
exhibition of the result of your inquiries into the condition of the customs service during, the last few years, has been received. You are
directed to prepare immediately, and transmit to me, an additional
statement showing on what articles, and at which ports, there is at the
present time, in your opinion, a failure to levy and collect the full
rate and amount of duty levied by the existing law, together ivith the
names of the officers who are, in your oxiinion, now at fault.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING.
N. W. BINGHAM,
Esq.,
Special Agent, Boston, Mass.
No. 19.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY-DEPARTMENT,
Boston, Mass., October IQ, 1885.
S I R : In response to yonr communication of the 2d instant, directing
me to prepare and present ah additional sta,tement showing on lA^hat
articles and at which ports there is at the present time in my opinion,
a failure to levy and collect the full rate and amount of duty, together
with the names of the officers lA^ho are, in my opinion, now at fault, I
have the honor to report as follows:
I.assume that it is only expected that I shall mention some of the
leading and most imxiortant articles npon which the full amount of duty
is not collected, confining the list to articles a^ to which the evils complained of are in a measure systematic at certain xiorts, in Order that
the attention of the Department may be directed to the ports ivhere
remedial action is most required;
The failure to collect the proper duties arises in xiart from undervaluations, in xiart from improxier classifications, in part from incorrect
entry and returns of quantity, in part from imxiroxier damage allowances, and in part from smuggling.
I am not prepared to assert that the xiractice at present exists, as in
former years, of passing merchandise throngh the custom-house uxioir
invoices containing false descriptions and by means of dummy xiackages.
The principal under valuations,, as I believe, occur at present upon
articles that are consigned by foreign manufacturers or jobbing houses
to their agents or representatives in this country. As to these, I think
it may safely be said that nndervaluation is the ride rather than the
exception.
' ..
Occasional undervaluations of merchandise xiurchased abroad and
imported by Anierican merchants are discovered. Indeed, it is a matter of daily occurrence at the larger xiorts for appraisers to report advances in value, but the amount involved is generally inconsiderable
396
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and the undervaluation is not believed to be accompanied ivith fraudulent intent* I do not call to mind any particular class of nierchandise
so imported that is systematically undervalued uxion entry except
horses.
Among the most important importations under the consignment system are those of silks and silk goods, kid gloA^es, Avooilen and worsted
goods, embroideries, china-and glass ivare, and cutlery. The system,
has, however, absorbed nearly all leading articles subject to ad i^alorem
rates of duty that are iniported from the continent of Europe, and more
especially from Germany. These importations are almost wholly made
at the port of New York.
The classes of nierchandise distinguished for being imxiroperly classified upon entry are less numerous than those undervalued. Among
these are sugar, AVOOI, and animals imported from Canada ostensibly
for breeding purxDOses.
The rate of duty imxiosed by laAV ux^on sugar is among the highest,
and the revenue derived from importations of that article far exceeds
that collected upon any other, reaching an average of over forty millions annually. The rate upon sugar testing over 75 degrees by the
polariscope is increased yf^ of a cent per xiound for every additional
degree shown by such test.
I am informed that an examinatioii of the returns of tests made at
New York, Philadelxihia, and Boston, of the sa/Uiekind and quality of
sugar, demonstrates that the returned tests at Boston range considerably higher thau those at New York or Philadelxihia.
The sugar examiuer at this xiort estimates the average excess of the
Boston tests over those at New York to be one (1) degree, and the average excess over those at Philadelphia to be two (2) degrees. This
discrexiancy may result from imperfections in the instrunient, from ini:
Xiroper sampling, or from carelessness. in testing, and possibly may be
attributed to design. .
The importance of this matter can only be realized by considering
the magnitude ofthe imxiortations. Duririg the fiscalyear ending
June 30, 1884, the quantity.of sugar imported into the United States
A ^s 2,437,570,913 pounds, of which 2,417,401,137 pounds were returned
Aa
as not aboA^e No. 13, D. S., and testing above 75 degrees. An error of
one degree nx^on this quantity Avould make a difference in duties for
or against the Governinent of $966,960.
During the same x:)eriod there Avas imxiorted at the xiorts of New York
and Philadelphia, in all, 2,020,018,754 xiounds of sugar, of Avhich about
tivo million pounds only ivas aboA^e No. 13, D. S.
The Department is in possession of abundant evidence tending to
show that carxiet-wool iu large quantities has been x>assed at Philadelphia at less than the proper rate.
Owing to the general dexiression in business in Europe as well as in
this country, the foreign niarket value of carpet-ivool is just now so
IOAV as to bring it honestly ivithin the loAv-duty limit, but on the revival
of business the higher xirices are so certaiii to be attained again that I
consider it to be a subject ivorthy of present attention.
Under the tariff xirovisions relating to the importation of animals
specially for breeding x^iu'poses, large numbers hai^e been imported
npon the northern aud northeastern frontiers and passed through the
custom-house free of duty that Avere, in xioint of fact, imiiorted for otner
purxioses, and not for breeding.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
39?
I believe that the greatest losses arising from incorrect returns of.
weights occur upon importations of sugar at the port of New York.
The returned weight of brown sugar entered at that port during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, was nearly one and a half million
pounds, about three-quarters ofthe entire importation. Tests recently
instituted will, I believe, establish the truth ofthe conjecture and convince the Dexiartment of the importance of instituting some vigorous
and determined measures to correct the evil. The liberal weighing of sugar at New York has beeh a matter of
continuous and earnest complaint from importers at other ports for
several years.
My attention has just been called to the circumstances of a reweighing
of ninety-three hogsheads of sugar, March 28, 1883, by the depnty
surveyor at this port, at the Boston sugar-refinery. The sugar was
imported at New York, and the custom-house iveights axipeared npon
the xiackages. The rcAveighing was not officially done, but was simply
to test the foundation of complaints as to discrepancies between the
true and the returned weights at New York. Although the sugar in
this instance had remained some time subject to drying since the New
York weights Avere taken, the true weights were found to average about
ten xiounds x^er hogshead in excess of the New York weights.
The sugar examiner, Mr. Keyes, informs me that a short time since
he had occasion to observe a nuinber of hogsheads of sugar that were
imported at New York and purchased by a refiner in this city, which
hogsheads ivere in xirocess of being reweighed, and he noticed that the
custom-house weights Avhich were marked ux)on the hogsheads were
from fifteen to tiventy pounds less than the true weight.
The damage allowance system is one of the most fruitful sources of
fraud in all the custonis service, and one which Congress should be
urged to abolish.'
Under this system frauds are especially invited, easy of accomplishment, and comxDaratively free from detection.
At the port of New York there is a set of enterprising men, styled
dainage brokers, Avho, for a consideration, undertake to obtain liberal
dainage allowances upon any and all importations of merchandise liable to sustain damage upon the voyage of importation, and importersare often imx)ortuned by them to permit them to make claims for
damages npon merchandise as to Avhich the owner is satisfied that no
damage has been sustained.
•
One of the largest imxiorters of fruits and nuts in this city recently.
informed me that upon an imxiortation of walnuts, part of which came
into the port of New York and a part into Boston, and all of which
Avere x^erfQCtly sound and bright when landed, his broker, Avithout his
knowledge, obtained for him, upon the New York imxiortation, an alloVance of about $200 in duty, and the broker, on being subsequently
asked ivhy he claimed damage on goods that were not injured, rexilied
that he was obliged to do it because of heavy damage allowances that
had been claimed and allowed upon contemporaneous imxiortations. ^
I believe that at tliis x^ort there is no ground for comxilaint on the
part of tlie Govewimsnt or honest inipor(:ers in this regard.
Rmng!:ling is to a gr^aier or less extent carried on throughout our
wliole c )i^t a.nd frv):itier. There is, however, less temptation than
licrelofore to enga;ge in this nefarious traffic upon the northern frontier,
because of the high rates of duty imposed upon merchandise by the
Provincial Government.
398
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUiRY.
I am nnable to give the names of officers ivho are responsible for the
failure to leyj and collect full duty.
I have from time to time, as the malfeasance or misfeasance of cnstoms officers has been discovered, reported the facts to the Department,
with the names of the officers implicated, as I ivas in duty bound tb do.
In my former communicatioii I submitted that, as to officers whose
official reports are suxiposed to be the result of their opinion andjudgment, it was exceedingly difficult to establish any wrong pnrpose oi intent npon their part. This especially applies to officers in the axipraiser's department charged ivith the finding of values and the ascertainment of damage and with recommendations as to classifications.
It also apxilies to the higher grade of Treasury officials who construe
the law for the guidance of customs officers.
A feeling has prevailed among many of the more intelligent and
conscientious officers for several years, and until recent changes were
made in the customs bureau of the Treasury Dexiartment, that the laAV
was frequently construed either in the interest of xiarticular persons for
unworthy x)nrposes, or to wait upon a xioxmlar clamor coming chiefiy
from those whose interest it was to defeat the plain purposes of the law,
and that, to a certain extent at least, erroneous decisions had, for the
sake of consistency, been adhered to by which the revenue suffered
great loss, and the rights of honest importers were correspondingly
invaded.
Information ivas obtained by this office in 1879 that, uxion import:^ tions of sugar at this port, through collusion between the Governnn i
weigher and the importers' weigher, false returns of weights Avere mad.,
ranging from ten to five hundred pounds per hogshead, by which the
Government lost in duty a sum reaching nearly thirty thousand dollars.
, The quantity of sugar upon which dnty was not paid as above stated
was clearly shown by documentary evidence, and was in fact admitted
by the importers as to some of the cargoes.
The color, Dutch standard, of the contents of each hogshead was and
is a matter of record in the custom-house, having been obtained in the
manner prescribed by law; and yet, with all the data necessary for a settlemeiit by any reasonable rule in transactions betvveen individuals in
the possession of the Government, it was decided' (see Synopsis, 4588)
that the duties so falsely withheld could not be collected because of the
wrong-doing of the importers' agent, through which it had come that
the statute steps in ascertaining qnantity could not be taken.
In this connection, I i^enture to refer to m3^ report upon this subject,
dated September 22, 1880.
The priiicix:)les laiddoAA^n in the decision above referred to are of frequent application, and, if unsound, operate to deprii^e the GoA^ernment
' of important legal remedies in the assessment and collection of delinquent duties.
Two instances may be cited—one reported by this office on the 5th
ultimo, and one referred to in ni}^ leport of. the 6th. instant.
. An imxiortation of Avorsted yarn, from Bradford, England, was made
at this x^ort in December, 1883, nxDon ivhich the apxiraiser made an advance in value, and the case went to the apxieUate board on axipeal.
It Avas clearly proven upon reappraisement that the xirice at which
the yarn was imported ivas beloAv its niarket lvalue in England, and was
a concession made to meet and defeat the tariff. The general and merchant appraisers disagreed, and the matter Avent to the coUector for.
final determination.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASQRY;
399
In anSAver to inquiries from the collector, the Department laid doiyii.
the rule that the special price made for the purpose aboire suggested
Avas to be considered, within the meaning of the law, to be the wholesale price or true market lvalue in the foreign market, notwithstanding
the fact that the Supreme Court, in the Cliquot's Champagne case (3
Wallace, U. S. Eep., 125) construed the term ^^market value;" as employed in the law, to mean the price at which the goods were freely
offered for sale to cdl the world.
I enclose a coxiy of my report upon that case, dated April 19, 1884.
It will be observed that the principle promulgated in the decision
last referred to applies equally to all importations and opens the way
for the wealthy and long-established factories and business houses of
the old world lo defeat the xmrposes of our legislation and to crush out
^ our young competing industries.
Of A'-astly less importance, but forcibly illustrating the idea that I
- AVonld present^ are the decisions relating to the entry of animals imX3orted from Canada npon the pretense that they are to be especially
used for breeding purxioses.
A perusal of these decisions, and the various reports from this office
npon the same subject, will show with what difficulty a modification of
the first decision that opened the door to free entry to ei^erything breedable was secured, and will also show that while the law (for reasons too
apparent to discuss) restricts the free entry of animals for breeding
purposes to those imported from beyond the sea, the Dexiartment decided, in effect, that Canada is a country beyond the sea.
As to the return of false weights and of damage allowances ux30ii
goods that are evidently sound and bright, it may xiroperly be charged
against the officer that he has acted from corruxit motives and with
guilty intent, or that at least he is guilty of criminal negligence in the
discharge of his duty.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
No W. BINGHAM,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[Enclosure. ]
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Boston, Mass., April 19, 1884.
SIR : Upon a disagreement between the general and nierchant axix:>raisers in the matter of reappraisement Of certain wools and yarns, imported at this x^ort from Bradford, England, by the Manchester Mills,.
the question coming before the collector for his decision, I am informed
that he asked instructions from the Department as to certain legal questions involved, and has transmitted, for the better information of the Department, the documentary eiddence in the case and the stenographer's
• report of the hearing. . To these papers I wonld respectfully invite
careful attention, for the reason that I am under the impression that they
may .aid materially in disclosing the real point at issue.
I had expected to hai^e opportunity to present a summary of the evidence, with such suggestions as were deemed pertinent and important,
but am prevented from doing so from the fact that through inadvertency
the papers were transmitted to the Department without giving me a
cha nee to review them, as the collector promised and intended. I think,
400
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
however, that I can from memory give substantially the substance of
the evidence in the case ivithout going into details.
The evidence before the appellate board conclusively established two
facts—
First. That the prices at which the yarns in question were sold at
wholesale, at the date of the invoices, in Bradford, for delivery there,
or on the continent, without restrictions, ivere higher tlian those expressed in the invoices, and in most cases ivere more than 80 cents x)er
pound, which is one of the dividing-lines between a higher and loAver
rate of duty. (The ini^oice prices are less than 80 cents per pound.)
Second. That the iuA^oice prices correctly represent the prices at
which the goods in question were Sold, (in this instance,) and are the
.result of a special concession made to meet the tariif barrier of the
United States.
A fair, if not the unavoidable, inference from all the testimony is, that
the sales in question Avere not made in the ordinary course of trade in
this description of merchandise in Bradford.
I understand that Mr. Haserich, of the firm of Stoddard & Levering,
having a house in England as well as in this country, states in writing
to the collector that he could xiurchase the yarns in question, at the
date of the invoices, at the invoice xirices or less, for export to any
country, but Avhether this is nierely a matter of conjecture or not I am
nbt informed, as no oxiportunity ivas given the general axixiraiser or
myself to examine him upon that point.
It is Avorthy of note that the opinion exxiressed by Mr. Haserich is
in direct conflict with all the testimony bearing upon that xioint contained in the report of Sxiecial Agent Tichenor.
It should also be borne in mind that Mr. Haserich occupies substantially the position of a co-defendant in this matter, for the reason that
his house has been largely engaged in similar imxiortations.
' This statement of Mr. Haserich would not be iinportant but for the fact
that it is clainied that under instructions contained in Synoxisis, 3238,
in relation to the dutiable lvalue of certain books, the actual price paid
for mer chan disc,* or for which inerchandise is sold forexport, constitntes
the dutiable value, although such x)rice is lower than the price at which
the goods are sold for consumxition in thecountry from whenceexx)orted.
I do not think that the Departnient intended to give to said decision
such broad scope of apxilication, but, on the contrary, I believe it to have
been the purpose simply to lay down a rule for the appraisement of
books, a kind of merchandise which from the peculiarities of the trade
therein it is especially difficult to axixiraise; but, whether this view is
correct or not, it certainly cannot be that Congress intended toprovide
a method by which foreign producers could successfully defeat the
purposes of legislation, as would be the case were it provided by law
that special dutiable values, differing from and less than the ordinary
market values, niight be made through special concessions in order to
meet and defeat the restrictive or discriminating provisions contained
i n c u r tariff laws; and in this connection I beg to suggest that such
special transactions cannot be said to be ' 4 n the ordinary courseof
trade," any more than excexitions to well-defined rules can "be held to
constitute the rules themselves.
The court, in the Cliquot's Champagne case, (3 Wall., U. S. Eep.,
125,) clearly defines the meaning of '^market value" of goods as employed in the tariff, declaring it to be * the price at winch they are
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
401
freely offered in the market to all the world;" in other words, ^^such
prices as dealers in the goods are willing to receive, and purchasers are
made to xiay," not with special concessions or under special restrictions,
but, on the contrary, when the ' ^ goods are bought and sold in the ordinary course of trade."
By adopting this principle in the appraisement of dutiable merchandise, the appraising officer would be forced to disregard, sales of mer- "
chandise at special prices for a limited and circumscribed market at
prices less than those at which it is freely offered, bought, and sold
''to allthe world."
In a letter to the collector at New York, dated June 12, 1869, (Synopsis, 406,) the Secretary declared that ^^the dutiable value of goods imported into the United States is the lvalue at which such goods enter .
into consumption in the country of export."
It is true that the Department has held that goods in bond, having
a known market valne in that condition, as distinguished from their
value duty or tax paid, may, when purchased in bond, be appraised
for duty at the price xiaid, or rather at the value in bond; but whether
or not this doctrine shall prevail when reconsidered by the present
authorities it does not affect the case in question, for the reasoii that
in^the case of goods in bond it is their now tax-paid condition that is
taken into account in determining their value, while in the case in
question the importer only claims to sustain his invoice values by the
special conditions of the purchase and sale.
In one case it is the condition of the goods that affects their value; in
the other it is claimed to reduce the value on account of the condition '
of the sale.
It has been held that upon the importation of goods upon which a
drawback was allowed b y t h e country from whence exported to this,
that no allowance should be made for such drawback in determining
dutiable value.
With the exception of a remote inference that may possibly be drawn
from the language contained in Synopsis, 3238, the decisions bf the Department are all in harmony with the doctrine ofthe court above cited ;
and as to Synopsis, 3238, I would respectfully submit that it should be
interpreted in connection with that ivhich it reaffirms, viz., Synopsis,
3196, in which latter decision it was declared that when goods subject
to a royalty, when sold for consumption in the country of production
are imported into this country, no less value than the sum realized upon
such sales for consumption can be accepted as a basis for assessment of
duty.
The purpose of the tariff as relates to the nierchandise in qnestiom is
evidently twofold, viz., the collection of revenue and the protection of
domestic industries.
Considering this, the impropriety of giving to the foreign producers
the privilege of defeating the manifest purpose of Congress by making
special concessions in price, whereby they may be enabled to introd.uce
into this country at a lower duty goods which, by reason of their general value abroad, it is declared shallpay a higher duty; is too apparent
to discuss.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
N. W. BINGHAM,
Special Agent.
Hon.
CHARLES J. FOLGER,
Secretary of the Treasury.
4 0 2 - REPORT OF. THE SECRETARY OF THi^ TREASURY.
No. 20..
C. H. LAPP—Appointed Special Agent May 1, 1885. '.
O F F I C E SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
.
. Neio York, October 6 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department circular of August 27, containing
twenty-four inquiries, and also to the circular of September 30, asking
for a reply to same, I respectfully beg leave tp say that a careful consideration of the subjects coA^ered by said inquiries convinces me that
my meagre knoAvledge of customs laAvs and regulations, Avholly acquired
during the five months I have been in the service, will not permit of
my answering the questions in a manner at all satisfactory to the
Department, or so as to in anyway benefit the object sought to be
attained.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. H. LAPP,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
'
.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 21.
JAMES H. POWER—Entered the Department as a first-class clerk October 2, 1869.
Was promoted through all the different grades. Appointed on the "Fraud Roll,"
and assigned to duty at San X^rancisco September 22, 1882 ; Inspector of Customs,.
O.ctober 5, 1883. Appointed Special Agent February 28, 1885.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T ,
U. S. P U B L I C STORES, 402 WASHINGTON STREET,
New York City, October 2, 1885.
S I R : In reply to Department's circular (confidential) of August 27,
1885, I have the honor to submit the following:
Query 1.—Eates of duty are determined by the appraising officers by:
the exercise of their knowledge of the commodities under appraisement,
the application thereto of the tariff law, and the rulings of the Treasury
Departnient. In the performance of their duties, questions of doubt as
to classification are of comnion occurrence, and mistakes are often made
even by the most exxierienced officers.
Doubtful decisions affecting the merchants' interests are promxitly
.questioned, apxiealed from to the Treasury Departnient, and finally to
the United States courts for decision. The frequency of those appeals
indicates errors of judgment on appraisement, and Avarrants the inference
that mistakes adi^erse to the revenue must also be not uncommon. Such
mistakes, ivhen made, and apxiraisement having been concluded, are hot
likely to be heard of again, much less discovered.
Query 2.—I am unable to answer.
Query 3.—Tests of the correctness of invoiced measurements are rarely
made, and then only in cases where there is reason to "suspect the
honesty of the importation or the character of the importer. In such
instances the examiner verifies the measurement by a count of the metre
or' yard folds, as the merchandise is put np, or, as in the case of goods
rolled on a board, by count of the number ^f. folds from the centre
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
403
to the outside, calculating an average length for each fold. The tag
attached to each piece giving factory length is usually accepted as the
correct measurement, and is invariably found to agree with the invoiced
measure.
Query 4.—This query covers an assertion often made and but rarely
verified, never within my knowledge. Collusion by the designation of
false packages for examination at the public stores, while practicable
except nnder such a system as now in use at New York, is attended
with such risk of miscarriage or discovery that few would be willing to
make the venture. In cases where this class of fraud was suspected, I
have known whole consignments, and even cargoes, ordered to public
stores for examination, ivithout discovery in any instance.
Query 5.—The classes of goods weighed on the wharves are heavy and
bulky, and, being ordinarily subject to a loiv rate of duty, do not afford
the incentive to corruxit or bribe the weighing officer. With proper
supervision by the weigher in charge of a district, inadequate or incompetent weighing conld not well escape notice for any length of time.
Discrepancies or returns of short weights uniformly by any assistant
weigher, may readUy be discovered by variance with the invoiced and
entered weights.
Query 6.—I am unable to ansAver.
Query 7.—The classes of goods coming under my personal observation kno Avn to be undervalued, as determined by advances made on appraisement and repeatedly affirmed on reapxiraisement, are cotton laces
and embroideries, tanned sheexi-skins, (chamois,) lithographic-printing
presses, varnishes, hosiery, kid gloves, and knit ivoollen goods.
The evidences of undervaluation in cotton laces and embroideries
• were primarily based upon reports from the consul at St. Galle and
upon complaints made by importing firms doing business in NCAV York
and other cities. The evidences of failure to collect the proper revenne
npon the lines of goods named, while questioned by the consignees,
cannot be controverted successfully.
Query 8.—Undervaluation, and consequent failure to collect the rewenue, has been the steady groivth of years, extending back to the days
of the war and the high tariff of .those times, and continued through
succeeding years. It progressed each year, and so extended itself as to
compel American imxiorting firms to abandon purchasing abroad and
buy, duties paid at the dollar xirice, through agents of foreign manufacturers or their consignees in New York.
,
'
"
So general has this system of consignment and agency business become, that New York is HOAV the recognized niarket for silks, velvets,
plushes, embroideries, and laces, and certain lines of fancy dress-goods.
The Amefican lA^holesale buyer can obtain better bargains in New York
than from the manufacturer abroad, calculating transportation charges
and imposts.
. The groAvth of consignments has driven purchased importations away,
so that consigned goods are often regarded as the standard of market
value. According to the testimony of Examiner Fitch, now out of
office, consigned goods were invoiced from 5 x^er cent, to 100 per cent,
less than the purchased goods imported by leading American firms, the
examiner's jtheory being that the purchasing houses paid niore than
the market value for their goods, ahd that the ini^oiced value of consigned goods was the true criterion of dutiable value.
404
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'Lack of diligence and ignorance on the part of the assistant appraisers and their examiners are mainly responsible fbr nndeiwaluations and
the changes in trade brought about by its general xirevalence in certain
lines of goods. Appraising officers, in determining market values,
attach butdittle weight to consuls' advices bf market value, as shoivn
by reports on file at the Department.
Query 9.—The axixiraising officers are by law. directed to ascertain,
by all reasonable means, the market lvalue of imported goods, for the
assessment of duties. In the discharge of this duty they are supposed
to exercise their best judgment, and. if, through mistake or wilful design,
false dutiable values are returned, the error or fraud, in the absence of
proof of collusion, no matter how suspicious the circunistances or con-'
spicuously low the return of dutiable value, can be shielded under the
plea of mistaken judgment.
While proofs of false returns of value cannot be adduced, the eiddence
of such returns may be inferred, with a reasonable degree of certainty,
by discoA^ery of underA^aluation in lines of nierchandise ivhich had previonsly been xiassed at their invoice talue withont question.
UnderA^alnation had its origin in the high rates of ad i^alorem duties,
and is not confined to any class or classes of articles, nor to any particular
countries. It is practised chiefly by .manufacturers abroad, who consign
their xiroducts to agents and commission-houses in NCAV York. It is
also much xiractised by certain classes of importers through resident
agents and forwarding agents in Euroxie, Avho make out invoices as shippers, without risk to themselves, at such prices as are likely to escaxie
question at the New York custom-house.
' Query 10.—Market value has always been an. element of uncertainty
in the minds of customs officers, some of whom have held that the
prices actually x^aid in the markets abroad constitTited the basis of
dutiable lvalue, even Avhen such prices, were known to be less than the
ruling market value. Much doubt has also existed on the question of
charges for cartons, boxes, or other coverings required to place the
goods in a marketable condition. In other cases it has been held that.
Avhen the X3uix3haser of large quantities of goods obtains reduced rates
in consideration of the extent of the purchase, such low rate constitutes
market lvalue for the goods so purchased.
In a recent case coming nnder my observation the claim was made by
a merchant axipraiser that ivhile the goods nnder apx>raisemeht were
nndoubtedly sold in England at higher rates to the Avholesale trade in
that country than to Americaii purchasers and consignees, yet, in con- '
sideration of the extent of the purchases for the American trade, a
special standard, of dutiable lvalue should be recognized fbr imxiortations into the United States. If I am advised correctly this vicAv is in
^harmony Avith a decision of the Department, in an unpublished letter to
the collector of custonis at Boston, defining a dual market value, viz.,.
f ruling niarket xirice for the home trade and a special market value for
b
^the American trade.
In this connection it may be pertinent to call attention to Departmenjb
/Circular No. 30, paragraxih 5, December 26, fl848, (Eobert J. Walkei*^
Secretary,) and to the principles therein laid down concerning the standV
ard of market value. As far as my knowledge goes, the standard of
market value, as defined by the circular mentioned, has never been
modified or rescinded, although apparently overlooked in the Custom^
Eegulations and the published decisions of the Department.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
40$
Query 11.—An estimated average of undervaluation and loss of revenne can only be problematical and based upon meagre and theoretic
data, except in some few lines of goods not subject to fiuctuations in
yalue. In textile goods, the constantly changing designs, patterns,
quality, supply, and demand, and the doubtful character of many of the '
importing firms, must prevent the procurement of accurate data.
Articles nndervalued and passed upon by the apxiraising officers can
rarely, after the lapse of a short period, be identified.
Query 12.—It is the chief duty of an examiner to be conversant with
the market value of goods npon which he passes, and if false returns
of value are made, he is primarily responsible for such false return in
the ordinary course of business. He may fix the responsibility upon the
assistant appraiser by calling his attention to questionable invoice values,
and in cases of doubt as to values, or when an advance is made, it is
always customary for the examiner to seek advice from the assistant
appraiser. While the assistant axipraiser supervises the work of his
division and gives general attention' to the appraisement of goods, he
must depend mainly upon the j udgment of his examiner, whose exxierience should enable him to determine correct values.
Section 2940, Eevised .Statutes, provides that no' person shall be appointed examiner at the pprt of New York who is not at the time of his
axixiointment acquainted with the character, quality, and lvalue of the
article in the axipraisement of which he isto be employed. The nonobservance of this provision of law by the appointments, in past years,
of examiners entirely unfamiliar with the merchandise upon which
they.were to assess values contributed much to the growth of undervaluations. _
"
'
The salaries of examiners at New York vary from $1,800 to $2,500-—
meagre compensation for the skill required and the trusts imposed.
Query 13.—I have no information as to this query.
Query 14.—See reply to Question No. 9.
Query 15.—If wilful false retnrns, through bribery or venality, have
been made in the past, it is not nm^easonable to presume that they are
now made and will be made in the future. The purification of the service by the discharge of implicated officials and of others suspected of ^
improper practices may deter and check others evil disposed from going
wrong; but so long as there are inducements to corrupt an officer, so
long will dishonest merchants or brokers make the attempt. This motive exists in the evasion of the payment of full duties under the existing high rate of ad valorem imposts.
Query 16.—Ad valorem rates of duty afford temptations and opportunities for fraud which cannot be guarded against, even by the most
rigid rules and vigilant watchfulness. The asgessment of values .under
this system is based upon expert knowledge of values, the most uncertain and arbitrary method that could be devised. Under the ad valorem system fraud has prospered and demoralized the importing trade, .
which has passed from the hands of American citizens into the control
of men who have taken advantage of our high import duties to emdch
themselves at the expense of the revenue and the ruined trade of American wholesale firms. Fraud of this hature is difficult to detect, and more
difficult still to establish. In the absence of documentary proof, it re- ,
solves itself into a mere difference of opinion between experts; and the
ovmer ofthe suspected goods can at all times procure experts who will
maintain the correctness of his invoice prices, or he may select an easier
406
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and more convincing and efficacious line of defence by procuring afiida- ,
yits from his buyer or x)artner abroad to the effect that the invoice cost
was the actual price paid for the goods.
An examiner, if dishonestly inclined, may return false values under
the eyes of the deputy appraiser or investigating officer without appre^
hension of discovery.
While fraud may be perpetrated under the system of specific rates
by return of false weights and measures and by false classification, the
officer lending himself to such fi.^aud exposes himself to risks, sure in the
end to lead to discovery, discharge from the sendee, and prosecution
under the law, because false iveights and measures and false classifications
cannot, as in the case of underA^aluation, be sheltered by the specious
claim of mistaken judgment.
Specific rates of duty may largely be substituted for ad valorem rates
in textile fabrics, but not entirely so withouit placing the most costly
goods on a par ivith the cheapest. This is the chief objection against
the specific rate; but admitting that the application of the system to
textile fabrics wonld in certain lines of goods operate objectionably, the
evU wonld not be near as great as the abuse of the ad valorem rate.
France, after many years' exxierience and careful study by a commission of eminent citizens,. almost whollj^ obliterated the ad valorem
system, substituting therefor specific and, in a few instances, compound
rates.
• • • ,
. .
Query 17.—The lepeal of the moiety law and the modification of the
law authorizing seizure of books and papers restricted the power of
custoins officers in the pnrsnit of fraud. While the Government still
has the power to examine books and papers, this xiower can bnly be
exercised under the sanction and authority of a justice of a United States
conrt, and the particular books .and papers must be described before
such sanction is given. Under the old law an officer could-make an
nnexxiected descent on a suspected importer and, haidng power to examine all books and papers, could discover fraud if any existed. While
the power conferred under this law was arbitrary and liable to abuse,
the honest merchant had nothing to apprehend from its operation.
The repeal of the moiety act removed all incentive to the giving of.
inforniation by clerks or other employes possessed of knowledge of
fraudulent doings by their employers.
While the repeal of the laws in question contributed in some measure
to undervaluation, it is doubtful that such repeal or modification can
fairly be said to hai^e brought about the great increase of undervaluation in the past ten or fifteen years. About ten or fifteen years ago a
new class of importers invaded the commercial life of New York, and
their prosx)erity from the outset attracted others of their kind to enter
the importing trade.
Eestrictive.and penal laws devised to protect the revenue cannot be
, effective so long as high ad valorem rates exist. Cause can alivays be
shoAvn to the satisfaction of a jury, in criminal x^rosecutions for under-valuations, that there was no wilful intent to commit fraud.
. '
-Query 18.—The Americah consuls in the chief commercial cities of
Europe, by the extent and variety of articles shipx)ed from their consular
districts to the United States, cannot, ivithout giAdng good reason for
complaint from fbreign shippers to their governments, on the ground
pf vexatious exactions and delays, gii^e such personal examination to
the verification of J3he correctness of invoiced values as would prove pf
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
40?
value to the axipraising officers in the United. States. Commercial
agents or special agents, few in number, stationed abroad could render
valuable assistance to the consuls and to the Governnient by investigations of special lines of goods paying ad valorem duties. All such goods
investigated by Special Agent Tichenor, ivhen abroad, resulted in the
collection of increased revenue.
Query 19.—Under existing law, a merchant, feeling aggrieved by an
appraiser's assessment, has the right of appeal to a board of reappraisement, consisting of a general appraiser and a nierchant familiar ivith
the goods nnder appraisement. Appeals are generally decided quickly
and equitably, and the appellant, as a rule, gets the benefit of any doubt .
which may exist.
A judicial tribunal for the hearing of cases involving questions of
value would be but poorly suited to deal with such matters. Court
methods are usually slow, and cases of nndervaluiition which are now
settled in a half-hour might, nnder court forms and procedure, be nnder consideration for years. Time in the determination of niarket value
is of great importance to the merchant whose goods are undervalued;
postponements for a nionth or two niay, by fluctuations in supply and
deniand, styles, designs, &c., so change the niarket value as to render
expert testimony ivholly unreliable. Under the law, the goods under
appraisement, or one package in ten thereof, must be examined by the
appraising or reappraising officers. There can be no appraisement or
ascertainment of values unless the goods are present. Under court pro. eedure it is presumed that the same rule would hold good, which would
mean the detention ofthe goods for a long time.
•Queries 20, 21.—I am unable to answer.
Query 22.—See answer to Questions 8 and 16.
Querry 23.—I am unable to answer as to failure to collect the revenue
at the leading Atlantic ports, but from xiersonal knowledge I am enabled
to say that such ii^as the case in San Francisco.
Query 24.—See answers to Questions 1 and 9.
I have the honor-to be, very respectfully,
JAMES D. POWEE,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 22.
C. C. ADAMS—Entered the Department as Chief ol a Division, (Currency, September
1, 1874.) Was subsequently appointed Chief of Appointment Division December 28,
1874. Appointed Special Agent July 10, 1875.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Fhiladelphia, October 8, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the confidential
circular dated Angust 27th last, and to submit the folloiving ansivers to
the questions contained therein:
Inquiry l.-^I believe that rates of duty have as a rule been properly
levied and collected. Where not, it has been owing more to lack of
system for comparison of these rates as levied at the different ports, and
of knowledge on the part of the appraising officers, than to any other
cause.
408
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
A t Boston and some of the other ports silk-plush covered albums
were for a time returiied at 35 per cent., as^a manufacture not otherwise
provided for, while at New York they were x'>assed at 60 per cent., ad
valorem, under section 2499. (See Synopsis, 5590 )
^
-^
At Toledo silk lace, dutiable under the old tariff at 60 per cent., was
returned by the appraising officer as cotton lace at 35 per cent. The
error in the first instance ivas owing to a misapxilication of law, and in
the latter it seems to have been attributable to nnfamiliarity on the
part ofthe appraiser with the article upon which he had to pass.
\
In Boston certain ^'necktie silks," composed of silk and cotton, were
passed by the appraiser, under the old law, as dutiable at 50 per cent.,
on'the belief that cotton ivas 25 per cent, or over in value. In New
York the same kind of goods were returned, at 60 per cent, ad valorem,
silk chief value. In Boston the facilities for determining the relative
value of the different niaterials entering into the manufacture of the
goods were not so complete as they were in New York, hence the discrepancy.
At this port and Boston the so-called ^^taffeta" or ^^plated" gloves
were for a considerable length of time returned as ^^silk and cotton
gloves, cotton chief value, manufacture of cotton, non-enumerated, at
35 per cent." In New York these goods were classified at 50 per cent.,
silk chief value. At this port they were passed without any test beyond that which the examiner made by mere sight and touch alone.
In Boston the tests were somewhat different, but not sufficient to determine the classification to lA^hich the goods really belonged.
.
Finally, after careful chemical tests by competent exxierts at Boston
and New York, it was clearly shown that silk was chief value, so a uniform rate of duty was established by the Department on this class of
merchandise. (See Synopsis, 6846.)
Under the present system, differences in rates of duty levied at the
several ports will frequently arise, and there does not seem to be any
easy or certain way of preventing them. They cause not only loss to
the revenue, but serious loss to the importers paying the higher rates
of duty.
The instructions of June 16 last to the general appraisers, directing
them to require appraising officers to furnish them daily samples of
all textile and other goods examined and axipraised by them, of which
samples can be taken, for comparison at a meeting of the board of general appraisers and others to be designated for the Avork, is a stexi
towards a better system than UOAV prevails in this regard.
To be of any practical use, however, it is inixDortant that comparisons
of the samx3les taken shonld be made frequently, to the end that differences in classification and lvalues may be corrected as soon as xiossible
after they arise. And again, nnless this is frequently done, the accumulation of samples will become so. great as tb render the work of handling, assorting, classifying, and recording, as well as comxiarison, difficult to perform, and, in consequence thereof, unsatisfactory in its results.
' Inquiry 2.—Not within my knowledge.
Inquiry 3.—By now and then measuring a piece of goods^; by weighing the same, ascertaining the average iveight xier yard, metre, or anne,
and applying this to the entire number in the piece. Where goods are
folded the length is ascertained by counting the folds. Many of the
heavier fabrics are rolled by machinery, and these, it is claimed by
^ome of the examiners, cannot easily be measured, as, once unrolfed, it is
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
409
difficult to get them back into the same compass again. My observation is that but little attention has been paid to the measurement of
fabrics, the length being generaUy taken from the invoice.
Inquiry 4.—There is none that I am aware of that such has been the
ca^e for a number of years. The last transaction of this nature coming"
to my knowledge occurred at the port of Boston, where a large shipment of silk lastings, dutiable at the time of their importation at 60 per
cent., was passed as hide-cuttings,/r^e. I may not be correct in my
impression that the lastings were passed upon false examination packages containing hide-cuttings, but I.am in stating that silk lastings were
passed as hide-cuttings. Preidous to this, the most notorious transactions-of the nature in question were the so-called Lawrence frauds,
perpetrated at the port of New York.
Inquiry 5.—None at this port. I cannot say positively that there is at
any other, but there is reason to believe that in at least two weighing
districts at the port of New York, if thorough investigation could be
had, it would be discovered that the niethods pursued in those districts
are questionable. I am told that memoranda of weights of weighable
merchandise are furnished by the importers to the iveighers, and that
from these memoranda their returns are made up. These rumors refer
to the districts in charge of Weighers •
and
.
Inquiry 6.—As this question involves so much relating to the duties
of the law officers of the Government, I do not feel competent to answer it in all its bearings.
The number of collector's suits now pending at this port are given
in the acconipanying statement marked '^ A . "
There does not appear to be any necessity in this district for the establishment of a new tribunal to try questions growing out of the execution, of the internal-revenue and customs laws; and this, I believe, is
the fact in regard to all the ports except, x)pssibly, New'York. . I also '
believe that the present judicial system is sufficient, if properly arranged and managed, tb meet the requirements of both the Government
and the people. At this and other ports of like importance there ought
not to be such great delay as exists in bringing suits.
Inquiry 7.—In NewYork silk goods of all descriptions, Swiss embroideries, feathers, artificial flowers, patent medicines, earthenware,
varnishes, wool, and many other articles which I cannot now recall.
A t Philadelphia, wool, cutlery, guns, lithograxihic prints, cotton
yarns, embroideries, machinery, and medicinal preparations.
The evidence of failuire to collect the proper amount of duty npon
these articles is generally of such a character it cannot possibly becontroverted.
Inquiry 8.—The failure has come about in various ways, among them,
first, difficulty in obtaining correct inforniation as to foreign niarket
values; second, lack of proper effort on.the part of examining and appraising officers to obtain values and to acquaint themselves Avitli the
character and history of the goods examined by them; third, fear on,
the part of some that if they advanced the values on an importer's invoice, he would nse his influence; often powerful, to hai^e them censured
by their suxierior officers or dismissed the sendee; fourth, disinclination in a great many cases to acknowledge, by making use of reliable
information, when placed before them, that they have for months,
possibly for years, been passing goods at false values; fifth, in some
cases there seems to be no doubt that failure to return proper values has
410
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY^OP THE TREASURY,
been owing to the fact that the examiner was under obligations, pecuniary br otherwise, to the importer; sixth, by erroneous views'as to
what constitutes foreign niarket values.
At this port the Department was unfortunate in having for many
years an appraiser who, dn great measure, allowed his prejudices, with
which he was filled to an unusual degree, to warp his judgment .and to
control his official action, to the detriment of the service and the revenne.
He seemed imbued with the idea that he had mastered everything which
could be learned or known in connection with the business of his office,
and was a law unto himself.
.
His disposition was never to consider information obtaiiied by consular
ofecers and special agents if he could possibly avoid it. He held them,
and anything they niight hai^e to offer, in the utmost contempt. ^That
they shojQd presume to present evidence touching the question of values,
or showing fraud and undervaluation in the iniportation of nierchandise,
was to him something which ought not to be tolerated. Under such discouragements, and with too frequently no suxiport from the Department,
it is not to be ivondered at that if for long periods but little was accomplished in the matter of putting an end to frands, or that during such
periods they increased.
That the revenue, shonld suffer under such a state of misrule is not a
matter for surx)rise. That it did suffer very seriously is abundantly
shown by the history of the wool frands and other similar transaction^'.
While it cannot be truly said that the axipraiser referred to was eith r
ignorant, indolent, or dishonest, some of the results of his administrati n
of the important office of which he had control were the same as if he
had possessed all these faults in combination. I mention these facts,
not in any spirit of attack against a man now ont of the sendee, but to
show, although it goes without saying, that decency in office is as necessary as honesty, and that in the conduct of the pnblic business they
should travel together.
'
Inquiry 9.—To the first part of this question, marked (1), I answer
ever since the cupidity of dishonest merchants and manufacturers was
awakened and sharpened by the unwise legislation contained in the act
of June 22, 1874, known as the anti-moiety law. (2.) Silks, fancy
goods, embroideries, and almost every important line of merchandise
shipped from continental Euroxie., (3.) GeneraUy from Germany,
France, Switzerland, and.. Austria. I n a very much less amonnt from
England, Ireland, and Scotland, OAvihg to the character of the people
and their laws in regard to false swearing. (4.) In a majority of cases
by the mannfacturers. (5.) This condition of affairs has existed in a
greater or less degree at all the principal ports on the seaboard. As
the bulk of the importations have been made at New York, the greater
frauds have in consequence been committed there.
In regard to the values of embroideries, there is the evidence of honest
mannfacturers and importers, and the fact that large adi^ances-in values
have recently been made and sustained. The same is the fact concerning earthenware and china. As regards silk goods, there has been
greater difficulty in obtaining x')ositiA7^e information as to correct values.
In the matter of the lyool frauds were statements, under oatK by a
member of one of the firms shipxiing the goods, that if it had not been
possible for them to make the false charges, and commissions' which
appeared upon their invoices, they could not have shipped the wool at
the prices entered upon those invoices.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
411
In the matter of the undervaluation of cotton yarns were the statements of persons who had imported the yarns fpr years, and the fact that
after the frands in their values were discovered the person entering the
goods, npon suit being brought against him for the recovery,of the duties
illegally withheld, offered to pay in compromise the sum of $15,000,
and to that end deposited the amount named. This offer, however, was
not accepted by the Government; so he withdrew his deposit, and finally
settled the case by the payment of about $4,000.
Concerning the nndervaluation of guns and cutlery at this port, the
statements of the special agents have been sustained by the evidence of
reliable American houses dealing in the same goods, and by the fact
that all advances have been sustained on reaxipraisement.
Inquiry 10.—-There has been and still is much confusion and doubt in
the minds of many appraising officers as to what constitutes true marketvalue.
High-class importing houses deal only in selected goods. With them
the aim is to hai^e everything as perfect as possible in texture, color,
and finish. They will not handle defective pieces, or what are known
as ^^job lots." Other houses AVUI buy both, and, getting the poorer
quality at prices less than is asked for the good alone, will use them to
reduce the price of the latter and have their invoices made out accordingly..
~
If the prices at which the goods are entered are questioned here on
examination, the importer is prepared to prove that the transaction
was a bona fide pnrchase, and that the amount set forth on the invoice
was the sum actually paid for the goods. There seenis to be no doubt
of the truth of this statement. At any rate the examiner has no means
of refuting it, and having it in his mind, as many of them do, that the
matter of. market value depends upon the ainount of money, credit, or
other advantage which one purchaser may posse^ss or claim to possess
over another, the invoice is returned correct as entered.
As an example of this kind of reasoning, I have knoivn of three invoices of identically the same goods, coming to as many different houses
in New York, to be passed by the same examiner, on the same day, at
three different valuations.
Inquiry 11.—This depends very much on the class of merchandise.
In the wool, embroidery, and earthenware undervaluations, I would
answer yes. In the matter of silk goods, it would be more difficult, >
althongh the advances which have been made oii them ought to serve
as a -pretty safe guide in arriving at an average estimate ofthe percentage of undervaluation. In my opinion it will not, taking, into consideration all classes of merchandise, fall below 20 per cent.^ and it may
reach as high as 30 per cent.
Inquiry 12.—The examiner, undoubtedly. The nnmber of examiners
and their salaries at this port is, one at $2,000 and six at $1,700 each.
Formerly they received $1,800 per annnm each; but a reduction in expenses of collecting the revenne from customs, which ivent into effect on
the 1st of January, 1877, cut them down to f 1,700 a year each, where
they have since remained, except in the case of the one now receiving
$2,000. The appraisers at the principal ports cannot possibly examine
the work of their subordinaites in detail, and must necessarily forward
their returns as made, except in cases to which their attention has been
speciaUy .call^.
Inquiry 13.—I have -^no knowledge as to this.
412
Rl PORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY.
' Inquiry 14.—Scarcely. Dishonesty has undoubtedly had a share in
this failnre. So also have carelessness, lack of system, univise legislation, ignorance, &c. While reasonably certain that dishonesty has been^
practised by certain persons lately in the service, it would be difficult'
to prove that snch was the fact. As to the remainder of the question, I
have no knowledge.
Inquiry 15.,—If the present laws, which give to the dishonest importer advantage over the honest one, and which serve as a finger-board to
fraud, are not changed, there can be no reason to believe that corruption will cease in the customs service:
The discharge of incompetent persons and those believed to be dishonest, and the adoption of the rule that every employ^ will be held to
a strict accountability for his conduct, has led to a very decided change
for the better in the administration of the customs business; and when
the laivs complained of are purged of their faults there will be but
little inducement for officials to go astray.
Inguiry 16.—Undoubtedly. While it ivould not close all avenues to
fraud—for cheating could sUll be carried on as to weights and measurements—it would be a great3 improvement over the present ad valorem
system. Any faults which it might have could more easily be looked
after and corrected than the undervaluations which are now carried on
to such an alarming extent. I see no difficulty in applying sxiecific
rates to all textile fabrics.
Inquiry 17.—Yes.
Inquiry 18.—I think not; but much more could and ought to be ac-.
complished in the directioii of ascertaining the correctness of invoice
values than is now the case. I can see that it would be exceedingly
difficult and delicate for consuls to examine goods shipped from their
respective districts to this country. Consignors and shipxiers ip Great
Britain would object, principally, to the delay which snch examinations
would cause. Only, probably, in the consular districts of Great Brit;
ain, and possibly Switzerland, could consular officers ascertain with
any degree of safety and^certainty the true value of goods shipped to
this country. On the continent, as before noted, it is different. There
is no special regard for the oaths taken to consular invoices, as there
is no provision for punishment which can be applied if they are false.
It is common report that in many instances the persons signing the. invoices, and Avho are supposed to have taken and been sworn to the
oaths thereon, do not go near the consulates, but sign their papers in
their counting-rooms and send them by messenger to the consuls, who
return them with their signature and seal attached.
, As the great biilk of goods entered at fraudulent values in this country
came from continental Europe, there ivould, in my judginent, be trouble
in case of any attemxit on the xiart of consular officers towards making
an examination of goods coming from their districts. The persons interested ivould combine in making complaint to their respective governments, and the usefulness which the consuls can now exercise would
be entirely sivept away.
An examination of invoices coming to this port shbws that the fee
charged by the consul at London and at the other consulates in England is 10 shillings.
Inquiry 19.—It seems to me that the decision of an apxiraiser shonld
be final as to values, except in case of probable fraud in his returns.
Greater jurisdiction on the part of the executive or judicial powers
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
413
would be apt to lead to confusion, and to cause serious delay in the final
adjustment of values ahd the liquidation of entries. It wonld tend to
make the work of collecting the revenne more difficult and burdensome
than it now is, to both the importer and the Government.
Inquiry 20.—Giving to my many other duties, and the lack of anything like proper information on this subject, as well as the difficulty
I would have in obtaining it, I am unable to answer this question.
Inquiry 21.—At the port of NewYork the practice of the payment of
money by X3assengers arriving from foreign countries, especially Europe,
to cnstoms inspectors for ^'facilitating" the examination of their baggage prevails to a shameful extent. The fault of this lies not originally
with the passenger. The inspector is primarily to blame, and he \is
bold and unscrupulous in his demands. Unless they are acceded to,
he can, or has been able in the past, to put the man who had nothing
dutiable in his possession to trouble, delay, and expense. To escaxie
these, there are but few men who would hesitate in xiaying $5 or $10,
although knowing and feeling they were not doing right. The inspector
who will take the money has no conscientious scruples whatever. If;
the sum given him is small, he will say so, and intimate in plain language that it should be augmented, although there have been those on
the force in New York who would take whatever a passenger could
afford to give, even as low as 75 cents.
How to discover and put an end to these practices is a difficnlt question to answer. Collector Merritt employed a special officer to mingle
with the crowd on the arrival of a steamer, and to note, so far as able,
the actions of the inspectors and the manner in which they performed
their duties. The result pf his labors was the dismissal of something"
like a dozen inspectors in a short time, for taking money for passing
baggage containing dutiable merchandise.
If inspectors felt reasonably certain that, if caught taking a bribe, or
in passing merchandise without reporting it for duty, they would be
punished under the law, it would effect in this respect a change for the
better in their conduct.
Inquiry 22.—I think not, if the laws are changed so that the dishonest
shipper's goods can be seized and confiscated on proof that the value at
which they were entered was fraudulent.
'
Inquiry 23. —^No ; only partially so.
.
Inquiry. 24.—Lack of positive proof, probably, that they were false;
difficulty in obtaining such proof in shape to be made available in a
trial, and inattention to complaints which were made. In other words,
the power of the complained against was greater than the power of those
making the complaints.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. C. ADAMS,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
414
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
-
/
No. 20.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Bhiladelphia, October 9, 1885^
S I R : I have the honor to transniit herewith classified statement,of
the customs suits now pending in the United States courts in this district,
to accompany my report in reply to the questions asked in the confidential circular of the' Department dated Angust 27 last, transmitted
to you on yesterday.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
- ~ C. C. ADAMS,
^
Special Agent. •
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
>
Classified Statement of Customs Suits now pending in the United States Courts
at Philadelphia.
No. 1.—Question under section 7, under the act of March 3, 1883, as
to what charges shonld be. included as a part of the dutiable value.
Number and term.
5
6
12
13
14.
15
16.
17
32
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
session
session
session
session
session,
session
session,
session
session
1883
1883
1883
1883
1883
1883
1883 .:
1883
1883
74
75.
76
78."
90
91.
92
93.
37.
38
39
40.
41
42
43.
46
67.
58
60.
61
62
63.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
O'ctober s e s s i o n 1883
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n , 1883
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n 1883....
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n , 18S3
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n 1883
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n , 1883
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n , 1883
O c t o b e r s e s s i o n , 1883
A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884..
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1881
;
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
^
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884...
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884...."
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
;
Date when
case w a s at
issue.
Date when
case w a s at
issue.
N u m b e r ancl t e r m .
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
76 A n r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
77 A p r i l session 1884
M a r , 11,1884
78. A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884......:....
:. S e p t .
M a r . 11,1884
79 A p r i l session- 1884
. Sept.
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
83 A p r i l session 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
84. A p r i l s e s s i o n ! 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
85 A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884 .•
Sept.
86 A n r i l s e s s i o n 1884
. .
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
8 7 ' A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
88. A p r i l s e s s i o n ; 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
89 A p r i l session 1884
Sept.
M a r . 15,1881
90 ^LDril s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11, .1884 1 91 A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
92 A p r i l session 1884
Sept.
M a r . 11,1881
93 A p r i l ' s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
J u n e 10,1884
94 A n r i l session 1884
Sept.
J u n e 10,1884
95 ADril s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
J u n e 10,1881 1 96 A n r i l ^p^sion 1RS4
J u n e 10,1881. 103 A p r i l s e s s i o n LS84
.
....
J u n e 10,1884
104 A n r i l sP"=ision 1884
Sept.
J u n e 10,1884
115 A n r i l session 1884
Oct.
J u n e 10,1884
Oct.
118. A p r i l s e s s i o n 1§84
S e p t . 3,1881
119 A n r i b s e s s i o n 1884
Oct.
S e p t . 3,1884
Oct.
120 A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
S e p t . 3,1881
121 A n r i l s e s s i o n ISSl
Oct.
S e p t . 3,1884
Oct.
122 A p r i l session 1884"
S e p t . 3,1881
I'^S A n r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Oct.
S e p t . 3,1884
1''5 A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Oct.
S e p t . 3,1884
126 A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
Dec.
S e p t . 3,1884
127 A n r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
S e p t . 3,1884
128' A p r i l s e s s i o n 1884
Sept.
S e p t . 3,1884
19 O c t o b e r session 1884
S e p t . 3,1881
61 O c t o b e r session 1884
Feb.
S e p t 3,1884
77. O o t o b e r s e s s i o n , 1884
Feb..
S e p t . 3,1881
20 A p r i l s e s s i o n 1885
S e p t . 3,1884
27 A n r i l s e s s i o n 1885
Sept.
M a r . 11,1884
M a r . 11,1884
73. A p r i l s e s s i o n , 1884
74 A n r i l session 1884
.. ..
3,1884
3,1884
3 1884
3,1884
3,1884
3,1884
3,1884
6,188,4
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1881
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
6,1884
4 1884
4,1884
4,1884
4,1884
4,1884
4 1884
4,1884
4 1884
19,1884
6,1884
6,1884
27,1885
27,1885
23,1885
No. 2.—Qnestion whether bichromate of soda should be classified nnder
the similitude clause of section 2499, Eevised Statutes, as subject to duty'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
415
at 3 cents per pound, or is an article not specially enumerated, subject
to a dnty of 25 per cent, ad valorem.
Number and term.
. Date when case was at issue.
66. October session, 1884
February 27, 1885.
28. April session, 1885
-.
September?, 1885.
This suit has just been tried and verdict rendered as to fact. Question of law yet to be argued.
No. 3.—Question whether Hoff's Malt Extract is subject to duty as
s, proprietary preparation, dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, or should
be classified as beer, subject to a duty of 35 cents per gallon.
'
Number and term.
46. April session, 1883
31. October session. 1883
Date when case was at issue.
-March 11, 1884.
March 11,1884.
.".
No. 4.—Question as to the value of sponges.
Number and term.
38. October session, 1881
39. October session, 1881
Date when case was at issue.
.:.
May 2,1882.
;
May 2, 1882.
,
No. 5.—Question whether certain articles are a manufacture of wool,
and subject to duty at 50 cents ponnd and an additional duty of 35 per
cent, ad valorem, under Schedule L, class 3, or to a dnty of 35 per cent.,
under Schedule M.
. Number and term.
26. April session, 1877
87. April session, 1883
'
88. April session, 1883.....
Date when case was at issue.
.September 3. 1877.
March 15, 1884.
March 15, 1884.
No. 6.—Question whether certain articles should be classified under
Schedule C, actof March 3, 1883, as not specially enumerated, and
subject to a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem, or as buttons, subject to a
duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem; also, question of charges.
1
Number and term.
56 April session 1883
58. April session,' 1883....
A7 Anril session 1883
Date when
case was at
issue.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
11,1884
11,1884
11, 1884
5,1884
Number and term.
129.
51.
52.
6.
April session, 1884
October session, 1884
October session. 1884
April session 1885..
Date when
case was at
issue.
Dec.
Feb.
Feb.
Sept.
19,1884
27,1885
27,1885
7,1885
No.7.—Question whether certain articles are to be classified as subject to a duty of 20 per cent., as mineral bituminous substances.
Number and term.
Date when
case was at
issue.
T^ Or>fr>V>er session 1879
Mar. 6,1880
J u n e 28,1881
Sept. 14,1881
^7 Oet.oher session 1881
Aug." 14,1885
Number and term.
16. April session, 1882.
.10. Ottober session, 1882
49. April session, 1883
62. October session,1884
Date when
case was-at
issue.
Sept.
Aug.
;...... Aug.
Feb.
11,1882
14,1885
14,-1885
27,1885
jSfo, 8.—Question whether certain articles shonld be classified as
handkerchiefs or other manuf acture offiax subject to a duty of 35 per cent,
ad valorem, or as a manufacture of linen, emb'oridered, dutiable at 30
per cent, ad valorem.
Number and term.
2. April session, 1885,
Date when case was at issue.
»
».M... September 7,-1885,
416
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
jVo. 9.—Question'whether down gm/ts should be classified as subject
to duty at 50 per cent, under Schedule L, act March 3, 1883.
Number and term.
4. April session, 1885
Date when case was at issue.
• •
September 7,1885. .
^
N'o. 10.—Question whether certain articles should be classified as ,
china or earthenware, subject to a duty of 60 per cent, ad valorem, or as
toys at 35 per cent.
, Number and term.
117. April session, 1884
Date when case was at issue.
October 4,1884.
No. 11.—Question as to duty on steel blooms.
Number and term.
S3. April session, 1883
Date when case was at issue.
March 11,1884.
No. 12.—Question as to valuation of certaiii machinery, and protest
, against merchant appraisement.
'
.
.
Number and term.
3. April session, 1882
Date when case was at issue.
August 30, 1882.
\
•
No. 13.—Question as to the rate of duty on certain articles known
commercially as hat-trimmings or hat and bonnet ribbonSy&c.
. Number and term.
18.
59.
33
75,
3
October session, 1875
April session, 1876
April session, 1881
October session, 1881
April session, 1884
Date when
case was at >,,
issue.
Dec.
Dec.
June
Jan.
Apr.
14,1876
14,1876
28,1881
24,1882
5,1884
28.
59.
124.
12.
Number and term.
April
April
April
April
session,
session,
session,
session,
1884
1884
1884
1885
Date when
case was at
issue.
JunelO,!^ 4
Sept. 3,18.4
Oct. 4,18M
No. 14.—Question as to the rate of duty on marble.
gNumber and term.
,
Date when case was at issue.
gO. October session, 1883
March 11,1884.
2. October session, 1877. This case is virtually ended, and duties refunded.
^1. October session, 1880. No narrative filed or bill of particulars furnished.
No. 24.
GEO. W. WHITEHEAD—Entered service as Inspector of Customs port of Suspension
Bridge, N. Y., December 4, 1879. Appointed Special Agent January 11, 1884.
^ O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT, '
Suspension Bridge, N. Y., October IZ, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to Department circular of August 27,
containing twenty-four questions relating to the administration of cnstoms laws, I have the honor to report that absence from official stationunder instructions from Department has prevented earlier attention to
the subject.
My duties as agent of the Department have been confined to the service on the northern frontier, and I am, therefore, not entirely familiar
with the service at seaboard ports, to which most of the questions refer.
^ In answer to Questions 1 and 2,1 have to report that there is no evidence in my possession that the rates of dnty and the full amount of
duty prescribed by Congress have not be§n coUected,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
417
3. ,Textile fabrics are measured or weighed as may be necessary.
4. At ports on the frontier the whole invoice is examined by appraising officers, except in case of goods arriving under immediate-trans;
portation entry without appraisement. I have no evidence of collusion
between the persons referred to.
5. "With rare exceptions, the importations requiring weights or
measures to be taken, as referred to in this question, are entries of
grain and lumber. So far as my observation extends, the ofiicers engaged in weighing and measuring are competent, and while it is often
necessary to estimate quantities, as permitted by regulation, I believe
that the full amount of duty has been collected. I have no evidence
to the contrary.
6. 7, and 8 relate to subjects, on which I have no evidence.
9, 10, and 11. There is satisfactory evidence that the appraising officer has reported false values in the district of Buffalo Creek for at least
five years past on importations of cattle from Canada. The evidence
to corroborate this statement is with dealers and other persons familiar
with the Canadian markets, and can be produced whenever opportunity
is afi'orded on reappraisals.
•
^
Appraising officers are unwilling to impose penal duties, and the result is, as I have frequently reported to the Department, that the real
judgment of the officer is not returned. There is not so much.attention
given to the ascertainment of dutiable values as there is efi'ort to avoid
the iihposition of penalties. In other words, the Government would
. receive a largely increased revenue from this source if no penalties accrued by reason of advances on appraisals.
A safe estiniate can be made of the percentage of such undervaluations and the invoices identified. The cattle are consigned, however,
and, having entered into consumption, such estiraate or identification
of invoices would be of no benetit.
\
12. In the cases last referred to, a deputy collector and inspector is
acting as appraiser, at a salary of $3.50 per diem.
13. I have no evidence that consular or other officers have assisted
in the presentation of false invoices.
14 and 15. These questions seem to me to refer to the action of appraisers at New York and other seaboard ports. I have no evidence
of bribery or venality in connection with appraisals.
. 16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates is advisable, in my
judgment, whenever such change is practicable, though I cannot see
that the change would help to diminish bribery. If corrupt and venal
infiuences can be brought to bear on officers, the incentive and 0]jportunities will be quite as great nnder one form as another.
The great variety and the difference in cost of manufacture of texile
fabrics render it impracticable, in my opinion, to apply specific rates
to such goods.
17. I do not think the repeal of the ^ ^ moiety law'' has increased
frauds on the frontier.
Section 16 of the act of June 22, 1874, which provides that the ques-.
tion of ^intent to defraud'^ shall be submitted to the jury,and a finding required thereon, renders it difficult to obtain a verdict for the
Government in any action brought for violation of the customs laws.
18. It would be possible for consular officers in Canada to ascertain
and report the true value of ^ipments, if allowed sufhcient time for
the pnrpose. As at present constituted, such consular service is of
27 A
418
R E P O R T OF T H E
SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.
little aid to the customs service. Invoices are certified as presented,
without the slightest knowledge on the part of the officer as to their
correctness.
/
19. I believe that the basis on which ad valorem duties are to be col;
lected should be ascertained by the appraiser, and that judicial interference would not be just to the importer, though it might be nseful to
the reyenue.
20. The iniportations of wool on the northern frontier are, without
exception, of the Canada combing wools—class two. The inconsistencies in the present wool tariff can be better iiointed out aud illustrated
by customs officers at ports where differeut classes of wool are im,ported, and I will not attempt to discuss the subject.
21. I think the belief is general that the xiractice prevails of the
payment of money to customs iuspectors by passengers arriving at the
port of New York. I have no evidence on the subject, and can only
express the opinion that it is not difficult to ascertain whether or not
the belief is well founded. If the practice exists, the detection and
prosecution of a few cases, both of the officer receiving and th^e person
paying money: to prevent the examination of baggage, would go far
towards correcting the evil.
22 and 23. These questions appear to me to relate to recent investigations by commissions of Treasury ofiicers. I have no information
on the subject.
24. All cases of fraud within my knowledge have been reported to
the Department, and, if the case required, to the collector of customs
and TJnited States attorney.
• Very respectfully,
GEO. W. WHITEHEAD,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
' No. 25.
O. L. S P A U L D I N G — A p p o i n t e d Special Agent July 28, 1875. Resigned March 3t
1881, and reappointeld Special Agent Deceuiber 24, 1884.
J. F. EVANS—-Entered service in Register's Office April 8, 1862.- Appointed to clerkship in Comptroller's Office September 5, 18G3. Appointed Special Agent February
3, 1875.
, '
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
San Francisco^ Cal., October 6, 1885. SIR : We have the honor to submit the following reply to interrogatories contained in Department's confidential circular dated August
27, 1885.
1. We have no knowledge in our possession thatthe ^^rates of duty''
prescribed by law have not been collected-, except as to articles upon
wiiich the rates of duty have been a matter of controversy.
2. We have no evidence, nor does our experience lead us to believe,
that legal duty has not been collected upon importations paying a specific rate.
. Articles such as rice, coal, coke, sugar, cigars, glass, hemp, jute,
railway-bars, tin, salt, &c., are not lyiioUy weighed, but a sufficient
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
419
quantity of each, not less than 10 per cent., to determine the quantity
imported.
3. A percentage of textile fabrics, usually about 10 per cent., is
opened, takeii out of the case, measured or weighed, or both, as the
case may b e ; samples are taken for use of the appraiser, and such of
them preserved as are deemed to be of value for future use.;
4. We know of no evidence showing collusion between entry-clerks,
depnty collectors, and importers by which false or unfair packages are,
or have been, sent to the appraiser for examination as representing the
entire invoice^ Such collusion might be practised. A safeguard
against its possibility would be the occasional examination of "entire
cargoes.
•
5. We have no evi^dence of false weighing upon the wharves. OccasionaUy men are found to be incompetent, a matter which is corrected
by the substitution of others familiar with the use of weighing implements and the method of testing and keeping them in order.
6. In respect to suits pending against collectors in Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore concerning rates of duty,'we have no
knowledge except that of hearsay. The Government has been very
unfortunate at San Francisco in its defence of suits against the collector.
We would think the reasons for failure would be disclosed in reports
to the Attorney-General by the IJnited States attorney.
We do not think it would be judicious, as a rule, for the Government to advance its suits upon the court "calendar in prejudice of other
litigants. A remedy would be to create a special court of appeal at
Washington to try customs cases. The present law allows payment of
interest, in all cases where judgment is obtained against the United
States, from the date of protest or of filing a perfected claim. This
seems to be correct, as no good reason can be given why the Government should have the possession of the money of its citizens Without
paying for its use.
7. We are not sufficiently familiar with the business at New.York to
be able to specify, all the articles imported there upon which the full
duty has not been collected, but among the principal ones are silks,
kid gloves, embroideries, laces, linens, crockeries^ and woollen goods
paying compound duties.
8. We are of the opinion that duties have not been fully collected
upoh some kinds of Chinese and Japanese goods at San Francisco,
owing, in large part, to the lack of correct information on the pitrt of
appraisers.
The language of those countries not being understood, and the information to be obtained from trade-circulars meagre, appraisers are
often obliged.to guess the foreign niarket value of many articles, such
as bronzes, vases, curios, manufactured silk goods, and the like. While
there is no evidence of the guilty knowledge- of appraisers, there is
reason for belief that they have, either through indolence or timidity,
often accepted the invoice value as the dutiable value rather than test
the question of nndervaluation.
9. We are of opinion that false dutiable values have been returned
by appraisers at some of the leading iiorts, especially of consigned
goods at the port of NewYork, where appraisers appear to have deliberately refused to consider apparently conclusive evidence furnished
by consular officers and special agents abroad, as to undervaluation ol
articles mentioned in answer to the seventh interrogatory.
420
RKPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
10. There has been, and is now, much doubt, not only in the minds
of appraisers, but among customs qfficers generally, respecting the du-'
tiable value of merchandise coverings, growing out of the several constructions given to section 7 ofthe law of March 3, 1883.
.
11. We cannot make a ' ^ safe average estimate'' of percentages of
loss by means of undervaluations for any given xieriod.
12. As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and appraiser, we
believe that the.latter is responsible for a false return of value. It
would seem to be the duty of an appriser to know, either from samples
before him or by an examinatioii of the goods, what he is approving
when returning an invoice. The only exception would probably be
at the port of New York.
13. We have no knowledge that consular officers connive at the presentation of false invoices.
>
14. We have no means at hand or knowledge in our possession to
show that ''false values have habitually and systematically been re.ported to the several collectors," or that the failure to collect the full
ainount of dnty ''has come of dishonesty," and accompanied by a
guilty knowledge on the part of the Treasury or customs officials, by
means of a corruption fund or otherwise. Some appraisers seem to
. have misconceived the nature of their duties and to have acted as if
called npon to stand between the iniporter and the so-called extortionate demands of the Government. But to charge,, in the absence of direct
testimony, that such action arose from corrupt motives would be, unwarranted.
15. False valuations will likely be. practised in the future, as they
have been in the past, whenever the opportunity offers. Any regulation upon the subject that does not include the careful scrutiny of
business and inquiry as to the integrity and capability of officials must
prove a failure.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific duty would greatly tend,
we believe, to an honest collection of the revenue. Such an act would
. withdraw the chief element of fraud in appraisements—that of the
imxiorter's statement—lea ving the dutiable quantity to be determined
solely by the customs officers. We believe that specific rates can he
applied to all textile fabrics, and whilst they might sometimes work
apparent hardship, we think these would in the main be less than are
now experienced from the unequal application of an ad valorem lav^.
17'.'^While the repeal in 1874 of the law with respect to the payment
of moieties has undoubtedly proven injurious to the revenue, we can-,
not observe the connection such repeal has had upon the action of appraisers, they not being officers included in the distribution of moieties.
^The mo lification of the law respecting the seizure of any "business
book, invoice, or paper" has proven detrimental to the proper enforcement ofthe revenue laws, and the enactment of section 16, act of
June 22, 1874, requiring the question of intent to be submitted to the
jury as a distinct proposition, has made conviction for fraud almost an
impossibility. We believe this opinion is generally, if not niiivcrsally,
entertained by all officers of custonis.
18. It would not, in our judgment, be at all practicable for consular
officers, and indeed would be a physical inijiossibility, to personally
examine merchandise to be exported from their consular .jurisdictions
to the United States. Nunierous reasous could be stated in support of
t t o pomti04 in ^44itiQn tq tfie rea^qu that tbe influence tending tQ
REPORT OF THE. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
421
bribery and the making of false reports ]\^ould likely prove more potent
abroad than at home. We are not advised as to "what fees are now ,
exacted on each shipment" by consuls for certifying invoices.
19. We do not believe that courts can be clothed with any more
power than they now possess in the trial of customs cases. A special
- court for the trial of all revenue cases would, in our opinion, greatly
expedite the settlement of cases under the present system of levying
duties, but such a conrt wonld not be required were duties made specific
instead of ad valorem.
20. The duty upon imported wool has been subject to frequent legislative changes, as shown by the following acts: Jnne 30, 1864 ,• March
3, 1865; July 26,. 1866; July 14,1870; March 2,1867 ; March 3, 1883.
21. We do not find that the practice of paying money to inspectors
for facilitating the landing of passengers' baggage has prevailed to any
extent at the port at San Francisco. It undoubtedly exists at some
of the Atlantic ports, notably at New York. The only remedy we
could suggest would be an active supervision of the business by the
responsible superior officers and the vigorous prosecution of offenders.
22. The evidence at hand tends to show.that the present duty of $10
per pound npon prepared smoking-opium cannot be collected, and has
greatly stimulated the activity of smugglers. The reduction of the
duty 50 per cent, would increasie the revenues materially from that
,drug, and correspondingly decrease its illicit introduction.
23. We cannot say as to whether the revenue has been properly collected at other Atlantic ports than New York.
24. The chief reason why persons have not been punished for making "false returns or reports to the collectors" appears to have been
the lack of evidence to convict^ as the law devolves the onus of proof
of positive intent to defrand, as a separate issue, upon the Government.
Yery respectfully,
J. F. EYANS,
• •
O. L. SPAULDING,
Special Agents.
^ Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 26.
NORRIS WINSLOW—Appointed Special Employ^ DecemlDer 20, 1882.
GEO. B. CHURCH—Appointed Inspector of Customs May 28, 1885.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Ogdensburg,'October Z, 1886'.
SIR : As directed by Department letter of the 8th instant, (G. W. M.,)
to subinit answers to certain inquiri^ contained in circular enclosed,
even date therewith, and to visit such ports on the northern frontier as
may be deemed necessary; also, to give attention to the general conduct of the.cnstoms business at the ports we niight visit, we have the
honor to report:
Department letter of the 16th instant (L. G. M.) directs that "exclusive and immediate attention be given the inquiries contained in said
circular." We have, therefore,' confined our observations to the propositions therein referred to.
422
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF '^THE TREASURY.
• First inquiry.—"Keeping in mind the distinction between ratesof
duty and dutiable values, what evidence is there, if any, that the former have not within the last few years been levied and collected as the
law prescribes %"
There is no doubt but that, during the iieriod named, serious losses
. have occurred to the revenue by reason of erroneous lelassification of .
merchandise at the various ports on the northern frontier. We are of
the opinion that this has not been so much the result of dishonesty or
favoritism on the part of officials as from ignorance or neglect, and that
it has been easier to follow precedent than to investigate the subject
properly. >
A remedy, to this would be to have frequent visits to the various
' ports by competent and experienced specials, who should make a careful comparison with the classification of merchandise at the ports they
may visit, with a view to a uniform practice, so far as may be consistent with the law and regulations and the locality and circumstances.
Second inquiry.—''1^ there satisfactory evidence (and, if so, what is
it) that on articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates,
without reference to values, the full amount of. duty prescribed by
Congress has not been collected%'•'
There is no reason to doubt but there has been gross negligence on
the part of officials whose duty it is to ascertain the quantity of goods
subject to specific duty, as called for by the certified invoice, as it is
much easier to certify to the correctness of the invoice than to verify
it by actual correct measurement or weight.
At the port of Eouse's Point there has formerly xiassed large quantities of hay, oats, and barley, where the invoice was certified as correct as to quantity and value, without weighing or any verification of
the invoice.
At the x^ort of Morristown, during the months of March, Ax3ril, and
May of the presentc year, there was received a large quantity of potatoes, which were invoiced at abont four hundred bushels per car.
These were received at the invoiced quantity, and certified as correct
by the officers. ^
Abont the last of the shipments it was discovered that each car contained sixty to one hundred bushels in excess of the quantity invoiced,
the revenue being defrauded of a large sum of money by the neglect of
the officers of the port to proxierly discharge their duties. Septeniber
19 we found, at the said port of Morristown, certified invoices of eleven
car-loads of lumber, shipped from Brockville, Ontario, to Kearns &
Marshall, at Morristown. Three of said cars were received at said port
September 3, two September 8, and six September 15. All of these had
been delivered to the importer, quite a portion of the lot sold and delivered, and all -of the lot, with the exception of three car lots, past
identification. No insxiection of any kind had been made by the officers;
no entry, or report, or no duties collected.
During the years 1883 and 1884, about 700 tons of fiax were entered
for consumption at the ports of Buffalo and Susxiension Bridge as tow,
and xiaid duty as tow, at $10 per ton, which should have been entered
as fiax and paid duty at $20 x^er ton. It will be seen that a loss of
. $7,000 occurred to the revenue, purely by the negligence of the appraisers at said x)orts.
Third inquiry.—"In what manner, and by what tests, are the invoiced
measurements of textile fabrics verified in the usual course pf customhouse business^'
. "
REPORT 0^
TI-IE SIECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
423
By weighing and measuring. Iniportations of this character are very
. small on this, the northern frontier; in fact Eochester and Buffalo are
the only xiorts where any considerable quantities of textile fabrics are
received. Such are in immediate-transportation bond from Atlantic
ports.
Fourth inquiry.—" WTiat evidence is there, if any, of collusion between
the persons making entry of several packages of similar goods on one
invoice and the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the appraiser
for examination a bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in
every t e n i "
.
We have failed to find any positive evidence relative to this inquiry.
•Fifth inquiry.—"What evidence is there,' if any, of false, or incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves f
During the navigation season of 1884, the Eathburn Company of
Deseronto, Ontario, consigned to their house at Oswego, N. Y., per
barge "Eeliance," (said barge being owned and controlled bythe Eathburn Comxiany,) twenty-four cargoes of lumber. The average amount of
each cargo was 192,908 feet, board measure.
. At intervals during the season, as'near as might be to alternate trips,
said Eathburn Company sold to Messrs. Barnes & Co., box-shook manufacturers, at Oswego, N. Y., and delivered the same by said barge
'' Eeliance,'' seventeen cargoes, of luniber, the cargoes averaging 201,024
feet, board measure, about, 8,100 feet x^er cargo more when delivering
luniber sold than when delivering cargoes of like kinds of stock to their
own house. The Hon. A. C. Mattoon, the iiisx)ector in charge of the
port during the time referred to, informed us that the cargoes delivered
to Barnes & Co. were no larger than those delivered to their own house;
that he was unable, to prevent the fraud, as he did not have in his force
of insxiectors a sufficient number of comxietent measnrers. Inspector
Mattoon has had thirty or more j^ears' exxierience in the carrying trade
on the lakes, and is thoroughly conversant with the carrying capacity
of' nearly every craft entering said xiort.
As a further answer to this x')roposition, we respectfuUy refer to cases
cited above in answer to second inquiry.
Sixth inquiry.—r^'In resxiect to rates of duty and differences between
iniporters and collectors growing out of decisions by the latter and the
Treasury which have resulted in snits, does the existing law need
amendment'? How many such collectors' suits are now pending in
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore'? If they can be classified and the legal question at issue identified, how many suits are there
in each classification, and how long has each untried suit been at issue
and ready for trial"? Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor ofthe Treasury^, the district attorneys, and the judges
by which these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits,
as they come np, be speedily put at issue and tried"? Does the existing
law in respect to the payment of interest as a part of the damages and
and costs in 'collectors' suits' need amendment"? Is there a necessity
for a new tribunal to try judicially questions growing out qf writs of external or internal taxation levied by the executive when tax-payers'
are dissatisfied, or can the existing judicial system be made' sufficient if
it be worked efficiently!''
We are nnable to furnish the information called for in this inquiry,
as the scope of our observations was confined b y t h e Department instructions to the frontier ports, while the inquiry relates to the ports Of
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
424
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY, OF THE TREASURY.
Seventh inquiry.—"Specify the class of articles, if any-^there be, on
which the recent investigations or the existing facts now susceptible of
proof conclusively show that the Treasurv Departnient has, during recent.years, failed to levy and collect in New York the entire and full
amonnt of duty that the law prescribed. Is the evidence of failure of
a character to be controverted successfully"? And, if so, how, and why'?'^
•' Same reply as to the sixth inquiry.
Mghth inquiry.—"How has the failure come about*? Has it come of
the ignorance, or of the indolence, or of the dishonesty of Treasuryofficials * Is there- any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge
?
of the failure, or a consxiiracy to promote it, among the higher class of
Treasury or custom-house officials'?" .
Same rexily as to the sixth and seventh inquiries.
Ninth inquiry.—"If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence that
the appraiser (not the general axixiraiser) has rexiorted to the coUector
false dutiable values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in operation, (2) on what class of articles, (3) from what places, (4) and were
the articles shipx')ed by the makers or purchasers, and (5) has the sante
general condition of things existed in the larger xiorts"? If the proof
of the false returns of dutiable values made by the local appraiser depends on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury or
consular agents, what evidence is there to corroborate the latter as
against the official action of the appraising dexiartment"?"
Same reply as to the sixth, seventh, and eighth inquiries.
Tenth inquiry.—"Is there now or has there recently been confusion or
doubt or confiict of opinion in the appraiser's dexiartment respecting
any of the elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the dutiable value, and, if so, what"? Is not the xilace and time and the stand- •
ard to be apxilied alread^^ defined by the statutes in the opinion of the
examiners, depnty apxiraisers, and appraisers'?"
Same repl3^ as to sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth,inquiries. •
Bleventh inquiry.—"Can a safe average estimate be now made of the
percentage of such nndervaluation by the apxiraisers in any year or series of years, and the articles or invoices be identified'?"
Same replj^as to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth inquiries.
Twelfth inquiry.—" As between the examiner, • deputy appraiser, and
appraiser, which is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual
course of business, for a false retni'u of value to the collector'? .What is
the salary of such officer"? Is the appraiser much else, ordinarily arid
in fact, than one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed
and reported to him by the examiners and deputy apxiraisers V , :
In answer to the last paragraph of this • inquiry, we beg to state: It
has been for years, and is now, the xiractice to delegate the duties of ain
appraiser to an inspector or deputy collector, and in many instances incomp.etent persons are intrusted with this important dnty.. It is not an
infrequent occurrence to find at some of the xiorts several of the, inspectors are charged with and perform this duty. As a consequence, the
service is inadequately performed, shrewd importers take advantage of
snch appraisers, and a loss to the revenue is the result. For five years
previous to the year 1883, at the port of Oswego, N. Y., there had been
practically no appraiser, or officer designated by the collector to perform the duties bf appraiser. The records of the office show that during said period there hadbeen no advance of value from the invoiced
price in a single instance.. An examination of the impost book by bne
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
425
familiar with dutiable values would be convincive that large amounts of
money have been lost to the Government, owing to the neglect of the'
officer to correctly appraise imported nierchandise.
Thirteenth, inquiry.—"Is there satisfactory evidence that any Government officials in the consular department or elsewhere have assisted or
consented to, or connived at, the presentation to the axixiraisers of such
false evidence of foreign values'? If so, what officers, when, and how*?"
We do not find evidence that officials in the consular departnient
have aided in procuring false evidence of value. At the same time, it
cannot be denied that reforms are needed in the consular service in
the Dominion of- Canada. The compensation of many of the consuls
and consular agents consists of fees, and, in order to increase the amount
of such compensation, fees are divided with railroad and forwarding
agents; and invoices often left, signed in blank, with such parties, and,
at times, with shippers. They are at all times so fearful that they will
lose trade, and when a shipper presents himself for an invoice, the
agent is so anxious to secure the fees, both for certifying the invoice
and an extra fee for making it ont, (clerical work,) at the same time
anxious to keep his customer's trade, that he is only too glad to certify
to any value the shipper may suggest, however underVaiued the invoice
might be. No word or caution or instruction is given, for fear the
shipper will take his next invoice to some other agent. During the
years 1883 and 1884, Mr. Winslow, of this comniission, secured the
duties upon a large nuniber of mares that had been imported by dealers,
free, for breeding pnrposes, and then put them to labor upon horse
railroads and other like nses. Many of these importers, when confronted, have given as an excuse that they were led to do it by the
consuls.. . The incentive for the consul to do this was the extra fee.
For instance, the dealer applies at the consul's office for an invoice of
several horses. The consul at once sees a chance for an extra fee, and
inquires if some portion of the animals are not mares. If the answer
is in the affirmative, he at once suggests that the mares could be p.assed
free, for breeding. The result is the revenue is defrauded of the lawful
duties and the agent benefited the amonnt of the fees for the extra certificate, which, by his shrewdness, he has fonnd a market for.
Large numbers of mares were found upon recent investigation to have
been entered l^y the Detroit Street Eailway Company, and passed free
for breeding purposes, at the port of Detroit, Mich., when the fact
was they were imported for labor on said railway, and were so nsed.'^
The officers at said port could but have known the business of the importer, and that the animals were dutiable, and that duties should have
been imposed.
. Within the past month shipments of lambs by the car-load from
Canada to the port of Morristown, N. Y., have been passed without
- inspection in any form, no attempt being made to even count them.
This has been the practice at this port for several years. Often several
car-loads of sheep and lambs at one shipment have been passed without
counting or inspection.
Fourteenth inquiry.—"If nnder the previous administration of the
Treasury false values have been habitually and systematically reported
to the several collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully
executed, and if the full amount of dnty has not been collected, can it
fairly be said the failure has come of dishonesty and been accompanied
by guilty knowledge on the part of Treasnry or customs officials ; and,
426
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' .
[ if so, of whom'? If nioney has been paid to American- officials to get
false reports of dutiable values, who has furnished and paid if? By
what nieans and, agency, and where, has such corruption fnnd been
' raised and disbursed?"
"
•
*
• The several cases cited above we feel clearly demonstrate that false
values are frequent and'that the tariff laws have not been faithfuUy executed. We are inclined to the belief^ however, that it is not so much
the result of dishonesty as indolence and incax')acity, coupled with a
desire to please on the part of the officers, and secure infiuence to enable them to ^ keep their xilaces. It is well known by persons familiar
witli the service that it is a common occurrence, where an officer is firm
and just with the Government and the imxiorter, that he is pxienly threatened with the loss of his xiosition. This has .been carried to such- an
extent that many times officers are deterred from a faithful discharge
of their duty, and it is often the case^that the Dexiartment takes notice,
to the detriment of the officer, of complaints of xiarties whose only grievances are, in fact, that they have not been allowed to pursue irregular
jiractices.
Fifteenth inquiry.—"If the false valuations have come of bribery or .
venality, what reason is there to think that similar corruxit and venal
infiuences are not now brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in the futnre as in the past V It is next to impossible to. remove
the temxitation from officers referred to in this inquiry.'. Our observations have convinced us that cases of bribery or venality are very rare.
The irregularities which we have referred to herein have been more
' the result of negligence .and iiicom.x3etency than otherwise.
Sixteenth inquiry.—"Would a change from ad valorem to sx3ecific rates
be a benefit to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery,
provided the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the futnre; and
' cbuld specific rates be applied to all textile fabrics'?"
There is no doubt but sxiecific duty, so far as it can be axiplied, is the
simpler and most convenient method of assessing duty.
As to textile fabrics, it would seem imxiracticable to ax3ply specific
duty to this class of merchandise, as it could only be based upon valne.
Seventeenth inquiry.—"Havethe false reports by the-appraisers been
increased by the rexieal, in 1874, of the 'moiety law' and by the customs legislation of that date modifying, the"existing law,cand especially
V.modifying that of 1863 respecting seizure of books and xiapers t"
There seems to be no difference of oxiinion among those whose duty
has brought them in contact with the oxieration of the act of June 22,
1874. While this act was passed as a reform measure for the protection
of the revenue, had it been enacted for the .xDurxiose of enabling dishonest peoxile to evade the tariff laws, it could not have better accomxilished that object.
To xirove, as this act requir<:}S on the x^art of the Governmeht, the
"intent to defraud" by persons accused of smuggling, in order to convict, is very difficultj to say the least. The fear "of x^unishment being
renioved, as a consequence dishonest practices are more frequent, and
frauds upon the revenue largely increased.
Mghteenth inquiry.—"Would it be practicable in the large American
consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American
consular agents, no matter how numerous and alert, to xiersonally examine articles to be shipxied from thence to American ports, and to
verify the correctness of invoiced values'? In which consiUar districts
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ° TREASURY.
427
can American consular officers safely and surely ascertain and report
the trne invoiced values of every shipment *
?
,
- " Is it likely that foreign governments in which such Americaii consular officers are stationed would abstain from comxilaints to this Government if American consuls made vexatious delays ih exainining values
and certifying invoices'? What fees are now exacted on each shipment
in London and in England by our consuls for certifying invoices, even
of small articles and of little v a l u e v '
'
.
We are unable to xirocure on the frontier the necessary data to propeiiy
rexily to this inquiry.
Nineteenth inquiry.—"Under the law as it now is, the rates of dutylevied by a collector can be supervised and revised by the Secretary of
the Treasury,' and finally by the Federal judicial xiower, but, according
to the analogies of State taxing laws, neither the Treasury Dexiartment,
nor the President, nor the judicial power can interfere with, or revise,
or set aside the decision of the appraising department respecting dutiable values if the forms of law have been comxilied with. Would it be
safe or useful" to the revenues, and just to importers that the executive
or the judicial xiowers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the
ascertainment of the dutiable valne, which is to be the basis on which
the collector is to levy ad valorem rates'?"
The question of value' is one of fact. It would seem that the.apxiraisers are the xiroxier xiersons to investigate, take evidence, and determine
the true dutiable value of imported merchandise.
Twentieth inquiry.—"The existing rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad valorem and a specific rate. I desire to have prepared and
presented to me a very careful and accurate analysis of the history of
the several rates of duty on wool since 1860, and of the working of the
complicated rates on wool that are now in force."
We find that substantially all the wool imxiorted from Canada on the
northern frontier is wool of the second class.
'
We give below the rates of duty assessed and collected since 1870 at
the port of Ogdensburg, which we think will represent the x^i^actice of
all the frontier xiorts:
1870: 10 cents per xiound and 11 per cent, ad valorem.
1871: 10 cents -per ponnd and 11 xier cent, ad valorem.
1872 : 12 cents per pound and 10 xier cent, ad valorem.
1872 : 10 cents x^er pound and 9 x^er cent, ad valorem.
1873: lOy^^ cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem.
1874 : lOj^ cents per xiound and 9 x^er cent, ad valorem.
1875: 12 cents -per pound and 10 jier cent, ad valorem.
1875: 10 cents pet xiound and 11 xier cent, ad valorem.
1876: 10 cents x^er xiound and 10 xier cent, ad valorem.
1877 : 10 cents per pound and 10 xier cent, ad valorem.
1878 :* 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem.
1879: 10 cents x^er xiound and 11 xier cent, ad valorem.
1880: 10 cents x^er xiound and 11 per cent, ad valorem.
.1881: 10 cents x^er xiound and 11 per cent, ad valorem.
1882: 10 cents per xiound and 11 xier cent, ad valorem.
1883 : 10 cents per pound.
1884: 10 cents per pound.
1885: 10 cents per pound. .
The reply to this inquiry is of necessity incomplete, from the fact that
wool is not imxiorted into the United States from Canada to any great
428
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
extent, except wool of the second class.' We understand that the replj
to the inqnir}^ should be confined to transactions, and have confined our.
observations to such.
Twenty-first inquiry.—"Is it believed that at the larger Atlantic ports
the practice generally prevails, or prevail at all, ofthe payment of
money by arriving xiassengers to cnstoms inspectors of baggage, either
to prevent or facilitate or hasten an examination of luggage to ascertain whether or not it contains dutiable articles; and if such a practice
exists as thelaw condemnsandforbids, can it be xirevented, andhow'?"
We are inclined to think that the instructions recently given by the
honorable Secretary of the Treasury to the district attorney of New
York, if diligently and faithfully carried out, will xirevent future xiractices of this nature.
Twenty-second inquiry.—"Does the evidence tend to show that, in respect to the articles on which the Treasury has failed to collect the
whole duty prescribed by the law, the rate has been carried by Congress beyond and above the line which the Government can surely xiro-,
teet, and into a region where smugglers and dishonest shippers will be
yery powerful in evading the l a w ! "
We have failed to find any evidence that would lead us to the opinion
that the rate of duty has been carried by Congress to a point where
smugglers are powerful in evading the law. The repeal of the '' moiety
law" and the prompt prosecution of offenders will reduce smuggling
and nndervaluation to the minimum.
Twenty-third inquiry.—"Has what has been true of the failure of the
Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law in New York been generally true, and for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports'?"
This inquiry refers solely to the Atlantic xiorts. We are nnable to
furnish or properlj^ prepare an answer.
Twenty-fourth inquiry.—"If "false returns or reports to the collectors
of dutiable values have been made during a considerable time past, why
have not the persons or officials concerned therein been complained of,
arrested, indicted, and punished?"
The cases of this kind that have come under our observations have
not, in our opinion, been so much the result of dishonesty as from negUgence and incompetency.
Yery respectfuUy,
N. WINSLOW,
Special FJmployS.
.
.
GEO. B. CHUECH,
Inspector of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.'
No. 27.
^'.
429
'-ir'
WM. H. WILLIAMS—Appohited Special Agent June 2l, 1881.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Cincinnati, Ohio, October 20, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to submit the follpwing report in reply to Department letter of August 27, 1885, submitting twenty-four inquiries
relating to the administration of custom-house affairs :
1. I know of none.
2. None that I am aware of.
3. So far as the.work of the appraisers in the tenth and thirteenth
special agency districts have come under my observation, I would say
by actual count or measurement.
4. I have no personal knowledge of any snch transactions.
5. I know of none.
6. This question seems to be intended for the officers at the large seaboard ports; however, I am of the opinion that if the tariff law was so
amended as to more clearly specify the classification of many articles, it
would prevent much controversy and litigation between customs officers
and importers. It is the alleged obscurity of the tariff act in regard to
what is intended as the true rate of dnty on many articles that leads to
an honest diversity of opinion. Take, for instance, glycerine. It is a
difficnlt question to determine where crude leaves, off and where refined
begins.
(2.) I am of the opinion that there should be a special tribunal to try
judicially questions and controversies arising nnder our customs laws.
Disputed questions would be quickly decided, and the monthly xmblications of the same, for the information of customs officers, would tend
to uniformity of practice in the assessment and coUection of duties.
Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, refer to the large sea board
ports, and do not come under my immediate observation ; but, if we^
are to take the testimony of honest and reliable iniporters in the interior, there can be no question but what there has been a failure on the
part of customs officers at New York to levy and collect the entire and
full amount of duty xirescribed by law.
Take,.for instance, the firm of Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago, The
John Shillito Co., of Cincinnati. Their facilities for the purchase and
importation of nierchandise are equal to any merchant in the United
States. Their agents are in the principal markets of the world, and
their integrity and financial standing are acknowledged as among the
very best, yet these men tell us that they cannot import certain lines
of goods and sell in comxietition with New York agents of foreign manufactories. These large dry-goods-firms are run upon strictly business
principles, and they know to a farthing what goods cost laid down
at their stores. The slightest variation in foreign markets is cabled to
them at once; in fact, every favorable condition of trade that exists
with any merchant in this country exists with them, and yet they cannot sell, excexit at a loss, in competition with these New York houses.
Travelling salesmen enter these stores and boast of their ability to
evade the fiill payment of duties. An investigation of their prices,
, based upon known actual charges, such as freight, commissions, duties,
&c., and the actual market value in the foreign market, substantiates
their olaim, and it also discloses the fact that the goods are offered for
430
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
a little less than actual cost of honest importation, and without any
legitimate profit to the importer. Among the articles that come under
my observation are linens, linoleums, oil-cloths, thread, buttons, corsets, &c. I find that honest importers are loth to give'information
against these irregularities for two reasons: .
^ First, that their trade demands these goods, and they are compelled
to buy of these foreign agents in order to successfully compete with
their rivals.
Second, that it brings a firm into disrepute and affects their trade to
be known as an informer. It would seem thatthe oft-repeated remark
made by the " d r u m m e r s " and agents of foreign houses, that "they did
not owe tribute to the United States Government,'' had so firmly gronnd
-itself into the avenues of trade that the sensibilities, even of our honest
importers, had become dulled as to their duty as good citizensl However, I believe a system can be devised whereby the Department conld
be put in possession of this information without detriment to the informer, and with great value to the Government.
16. The objection to sxiecific rates is often urged that it discriminates
in favor of the wealthy, and the better class of goods are passed at the
lower rate of duty; for example, a horse worth five hundred dollars
pays no more than one worth one hundred. So of different kinds of
live stock; bnt I am of the opinion that this objection can be overcome
by classification.
'
'
A change from ad valorem to specific rates in all cases where practicable would, in my judgment, prevent fraud and simplify the collection of import duties, and I believe the existing amount of duty
could be levied and collected on nearly all articles of merchandise. In
the case of fine laces, silks, satins, &c., which become very much more
valuable in proportion to their fineness and lightness, it might be necessary to nse a combination of rates similar. to that on wool at the
present time. It is an admitted fact that in many of the cheaper grades
of textile fabrics, our manufactures are able to defy competition and
stand alone. I firmly believe, with the exceptions noted, that specific
duties on textile fabrics, based on an intelligent classification, keepingin
view the average duties now collected,.with such additions or reductions
as past experience may suggest, are hot only desirable but practicable.^
17. I am not able to state in regard to increase of false rexiorts by the
appraisers since the repeal of the moiety act of 1874, but there can be
no question but what very grave abuses grow out of the enforcement,
of customs laws under this act, so much so that a universal demand
went out for its repeal. Subsequent legislation, nndoubtedly, went too
far in the opposite direction. By the act of June 22, 1874, section 12
- and 16, whereby the Government is comxielled to x^i'ove an "intent to
defraud" under the rulings of the courts, renders conviction very
doubtful, to say the least, and customs officers have often felt it their
duty to recommend a compromise for a money consideration, owing to
the uncertainty of conviction under this act. I am of the opinion that
it would be much better for the Government and for l^e best interest
of honest importers, if that portion of the act requiring proof of " intent
to commit a fraud" were repealed.
I doubt the advisability of the re-enacting of the law of 1863 or any
other law that will permit the seizure of private books and papers.
Such a law would be liable to abuse by overzealous officers, and might
result in great injustice to an importer. I believe there would be but
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
431
few cases, if any, but what an intelligent officer could procure his evidence without resorting to seizure of xirivate books and papers.
18. I do no not believe it practicable for consuls to verify, invoices as
suggested in this qnestion. It would cause vexations delays and serious
complaint on the part of importers, and no doubt would lead to protest on the part of foreign governments in ports where onr consnlar agents
were stationed.
I do not know what fees are charged by our foreign consular agents.
19. The liability of an axipraiser to err in judgment is as great, if not
greater, than any other custonis officer. Many close questions arise
which largely affect the interests of the Government or the importer.
Many ofi the axipraisers in the smaller ports are not experts, nor men of
experience in the valuation of many kinds of merchandise. In cases
where doubt arises, it is the practice of many of these officers to decide '
in favor of the Government, and leave the importer to protest and
appeal. There can be no question but what the imxDorter shonld have
the right to appeal to the Department and to the courts, and especially
would this be the case if a court of jurisdiction is to be established for
the trial of cases arising under onr customs laws.
Dutiable values are not always known nor easily ascertained by the
appraiser at the time of apxiraisement, and I am ofthe opinion that no
injustice would be done the importer or the revenues of the Government by the acts of an incompetent officer being subject to the revision
of the Dexiartment and the courts. At the same, time I would keep in
view that any change to be made in the xiresent law should not be to
invite litigation, but to collect the revenues of the Government with as
little friction and embarrassment to honest importers as can be done
with safety to the revenue.
.
20. Since the receipt of Department's letter, I have endeavored, at
every favorable opportunity, to get the opinion of prominent wool-grow:
ers as to the effect of the present tariff on that industry. Within the
limits of my district is situated the princixial wcJol-growing territory
east of the Mississippi river, and I must say I find a great diversity of
opinion, but all agree upon this statement, that wool cannot be produced,
except at a loss to the grower under the prices xiaid, since the passage
of the tariff act of 1883; also, that a specific rate, regulated by the price,
as under the present law, is very much to be xireferred to a return to the
compound rates of 1867. I am of the oxiinion that the low price of wool
at the present time is not wholly to be attributed to the rate of duty as
placed in the tariff of 1883, but thatthe disturbed condition of the trade,
caused by the change in the tariff, not only of wool but of woollen goods,
has had much to do with it. This is shown by an iniprovement in prices,
of this year over that of last, and as the relative value of these articles,
become fixed, it will, no doubt, still further add to the iharket price per
pound.
It is claimed that the same classification has been in practice for over
twenty years, and that changes have taken xilace in the breeding of sheep
not only in onr own bnt in foreign countries, and that a reclassification
nnder the xiresent rates should be made in justice to the wool-grower. I
have no doubt this is true. In conversation with the largest wool-grower
in Ohio, (Mr. Harxister, of Wyandotte Count3'^,)he exxiressed the oxiinion
that the rates on wool valued at 30 cents or less x^er pound, in classes
one and two, should be 12 instead of 10 cents. He also expressed the
opinion that under the present rate of duty on the coarser grades of
432
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
wool, (class three,) it was impossible for the American sheep-raiser to
breed with success'what is known as a mutton-sheep for the markets in
onr large cities, because the grower must depend in part on the wool
prodncpd for his profit, and the small protection afforded by the tariff,^
with the light fieeces of this.kind of sheep, would not admit of this
kind of industry.
I also addressed a letter to the Hon. Columbus Delano, a gentleman
who has the reputation of being the best informed of any in our State
on this subject. I have not received his answer up to the time of writing this report. As soon as it comes to hand I will forward it to the
Department.
21. It is currently reported, and believed by most people, and passengers from abroad relate their experience of how they fix the customs
officers on arrival of ship at New York by the payment to the inspector
of a certaiii sum of money to have their baggage passed without critical exaniination, or only a small amount of dutiable articles reported
to collector for payment of duty. The arrest and punishment of passengers engaged in these practices, as well as the officer, wonld no doubt
lessen this evil.
22. I think not. The strong competition in trade is no doubt the
chief cause of the dishonest practices to evade the custoins laws.
Merchants and dealers are anxious to undersell their competitorSj
and they study the most feasible plan for that x^^rpose; consequently
we have undervaluation, bribery, smuggling, and other sharp practices of dishonest merchants, and will have so long as there is a duty
to be collected.
'
..
23. Not tp so great an extent.
24. Not in my province to answer.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. WILLIAMS,
Special Agent.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 28.
O F F I C E OF SPECIAL A G E N T TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Cincinnati, Ohio, November 1, 1886.
SIR : I would respectfully submit the following report, with enclosure,
as supplementary to my report of October 20,1885, in reply to question
No. 20 of Department letter of Angust 27, 1885: ^
I submitted several questions to Mr. Delano, of Mt. Yernon, Ohio,
in regard to the tariff on wool, and its relations to the wool-grower. I
consider him one of the best-informed gentlemen upon this subject in
this conntry, and I quote his reply:
" I enclose with this note a printed copy of a statement which I made
before the Ways and Means. Committee ofthe House of Eepresentatives,
February 20,' 1884, nnder the caxition, 'Protective duty on wool.'
Yon will find a history of the several tariffs or duties on wool from the
commencement of our National Governmeht to the date of my statement.
"This will answer the first part of your inquiry as well as I am able
REPORT OI THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
433
to answer. This 'history of the several rates of duty on wool' was
made from the records of legislation on the subject, and it is correct, as
I believe. You will find in the statement some infbrmation of value in
regard to the condition of sheep-husbandry and wool-growing in the
United States prior to and at the date of the wool and woollens tariff
ofMarch 2, 1867, and if you carefuUy pursue the subject, you will observe how this industry xirospered and increased under the infiuence of
this act, and how it has been injured in its prosperity by the act of
March 3, 1883.
" I n regard to the final clanse of your inquiry, which refers to the
working of the complicated rates on wool that are now in force, I have
to say I think, as a rule, specific duties are preferable to ad valorem,
and I am clearly of opinion that specific duties are advisable on wool,
provided they are adequate in amount, and are expressed in clear and
unequivocal terms; but this leads me to say that the classification of
wools is an absolute necessity in any tariff act for their protection, and
I am sure that no better classification has been, or is likely to be, made
than that which was adopted in the act of 1867, and which was preserved in the act of 1883.
"The varieties and grades produced and consumed by our people
were happily and accurately described and embraced in these acts. If
any futnre legislation is had tonching wools, it is important that this
classification be not modified. It is equally imxiortant that the duties'
imposed by the act of 1867, or a full equivalent therefor, be restored, but
this can be done by stopping all ad valorem and by increasing specific duties to eqnal the amounts thus dropped. Such a course will render
evasions and frauds less easy, and thns facilitate an honest and fair
compliance with law by importers.
. "Nothing short of a substantial restoration of the act of 1867 will
meet the just-demand of a great industry, which in 1883 produced'
three hundred and twenty millions (320,000,000) of ponnds, worth on
the eastern markets one hundred and forty-four millions of dollars,
($144,000,000,) but which, under the influence of the act of 1883, is not
worth over ninety-six millions of dollars, ($96,000,000.)
'' I have one more word to add. Our carpet-wools have never been adequately protected, and this important fact I wish to emphasize, for there
is nothing but folly in our economic policy that drives out of this country the production of carpet-wools, when we have snch vast regions
which natnre seems to have provided for their especial production.
"Eespectfully,
"C. DELANO."
It will be remembered that in my former report I stated that Mr.
Harpster, of Ohio, the largest wool-grower in the State, claimed that a
reclassification of duties on wool was necessary, in his opinion, but Mr.
Delano thinks differently. I am inclined to the opinion that Mr. Delano^
is the best informed on the question, it having been the subject of carefiU study by him for many years.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. WILLIAMS,
Special Agent.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
28 A
,434
REPORT OF THE SECRE;rARY OF THE TREASURY.
PORT OF BALTIMORE.
No. 29.
EDWIN H. WEBSTER—Appointed Cohector February 17, 1882.
CUSTOMHOUSE, BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Collector's Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : Your circular letter dated August 27,-1885, was duly received
at this office, but as I was absent from the city I could not personally
reply to the queries therein presented, and embrace the first favorable
opportunity to do so.
.
I notice by a careful consideration of yonr communication that some of
the questions are more applicable to the port of New York than to Baltimore, several of them referring specifically to that port. I vill endeavor
to answer the questions, however, as well as the information attainable
will allow, so far as this port is concerned, as I have no knowledge of
the state of affairs at New York.
To the first and second questions, I answer none.
To the third, I would state that, invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified i n t h e appraiser's office b y t h e examiners, under the
supervision of the appraisers, by measuring, weighing, and examining,
nnder the glasses furnished by the Government, sample portions of such
importations.
To the fourth and fifth, I answer none.
To the sixth, I report that the following suits are now pending in the
United States circuit court at Baltimore, and, I am informed by the
United States district attorney, are now ready for trial. These suits are
all brought by importers against the Government:
Two suits on classification of dnty on bottles containing natural
mineral water and on malt-extracts, nnder act of Jnne 3, 1874.
Eight snits on classification of iron ore, under act of March 3, 1883.
Twelve suits on subject of charges, nnder act of March 3, 1883.
. I do not think that there should be any amendmnnt to the law in,
respect to the payment, of interest, except that the rate of interest
might be reduced to correspond to the rate paid by the Government on
its bonds.
.,
There is no necessity for a new tribunal to try questions mentioned
in this interrogatory, so far as this port is concerned.
To the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, I have no knowledge.
In answer to the twelfth, I would state that there are at this port two
local axipraisers, and no deputy appraiser. .
As between the examiner and the appraisers, I consider the firstnamed officer the one "primarily" responsible for all returns affecting
the dutiable value of goods. When he cannot determine on the value, or
has any doubt whatever as to the correct assessment or classification of
merchandise, he reports the fact to the appraisers, who then make a
personal examination and report the result to the collector, and in all
cases in which goods are advanced in valne over the invoiced price the
appraisers are consulted*
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
435 ,
At this port the appraisers in many cases give personal attention to
determining the classification and valuation of merchandise.
The salary ofthe appraisers is $3,000 each per annum, and of examiners, $1,600 and $1,800 per annum.
To the thirteenth, none.
•
To the fourteenth and fifteenth, I have no knowledge.
To the sixteenth. A change from ad valorem to specific duties would
diminish the tendency to bribery by removing the opportunity therefor, and wherever xiracticable such change should be made; but in textile fabrics it wonld be impracticable to apply specific duties in many
cases, or, if axiplied, the effect would be to diminish, and even prohibit,.
the importation of low-xiriced goods and increase imxiortations of highpriced goods. At the same time the existing revenue would be decreased.
To the seventeenth. In myjudgment, the re-enactment of the "moiety
law" is nbt desirable. It led in many cases to acts' of injustice npon
innocent persons, and the seizure of books and papers under the act of
1863 was liable to the same objection.
,
To the eighteenth. I.presume a sufficient number of consular agents
might be appointed in such places as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to
personally examine articles to be shipped to the United States, but it
would be attended with great expense and labor, and wonld occasion
great vexation and complaint bn the part of foreign merchants, manufacturers, and shippers. I consider such a scheme impracticable. The
fee allowed by law to be charged by consuls is $2.50. I find, upon examination of a number of invoices from London and England, that the
amount added varies slightly ,• in some cases the charge is 10 shillings
6 pence, in others 10 shillings 4. pence, besides in some cases an ad(U.tional charge of 6 shillings is added for affidavit.
To the nineteenth. I do not think a change of the law would be advisable.
To the twentieth. I have no suggestion to make, except so far as I
have stated in my reply to question number sixteen.
To the twenty-first. At thi^ port the habit does not prevail of paying
money to officers by passengers.
To the twenty-second. I have no knowledge of the Government failing to collect duties at this port.
To the twenty-third and twenty-fourth. I haye no knowledge of any
failure to enforce.the revenne laws, or of any false returns or reports
relating to dutiable values having been made, as far as this port is concerned.
I am, very respectfully,
EDWIN H. WEBSTEE,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
436
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 30.
^
,
A. "STERLINO^-Appointed United States District Attorney July 29, 1869. ^
U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
•
Baltimore, September 18, 1886.. .
S I R : I submit the following replies to the interrogatories numbered
1 to 24, inclusive, in your circular, in which j^on say that in order that
you may decide how much and what xiortion, if any, of the record of
recent investigations of custom-house affairs shall be sent to Congress
in your annual report, 5^0u desire careful and official replies to the following inquiries:
To the first inquiry I have no information except as to the customs
district of Baltimore. From a long official acquaintance with that district, I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and
collected as the law prescribes, but I am satisfied, from a good deal of
opxiortunity to know, that they have been so levied and collected.
To the second inquiry I answer in the negative. Solely as to this
district.
To the third inquiry I have to say that this question is so Clearly
applicable to the detail of the appraisers' office, and will be so fully set
forth by them to the Secretary or the collectors, that it need not be here
answered.
To the fourth inquiry there is no evidence. I feel sure that no fraud
snggested by this inquiry has been committed here within the past
sixteen years.
To the fifth inquiry I answer, there is no evidence here. I never
heard of any false or inadequate weighing on the wharves.
In regard to the sixth interrogatory, I think the existing law does
need amendment. The following cases against collectors are now pending in the circuit conrt for this district, with date of suit brought:
AprU 12, 1881—W. D. Marvel vs. John L. Thomas.
September 10, 1881—Same.
•
.
^
December 21, 1881—Same.
May 2, 1882—Same.
The question involved in these cases is, whether certain ore is dutiable as metallic ore not otherwise provided for, at 10 per cent, or 20
per cent.
January 5, 1883—Soyre vs. E. H. Webster. Mineral water, whether
material or artificial.
January 31, 1883—Eisner vs. E. H. Webster. As to market value of
malt-extract.
January 17, 1884—Eogge & Koche vs. E. H. Webster. Question of
classification.
Jannary 17, 1884—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Question as to packages being free or dutiable.
January 17, 1884—
vs. E. H. Webster. Claim of abatement for
damage to cargo of fruit.
February .20, 1884--Moritz, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. As to packages,
dutiable or free.
Jnne 9, 1884—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Same question.
June 9, 1884—Fried vs. E. H. Webster. Same question.
June 9, 1884—Prior, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. Question as to classification.
^
'
[ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
: 437
" Jnne 9, 1884^Eogge & Kbche vs. E. H. Webster. Question.of classi.fication.
July'31, 1884—Moritz, &c., ^'s. E . H . Webster. Packages, whether
free oi-dutiable.
,
'' .
July 31, 1884—Cator, &c., vs. E. H. Webster. Same question. .
.November 12, 1884—Hodges vs.'Ei. H. Webster. Package, dutiable
'••orfree. . : .
. ./'•.
••:'-••..•..
' V' '-- : • '
.•-•,;•'
April 2, 1885----Hodges t's. E. H. Webster. Same question.
- August 15, 1885—Hodges vs. E. H. Webster. Same question.
. January 7, 1885—Marvel'2^.5. E. H. Webster. Same question as: to.
iron ores as above. V
.
r '
. May 15, 1885—Marvel /ys. Webster: Same question as to iron ores as <
•above. •
..".••••.;•.;'
:• .
•.--; ^^'-^y.
These suits, with two exceptions, are in regard to controversies well
known to the Department, and the suits here have not been tried because similar suits in New York were expected to be tried and appeals
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it seemed better
^ n d mpre economical to the United States not to multiply trials unless
trial here was directed by the Department. There is no difficulty here '
in getting such suits speedily tried, and I cannot answer the general .
qnestion. I think there is no necessity for a new tribunal for such
question; I think there is a need for speciai juries to try them.To the seventh inquiry. I have no means of answering this inquiry.
To the eighth inquiry. I have no means of answering this inquiry.
^To the ninth inquiry. No evidence here.
.
To the tenth. No means of answering this question,
v
To the eleventh. No means of answering this qnestiom \
To the twelfth. I have no information for me to answer this question
satisfactorily.
To the thirteenth. 1 have no evidence or knowledge so as to answer
-this qnestion.
To the fourteenth. I have no information so as to alnswer this question.
To the fifteenth. I must answer as Xn my rejily to the fourteenth.
To the sixteenth. I think a change as to specific rates would be a
benefit to the revenue and help to diminish the tendency to bribery, and
that such rates might be applied to many classes of goods, but I do not
see; how they could be applied with justice to all textile fabrics, the
values differ so enormously. V
'
'
To the seventeenth. In my opinion, the legislation mentioned in this
inquiry has had a direct tendency to increase successful fraud. The
moieties to Government officers were, perhaps, obnoxious enough to be ;
repealed, but so many frauds may be carried out which even vigilance
may not detect that rewards to iijformers ought to be given in order to
cause distrust among participants in frauds and induce the possessors of
guilty secrets to reveal them.
- I think the provisions requiring in cases of forfeiture trials, that a
separate issue shall be submitted: to the jury as to whether there Vas a
specific intent to defraud the revenue, puts a greater burden on the
prosecution in such cases than the circumstances allow.'
/
The opportunity of showing the absence of fraud is so ^clearly in the
possession pf every honest importer that to try such cases and require
the prosecution to prove guilt, as in ordinary criminalcases, is less than
justice to the Governnient, and is not'founded on sound principle.
Eighteen. T have no information to answer this interrogatory.
438
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I answer the nineteenth qnestion in the negative, as to the judicial
power. I think the executive department may have greater jurisdiction, and I think that as little as possible in regard to dutiable values
should be allowed by the courts.
Twentieth? I have no means of answering this qnestion.
Twenty-first. I have heard that this practice has, to some extent,
existed in New York, where such an immense amount of Inggage is introduced, bnt I have never heard that it prevailed anywhere else.
The only way I see to prevent it is by snch supervision of a higher
grade of inspectors or superiors over the inspectors of baggage, whose
vigilance might deter and prevent such practice, and the trial and
punishment of every inspector who may be proven to be guilty, as also,
nndohbtedly, by the increasing introduction of civil-service reform
among the officers and the banishing of political influences and rewards.
Twenty-third. I answer this question in the negative, from all the information I possess.
Twenty-fonrth. As far as I know, which is only as to this district,
.Yevj few false reports have been made. I think, in all cases where the
evidence has shown such reports, the proper xirosecntions have been had.
Yery respectfully,
A. STIELING, J R . ,
- United States Attorney.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 31.
WILLIAM R. WILMER—Appomted Naval Ofdcer Februaxy 17, 1882.
-
,
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, M D . , NAVAL OFFICE)
September 5, 1885.
SIR : In response to the inquiries of the circular dated Augnst 27,
ultimo, a copy of which, marked "strictly confidential," was addressed
to me as naval officer of this port, I respectfully submit the fbllowing
statements, seriatim:
1. 1 have no evidence that "the rates of duty," as distinguished
"from dutiable values," have not at this x^ort, "within the last few
years, been levied and collected as the law prescribed."
2. I have no evidence of any kind that the duties referred to in paragraxih 2 have not, in full amonnt, 'been collected as prescribed by
Congress.
3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified thus:
The appraiser or examiner first comx3ares the figures given in the
invoice with those marked on a small tag or ticket attached to the goods;
secondly, the verification is occasionally made by actual measurement;
but thirdly, in general, while the width is actually measured, the length
is ascertained by counting the folds in a sufficient nnmber of pieces.
This last method is regarded sufficientlj^- accurate in the case of all
regularly mannfactnred goods.
4. In reply to this inquiry, it affords me x^leasnre to say that during
my incumbency of this office no such transaction as collusion between
importers and deputy collectors or entry clerks has come to my knowl-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
439
edge; nor do I believe that such collusioii has been perpetrated. The
chfef importers inaking entry at this port are men of the best mercantile
reputation; and the integrity of our entry', clerks has not been, in my
knowledge, ever impeached.
i
5. In reply to the fifth interrogatory, 1 regret to say that the evidence of incompetency (not fraud) in the weighing department are of
frequent occurrence. This incomx)etencyi exists either in the actual
process of weighing or in the making out the returns from the weigher's dock-book, possibly in both. All thp retnrns of the weigher, as
well as those of the apxiraiser, are carefully scrutinized in the liquidating department of this office, and when-thb least apxiearance of discrepancy is presented in an undue difference between the quantity entered
and that returned, attention is called to. it,; and the return, when errpneons, is corrected and indorsed "Amended by permission of the surveyor." So frequent do these errors occurl that our liquidating department has learned to be very cautious in adjusting entries on retnrns of
weight, and yet, with all their caution, in jsome instances the error has
escaped their notice, but afterwards discovered by the chief weigher or
by the importer.
i
6. I learn there are on the docket of the United States court of this
city some twenty or more suits pending against collectors of this port, of
which four are against the late collector, John L. Thomas, and the residue against the present collector, Edwin JH. Webster; that seven of
these cases involve the question of rate of duty on iron ore; two cases
refer to classification of merchandise; and the I remaining eleven cases have
reference to the question of 'Hlie charges" for "cartons," "making up,"
&c., as a part of dutiable value. None of these suits have been tried, but
all are awaiting the issue of similar suits before the courts in New
York, or the final issue of such as may be taken by appeal to the Supreme Court. Without attempting to poiiit out the way in which, under the xiresent judicial system, this undesirable state of things could be
remedied, its detriment to the revenue is manifest, in that, in case of
adverse decisions, the amount of duty exacted in excess, with, interest,
must be refunded.
'
Such facts as these, together with evils incident to other departments
of the whole present system, evidently demand at least an effort at improvement. This, I think, could be largelj^ effected by—
First. A simxilification of the tenuis of the tarifif in stating classification and rates of duty.
"
|
.
Second. In the apxiointment of appraisers,^ examiners, weighers, entry
clerks, and other officers of ascertained capacity and integrity.
Third. In the creation of a special tribunal, a tariff appeal court, the
J udges and attorneys of which to be men not only learned in law but
also expert in revenue laws and all tariff questions; and also, if possible,
men of sound practical knowledge in merchandise, manufactures, &c.
'10. While I have not learned that any conflict of opinion exists in
the appraiser's department relative to the elements to be ascertained in
order to fix and declare dutiable values, yet,ias between the appraiser's
department and several of onr large importers here, a considerable
diversity of views prevails relative to the force and imxiort of Treasury
circular of July 2, ultimo, as exxiounding tfie operation of the present
tariff in determining the true dutiable value of certain classes of merchandise, whether or not that dutiable valub shall include the invoice
charges for boxes, cartons, making uxi, &c. j The merchants generally
440
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
exclude these charges from their entries. . The appraisers add them, and
the additional duty is paid; under protest and suit entered for its recovery. An immediate and; definite decision of the qnestion is very desirable. .
.:
12. While examiners aiid deputies are directly responsible to their
chief, yet the appraiser himself must be held chiefiy responsible to the.
collector for the accuracy, of all reports of values, rates, or quantities to ^
which he certifies. In some instances, no doubt, the ax)praiser must
depend entirely uxion his subordinates; but at this xiort the amount of
business does not prevent the appraiser from making a personal verification of all reports on dutiable values.
There are two local apxiraisers in the custom-house at this port, at
salaries of $3,000 each per annum; and, since the recent reduction pf
the force, there are five examiners, salaries of three at $1,800 each, and
' the remaining two at $1,600 each.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates, in every admissible'
case, would undoubtedly diminish the temptation to make false and
fraudulent valuation, besides tending to simplify the tariff, an improvement which the present system urgently needs.
While specific rates could be applied^ to all textile fabrics, yet, in
grading the rate, some reference should be had to valuation; otherwise,
there would be no practical distinction between the coarser and finer
and more costly fabrics of the same general class.
18. As our consuls and consular agents abroad at present certify to
the market value of the currency in which, the foreign invoices are made
out, I cannot see what valid objection there could be to their verifying
also the market value of the merchandise exported. Of course this would
occasion some delay, but that delay need not be vexatious, and the beneficial results accomplished would more than compensate for any practical inconvenience.
19.. I am clearly of the opinion that when the methods for ascertaining
and determining the elements of the revenue, values, rates, quantities,
&c., have been once declared, no department and no officer ofthe Government should have the authority to interfere with them. This is
manifestly demanded by justice to the importer and by the best interests of the revenue.
•
.
21.' While I have knowledge of money being offered by arriving passengers at this port to custoins officers to infiuence them in the discharge
of their official duty, the offer was indignantly rejected, and I have no
reason to believe any such money has been received.
22. While Congress may not be able to enact revenue laws that unscrupulous men of cax)acity may not violate and circumvent with inixiunity, yet there is a princixile of sound xiolicy to be observed in all such
legislation. ^ As far as possible prevent the crime that cannot always be
^
certainly detected and adequately punished. Bestroy the gain of defrauding
the revenue." This may be done in part by the substitution of specific
for ad valorem rates, but mainly by such a judicious revision of the whole
tariff as shall reduce it to a point consistent with a safe and conservative revenue,, but which shaU offer no sufficient temptation to evade its
provisions.
With reference to paragraph 20, the statistics extending over a period
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
441
of twenty-five years loill require considerable Mme to collect and arrange,
but it shall be done at the earliest possible peiiod.
Upon the topics named in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23,
and 24, I have no information.
Yery respectfuUy,
WM. E. WILMEE,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
PORT OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
. Naval Office, September 9, 1886.
S I R : Eeferring to the statement made in my communication of September 5,1885, in reply to: yonr circular of August 27,1885, designated
as point 2, under subject 6, I desire to say in explanation that the remark relative to the qualification of certain officers in the custom-house
was oi general application, and not as referring especially to the present
incumbents of this port.
Yery respectfully,
WM. E. WILMEE,
'
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
|
,
Secretary of the Treasury.
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, MD.,
Naval Office, October 7, 1886.
S I R : Eeferring to topic " 2 0 " of your circular of date August 27.^
1885, relating to the subject of "wool" imported at this xiort, (the circu
Iar was marked "strictly confidential," and to which I replied September 5, 1885,) I have the honor to state:
1. That prior to the year 1870, the records of this custom-house are
not in such form as to afford convenient access to the desired information,
which conld be obtained only by an actual examination of every page of
each volume of the records fbr ten years. The time allotted for this report, with my limited clerical force, would not xiermit such examination of the period named. • And this is the less to be regretted on this
occasion as the period from 1860 tb 1870 covered the time of our late
civil war, during which, and for a considerable time after, all industries were in an abnormal condition.
2. That from 1870 to the present time our: records on all subjects are
full, complete, and accui?ate, and regularly indexed throughout. From
these records I learn that the importations o|f wool at-this port were, in
weight (pounds) and in val]ie, (dollars,) as stated in the accompanying
table:
j
442
EEPOET OP THE SECEETAEY OP THE TEEASUEY.
Importations of Wool at Port of BaltiTnore, Md.
Year.
1870
1871....^
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
Total
Quantity.
'"
;
'.
:
Value.
Average.
Pomids.
242,756
1,109
30,017
25,684
12,793
28,519
13,681
39,442
8,666
DoUars.
25,763
108
4,877
3,893
1,624
3,966
2,257
4,945
816
83,693
49,874
15,512
5,915
110,480
16,399
646,714
86,075 10 cents per pound.
3. That nnder the tariff prior to the existing act of 1883 the dnty on
wool was a combination of a specific and an ad valorem rate, determined
by the relation of the cost in the foreign market to the standard of 32
cents per pound for classes first and second, and that of 12 cents per
ponnd for class third, to wit: For wool costing 32 cents or less, 10 cents per
pound and 11 per" cent, ad valorem; costing over 32 cents per pound—
in 1870, 12 cents per ponnd and 10 per cent, ad valorem; ih 1872, and
subsequently, 12 cents per pound and 11 per cent.-ad valorem; for washed
wool,^ double those rates; and for scoured wool, three times the rates.
Wools of class three, costing 12 cents or less, the rate was simply specific,
3 cents per pound; costing over 12 cents, 6 cents per pound; and the
latter, if scoured, 18 cents per pound.
4. Under the existing tariff, the duty on wool is simply specific, 2si^
the rates are 10 cents, 12 cents, 2 J cents, and 5 cents, respectively; but
while former ad valorem element no longer exists, the standard of value
in the foreign market has been reduced from 32 cents to 30 cents per
pound in classes j^rsit and second.
6. In addition to the above, derived from our records, I learn from
other sources that in 1870 the product of wool in Maryland was 435,213
pounds, and in 1880, 850,084 pounds—an increase of nearly 100 per cent.
In connection with this it should be stated that, at any given price,
American wool is superior to that of any other country, with the single
exception of Australia, which produces the finest wool in the world.
6. In Maryland there are only fourteen woollen factories, and only
one of any considerable extent. It is situated near this city. This
factory, since the beginning of the present year, has purchased 1,200,000
pounds of domestic wool, and imported none. In 1880 they paid 30 cents
per pound for best qualities, but now the price is 21 cents per pound.
7. In the whole United States, in 1860, the product of wool was
60,264,913 pounds; in 1870,100,102,387 ponnds; and in 1880, 240,681,751
pounds.
This marvelous development is due, no doubt, originally to the fostering influence ofthe tariff, bnt now wool-gnowing is established as a permanent necessity for theproper cultivation of the soil.
A material reduction: bf the present duty on wool would, no doubt,
for a time disturb the home market, yet no iuterest requires the rate of
duty to be advanced.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
443
The ratio of increase in this particular industry is but .one among inany
others that assure us that the vast area of the United States, with i1^
exhaustless capabilities of resources, will ere long be occupied by a
mightier xieople than has elsewhere ever existed, and that the day is not
distant when the United States will be able both to feed and clothe the
world.
Yery respectfully,
WM. E. WILMEE,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 32.
GEORGE M. MCCOMAS—Appomted Deputy Collector November 1, 1870.
CusTOM-HousE, BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Collector's Offi>ce, September 10," 1885.
SIR ,: Your communications of the Oth and 30th ultimo were duly received, and should have been responded to sooner, but, owing to
inflamed eyes and the absence of the collector, I have only been able
to attend to my official duties, and that contrary to the advice of my
physician, and their present sensitiveness will compel me to make my
reply more brief than I would otherwise have done.
Many of the questions submitted have almost exclusive reference to
the port of New York, to which I feel incompetent to make any intelligent replies, and many other to undervaluations, which I am quite sure
have not been the case at this port. I hereto attach replies to each paragraph. Though made under such unfavorable circumstances, I hope
they may, to some extent, contribute to the laudable object you have in
view:
,
1. I have no knowledge that, within the last few years or at any other
time, any duties have not been levied or collected as the law prescribed
or the Treasury I)epartment has directed.
2. I have no satisfactory^ evidence that, on articles which the law says
shall x^ay purely ° specific rates withont reference to values, the full
amount of duties xirescribed by Congi^ess have not been collected.
3. These duties are performed by appraisers and examiners by actnal
measurement and tests furnished them by the Treasury Department.
4. I have never seen the least evidence of collusion with entry
clerks or dexmty collectors and importers to send to the appraisers a
bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in ten, and I feel assured
that if any such proposition were made to any entry clerk or deputy
collector at this port, the entire importation would be sent to the appraisers.
5. I have no evidence of false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing
or measuring on the wharves, neither have I any suspicion of such being the case.
6. These legal questions, I presume, will be fully replied to by the
collector and district attorney. I have never heard complaints here by
importers of delay in settlement of snits, but have of the heavy expenses
incurred in order to enter suits.^ The law, as it is now interpreted, is
but just to the creditor respecting interest.
»
444
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
7. This has reference to practices in New York, with which I am not
sufficiently informed to express an opinion.
'
8. The same as 7.
9. I d o not consider in any way axiplicable to this port.
10. There is now, and has been, confusion, doubt, and conflict of
opinion, not only in the appraiser's department, but in the Treasury Dexiartment and courts, respecting elements to be ascertained in order to
fix and declare the dutiable values, such as so-called charges, outer cov- •
erings, cartons, &c. The place and time are sufficiently defined by the
statutes.
11. I do not think any safe average can be made of the percentage
of undervaluation or of overvaluation of any year or series of years. I
believe at this port there has been an average of overvaluations. There
is no infallible standard of value by which to be guided.
12. As between the examiners and the appraisers for false returns of
values to the collector, both would be equally responsible were the appraisers to accept the report of the examiners. At this port the appraiser
satisfies himself by personal examination if he has any doubt of the report made by the examiner.
13. I dp not know of any eiidence of consular officials having assisted,
consented to, or connived at false evidence of foreign value.
14. I do not know of any false value, under this or any xirevious administration, being habititaUy returned to the collector, nor of any
money being paid to American officials for any snch purpose.
15.. I have no evidence that bribery has been used, under this or any
other administration, to procure false valuation.
16. It would certainly be preferable, if it be possible, to substitute
specific for ad valorem duties, but db not believe it can be applied to
textile fabrics, except in a taiiffievied for revenne only.
17. I have no data by which I can form an opinion.
18. I thiiik it would be impossible for consuls to personally examine
articles to be shipped and verify correctness of values. The delays and
annoyances, as well as questions of values between shippers and consuls,
would render such impracticable. Two dollars and fifty cents is the
legal fee for consuls certifying invoices, of large or small amonnts. I
find the charges on invoices made in various ways. Where sexiarated
from the charge for the declaration, the charge is mostly ten shillings
and six pence, occasionally ten and four, pence, I presume dependent
bn the rate of exchange, but the charge for declarations is frequently
included and charged as consuls' fees, in which cases it is generaUy from
fifteen to sixteen shillings and six pence, dependent on copies of decla
rations.
19. The xiresent law is certainly very unfair to the importers, and
should be so amended as to give them a right of axipeal to some higher
and independent tribunal. ^
20. I x^resume this will be furnished by.some one in the appraiser's
department, and if made by one of experience, and has been appointed
as the law requires, will be of value. The condition of my sight at
present will not justify the research required.
21. The practice of giving inspectors fees for services in facilitating
the examination of baggage does not prevail at this port. The inspectors know the law in such cases, and have been notified that it wonld be '
rigidly enfbrced; and it can be effectually remedied where it prevails
by strictly enforcing the law.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
445
22. As a general rule, the inducement to smuggle is of articles paying
the highest rates of duty, but they are not always the most easily concealed and disposed ofi I think the efforts at this port have been of
that class of goods which are most readily concealed and .sold without
much regard to the rates of duty.
\
23. I do not think there Has been any failure to enforce the revenue
laws at this xiort. The same reasons do not exist here and at other Atlantic xiorts as at New York. The volume of business is not so great;
therefore there is not so much opxiortunity for designing xiersons to
avail themselves of the rush of business. The importers in other cities
are mostly American citizens, whereas in NewYork they are generally
foreigners, and represent foreign manufacturers and merchants, who ar®
not in symxiathy with our laws and regulations; are in theory freetraders, and are located there solely for the purpose of making money
for themselves and their foreign representatives.
24. At this x^ort I do not believe there has been any intentional false
returns of values to the collector, and am sure if there had been they
would have been complained of and arrested.
.
Yours, most respectfully,
GEO. M. MoCOMAS,
Beputy Collector of Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 33.
JOHN L. LINTHICUM—Appointed Clerk, Baltimore, May 12, 1873; Appraiser,
Pecember 31; 1874.
PORT OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 8, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of circular marked
confidential, and regret that the duties of the office have been such as
tb prevent an earlier answer and the attention which the imxiortance of
the questions contained demands. I will endeavor to answer as best I
can the questions, seriatim, as follows:
" •
1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty as x^i'escribed by law
have not been levied and collected.
2. I have no evidence that the full amount of duties prescribed by
Congress on merchandise l)aying purely specific rates has not been
collected,
3. Textile fabrics are usually put up by the manufacturer in pieces,
with folds of a yard or metre in length, or rolled on boards. Each piece
has a label or card attached giving the number of yards or metres contained, and corresponding ivith the invoice. The goods are opened
and examined, and a samxile taken of each quality and price; a piece
is then unfolded and the length of the fold measured and the number
<of the folds counted, which gives the number of yards or metres contained.. Where the goods are rolled on boards,, a piece is unwrapped
and measured by the yard or metre stick. A discrepancy between the
qnantity invoiced and the quantity found is very rare. |
,
4. I have no evidence whatever of any collusion between the entry
'clerk and the importers in the designation of packages for examination.
^ 446
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY:
Occasionally the appraiserfin<i3it necessary, in order to make a proper
examination of an invoice of goods, to make a requisition for additional
packages where the entry clerk has omitted to designate a sufficient
number, but this is a mistake that can easily occur, in consequence of
fche manner in which many invoices are made^up, but I have never heard
of any suspicion of irregularity in the matter.
5. I have no evidence of any incompetent or false measuring or weighing on the wharves. This is under the jurisdiction of the surveyor,
and I have heard nothing to the contrary of its being correctly done.
6. (1.) In regard to the differences between collectors and importers
as to the classification of imported merchandise, I don't see where the
existing law could be amended with any advantage, except, perhaps,
that the time now allowed to the importer i n which to bring suit, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, inight be
reduced. I can see no good reason why the importer should not know
as well in thirty days after notification of the decision of the Secretary
of the Treasury whether he intends to enter suit or not as in ninety days,
the time now allowed.
(2.) As to the number of collectors' shits now pending in Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and their particular classification,
I have no means of knowing, as the records of these suits are exclusively
under thejurisdiction ofthe collectors of the several ports.
(3.) I can see no good reason wh;^ a plan cannot be devised by which
these suits can be more xiromptly disposed ofi I think that the principal cause of delay is on the part of the plaintiff; each importer is waiting for another to press his suit, knowing that he will incur certain
expenses, even if successfnl, while others, whose suits involve the same
issues, will get the same benefit firom the decision without any expense.
Another cause is the indifference on the part of district attorneys, in
consenting to postponements and in not pressing the suits to trial.
(4.) In regard to the question of interest as a part of theliamages and
, costs in suits against collectors, where it is finally decided by the courts
.that the collector has demanded and received more money as duties
than the law requires, I think it to be entirely equitable that the importer should be allowed interest on the excess paid for the time that such
excess has been in the possession of the Government.
(5.) While having no exact information as to the amount of business
before the United States courts, I: think, however, that the existing
judicial system is entirely adequate, if efficiently worked, to dispose of
all cases involving the proper rate of duty, and that there is no necessity
at present for the establishnient of tribunals expressly to try these questions.
'
7. I have not seen a copy of the report of the investigations referred
to, and have no evidence in the matter whatever except newspaper reports and the repeated assertions of importers here that they can buy
in New York certain goods much cheaper than they can import them,
particularly silks and cotton and worsted coat-linings.
8. Having no information as to the facts elicited by the investigation
referred tp, it is impossible for me to give an opinion whether the failure to collect the whole amount of duty prescribed by law was caused
by the ignorance, indifference, or dishonesty of Government officials.
9. I have no evidence whatever, and am therefore unable to give an
answer to the questions embraced in this number.
REPORT 01' THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
447
10., For some time after the law of March 3, 1883, went into effect ^
there was a great cLeal of confusion and diversity of opinion as to what
extefit section 7 of said act affected dutiable values, and, also, as to what
elements were to be considered as embraced in the market value ofthe
merchandise, but I know of no difference of opinion recently. The
existing decisions of the Department clearly set forth that section 7
does not in any manner affect the market valne of merchandise, and
that the market value is the value of the merchandise in the condition
in which it is prepared for sale in the foreigh market, and that the
proper constrnction of section 7 is that it simply repeals pre-existing
laws, which required to be added to the market value the value of the
cases, boxes, packing, &c., which are necessaryfor the transportation
of the merchandise, inland freight, commissions, and shipping charges.
11. I cannot see how it would be possible now to make a reliable estimate of snch undervaluations fbr a specific time, nnless samples of
the different kinds and qualities of the merchandise undervalued conld
be produced, together with reliable xiroof of what were the real market
values of the different kinds and qualities at the time of shipment to
the United States.
12. At the port of New York, in consequence of the vast number of
importations, I have no doubt that the whole time of the appraiser is
occupied in certifying to the collector the reports of values by the
assistant appraisers on invoices. In such an event the assistant appraisers are primarily responsible for any false returns made, as it is
their duty, as far as it is possible, to supervise the examiners while
making examinations, to examine the invoices and note the different
qualities and prices, and to see the goods corresponding to the different
prices. The examiners are assistants to the assistant axipiaisers, and
where it may be impossible fbr the assistant appraisers to see all the
merchandise examined, it is the duty of the examiner, where there is
the slightest doubt as to the correctness of the value or classification, to
call the attention of the assistant apxiraiser and exhibit a samxile of the
merchandise for his decision. An ignorant, indolent, or dishonest examiner can, in a great many instances, impose uxion an assistant appraiser and cause incorrect reports of values to be made. At other
ports, where there are no assistant apxiraisers, like the port of Baltimore,
the axipraisers are primarily resxionsible, the examiners are the assistants
of the axipraiser, and while at this port the appraisers personally superintend the examinations and see n^early alt of the goods examined, still
there are many instances in which they are liable to be imposed upon
by an ignorant, indolent, or dishonest examiner. The salary of assistant
appraisers at the port of New York is $3,000 per annum, and I think
that the salaries of examiners range from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum.
At the port of Baltimore the salary of appraiser is $3,000, and that of
the examiners from $1,600 to $1,800 per annum.
(2.) As stated in answer to the first part of this question, the business at the port of New York may be of such proportions as to prevent,
the appraiser from doing an3i3hing else biit simply certifying the reports
of the assistant appraisers, and I have no information as to the number
of duties performed by the appraisers at the various ports. It may be
possibly trne that at some other x)orts where there are assistant appraisers, the appraiser may do nothing more than to certify the reports
of the assistant appraisers, through sheer indifference, and not for
want of time .to supervise, in a measure, the examinations of the mer-
448
REPORT OF THE SECREtARY OF THE TREASURY.
chandise. As to the port of Baltimore, I can'^speak more thoroughly
The appraisers here not only rexiort the values of the merchandise to
the collector, but they superintend the examinations, and see almost,
all of the goods which are examined at the axipraiser's stores, and often,
in the absence or sickness of an examiner, make the examination in his
stead. All advances in values are made by the appraisers, and not by
the examiners, and also a;ll changes in the classification of merchandise,
as you are doubtless aware that the classification by the collector on the
invoice atthe time of entry is, from the. very nature of the case, only preliminary, and in a great many instances merely conjectural, for the reason
that it is imxiossible, from the meagre descriptions and technical names on
the invoice, to give the correct classifications, an actual examination of
the goods being absolutely necessary for the pnrpose. The appraisers
also answer all appeals from the importers to the Secretary of the Treasury on classification, which are always sent by the collector to the appraisers for an answer before they are transmitted to the Secretary of the
Treasury. The appraisers also examine the goods on which an allowance
for damage is claimed, either alone or in company with the examiner,
who regularly examines the xiarticular class of goods to which the damaged goods belong. If the goods damaged are textile fabrics, the apxiraiser and the examiner of textile fabrics make the examination; if
earthenware, the axipraiser and the examiner of earthenware, &c. In
some cases, where the appraiser is prevented at the time by other duties,
and the merchandise is of such a character that there is no difficulty in
ascertaining the extent of the damage, the examiner is allowed to make
the examination alone; but textile fabrics of all kinds, on which an
allowance is claimed, are always seen by the axixiraiser.
13. I know of nothing that would amount to satisfactory evidence of
collusion on the part of United States consuls in the presentation of false
values to the axipraisers. In the early part of the year .1881, it was discovered that ail invoices of marble from Carrara, Italy, were undervalued, the importers receiving private invoices with much higher
values than those certified by the consul. In explanation of this fact,
they asserted that the consul, Mr.
—, required the shixipers to make up their invoices at these prices, and that he would not
certify them unless they did so. It was also rumored at the time that
the consul was interested in the marble business in Boston. Whether
these statements were correct or not I do not know; however, the Department was informed about the matter, and some time afterwards a ,
successor to Mr.
was apxiointed.
14. I have no evidence which would enable me to give a satisfactory
answer to the question embraced in this xiaragraxih.
15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, it is reasonable to suppose that the same influences would produce similar results
in the future.
16. A change from ad valorem to sxiecific du:ties would unquestionably
do away with the motive fbr undervaluations, but would not affect the
question of bribery. If false valuations have been caused by bribery,
those that gii^e bribes would only turn their attention to another class
of officials, namely, inspectors, weighers, gaugers, measurers, and others
who certify to quantities.
(2.) I cannot see how x')urely specific rates can be axix'>lied to textile
fabrics with, any degree of equity. In a few kinds of manufactures of
cotton the number of threads to the square inch is a, very good index of
^REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TRRASURY.
449
the value, while in the greater portion it is entirely unreliable in giving
any idea of the value. The same is true in regard to manufactures
of fiax, jute, and hemxi. In some few manufactures of flax, such as shirt
linens, the number of threads to the square inch will closely indicate
the value; but on the greater portion of the manufactures of these materials it would • be no guide whatever. In manufactures of silk the
difficulty in imxiosing sxiecific rates will be still greater, owing to the
wide range in the value of the yarns from which the fabrics are manufactured. You will find yarns of Bourette silk valued as low as 40 cents
per xiound, while organzine silk will reach as high as $8 and $9 per
pound, thus demonstrating the imxiracticability of imposing either
Xiound or square-yard duty on. silk manufactures. On manufactures of
wool the imposition of xiurely specific duties would be likewise inequitable in its discrimination against the coarser and cheaper manufactures and in favor of the finer and higher-priced. The present rates of
duty, being only in part sxiecific, discriminate against the cheaper
fabrics, but not to the extent that xiurely specific rates would. I am ^
unable to see how purely specific rates could be apxilied to any textile '
fabrics without discriminating in favor of the fine and high-priced manufactures.
17. If the axixiraisers are honest and capable men, the repeal of the
moiety act should not have affected their rexiorts of values in any manner whatever, except so far as it may have oxierated to dexiriye them of
information through others, who would have possibly divulged in the
hoxie of reward. If they are dishonest men, and their reports of values
have been false, either intentionally or through sheer indifference because
they were deprived ofthe stimulus of reward in the repeal of the law,
they would be. entirely unsafe as Government officers, under any circumstances, if the law was restored. I do not think, however, that there
is any doubt that the general effect of the rexieal has been to deprive
Government officials of valuable information through the medium of
informers, and has to that extent contributed to the increase of undervaluations. But as the law was liable to be used by dishonest officials for
blackmailing xmrposes, to the detriment occasionally of an honest importer, who, rather than have suspicion rest upon his house by an investigation of his books, would pay a certain sum to the officials. I
think its restoration to be a qnestion of very doubtful expediency.
18. It would be entirely impracticable, in my opinion, forthe consuls at London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to personally examine the merchandise shixiped, and to certify the correctness of the values in some few
articles which are of a uniform quality,, and which vary very little
in value from time to time. T h e j might be able to verify the values,
but ih textile fabrics it is very doubtful if one consul in ten would be
able to tell the nature of the component inaterial of the fabric, much
less the value, which is governed by the quantity and quality of the
materials used and the mode of its manufacture. The only manner in
which any degree of accuracy could be obtained would be the employment of exxierts in each xiarticular line of merchandise shipped, which
would be simply transferring the appraising department from home to
the various consulates abroad;-and while it would not prevent false
values from being returned, as the consul wonld still be liable to be
deceived through either the dishonesty, ignorance, or indolence of those
so employed, the chances for detection would be very largely diminished.
29 A
'
450
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
(2.) I am unable to name any consnlar districts where the consuls
could safely and surely rexiort the true values of every shiximent.
(3.) It is reasonable to suppose that foreign governments would make
complaints in case of any unusual delay on the part of the consuls in
certifying invoices. The consuls could be of very great assistance to
' the appraisers in determining values by sending weekly, or even monthly,
reports and xirices-current of the various merchandise shipped from their
consulates to the United States, but, to the contrary of this, we do not
receive, at this port a single report, or even price-current, from France,
and only two from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, viz., Manchester and Newcastle; none from the German Empire; none from
Austria, Italy, and Spain; one from Switzerland, viz., a report ffom
St. Galle, of the charges for stitching embroideries.
19. Upon a question of classification, which is one of law, it is proper
that the courts should decide in case of appeal; but in regard to values,
which is a qnestion of fact, I think that it would be very unsafe to give
the courts jurisdiction. The axipraisers, in the first xilace, are supposed
to be.honest and capable men, and if not they should be, with a proper
appreciation of their duties and of what the law reqnires; they should
not advance values on mere suspicion, or simply for the purpose of being
on the safe side in the event that the invoice values were shown to be
incorrect; but wherever valneis are advanced the axipraiser should have
reasonable and just grounds for his action. In case the importer is dissatisfied and appeals, the general appraiser and a competent and reputable merchant hear the case uxion its merits, before whom he has the
right to apxiear, with witnesses, and present what other evidence he may
have bearing upon the case. I consider these gentlemen vastly more
competent to determine facts of this kind than the judge of a court, and
that their decisions are more likely to be just to all xiarties than those of
j udges pf courts, where technical rules of evidence prevail, or the verdicts
of juries whose conclusions may possibly have been reached by the throw
of dice. As the decision of the general and the merchant apxiraisers is
final, unless fraud is shown, I think the present law might be amended
so far as to give to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to order a rehearing of the case in the event the importer, within a reasonable time,
can show to his satisfaction that he has in his possession evidence of undoubted, value which he did not know of, or was ^unable to obtain at the
time.
Many of the importers have the impression that they ought to have
the right to make selection of the person to act with the general appraiser. They say that the merchant appraiser is also a Government
officer, because he is selected by the collector, and that, therefore, their
rights are not represented at all. I regard this reasoning as fallacious,
and would equally apply to judges of the courts, who are appointed by
the President. The idea of the" provision in the law for the merchant
appraiser is that he represents the rights of the importer, and his mere
selection by the collector does not in any sense constitute him a Government officer, but is a wise and xiroper xiroiision in order to prevent the
selection of an imxiroper person.
But in order to remove any objection in this direction, the law might
be further amended by allowing the importer to select the merchant appaiser, provided he is a capable and reputable person, subject to the
approval of the coUector, and in the event of a disagreement between
the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser in their decisions, the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
451
collector to decide, as at present, which repbrt to accex)t; oi^ if deemed
advisable, the number might be increased, and in addition to the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser as now appointed, allow the
importer to select a proper person, subject to the approval of the collector, and in case of disagreement, if the general appraiser and one of
the merchant appraisers constitute the majority, their report is to be
accepted as the decision of the case, and in the event the two merchants
constitute the majority, the collector to decide which report shall be
accepted as the decision.
20. To give a careful and accurate analysis of the history of the several rates of duty on wool and their practical working would require
a great deal of time, as the investigation would include not only the ^
changes and modifications in the several acts, but also the different
views of the leading members of Congress on the subject who were
chiefly instrumental in shaping the legislation. While the wording of
this paragraph would indicate that a history of the legislation on the
raw material only is required, I take it that the history and the practical working ofthe various rates of duty on manufactures of wool are
more particularly meant; and while I have not the time to go into the
history of these various rates, I have compiled from the importations at
this port for the last several months a statement of the various m nufactures of wool and the r^ates of duty apxilicable to the various cla ses,
the amonnt of duty and its equivalent in per cent, ad valorem, wh ich
I think, will give the Department some information as to the practical,
working of the different rates of duty. The statement is here appended.
Statement of the Various Manufactures of Wool, &c.
Description.
Quantity.
Weight.
Value per square yard
and pound.
Or
Value.
A n i o u n t of
duty.
R a t e of d u t y .
"a
P4
362
362
362
363
363
363
365
365
365
365
366
362
367
363
368
369
370
370
371
372
373
378
W o o l l e n c l o t h s , 28 t o 56 i n c h e s w i d e
W o o l barfege v e i l i n g , 14 t o 22 i n c h e s w i d e
W o o l c l o t h s , u n d e r 80 c e n t s p e r p o u n d , 54 i n c h e s w i d e
W o r s t e d c l o t h s , u n d e r 60 c e n t s p e r p o u n d , 54 i n c h e s w i d e Wool knit gloves
Wool knit hose
D r e s s - g o o d s , . c o a t - l i n i n g s , &c., i n p a r t w o o l , u n d e r 20 c e n t s .
D r e s s - g o o d s , c o a t - l i n i n g s , &c., i n - p a r t w o o l , o v e r 20 c e n t s .
A l l - w o o l d r e s s - g o o d s , &c., w e i g h i n g l e s s t h a n 4 o u n c e s . . .
A l l - w o o l d r e s s - g o o d s , &c., w e i g h i n g o v e r 4 o u n c e s
Wool shawls, as wearing-apparel
W o o l costumes, n o t m a d e u p , w h o l l y or in p a r t
W o m e n ' s a n d c h i l d r e n ' s w o o l c o a t s , c l o a k s , &c
W o m e n ' s a n d c h i l d r e n ' s w o o l c o a t s , c l o a k s , &c., k n i t
goods
Dress-trimmings
Axminster carpets
Wilton carpets
T o u r n a y carpets
....:
Brussels carpets
'.
P a t e n t v e l v e t c a r p e t s ..Tapestry Brussels carpets
P a t e n t mosaic carpets
21,118 y d s
13,320.20 m e t r e s . .
550Xyds....
884 y d s
7,756 d o z e n
601 d o z e n
45,412 s q . y d s
20,281% sq. y d s . . .
31,418 s q . y d s
2 3 , 3 1 2 ^ sq. y d s . . .
605 p i e c e s
6,428 p i e c e s . .
657 p i e c e s
2 9 1 ^ sq. yds....
774 s q . y d s
96 s q . y d s
,
2,958% sq. y d s . .
910>^sq. y d s . . . . ,
1,728 s'q. y d s
973% s q . y d s
Pounds.
31,367%
495
518
902
4,978%
795
6,842
452
357
17,967
1,191
411
S1.43%perlb.
$2.811-5 p e r l b
763^ cts, p e r l b
593^ c t s . p e r l b
'.....
$2.8(y%per\h
R383^perlb
15 15-16 cts. p e r s q . yd,
41 c t s . p e r s q . y d .
23>< cts. p e r sq. yd.....
$1.0"4perlb
S1.88 p e r l b
^2.623^ p e r l b
$1.28% p e r l b
.....
$45,063
1,292
396
537
10,358
1,098
7,246
8,352
7,395
7,120
849
938
23,161
33 35 cts. a n d
94 35 cts. a n d
64 35 cts. a n d
15 18 cts. a n d
95 35 c t s . a n d
18 35 cts. a n d
90.
5 cts. a n d
24
7 cts. a n d
29
9 cts. a n d
26 35 cts. a n d
98 40 cts. a n d
37 35 cts. a n d
95 45 cts. a n d
$1,733^ p e r l b
$5,433^ p e r l b
$1,163^ p e r s q . y d
| l . 5 3 1-5 p e r s q . y d
|l.68>^ p e r s q . y d
9 0 ^ cts. p e r sq. yd....
98% c t s . p e r s q . y d
643^ cts. p e r s q . y d
11.013^ p e r s q . y d
2,065
• 2,233
339
1,185
161
2,669
898
1,122
989
46
93
36
85
92
84
42
12
16
35 cts.
30 c t s .
45 cts.
45 c t s .
45 cts.
30 c t s .
25 cts.
20 cts.
40 p e r
40 p e r
40 p e r
35 p e r
35 p e r
40 p e r
40 p e r
35 p e r
40 p e r
40 p e r
40 p e r
35 p e r
40 p e r
40 p e r
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
$2,904
690
331
350
5,886
715
4,807
4,760
5,785
5.242
478
500
17,349
04
32
41
56
14
52
01
62
46
80
29
30
93
64.36
53.40
83.55
65.30
56.82
65.15
66.33'
57.00
78.23
73.63
56.27
53.31
74.90
a n d 40 p e r
a n d 50 p e r
a n d 30 p e r
a n d 30 p e r
and 30per
and 30per
a n d 30 p e r
a n d "'^ p e r
ct
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
ct.
1.243
1,240
233
704
91
.1,687
, 497
682
03
26
09
05
83
58
14
24
60.18
55.50
68?68
59.40
56.70
63.21
55.33
60.80
40.00
o
H
O
/^
H
w
o
o
^^
H
W
t?^
H
cc
g.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
453
21. It is generally believed that this xiractice prevails at the port of
New York. In fact, the acknowledgments of xiassengers themselves
have been so frequent that I do not think that there is any doubt on the
subject. I have not heard that it prevails at other ports, although it
may. I do not think that there is any such practice at this port; at
least I have never heard of it. Any Government officer detected in
receiving either money or a present ff'om a x^assenger should be dismissed from the service immediately.
22. I.have no evidence as to what articles on which the Treasury has
failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law, and am therefore'
unable to answer.
23. I have no information which enables me to speak of the other
ports. I know of no instance at this port in which the duty prescribed
by law has not been collected.
24. I am unable to answer for the want of information in the matter.
N. B.—No. 18. I omitted to answer the latter clause of this question,
in reference to the charge by the consuls for the certification of invoices:
The usual charge is 155., of which 4s. 6d. is the charge for the oath, which
is taken before a commissioner, leaving 10s., 6d. as the consul's charge.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c.,
JNO. L. LINTHICUM,
Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
-
No. 34.
HENRY H. GOLDSBOROUGH—Appointed Appraiser January 19, 1875.
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, MD.,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1886.
S I R : In reply to your circular of the 27th August, ultimo, propounding to me numerous inquiries, I beg leave to state:
1. That I believe the rates of duty, as distinct ft'om dutiable values,
have been levied and collected at this port as the law prescribes for the
past ten years that I have been acting as an appraiser.
2. I have no knowledge or evidence that the full amount of duty
prescribed by Congress on articles paying specific rates of duty, without
reference to values, has not been collected at this or other xiorts.
3. The invoiced measurement of textile fabrics, such as woollen
cloths and similar goods, xiaying a comxiound duty, is usually verified
by actual measurement and weight of the contents of cases sent to ns
for examination, and a comxiarison of the same with the quantities and
weights stated on the invoice.
Ih cases of cotton cloth: paying according to the number of threads
to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, they are tested by the
square-inch glass provided for such xmrpose; and in women and children's
dress-goods, composed in part or wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of
thealxiaca, goat, or other animals, where a compound duty is applicable,
the lineal yards are ascertained and reduced to square yards according
to Heyl's tables, and duties assessed according to the different characters
and respective qualities of the goods, and written reports made to the
454
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
collector of the port of their respective classifications under.the tariff
law. In. these, as in all other cases, we are governed by the synoptical
series of decisions issued monthly by the Treasury Department..
4. I am not aware of any. collusion between the persons making entry
of goods and the entry clerk or deputy collector whereby any bogus or
false packages are sent as fair samples of one in every ten.
,5. I have no knowledge of any false, incompetent, or inadequate
weighing or measuring on the wharves.
6. I do not know that the existing law in respectJto differences of
opinion between importers and collectors ofthe several ports of entry,
resulting in suits at law, needs any amendment. I have no knowledge
of the number of suits now pending in Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore. The official record in each case will afford the best evidence of their respective classifications, the legal questions involved, the
number and time of their institution, how long they have remained untried, and in what condition they are for trial. It is difficult to devise
any plan for the prompt disposal of suits, as each suit must depend upon
either written- testimony, the personal attendance of witnesses, or the
admissions of counsel and other causes, which generally gives ample
opportunity for postponement and delay whenever desired by either
side. If these can be remedied by the combined wisdom of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorneys and
judges, it will be an improvement greater than any that has ever yet
been made in the way of expediting the trial of litigated questions. I
do not think the existing law in respect to the payment of interest as a
part of the damages and costs in suits by or against collectors of ports
needs any amendment. It is just and equitable in itself, and the party
succeeding in his suit should be entitled to compensation by way of interest, as a part of his damages and costs.
I do think there is a pressing and urgent necessity for the establishr
ment at once and without delay by Congress of a new tribunal to try
xases arising under our tariff laws, of classifications as well as of values.
I am decidedly of the opinion that if a customs court should be created
by the Congress of the United States at the four principal seaboard
ports, say Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, that our
customs service would be much improved and the mercantile community greatly benefited. They should be required to sit daily from.9
to 3 o' clock, and give their exclusive attention to tariff questions. They
should not be confined to the above localities, but be made, under the
direction of the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, to serve within
respective districts to be assigned them, and to decide all controverted:
tariff questions arising within their respective districts, furnishing the
honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, from tim^ to time, with written
concurring and dissenting opinions in each and every case.
I would invest this court with the same powers as the circuit court of
the United States, to issue writs, processes, and subpoenas, and compel
the attendance of witnesses, issue commission to take testimony, impose
and administer oaths, cohipel the production of books or writings
which contain evidence as to any matter pending before it, to issue attachments and' executions, to enforce its judgments and decrees, and
to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempt of its authority, and
make rules and regulations for the transactions of its business. Such a
court, created with full judicial powers, and properly organized with an
experienced lawyer at its head, and two competent assistants, (both of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStFRY.
455
whom- should be customs experts,) nominated and appointed by the
President of the United States, by and with the approval of the Senate
of the United States, wonld, in my judgment, relieve the mercantile
community of much of the expense, annoyance, and delay they experience under the present existing system in the prosecution of wha# they
conceive to be their rights. I would repeal all laws in reference to the
appointment of general apxiraisersi I would give to the importers the
same right pf appeal from the decisions of local appraisers to this customs court as they now have to the general axipraiser and the merchant
appraiser. With a tribunal so constituted, customs cases all over the
country could be disposed of in ninety days fr'om the commencement of
proceedings, as well as in the four or five years that are usually consumed under the present system. The Government and the importers
would then both be relieved of the innumerable protests and appeals
now pending, and which do not reach a final decision until passed upon
by the Supreme Court of the United States, or, if by an inferior court,
until acquiesced in and accepted by the Treasury Department or the
importers as a correct adjudication ofthe questions involved.
7. I am unable to specify any articles upon which the officials at the
port of New York have failed to levy and collect at said port the full
amonnt of duty that the law prescribes.
8. I have no knowledge of the inquiries made nnder the interrogatories in this number.
9. I have no knowledge of either of the local appraisers at this port
ever reporting to the collector false and dutiable values, or of the existence of any such practice at any other jiorts. Our returiis are not based
npon statements of special agents. The reports of foreign consuls on
values (although now seldom received) are generally accepted as prima
facie evidence of values, unless other and better evidence is produced
as to the correct foreign market value.
10. There is not, nor has been at any time, any confusion, doubt, or
conflict of opinion in the apxiraiser's department at this port respecting
the elements of dutiable value. The statutes on this subject are as full
as to place, time, and standard as could be desired, except the seventh
section of the act of March 3, 1883. This section, I think, could be
amended so as to distinguish more clearly the outside covering neces- ^
sary for transportation from those inside boxes and coverings which
usually form a part of their market value.
11. There being no undervaluations made at this port by-the appraisers, no average estimate can be formed fbr any year or series of years.
12. As between the examiner and local axipraisers at this port, L
would say that the examiner is primarily liable, as he first examines
the cases sent to this office, opens and counts the contents, and then reports in writing to the local apxiraiser for his sanction and apxiroval. In
cases of doubt, the classifications and values are determined by the local
appraisers, who are held by the coUector responsible for the correctness
of their written report. In many cases, especially where the goods are
examined at the piers and on the wharves, a mile or more distant from
this office, the local appraisers have in a great measure to depend on the
representation of the examiner. Samxiles, however, are generally
brought by the examiners for the inspection of the appraisers and as a
verification of the correctness of their oral report.
13. I have no evidence that any Government official, in the consular
department or elsewhere, has assisted, or consented to, or connived at the
456
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
presentation to the local appraisers at this port of false evidence of foreign values.
14. There having been no habitual or systematic reports to the collector of this port of false valrfes, I am nnable to speak of the several
interrogatories embraced in this number.
15. There being no false valuations at this port on the part of the local
appraisers and examiners connected with this branch of the customs
service arising -ironi bribery or venality, I am assured in the belief
that the same state of aff'airs will continue to exist in this branch and
in other branches of the service at this port.
16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would
be beneficial to the revenue, and remove all inducement to tamper
. with inspectbrs and examiners. It would remove one of the fruitful
sources of controversy between appraisers and importers as to foreign
market value. Much uncertainty will always exist as to market value
of goods xiaying an ad valorem duty, owing to the fluctuations of trade
and commerce, and the consequent fluctuations in prices, which can
only be remedied by the adoption of specific duties whenever practicable.
I would suggest that a specific duty be placed on the following articles : On Castile soap, 1 cent to l i cents per pound; Yenetian red, i of
a cent xier pound; salt-cake, i of a cent per pound; olive-oU, salad, 40
cents per gallon; olive-oil for machinery, 25 cents per gallon; cement
of all kinds, i of a cent per pound.
I do not think specific rates of duty can be apxilied to textile fabrics.
The great inequality of texture and price, and the confusion and injustice that would inevitably arise from the imposition of specific duties
on this class of goods wonld render a change of the present system impracticable.
17. I have no data on hand upon which to forni anything like a correct
oxiinion in regard to the effect of the repeal of the moiety act, or whether
any false reports by the appraisers elsewhere than at this xiort have been
increased by its rexieal. The modification of the law of 1863, investing
cnstoms officers with the power tb seize the books and papers of merchants, was wise and judicious legislation. This right was liable to
great abuse, and was productive in many cases of great injustice and
wrong.
.
18. I do not think it wonld be practicable in the large Americaii districts (consular) referred to in this interrogatory to personally inspect
and examine the great variety of articles shixiped from their respective
consular districts to the seaboard for transportation to"^American ports,
and verify the correctness of invoiced values of goods. If they have
doubts as to correctness of values stated on any particular invoice, the
present mode seems to me the best to detect and correct an attempt at
undervaluation. The consul in such cases should state his views of the
market value of such goods on the triplicate invoice sent to the collector of the port where the goods are to be entered without the knowl"^ed.ge of the shipper, manufacturer, x)iirchaser, or importer. The fbreign governments would, I think, be very likely to complain of the
delays and vexations their merchants would be subject to from the exercise of such personal examinations of their goods. The. usual fees of
certification are 15 shillings, • composed of 10 shillings 6 pence for consul's certificate, and 4 shillings 6 pence or affidavits or acknowledgments befbre a commissioner.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
457
19. I think it would be advisable to change the existing law which
gives to the axipraiser's department the sole and exclusive determination
of dutiable value, if made in conformity with law, if the suggestions 1
have made in my answer to No. 6 should be incorxiorated as a xiart of
the organic law resxiecting revenne cases. If a customs court should be
established in the place of the several general appraisers, the importers
should be given the right of appeal to said court within three days on
all questions of value. If the law remains as it now is, I think there
shonld be a change authorizing the appointment of an additional mer:
chant appraiser, selected by the impbrter, and the two merchant appraisers and general appraiser should decide by a majority all questions submitted to them.
20. There has been so little wool imported into this port within the
last ten years that it would be imxiossible for me to give any satisfactory history of the working of the complicated rates of duty now in
force. A careful and accurate analysis of these rates since 1860 would
require a thorough examination of all the acts of Congress. The compilation of Mr. Heyl, which is generally pretty accurate, would give
the key to the solution of this question.- It would, however, require
more time and a more thorough examination than I could give to preXiare an accurate statement on this subject, and the conclusions would
be too voluminous to be incorporated in this report.
21. I have no reason to believe, or even suppose, that the xiractice bf
the payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors of
baggage for any of the purxioses suggested in this interrogatory has ever
prevailed at this xiort. No other punishment should be inflicted upon sb^
unworthy a public servant than instant dismissal.
22. I know of no failure to collect the whole duty prescribed by law
on imported articles by the officials at this port. I do not think the
rates of duty are so high as to induce smuggling or cause dishonest
Xiractices by shippers.
23. The causes for the failure, whatever they may be, to eiiforce the
revenue laws at the port of New York do not, I know, exist at this port.
24. There being no false returns or false reports made to the collector
of this port of dutiable values, there has not been any ground for comxilaint, arrest, indictment, or imprisonment of any official since my connection, for the past ten years, with the appraiser's department at this
port.
These answers are of course intended to convey my personal and individual knowledge of such acts and doings as have eome within my
observation since January 19, 1875, when I entered npon my duties aa
local appraiser at this port.
I am, sir, very respectfully, yours,
HENEY H. GOLDSBOEOUGH,
local Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
458
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 35.
.
^ , HENRY CLAY NAILL—Appointed Surveyor Marcli 17, 1882.
CusTOM-HousE, BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Surveyor's Office, October 14:, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor, in reply to the inquiries contained in Department circular, dated August 27,1885, touching ^^a correct apjpreciation
of the results and the effort of our (the Department's) investigations of
custom-house affairs," to submit the following answers, viz:
1. I have no evidence, '' keeping in mind the distinction between rates
~ of duty and dutiable values," that the rates of duty have not within
the last few years, or at anj^ time, been levied and collected as the law
prescribed.
2. I have no evidence '^that on articles which the law says shall pay
purely specific rates, without reference to values, the full amount of
duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected."
3. I have heard one, and perhaps both, of the ^4ocal appraisers" at
this, port describe, incidentaUy, in what manner and by what tests the
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified in the usual course
of Custom-house business. But, as it was not necessary for me to tax
my mind with the subject, it having no connection with my official
duties, I do not now recollect accurately in. what manner and by what
tests invoiced measurements are verified.
4.. As to this inquiry, I have no infbrmation whatever upon the sub' ject.
5. I am not aware of any evidence ^^of false or incompetent or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves," or, indeed, anywhere
else in connection with the customs service at this port. On the contrary, I do know that the United States weigher gives the weighing and
measuring of merchandise the closest attention, and that the scales are
carefully tested and adjusted before weighing is begun; and if large.
- quantities are being weighed, tests are made as the weighing progresses.
Besides, when scales are retiirned to the scale-room after weighing has been
completed, they are invariably cleansed, and then carefully tested as to
their accuracy by the United States standard weights. A like care is
' practised in regard to tubs, &c_., used in measuring merchandise, &c.
I have entire confidence in the fidelity and comxietency of the assistant
weighers, arising from frequent and most careful examinations and tests of
their weighing and measuring and their returns of the same; and as to
the adequateness of weighing or measuring, the only comxilaint of the
imxiorter is that both, are done with unnecessary exactness. The result,
however, is that custom-house weights and measures are held, b y t h e
trade in favorable esteem at this x^ort.
6. The intimate relations bf the coUector of customs and the United
• States district attorney with the subject-matter of this inquiry so much
better enables them to give a more iutelligent opinion upon this subject
than I conld give that I shall therefore refrain from expressing any
opinion in relation thereto.^
.
7. In regard to this inquiry, I possess no information whatever.
8. In this, JlS in the case of the foregoing inquiry, I have no knowh^
edge whatever.
9. I have no information touching this inquiry.
10. I am not in xiossession of any knowledge in regard to the matters
submitted in this inquiry.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
459
11. I am unable to say whether or not such estimate of undervaluation could be made, and the articles or invoices be identified.
12. In answer to this inquiry, I would say that, in my opinion, the
appraiser is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of
business, for a false return of value to the collector. It is clearly his
duty to thoroughly fit himself to judge ofthe correctness of valuations,
and it is incumbent on him to make such examination in each case as
will enable him to determine whether or not the return be trne or false.
There are two local axipi*aisers at this port, each of whom receives a
salary of $3,000. The appraisers at this port, I have reason to believe,
perform their duties fully up to the measure contemplated by law and
regulations, and defer no part of their proper functions to the examiners. There are no deputy appraisers at this port.
13. I have no knowledge touching this inquiry.
14. I have no information whatever in regard to this inquiry.
15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality in the past,
I know of no reasoii to think that similar corrupt and venal influences
would not now be brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in
the future as in the past, unless steps are instituted to prevent the
temxitation from corrupt influences, and, in case such influences should
be exerted, to see that they will not be successful. This, it seems to me,
could be' done by placing the matter in the hands of those who could
discover the wrong-doing, and let the proper remedy be axiplied to stop
such evil practices.
16. In answer to this inquiry, I would say that, in my opinion, it is
-probable a change from ad valorem to-specific rates would be a benefit
to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to bribery, provided the
existing quantity of duty is to be levied in tlie future. I think specific
rates could be applied to all textile fabrics. But this rate would, however, have the effect to greatly lessen the amount of importations of
cheap textiles.
17. I have no information touching this inquiry.
18. I do not believe it would be practicable to enforce what is foreshadowed by this inquiry in any sense. In the first place, I do not think
it could'be efficiently and reliably^done; and in the next place, I am of
the opinion that it would prove exceedingly vexatious on account of
delays, as well as for other reasons, and would lead to almost endless
complaints to this Government.
I do not know what fees are exacted by American consuls in each
shipment in any ofthe ports of England for certifying invoices of articles
of any size and value.
»
19. I can think of no reason why it would not be safe or usefril to the
revenue and just to importers that the executive or the judicial powers
have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad
valorem rates.
20. As this inquiry can be so much more intelligently answered by
the appraisers of merchandise, owing to their familiarity with the subject, than any one else, I shall defer this inquiry to that branch of the
service.
21. In response to this inquiry, I would say I have no belief or information as to any other port than this as to whether or not the practice
generally prevails, or prevails at all, of the payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors in regard to the examination of
460
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
baggage^ or luggage, either to xirevent or facilitate or hasten an examination of the same, to ascertain whether or not it contains dutiable
articles, or to pass baggage or luggage withont examining it at all. As
to this port, I am confident in mj?^ belief that no snch xiractice has ever
prevailed since my induction into office as surveyor at this port.
The handling of xiassengers and their baggage and luggage is done under
the suxiervision of the dexmty surveyor of customs, aided by a district
officer and a number of customs inspectors and a female inspector, on
, enclosed xiiers, from which all unauthorized persons are excluded; and I
am satisfied that it would be impossible, under the scrutiny exercised,
for this practice to prevail without immediate detection. And, while
no effort has been spared to discover the offering of bribes by any one
to customs officers under the direction of the surveyor, yet there has
been no instance where there was even a suspicion that any customs
officer had accexited money or any other valuable consideration that
would in any way influence his official conduct.
22. I know of no evidence tending to show that the Treasury has
failed to collect the whole duty xirescribed h j law in resxiect to any article by reason of Congress having carried the rate beyond and above
the line which the Governnient can surely protect, or into a region where
smugglers and dishonest shipx3ers will be very xiowerful in 'evading the
law.
23. I am not informed as to the cause of the failure of the Treasury
Department to enforce the revenue law in New York, and hence I am
not able to say whether or not similar reasons exist at the other large
Atlantic xiorts, or that there has been a failure to enforce the revenue
law at such xiorts.
24. I have no knowledge that false returns or reports to the collectors
of dutiable values have been made at any time, and if such returns or
reports have been made, I am unable to say why the xiersons or officials
concerned therein have not been complained of, arrested, indicted, and
punished.
I wonld respectfnlly state, in conclusion, that the delay in resxionding
to the circular hereinbefore considered has arisen from severe illness,
which compelled my absence from the x^ost of duty for several weeks.
Yery respectfully,
., ~
HENEY CLAY NAILL,
Surveyor of Customs. .
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 36.
J. H. BUTLER—ApiDointed Jamtor, Portland, May 9, 1876; Examiner, Baltimore,
Angust 5, 1877.
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, MD.,
Axipraiser's Office, September 14,1885.
S I R : I have 'the honor to acknowledge the receixit of your circular
letter ofthe Oth instant, marked . ^ confidential," asking information in
^
reference fo customs business at this xilace.
In repty, I would respectfully state that at the port of Baltimore, so
far as I am aware, the tariff laws are obeyed in spirit and in letter.
a^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
461
/here is no disposition manifested by the importers to evade the customs duty, and the amount of tax assessed is propeiiy coUected by the
duly authorized agents of the Government.
A few cases of undervaluation are. recorded, and some of these have
been due to a delay in the shipment of the goods after the invoice covering the same has been certified to by the United States consul, the
goods in the interval advancing in value above the xirice named, and
the importer failing to note on his invoice entry the advanced xirice.
This I have had to occur in the line of goods that I examine.
Other cases of advanced value have been due to the fact that the importer does not always enter the cost of the inside cases and cartons, or
the cost of casks and barrels, which, with some articles of importation,
are regarded by the Government as dutiable.
<
.
In regard to the undervaluation of merchandise in New York, I know
nothing personally, but I learn that merchants of this city who formerly
imported goods from abroad now buy the same class of goods in New
York, and the reason given is that they can purchase goods more cheaply
in that city than import them from Paris, London,.or Liverpool.
In regard to specific and ad valorem duties, I would respectfully state
that all duties should be, as far as possible, specific. With this end in
view in my department of goods, I would respectfully suggest that^
instead of a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the article largely imported and known as salt-cake there should be levied the same duty as
imposed on soda-ash, viz., i cent per pound. On Yenetian red, instead
of the present duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem the duty should be made
i cent per pound. On olive-oil and on machinery-oil, in lieu of the
duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem of the present tariff, the duty should
be 40 cents per gallon on olive-oU and 25 cents per gallon on machineryoiL
In regard to damage apxiraisement, I would respectfully suggest that
allowance for damage during the voyage of importation be done away with
altogether so far as the Government is concerned. Let the fnll amount
of duty be collected, and then allow the settlement to be made between
the importer on the one side and the insurance company and the ship's
company on the other, but let the Government have no more part in it
than it has when the damage occurs during the voyage of importation
to free goods. This would greatly simplify the matter, and would remove all chance of fraud in this direction.
Desiring to do all in my power to correct abuses, to simplify the tariff
laws, and to facilitate the collection of the revenue, the above is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant,
JAMES H. BUTLEE, M. D.,
Bxaminer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING, .
Secretary of the Treasury.
•
462
REPORT OF, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 37.
JOHN C. BRIDGES—Appointed Examhier May 25, 1878. •
PORT OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 18, 1886.
SIR : Eeferring to your circular letter of Oth instant, propounding
certain inquiries concerning custom-house affairs, &c., I herewith respectfully offer the following replies:
• 1. None to my knowledge.
2. None to my knowledge.
3. Textile fabrics are not examined by me, they being in charge of
another examiner.
4. I am not aware, nor have I heard, of any snch cases of collusion.
5. I know of none, and never heard of any.
6. My duties are confined to the examinations of merchandise in warehouses and vessels at the wharves, and afford me no opportunity of acquiring the information asked for by the sixth inquiry, and am, therefore, unable to answer it.
/
7. I have no knowledge or information in respect to the matter to
which the seventh inquiry relates.
8. See answer to seventh inquiry.
9. So far as this port is concerned, the appraiser's officers here, in my
opinion, always exercise particular care to "rexiort correct dutiable values,
and as to the practices at other ports, I have no knowledge or information.
10. It sometimes happens that imported articles do not specifically
answer to the description of any one class of dutiable goods as contained
in our tariff laws. In such cases, doubts necessarily arise as to the
proper classification of the goods, but such cases have not, in my experience, occasioned any serious conflicts of opinion in the appraiser's
department. In the main, the statutes furnish adequate standards for
determining dutiable values of imported goods, but new kinds of goods
from time to time come into the market, in reference to which it is sometimes difficult to determine the proper axiplication of the tariff laws.
11. I am not able to say.
12. The examiner makes the valuation of the goods in the first instance, and his valuation, although always submitted to the appraiser
for his approval, usually remains unaltered. I therefore think that the
examiner should be regarded as primarily and chiefly responsible for
any undervaluation. When any doubts are suggested about valuations,
the appraiser, after his investigation, determines the matter. The examiners' salaries are $1,600 and $1,800 per annum.
13. None tb my knowledge.
14. I am entirely ignorant of any such cases.
15. The only remedy for bribery and venality, if such exist, would, I
think, be detection and punishment.
16. Specific duties would, I think, be simpler, and thefr collection
accompanied with,fewer difficulties; but whether a change from ad valorem to specific duties would afford any greater protection against dishonesty or bribery is difficult to say. I cannot state in regard to textile
fabrics.
17. I do not know.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
463
18. Owing to the very extensive imports into the United States from
the large cities of Western Europe, it would, I think, be impracticable
to secure satisfactory examinations of such merchandise at the ports of
exportation. It is more probable that the. present custom-honse system
of the United States, with the examinations incident thereto, would secure correct valuations of imported goods than any system which it
would be possible for the United States to enforce in foreign countries.
Nor is it at all likely that foreign governments, most of which already
view with disfavor our tariff' laws, would encourage or submit to any
extended system of examinations by our agents within their dominions.
The regular consul fee fixed by law is $2.50. Whether any greater fees
are in fact exacted I do not know.
19. I do^not know.
20. This article is not embraced in my department of examinations of
nierchandise.
21. I have heard rumors that in New York, where large numbers of
Xiassengers are constantly arriving, such practices prevail, but I have no
Xiersonal knowledge whatever of the matter.
22. I have not sufficient knowledge to enable me to express an opinion.
23. I think not.
^
24. I do not know, unless it be that the guilty parties were not detected. I have no knowledge of any such false returns or reports.
Yery respectfully, &c.,
^
JOHN C. BEIDGES,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 38.
W. L . SHAW---Appointed Examiner May 25, 1878.
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1885.
SIR': In answer to the confidential circular of the Treasury Department, under date of September 9,1885, requesting replies'to the inquiries
therein propounded, I herewith subjoin my answer to the various interrogationSj regretting that my official duties do not afford me time to give
a more, complete answer to details of facts and figures desired by you.
Pirst, In answer to the first interrogatory—
1. I do not know of any.
2. I do not know of any.
^ 3. In so far as the appraiser's office is concerned, actual measurement
by the examiner.
4. I do not know of any.
5. I do not know of any.
6. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer.
7. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer.
• '
8. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer.
9. Not conversant enough with the matter to answer.
10. (a) None that I know ofi (&) Yes.
11. The appraiser ought to be able to answer this question; I cannot.
464
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
o'
12. Primarily, the examiner. In cases of doubt, merchandise and
values are carefully ^examined by axDpraiser and examiner. Salary of
appraiser, $3,000; salariesof examiners, $1,600 and $1,800.
13. I do not know of any.
,
'
14. I do not know of any.
15. I do not know of any cases sxiecified in this question.
16. In my oxiinion, a change from ad valorem to specific rates would /
be a benefit, but do not think it could be applied to all textile fabrics.
17. I do not know.
18. (1.) I do not think it would be practicable. (2.) Unable to answer. (3.) Most likely it would. (4.) Two dollars and fifty cents, I
think.
19. Cannot answer.
20. Have no data from which to compile such a statement.
21. In my opinion, the practice o»f feeing custonis officers at this port
does not x^reyail at all.
22. I do not know. . '
23. I do not know.
24. I do not know.
Yery respectfully,
W. L. SHAW,
Bxaminer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING, _
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 39.
M . CLARA LEE—Appointed Examiner Jnne 16, 1882.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Surveyor's Office, October 2,, 1886.
SIR : My service as examiner is confined to the persons of female passengers on the steamers; consequently, I am not in a xiosition that
enables me to give you the information you desire in reply to the twentyfour questions. I can, in reply to the twenty-first question, say I have
never seen any biibe or payment for service rendered accepted by any
customs inspector of baggage at this port.
Yery respectfiUly, your obedient servant,
M. CLAEA LEE
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 40.
SAMUEL KNODE—Appointed Inspector J n l y 18, 1873 ; Examiner Jnly 16, 1883*
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, M D .
Appraiser's Office, October 7, 1886.
S I R : In answer to your questions contained in communication of
September 9, 1885, I have the honor to make reply as follows:
1. None at this port.
2. No.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
465
3. By frequent actual measurements.
4. None at this port.
5. None here.
6. As that matter is entirely in the hands of the collector, I have no
means of finding out.
•
.
7. I am unable to answer.
8. (1.) Indolence or dishonesty of officials. (2.) I know of no reliable
evidence.
9. No such reports have been made from this office.
10. (1.) None now or recently. (2.) Fully defined, I think.
11. If it ever existed, the records, being preserved, should give details,
andfr^omthem an average could be made.
12. The examiner is primarily and chiefiy resxionsible, though usually
all invoices are closely scrutinized by local appraisers before indorsement. Salaries of examiners at this port are $1,600 or $1,800.' Yes; at
this port the axipraisers frequently assist in making examinations.
13. None to my knowledge.
14. If false values have been habitually reported, &c., it can be fairly
said the failure is chargeable to dishonestj^, and certainly been accompanied with guilty knowedge on the x^art of axixiraisers and examiners.
15. I know of none.
16. Yes, in all cases where it could possibly be applied; but specific
rates could not be applied to textile fabrics.
17. Cannot answer.
18. (1.) No. (2.) None. (3.) They certainly would complain, and
not without cause. (4.) Eifteen shillings.
19. I think it would be xierfectly just and equitable that the executive
or judicial xiowers should have greater jurisdiction.
20. Having no data to guide me, I am unable to answer, but I think a
specific rate on wool would be much more satisfactory than the ohe now
in use.
21. It has been frequently asserted, and has generally been received as
a fact, that inspectors of customs are in the habit of receiving moneys,
&c., as bribes, at the port of New York, but I have never known of a
case at this port. The only means I know to remedy the evil is to turn
all dishonest men out, and keep turning out until you get honest men
to enforce the laws.
22. I am unable to answer.
23. Not at this port.
24. I am unable to answer.
Yery respectfully,
SAMUEL KNODE,
Examiner^
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 41.
JOHN R. FELLMAN—Appointed Assistant Examiner December 29, 1874.
P O R T OF BALTIMORE, M D . ,
Appraiser's Office, Oetober 7, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully acknowledging the receipt of your circulars of September 9 and 30, I must beg your indulgence for delayed answer. I
have been seriously sick last month, and now I am sufferiug from a
30 A
466
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
weakness ofthe eyes, preventing me from writing as fully and carefully
as I wish to. Please accept the following answers to your questions as
the best I can do under the circumstances:
Answers to Questions.
1 and 2. I am not aware of any.
3. By actual measurement with yard-stick, &c., and by calculations.
4. I do not know of any such evidence, and do not think such action
has been practised at this x^ort.
5. It is beyond my sxihere of duty and observance, and therefore I do
not know of any.
6. I think the tariff laws need amenOment to xirevent the occurrence
of such differences; they should be more comprehensive and definite,
avoiding all ambiguities and uncertainties. I have no idea of the number of suits pending, or of their different. kinds and time of standiug.
I only know that a great many protests have been filed against making ^
certain charges for packing, packing-boxes, &c., dutiable, and that
many importers hope for refund of duty in consequence of judicial decisions. It would certainly be very desirable to have a new law for the
quick liquidation of differences of opinion abont rates of duty, and I do
not see why such questions cannot be similarly settled as questions of
value.
7. I am not sufficiently conversant with the irregularities charged to
New York to offer any opinion about them or about a plan for controverting them.
8. It has never occurred to me that the irregularities charged to New
York are due to ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty; but I cannot entirely exclude from my mind the idea, shared by a great many, that the
;New York custom-house is endeavoring to draw all the import trade to
that city by the utmost liberality in fixing rates of duty or concessions
made to importers not granted at other ports.
9. I am confident that false reports of dutiable value have never
knowingly been made by the apxiraisers at this port during my time in
office; to answer for any other port is impossible for me.
10. There has been no confusion, doubt, oi? conflict of opinion in our
office on the question of dutiable values, but always an earnest endeavor
to arrive at truth and correctness. The question of including or excluding packing-charges of various kinds has often been debated, but,
always with a view to comply strictly with the law and with existing
decisions.
11. Not being aware of any undervaluations made by appraisers, it
is impossible to estimate the amount of them.
12. We have no assistant or deputy appraisers at this port. I have
been in office with old and with new examiners and apxiraisers, and I
think that when an experienced examiner is with a new appraiser the
former is the responsible xiarty, whilst in the case of a new examiner
with an experienced appraiser the latter evidently becomes the responsible xiarty. Logically correct appears to me only that view which affixes to the higher grade of appointment and larger salary the burden
of responsibility. An appraiser of late appointment, with experienced, faithful, and honest examiners, may feel perfectly at ease to sign
anything presented to him by them. He is, nevertheless, the party
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
467
legally responsible, and any attempt to shift the responsibility upon a
subordinate would be unjust. The salary of appraiser here is $3,000 5
that of examiner, $1,600 to $1,800.
13. None have come to my notice.
14. I must emphatically say that no evidences of fraud or connivance
at fraud on the part'of Government officers have ever come to my notice.
15. In my opinion, none whatever.
,
'
16. In my opinion, sxiecific rates of duty are preferable to ad valorem,
as they would in a large measure take away the temx3tations to fraud;
but I am well aware that in the case of textile fabrics and many other
articles their application is utterly impracticable, and would work injustice.
17. I do not think they, have; at least, no cases have come to my
knowledge.
18. Such a thing would not, in my opinion, be practicable, and I
have the greatest doubt that there is any consular district or place where
it is possible to ascertain, to know, and give so-called market values
with accuracy and certainty. It is very likely tha-t foreign governments
would object to vexatious delaiys in ascertaining and certifying market
values by consular officers. The fee for consular certificates, irrespective
of amount of value, is $2.50.
19. I think the manner of definitely settling dutiable values provided
for in the x^i'esent law is about as simple and equitable as it can be
made, and if the determination of rates of duty could be made equally
simple, it would certainly remove many great embarrassments. I thirik
such a step could be made if the tariff laws would xirovide as many
specific duties as possible, and word the provisions for ad valorem duties
fully and without equivocation.
20. Yery little wool is imported at this port, and such as is is not in
my dexiartment, and I could not do justice to this question if I would
attempt to do so.
21. Snch a practice does not exist at this port.
22. It does not apxiear to me that any of the higher rates of duty are
any special inducement or temptation to fraud and smuggling, and I
do not think that the law is to blame in any xiarticular case. It is more
the fact'^that duty is levied at all.
23. I have always thought, and think so now, that the revenue laws
are faithfully and xiromptly executed, at this x^ort by local officers and
the Treasury Department.
24. Having above said that I have no knowledge of false returns of
dutiable values having been made at this port, I have no answer to thi^
question. .
All of which is respectfully submitted.
I have the honor to be, your most obedient servant,
JOHN E. FELLMAN,
Examines
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
468
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
POET OF BOSTON.
No. 42. •
ROLAND WORTHINGTON—Appointed Collector May 16,1882.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, September 15, 1885.
S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of Department circular of
the 27th ultimo, and, having carefully considered the various inquiries
^submitted therein, now beg leave to submit the following as responsive
thereto:
1. I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that
the duties ^^have not, within the last few years, been levied and collected
as the law prescribes.''
2. I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that
the '' full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.''
3. In verifying the widths and lengths of textile fabrics the yard-stick
is used, much care being exercised to insure proper classification under
the tariff. In case of possible change of rate, the widths are ascertained
with great exactness, while the lengths are determined as often as is
thought necessary to test the marked lengths on the tags. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the goods are over or under four ounces to
the square yard, finely-adjusted scales are used, and as many pieces in
any one case are weighed as may be^ thought necessary to make the
classification snre.
4. I know of no collusion between the importer, or any one representing him, either directly or indirectly, and the entry clerk or depnty
collector ^^to send to the appraisers for examination a bogus or false
package as a fair example of one in every t e n ; " and, from the wellknown character for official integrity and private worth of my subordinates having this important duty in charge, I am of the opinion that
they would not be a party to such a nefarious proceeding, even if approached by any unconscionable importer or his agent.
5. I have no evidence of any false or incompetent or inadequate
weighing or measuring on the wharves.
6. As regards the question of interest as a part of the damages andcosts in ^^collector's suits," the rate, I understand, is governed b y t h e
laws of the State where suit is brought and trial had. Here in Massachusetts the public statutes provide that when there is no agreement
for a different rate, the interest of money shall be at the rate of six dollars upon each hundred dollars for a year, but it shall be lawful to pay
interest on contract for any rate. Other States, I understand, have
similar provision on their statute-books, while some do not. I think it
would be judicious that there should be some legislation onthe subject
to the effect that, in all such suits where judgment shall be rendered
against the United States, a specific rate of interest should be declared,
say 5 per cent. This would secure uniformity.
As regards the necessity for a new tribunal to try judicially questions
growing out of rates of external or internal taxations I am clearly of
the opinion that it is eminently desirable that a reform be introduced,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THJS TREASURY.
469
but it is extremely difficult to determine just what that reform shall be.
Secretary Windom issued, under date of June 15,1881, a circular lettei,
presenting, among other things, this general question. Eeplies, as requested, were made by several of the customs officers at this port. They
were subsequentl3^ X^^ii^^^^^? .with the views of officials at other ports, in
pamphlet form, and I think were incorporated in the Secretary's report
to Congress for that year.
I beg leave to refer the Dexiartment to that report, embodying, as it
does, the views of the vaiious officials at this and other ports on the
question submitted, and which I consider worthy of consideration.
It has seemed to me that the existing judicial system of the Government needs reorganization. I very much doubt if, with all its efficiency,.
the desired relief can be effected as at present constituted.
Interrogatories 7 to 9 seem to have reference to a condition*of affairs
disclosed by the recent investigations by the official representative of
the honorable Secretary, regarding which I have no knowledge other
than what I have acquired throngh the public prints of the day. I
would say that the same general condition of things does not, in my
opinion, exist at this port. So far as my knowledge extends, whenever
evidence, either oral or written, has been submitted by the Treasury
agents bearing upon the question of undervaluation, the appraisers, having duly weighed the same, have made advance to invoice values. They
have been in sympathy and accord with these officials.
10. The statutes of the United States would seem to clearly define the
elements which. compose the dutiable value of imported merchandise.
11. I have no data npon which tb base an estimate. I have no knowledge of any instance coming within the scope of this inquiry.
12. I regard the exaininer as the official primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to
the collector. The salary of the examiners at this port ranges all the
way from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum.
13. I have no knowledge on this xioint,
14. The premises being conceded, I thinlc it can ^'fairly be said that
the failure has come of dishonesty and been accompanied by' gnilty
knowledge on the part of Treasury or custoins officials," but of whom
I have no knowledge.
I have no knowledge that "money has been paid to American officials
to get false rexiorts of dutiable values," nor "who has furnished or paid
it," nor " b y what means and agency," nor "where such corruption
fund has been raised and disbursed."
15. If the false valuations have come of bribery or venality, the vig-,
orous measures recently adopted by the Department in its investigations of frauds on the revenue will, in my judgment, greatly retard, if
not wholly eradicate, these alleged nefarious practices.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates, I am inclined to think
Would be a benefit to the revenue, and would help to diminish a tendency
to bribery. Specific rates, it would seem, might be applied to all textile
frabrics.
17. I have no data on which to base an intelligent opinion on this
point.
18. I should consider the plan practicable and beneficial in results,
provided there be an ample force of energetic and efficient consular
agents. , Unwarrantable delays in examining values and certifying in-
470
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
voices would have a tendency to create complaints by foreign governments where such delays existed.
The fees ax:)X'>earing upon invoices, as charged by the consuls in London and in England for certifying invoices, irrespective of values, is
$2.50, which is the tariff rate prescribed by the Consular Eegulations.
19. Basing my opinion upon the workings of the system at this port,
I think that the law, (section 2930, Eevised Statutes,) although somewhat arbitrary and summary in its provisions, in the main operates advantageously, as well to the Government as to the importer, and is sat- isfactory alike to both. It would be diffcult, it seems to me, to formulate a system which wonld be any improvement on the present method,
which has been in operation ever since the act of August 30,1842, took
effect.
20. The following is a codification of the various tariff acts since 1860,
imposing duty on wool, with the rates under each of the several tariffs
therein enumerated. I exceedingly regret that I have been unable
to procure facts and figures which illustrate the "working of the complicated rates on wool that are now in force.''
Eates of Duty on Unmanufactured Wool.
Act of March
2, 1861.
Value less than 18 cents per pound..
18 cents to 24 cents per pound
Over 24 cents per pound ..-.
12 cents or less jjer pound
12 cents to 24 cents per pound
24cents to 32 cents per pound
e
of March
Act of J u n e 30,1864. Act ofMarch 2,1867. Acts ofu J u n22,6,1872, and Act of March 3,1875. Act 3, 1883.
J ne
1874.
5 per ct....
3cts. perlb., .
9 cts. per lb..
o
3 cts. per lb
6 cts. per lb...
10 cts. per lb. and
10 per ct.
12 cts. per lb. and
10 per ct.
Over 32 cents per pound .
Class 1.—Clothing, unwashed:
Value 32 cents or less per pound..
H•
O
10 cts. per lb. and 10 cts. per lb. and 11 per 10 cts. per lb, and
11 per ct.
ct., less 10Jper ct.
11 per ct.
12 cts. per lb. and 12 cts. per lb. and 10 per 12 cts. per lb. and
10 per ct,
ct., less. 10 per ct.
10 per ct.
- Over 32 cents per pound..
Class 2.—Combing:
,. Value 32 cents or less per pound..
10 cts. per lb, and
11 per ct.
12 cts. per lb. and
10 per ct.
3 cts. perlb...
6 cts. per lb..
Over 32 cents per pound..
Class 3.—Carpet:
Value 12 cents or less perpound..
Over 12 cents per pound
o
10 cts. per lb. and 11 per 10 cts. per lb, and
11 per ct.
ct., less IQper ct.
12 cts. per lb. and 10 per 12 cts. per lb, and
10 per ct.
ct., less 10 per ct.
3 cts. perlb., less 10 perct. 3 cts. perlb...
6 cts. per lb,, less 10per ct. 6 cts. per lb.,
o
Class 1,—Clothing, unwashed:
Value 30 cents or less per pound..
Exceeding 30 cents per pound...
10 cts. per lb.
12 cts, per lb.
Class 2.—Combing:
Value 30 cents or less per pound..
Exceeding 30 cents per pound ..
10 cts. per lb.
12 cts, per lb.
Class 3.—Carpet:
Value 12 cents or less per pound..
Exceeding 12 cents per pound ..
Sheepskins
Classi, washed
All classes, scoured..,
23/< cts. per lb.
5 cts. per ib. •
15 per ct..,
20 per ct..
30 per ct
Double d u t y ,
Treble duty,.,
Same as other wool.
H
W
K
472
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
/
21. If general rumor be true, such a practice has existed at the port
of New York. I do not, however, believe that it has prevailed at the
X^ort of Boston.^ An elevation in the moral tone of those to whom this
somewhat delicate but responsible dnty is assigned, and a strict and
impartial enforcement of the law, would be productive of beneficial
results and largely check the illicit xiractice. .
The public statutes of the United/States contain ample penal provisions. What is needed is their faithful enforcement by honest and
trustworthy officials in all cases of guilty infraction.
22. As a general rule, I think that the higher the rate of duty the
greater the temptation to evade the law.
23. I can only speak fbr the port of Boston, where it is my beMef the
revenue has beeu honestly collected aaid the revenue laws faithfully
enforced. Such has been my aim and endeavor.
24. I should consider it to be my duty, under my official oath, to report all cases fbr xirosecution where false returns or reports of dutiable
value have been made. I am not aware, -however, that any such instances have occurred at this xiort..
I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servasi^,
E. WOETHINGTON,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Since writing the above, I have procured, through the courtesy of the
United States attorney for this district, a reply to my request for a list
of custoins cases pending in the United States circuit and district courts (
for the Massachusetts district " i n respect to rates of duty and differences between importers and coUectors growing out of decisions by the
latter and the Treasury," a copy of which is as follows:
1. Cases involving the question ofthe duty on "wool:" Three cases.
First suit, April 1, 1874; argued on agreed facts May, 1877. Decision
by Clark, J., (in favor of United States,) May, 1880. Appealed to United
States Suxireme Court, 1882. Not yet decided.
2. Cases involving the classification for duty of "wool webbing:"
Fourteen cases. First suit, December 17,1878; argued on agreed facts
February 9, 1881. Decision by LoveU, J., (for plaintiffs,) 1883. Writ
of error to United States Supreme Court May, 1883. Not yet decided.
3. Cases involving the classification for duty of "marble:" Five
cases. Ffrst suit, September 30, 1880. Question decided in Pennsylvania. (Cases probably to be discontinued.)
4. Cases involving the question of the duty on "aniline dyes:" Eight
cases. First suit, August 13,1881; heard on agreed facts November 25,
1885. Decided in favor of United States March 15, 1883. Gone to
United States Supreme Court.
5. Cases involving the question of whether, under section 7 of the
tariff act of March 3, 1883, the boxes, cartons, or coverings containing
different kinds of merchandise shall be included as a part of the value
ofthe merchandise contained therein as a basis of dutiable valuation:'
Sixty-seven cases. First suit brought August 25, 1883. Cases ready
forbearing.
6. Cases involving the classification for duty of "white enamels:''
Three cases. First suit brought September 20,1883. Eeady for hearing.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
473
7. Cases involving the classifi cation for duty of albums bound in silkX^lush covers: Three cases. Ffrst suit brought September 27, 1883."
Eead^^ for hearing.
8. Cases involving the question of the duty on "gilling-twine:'' Eight
cases. First suit, February 6, 1884. Eeady for hearing.
9. Cases involving the question of the duty pn "iron show-cards:"
Six cases. First suit, April 18, 1884. Eeady for hearing.
10. Cases involving the classification for duty of "hosiery, &c., made
of merino:" Three cases. First suit, July, 1883; argued on. agreed
facts Sexitember, 1885.
11. Miscellaneous cases: Twelve in number, which cannot readily be
classified. Five heard, decided, and axixiealed to United States Suxireme
Court. Seven ready for hearing.
Total number, 132 cases.
No. 43.
GEORGE B, SANGER—Appointed United States District Attorney, (Boston, Mass..)
Jnne 20, 1873.
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY,
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Boston, October 10, 1885.
' S I R : Yonr printed circular marked "strictly confidential," and to
which you request an early reply, was received by me on the 10th ultimo.
I have been prevented by illness fr'om making an. earlier reply, as stated
more fully in my xiersonal letter to you bf the 8th instant.
<rhe sixth article of the circular is marked, and it is to that alohe, as
I understand, that you wish me to reply. I therefore confine this letter
to that article.
I think the existing law in respect to the matters enumerated in the
first and second lines of said sixth article can be much imxiroved by
amendments, and that amendments are necessary and advisable, unless
some more radical change is desirable, such, for instance, as the establishment of a new tribunal for the trial of revenue cases. I understand
that in this inquiry you refer to the method of determining differences
as to questions of revenue which have already resulted in suits, and
that you refer sxiecially to devising some method for the more sxieedy
determination of such suits whenever they may be brought.
There are now pending in this-district about one hundred and thirtytwo suits, involving chiefly the rates of duty upon imported merchandise, a few suits only involving the method of determining the amonnt
of the duty on a particular importation. Most of these suits are by importers against collectors. Only a small number, comparatively, are
brought by the United States against importers, who have obtained possession of their merchandise before the rate and amount of duty thereon
have been determined. These suits can be classified with substantial
accuracy, according to the legal question involved, because there are ordinarily, in the course of commerce, many imx^o. ..itions ofthe same kind
of merchandise by the sanie or different importers, and when one importer has several iniportations of the same kind of merchandise, or
several importers in the different ports of the district import that same
kind of merchandise, and a- .question is raised by any one importer as
474
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
tp the- Xiroper duty thereon, all of them soon learn of it and are eager
to take their chance of saving in duties; and as suits b^^ importers against
collectors must be brought within a given time, there may well be numerous suits pending at the same time, involving the same question,
which have accumulated while the qnestion in dispute was bein~g settled.
Thus, the one hundred and thirty-two pending above referred to constitute eleven well-defined groups, with an additional group of miscellaneous cases, eight in number, which cannot readily be connected with
each other.
'
These groups are as follows:
I.—Cases involving the duty on wool where there was some time between the xiurchase and the exportation of wool, and the market value
had in the mean time fallen materially: Three cases. First suit commenced in April, 1874; argued on agreed facts May, 1877. Decision by
the circuit court, (Clark, J.,) in favor of the United States, May, 1880;
writ of error to IJnited States Supreme Court, 1882. Not yet decided.
The decision will probably settle the other two cases.
II.—Cases involving the duty on wool webbing: Fourteen cases.
First suit, December, 1878; argued on agreed facts February, .1881.
Decision, by Lowell, J., in favor of plaintiffs, 1883; writ of error by
collector to United States Supreme Court in May, 1883. Eeturnable
at October term, 1883. Not yet decided. The decision in this case will '
probably settle the other thirteen cases.
It is expected that the cases in Groups I and I I will be argued and
decided at the October, 1885, term ofthe United States Supreme Court.
III.—Cases involving the classification for duty of "sawed, dressed,
or polished marble, statuary," &c.: Five cases. First suit, September
30, 1880. These suits have not been pressed, as- it was understood that
the question was being litigated and tried in Philadelphia, where a decision is said to have been rendered, in xiart at least, against the United
States.
IY.—Cases involving the duty on "aniline dyes:" Eight cases.
First suit, August 13, 1881; heard on agreed facts November 25, 1882.
Decided in favor of the United States, March, 1883. Plaintiffs carried
the case to the United States Supreme Court, where it is still pending.
Y.—Cases arising under the seventh section of the tariff act of March
3, 1883: Sixty-seven cases. First suit brought August 25, 1883. The
Government is ready to try these cases at any time, but it is understood
that there have been trials in another district.
YI.—Cases involving the classification for duty of white enamel:
Three cases. First suit brought September 20, 1883. These cases are
ready for trial.
YII.—Cases involving the classification for duty of albums bound in
silk-plush covers: Three cases. First suit brought September 27,1883.
All cases ready for trial.
YIII.—Cases involving the question of the duty on "gilling-twine:"
Eight cases. First suit, February 6, 1884. Government ready for
trial.
. IX.—Cases involving the duty on "iron show-cards:" Six cases.
First suit, April 18,1884; argued on agreed facts, before Clark, J., in
December, 1884. No decision announced thus far.
X. —Cases involving the duty on hosiery, &c., made of merino: Three
cases,. First snit, July, 1883; argued on agreed facts September 8,1885.
Decision not yet given.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
475
XI.—Cases involving the question whether the value of a patented
article, over and above the cost of manufacture and a reasonable profit, is dutiable; These are cases brought b y t h e United States, and the
Government clainis that under the decisions in United States vs. Cousinery, 7 Benedict, 251, and subsequent cases to the same effect, it is entitled to judgment, as the imxiorter should have paid the duties, protested, axipealed, and then brought suit. And this question is pending
in the United States Supreme Court, in a case that has been taken to
that court from this district. There are four cases in this group.
XII.—Miscellaneous cases: Eight in number. Five have been tried,
and are now in United States SnxDreme Court; three are ready for trial.
Undoubtedly, these customs cases may be more speedily tried and
disposed of in the circuit court. I speak of this district, and suppose
the same to be true of other districts. But when judgment has been
obtained in the circuit conrt, the defeated party has TWO YEARS from
its date within which to take ont his writ of error and carry the case
to the United States Supreme Court, and when entered there, as things
now go, it will be four years befbre it can be reached and argued. Any
arrangenient, therefore, for exxiediting trials under the present system^of
courts wiU be likely to be only temxiorary, insufficient, and unsatisfactory. The cases are now niainly tried in the circuit court, which is
overburdened with patent and other cases which, as the business of the
conntry increases, will probably increase.
There is° no doubt in my mind th at a new tribunal for the trial and
disposition of revenue cases, external and internal, properly constituted,
is necessary, and should be at once established.
The principles upon which I would have the new tribunal established
are—
First. That it should have jurisdiction throughout the United States.
Second. That there should be frequent terins of the court for the entry
and trial of such suits monthly in the principal districts, and quarterly
in others, at which all revenue cases should be entered and at which
they may be tried.
Third. That there should be a court of appeals, composed of three
judges of the court, which should hold terms two or three times a year
in all the principal districts, and once a year or oftener in the other districts, if found necessary, at which all questions of revenue law raised
and saved at the trials, whether before the court or by the jury, or at
the hearings upon agreed facts, should be argued and decided, and that
from the decisions of said court, if the amount involved did not exceed
thousand dollars, there should be no appeal or writ of error
unless said court of appeals itself should deem any case Of sufficient importance to have the opinion of the Supreme Court taken thereon.
Fourth. That all such writ^of error and appeals should be advanced
upon the docket of the United States Supreme Court, and be argued at
the term they are entered.
To accomplish this, there should be at least five judges bf the new
court, any ohe of whom could hold any nisi prius term of the court in
any district of the United States, but who should not hold more than
two consecutive terms in any distiict. Three of these judges' should
constitute the court of appeals, and the judges should be so assigned to
this duty that all should do equal duty as law judges. Their decisions
upon all law questions should be at once put in print and published.
476 " REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Possibly the number of judges named is too small, if all the pending
revenue cases which would be transferred to the new court were to be
at once tried and disposed ofi Probably, however,'the coui't would
work its dockets clear, except in one or two districts, in a year, and
then it could readily dispose of accruing cases. Or it might first dispose of the new cases and devote its spare time to the disposition of the
old cases. K the number of judges is found to be too small, it can be
increased.
One great advantage of the new tribunal thus constituted, wonld be
the frequency of the terms of the court, both for the trials of fact.and
for the settlement of questions of law. The number of terms of existing
courts could not be so increased without disturbing materially the general business of said courts.
The advantage of having a court devoted to one main purpose, and
trying and disposing of all the revenue cases in the country, is obvious
as respects sxieed and uniformity, aS well as justice and correctness of
decisions.
I do not know that the establishment of snch new tribunal would require any new officials, except that the court would prefer to have clerks
of its own.
The above is a mere outline sketch indicating generally the objects
and purposes of such a proposed new tribunal, and is made in the belief
that some such new tribunal is necessary.
I do not think the existing judicial system, even if it be worked efficiently, can be made sufficient to accomplish what a new tribunal so
constituted wiU perform.
As to the matter of interest as part ofthe damages in collectors' suits,
if the Government has had the importers' money wrongfully, it should
pay interest thereon. Likewise, if the United States shonld recover of
the importer any amount due for duties, interest thereon should also be
recovered. I think it would be well to determine by law what rate of
interest should be paid in both these cases. Perhaps 5 per cent, per
amtum would be a proper rate for such interest; but upon this point I
do not speak with any special confidence.
I thiiUi in the foregoing I have expressed an opinion upon all the
matters referred to in the sixth article of the circular, and respectfuUy
subniit the same.
GEOEGE P. SANGEE,
United States Attorney.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 44.
JOSEPH H . BARNES—Appomted Clerk, Boston, November 15, 1865; Deputy Collector March 12, 1874.
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, September 2^, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to submit the following replies to the inquiries
contained in the communication from the Department of the Oth instant.
1. I have no knowledge of any evidence that within the last few
years rates of duty have not been levied and collected as the law
prescribed.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
477
2. I know of no evidence that the full aniount of duty has not been
collected on articles paying purely specific rates.
.
3.^ The contents of the examination packages of textile fabrics are
compared by the examiner with the invoice, and the width of dressgoods paying duty by the square yard is determined by actual measurement of the goods in such packages. The number of yards is not ordi-,
narily ascertained by measurement. In the collector's office the invoiced lineal yards are converted into square yards after the apxiraiser
has reported on the invoice.
4. I know of no evidence of collusion between persons making entries
and the entry clerk or deputy collector to send to the apxiraiser fbr examination a bogus or false package.
5. I have no evidence of false or imperfect weighing or measuring on
the wharves.
6. Differences between imxiorters and collectors, growing out of decisions by the latter and the Treasury, resulting in suits, could, in my
opinion, be more readily adjusted, and with great advantage to all concerned, by a tribunal created for the purxiose of considering and disposing of such cases, its decision to be final and conclusive upon all
parties. I believe there is a necessity for a new tribunal, and that the
present system cannot be made sufficient for the purxiose. I have not
the data ix) enable me to answer the inquiry.
7. 8, 9. I have no official information regarding the recent investigations at New York, or of existing facts showing that duriug recent years
the full amount of duty has not been collected at that-port.
10. There has been confusion and doubt in all dexiartments in determining whether, under the tariff act of March 3, 1883, the cost of
the box or covering containing merchandise should form a part of the
dutiable value of an impoitation.
11. If, ux)on a particular class of articles, there has been a systematic
undervaluation, it would not be a difficult matter to examine all invoices
of similar goods for a given period, and, by comparison with invoices
known to be undervalued, fairly estimate the percentage of undervaluation on tiie whole.
12. The appraiser is chiefiy responsible for a false return of value to
the collector. The appraiser should be, and is, more than one who
officially certifies to inforniation furnished him by his subordinates. He
is resx)onsible for rexiorts to which his signature is affixed.
13. I know of no evidence that Government officials, in the consular
department or elsewhere, have connived at the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of values.
14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported
to the several collectors, resulting in a failure to collect the full amount
of dnty, I think it can fairly be said that the failure has come of dishonesty. Such reports, if made to ^ ^ the several collectors,'' would seem
to indicate, not guilty knowledge on the part of Treasury or customs
officials, but rather that these officials were misled by the systematic
methods of interested parties at home and abroad. I have no knoAvledge
that money has been paid to get false returns, nor do I know of a corrnxition.fund.
15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, and the
'methods and x'>arties implicated reniain undiscovered, I see no reason
why the evil xiractices may not continue and be successful whUe the
present tariff laws remain in force.
478
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates would, in my judgment, help to diminish a tendency to bribery, and I believe specific rates
could be apxilied to all textile fabrics.
17. I cannot say that false reports by the appraisers have been increased by the repeal, in 1874, of tlie moiety act, and by the customs
legislation of that date modifying the existing law; but I believe, nevertheless, that such repeal and legislation were opposed to the best interests of the Government.
18. It would seem to be impracticable for American consular agents,
in the large consular districts or elsewhere, °to personally examine
articles to be shipped to Ameiican ports and to verify the correctness
of values. It is not likely that foreign governments would, abstain from
complaints if American consuls made vexations delays in examining
values and certifying invoices. I am unable to state what fees are exacted by our consuls for certifying invoices. From an inspection of
London invoices, and of those from many other parts of England, it
would axixiear that the fee is $2.50. Invoices from some parts of England do not exhibit the fees.
19. It would not, in my judgment, be either useful to the revenues or
just to the imxiorters to change the present law with resxiect to the
^method of determining dutiable values. In my opinion, a change of the
nature indicated in the inquiry would lead to embarrassments and delays.
20. In reply to this inquiry, I give below the several rates of duty on
wool under the various tariff acts since March 2, 1861, which, I fear,
fails, owing to my inability to obtain the facts in the case, to meet the
full scope of the inquiry:
Under the act of March 2, 1861, wool costing less than 18 cents per
piund paid 5 per cent, ad valorem; wool costing 18 cents to 24 cents per
piund paid 3 cents per pound; wool costing over 24 cents per pound
paid 9 cents per pound.
Under the act of June 30, 1864, wool costing 12 cents or less per
pound paid 3 cents per pound; wool costing 12 cents to 24 cents per
pound paid 6 cents per pound; wool costing 24 cents to 32 cents per
pound paid 10 cents and 10 per cent.; wool costing over 32 cents per
pound paid 12 cents and 10 per cent.
Under the act of March 2, 1867, wools were divided, for the purpose
of fixing the duties thereon, into three classes, to wit: Class 1, clotMngw@ols; class 2, combing wools; class 3, carpet-wools; and the rates
provided under said act were as follows:
Class 1, clothing, costing 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents and 11
per cent.; overo32 cents per pound, 12 cents and 10 per cent.
Class 2, combing, costing 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents and 11
per cent.; over 32 cents per pound, 12 cents and 10 per cent.
Class 3, carxiet, costing 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents; over 12
cents per pound, 6 cents.
The foregoing rates to be doubled on wool of the first class if imported
washed, and to be trebled on wool of all classes if imported scoured.
Under the act of June 6, 1872, the rates of duty on wool were fixed
at 90 per cent, of those previously exacted Iunder the act of March 2,
1867.
Under the act of March 3, 1875, the rates imposed by the act of
March 2, 1867, were restored.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - 479
The existing rates under the act of March 3, 1883, are as follows:
Class 1, clothing, costing 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per
pound; over 30 cents xier pound, 12 cents.
Class 2, combing, costing 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per
pound; over 30 eents per pound, 12 cents.
Class 3, carpet, costing 12 cents or less per pound, 2\ cents per pound;
over 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per ponnd.
Eates to be doubled on washed wools of the first class, and trebled on
scoured wools of all classes..
21. I do not believe the practice prevails of the payment of money
by arriving passengers to customs inspectors to prevent or facilitate an
examination of baggage. It would seem that ordinary "detective"
work, in susxiected localities, if any, could determine whether such practices prevail. If offences of this nature are fbund, punishments to the
full extent of the law would be likely to xirevent their repetition.
22. I have no evidence tending to show that rates of duty on any
articles have been carried by Congress beyond the line which the Government can xirotect, and into a region where smugglers and others will be
powerful in evading the law. Powerful attemxits to evade the law may
be met by increased vigilance on the part of Government officials.
23. Having no actual knowledge of the reasons for the failure to enforce the revenue laws at New York, I am unable to answer. I have no
official knowledge of such failure beyond that contained in the inquiry,
which does not recite the reasons.
24. I have no knowledge of the reasons why persons concerned in
making false rexiorts of dutiable values have not been arrested and
punished.
•
•
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. H. BAENES,
Beputy Gollector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 45.
MARTIN A. MUNROE—Appointed Cleric, Boston, J n l y 1, 1873; Depnty Collector
May 22, 1882;
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
. Collector's Office, September 28, 1886.
SIR : I have respectfully to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of September 9, and would submit the following in rexily to
the inquiries contained therein:
1. I know of no evidence that rates of duty have not within the last
few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed.
2. I know of no evidence that the full amount of duty has not been
collected on articles paying xiurely specific rates.
3. Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics, such as dress-goods paying duty per square yard, are verified by examiners who measure "the
width of the goods. The number of yards in the piece is not usually
verified, except where the examiner has reason to suxipose there is an
intended fraud. K, however, the goods are near the dividing-line
480
REPORT O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E
TREASURY.
' between duty per square yard and duty per pound, the length of each
piece is verified. After the invoice is rexiorted on by the appraiser and
rei?urned to the collector's office, a clerk examines the extensions and
converts the lineal measurements to square yards.
4. I have no knowledge of any attempt at collusion between persons
making entry and the entry clerk or dexiuty collector in ordering goods
to the appraiser for examination.
5. I know of no evidence of false or incompetent or inadequatb weighing or measuring on the wharves.
6. Amendments which would simplify the existing tariff law would
undoubtedly largely reduce the differences between importers and collectors as to rates of duty.
I have not the information at hand which would enable me to give
the nuniber or classification of collectors' suits now xiending, nor the
length of time the untried suits have been at issue and ready for trial.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject-matter of the other
questions to offer any recommendation.
7. 8, 9. I am unable to answer.
10. I am not aware of any conflict of oxiinion in the appraiser's department as to what constitutes the dutiable value.
11. I am unable to answer.
12. In my opinion, the examiner is primarily responsible and the appraiser chiefly responsible for a false return of value to the collector.
The salaries of the examiners range from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum;
the salary ofthe axixiraiser is $3,000 per annum.
The appraiseis. is, in my opinion, responsible for the doings of his
subordinates.
13. I know of no evidence that any Government officials in the consnlar dexiartment or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to, or connived at the presentation to the apxiraisers of false evidence of foreign .
value.
14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported
by the axipraiser to the collector, it would indicate, in my opinion,
dereliction of duty and probably dishonesty on the part of the appraiser.
I am not aware of any money having been paid to Ameiican officials
to get false reports of dutiable value, nor do I know of a corruxition
fund.
15. If there have been false valuations from bribery or venality, I
know of no reason, as long as ad valorem duty is imposed, why there
would not be the same in the future.
16. In my oxiinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates would
have a tendency to diminish bribery, if there has been bribery, and, in
consequence, would be a benefit to the revenue. I think sxiecific rates
could be applied to all textile fabrics.
17. I have no knowledge of any increase of false reports by the appraisers since the repeal of the "moiety law" and other customs regulations in 1874.
18. In my opinion, it would be impracticable for the American consnlar officers in any of the American consular districts in Europe or
elsewhere to personally examine articles to be shipped from thence to
the American ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values.
• I think it very probable that foreign governments would not abstain
from complaints to this Government if American consuls made vexatious
delays in examining values and certifying invoices.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
481
Invoices received from London and'elsewhere in England (with few
exceptions) have printed on the consular certificates, "Eeceived fee,
$2.50,'^ or "Eeceived fee for this certificate, $2.50;" a n d ! am of the
opinion that our consuls in England exact a fee of $2.50 for certify iug
each and every invoice. The shixipers in England, however, chargr
on the invoices for "consuls' fees" sums varying in amount from 10
shillings 4 pence to 17 shillings.
19. In my opinion, a change of the law in the ascertainment of the
dutiable value Would cause delay and inconvenience to the importer
without material benefit to the Government.
20. The rates of duty on wool, since 1860 have been as follows:
Act March 2,1861, (to take effect on and after April 1,1861:) Yalued
at last port from whence exported to the United States at less than 18
cents per pound, 5 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 18 cents per xiound
and not exceeding 24 cents per pound, 3 cents per pound; exceeding
24 cents per pound, 9 cents per pound.
Act June 30, 1864, (to take effect on and after July 1, 1864:) Yalued
at last port from whence exported to the United States, exclusive of
charges in such port, at 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per ponnd;
exceeding 12 cents and not exceeding 24 cents per pound, 6 cents per
Xiound; exceeding 24 ceuts and not exceeding 32 cents x)er pound, 10
cents per pound and 11 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents x^er xiound, 12
cents per ponnd and 10 per cent.; if imported scoured, in lieu of the
foregoing, three times the amount of such duties.
Act March 2, 1867, (to take effect on the passage of the act:) Wool
divi ded, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into
three classes: Classi, clothing-wools; class 2, combing wools; class 3,
carpet-wools:
Class 1.—Yalued at last x)ort from whence exported to the United
States, exclusive of charges in such port, at 32 cents or less x^er pound,
10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents xier pound, 12
cents per pound and 10 per cent.; if imported washed, twice the amount
of duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed; if imported, scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would be
<jubjected if imported unwashed.
Class 2. —Yalued at last port from whence exxiorted to the United States,
exclusive of charges in such port, at 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents
per pound and 11 xier cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, 12 cents per
pound and 10 per cent.; if imxiorted scoured, three times the amount of
duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed.
Class 3.—Yalued at last x^ort from whence exported to the United
States, exclusive of charges in such port, at 12 cents or less per pound,
3 cents per pound; exceeding 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound;
if imported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would
be subjected if imported unwashek.
Act June 6, 1872, (to take effect on and after August 1, 1872,) reduced the duty 10 per cent., being 90 per cent, of the several rates of
duty then levied.
Act March 3, 1875, (to take effect on the passage of the act,) rexiealed
the 10 per cent, reduction, the rates remaining the same as provided for
in act March 2, 1867.
Act March 3, 1883, (to take effect on and after July 1, 1883.) Wool
divided for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into
31A
'
482
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
three classes: Classi, clothing-wools; class 2, combing'wools; class 3,
carpet-wools.
'
Class 1.—^Yalued at last port whence exported to the United States,
excluding charges in such port, at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents
per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per'pound; if imported washed, twice the amonnt of duty to which it would be subjected
if iinported unwashed; if imported scoured,' three times the amonnt bf
duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed.
Class 2.—Yalued at last port whence exported to the United States,
excluding charges in such port, at 30 cents or less per pound, 10 cents
per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound; if imported scoured, three times the amount of duty to which it would be
subjected if imported unwashed.
Class 3.—Yalued at last port whence exported to the United States,
excluding charges in such port, at 12 cents or less p^T pound, 2J cents
per pound; exceeding 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per xiound; if imported scoured, three times the amonnt of duty to which it would be
subjected if imported unwashed.
I have not the information at hand which would enable me to give a
careful and accurate analysis ofthe history of the working of the complicated rates on wool that are now in force.
21. I do not believe that a practice prevails at this port of the payment of money by arriving passengers to cnstoms inspectors of baggage
for any pnrpose whatever. If such a practice does exist, it seems to me
that a system of espionage and prompt removal and punishment of the
offenders would prevent future transgressions of the law.
22. As I have no knowledge of any evidence that the Treasury has
Mled to collect the whole duty prescribed by the law, I am unable to
answer.
23. I am^of the opinion that the revenue laws have been enforced at
this port.
, 24. I am unable to answer.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
M. A. MUNEOB,
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 46.
JOHN L. SWIFT—Appomted Depnty Collector Aprh 1, 1867; July 10, 1874; and
May 22, 1882. .
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, October 3, 1885.
S I R : During my vacation your "confidential circular," dated Sep-,
tember 9 last, reached this office, and circumstances since my return
have^prevented that attention to its contents which its large range of
inquiry would seem to demand. My duties as a deputy coUector at this^
port are mainly confined to the supervision of the marine department,
record-rooms, and statistical work. From my location in the buUding,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
483
many oaths to papers are taken before me, and a large number of permits come to my desk for final signature, but the casting of rates of duty,
the immediate examination of invoices, and of documents^ic^lative to
rates, measurements, and weights, are not within my sphere of duty.
Having no knowledge whatever, directly or indirectly, of any neglect
in the^ certification of invoices, of any false valuation of merchandise, or
of collusion with shipxiers or imxiorters, I respectfully suggest that
there is nothing of official value for me to communicate upon the first
seventeen questions of the circular addressed to me. My observation,
from an extended term in the customs service, has led to a strong general conviction that the simplification of the rates of'duty on iinported
merchandise is one of the chief needs of the customs service at this time.
Constant change and new complications in the laws derange business
methods and confuse legitimate commercial transactions; therefore, in
my judginent, the proposition of Query 18, as tb the practicability,
in large American consular districts, for American consular agents to
verify the correctness of invoice values, if not impracticable, is not desirable; nor would it be to the benefit of commerce, nor to the advantage of the customs revenue. Foreign verification and appraisement by
experts, to be thorough, would cause great inconvenience and delay in
the shipments of merchandise, and would embarrass the carriers who are
advertised to sail bn stated dates, and, in my opinion, the complaints
would be general against such a system. I should think that under such
a practice there would be greater liability for increased temxitation to violate the revenue laws by undervaluation, by preference in examination
of merchandise, and by inducements to connive with the foreign shippers than now exists. The distance of the agent from home control and
suxiervision would add to this opportunity to defrand, and the system
would aggravate rather than lessen the evils it sought to cure.
Query 19.—If the executive and judicial powers are not sufficient^to
sustain the collector in justly ascertaining the dutiable value of merchandise imported, it is not only, desirable, but very essential, in my
opinion, that such authority should be conferred by law, .so that the
representative of the Government would be able to meet xiromptly any'
attempts to evade the TO venue laws by undervaluation.
Query 20.—The tariff* rates of duty on wool since the year 1860 have
been:
Act of March 2, 1861: Yalue less than 18 cents per pound, 5 per
cent, ad valorem;, value 18 cents to 24 cents per pound, 3 centsper
pound; value over 24 cents per pound, 9 cents xier pound; mixed to
reduce value to 18 cents per pound or less to evade duty, 9 cents per
pound; on sheepskins, washed or unwashed, 15 per cent.
Act of June 30, 1864: Yalue 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per
pound; value 12 cents to 24 cents per pound, 6 cents peic pound; value
24 cents to 32 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; over
32 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 pex cent.; mixed to
reduce value and evade duty, highest duty; sheepskins, washed or un- .
washed, 20 per cent.
Act of March 2, 1867: Class 1—Clothing, unwashed: Yalue 32 cents
or less per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.; over 32 cents
per pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 pev cent. Class 2—Combing:
Yalue 32 cents or less per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent.;
over 32 cents x^er pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent. Class 3—
Carpet: Yalue 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per pound; over 13
484
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
cents per pound, 6 cents per pound. Class 1, washed, double dnty;
all classes, scoured, treble duty; sheexiskins, washed or unwashed, 30
per cent.
Acts of June 6, 1872, and June 22, 1874: Same as act of March 2,
1867, with a deduction of 10 per cent, from the several rates of duty.
Act of March 3, 1875: Several rates of duty under act of March 2,
1867, restored.
Act of March 2, 1883: Class 1—Clothing, unwashed: Yalue 30 cents
or less per xiound, 10 cents per pound; exceeding 30 cents per pound,
12 cents per pound. Class 2—Combing: Yalue 30 cents or less per xiound,
10 cents per pound; exceeding 30 cents per xiound, 12 cents per pound.
Class 3—Carpet: Yalue 12 cents or less per xiound, 2 J cents per pound;
exceeding 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per xiound. Class 1, washed,
double duty; all classes, scoured, treble duty; o n t h e skin, washed or
unwashed, sam^ as other wool.
I am unable, from any practical exxierience, to present an opinion
that would be of any special value in accomxilishing the apxiarent desired purpose of the query relating to the workings of the various tariff
rates on wool.
To Question 21, with reference to "passing baggage," I respectfuUy
answer that no such practice is known to me as that of illicit fees or
perquisites in forwarding by preference baggage, or neglecting to collect the revenue on dutiable articles which it may contain..
In reply to Query 22, I have to say that in all cases withiii my knowledge, where there has been petty smuggling by vessels or attempts on
a large scale to evade the full revenue liable to collection, the occasion
of such efforts at fraud has been that the rate of duty has been so great
that the risk of detection has been taken for private gain. Exceptional
cases of avoiding duties upon articles of value that can be easily concealed for purposes of smuggling do not affect the recognized fact that
high rates of duty inevitably lead to schemes against the revenue.
Upon. Questions 22 and 23, from absolute lafek of knowledge, I have
no information to imx^art.
Finally, xiermit me to say that while there may have been, as there
is always likely to be, individual cases.of irregularity, of carelessless, of
negligence, and of impropriety connected with the customs service, my
candid judgment, from long experience, compels me to say that no systematic effort to collude with importers by accepting false weights,
false measures, or false appraisements, or in any other manner, exists at
this port.
Yery respectfnlly, your obedient servant,
JOHN L. SWIFT,
Beputy Collector.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY. ' 485
•
.
N o . 47.
'
'
..
DANIEL HALL—Appomted Naval Officer Apiil 26, 1877.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Naval Office, September 7, 1885.
S I R : I have the .honor to acknowledge the receipt of your printed
letter of the 27th ultimo, marked "strictly confidential," making certain inquiries touching custoni-house affairs, questions of the tariff^ &c.
I hereby submit replies to the same, answering the inquiries seriatim,
so far as my official knowledge and experience enable me to do so:
1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty prescribed by law
have not been within the last few years duly levied and cbllected.
2. I know of no evidence that on articles upon which the law levies
purely specific rates the full amount of dutj^ x^i*escribed by Congress has
not been collected.
3. Till within the last few weeks, in the usual course of custom-house
business at this port, the measurements of textile fabrics have been made
by the appraisers, and the requisite calculations as to quantity made by
them and reported to the collector and naval officer. These computations have not usually been revised in full in the collector's office (as I
understand) or in the naval office, although imjiortant extensions of
prices, quantities, &c., have been revised. Within a few weeks past a
different xiractice has been instituted. The appraisers now report the
lineal measurements of lengths .and widths, but not square yards, to the
coUector and naval officer. With these elements or data, the calculations
are made in the collector's office and naval office, and the results being
compared with the invoice, the invoiced measurements are thiis verified
and corrected.
. y
4. I kndio of no evidence of any such collusion as is here referred to.
At the same time, charges of such collusion have been made, though
not often at this port, and it is obvious that opportunities for such collusion exist, and should be shut off as completely as possible. . To that
end, in my opinion, some changes might be made in the system of ordering up goods for examination which would practically make this col-,
lusion impossible. For example, the naval officer might.be authorized
to order up additional packages, or change the designation of xiackages
ordered by the collector, and either the packages ordered up by the
naval officer' or collector, or both, might be designated by lot. I hold
that in custoih-house business, wherever a door is left oxien to fraud,
somebody will be sure to enter in. The only safe course for the Government is to leave none open, or to close all that can be closed.
5. There is no evidence within my knowledge of false or incompetent
weighing or measuring at this port. I have sometimes, however,, had
occasion to object to weighing and taring as inadequate. Sbmetimes,
npon my suggestion, additional weighing or measuring and taring has
^een made, but oftener I have been met by the suggestion, probably
truthftil, that those duties have been performed as fully as the force in
that department would admit.
6. The regular course of my official duties has not brought me into
any connection with suit's against collectors, and I have no data upon
which to answer the inquiries here x'>ropounded.
7. I have none but the most casual means, and those derived only
from my general reading, of knowing the state of things at New York
in this respect.
486
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURlf.
8. For the same reason, I cannot answer this interrogatory.
9. Nor this.
.
^ 10. I supxiose this question to be designed chiefly, if not exclusively,
for the appraiser's department. I know, however, that much confusion,
doubt, and conflict of opinion have existed, and do still exist, in the
appraiser's departnient respecting the elements of dutiable value, dexiendent npon the construction of section 7 of the tariff act of March 3,
1883. The decisions of the Treasury Departnient upon the construction
of this section have been various and conflicting, and questions are even
now constantly arising which do not appear to have been authoritatively
settled.
.
,
11. I suppose this inquiry to be addressed exclusively to the appraiser's
departnient.
12. And this also.
13; I am unable to say.
14. I have no reason, from all my knowledge on the subject, to believe
- that any failure to collect full amounts of duty has come generally of
dishonesty on the part of Treasury or customs officials, or has been
accoinpanied by their guilty knowledge. I cannot answer the last two
inquiries.
15. If such frauds have been committed, I know of no reason to think
- that similar corrupt and venaVinfluences are not now brought to bear,
or to doubt that they will be as successful in the future as in the past,
except so far as they may be prevented by additional laws, or by more
stringent measures and additional vigilance in enforcing the laws that
now exist.
^ .
16. This is a very broad and important question. I should say, in
brief, that a change from ad valorem to specific rates, ih respect to some
classes of goods, ivould be a benefit to the revenue and help to diminish
the tendency to bribery and corruption. But I have never been able to
see how specific rates alone could be applied to advantage, and with
justice also, to all textile fabrics. It seems to me that the double standard alone can be applied to this class of goods and preserve the ad valorem principle, which should enter to some extent into the adjustments
of the tariff. Specific duties are simpler of axiplication and easier to
administer, bnt not, in most cases, so just as ad valorem.
17. No, I see no reason to believe they have been.
18. I should think the personal examination by consular agents of
articles i o be shipped to this country from large foreign ports wonld be
imxiracticable, and.that foreign governments would be quite likely to
take exceptions to vexatious delays so caused. I do not know in which
consular districts American consular officers could ascertain and report"
true invoice values more safely and surely than they do now.
19. I think not.
20. I presume that this question is addressed especially to the ap-praiser's department.
21. I think it is believed by many that such a practice exists in New
York. I do not think such an impression prevails in regard to Boston,
nor do I think such a practice prevails here to any considerable extent.
I must, however, express my belief that customs inspectors of baggage
do not perform their duties with sufficient and with constant and xiersistent thoroughness. In the routine of business a laxity and relaxation
of vigilance in such matters grow up, and a constant renewal of effort
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY* OF THE TREASURY.
48J
and increased safeguards are required to secure a proper discharge of
this important duty.
22. I think not.
23. I do not know to what, if any, degree such a failure has taken
place in New York, but I do not think that statement would be true in
the same sense if applied to Boston or other large Atlantic ports. There
are obvious reasons why such a failure might be more liable to happen
in New York than elsewhere, among which may be specified the great
amount and hurry and confusion- of its business, its large numbers of
iniporters of foreign birth, its system of having merchandise consigned „
by manufacturers abroad to their own agents in New York, &c.
24. If such practices have prevailed, I know of no reason why this
persons or officials concerned have not been brought to judgment and
punishment. Anybody connected with the customs service of the Government, if he should have any definite knowledge or susxiicion of wrongdoings such as are suggested in your letter and inquiries, would obviously be guUty of the gravest dereliction of duty if he did not promptly
make them known and do aU in his power to bring the offenders to
exposure and punishment.
I am, sir, very respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
DANIEL HALL,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 48.
ADIN B. UNDERWOOD—Appointed Surveyor August 25, 1865.
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Surveyor's Office, September 4,1885.
S I R : I have the honor to reply to the confidential communication of
the Department of the 27th instant, duly received, that, as the duty of
the surveyor of customs is chiefly conflned to the superintendence and
direction of the out-door officers of. customs, he has no official information on the subjects embraced in most of the interrogatories contained
in the communication. Upon the few on which this office has inforniation, I have the honor to report as follows:
Interrogatory ^.—IhdiNe heen iniovm.e^, and believe, that duringthe
administration of Collector Simmons at this port frauds on the revenue
were committed by ordering bogus packages sent to the appraisers and
valuable packages of merchandise delivered by the inspector on fraudulent and irregular permits. I am informed that Collector Beard, and
I think also Special Agent Bingham, found evidence of these frauds,
some of which I have seen, but which are not in my possession.
^ If the Department were to require, by regulation, that at xiorts where
there are surveyors all permits for delivery of merchandise shall be
addressed to him, be scrutinized by his office before being transmitted
to the inspectors, and, on return by them, to be retained in his office,
frauds like those referred to could not possibly occur. In that case the
perruits were returned to the collector's office, from whose files they wer©
•^ stolen by some collusion in that office.
488
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Interrogatory 6.—I believe the weighing and measuring of merchandise at this port is, as a rule, fairly and adequately done, with proper
protection to the interests of the Government.
Importers are constantly complaining to this office and the collectors
that our weighers do not give them full weights, and not such as buyers
-and sellers give to each other. In this respect I believe their statements
are true. The law, however, does not require equitable weighing simply, but strict weighing of merchandise just as it is landed on the
wharf, without any discretion on our part. In this connection, I beg to ,
state that no regulation or custom here requires the surveyor to report,
to the collector or the Department the character and qualifications of
the weighers whom he is required to employ and direct in their work,
and-for whose.conduct he is practically responsible. Were there such
a regulation, I believe.he could better enforce more satisfactory results
from the weighers (who do all the measuring) while in the performance
of their proper duties.
Interrogatory 21.—I believe the practice does not prevail at this port
of the payment of money by arriving passengers to the inspectors to
facilitate the delivery of baggage, which is allowed to prevail at other
ports. In my long service in this office I have made sxiecial efforts to
prevent any corruption of the officers in this manner; I think, too, with
success. If a similar regulation for the inspectors were to be made by
the Department as I recommend for the weighers, it would give the
surveyor an authoritative control over the inspectors, which he does not
now possess, and which would be healthy.
Interrogatory 22. —As far as I know, the rate of duty has not contributed
to cause smuggling of passengers' baggage, but the loose definition of
wearing-apparel entitled to free entry and the want of a limit of amount.
I think, if the law prescribed that wearing-apparel should actually and v
substantially have been worn h j the passenger, and shoiUd not exceed
a certain "amount in value, that a good deal of smuggling of new clothing, on commissions and as presents for friends, &c., which is now carried on to a greater or less extent, would be prevented.
Yery respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
A. B. UNDEEWOOD,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 49.
HENRY S. BRIGGS—Appohited United States General Appraiser AprU 11,1872.
O F F I C E OF T H E BOARD OF U . S. GENERAL A P P R A I S E R S ,
CORNER OF WASHINGTON AND H U B E R T STREETS,
New York, October 8, 1886.
S I R : In transmitting herewith answers to the inquiries referred to
me nnder Department letter dated August 27, 1885, I beg leave to
state, in explanation of the great delay, that at the time of the receipt
of the inquiries, and fbr some time subsequent, I was engaged at tMs
port in holding reappraisements, and that since that time my time has
been so much occupied, including alarge portion outside of office hours.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ^OF THE TREASURY.
489
in official duty, that I have not been able to give suitable attention to
the subject of the inquiries without xiostponing or omitting other duties.
I regret if, in the oxiionion of the Department, I have erred in considering that my opinion on the subject of the inquiries was not so important as the attention to other imxiortant duties.
Yery resxiectfully,
• HENEY S. BEIGGS,
United States General Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
.
Secretary of the Treasury.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Office of U. S. General Appraiser, October 6, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to submit such replies as limited opportunity
to prepare them enables me to make to twenty-four inquiries referred
to me by the Department, under date August 27, 1885, viz:
' Inquiry 1.—I have no reason to suxipose that there has been any intentional failure or neglect on the part of collectors to assess duty
according to their understanding of the meaning of the statutes, nor
that errors of judgment as to the classification for duty have resulted
in very serious loss to the revenue.
Inquiry 2.—I have no evidence that there has been failure in the customs districts that have come under my observation to ascertain what
duties have accrued under specific rates, nor that coUectors have failed
to assess and collect such as have been ascertained.
Inquiry 3.—It is altogether impracticable, with the present force of
openers and packers, to test by actual measurement invoice quantities
of textile fabrics, and such tests are only made when there is reason to
suspect fraud or error. By long familiarity in the inspection and examination of such goods, both examiners and openers become expert in
estimating approximately the number of yards in a piece.
Inquiry 4.—I have no evidence of any such collusion which has occurred within the last few j^ears.
Inquiry 6.—So much of my time since the organization of the board
of general axipraisers, in 1877, has been occupied in consideration of
questions of classification and valuation, that it has been impracticable
to give but very little xiersonal attention to the xiractical weighing and
measuring of merchandise. My investigations have been limited to
inquiries and comparisons of the weighers' and gangers' and measurers^
returns with invoice specifications. Some years since, in the course of
these examinations, I was led to suspect, from the identity of the
weighers' returns of tin-plates in large quantities with the invoice, in
some cases estimated quantities, that the quantities returned had not
been ascertained by actual weighing.
Inquiry 6. —I think there is need of a radical change in the provisions
bf law relating to questions of classification, which are now the subject
of xirotest and axipeal. After much consideration of the subject, I am
satisfied that if these questions were determined by appraising officers
instead of by collectors, there would be fewer appeals, and, i n case of
appeal, the Department would be enabled to obtain more readily and
fully the information required for its decisions. This opinion is founded
on these considerations: that appraising officers have always been re-
490
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
quired to give these questions careful attention, in order to make their
reports to the collectors in conformity with the Treasury regulations on
the subject; their duties as valuers of merchandise gives them a mnch
more thorough knowledge of its character and quality and the relations
of one kind to another. Under the present system, they give their undivided time and attention to these two subjects, valuation and classification, and can examine each with much greater care than can collectors, so much of whose attention is necessarily occupied with many other
subjects entirely foreign to this of classification. As I understand it,
the practice now is for the Department to submit appeals-to "the collectors from whose ports they are received for special reports, then for,
the collectors to call upon the appraisers for special reports, then for
these reports to be submitted to collectors and appraisers of other principal ports for their rexiorts. At one time it was not an uncommon
practice to refer such questions to the board of general appraisers for
investigation and report. Although the discontinuance of this practice
may imxily a discontinuance of it, I respectful!}^ refer to the fact that,
under existing regulations and instructions of the Dexiartment, a large
part of the time of these officers is devoted to the consideration of these
questions. The duty is imposed by article 1399 of the "Eegulations"
of 1884, and in the Department circular (Synopsis, 3281) cited in that
article it is declared to be one of theprincipal duties to secure uniformity in classifications. Whether the burdens of the Department couM in
any appreciable degree be lightened, or the determination of appeals
iacilitated, by the assistance of the board as now constituted, or by an
increase ofthe number of its members, I am sure that some such board,
composed of members who could give adequate attention to this subject, should be provided. If appellants were to understand that the
Department's decisions would not be made untiL after a report from
such a board and upon evidence and arguments thereto submitted, and
thence forwarded to the Department (whenever required) in connection with its report, the final action w;ould be facilitated.
I have no means of knowing the number of "collectors' suits" pending in. the courts other than inquiry of the district attorneys, to whom I
presume a similar inquiry has been addressed and it appears to me
that most of the other points embraced in this inquiry lie within the
province of the offices of the courts. I may observe, however, in respect to the last point, that some observation and information has led to
the opinion that in many instances the interests of the Government
have been prejudiced by the failure of the acting attorneys who conduct the trials to properly present the Government's case. The complexity of the questions growing ont of the subject of classification is so
great, and of such uncongenial character to ^uch as do not make it a
specialty, that it is not surprising, perhaps, that an ordinary case does
not secure a more careful preparation than in many cases appears tb
have been made—a preparation indispensable to an intelligent and successful trial. I think the interest of the. revenue would be greatly promoted by the appointment of one or more special attorneys, whose
special duties should be the pi^exiaration for trial and management in
the courts of all cases involving questions relating to the administration
of the customs laws.
Inquiry 7.—My experience in the matter of reappraisements enables
me to specify manufactures of silk as ajclass of articles on which there
can be no doubt that the Department has for a long time faUed to col-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
491.
lect the entire amount of duty to which such goods are subject. While
.the evidence of failure cannot be reasonably controverted, in the judgment of those who are most competent io give a true verdict it is, in
fact, controverted whenever, on reapxiraisement, a merchant sits as
judge who is particeps criminus, in so far as he has failed to pay the
full ainounts of duty on similar goods imported by himselfi How successfully it is controverted in such cases must dex')end upon how thoroughly the collector is able to inform himself, as umpire between the
merchant and general appraisers.
Inquiry 8.—How has the failure come about*? By the difficulty, the
impracticability, if not impossibility, of establishing a market value for
the particular varieties of goods, the importation of which is wholly
upon consignments by the foreign manufacturers and owners, and, secondly, by the lack of entire confidence in estimates ofthe cost of manuf acture,
furnished by reports of experts from the conntry of manufacture. Anothei? prominent cause of failure has already been noticed in my remarks '
under the preceding inquiry. I have no evidence or inforniation which
would justify the opinion that there has been, at least within a recent,
period, either indolence or dishonesty. I have an impression, founded
on observation rather than the opinion founded on positive knowledge,
that one of the examiners in the silk department at New York, is not
so competent as the incumbent of snch a place ought to be.
. Inquiry 9.—:I have no knowledge which enables me to make intelligent answer to this inquiry.
Inquiry 10.—Sb far as this inquiry may relate to the costof manufacture
as a standard by which dutiable value is to be fixed, I have already
adverted to a doubt existing among those I believe to be entirely
conscientious and competent appraising officers, merchant apxiraisers
included, as to the safety, with a due regard to a just and equitable valuation, of basing such valuation solely on the estimates of experts, about
whom so little is known.
If under this tenth inquiry it is intended, to invite consideration of
the sufficiency of the definitions of the statutes and the instructions bf
the,Department with resxiect to what constitutes market values and what
the methods for the ascertainment of it, I might with proxiriety refer to
an unpublished ruling of the Dexiartment, about eighteen months since,
upon a qnestion which arose on reappraisement at the port of Boston of
certain worsted yarns, which ruling appears to me to involve a dangerous principle. There being a disagreement between the merchant and >
general appraiser, the collector was instructed, with resxiect to his duty
as umpire, that he might consider the xirice at which merchandise was
actually sold in good faith to American purchasers for the American
market to be a market value on which duty might be assessed, although
such price was'lower than any prices at which such goods had been sold
to, or could be purchased by, any other xiurchaser, either for the home.
market or for any country other than the United States:
Inquiry 11.—I have no data ft'om which only can an intelligent answer
be given to this inquiry.
Inquiry 12.—It seems to me that the examiner is primarily responsible
for all returns of value, except in cases where he has been directly in- structed by some superior axixiraising officer, or some other officer rexiresenting the Department, who is supposed to be vested with special
authority by the head ofthe Dexiartment to suxiervise all inatters relating
to the administration of the customs laws. I have no reason to believe
492
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
that the valuations of any appraising officer now in office are designedly.
false, but think that such errors as occur are mistakes of incompetency
or ignorance. Such mistakes on the part of examiners are very liable
to be prbx)agated through the superior officers, fbr it is obvious that in
the principal ports it is altogether impracticable for principal or assistant appraisers to scrutinize each act of the examiner, or even a very
considerable x^art of the details of his routine duty. Snch scrutiny
would imxiose uxion the apxiraiser the duty, in some cases, of a score^ of
examiners, in addition to the other responsible duties of his office..
, If the scope of this inquiry was intended to include xiorts other than
New York, it is due that I should observe that at Boston the only principal apxiraisea? now in office and one of the two assistant apxiraisers
have given much personal attention to the examination of merchandise
for the valuations which they certify. It should be borne in mind, however, that much of the attention of the xirincipal apxiraiser is required
to be given to.questions of classification.
Inquiry 13.—The only instance of what I consider assistance or connivance in false valuations on the part of consular officers occurred several years since in the certification of the values of certain marble imported into Boston from Carrara, Italy, by a consul who was finally
suxierseded.
Inquiries 14 and 15.—I have no such x^ositive and definite knowledge
on the subject of these two inquiries as would justify my undertaking
to give infbrmation to the Department, unless excexition is made in the
case of an examiner of earthenware at New York, who has been removed under the administration of the.present axipraiser.
Inquiry 16.—It seems obvious that the opportunity, and so the tendency,
to bribery would be very materially diminished by the substitution of
specific ibr ad valoreui rates of duty. The ascertainment of weights
and measures is not subject to the honest errors of judgment and variance in the degree of skill among experts that are variable elements
affecting the results in appraisements. It is also apxiarent that the
accuracy and honest}!^ of ' officers charged with the ascertainment of
quantities can be much more easily inspected and tested than the
methods and the conclusions of appraising officers.
With respect to the axixilication of sxiecific rates of textile fabrics,
much can be offered in its favor, and yet there seems to be almost insuperable objections in resxiect to some kinds of fabrics. With respect
to most it may be said that any practical standard or unit of quantity
would operate to exclude from importation the coarser and cheaxier
varieties of many classes of fabrics. The present compound rates on
woollen manufactures have received much, it seems to me, merited criticism for the effect in compelling consumers of the coarser grades of
clothing materials and articles to pay a much larger percentage of tax
than the consumers of finer and more costly goods. With respect to
manufactures of silk, while it might be for the real interests of the consumers of such goods to practically put it out of their power to procure the counterfeits now imposed upon them, it may, perhaxis, be fairly
assumed that the exclusion of the foreign inanufacture would result in
the imposition of similar adulterations, at even higher prices, by domestic
manufacturers. The ground of comxilaint with respect to wools might.
to a considerable extent be removed by the substitution of a rate regulated by the W(3ight per square yard.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY*
493
With respect to a prolific source of difficulty under existing laws, viz.,
the valuation of cotton embroideries, I'ccent investigation and participation in reappraisements in New York have convinced me that a rate
of duty based on numbers of stitches should be substituted for the ad
valorem rate.
Inquiry 17.—I have no doubt that the removal ofthe stimulus ofthe
"moiety l a w " has resulted i n a diminution of the amount of duties col-~
lected. The removal must necessarily tend to relax vigilauce and carefulness on the part of honest importers and caution on the part of intentional violators of the customs laws.
I do not intend that the expression of an opinion resxiecting the effect
of the repeal, made in conformity with the request of Dexiartment letter, should carry the inference that I should have recomniended a res-toration ofthe "moiety law" in case an oxiinion on that xiointhadbeen
invited.
Inquiry 18.—I do not see how the efficiency of the consiUar offices
with resxiect to the certification of invoices and the investigation as to
the values which are certified can be materially increased without very
considerable increase of the number of subordinate offices at the consulates ; nor that very reliable inforniation respecting the values of commodities, which vary materially in respect to qualities of any given
general character, can be furnished, except by the emxiloyment of a class
of exxierts corresponding to the examiners inthe apxiraiser's dexiartment
who make the exaniination after imxiortation.
Inquiry 19. I am somewhat in doubt whether by the use of the term
"dutiable values" it is intended to recognize a distinction between such
value and "inarket value," which distinction was clearly made by the
law as it stood uxi to the enactment of the act of March 3, 1883, a distinction which under the x^i^esent law can only hold with respect to
such merchandise as is made for and consigned by the manufacturers
to the United States only, having no sale in the country of manufacture
and no market Ydlne there. With respect to such merchandise, not only
the Dexiartment and the courts, but the statute itself, has provided one
of the methods by which a value on the assessment of duty may be arrived at.
With respect to such classes of nierchandise, appraising officers should
be subject to instructions from the Treasury Dexiartment but with respect to the determination of questions of market value as defined b^^ the
courts and the Department, I think that any deviation from the princixile that has been recognized and established by repeated decisions
and rulings, that the action of appraisers should be indexiendent and
final, would result in inextricable and disastrous confusion and uncertainty in respect to the assessment of ad valorem duties.
The remedy for the possible evil arising from incompetency or unfaithfulness in apxiraising officers is sufficient in the power to remove
such officers.
Inquiy^y 20.—Presuming that this inquiry has been addressed to some
who have given special attention to the subject embraced in it, I have
not undertaken to make a particular investigation, without which I
could not make an intelligent answer. My attention having been directed, however, during visits to some of the customs districts on the
Mexican frontier, to the carx3et-wools produced in that country, and
which are practically prohibited by their classification with, secondclags wools^ by reason of a very slight admixture of merino blood,
494
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
although costing less than 12 cents per pound, and being fit only for
carpet manufacture, I would recommend a relaxation of the rule with
resxiect to classification by race whenever its axiplication would affect
wool of the quality I have described.
Inquiry 21.—It is generally.believed, and I think,, with good cause,
that the practice referred to in this inquiry has for a long time prevailed
-. at the port of New York. I do not think it has prevailed at Boston.
' In respect to other ports, I have had no special opportunities for knowledge on the subject. Two expedients for the remedy of the evil are
suggested—first,* providing a compensation for the examining officers so
ample as to remove the inducements furnished by petty bribes, as well
as to secnre the services of persons not susceptible to any such inducements ; second, the absolute forfeiture of all the baggage of xiersons
making false declarations, with a provision for relief, in the discretion
' of the Secretary, whenever it shall be satisfactorily shown that the misrepresentations have resulted from innocent mistakes rather than from
fraudulent intent.
Inquiry 22.—In my opinion, any rate of duty which is high enough
to protect domestic manufacturers is sufficient to make inducement foi^
undervaluation, whether it be 20 per cent, on non-enumerated manu-"
factures, 35 per cent, on cottons, 40 per cent, on woollens, or 50 x^er
cent, on silk. If a reduction in either of these cases to the extent of 10
per cent, would cease to protect,^there would be no great inducement
for an undervaluation of the foreign product to greater extent than 10
percent.
Inquiry 2'^.—I think not.
..
Inquiry 24.—I do not know.
Yery respectfuUy,
HENEY S. BEIGGS,
. United States General Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 50.
CHAS. S. SOULE—AppotQted Examiner May 29, 1883.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1886.
S I R : I respectfuUy acknowledge the receipt of your circular of August
27, containing twenty-four questions, relative to the administration of
the custoins laws, to which I am requested ^o reply as completely as
possible.
In reply, I most respectfully beg leave to state that I have been an
employ6in the appraiser's departnient since May 28, 1883, as an assistant in the laboratory of the sugar department, and my time has been
fully occupied with my duties in that department.
Having had no opportunity of acquainting myself with the subjects
of your inquiiy, I can only reply to but few of the questions xiroponnded.
Question 1.—Have no knowledge that the law has not been comxilied
with.
Question 2.—Have no knowledge of any case where the fiUl duty has
not been eoliected, as prescribed by Congress,
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
495
. Question 3.—The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified
by weighing and measuring.
'
Question 4.—Know of no case wherein a false or bogus package has
been sent to the appraisers for exaniination.
Question, 6.—I know of no case of false or incompetent or inadequate
weighing or measuring on the wharves.
Questions 6, 7, and 8.—I am not able to answer.
Question 9.—I know of no false reports of dutiable values made by
the appraiser to the collector.
Question 10.—I know of no evidence that would be of any value.
Question 11.—I cannot answer.
Question 12.—The examiner is, in my opinion, primarily and chiefly
responsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value
to, the collector. The salary of examiners is from $1,200 to $1,800 x)er
annum. At this port, each report of the examiner is carefully scrutinized by the apxiraiser before receiving his indorsement.
Question 13.—I know of no satisfactory evidence that any Government
officials, in.the consular department or elsewhere, have assisted, or consented tb, or connived at the x)i'esentation to the appraiser of false evidence of foreign values.
. Questions li: and 15.—I cannot answer.
Question 16.—Should say that a change from ad valorem to speciflc
rates would be a benefit to the revenue and helxi diminish a tendency
to bribery. Cannot say as regards specific rates being applied to textile
fabrics.
Questions 17 and 18.—I cannot answer. '
"
Question 19.—Have no knowledge upon which to base an opinion.
Question 20.—I cannot answer.
Question 21.—Have no knowledge of the payment of money by arriving passengers to customs inspectors, but presume such cases . have
occurred.
^
Questions 22, 23, and 24.—I am unable to answer.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHAELES S. SOULE,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
No. 51.
GEORGE C. JOSLIN—Appointed Clerk, Boston, September 17, 1869; Assistant
Appraiser October 25, 1871.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 12, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular
of Oth ultimo, marked "strictly confidential," and containing twentyfour questions relative to the administration of customs laws, and beg
leave to submit the following answers:
.
1. The rates of duty prescribed by law I believe have been within
the last few years levied and collected, except in cases where honest
differences of opinion have arisen between officers of different ports,
when, untU a Department decision was reached, an improper duty may
have been levied.
490-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
2. I know of no cases where specific duties are prescribed in which
the full amount of duties have not been collected. ,
3. TextUe fabrics are measured by the examiners with yard-stick to
determine the widths for basis of classification and number of square
yards, the lengths of pieces usually being taken from the tags on the
pieces; but measurements of length are frequently made with yardstick to guard against fraudulent lengths being marked on the tags.
4. I have no evidence of any collusion between importers and entry
clerks or deputy collectors, but have known of cases where special
agents of the Treasury have claimed that cases have been sent to the
appraisers for examination which did not represent the balance of the
invoice, but never heard of their proving coUusion with officials at
this port.
5. I have never seen or heard anything to lead me to believe that the
weighing and measuring on the wharves has been improperly performed.
6. The collectors usually adopt the rates of dut^^^ suggested by appraisers who inspect the imported merchandise, and are therefore better
able to judge what rates are applicable under the law; but the appraisers
who see the goods are often in doubt what rate to apply, for the reason
that many paragraphs of the xiresent tariff law are open to two constructions, and many confiict with others. This, I think, accounts for
the numerous protests and appeals to the Department, and for the suits
brought by the importers against the Government; therefore, in my
opinion, the present tariff law might be mnch improved. I have no
means of knowing how many suits are now xiending at the four principal
ports named. I beUeVe suits might be more speedily disposed of under
the present system, and see no reason for the creation of any new
tribunal.
" 7. In answering this qnestion I will confine myself to dry-goods, with
^
which I am most familiar. The failure to collect the full amount of
duties due the Government arises from the fact that the plan is fast increasing for foreign mannfacturers to establish agents in this country
and consign to them all the goods they send here, refusing to sell to any
other buyers in America, even for cash, thereby placing upon appraising officers the burden of ascertaining the market values, which, in
many cases, is very difficult. I have no doubt that.the failure to find
the xiroper dutiable values has in the past been due in part to each of
the reasons you suggest, viz., ignorance, indolence, and dishonesty on
the part of some, but cannot believe that the higher class of Treasury
or customs pfficers have had guilty knowledge of the returns of such
dutiable vaiues.
At the larger xiorts the local appraisers cannot possibly examine into
the dutiable value of all imported merchandise, and must of necessity
depend upon the faithful and efficient work of subordinates, and as a
result, in case of inefficiency on their part, they certify, honestly themselves, to values which should in some cases have been increased. In
the past, officers have, I know, been appointed to examine goods purely
on political grounds, when they had no knowledge of the goods which
they were called upon to examine, (one such case occurred at this port;
officer since discharged,) and such being the case, it seems to me not
stra^nge that undervaluations should go undetected and loss result .to the
Government.
Probably undervaluations are xiractised at all ofthe larger ports more
or less, in a less proportion at this port than others, for the reason that
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
497
r
a very large proportion of the merchandise imported here is actually
purchased. Silk goods are nearly all consigned to ageiit^s in New York,
and are, no doubt, largely undervalued, and when advanced- by apxiraiser the advance often falls in reaxiX3raiseinent on account of the
manner in which such hearings have been conducted in the xiast, the
importers in the line of goods in question all combining and testifying
against the Government. I have endeavored to cover Questions 8 and
9 in the above.
10. There has been fbr the past two years more or less conflict of
opinion in regard to elements entering into the dutiable value of goods,
but little at xiresent. Place, time, and standard are clearly enough defined by the statutes.
11. I should say that there cannot.
12. The examiner is x^rimarily responsible. Salaries of examiners at
this port are from $1,200 to $2,000. Axipraisers at this xiort have always
paid much attention to matters of value brought to their attention by
^examiners, special agents, and others, and to a great extent supervised
the work of examiners in their niethods of finding dutiable values.
13. I have no knowledge that B>nj consul or other Government official .
has furnished false evidence of values to axipraisers.
14. I believe that it cannot fairly be said that the failure to collect the
full amount of duties due the Government^ has been occasioned^ by dishonesty, although it may have been the case in some iastances. •
15. In my opinion, corrupt xiractices have steadUy decreased in the
past ten years, and may still decrease with strict Department rulings.
16. Specific rates of duty should be applied, I think, to the fullest c
extent possible, and could be applied, to very nearly the whole line of
textile fabrics. The objections offered by many would be overcome
and trade soon adaxit itself to the new order of things.
17. I think not.
/
18. In the large consular districts I do not think it would be practicable to supply a sufficient number of officers to personally exaraine
merchandise to be shipped to this country; in the smaller districts it
might.. Foreign governments would be likely to complain if American
consuls caused delays in examining values of invoiced goods. The usual
fee now exacted' by our consuls for certifying invoices is 10s. 6d., or
$2.50.
•
^
•
19. I am firmly of the oxiinion that dutiable values can only fairly be
left to be decided by appraisers; importers would qomplain and suffer
by delays in receiving their importations if the question of value must
go to higher authority for decision.
20. I b e g leave to refer you to report of Examiner Dimond on this
subject. Mr. Apxiraiser Eice has for a number of years x^aid special
attention to this subject, but it is to be regretted that his illness x>i'ecludes his being on duty. It has not been my xirovince to study the
wool question, and I should fail to do it justice.
21. At this xiort I believe that the payment of money to officers who
inspect baggage of xiassengers is not practised at all. I have frequently
heard it said that at New York such was the jiractice, and a few years
since most of our travelling xmblic preferred to land in New York on
returning from trixis abroad rather than Boston, one reason being that
they had little difficulty in passing their luggage. It can be xirevented
by the enforcement of strict orders froiii tbe Dexiartment and the punishment of the guilty when detected,
32 A
498
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE'TREASURY.
22. Lower rates of duty on many of the lines of goods would unque^
tionably lessen the undervaluations and dishonest xiractices.
23. The same reasons do not exist to so great an extent at the other
large ports, and therefore not generaliy true.
24. Allowing that such returns have been made, they have been
made by the officials mostly with honest iiitemt, and no xiersons other"
than the buyers and sellers knowing the facts, there has been no one
to complain. It was not owing to intentional neglect, but pressure of
business xirevented me from giving the questions a x^i"0X3er consideration at an earlier day. On account of the death of one appraiser and
lengthened sickness ofthe other, our working force has been lessened,
while the fall business has been heavy.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yonr obedient servant,
GEO. C. JOSLIN,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 52.
CALEB A. SMITH—Appointed Storekeeper, Boston, May 26, 1879; Examiner Jnly
1, 1880.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser-s Office, September 20, 1885.
HONORED S I R : In reply to your circular of Oth ultimo, have the
honor to state that each examiner is an expert only in his own department, devoting his time and attention to his immediate duties, and
therefore unable fully and satisfactorilj^ to answer all your inquiries.
Can answer only in a general way. My duties are confined to invoicesof merchandise from West Indies, west coast of Africa, Canada, and
British Provinces, of great variety. All goods on which- the rates are
sxiecific are easily xiassed; many others of "ad valorem" there is almost always a question, such as animals, beans, pease, casks, calcined
Xilaster, old yellow inetal, poultry, seal and, fish oils, canned mackerel,
game, hub-blacks, timber, pickets, wood pulp, old rubber, asbestos,
canned berries, leather, calf-skins, lime, and many others. * A merchant
in July, 1883, wished to import a lot of old yellow sheathing-metal,
looked over the tariff for rates, and decided it was T. I., new, par. 186—
all composition metal, of which copper is the component material, 3 cents
a pound. This he decided to be almost prohibitory. Old yellow metal
was not mentioned in the tariff. August 3, 1883, it was ordered to be
put at 10 per cent.; February 27, 1884, at 20 per cent., at which rate of
"ad valorem" it remains. Another had a car-load of pease ahd beans
from Canada, (they are not mentioned in the tariff,) supposed to be 10
per cent., as vegetables. The decision was 20 per cent., as garden-seeds.
How as to split pease'?—20 per cent. also. He replies, crude is 10 per
cent.; manufactured, 20 per cent.; or pease, 10 xier cent., as crude; split,
inanufactured, 20 per cent. To-day a merchant asks the duty on canned
mackerel. The tariff says, "Mackerel, 1 cent per pound;" another
section says, ^' Prepared fish, or preserved, 25 per cent." I mark 25 per
cent. He apxieals. Also, a similar case in calcined'plaster, canned
berries, &c. A lot of parts of skates, whole, were 45 per cent.; as parts
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
499
to be x^rit' together, the imxiorter claims at 3i cents. Axix)eals. In
thes^ and similar cases, continnall}^ arising, there would be little or no
difficulty if the duty was specific instead of " a d valorem." There are
- six steamers a week besides passenger-boats and sailing-vessels from the
provinces. The duties since the abrogation of the treaty, 1st of July,
wUl be greatly increased over any previous year, to the great delight
of onr New England fishermen. With such a variety of merchandise,
it is quite difficult to get satisfactory xirices to base your dutiable value,
which would be entirel.3^ obviated by vspecific duties and a simxilified
tariff.
Have no knowledge of bribery or corruption in any department.
A specific dnty would be a xireventative, as a foreign manufacturer
could not enter them undervaluation as in ad valorem duties.
Our appraiser, Eice, has always been at his post early and late, and
knows thoroughly the business of each examiner, and in his (examiner's)
absence atiends at once to his business, that there may be no unnecessary delay. The examiners are devoted to their duties, and attend to
them as if it was their own business.
Consular reports are similar to a xirice-current; they give you a general price of the market, but they are not in the market as a merchant
to buy. As there is always a marked difference between a price asked
for quotations and.a price obtained by an actual sale of merchandise,
therefore they can only give you an approximate xirice as to value.
Specific duties would obviate, in a great measure, the neceSvSity of
consular reports of merchandise values.
^
Your obedient servant,
CALEB A. SMITH,
United States Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 53.
P. AMBROSE YOUNG—Appointed Examiner May 20, 1880.
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON,
Appraiser's Office, September 25, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully referring to your communication of the 9th instant,'
requesting information as to the classification of merchandise and the
assessment of duties under the xiresent tariff act, I have the honor to
reply to the several questions contained therein as follows:
• 1. On coal-tar colors: There has been a systematic undervaluation of
this class of merchandise, owing to the high ad valorem duty and the
great difficulty lnproving "true market values," the manufacturers selling to consumers in the United States only through their agents. This
was very clearly shown by the action of the Berlin comxiany in entering
their manufactures at this x^ort very largely under market values, aswas shown, after a long and patient investigation by myself, befbre advancing the price of the merchandise to "true market value. Ux^on a
reapxiraisement, after incontrovertibly showing the true value of the
various colors by tests of dyeing upon silk, wool, and cotton, and deter, mining by chemical analysis their composition and kind, the represent-
500
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
ative ofthe Berlin company, who came to this country specially to contest these cases, was forced to confess to an undervaluation of from 10
to 50 per cent. Even this amount was not sufficient to bring the price
of the merchandise to the "true market value," although accepted by
the appellant board, because given under oath, as all subsequent invoices. Those immediately following the hearing, as well as up to the
Xiresent period, have shown that the advance in values of from 50 to 100
per cent., as originall^'^ made, was correct. The remedy for this condition of affairs is a specific duty.
2. Have no means of knowing that the proper duty is not collected
where specific rates are applied. This could not occur, in my opinion,
unless by palpable fraud in the classification as to kind of merchandise
or in weighing.
3, 4, 5, and 6. Have no means of becoming acquainted with the method
of doing the business described by these questions.
7. I^have reason to believe that coal-tar colors and varnishes are undervalued at New York. Merchants here have repeatedly asserted that
they can get their merchandise through New York at lower rates than
at Boston; but this statement is hardly susceptible.of x^roofi
8. The failure has come about, I think, through a lack of harmony
and a proper interchanging of views between the officials in charge and
the examiners and chemical experts in the laboratory. This fault is
very liable to occur when the drug examiner is not an expert chemist.
, 9. Have no means of knowing the action of the appraiser, except as
to the class of merchandise which I examine, viz: Drugs, medicines,
chemicals, dyes and dyestuffs, paints, oils, and such like preparations.
I have always been cheerfully sustained by the appraisers at this port.
10. There is some conflict of opinion as to including in the dutiable
value of merchandise the cost of the, "outer covering" in which the
article is purchased, and also the costof transportation from an interior,
town, where manufactured, to the x^ort of shipment, where xmrchased.
11. Have no facts by which I could give an answer to this question.
12. The examiner, whose duty it is to personally examine the merchandise, of which he is supposed to be an expert, is solely responsible
fbr any undervaluation or false return of the merchandise examined.
The appraiser could not personally examine or be an expert in all matters coming before him. The salaries of examiners vary. At this
port one Of the appraisers officially certifies to the correctness of the
rexiort made to the collector.
13 and 14. Have no definite knowledge of matters covered by these
questions.
\ 15. It is unfortunate, if true, of the venality of Government servants.
I am of the opinion that if a servant of the Government was held strictly
responsible for his work, and freed from the fear of favoritism, political
or other interference, he would be much more; likely to stand firmly to
the principles of honesty and the honest enforcement of the laws.
Eigid supervision by authorized Treasury agents is the only safeguard.
16. There is no doubt in my mind but that a specific rate of d%ty,
wherever practicable, would not only largely, but in fact wholly, prevent
bribery. Wrong or fraudulent classification, as to kind or quality, could
be prevented by requiring the preservation of the samples examined.
This rule I have adopted at this port with good results.
Specific rates, I think, could be applied to nearly, if not quite, all
textile fabrics.
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
501
17. Have no knowledge of false rexiorts by appraisers, and, therefore, '
cannot say as to the eff'ect of the law. I think it a wise provision of
law that gives to the Government the xiower to take books and papers
in case of fraud or fraudulent intent on the part of importers.
18. Yes. I deem it not only xiracticable, but of the greatest imxiortance, that the consular agents at all the chief markets of the world
shonld be furnished with samxiles (where practicable) of all merchandise of which the invoice is xiresented to them for certification, and,
after verifying the invoice price with the market price, forward thie
sample, with all information concerning it, to the axipraiser of the port
where it is intended to make entry. This is esxiecially important in
the case of coal-tar colors and chemical xireparations. After a short
time the.knowledge and experience acquired by consular agents would
prevent unnecessary delay, and therefore furnish no cause of complaint
from foreign governments. Consular fees in London and England are
from 105. 6d. to 16s.^6d.
19. I am of the opinion that the law as it now stands is sufficient,
not only to protect the Government, but also the honest merchant, and
should not be changed. Cannot see where an honest merchant could
be benefited by a lengthy legal xirocess which can be avoided, and all
matters can now be settled by the Dexiartment under the xiresent law,
through a clear and honest statenient of the facts in each case.
20. 21, 22, 23, and 24. Upon the matters referred to in these questions Lhave no definite inforination to communicate.
Yery respectfully,
P. AMBEOSE YOUNG,
Special Examiner of Brugs, &c.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 54. •
JOHN W. NASON—Appointed Examiner Jannary 19, 1872.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, September 26, 1885. S I R : In answer to your circular of the Oth instant, addressed to me
confidentially, I have the honor to make the-following report, answering the questions as proxiounded in their order.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN W. NASON,
Examiner.
Hon. .DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty prescribed by law a^nd
Department decisions have not been levied and coUected.
2. To my knowledge, there is no such evidence.
3.. Never having had any experience in the handling or examination
of textile fabrics, I cannot say.
4. I have no evidence on this point.
5. The Department of weighing and measuring being entirely distinct from my own, I have no.means of knowing.
502
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
j
6. Upon this subject I am not informed, the collector having all
records of such suits.
7. i have no evidence on this subject.,
8. I have no means of knowing;.
9. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the appraiser has reported to the collector false dutiable values.
10. To my knowledge, there has been no doubt or conflict of opinion
in the appraiser's department respecting the elements to be ascertained
in order to fix and to declare dutiable value. < The standard is already
defined by the statutes to fix duty and values.
11. I have no infbrmation of undervaluation. ;
12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible for a false
return of value to the collector. The salaries of examiners at this porf
range from $1,200 to $2,000 xier year. The appraiser at this p o r t i s
always consulted when an addition to value or change of rate is made.
13. There is no evidence to my knowledge.
'
14. As far as my information extends, I do not know of any cases
where the tariff law has not been faithfully executed and the full amount'
of duty collected according to law and Treasury Department decisions.
15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, I have reason
to believe that they will not be as successful in the future, as I now
believe that an bfficer detected in receiving bribes will be punished
according to the law.
16. In my opinion, specific rates of duty would entirely remove all
temptation to dishonesty on the part of exporters and importers, and
greatly simplify the coliection of the revenue. As to textile fabrics I.
cannot say.
17. I have no information that false reports have been made by the
appraisers.
18. In my opinion, it would be practicable for the American consuls
at all foreign ports to verify to the correctness of invoice values, as they
do now in some consular districts in xirinted form—namely, London,
Liverpool, Glasgow, and Sheffield—but there appears to be no uniformity in the form of certificates., Some read thus: " I do further
certify that I am satisfied that the xierson making the declaration hereto
annexed is the person he represents himself to be, that he is a* credible
person, and that the statement made in said declaration is true.'' Other
certificates read: '' That the actual market value or wholesale prices
of the goods, wares, and merchandise described in said invoice in the
princixial markets of the country at the time of exxiortation are correct
and trne." Other certificates are the same as the last-named, with this
addition: ^' Excepting as changed by me, and as set forth in the colnmn
of consular corrections of estimates." The consular fee in England
is $2.50.
19. I do not think that the executive or judicial powers should have
greater jurisdiction.to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable
values.
20. I would resxiectfully state that this can be better answered by the
special exiiminer of ivool.
21. Of this I have no iuibrmation, cxcex)t fromthe common rexiort
that the practice prevails in New York. If such xiractice exists, I see
no remedy, except the strict enforcement of the penalty at present prescribed.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
503
22. In my oxiinion, the evidence does tend to show that the duty pre-.
scribed by law on many articles of merchandise has been carried, by
Congress beyond and above the line which the Government can surely
Xirotect.
23. I have no evidence that the Treasury Dexiartment has failed to
enforce the revenue law at the other large Atlantic ports.
24 If false returns or rexiorts to the collectors have been made, (of
which I have no xiroof,) I am unable to state why the persons or officials
concerned have not been indicted and punished.
'
No. 55. •
EDWIN D. WHITE—Appomted Clerk, Boston, Aprh 5, 1878 ; Examiner June 16,1882.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS."",
Appraiser's Office, September 28, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Department
circular without date, marked "strictly confidential," containing certain inquiries in regard to customs matters, and to herewith submit the
following replies thereto:
Inquiry No. 1.—I am unaware of any cases where rates of duty have
not been levied and collected as the law requires, excexit in cases which
have been reported to the Department.
Inquiry No. 2.—I have no knowledge of any evidence whatever that
specific rates of duty have not been collected at this port. '
Inquiry No. 3.—This can be more satisfactorily answered by the examiner of textile fabrics, which are measured.
, Inquiry No. 4c.—1 am not informed of any recent case of collusion between persons making entry of goods and the customs officers designating packages for examination. Some four years ago I w a s somewhat informed as to a case of that character at this port, where bne
Herman Hirsh, of New York, and one Pollard, of the firm of Wood,
Pollard & Co., of this city, were suspected of and finally indicted by the
grand jury of this distiict for the fraudulent importation of silks and
other expensive goods contained in the nine packages not examined,^
while the tenth package, designated at the inward foreign desk in the
custom-house and examined by the appraisers, was found tp contain
.free goods, or those paying a low rate of duty. The extent of the frauds
was never fully know;n, but was large. The indictments are still in the
hands ofthe United States attorney in this city, but have never been
tried.
Inquiry No. 6.—I am not informed upon this matter.
Inquiry No. 6.—Many ofthe suits since the passage of the tariff act
of March 3, 1883, have grown out of the constructions given by the
Department in regard to the inclusions in the dutiable value of mer-'
chandise of the cost of coverings of such merchandise. I am of opinion
that the number of suits would have been very much smaller, indeed
cqmxiJlratively insignificant, had this portion of the tariff been declared
to mean, as many of the most exxierienced and ablest officers in the
customs service originally interpreted it, the exclusion from duty of all'
coverings and the imposition of duty upon the naked merchandise;
and that this was the intent of Congress in the framing of that act, in-
504
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
asmuch as one of its chief purxioses was to reduce the amount of the
revenue and to do away.with the smaller vexations to which importers
' were subjected under the old law.. Inasmuch as the highest law officer ofthe Government has confirmed the Department in its original
- and later decisions, and one court at least has done the same, it would
seem that the only remedy, if one is deemed desirable, is by further
legislation. I am not informed as to the number of suits now pending
in this district.
The establishment of a board of arbitration, as suggested in the inquiry, for the more speedy settlement of suits has been before the Department heretofore, and the opinions of the then leading customs
officers of the cpuntry were submitted at the time. There seems little
doubt that such a board of experienced and capable men wonld be very
useful.
Inquiry No. 7.—I am unable to answer.
Inquiry No. 8.—I am unable to answer.
Inquiry No. 9.—I have no reason to believe that the appraisers at this
port have reported to the collector false dutiable values, which answers
also sub-inquiiies 2, 3, 4, and 5, except in the latter case. I would state
that inasmuch as the apxiraiser's return is xiresumed to be based upbn his
honest judgment, it would be very difficult, apparently, to successfully
impute to him a dishonest intent, even if undervaluation should be discovered.
Inquiry No. 10.—Whatever confusion or doubt or conflict of opinion
in this department resxiecting elements to be ascertained to fix dutiable
valne have arisen have been almost entirely in the matter of chargCvS
for coverings of merchandise. For instance, different importers of-the
same merchandise often claim that they purchase it i n different condi^
tions, some that the coverings are not a part of the market value of the
goods when bought by them, and others exactly the opposite. This is
particularly true of many small articles of earthenware and similar
goods.
.
Inquiry No. 11.—I am unable to state.
Inquiry No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible,
in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to the coUectors in this office, and undoubtedly at the larger ports. The signing by
the chief appraiser of the reports of examiners is of a routine and perfunctory character, and it would be simply impossible for him to personally prove the correctness of such reports.
Inquiry No. 13.—I could not state.
Inquiry No. 14.—I am not informed upon this matter.
Inquiry No. 15.—If bribery and venality have existed at this port in
the past, taking into account the similarity of human nature at all times,
it is fair to presume that it may still exist, bnt it certainly is well secreted at this port.
• .
Inquiry No. 16.—A general change from ad valorem to specific rates
of duty would be a benefit to the revenue, and would help to diminish a
tendency to bribery, inasmuch as it would do away with the incentive
to undervaluation. In the case of some textile fabrics, like silks, it
might be well to add a slight ad valorem rate, in order to protect' the
American importer and consumer from frauds in the manufacture of
such goods.
Inquiry No. 17.—It would seem to be almost self-evident that the repeal of the moiety law removed a great and ever-present stimulus to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
505
customs officers, added to the requirements of their oath and their sense
of official obligations to be not only true to their trusts, but to exercise
extra vigUance. I do not believe that its repeal made any difference
with an honest appraiser, like Mr. Eice, at this X30rt, but its general effect
could be in but one direction, and that the wrong one. The fact that
books and papers of importers suspected of ff'aud cannot be summarily
seized, makes it almost impossible to ascertain whether they have actuaUy pnrchased merchandise at the xirices named on their invoices.
Inquiry No. 18.—I am not aware how large a force is attached to-the
office of Ameiican consuls in London, Paris, Berlin, and similar large
districts, so that I could not say whether it is practicable^ for them to
personally examine articles to be shixiped thence tb American x)orts
and to verify the correctness of invoice values; but if that is impossible,
• it would seem a matter of propriety, and in the interest of good morals,
that their consciences should not be subjected to the strain that they
must be when they attach their names to a certificate of which the following is a coxiy, take'n at random from a number of invoices: " I do
further certify, > * > that the actual iharket values and wholesale
K
<
i
price of the goods, wares, and merchandise described in said invoice,
and in the principal markets of the country, and at the time of exxiortation, are correct and true as set forth in the column of consnlar corrections of estimates." There are consular ports where the exports to
this country are confined almost exclusively to a single article, and it
would seem that there could be no excuse for the American consul there
resident not giving such a certificate which would be final and satisfactory as to the market value of such merchandise at the time of
exportation.
Inquiry No. 19.—It hardly seems possible that a more correct decision
could be reached than is now obtained as to dutiable values by the
action of the appraiser, and, if asked for, by the imxiorter, by the general and merchant appraisers, and finally by the collector himself.
The examiner making the original rexiort and the appraiser approving ^
it naturally obtaiii all the information possible to establish what was the
true and actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise
i n dispute in the principal markets of the country at the time of exportation to this country, and they would seem to be the best persons to
obtain, such information, as would also a merchant familiar with the
merchandise, and the general appraiser, not only familiar with the
merchandise, but with the custonis laws and regulations affecting it, to
be the best tribunal from which an equitable decision could be exxiected.
Inquiry No. 20. —The wool examiner at this port, who has had a long
experience with such merchandise, will nndoubtedly fully answer this
inquiry. From some familiarity with the merchandise and the practice of importers, I have been led to the conclusion that there is something wrong in the dividing line between third-class, or carpet-wool,
and the higher goods. Improved machinery now enables manutacturers
to comb wools which were formerly considered fit only for carpets, and
there has been an' apparent tendency of late to get into the country
under the third-class rate invoices of wool a part of which, at least, can
be combed, and it requires great watchfulness on the part ofthe examiner and appraiser to prevent such importations. The difference in
duty is so^large that the temptation to such a practice is very strong.
Inquiry No. 21.—I do not believe that the-practice generally prevails,
or prevails at all as a practice, among custonis officers at this port, of
506
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
receiving money from arriving passengers, except for customs dues,
either to prevent or facilitate or hasten the examination of luggage. I
have never heard of such practice here, althongh it is not uncommon
to hear of such practice in New York, and, indeed, passengers arriving
atthis x^ort, annoyed at j^he thoroughness of the examination of-their
baggage, have stated that the next time they arrive from abroad they
should land in New York. No accusation of such a xiractice has been
made at this port; to my knbwledge, against any officer performing such
service. THe remedy appears to be in the x^romxit x^unishment and
disgrace of the offending officer. The great difficulty in reaching a
conviction in such cases is that the giver and receiver of the bribe, the
passenger and the officer, are alike guilty; and inasmuch as such transactions are not generally heralded h j brass bands, the evidence necessary fbr conviction is generally confined to the offending parties, who
are equally liable to the penalties of the law.
Inquiry No. 22.—In some cases, probably, the rate of duty is too high
as far as the necessities or objects of the tariff are concerned, but the
instanees are very few where the rates are too high for the Government
to protect or collect. The higher the rate the greater the incentive to
undervaluation and smuggling; as, for instance, in the latti3r case, the
article of bay oil, of which so little xiays duty, while so much reaches
this country. In smuggling, it would not seem that high rates of duty
govern, any more than the convenient conditioii of the article, like diamonds, for instance, although subject to low duty.
Inquiry No, 23.—New York is a very large city, and the history of
all great aggregations of people is that the larger they are the greater
the number of rascals, and in an increased ratio with such population,
and as one successful crime tempts the yicions to emulate it, so the
greater the city the greater must be exxiected the violation of revenue
laws. For that reason, if no other, the failure of the Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law in New York has not been true to an extent proportionate with population at the other large Atlantic ports.
Inquiry No. 24.—I am not aware of any instance in which false returns
or reports to the collector of dutiable values have been made at this
port.
~
I
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
EDWIN D. WHITE,
/
Examiner:
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 56.
GEORGE KEYES—Appointed Inspector, Boston, Jnly 31, 1877; Examhier, May 19,
1879.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Officer, September 28, 1885.
S I R : I am in receipt of your circular letter requesting answers to
vaiious questions in regard to the collection of duties, and the manner
in which business is conducted by customs officials, and, in reply, have
the honor to state that for several years my duties have been confined
to the examination and appraisement of one article of import, and the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
507 '
various questions connected with that article arising from time to time
at this and other ports. As this article (sugar) xiays more than onethird of the whole ainount of duties collected at this 'port, and a large
proportion of the revenue derived from customs at all the xiorts, and .
as the vaiious matters connected with the exaniination and appraisement of this article require constant watchfulness in order to obtaiii
correct samxiles and accurate tests upon which to base the rates of
duty, I have had but little if any opportunity to obtain the knowledge
of other kinds of imported goods or of the duties performed by other
officials which would be necessary to enable me to answer intelligently
many of the questions in your circular. I shall, therefore, only reply
to those questions which I have reason to supxiose my knowledge will
enable me to answer in such a manner as to be of some value.
Answer to Question No. 2.—The article of sugar pays a purely specific
rate, without reference to value, but it is very doubtful if the whole
amount of duty as prescribed by Congress is collected upon it at all
the ports of entry. This is owing, in my judgment, to the method of
ascertaining the rate of dnty by polariscopic tests. The polariscope is
an instrument which is very delicate, and requires the'most careful
manipulation, and the least carelessness on the part of the person using
it affects the results obtained. The article to be tested is itself affected
by different states of the atmosphere and different methods of sampling.
Samples drawn and tested in damp weather absorb moisture, and the
test will be lower than in clear, dry weather. The mere action of a
sampler in wetting his trier will affect the sample to be tested, and the
Government may be the loser to a large amount in duties by such slight
matters as these. In my opinion, the whole method of collection should
be changed and a specific duty of one rate should be established upon
all sugars not refined.
^
Answer to Question No. 5.—There is no evidence of false or incompetent weighing of sugar at this port. I have had occasion to know
something of the methods of business pursued by the weighers of this
article, and I am certain that, so far as my knowledge extends, the
weighing has been accurately and carefully done. I have known of
many cargoes of sugar which have been reweighed after the Government weigher, and I have never known an instance in which the Government weight was not fully up to the reweight, while I have known
many instances where it was impossible for the merchant weigher npoii
reweight to obtain as high weights as those of the Government upon
which the duties had been levied.
, Answer to Question No. 6.—In 1881 the Secretary of the Treasury
issued a circular asking for information of a similar character to that
contained inthis question, and I had the honor of'receiving a copy and .
sending an answer to the same. I have never seen any reason to change
the views expressed in that answer, which were in favor of the establishment of a board of arbitration for the settlement of customs cases,
similar to the board of arbitration which are established by all boards
of trade in the larger cities of the United States." Such a board would
dispose of all cases much more promptly and satisfactorily than they
could be settled in the courts of law.
/
Answer to Question No. 7.—There has been for several years an almost
constant comxilaint among the imxiorters at this jiort in regard to the
lower rates of duty uxion sugar at the port of New York. From cases
which have come to iny knowledge, in which a coinparison could be
508
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
made, I have been satisfied that there was some foundation for these
complaints. Statements iii regard to different cases have been presented
to the sxiecial agents of the Department at different times, and changes
have resulted from investigations pursued by them in New York. The
present regulation requiring the exchange of daily statements of the
classification of sugars between the ports New York, Philadelphia, and
Boston has in a great measure prevented the cause of comxilaint.
Answer to Question No. 8.—The failure to collect the full amonnt of
duty upon sugar at the port of New York has, in my opinion, been
attributable to carelessness in samxiling ofthe article more than to any
other cause. There is no evidence of any guilty knoAvledge among the
higher class of officials in regard to it.
Answer to Question No. 12.—The examiners at this port are primarily
and chiefly responsible in ^ the usual course of business for any false
retnrns to the collector. The salaries of examiners at this xiort range
from $1,200 to $1,800 per annum. The appraiser's departnient at this
port is established with two appraisers and two assistant axipraisers.
The business of the department is divided, one apxiraiser being at the
head of those having the examinatioii of dry-goods or textile fabrics,
while the other is at the head of all officers having the examination of
other kinds of nierchandise. The appraiser under whose direction my
duties are performed (Mr. T. G. Eice) has always been inuch more
than one who officially certifies to reports. He has always given constant attention to the duties of his office and the various questions
arising in regard to imxiorted merchandise, and never, to my knowledge, signs a report about which there could be a question without
carefully examihing into the merits of the case. The assistant axipraiser
under Mr. Eice (Mr. J. E. Jones) has never taken any responsibility,
and is an officer who is considered by his subordinates inefficient and
ignorant of the duties of his position.
Answer to Question No. 16.—I have no doubt that a change from ad
valorem to sxiecific rates would be a benefit to the revenue and help to
diminish a tendency to all difficulties between importers and the Gpv.ernment.
Answer to Question No. 21.—Several 'years J^O I was familiar with
the examination of baggage at this x^ort, and I am certaiii that during
the period of my acquaintance with the matter there was never a payment of money to any officer connected with such examination. If
snch practices x^i'evail at other ports, the remedy is to have carefullyselected men for the seriice, who wonld have more respect for their
office-than to lower themselves to the level of hotel waiters and porters.
They should be held strictly resx^onsible, and at the same time be supported by their supeiior officer in the xierformance of their duties.
Answer to Question No. 22.—I think the evidence tends to show that^
the I'ate of duty upon sugar has been carried by Congress above the
line where the Government can surely protect itseifi During the past
year the duty upon sugar has been nearly 100 x^er cent, ad valorem.
Such a rate- iiivariably4eads to corruxition, and will always render dishonest imxiorters powerful in evading the law.
I am, very respectfully,
GEOEGE KEYES,
Examiner.
Hon. ,DANIEL MANNING,
Seeretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
" .
.
N o . 57.
- •
509
•
•
. C. H. PINKHAM—Appointed Assistant Weigher November 11, 1869; Inspector
November 24, 1869.; Examiner October 14, 1875.
P O R T OF B O S T O N , M A S S . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 30, 1885.
S I R : In answer to your circular ofthe Oth instant, addressed to me
as strictly confidential, and desiring careful and official rexilies to certain questions therein propounded, I have the honor to report that,
after a careful examination of the different questions to which you call
my attention, I find that I shall be unable to intelligently answer many
of them, from the fact that my official connection with the customs service has been such that I have had no opxiortunity to become familiar
with many ofthe subjects under consideration.
As some of these questions refer to the action of officials at the port
of New York, and others refer to questions which can only properly be
answered by the collectors or principal appraisei-s at the different ports
of the United States, I shall therefore confine myself to answering and
giving opinions on those with which I may be familiar, and in doing so
will take them in their order as presented by you.
I have the honor to be, very resxiectfully, your obedient servant,
C. H. PINKHAM,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1. I have no knowledge that rates of duty have not been levied and
collected as the law and Department decisions xirescribe.
2. I have no knowledge or evidence that on articles paying purely
specific rates the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not
been collected.
3. In my opinion, by actual weighing, measuring, or count, as the
case may be.
4. I have no evidence, but, in my opinion, such collusion is possible.
5. I have no evidence.
6. I am not in a position to answer, but, in my opinion, the collectors
of the various ports can furnish the information required.
7. I am unable to answer.
8. I am unable to answer.
9. I have no evidence that the "principal appraiser" at this port has
ever reported to the collector any false dutiable values.
IQ. In my oxiinion, there has been recently confusion and doubt as to
the elements which form the dutiable value bf merchandise. This is
due, in part, to the very many interpretations of the law of March 3,
1883, in reference to outside and inside coverings of merehandise, the
question being whether cartons and other inside and outside coverings
should be included in the dutiable value of the merchandise.
In the examination of merchandise which comes under my supervision, viz., a ina;joiity of the articles coming under the provisions of
Schedule B of T. I., new, pars. 127, 143, there are many cases where
there is great doubt whether cartons and other packing charges are
an element of the dutiable value of merchandise contained therein.
This applies more esxiecially to decorated china and glass ware, &c., ftom
the pptterii^s and factories of Germany and Austria, and also' to many
510
RERORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
classes ofmerchandise which are packed in cartons and other packing. It
is often difficult to determine whether.or not such merchandise is offered
for sale in the foreign markets in the condition in which exxiorted, and
the best expert testimony will oftentimes be confiicting. This question
has led dishonest merchants and manufacturers to attemxit to reduce the
dutiable value of merchandise by making an exorbitant charge for cartons and packing, in some instances the charge being 20 to 30 per cent,
of the whole value of an invoice; and if such charges were allowed and
deducted, the Government would be defrauded in large amounts. It
iherefore becomes necessary for the appraising officer to scrutinize these
invoices with, more than ordinary care, that the Government shall not
be defrauded and shall receive its just dues.
In my opinion, it was the intention of the law-makers of the act of
1883 that only the naked goods should be dutiable but as the instructions of the Department are such that the condition in which merchandise is offered for sale in the foreign markets is the condition in which
it shall pay duty, it is often a vexed question to the axixiraising officer
to decide what the condition is in which many classes bf merchandise
are offered for sale in the foreign markets.
In my opinion, some action should be taken by the incoming Congress
explanatory of the act of March 3,1883, and to so simplify and interxiret
the law that any intelligent merchant or customs officer can act under.standingly as to what constitutes the dutiable value of merchandise.
In my opinion, the place and time and the standard to be applied,
other than as before stated, are clearly defined in the statutes for purposes of determining market values. 11. I am nnable to answer, bnt in my opinion they cannot.
12. In my opinion, the examiner or the assistant appraiser is primarily responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The salaries
of examiners vary at this port from $1,200 to $2,000 per year.
The appraiser ordinarily and in fact is the one who certifies to the
collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners. At
this port it is customary for the examiners-to consult with the appraiser
in regard to advances in market values. . .
13. I am unable to say.
14. If false values have been returned to the collector, and the tariff
law has not been faithfully executed, and the full amount of ^ u t y has
not been collected, the fault has certainly come of dishonesty, or xiossibly by an error of judgment on the part of the apxiraising officers; and
i n my opinion, the examiner or assistant appraiser would be primarily
responsible for such returns; and if money is paid to officials to get
false returns of dutiable values, it is more than likely x^aid b j the importer or his agent.
' 15. If false returns have come of bribery, I know of no reason why
similar influences will not beexerted in the future as in the past, and
that the same influences would be as liable to be successful in the future
as in the past. Personally, I have no knowledge of any such dishonest
practices.
16. In my opinion, a change ft'om ad valorem to specific rates would
be a benefit to the reyenue, and should be applied where practicable.
This would tend to diminish the liability to false invoices and undervaluations, and, while the Government would be better protected, specific rates would, in my opinion, be much more satisfactory to all honest
importers.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
511
17. I have no evidence or proof that there have been false reports by
the appraisers, before or since the repeal of the moiety law in 1874.
18. In large American consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., in my opinion, it would not° be x^i^actical to personally exam: •
ine.articles to be shipped to American ports, but at smaller ports, I ani
of the opinion, it wonld be practical, as the varieties of goods from
smaller ports are usually few in number. <
>
In the district of Tunstall, in Staffordshire, England, in my opinion,
the consul would be able to ascertain the dutiable value of merchandise,
especially of staple goods. In this district almost all of the x^otteries
for the manufacture of English china, and earthen ware are located,
large quantities of the x'>i'oduct of which are exported to the United
States. The usual consular fees in England are 10s. 6d., or $2.50.
19. I do not think that the executive or judicial power should have
greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values,
which is the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates.
20. As regards the duty on wool, I have no knowledge, and no means
at my command for ascertaining the history of the several rates of duty
since 1860, or the working of the same.
21. It is comnion rexiort that the practice does prevail of the xiayment
of money by arriving xiassengers at the port of New York for the xiurX30se of hastening the examination of baggage, or, xierhaps, for other
reasons. It must certainly be for some service rendered by the inspector if such moneys are xiaid, and, in my oxiinion, this cannot be
Xirevented by any enactment of law, but by the employment of officers
to perform that duty who are intelligent, of high moral character, and
who are above being xiarties to a xiractice which the law condemns and
forbids.
'
22. In the absence of any evidence, I am unable to answer, bnt, in
my opinion, the rate of duty on many articles is above a line which the
Government can surely protect; and, in my opinion, the rate of ^ u t j
on many articles should be reduced to a xioint that wilk xirotect- the
varied industries of this country, but should not, at the same time,
make the imxiortation of many kinds of nierchandise nearly xirohibitory
on account of the high rates of duty. It then becomes an incentive for
dishonest shippers and merchants to make undervaluations of merchandise, thereby defrauding the Government out of its just dues.
23. I think not, although it is xiossible that such may be the case at
Xiorts other than New York, but of course in a much less degree.
24. I know of no cases where correct returns have not been made of
dutiable values to the collector. If there, have been such cases, I am
unable to say why such xiersons have not been arrested, indicted, and
Xiunished.
No. 68.
WM. H. DIMOND—Appointed Examiner October 22, 1883, and AprU 22, 1884.
P O R T OF BOSTON, M A S S . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 30, 1885.
• D E A R S I R : In answer to your circular of September 9, 1885, I have
the pleasure and honor to rexily:
1. As far as I have observed, there is no evidence that the rates of
duty have not been levied and collected as prescribed, and, I believe,
with great care.
512
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
2. Do not know oi any.
3. Am not familiar with the system of the dry-goods department-ai
the appraiser's, but would suppose the examiner would carefully exaniine textile fabrics according to manner prescribed by Treasury Eegulations.
;
4. Know of none.! In niy department (wool) think it impossible for
any collusion between the entry clerk, deputy collector, and importer.
In cases of invoices of, say, English combing-fleeces, or Scotch carpetfleeces, sold in bulk, and packed in bags or sheets in England or
Scotland, say 5, OOQ, pounds to 50,000 xiounds, or more, they would
be in many packages, usually numbered from No. 1 up. Sometimes
one range of numbers would be ordered up for examination, such as
Nos. 1, 11, 21, 31,. &c., or Nos. 5, 15, 25, 35, &c., or Nos. 10, 20, 30, 40,
&c., or odd numbers in ranges, always one in ten of each range and
marks. It would be difficult to arrange them in England so that a low
quality of wool could be picked out of the whole lot to be sent for examination. It has been the custom at this portto examine merchandise in bonded warehouse, and in cases of large lots, say, 100 to 300
bales. I will go to bonded store, after the various marks are arranged
and piled by themselves, to make the examination. I can then see more
bales than one in ten, and draw my sample from a much larger number. In examining! such lots of English and Scotch, it has been niy
custom to take out ^hole fleeces, examine by opening the fleeces, take
off enough from each for my sample, return balance to bale. By so
doing I can better determine the classification and value of wools that
come near the line between second class, or combing-wool, such as Scotch
cheviot, and third ^class, or carpet (Scotch) wool, as Blackface Highland fieeces. Merino "wools from Australia, Monte Yideo, &c., are assorted and packed m the country of production according to fineness
of fibre, and sometimes bales will run lighter and brighter than others
• of same clip and mark, and all grown on same ranch from same sheep.
The same system in ordering examination bales of Australian, Monte
Yideo, East Indianj or carpet wools from Turkey, &c., in original pack. ages exists, and I have sometimes fonnd better wool among the examination bales than the general run of the whole lot.
5. I know of nonb. In an experience of some fifteen years as clerk of
an imxiorting hous^, have come in contact with many of the weighers
on the wharves. Have never noticed any false weighing, or'had occasion to question the weights as returned by Government weighers,
though our books always showed that merino wool will invariably overrun the invoice weights, and a collection for excess of weight was
always paid. On the contrary, all cross-bred wools from Australia and
New Zealand, and combing wools (2d class) from England, will always
faU'short. Importers, in estimating costs of such, usually allow from
1 to 3 per cent, for loss in weight. Buyers of merino (1st class) are not
williug to take Government weights, well knowing that after a few days
from landing the wool will not hold out in weight, and on arrival at
mill claims wbuld be made on imxiorter.
6. Am not familiar with the collectors! suits, &c. The Tariff Commission, intheir report of December, 1882, vol. 1, page 42, recommended
' a "customs court" for such cases, and it appears to me to be^ a good
thing. The testimony of Mr. Thos. G, Eice, appraiser in Boston, vol.
1, page 724, is confirmatory of same. There have been wool cases in
question between the Government and importers, in which the im-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
513
porters have been sustained, where the loss, by delay and detention, of
changes in the market, expenses, damage- by moths, was very large;
in oae case of 03rdoba wool, nearly $50,000, upon which there was no
redress.
7. Do not know.
8. Do not know.
.
.
9. There certainly has been none in the wool department here since
I have been an examiner. Am always pleased to receive ideas and reports of values, &c., of wool from special agents or consuls, in order
to compare their rexiorts with my judgment of the value and the classification.
^
10. I know of none, unless it be a doubt as to the market value of
wool at the time and place of shipment. If we could have regular
Xirices-current of wool in London and Liverpool, from regular and responsible brokers, and catalogues of the East India carpet-wool sales
in Liverpool, it would be of great assistance. I do now have catalogues
of the Australian London wool sales, sent by consul at London; also
a report from Consul Grinnell, at Bradford, England; a xirice-current
from Wedkind < Wilson, London, and one from H. Caune, Marseilles,
&
probably sent by consul there. Several brokers in London and Liverpool, as Messrs. J. L. Bowes &.Bro., Windeler & Co., Eonald, Son &
Co., (&c., publish prices-current, &c., and I would like to have them.
Their reports were formerly sent here, but the practice has been discontinued. The place and time and the standard to be applied are well
known,,and it remains for the examiner to keep posted upon the market
values at ports of shipment.
11. Think not. Samples of wool importations are kept into the
second year after drawn—that is, the samples for 1883 were delivered
. to such importers as cared to call for them at the end of the year 1884,
and the samples for 1884 will be so disposed of at end of 1885. Those
not called for are turned over to collector, to be sold at auction as unclaimed merchandise. The invoices can be found any time, but beyond
that time the samples could not be got.
12. Should think the examiner would be chiefly responsible in the
appraiser's department of such magnitude as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, &c., where it would be next to impossible for the apxiraiser
to view every invoice and examination package. The salaries.are not
evenly distributed among the examiners; they vary considerably. In
my exxierience Mr. Eice, the axipraiser at this port, has always given
his xiersonal attention to all cases where a question has arisen, and I
make it a rule tb always call his attention to any case that varies from
the regular routine, even if there is no change to note. 13. I do not know. I believe none in regard to wool invoices since
my connection with the department.
14. It is stated in Ex. Doc. 101 that there were large inportations
of Scotch carpet-wools which were said to be undervalued. A lengthy
report was made by special agents and consuls, all of which appears in
evidence. I learn that a lot of Cordoba South American (3d class)
carpet-wool to Boston, on which was a question of undervaluation, was
decided in favor of importer; but it has been a mystery how cerfeiin
Scotch wools could b,e imported under the low duty to Philadelphia.
15. Would suppose the publicity given to importations to Philadelphia spoken of in Ex. Doc. 101 would prevent any repetition of the
operation.
33 A
'514
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUR.Y.
16. Specific duties can be more surely collected when the nature of
the article is such as to make it practicable to imxiose such.* 17. I do not believe so. '
18. Think it ivould be difficult. Think it would be better for consuls to certify to invoices of merchandise sold in their own consular
distiicts. For instance, there have been invoices of wool, bought and
packed.in Scotland and shipped from Glasgow to Boston, which were
made and certified to at Bradford, England, the home of the branch
house of the Boston firm of importers, Fees on several invoices of
wool nbw before me, as follows: Marseilles, $2.50; Liverpool, $2.50 ;
Bradford, $2.50; London,, $2.50; Yalxiaraiso, Chili, $3.50. No mention of fee on invoices from Buenos Ayres or Smyrna.
19. In myjudgment, it would be not judicious to make any change,
as, if the apxiraisers or examiners were capable men and well posted in
their respective 'departments, it would only tend to delay and.compli^
cate matters.
.
.
20. Thb tariff law in force i n 1860 provided for a duty on "wool, unmanufactured, and all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals,"
• costing under 18 cents per pound, 5 per cent, ad valorem; over 18 cents
per pound and not over 24 cents per ponnd, 3 cents x^er pound; exceeding 24 cents-per pound, 9 cents xier^pound. Under this law, the im
portations of wool were princixially confined to carpet-wools from South
America, Eussia, Turkey, &c., which are always of a low value and
came in under the 5 per cent, ad valorem rate of duty, and fine wools
of a low cost from the Cape of Good Hope and Montevideo, and x^aid
3 cents and 9 cents per pound. This law was in force till the act of
March 2, 1887, in which the classification by race or blood was made
and the compound of specific 10 cents and 12 cents per pound and ad
valorem 10 per cent, and 11 per cent, duty on first and second classes
and a specific duty of 3 cents and 6 cents per xiound on third-class wool
was made. The importations of carpet-wools have not decreased, but
largely increased with the increase of carxiet-machinery. The importations" of better wools from Australia and New Zealand have enormously increased, while Cape wools have fallen off. The importations,
also, of combing English fleeces for worsted spinning have very largely
increased.
:
The new classification of merino (class 1) and English combing fleeces,
(class 2,) which was the result of an agreement between the wool-growers
and worsted combing manufacturers, by which (class 1) merino clothingwool must be imported unwashed to enable it to be brought in at 10
cents per pound, when combing (class 2) and carpet (class 3) could be
brought in washed at the low rate of duty, makes it imperative for the
buyer in London or Melbourne to be very careful about selection of
the choicest and lightest unwashed wool, in order to come under the
10-cent or 12-cent clause, they having no chance to buy good washed
colonial wools, on account of double duty.
A l a r g e amount of money has been made by importers under the ,
tariff, but manufacturers cannot compete with the European manufacturers, who can have the choice of light, washed, first-class wool,
which is practically prohibited here.
There has been no change in tariff legislation since then, except the
repeal of the discriruinating duty of 10 per cent, additional on wools
grown east of the Cape of Good Hope, until the act of March 3, 1883,
when the ad valorem duty was stricken out on first and second clas/f,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
515
wools, and a reduction of one-half cent and one cent per pound on thirdclass wool was made. The dividing line between the value of first and
second class, pajing 10 cents per pound /and 12 cents per xiound, was
reduced to 30 cents from 32 cents per pound, cost.
There is but little first-class washed wool imxiorted during the year
1884, but 3Y-OVO' P^i' eent. of the whole importations of class 1 wool was
washed, while all the second-class wool was washed.
I have made a table of the importations of wool for 1884, which is
annexed. I forwarded to Mr. Tingle, special agent, with several reports; speeches and data furnished by Mr. Eowland Hazard, Providence, E. I., and pri ees-current, annual rexiorts, &c., by Mr; George
WiUiam Bond, of this city, which will be very yaluable to him.
Recapitulation of Importations of Wool for 1884. •
Pounds,
Bales. (uitwashed.)
Classification.
30,078
Class 1—Merino wool
Of which, were washed
Class 2, (washed)
Value.
11,431,15]
35,525
33,379
12,558
15,944,287
4,275,736
2,325,853
593,155
74,320
32,779,733
5,829,199
"•....
3,078,442
:
Class 3....
Of which were washed
Miscellaneous, camel's hair, raw, noils and tops, waste, and
cattle-hair
;
Total importations
$2,729,461
14,934
721,282 '
1,785,301
608,587
•21. It would seem possible to prevent such by having as inspectors
of baggage, &c., only such men as are reliable, honest, and above suspicion, and to enforce a penalty against the x^assenger giving and the
officer accejpting a bribe.
22. Do not think so.
• 23. Think not, in Boston, for, as stated in answer to No. 1, think
great care has been exercised at this port.
24. Should judge, if so, the iniporter would not make complaint, but
if men of strict integrity and ability were in official positions and only
did their whole duty, there would be but little to complain ofi
My replies to your several questions have of necessity been more
closely confined t o > i y single department, and for the time I have
been examiner, namely, two years next month. In conclusion, I will
say that I think the business in Boston has been honestly done. '
Yery respectfully, yours,
,
WM. H. DIMOND,
Examiner of Wool.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury. '
'
516
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
N o . 54.
•
r
J. T- LEARY—Appohited Clerk and Sampler October 15, 1879; Examiner JMay 7,
J880.
'
.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
-.
Appraiser's Office, September SO, 1886.
SIR : Eespectfully acknowledging the receipt of your circular, marked
strictly confidential, containing certain queries to which full and complete rexilies are requested, I have the honor to state that as I have
charge pf the sugar laboratory, and as my time is fully occupied with
the dufyy of testing sugars by the polariscope, I have had no opxiortunity of acquiring such a knowledge of the subjects covered by your
inquiries as would enable me to make a satisfactory reply. I will endeavor to rexily as far as my limited knowledge will xiermit.
Question 1.—I have no evidence that the rates of duty xirescribed by
law have not been levied and collected.
Question 2.—I know of no articles paying xmrely specific rates of duty
upon which the full amount of duty has not been collected.
Question 3.—Textile fabrics are either weighed or measured, as the
case may be.
Question 4.—I personally know of none, nor have I ever heard rumors
of such during the period of my emxiloyment.
Question 6.—I have only heard of one instance of incorrect weighing,
on the wharves, and the weigher was dismissed in consequence.
Question 6.—In regard to differences between imxiorters and collectors out of which have growii snits I have not sufficient knowledge
to venture an oxiinion as to whether the law needs amendment or not.'
J cannot tell how^ many such snits are xiending in either of the xiorts
named; I cannot tell as to the duration of these suits. A proposition
wa;s made some two years ago to establish a separate tribunal, to have
jurisdiction in customs cases only, which would thns relieve the docket
of the circuit court, and hasten the settlement of cases aiising from differences between importers and collectors.
Question 7.—I cannot specify the'class .of articles upon which the full
amount of duty was not collected in New York.
Question 8.—I do not know.
Question 9.—I do not think the appraisers at this port have reported
false values to the collector. I am not aware that the appraisers' returns of dutiable values have ever been questioned, or reported against,
by the special agents of the Treasury.
Question 10.—I am not aware that there is, or has been, any conflict
of opinion in this office between the appraisers and their subordinates
as to the elements to be ascertained in order to determine the dutiable
value. The.opinion has been held that the intent of Congress in the
tariff of 1883 was to make the dutiable value of imported inerchandise
the value of such merchandise exclusive of all charges for packing,
packages, cartons, sacks, or coverings of any description whatever.
Question 11.—No.
Question 12.—The examiner is primarily responsible for a false return
of value. His salary is ft'om $1,200 to $1,800 per annnm at this port.
In most cases the appraiser can have but little knowledge, but at this
port he is ft'equently consulted, and the reports of examiners are carefully scrutinized by him before receiving his indorsement.
REPORT OF T H E
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
517
Question 13.-r-I do not know that any Government officials haye assisted in the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of foreign
values.
Question 14:.—I cannot answer.
Question 15.—It is presumable that they would.
Question 16.—The substitution of purely specific for ad valorem
rates of dnty would, in my opinion, be a benefit, and secnre to the
honest importer xirotection, and to the Government a more exact collection of the revenue. With such rates of duty, the honest imxiorter
would be enabled to know exactly the amount of duty to'be xiaid, and
could dispose of his merchandise without the vexatious delay which
the settlement of the dutiable value now entails, while the dishonest
would no longer have the opxiortunity to defraud the Government ont
of its just dues by the xiresentation of false invoices and undervaluations.
.
Question 17.—As the '' moiety law " was repealed before my entrance into the service, I haye no means of comparison.
Question 18.—1 think it would be next to impossible for consuls to
make such examinations as referred to, though I think it might be done
in some instances. I do not know in which of the consular districts this
is possible, but believe there are many districts in which the number
of articles of export are few in number, and in such cases it would be
possible to determine xiositively the correctness of invoice values. The
fees for certifying to invoices are in London $2.50 for each invoice.
Question lO.^Iii my oxiinion, it would not be desirable to change.
Question 20.—I have no nieans at my command of xirexiaiing such a
report on the. wool question as you request.
Question 21.—In regard to the practice referred to by passengers arriving from abroad, I have no personal knowledge, as l h a v e never had
any experience on the wharf, but I xiresume it does occur.
Question 22.—The only article of imxiorted merchandise with which I
have to do is sugar, which yields a large xiortion of the revenue. Being an article which is highly taxed, the temptation to evade the law
and secure lower rates of duty is very great. ' The act of March 3,1883,
fixes the method by which the rates of duty shall be determined, and if
the sugar is honestly samxiled and tested there can be no opportunity
for successful attempts at fraud. If the officers of the Governnient are
honest and do their duty fairly, the Government must, and in my opinion does, receive the full amount of^duty to which the merchandise is
• liable.
Question 23.—I am unable to answer this question.
Question 24.—As stated, I am not aware that false returns have been
made to the collector, the axixiraiser at this x^ort being an able and
conscientious officer, who is thoroughly informed as to values, with long
experience and good judgment to aid him.
Yery resxiectfully, your obedient servant,
J. T. LEAEY,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
•
518
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
^
No. 60.
C. G. FITCH—Appointed Clerk Jnne 3, 1872 ; Examiner Mafch 19, 1880.
P O R T OF BOSTON, M A S S . ,
'
Appraiser's Office, Octoberl, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your circular letter propounding twenty-four ques
tions, I respectftiUy beg leave to reply to them in their respective order,
as follows:.
^ ^
1. I know of no evidence to the contrary.
2. There is no satisfactory evidence.
3. In the examination of the merchandise which comes within my
province, viz., machinery, fruits, and liquors, I am not brought in contact with the examiners of textile fabiics, and am unable to state what
tests are appUed by them.to verify the measurements.
4. There is no evidence at this port of any such collusion; but it could
be easily accompUshed if the cnstoms officials and the importers were so
disposed.
'
5. Know of no evidence or case in proofi
6. Have no knowledge, as the'several inquiries come more especiaUy
within the jurisdiction of the collector of the port than of the appraiser's
department.
7. .Know of none within my personal knowledge.
8. Know of none within my personal knowledge.
9. Know of none within my personal knowledge.
10. Doubt has sometimes existed as to the proper interpretation of the
Treasury decisions, especially in regard to the coverings of merchandise. Second. It is.
^
11. I know of no cases of nndervaluation by the appraisers.
-12. The examiner. Second." Yes. His detailed supervision is con
stant, and cases referred for his decision daily, and might say hourly.
13. None that I know ofi . •
14. I know of no such false returns nor guilty connivance with
Treasury or custoins officials at this x^ort.
'
15. No attempt to bribe or induce with consent to fa;lse returns or
undervaluations is within my knowledge.
16. In my opinion, it would, as a whole, prove an equal benefit to
the Government and the importer. It would effect an easier collection
of revenue, and largely reduce the number of cases now referred to the
Treasury Department and Federal courts for decision.
17. Know of no false reports at this port.
' •
18. In the large European ports, where there is such an endless vari
ety of merchandise shipped from thence to this country, it would be
almost impossible for the consuls to personally examine the articles
shipped and verify the invoice values; but in the smaller ports, where
the value ofthe articles exported is coniparatively few, they could easily
find the true niarket value, and so make the consular certificate of some
value aud assistance to the customs officials, which is not now the case.
Fees, 10s. 6d, or $2.50.
19. With honest officials and- the existing law fully complied with,
I think the interests both of the Government and the importers are fully
sprot(^.cted.
20. I can give no answer that would be of value to you.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TRJEASURY.
519
21 and 22. The examination of baggage and the knowledge of duties
collected does not fall within my official duty or observation, and only
know from rumor tkat such xiractice largely exists at the xiort of New
York. As both xiarties, the briber and bribed, are amenable to the
law, it behooves each to shield the other. As a x^i'ev entati ve, officers
should be axixiointed who are above corruption, and who would rexiort
to the xiroper authorities any xierson, offering a bribe; upon whose head
punishment should follow swift and sure. A few examxiles would soon
break up this demoralizing practice.
28. i know of no failure to enforce the revenue law at this port.
.Have no personal knowledge of what has occurred at other ports.
24. I know of no false returns of dutiable values made to the collector of this port.
~
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHAELES G. FITCH,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 61.
C. W. C. RHODES—Appointed Inspector July 11, 1867; Storekeeper January 6, 1869;
Examiner June 24, 1880.
P O R T OF BOSTON, M A S S . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your circular of the Oth ultimo, desiring replies to
certain inquiries therein, I have the honor to state that after careful
examination of the different questions xiroponnded, I find I shall be unable to answer many of the questions satisfactorily, from the fact that
my official position in the customs service has not brought me in contact with the subject-matter contained therein. I therefore- beg leave
to confine myself to such questions as I may be familiar with, and in so
doing will take them in their order as presented in the circiUar.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. W. C. EHOADES,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
'
Secretary of the Treasury.
1. So far as my knowledge extends, I believe the rates of duty have
been levied and collected as xirescribed by law and Department decisions. '
2. I have no imformation which would lead me to^suppose that on
artiples paying purely specific rates the full amount of duty prescribed
by Congress has not been collected.
3. By measurement, weighing, or count, as the rate of duty may
require.
.
4. I have no such evidence; and while admitting snch coUusibn might
be possible, in my opinion there is no such xiractice at this xiort.
5. I have no such evidence.
9. I know of no evidence that the xirincipal appraiser at this port
has ever reported to the collector any false dutiable values.
520
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
10. There, has been conflict of opinion in laxipraiser's depaitment
which, I think, arises principally from the ambiguity of the tariff law.
12. In my opinion, the examiner or principal axipraiser is xirimarily
responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The salaiies of
examiners at this xiort range from $1,200 to $2,000 per annum. At this
port the appraiser certifies to the collector the yalues fixed and rex3prted
to him by the examiners. It is also the practice for the examiners to
consult with the appraiser in regard to advancj3S in market value.
13. I have no such information.
!
^ .
14. If false values have been returned to the; collectors, and the tariff
law has not been faithfully executed, and the full amount of duty collected, it might come of dishonesty, or possibly by error of judgment,
or absence of the necessary information unobtainable at time of examination, which, I think, would be an exceptional case, and, in my opinion,
the exaininer would be responsible for such rjeturns; and if money is
paid to officials, I should judge the importer orj his agent would be more
than likely the one to furnish the money and xiay it.
15. Personally I have no knowledge of any such bribery; but, if such
has been the case, I know of no reason why it cannot be repeated as
successfully in the future as in the past, providing the same corrupt
official retains his power.
|
16. I am of the opinion a change from ad yalorem to specific rates
would be a behefit to the revenue and the importer where it can be
practically applied, protecting the Governmeht from false invoices and
the honest importer from dishonest ones. Injmy opinion, it could not
justly be applied to all textile fabrics.
I
17. I have no knowledge that the appraiser, either before or after
the repeal of the moiety law in 1874, ever maide any false reports.
18. In large American consular districts, siich as Londbn, Paris, Berlin, &c., I am of the opinion that it would iilit be xiractical to personally examine articles to be shipped to American xiorts; but in smaller
ports, where the articles exported are few in Variety, I am of the opinion that it would. I am also of the opinion jthat our eonsuls in most
ports could furnish much more information than they do,' which would
be invaluable to the appraisers in determinifig'correct dutiable value.
19. I do not think that the executive or judical xiower should have
greater jurisdiction in the ascertainment of dutiable values, which is
to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates.
21. I am of opinion that the practice does not prevail at this port to
any extent, if at all, having had considerable experience both as an
inspector and appraising officer at the arrival of foreign passengersteamers. It is currently reported that the practice does exist at the
port of New York for the purpose of hastening the examinatian of baggage, and I know of no way of preventing i t other than the emplc^fment of such officers for that duty whose moral character will prevent
them fi'bm aiding and abetting in a transaction which Government
relies upon them to xirevent and the law condemns and forbids.
22. In the absence of any evidence, I am unable to answer; but, in
my opinion, the rate of duty on many articles should be reduced, not
so low as to injure the varied industries of the country, and at the same
time not so high.as to make importation of some merchandise nearly
Xirohibitory. Onaccountof excessive ratesof duty, it would Kave a
tendency to induce dishonest importers and shippers to undervalue
their merchandise or otherwise evade the law.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^ 521
23. In my oxiinion, it is not, although possibly such may be che case
at other xiorts in a less degree.
24. I have no evidence of such false returns. I am unable to say
why such persons, if any there be, have hot been arrested, indicted,
and punished.
No. 62.
WALTER S. GLOVER—Appointed Assistant Sampler May 26, 1879 ; Examiner June
11, 1883.
P O R T OF B O S T O N , M A S S . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular
of Angust 27, 1885, in which you propound certain queries, with a request for full and complete replies.
In compliance with your request, I beg leave to state that I am employed as an assistant in the sugar laboratory, and as the only merchandise of which I have any knowledge is sugar, with which my time is
fully occupied, I am unable to reply to the questions in a manner that
would satisfy yonr inquiry.
As an employ6 in the sugar laboratory, I have no opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the application of customs laws to imported
merchandise, nor means of ascertaining whether the existing laws are
fully complied with, and the proper amounts of duty collected. Will
endeavor to answer questions the best I know.
Question 1.—My knowledge as to this question is that all duties have
been collected as the law directs.
"
Question 2.—Can give no reason why duties have not been collected
to the full amount where they pay a sxiecific rate.
Question 3.—The manner in which invoice measurements are verified
on textile fabrics is by actual weight or measure.
Question 4.—Have no nieans of knowirig if such collusion exists.
Question 5.—As to weighing and measuring on wharf, believe that
it is conducted in a business-like inanner. Know of but one case where
there has been trouble, and in that case the officer was discharged.
Question 6.—I can see no way of giving information in regard to
above question.
Question 7.—I cannot specify articles on which duties have not been
correctly levied. I do not think I could point them out correctly, if
there are any such.
• Question 8.—I cannot answer.
,
Question 9.—I have no evidence of such having occurred.
Questions 10 and 11.—My position is such that I have no knowledge
to aid in giving a correct answer.
Question 12.—The examiner is, in my opinion, resxionsible in the
usual course of business, in fixing the dutiable value. Their salaries
are from $1,200 to $2,000 yearly. The appraiser is one who, after the
examiner has verified the merchandise and values, certifies to the same
after carefnl consideration.
Questions 13, 14, and 15. —I am unable to answer.
Question 16.—As to a change from ad valorem, to specific rates, my
opinion is that on all articles to which said rates could be applied would
result in an increase of the revenue.
522
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20.—I have had no! opportunity of gaining'
knowledge as to the above questions. « ^ . j
"
.
Question 21.—Lhave never heard of any bribery of officers on the
wharf by passengers arriving at this xiort", but ithink there may be. If
there are any dutiable goods, they are sent to ,the proper xilace for examination by the officer in charge, and no fee is to be paid, his compensation from the Goverament being sufficient.
Questions 22, 23, and 24.—I cannot answer. I
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
WALTEE S.^GLOYEE,
^ 1
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
j
Secretary of the Treasury.
|
No. 63.
.
,
I
r
THOMAS H. DUNHAM, JE.—Appohited Exanhner November 1, 1883.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
-
Appraiser'^. Office, October 3, 1885.
D E A R S I R : In answer to your instructions ojf the Oth ultimo, that, for
a specific purpose, you may have '' careful and official replies'' to certain
enclosed inquiries, I take pleasure to comply las there detailed:
1. The evidence that the duties have not bben fully collected arises
from the application of ad valorem duties on] certain classes of goods,
when specific duties would have produced an bxact and uniform amount
on the saine goods of equal measure and weight.
2. Decisions of the Department, rendered under a possible misapprehension of the facts, have caused purely spebific rates, as prescribed
by law, to be changed to an adverse ad valorem rate. /
3. Your respondent has never had the exaniination of textile fabrics,
and therefore cannot say.
I
4. No knowledge of any is held by your rejspondent of collusion between the imxiorters or other xiersons and customs officials with the
intent mentioned.
"
I
5. Your respondent knows of none.
I
' 6. Statistics have not been in possession to jenable me to answer these
queries; but it seems practicable, with our present knowledge, gained
by such long experience, that more speedy and satisfactory decisions
and decrees could be obtained by some different method or tribunal
where facilities might be made for the ascertainment of the intent of
Congress than is now accomxilished through ihe existing slow, because
of its overburdened, judicial system. It is thought the Attorney-General, the Solicitor, the district attorney, and the collectors could bring
the cases to a much more sxieedy end, and the Government, receive its
dues more xiromxitly.
|
7. I have no knowledge through which to answer these questions.
8. In its.application to this port, I should $ay that the failure to collect the entire amount of duty is because of the action taken "by the
Department, such as one Assistant Secretarj^ deciding on an appeal in
favor of, and another Secretary adversely to, the Government on the
same kind of merchandise. Both cannot be right, and the first decision is as often right as is the second. In fact, the methods of appeal
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
523
from the collector and appraiser, such as the importers appearing personally and by attorney before the Department and there pleading their
cases, is xirolific of injustice and loss to the Government.
- 9. No case of the kind has come to my knowledge.
10. To the question contained in the first part of this article, I reply
in the negative; to the latter xiart, in the affirmative.
, .
11. No undervaluations are now known to exist to your respondent,
and those that have existed were brought before the proper tiibunal
withont his xiersonal or official connection therewith.
12. Under the xiresent system the examiner is responsible. The
salary of your respondent is $1,400 per annum. As the examiners have
separate classes of goods to scrutinize and report uxion, the aggregate
number of questions of doubt that arise with them at large ports of
entry is necessarily great; and as these questions go to the appraiser for
him to deliberate upon and solve, so he must be an encyclopsedia of
rates of duty, classifications, and values, and decide them rapidly, or
he will not have time to certify to the current reports, much less inspect
them. The assistant appraiser should have the duty, in addition to
any other he may now have, of inspecting, and, if need be, cause the
revision of any and all reports made bythe examiners, and thus become,
what he now is not, responsible with the appraiser and examiner for
errors of his own committing that may be found in reports to the collector.
13. None, to my knowledge.
14. I have never known of such.
15. If any now exist, I should say that changes from ad valorem to
specific dnty wonld aid materially in its future prevention.
16. Yes, emphatically, except in the case of textile fabiics. This
class of goods not being handled by your respondent, he isnot qualified
to judge. The ascertaiument and finding of dutiable values may be
said to be more fruitful of dissatisfaction than that of all other causes ^
combined, and bears a like relation to the customs that the old incometax did to the internal revenue.
" To transfer any considerable quantity of goods to specific duty, without doubt would necessitate' an increase of the force of weighers and
gaugers; but it is equally safe to predict that the existing amount of
duty, nevertheless, would be maintained.
17. It is believed that any false reports by appraisers in consequence
ofthe repeal of the ^ moiety a c t " of 1874 have been offset by reduced,
^
rates and additions to the ^ free-list" by legislation since that date.
^
18. It is impracticable. While an American consul should be something different from an ^^ornamental representative" of this Eepublic,
it would seem that the qualifications of a detective is not necessary;
that he should be in harmony with all other customs officials, especially
in time of peace; and with his own Department he shonld be exact,
prompt, and watchful. In fact, a full compliance with the requirements of the existing rules and regulations, as far as lies in his i)ower,
certainly would be satisfactory^
»
.
19. Only in so far as to aid, if possible, the appraisers in the finding
of a true value.
20. A different examiner from myself has the supervision of airthe
wool that is entered at this port. I respectfully would refer this question to him. His name is W. H. Dimond.
524
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THJE TREASURY.
•
'
•
21. No charges have been made against any official at this port tb
the knowledge of your respondent. He, therefore, presumes that the
present system is efficient and the employ& satisfactorily honest.
22. In reply, I would say that the amount of smuggling, if any, is so
trivial that it is buried out of sight in the question of valuation, and
therefore need not be feared.
;
23. Not knowing the reasons for the failure at New York, I cannot
say, but believe that the Department is fully able, and at jiresent does
enforce the revenue law at this port.
\
24. No snch returns or reports are known to the writer as having
been made.
I
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
THOS. H. p U E H A M , J R . ,
i
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
:
Secretary of the Treasury.
\
No. 64.
;
J. W. TRAFTON—Appointed Clerk July 31, 1875 ; Examiner September 2, 1876.
P O R T OFI BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885.
.SIR : I have the honor, in reply to circular jfrom the Treasury Department marked ''strictly confidential," of date September 9, 1885,
to make the following statement:
!
1. Article 336 of the Treasury Eegulations prescribes t h a t ' ' the clerks
of the collector and naval officer charged with, the'examination of entries will compare'the classification made b y t h e importers with the
description of the goods given in the invoice, iand see that the several
articles are entered at the rates provided by law.'-' This duty, if xierformed at all at this x^ort, must be done, generally, in a very hurried
manner, and my own oxiinion is that the entry clerk passes the entry
as marked by the importer, without any examination whatever; consequently, if the invoice offered for entry is one!covering the same kind
of goods, but xiaying different rates of duty, depending uxion the cost
per square yard, and requiring some, little work to mark the invoice
correctly, the importer is allowed to. make entry at one rate of duty.
This is always corrected at this office by each jexaminer in making his
report upon the invoice, and I have no knowledge of any loss to the
. Government in consequence, but so long as the regulations require the,
invoice to be classified as correctly as possible lyithout seeing the goods,
the provisions of the article should be enforced.
2. I have no knowledge of any kind of merchandise being X3assed at
other than the rate of duty xirescribed by lawJ
3. The invoiced measurements of all textile fabrics are generally
accepted as being correct, except in such ins'tances where a doubt as
to the honesty of the importer or the correctness of the invoice may
arise, and then the goods are measured. ; |
4. I have no evidence of any collusion betvfeen any person making
an entry of merchandise and the dexiuty collebtor or entry clerk; but
as there is nothing to prevent such collusion,! think the law should be.
^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
525
amended so that the naval officer should designate a c.ertain number
of packages for examination in addition to those ordered up by the
collector.
5. I have no means of knowing the manner in which the duty of
weighing or measuring goods on the wharf is performed.^
i
6. In my opinion, the law as it now stands is sufficient to secure justice both to the importer and the United States Treasury .Department.
In regard to the number of suits on file, have no information whatever.
7 and 8. Silks and German dress-goods. It is a fact that our Boston
importers can buy these goods in New York cheaper than they can
land them. This probably arises not from dishonesty of officials, but
from the difficulty of getting the correct foreign values of these goods. •
9. Have no reason to believe that the appraisers at this port have
ever reported false dutiable values.
10. Since the act of March 3, 1883, went into for" 3 there has been a
great deal of doubt and conflict of oxiinion in regard to the dutiable
value of various articles of nierchandise, par. 7 of section 2513 being generally construed by all importers as intending to relieve thetn
from the payment of duties on all cartons and coverings of all kinds, no
matter whether necessary for the proper marketable condition of the
merchandise or for its protection while in transit; conseqnentlj^, an act
which was intended for the partial relief of an importer has been taken
advantage of by them in various attemxits to defraud the Government
out of its just dues in the amount of duties on imported merchandise. In
fact, the tendency now is by most all shixipers of goods to reduce the
dutiable valne of the merchandise and make it up by the most exorbitant charges for cartons, rolling and papering, strings, labels,
cases, &c., which they claim are not dutiable, and which amount in some
cases to over 20 xier cent, of the whole invoice. In view of this fact,
in my opinion, this section of the tariff should be amended so as simply to make the outside covering in which the goods are packed for
shipment free of duty.
'
11. I do not think it possible to make any safe estimate of undervaluations.
12. The examiner, although official courtesy would oblige the examiner to consult with the axipraiser in cases where a large amount was
involved, or where any doubt should arise as to vaiues or rates of duties.
The salaries of examiners at this port are- from $1,200 to |2,000, one
only receiving the latter amount. The appraiser's duty must necessarily be confined ihostly to official correspondence and certifying to
the reports made npon the invoices by the examiners, at the same time
the efficiency of the force depends a great deal upon its head. .
13. I have no evidence of any official in the consular department
giving false foreign values to any appraiser.
14. I think not, unless there is xiroof of dishonesty. I know of no
money being paid to officials for the purpose of getting false reports of
dutiable values.
15. If false valuations have been brought about by bribery in the
past, I know of no reason why the same should not continue.
16. In my opinion, a specific rate of duty on all kinds of goods is the
only remedy for the undervaluation of merchandise, and from tests made'
on textile fabrics am satisfied that it can be applied to them with good
results.
526
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY QF THE TREASURY.' ~
17. I have no knowledge of any false reports -having been made at
any time by any apxiraiser.
18. I do not think it would be practicable for consular agents to personally inspect goods and certify to the correctness of invoiced values;
but I do think that they should critically examine invoices presented
for certification, and see that the three copies are identically the same,
and that the footing of each sheet of an invoice is comprised in the total
amount to which they certify. It is now the x)ractice of many makers
of invoices to make a separate sheet containing all charges for cartons
and other expenses, many of which enter into the dutiable value ofthe
merchandise. In some cases this sheet is attached to all three coxiies of the
invoice, but the amount is never included in that certified to by the consul.
In other cases this bill of charges is simply attached to one copy of the
invoice, which goes to the imxiorter. Then, again, it does not accompany either copy of the invoice, but is sent direct to the iniporter.
Ten shillings and six pence (10s. 6d.) is the fee charged by all consuls
in England for certifying to an invoice.
19. I do not see any necessity for any change in the law in relation to
reappraisements of merchandise.
20. This is a matter with which I am unfamiliar, and can give no information. ^
•
21. I have no evidence of money being paid by passengers to inspectors for the purpose of expediting the examinatioii of baggage. If
such practice xirevails, it can only be xirevented by a strict enforcement
of thelaw and punishment of both parties engaged in the transaction.
22'. I think not. So long as there is a tariff and dishonest men, so
long will there be undervaluation and attemxits to evade the xiayment
of duties.
23. I presume that the same reasons for the failure of the Treasury
Department to enforce the -revenue law in New York would apply to
all ports.
24. I am not cognizant of any false returns or reports of dutiable
values.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JNO. W. TEAiFTON,
Examiner^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
-
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 66.
B. R. WALES—Appointed Clerk January 5, 1873; Examiner December 1, 1884.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : In reply to circular dated September 9,1885, I have the honor
to subniit the following.:
1. As far as my knowledge reaches, the evidence is strong that the
law.has been followed.
|
2. The weight of evidence is in favor of obedience to the laws.
3. In many cases it is impracticable to test the quantities of textile
fabrics, and if the importers are well-knowh merchants it is seldom
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
527
.necessary. If, however, there is the slightest suspicion of imxiroper
dealing, it is our custom to verify by actual measurement. The lack
of facilities for rebaling goods prevents us from verifying invoices as
often as we should if we had them.
4. The absence of evidence forces me tb believe that nothing of the
kind' has ever occurred. There is a rexiort that such collusion took
place several years ago, and the case is now in the hands of the distiict
attorney.
5. I know of no evidence, and, from my knowledge of the men employed, should hesitate to give credence to any reports to that effect.
6. To this question I cannot reply, as the matter belongs rather to
law'department.
7. Iniporters here in Boston say that articles such as silks, laces, and
dress-goods, especially those manufactured in France andother countries
of Continental Enrope, can be bought in New York, duty paid, at^ a
less price than they can import direct from the manufacturers, and instances can be quoted in xiroof of such assertions.
. • '
8. The cause of the failure to coUect the full amount of duty is difficult to comprehend. The niost charitable view is that it is owing to
the. lack of that technical knowledge of the cost of manufacture, and
hence the niarket value, which is best obtained from, an actual exxierience in the mill where these goods are manufactured.
9. Speaking of the x)ort of Boston, I do not believe that false values
have been reported by the appraiser.
10. The act of March 3, 1883, section 7, rexiealing charges for boxes,
&c., has occasioned much disturbance, as iniporters deduct the value of
cartons even when the goods are sold with the carton. The value of
cases also, in many instances, seenis to be exorbitant.
11. I do not think that there has been any undervaluation at this
port—that is to say, any systematic undervaluation. There may be"
occasional and accidental cases, but no percentage could be made.
12. In every case the examiner is the resxionsible party, and the one
who is called upon to fix the values of merchandise. If he is. not satisfied, he may,refer the matter to the apxiraiser. The salary of examiners
varies from $1,200 to $2,000, one receiving the last amount. The appraiser may be acquainted with the work of the examiners, or he may
be nierely the clerk to approve the recommendations of the examiners.
13. There is no evidence that the consuls have knowingly assented to
false values. They might, however', take more pains and assure themselves that all the charges were included. In many instances these
charges are placed upon a sexiarate sheet and never reach the examiner,
but are kept by the merchant.
14. I have not the necessary information.
~
,
15. To this I must necessarily make the same reply.
16. My own opinion is that specific rates could be ax)plied to all textile
fabrics, and certainly the duty could be more easily coUected. Of
necessity, this diminishes the tendency to bribery, if such exists, as it
removes the advantages.
17. I very much doubt if false values, whether made by the importer,
apxiraiser, or anyone else, have been increased by the repeal of the
^^moiety law." I have always noticed that a law offering rewards for
the detection of crime apparently increases the nuniber of criminals.
- I have always believed that the reward was more sought after than the
detection of crime.
528^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
18. It would be utterly impracticable for the American consuls in the
large districts, either by themselves or by deputy, to ascertain the true,
values.. Such a proceeding ivould necessarily cause delay, and complaints would be quickly made to the Government by those inconvenienced. On many invoices the amount of $2.50 is acknowledged as
having been received by the consul, and I believe that to be the amount
customarily received.
19. This method seems autocratic, but ^ n j other would divide resxionsibility; hence I see no advantage ih snch a division. If the appraiser
is a bnsiness man, thoroughly acquainted with his duties and capable of '
fulfilling them, the sense of personal responsibility .would make hini
very careful, much more so than if he thought there was a higher
reviewing xiower.
>
20. This calls for a high practical knowledge, and hence I cannot
answer itif
21. I do not believe that snch is the case here. Among all my
acquaintances who have arrived at this XDort, I have never heard such
a thing even hinted at, and I am positive, if such had been the custom,
that knowledge of the fact would have reached me.
22. It i s a well-known principle of law that the greater the inducement the more liability that the law will be broken; hence, the higher
the duty the greater the inducements to defraud. Some of the high
duties are almost prohibitory, and offer a xiremium for dishonesty.
23. Boston iniporters are usually merchants who buy outright. The
consignment of goods offers the greatest inducements to fraud, and are
the most difficnlt to detect. The comxietition of buyers is a great safeguard .against nndervaluation, as it encourages a close watch upon the
sales of competitors.
24. I t is wellnigh imxiossible to collect evidence of fraud. When
parties who have been in collusion quarrel, a chance exists that such
evidence may perhaps be given. Coming from one who is particeps
criminis, such evidence cannot be received implicitly, and must be substantiated by other testimony. It is of no benefit to cause the arrest
unless the conviction is reasonably sure to follow, for that would arouse
the sympathies of the public in favor of such a suspected person.
I have the honor to remain your obedient servant,
B. E. WALES,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.
No. 66.
JAMES BIRD—Appointed Inspector April 5, 1871; Clerk AprU 29, 1871; Examiner
AprU 23, 1872.
P O R T OF BOSTON, M A S S . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the circular from your office, dated the 9th ultimo,
in which yon request that careful and official replies be made to certain inquiries therein set forth, I have the honor to submit the follow-,
ing answers:
1. As far as my knowledge extends, the rates of duty have been
levied and collected as the law prescribes.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
529
2. As far as my knowledge extends, the duties on articles paying
specific rates of duty have been fully collected.
3. I have no knowledge on this subject, textile fabrics not being
passed in my department.
- 4. I have no knowledge on this subject.
5. I have no knowledge on this subject.
6. I have not sufficient knowledge on this subject to enter into the
matter understandingly.
.
^ 7. I have no definite knowledge on this subject.
8. I have no definite knowledge on this subject.
9. I can only say that, as far as my knowledge extends, the full and
proper amounts of duties have been collected on merchandise imported
into this port.
^
10.^ Although in some instances there has been a doubt as to what ''
elements enter into the dutiable value of imported merchandise, the
recent interpretations of the law by the Department, as set forth by
Department decisions, have, I think, determined most of the questions
in dispute.
11. Having no definite information or knowledge of the subject, I
cannot say; but probably not.
>
12. The examiner, I should say, would be chiefly responsible for a
false return of value to the collector. The salaries in this office range
from $1,200 to $2,500, the latter amount being the salary of the drug
^ examiner. One examiner receives a salary of $2,000, the others from
$1,200 to $1,800. The appraisers at this port are, in my opinion, fully
acquainted with all the details of the business connected with the classi- fication and valuation, of imported merchandise, and, although relying
upon the integrity, knowledge, and judgment of their examiners, wliose
reports they indorse, they have a careful supervision of all the details
connected therewith.
•
\
13. I have no knowledge on this subject.
14. It can be fairly said that the faUure has come of dishonesty or *
gross incompetency of the appraising officers, and if money has been
Xiaid, it has been done by dishonest importers or their agents.
15. If the practice.of bribery has obtained, it is likely to continue in
the future.
16. I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates would have a tendency to.benefit the revenue and protect
the Gbvernment in a great measure from fraud. As to specific rates
on textile fabrics, I have no knowledge on the subject, they not coining
nnder my supervision.
17. I have no knowledge on the subject.
18. In mybpinion, it would be impracticable in the larger American
consular districts to examine articles and verify values; but perhaps in
the smaller it might be done with advantage. In my opinion, foreign
governments would comxilain at any vexatious delay in examining
values and certifying invoices. Fees exacted in England, 10s. 6d.
sterling.
19.^ Ll my opinion, the laAvs under which dutiable values are determined are good and sufficient ones.
20. I have no knowledge on this subject, it not being passed in my
department.
21. It is a matter of common report that these dishonest practices
prevail at New York. (I have heard no other port mentioned.) In my
34.1
^ ^^r
530
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
opinion, the employment of honest and reliable officers would obviate
the difficulty.
•^.
22. In some instances the high rate of duty on certain articles has
undoubtedly led to smuggling and other dishonest practices.
23. As to New York, or any other xiort than Boston, I have no definite knowledge. In my opinion, the duties at the port of Boston have
•been honestly and faithfully collected.
24. For the reason that the guilty parties have been successful in
keexiing their transactions secret.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JAMES BIED,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 67.
CHAB. J. COLLINS—Appointed Examiner May 29, 1883.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
,
. . Appraiser^ s Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : I respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your circular of August
27, 1885, (reeeived September 10, 1885,) containing certain questions
relative to the adniinistration of the customs laws, and also the circular
of September 30, 1885, which has just come to hand, owing to absence
on vacation.
I desire, most respectfully, to state that I have held my present position—that of assistant in the sugar lanoratory—for a little more than
two years, and, as I have had. no experience in any other department,
I have little or no knowledge of the application of the laws to imported
merchandise, or its results, to. aid nie in xiroperly complying with yonr
request.
As my duties as assistant in the sugar laboratory are such as to demand all my time and attention, it leaves me no opportunity for learning
of matters, a knowledge of which is necessary to satisfy your inquiry.
For the reasons given, I can only answer a few of the questions.
Qi^es^^on 1.—I have no evidence. .
Question 2.—I know'of none.
Question 3.—I have observed the examiners in the dry-goods department connected with this office both weighing and measuring fabrics,
and, from this, presume that these are the usual tests.
Question 4.—I know of no collusion between persons making entry
and Government officials. Have never heard of or know of a bogus
package being sent to the appraiser's office as an examination package;
think, if it was the case, rumors of its discovery might reach me.
Question 5.—I have no evidence of any and have heard none.
Question 6.—The whole subject of this question I am entirely unacquainted with.
.
Questions 7, 8, and 9.—I cannot answer.
Question 10.—I personally have no knowledge of conflict of opinion
between the appraisers and their subordinates as to the determination
of the dutiable values of imported merchandise. The subject has been
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY.
531
much discussed in my presence, and, in my oxiinion, the appraisers and
their subordinates are in full accord.
Question ll.-r-l G i n msike no estinieite whatever.
S>
Question 12.-t-I consider the examiner xirimarily and chiefly resxionsible for false returns of Value, inasmuch as he has to deal directly Avith
the inerchandise, and it is his duty to make such inquiiies as will clcaiiy
establish its correctness. I have no knowledge of ax:)praisers at other
ports and their practices in relation to invoices, but at this xiort I know
that.the apxiraiser has xiersonal knov/lcdge, in very many cases, of the
merchandise under examination, and can thus certify tb the repbrts of
his subordinates without hesitation.
^Questions 13, 14, and 15.—I have no knowledge. .
Question 16.—^The opinion xirevai.ls that a chauge from ad valorem
to specific rates ^vould be a benefit, and if bribery exists it would soon
cease, as there wbuld no longer be any advantage to be gained through
its agency.
| ,
Question 17.—I do not know.
Question 10.—I have not much information relative to the duty of
United States consuls abroad, or the amount of labor attaching to their
positions. Presuiiie that in some cases the duties are so light that the consuls niight verify; beyond question, the correctness-of invoiced values.
Question 19.—Ij have no oxiinion.
Question 20.—^^I cannot xirexiare such a xiaxier as you desire.
Question 21.—I'xiresume nioney is often xiaid, though I do not know
it. I should look with susxiicion and doubt uxion an official who would
receive or a xiasseiiger who would , offer mpney for such dpubtful service, and, being equally guilty, would consider them deserving of eqnar
punishment, which I xiresume the law x:)rovides.
Questions 22, 23; and 24.—I am unable to answer.
Yery respectfully, yonr obedient servant,
i ,
CHAS. j . COLLINS,
:
' Examiner. ^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Seci-etary of the Treasury.
\
No. 68.
'
. .
THEODORE E. CURRIER—Appointed Examiner August 10, 1865.
;
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 7, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to submit the following answers to questions
asked for in circular of the 9th ultimo:
1. As far as I know, duties have been collected as the law prescribed.
2. I have no evidence that the full amount of duties assossed on goods
paying purely specific rates have not been collected.
3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are generally accepted as correct; should there be any susxiicion that the yards or
metres were not correct as invoiced, it has been our custom to test one
or more pieces.
\
4. I have no eviden^ce of collusion between person or persons making
an entry of several packages of similar goods on an invoice, and the
entry clerk or deputy collector to send to appraiser's stores for examination a bogus or false package as a fair sample of one in ten.
532
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURYo
5. I have no means of knowing, as my duties have been in the appraiser's office.
'
'
6: In my line of duty I have not any way of ascertaining the facts
as asked for in Question 6.
7. It is a fact that importers of dry-goods at this port cannot import
piece-silks and German worsted dress-goods and compete with merchants who buy the same kind of goods through manufacturers' agents
ih New York. In my opinion, the full amount of duty can be collected
on silks and worsted dress-goods by assessing a specific duty.
8. I know nothing positively. From what I hear, I should think it
was caused either by indolence oi: dishonesty.
9. I have no satisfactory evidence.
10. There has been some confusion in fixing the value of goods, or
the cartons and outside coverings. The standard to be applied is more
clear now than it was at the time of passage of the new tariff act, March
3; 1883.
^
11. I do not know.
12. In the regular routine of business the examiner is primarily responsible for'the values of merchandise. Should there be any uncertainty of correct values, the appraiser would be consulted. The salaries
of the exaininers are $1,200, $1,400, $1,600, $1,800, and one at $2,000
per annum. The apxiraiser has charge of all correspondence of the
office, and it is impracticable for him to have a special knowledge of
all merchandise examined.
13. I have no evidence.
14. I do not know.
15. Past experience shows there is chance for improvement.
16. I think that a change from ad valorem. to specific rates would
be a benefit to the revenue, as dishonest imxiorters could not be benefited by undervaluation of their goods. In my opinion, specific rates
could be .apxilied to all textile fabrics.
17. I do not know o t ^ n j false reports by the appraisers at any time.
18. It is my opinion that the Ameiican consular agents abroad could,
in many instances, be of great assistance to the revenue by ascertaining values before certifying to invoices. The fee exacted by the con-,
suls in London and England for certifying invoices is 10 shillings 6
pence sterling.
19. The appraisers ought to be better qualified to be judge of values
of goods than any others. I see no reason for limiting their responsi,bUity.
^
•
20. The wool-question I cannot answer, as no one but the expert
examiner can make a correct report nxion it.
21. Any passenger who pays an inspector money for examining baggage should have his seized, and any officer receiving money should
be dismissed the service.
22. In my opinion, a high rate of duty is a temptation to the dishonest
to smuggle.
25. I do not think it is true at this port.
24. If false returns and reports to the collector have been made, no
one could be xiunished without evidence.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
THEODOEE E. CUEEIEE,
Examiner,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REl>pRt 0$^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
;
633
No. 69.
GEORGE Y. WELLINGTON—Appointed Examiner November 15, 1871.
PORT OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 7, 1885.
S I R : In resxioiise to your circular, niarked '^strictly confidential,"
.dated September 9, 1885, I have the honor to reply that I am one of
three examiners df the axixiraiser's department in Boston employed in
what is known ds the -'hardware division." In this division, the
nierchandise to be examined covers all manufactured articles, not
including dry-goods, machinery, eartheu, china, and glass ware, drugs,
cheraicals, liquo.i-s, and cigars. There is xirobably a larger variety of
classifications under the tariff law in this division than in any other
in this department. In reply to your different questions, I can o n l y
answer from OAVII knowledge and experience.
Query 1.—-I have never had reasoii to doubt that the tariff law at the
X30rt of Boston has been honestly enforced and the duties collected as
prescribed by law. If any complaints have been made, I have not
heard of them. ;
Query 2..—I have no knowledge but what, when specific rates of duty
are assessed, the fiill amount of duty has been collected. In the hard•ware division we have always been particular in obtaining the true
weights and measures where specific duties axiply.
Query S.—I have had no exxierience in examining textile fabiics,
therefore am ignorant of the tests axixilied.
Query 4.—I have never heard it intimated that at this xiort there was^
ever any collusion between the imxiorter, dex3uty collector, and entryclerk as to ordering bogus packages for examination, nor have I ever
heard an importer! dictate to the entry clerk the packages he wished
sent for examinatipn. '
Query 6.—Never having visited the wharves while the Government
officers were engaged at their work, I am nnable to state whether 'the
work there has been properly or improperly done.
Query 6.—The present tariff law contains many points of doubtful
meaning, and, in riiy opinion, should be amended. Protests and ap- .
peals from importers who honestly differ with the appraisers are of
daily occurrence, and many suits against the collectors are instituted,
all arising from the different constructions placed uxjoii the law. I
know not how many suits are now pending, but presume the number is
large. ' Some means should be adopted, either by legislation or otherwise, to hasten the' decisions of the suits now pending, and provision
made to have some tribunal before which suits in customs cases may be
tried, aud the decisions there made to be final. The present system is
insufficient to hear and act upon all these suits.^
Query 7.—^I am not acquainted with the methods of doing business at
the custom-house at New York, nor with any officer connected with
thecustoms or appraiser's office at that'x^ort. The frauds reported
from there, in my opinion, arise from the class of foreign agents and
merchants to whom lying is a 'pastime; they have no interest in this
country onjy to cheat the Governnient and buy up, if pbssible, its
officials. Specific duties would in a great measure counteract these
frands, and the examining officers should be true and tried men, supplied through the Department with every information possible x^ertaining to the foreign iharket value of the merchandise imported.
534
RliPORT OF TiiE SECRETARY OE THE TREASURY.
Query 8.—I cannot understand why the Government, when such
frauds were carried on so openly as reported, did not investigate the
matter and bring the guilty parties to justice. I do not think it was
indolence or ignorance, but sheer rascality; and I would judge that the
conspiracy extended from New York to Washington, yet I have no
positive knowledge of any kind relating to the matter.
' Query 9.—I have no knowledge whatever of any false returns being
made to the collector from the apxiraiser's office at this port. Due
attention is always xiaid at this office to representations made by con^ sular and sxiecial agents, and if their statements are sustained by good
evidence, they are adopted.
Query 10.—There has been> confusion as to the elements of dutiable
values, especially since the tariff of March, 1883, came in force. The
conflict between the importers and the Government is chiefly as to the
elements of value of dutiable goods—whether the duty attaches to the
naked goods or to the same with the usual coverings and cartons included in the condition they were pnrchased. Personally, I believe the
intent of the law is to ax)ply to all merchandise in the condition with
its usual coverings that it is exposed and offered for sale in the markets of the world, and the dnty to be assessed is upon such merchandise
at its true market value on the day it is shipped from the port of exportation.
Query 11.—I hardly believe that a safe average estimate of the xiercentage of undervaluation can be made for more than one year, if for
that time, as so maiiy elements have to be considered in reaching the
facts.
Query 12.—The examiner usually makes all returns on the invoices of
merchandise examined by him, said report being indorsed by the appraiser or assistant appraiser. In this office the examiner consults with
the axipraiser on all questions of doubt. The salary of the examiners
here is $1,600 and $1,800 per year. I do not believe, from what I know
of the corxis of examiners here, that there is one who would knowingly
make a false report upon any invoice. .
Query 13.—I have no evidence of any consul presenting a false invoice,
knowing it to be. such, to the apxiraisers; yet I think the consuls should
scrutinize the invoices they certify to with more care than at present.
Query 14.^—An examiner's xiosition is not ah enviable one; his work
and responsibilities are great. On his j udgment niainly the Government
depends for thc^honest assessment of all its duties. Shut up year after .
year within the four walls of a bnilding, he is supxiosed to know ^the
market prices of the world. From my own experience with the large
variety of nierchandise I examine, I often have to seek for expert
knowledge from those whom I think will give me an honest opinion.
I do not believe that false values are reported as correct froni this office
knowingly by any examiner, \ n d I do not believe that any examiner
connected with this offi ce ever accepted a bribe. I do not believe' there
was ever any corruption fund connected with the customs service at
Boston.
Query 15.—The only way to guard against dishonest practices is a
reorganization of the different departments, so that a proper supervis• ion can be had over all officers; and even then there will be some fraud.
Query 16.—Sxiecific rates should be apxilied wherever possible, and
if it were only possible to have a tariff for revenue only, specific rates
would be the only rates. I cannot answer as to textile fabrics.
REPORT^' OP THE SiECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
- 535
Query 17.—I believe in a ^^moiety law," but not such an one as was
repealed in 1874. I think one could be framed, not ox^pressive, but at
the same time beneficial to the interests of the Governnient.
Query 18.—I think it would be impracticable for Americaii consuls at
the larger ports to xiersonally examine articles shipped from thence;
but in the smaller consular districts I think it could be done successftilly. The Treasury Department should have at the larger ports its
agents to personally examine and report to the Dexiartment as to Values
and the methods adopted abroad to clie^~' the Governnient here; also,
agents to travel from one consulate to another in the smaller districts.
The information gained should be sent to the general and princixial
appraisers at the larger ports, for their benefit and for the examiners. I
do not believe the foreign governments wonld object to this. The consular fee for certifying to each invoice is $2.50.
Query 1%.—I think the executive and judicial powers should have
such jurisdiction as to be able to obtain every fact as to the true dutiable value of all merchandise.
Query 20.—I am hot conversant with the assessing of duty on wool,
never having had any exxierience therein.
Query 21.—I xiresume the practice.of xiaying money to officers by
passengers to facilitate the examination of baggage does x^revail, but I
have never seen it done or ever heard a xiassenger arriving at this x^ort
stating that he had paid any fee for baggage exainination. The proper
course is to make it a penal offence to give or receive any perquisites
for such service.
Query 22.—A high tariff is tempting to a smuggler. The old war
tariff twenty years ago caused a large amount of smuggling. There
would be less evasion of the law under a low tariff than with a high
tariff.
„ i
Query 2S.—I think the x^ort of New York an exception to any other
port.. The importations there are immense, and the imxiorters are gen-.
erally foreign agents, who hesitate at nothing in order to swindle the
Government.
Qiiery 24.—That the Government, in justice to its honest officials,
should have punished the dishonest ones is true, but why it did not I
cannot tell.
1 have answered all the questions in your circular as well as I can,
and, in closing, allow me to apologize for the dela^^ During September
my two colleagues took their vacation, and my work was largely increj:ised, so that I had not the time to give to these questions the thought
and care that I wished. , With this explanation,
I remain, respectfully, yours,
/
;
GEO. Y. WELLINGTON,
!
•
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
536
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, TEX,
No. 70.
JAMES 0. LUBY—Appointed Collector May 13, 1884.
CusTOM-HousE, BROWNSVILLE, T E X . ,
Collector's Office, September 9, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of August 27, 1885, and, in reply to the inquiries contained
therein, I would state that many of the questions submitted for replies
thereto, particularly in regard to xiending suits in respect to rates of
duties and the inix)ortation of textile fabrics; that by reason of the limited class of iniportations intp this district, principally from Mexico,
aiid^consisting of commodities upon which no duties are levied, and
the dutiable importations beiug of live animals, wool, &c., the questions of value and class upon appraisement seldom result in a legal or
other dispute.
I will now proceed to answer the questions seriatim
1. There is no evidence that the duties accruing upon importations
into this district within the last few years have not been levied and collected as the law prescribes.
2. No; as in answer to first question.
.
^
3. There have been no importations upon invoice of textile fabrics.
Some few articles of sinall value imported by passengers from Mexico
have been assessed for duty, basing such assessment upon the number
of threads per square inch tested by J-inch magnifying or microscoxie
glass.
4. There is no evidence of collusion. Examinations are made by
myself, or some officer designated in each instance, of such packages
imported.
5. None. From personal supervision, am satisfied weighing, &c.,
correct.
6. No suits instituted; and in resxiect to rates of duty, the other questions embodied in this cannot be answered ,by me, by reason of no circumstances described existing in this district.
7. There is no evidence of a failnre in this district to levy and collect
the entire and full amount of dnty prescribed by law.
8. None.
9. None.
10. No confusion, &c., in'apxiraising departnient, probably owing to
limited importations, although it would appear that the statutes and
decisions in regard to apxiraisements are anlxile to prevent such confusion, even were the articles imported more numerous in class.
11. No evidence of undervaluation by appraisers.
12. In answering this question, it becomes necessary to describe the
manner of appraisements in this district, xiartlcularly in regard to live
animals, which is the principal item of dutiable iniportation. The
several consular officers in Mexico bordering upon this district have
been very strict in noting uxion invoices any variance between the purchaser's value and the market value of the xiort from whence imported,
^ and thereby prevented nndervaluation. The manner of importing these
REPORT |0F THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
' - •
•
63,7
i
animals is by swimming the river at the regular licensed ferries of this
port and the several sub-xDorts of the district. The xiermit to land is
placed in the hands of a mounted inspector, to supervise such landing,
exaniine and report upon number, marks, and values. The inspector
thus becomes primarily and chiefiy responsible for a false return of
value to the colle|ctor, but, as the market values are so well known, it
would be almost an impossibility to introduce animals nndervalued by
the importer withbut detection. Should a variance occur when reported
by inspector, personal inspection is had. In the case of wool, &c.,
personal examinations are made by myself or deputy.
13. No.
j
14. No evidence, as heretofore stated.
15. N o .
I •
16. In my opinion, the imposition of ad valorem duties tends to
frauds upon the revenue.
17. Not in this district. .
18. I am informed that it is the invariable x)ractice bf consular officers along the Mexican frontier to exaniine dutiable articles shipped to
the United States,! and no comxilaints from that Government or shipxiers
axipear to have b^en made.
19. I consider the law as it now exists, if properly administered, to
be sufficiently just to both iniporters and the Government. In our
State law, the person rendering proxierty for taxation can appeal from
the decision of th^ assessor to what is termed a board of equalization,
consisting ofthe county commissioners, whose action is final as to values
placed on property assessed. As this board rarely occupies over two
days in their delilperations, an injunction or mandamus would scarcely
lie against them, |unless itwas sued out before they adjourned. As
their functions as|a board of equalization ceases on adjournment, there
is no law whereby they could be compelled to reconvene. Adequate
provision is, however, made in our State penal laws for the puiiishnient of boards of equalization, assessors, and persons rendering property for assessment who might conspire to defraud the Governnient by
the undervaluation of xiroperty assessed for taxation.
20. The class of wool imported into this district is what is termed
^ coarse Mexican^" propeiiy belonging to class three under the present
^
tariff It is a ligiit, dry wool, generally free from dirt, and loses very littl e fi'om scouring,! probably not over 20 per cent.; and, in view of the fact
that merino wools of class one will lose 60 per cent, and over when •
scoured, it apxiears to me that the present tariff* discriminates in favor
of the Mexican v^ool. As there are no wools imported into this district but of class ithree," as described, I have not been afforded an opportunity of observing the various workings of the tariff on wools of
other grades.
|
The wool industry of this State previous to and up to the close of
the war of the rebellion was but an experiment. After the war, the
wool tariff under act of March 2,1867, coupled with the adaxitibility of
of this State for wbol culture, gave an impetus to that industry. ' Within
later years the increase in price of land and labor, incidental to sheep,;
raising, has caused a decline in that industry. While the xiresent tarifi
might be more uhiform and less comxilicated, I think it affords amx3le
protectioii to thej wool industry of the country, and enables the woolgrowers of the United States to compete with the cheap labor of foreign
countries, and at the same time our Government derives a return there-
538
REPORT pF^THli SECRET.ARY OF THE TREASURY.
from, which would be not the case if the tariff was strictly prohibitory
\in its character.
'
•
• ' 21. All dutiable articles in baggage, of passengers is detained until
duties are x^^id at the custom-house, and there is no evidence that customs^ inspectors have permitted any dutiable articles to pass without
paynient of duties.
22, There is an illicit smuggling of cigars and mescal (a Mexican
liquor) on a sinall scale, the duties on which are in the natnre of a prohibitory tax; but no serious result to the revenue is caused by the small
amounts introduced by these x^etty smugglers, a u d i would dislike to
suggest any reduction in articles of luxury, such as cigars and liquors.
23. Not known.
.
. 24. None to be rexiorted.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
JAMES O. LUBY,
\
'
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
PORT OF BUFFALO.
No. 71.
^
A. D. BISSELL—Appointed Collector May 15, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, BUFFALO, N . Y . ,
Collector's Office, Oetober 3, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully replying to your ciccular letter of August 27,
(^^strictly confidential,") I would state that the subjects therein contained do not seem to apply to this district. I have determined, however,-to give specific answers to the questions therein propounded.
1. No evidence of any neglect, either intentional or otherwise.
2. No evidence of any kind.
3. Goods are compared with invoices, and verified by measurements.
Tests are made according to best obtainable methods to arrive at accurajte results, exercisiug all necessary care in detail.
4. No evidence of fraudulent designation of packages.
5. No weighing done on wharves at this port at the present time.
6. No recomniendation on this proposition. •
7. No inforniation as to whether the entire amount of duty prescribed
by law has been collected at x)ort of New York.
8. No evidence that any Treasury official has been, either directly
or indirectly, implicated.
9. No evidence of present appraiser making false statements. This
is also true of previous appraiser. Sub-questions 2, 3, 4, 5 are answered by previous reply: No evidence of any such implication.
10. Confusion, to a certain extent, has existed in determining the
value of Canada live-stock. The standard as defined by law is sufficient.
,
11. No safe way of making estimate of any undervaluation. It only
exists, possibly, in live-stock in this district. Weights, quality, and
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREAStJl^Y. . 639
1
, • Y
/
•
'
.
'
;
•
.
-
other circumstances entering so largely into the prox^osition, no avera'ge
can be arrived at. j
J
12. I find no intentional fraud by any specified officer. The apjpraiser at this port examines goods and arrives at as close an estiinate
of valne and as coijrect classification as his brief experience will xiermit.
13. No evidence! of collusion as between consular agents and customs
officials. Consuls are very careless in issuing certificates.
14. Undervaluation possibly has obtained in live-stock. Difficulty
in following the law has been the cause. No evidence of payment of.
money. This clause of question is not applicable.
15. Answered by reply to No. 14.
" 16: Specific duties are niore easily computed and more readily understood. . I believe that the more nearly duties are specific, the safer and
surer is the collection ofl the revenue. It would be very difficult to
, formulate a specific duty pn textile fabrics, without taking into consideration the question of value.
17. No data from whichj to form an opinion exists in this district.
18. Judging from the volume of immediate-transxiortation business
coming to this port, I would conclude not, except by the employment
of large force of o'fficers. ' (2) Cannot designate them; probably not,
excexiting in cases jmade yery prominent. One dollar and fifty cents
for certificates on importations, where the value is less than $100; $2.50
where value of importation is over $100.
19. I think not. | The appraiser, whose duty it is to examine importations, is the x)ropfer and comxietent officer to fix value.
20. We receive only wool of second class. No complications have
occurred in collecting revenue.
"
21. No data for determining.
22. The incentivb to smuggle in this distiict is very small; almost no
object in it.
|
j
23. What the ihfluences are in New York which cause people to
evade the revenue Qxist in all distiicts—i. e., pecuniary benefit. In districts where the business is light, the oxiportunity to detect is greater
as more attention ckn be given to detail.
24. No evidence of fraud existing in this district, there would, be no
reason to expect criminal pr civil xirosecution.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
I
I
A. D. BISSELL,
I
j
Collector, .
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,'
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. O.
\
546
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUSf*
PORT OF BURLINaTON, VT.
. No. 72.
,
'
B. B. SMALLEY—Appointed CoUector September 1, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, BURLINGTON, V T . ,
Collector's, Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : In answer to your circular of the 4th of September, I beg respectfully to say that I will answer the several questions therein as
fully as I can; but as I have been in office only a little over one month,
I cannot go as fully into details as I would-be glad to.
1. In answer to Interrogatory No. 1 : Inmy opinion, the mere fact
that large lines of foreign goods can be and are bought of the New York
agents of the manufacturers at considerably lower prices than they can
be imported by the merchants of this country, is to me very strong
Xiroof that the duties are not collected as the law prescribes. This applies more esxiecially to silks, dress-goods, ribbons, gloves, and what are
generally termed articles of luxury, upon which an ad valorem or mixed
duty is assessed.
2. In answer to Interrogatory 2 : Judging from the reports of the
special agents of the Treasury Department on the subject, there is
abundant proof that the full duties have not been collected in all cases
where the rates are purely specific. This is especially true in regard
to the importation of Italian marble into the ports of Boston and New
York. My attention has been more particularly called tp the impor-,
tation of marble, as the State of Yermont is so largely interested in it,
and its producers suffer so severely by the frauds perpetrated on the
revenue. As I understand it, the fraud is largely due to false classifications.
3. In answer to Interrogatory 3 . In this district the importation of
textile fabrics is exceedingly small, and, unless there is something to
particularly excite suspicion, the manufacturers' measurements are
accexited.
4. In answer to Interrogatory 4 : I have very little personal information on this subject. It is current talk among importers that ^'dummy
packages," so called, are often sent to the appraisers which contain
goods of a very different kind and value from the main portion of the
invoice, and that this has been done in collusion with the revenue
officials.
5. In answer to Interrogatory No. 5 : So far as thj3 district of Yermont
is concerned, I think there is no such evidence.
6. In answer to Interrogatory No. 6: I think the present law governing customs cases is sufficient. As a matter of practice, I think the
courts should give priority to the trial of Governnient cases of all
kinds on the motion of the district attorney, or perhaps it would be
better to obtain the same result by a change in the law which would
govern all United States courts, thus niaking the practice uniform in
aU sections, instead of having it depend on the rules of each courto
REPORT 0 F T H E
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - 541
With a change in jthe lawgiving Government cases precedence, and
with xiroxier attentibu oh the x^art ofthe law-officers of the Government,
I think speedy trials can be had in all revenue cases.
I think that interest should be paid in all cases where the Government has collected money illegally. I see no need of any new tribunal,
to try the class of cases referred to, and think there is none.
7. In answer to Interrogatory No. 7 : I have no personal information
on the subject, excbxit as to marble, and on that I think the frauds have
been gross at New |York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The evidence as
to such frauds is, I think, plus.
^
8. In answer to Interrogatory No. 8: I think it comes about through
the dishonesty of the imx')orter in making, and the gross carelessness of
the revenne officers; in aUowing, the false classification of goods.
In answer to Interrogatories 9, 10,11, and 12: There beiug no official
appraisers in my district, and presuming that you would get full information on the subject from districts where' tliere are such officers, I
will not attempt tb express any opinion on the subject, matter of the
interrogatories.
j
13. In answer to Interrogatory No. 13 : I know of no cases of actnal
fraud on the part of consular officers. I think that counsular certificates are often issued by consular officers i n the Dominion of Canada,
where the certifying officer knows nothing at all as to the value of the
property referred to in the certificate. This applies more especially to
horses, cattle, and ^heep.
14. I have not sufficient information in regard to the subject-matter
of Interrogatory No. 14 to attempt to answer it.
15. In answer to | Interrogatory 15: If frauds have been committed
by the revenue offiders, I know of but one way to prevent like frauds
being committed ih the fiiture, and that is to have such changes made
as will weed out the dishonest and incompetent officials, and put ih
their places honest and comxietent men.
16. In answer toi Interrogatory No. 16: Theoretically, I think the
ad valorem system porrect; xiractically, I think specific rates the best,
as I think specific duties wonld simplify the woi'k of collecting the revenue, and would greatly lessen the tendency to bribery and fraud. I
think specific rates |can be axiplied to all textile fabrics.
17. In answer to Interragatory No. 17 : In my opinion, frauds on the
revenue have been largely increased by the rexieal of the ' ^ moiety'' law. '
I think it would bej for the interests of the Government to have it reenacted, with proper guards to prevent abuses under it.
18. In answer to Interrogatory No. 18 : I do not think it xiracticable
to have American consular agents examine every article shixiped to the
United States, nor do I think any foreign government would consent
to its being done on their territory.
20. I have no daia from which to make the report called for in Interrogatory No. 20. I
,
21. In answer to Interrogatory No. 21: I think it is generally believed
that the practice xirevails| at all the larger Atlantic ports of giving
money to inspectors to pdd^ baggage with very slight or no inspecti<m
at all. This practic^e can only be xirevented by the substitution of hor- est ^
fbr dishonest officials. The recent circular of the Secretary of the
Treasury on this subject, ^nd the action thereunder, has had a very
great influence in stox^ping the xiractice referred to.
'
542
REPORT QF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
22. In answer to interrogatory No. 22: It is doubtless true that the
higher the rate of duty the greater is the temptation to defraud the
revenue.
- "
23. In answer to Interrogatory No. 23: Yes, in my opinion.
. ,
24. I am unable tb answer Interrogatory No. 24.
Yery respectfully,
B. B. SMALLEY,
Collector.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
PORT OF CHARLESTON, S. C.
No, 73.
THEODORE D. JER VEY—Appomted CoUector July 25, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, CHARLESTON, S. C.J
Collector's Office, September 16, 1886.
SIR : In reply to your confidential circular of August 27, addressed
to collectors of customs, permit me -to say that my assumption of the
duties of this .office is so recent that I have not acquired the practical
knowledge requisite to make any suggestion of value on the points desired.
.
Yery respectfully,
THEO. D. JEEYEY,
Gollector.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
^
PORT OF CHICAGO.
No. 74. ^ '
^
JOHN HITT—Appointed Special Deputy Collector January 7, 1878;
CusTOM-HousE, CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Collector's Office, October 26, 1885.
cSiR : I respectfully acknowledge the receixit of your circular dated
August 27, 1885, containing twenty-four questions.
You request me to prexiare at an early date a careful and official
reply, with adequate comxileteness of details of facts and figures. I
have been delayed by the xiress of work incident to a change of collectors of customs at this port. Before proceeding to reply in detail, I
would observe that my position as a deputy coUector at an inland port
REPORT! OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
• i
543
• '
has uot been favprable for the acquirement of the knowledge necessary
for the satisfactoijy answer of questions so^ broad in their scope. -My
exxierience is necessarily limited to the operations of this custom-house.
Question. No. 1.1—The only evidence that the rates of duty levied and
collected at this jport fbr several years x^ast have not been correct is
the fact that a niimber of suits have been brought in the United States
district and circuit courts of the northern district of Illinois against
the collector for the oyer-collection of duties. Seventeen of these cases
were lately heard by the court, and in thirteen cases the decision was
against the Government, that the rate of duty exacted was erroneous,
and too high. When it is considered that about 7,000 warehouse and
consumxition entries are liquidated here yearly, the rates of duty levied
and collected apxiear to be generally correct.
Question 2.—I believe that the full amount of duties prescribed b;^
Congress upon articles paying a specific rate of duty has been collected
at this port. Myl reason for making this assertion is that the appraisei
rarely finds a claim for damage allowance to be well founded, and onfy
allows a trifling damage in any case. The work of weighing and gauging is carefully done. Complaints have been made by Messrs. P. D.
Armor & Co., packers, that bulk-salt received from Canada by vessel
was weighed in fd;Vor of the Government. ^ I have not known a case foi
several years where short weights occurred or deficient gauge.
I desire to recommend the adoption of specific duties instead of ad
valorem duties wherever xiracticable. There is less opportunity to de
fraud the Treasury under the system of specific duties. Competent:,
honest officers can collect specific duties in every case in full by simxily
doing their duty, jbut in the case of the ad valorem system it is impos
sible to prevent fijand in many cases, no matter how earnestly the effort
is made by experienced officers to collect duties correctly.
Question 3.—The verification of the.invoice measurement of textile
fabiics is attended! to by the appraiser. He tests the widths of the piecegoods found in the packages sent to him for examination. At this
port, one xiackage in ten is sent to the appraiser, and as many more as
may be necessary. Textile fabrics are always in packages; and the
actnal width as fqund by the appraiser is noted npon the invoice.whenever a discrepancy occurs.' Such discrepancy rarely occurs.
Question 4.—There is no evidence of any collusion here between the
chief entry clerk and the person making entry, whereby a false package
was sent to the appraiser for examination. I never knew such a case.
Question 6.—There is no evidence of false or dishonest weighing or
measuring at this port, at the wharves or at the depots. An occasional
error has been discovered now and then, but nothing that would warrant calling any of the weighers incompetent.
Question 6.—Thb existing law relative to differences between importers and collectors growing out of decisions 'made by the latter and
affirmed by the Tieasury Department is good enough for practical xiurposes. The courts do not sit often enough here, so that cases are
sometimes pending two or three years. There are about fifty suits
pending now in C/hicago. I do not know anything about suits against
collectors of custpms at the eastern ports. At this port a number of
the suits grow out of the change in the law made March 3, 1883,
whereby the dutiable value no longer includes the value of the usual
^nd necessary covpings of goods^ In my experience, the slowest prog-
544
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ress in the courts has been made with proceedings for forfeiture in
cases of seizure. I do not doubt that the principal law officer could devise a plan whereby a more speedy disposition of these suits could be
obtained. ^ An appropriation by Congress of sufficient sums of money
whereby a jury could be obtained three or four times each year would
be the best plan. I think that it is just to pay interest from date of the
payment of the disputed amount, and the law permitting such payment
is not in need of amendment.
. The custoins court recommended by the late Tariff Commission should
be created by the next Congress. It would be a step in the right direction.
^
^
'
. Questions 7, 8, and 9.—I cannot answer these questions intelligently.
Question 10.—Atthis port there is very little doubt in the appraiser's
department in the return bf dutiable value. I judge that this is the
fact by the official returns of the appraiser. It is rarely the case that
his opinion i s not also the opinion of the collector's office.
Questions 11 and 12.—These questions apply to the great xiorts, and I
am only acquainted with this port. The salary of the appraiser of this
port is $3,000 per annum. One man in this city, Philip D. Armor,
pork-packer, teUs me that his pay-roll shows forty-three names of em-:
ploy6s who are paid $3,000 per annum, ahd still higher. The Treasury
ought to pay the appraiser of this port $5,000 per annum. He is, next
to the collector, the most important officer of customs here, and npon
his judgment and fidelity depend the proper collection of duties. The
appraiser here is not a figure-head bnt gives his personal attention to
the returns signed by him. He draws his opinions himself, and they
are almost always in his own handwriting.
Question 13.—No specific case has come to my knowledge where an
invoice evidently too low had been certified as correct by the consul
in wilful violation of the truth.
Questions 14 and 15.—As the tariff law has been faithfully executed
in this small port, (and I only know by hearsay that the full duties are
^not coUected at the great ports,) I am not able to say that either the
customs officers or Treasury officials have been notoriously corrupt and
lax in the discharge of their duties. It is certainly the fact that the
importing influence in the West is not strong enough yet to interfere
here with the proper collection of duties by means of bribes and the
daily solicitations of their brokers. How the case may be in the East I
know not, but I believe the fnll duties are not collected. I am clear
that the prospect ahead for less venal and corrupt influence being nsed
in the custom-houses of the country than has been the case for twenty
years past is encouraging. At any port where a collector and appraiser act.in harhiony the problem is not difficult to practicaUy suppress undervaluation in its grosser forms, and to keep ordinary fraud
within narrow bounds." If there is even indifference on the part of
either of these officers, the duties will not be collected correctly. Wheu
the Treasury itself is active in support of every measure and policy to
secure the fiill duties, as is the case now, the time is not far distant i n
the future when we may fairly hope for a successful execution of the
tariff law.' '
Question'16.—l have already expressed the opinion that a change
from the ad valorem system to specific rates wiU be a benefit to the
revenue, and will help to diminish the tendency tb bribery. The west-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
i
.•
"
545
•
•
ern man could import with such a change of system, and feel that he
had a fair chance lyith the agents of European manufacturers located in
eastern xiorts. It |will not apxily conveniently to textile fabrics in all
cases, but generally it will be found to be an improvement.
Question 17.—The repeal of the inoiety act, June 22, 1874, was a
blunder of the first magnitude, so far as the revenue was concerned.
The fact remains that public opinion did not sustain the methods adopted
by Special Agent Jayne and other agents of the Treasury. The reaction
resulted in the rexieal of the moiety act. Since that rexieal undervaluation has increased greatly at the great ports, if we may believe the testimony of the merchants here, who cannot import silks and many kinds
of goods by reason pf the system of agents of Euroxiean manufacturers
stationed in New Ybrk.
^
So long as the Gdvernment must xirove, not only fraudulent acts, but
that the xiarty meant to defraud when doing such acts, to the satisfaction of a jury, the convictions will probably be infrequent. The conscience of the countiy is not sensitive in regard to ft'auds upon the customs revenue. Eeiy xieoxile class an intentional failure to xiay lawful
duties as a criminal! offence, especially if the matter has not been found
out at the custom-house. The very name of the informer is odious. It
is probable that the law as it stands is quite as severe as the public
sentiment will sustain. The loss to the revenue by this laxness of
opinion is, in my judgment, many millions each year.
Question 15.—I dpubt the possibility of consuls abroad acting successfully as appraising officers. In the great centres, as Manchester, Berlin, <
,
Paris, &c., it would; be easiest to quote the market values and see that
the invoices agree vf(ith such values.
Foreign governments would probably complain if the consuls delayed
making certificates to invoices until they were sure the values were correct. The consuls c'p^n in any event send valuable information home.
The lee allowed by law is $2.50 for each invoice.
Question 19.—Thej court could be safely vested with the power of revision of the decisions of the appraiser in all cases.
Question 20.—Wool is not imported at this port.
Question 21.—Thei practice is generally believed here to prevail at
Atlantic ports of fees being x^aid, or rather bribes, to inspectors by
passengers. So many xieople state that they paid money to the inspectors upon their arrival by steamship, and found it to their interest
to fee the inspector dxamining their baggage, that I accept the correctness of their testimony. I doubt whether this practice can be x^^^evented entirely, b u t i t can be greatly lessened by the personal attention of the surveyor.! No officer of less rank can make much headway
breaking up the custom.
Question 22.—There is little doubt that the high rate of duties prescribed by the tariff for several years x^ast has made smuggling and
undervaluation more profitable and tempting than a more moderate
tariff'would have dc^ne. The repeal of the moiety act in 1874 should
have followed, logically, a considerable reduction of the tariff. It X3ays
well to evade the prbvisions of the xiresent tariff law, and is not very
dangerous. The jury may find that the accused did not have the intent
to defraud the revenue.
Question 23.—1 do| not know enough about the Atlantic ports tQ
answer this question, j
'
35 4
|•
546
' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Question 24.—The reasons why xiersons making false retnrns of values
to the collectors have not been indicted and xiunished have been alreadv
X)artially indicated.
The overx30wering influence of the imxiorting interest concentrated at
the x^ort of New York, where two-thirds ofthe duties are collected, has
beeh thus far an overmatch for the Treasury Departnient.
The customs service is not organized to win in such a struggle. It
has no chief officer who is vested by law with the general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all duties imposed by the customs laws, such as the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue.
The'Commissioner of Cnstoms is not such an officer, but is charged
with examination of customs accounts.
A radical change must be made in customs organization, so that its'
chief officer shall be charged by express statute with the superintendence of the collection of the customs revenue. Legislation will be
required to create such an office. At present the chief officer of internal revenue outranks the Commissioner of Customs in salary, in the importance of his duties, and in public estimation. The Secretary of the
Treasury knows where to locate the fault, if there is failure to collect
internal taxes. He ought to have an equally good organization for the
customs service.
In conclusion, I would express my belief that customs administration
is improving daily, and that the Department may confidently look forward to greater efficiency.
I am, very respectfully,
JNO. HITT,
Special Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington^ B. G.
No. 75.WM. J. JEWELL-—Appointed Deputy CoUector January 7, 1878.
CusTOM-HousE,
CHICAGO, I I I . ,
September 16, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor tb acknowledge the receipt of your favor of
the Oth instant, and respectfully reply thereto as follows:
1. It is difficult to determine in some cases what rate of duty should
be levied, when the tariff would seem to be capable of authorizing two
or more interpretations; and as it is the rule of the customs officers to
assess the highest rates iu doubtful cases, their decisions may sometimes
seem arbitrary.
2. Specific rates, not dexiendent on values, are clear and easy, but
tbere sliould be no aUowance for dama.ge.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I
547
'
•
3. One xiackage out of every invoice, and one out of every ten packages of exactly the same character and description in an invoice, is
designated by a cleputy collector for the axixiraiser's examination and
report as to quantity and value.
4. It would require a very bad imxiorter and a very bad deputy to
form such an alliance, and it could not possibly go on fbr any leugth
of time without discovery.
5; There is no |evidence of this character, and any material difference
between a weighbr's return and invoice and bill of lading would certainly have been discovered by one of the two or three examining
clerks, whose duty it is to check the same in the usual routine of the
custom-house business.
6. Could all differences go to a single court and be finally settled
there, the questions at issne could be identified and disposed of with
quick disxiatch. j It is very questionable whether interest should be
charged or allowed on suits growing out of uncertain interpretations
of law.
I
7 to 24. In ansper to these questions, I would be obliged to speak on
hearsay, and I feel that I have not the competent knowledge to enable
m3 to give such information as would be of use. I may say that imports of wool (unmanufactured) at this port have been comxiaratively
pothing.
I
I
Yery respectfully,
I
W, J. JEWELL,
I
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary^ of the Treasury, Washington, B. Co
I
No. 76.
F. 0. GREENE—Appointed Deputy CoUector January 7, 1878.
I
CusTOM-HousE, CHICAGO, I I I . ,
I
Collector's Office, September 19, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully acknowledging the receipt of your printed letter
of the 9th instant; in which I am requested to make careful reply to
certain inquiiies inade therein concerning the tariff and the enforcement of the tariff! laws, numbered 1 to 24, I beg leave to say, in reply,
that since my connection with the customs service some eighteen years,
I have served biit a short time in the entry and warehousing division;
therefore, any oxiinion I niight exxiress on most of xioints involved in
the questions submitted would necessarily be of little value.
However, I willj dispose of the questions in their order, so far as they
are axiplicable to the business of Chicago, (having no knowledge other
than hearsay of th^ customs affairs of any other port, to the best) of my
ability, as follows 1
:
1. The only evidence known to me that duties have not been levied
and collected according to law is the fact that there are usually a number of suits pending in the United States courts against the collector
for duties alleged to have been xiaid in error.
2. I don't knowl
l
3. The axipraiser examines certain xiackages designated by the col-^
lector^ and makes |a return thereof to the latterc
-54^ '
R E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
4 and 5. I don't know.
-6. It would seem that the officers named might arrange for a prompt
trial of snch suits. I ain of opinion that, in justice to the importer, in
most cases interest should not be charged or allowed in / ^ collectors'
suits."
A ^^customs court" for the final adjudication of customs cases is
advocated by many well-informed persons, as it would insure earlier
decisions, and consequently more uniformity in practice, and would,
of course, very much relieve the United States courts.
As regards questions numbered 7 to 24, I will say that I have no
reliable data or information upon which I could frame an ans^ver of
any interest or importance.
I am, very respectfully,
P. C. GEEENE,
Beputy Collector of Gustoms.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 77.
JAMES H. GILBERT—Appointed Deputy CoUector Aprh 24, 1883.
CusTOM-HousE, CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Collector's Office, September 12,1885.
S I R : Your confidential circular of the 9th instant was duly received.
In reply, I beg leave to state that I cannot answer any of the questions except No. 5. The remainder, with the exception of No. 21,
refer especially to the entry and warehouse and axipraiser's departments, of the working of which I have not direct knowledge. As regards
Question 5,1 beg leave to state that I do not think there is the slightest
evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring, either at the docks or dexDots in this port. Our three weighers are
competent, men of large experience, and I sincerely believe honest.
Question 21, referring to the proxier examination of baggage at the
Atlantic xiorts, I cannot answer specifically, or excexit from hearsay.
My department is simply for receiving, unloading, and delivering
bonded freight, and also weighing, gauging, and cigar insx3ection, corresponding in other ports to the surveyor's department.
Outside of questions referring to my department, my answers would
not be authoritative, but nierefy surmise.
Yery respectfully,
JAMES H. GILBEET,
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B 0
REPORT! OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURE
j
'
'
,
•
•
,
I
^
•
649
•
No. 78.-
I
•
•
•
•
JOHN A. FITCH—Appomted Deputy CoUector, Vermont, October 26, 1866 ; Inspector,
^ Chicago, May 10, 1867; Deputy Collector, Cliicago, October 1, 1875, and February
18, 1882.
I
/
j
CUSTOM-HOUSE, CHICAGO, I I I . ,
I
Barge Office, September 24, 1885. '
S I R : Your letter of the 7th instant, marked ^^strictly confidential,"
came safely to hand, and has been carefully read. In answer, I beg
leave to say that 1 am employed in the barge office at this port,- in connection with the! marine interests on the lakes, and am unable froui
personal information to answer the inquiries you make or offer suggestions that will be! of value to the Dexiartment in connection therewith..
I am, respectfully, yours,
J. A. FITCH,
Beputy Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L JMANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
j
•
,
No. 79.
CHARLES H. HAM—Appointed Appraiser February 26, 1877.
j
PORT OF CHICAGO, I I I . ,
I
Appraiser's Office, September —, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt of your circular of the 27th ultimo, marked
^^strictly confidential," in which you ''desire that careful and official
replies" be made to. certain inquiries thereto axipended, "with adequate completeness of details of facts and figures," &c.
Permit me to x)i*emise by saying that the evidence I shall offer in
' support of my opinion is chiefly, if not entirely, circumstantial; but I
do not, therefore, think it less worthy of consideration. In the outset,
I must frankly admit that I believe the frauds on the customs revenue
are chiefly confined to the port of New York. The main reason for
this fact may be the circumstance that a very large proportion of the
customs business bf the country is transacted at that port. I believe it
to be a fact that the magnitude of the business of the New York customhouse has had a tendency to render its management, in a measure, independent of the control of the Treasury Department. But this will
appear more fully as I proceed.
The first questipn of the circular is as follows:
1. '' Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty and dutiabl e
value, what evidence is there, if any, that the former have not within
the last few years jbeen levied and collected as the law xirescribed?"
The evidence that "rates of duty h*ave not been levied and collected
as the law xirescribed" is this: That certain classes of foreign merchandise, notably French silks, are sold in this country by the manufacturers' agents at a less price than they can be imported for by the
Ameiican merchant.
Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago, are among the heaviest importer
in the United Statues. They are large dealers in silks and silk goods,
but they do not import silks. John V. FarweU & Co., Carson Pirie,
550
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Scott & Co., and Jas. H. Walker & Co. are large importers of miscellaneous dry-goods, and dealers, in silks and silk goods, but they do
not import silks.
The reason why they do not imxiort silks is the fact that they can
buy them cheaper in New York of the agents of the foreign manufacturers. This question will receive further elucidation farther on.
2. " I s there satisfactory evidence (and, if so. what is it) that on
articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has
not been collected ^"
- There is evidence satisfactory to me—that is to say, (xirovided old.
abuses' have not been entirely reformed,) evidence of frauds in the
weighing department.
In 1878 a commission, consisting of the late Mr. Meredith, general
appraiser, and Special Agents Bingham and Hinds, was created by the
Secretary of the Treasury to investigate the New York custom-house.
WhUe the commission was engaged in the investigation of the appraiser's
office, I was ordered to New York to consult with the members thereofi
While there, Mr.
—
made the following statement.
I copy from my memorandum made .at the time:
^^ffuly 13, 1878.
says, some months ago sxiecial agents investigated the weigher's department, NewYork custom-house; found all
the heads of divisions (7) corrupt.
reported the fact to the
Secretary of the Treasury, whereuxion, with the Secretary and Assistant Secretary Hawley, he called upon the President, and it was recommended that all seven be dismissed and seven new weighers be appointed.
The President directed the order to be made, but before it was executed, one
, a Congressman from Ne>v York State, called upon
the President and urged him to countermand the order. He (
)
insisted that its enforcement w^ould cost him his position as Eexiresentative in Congress. Finally, the President consented, countermanded
the order, and directed that the collector be directed to act uxion t h t
special agents' report, whereuxion
removed four of the besi
men, retaining the three worst.''
I believe that sxiecific rates of duty should be substituted for ad valorem rates, and that the opportunities for fraud would be thereby
greatly diminished. But the due execution of any law requires honest
and efficient xiublic servants.
3. " I n what manner, and by what tests, are the invoiced measurements of textile fabrics verified in the usual course of custom-house
business?"
Usually the manufacturers' marks are accepted, but not always. If
suspicion is aroused, measurements are made. At this port scarcely
any consigned goods are received. In August last I had two consignments from Japan. In both cases the goods (silks) were undervalued.
I advanced the first case, and on axipeal the inerchants sustained me
a u d i J per cent. more. On the second case I advanced the invoice,
and the merchants disagreed, the collector taking the highest return,
which, however, was considerably less than my advance.
4. " W h a t evidence is there, if any, of collusion of xiersons making
entry of several packages of similar goods on one invoice and the'
entry clerk or dexiuty collector to send to the appraiser for examination
a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every t e n ? "
REPORT! OF THE SECRETARY OF'THE TREASURY.
551
This was formerly a favorite method of committing fraud. It went
by the name of the '' dummy-package fraud.'' A fraud of this description constituted I the basis of the charge of the Bingham, Hinds, and
Meredith commission against John E. Lydecker, speciai dexiuty collector
down to 1878. The rexiort of that comniission to Secret-ary Sherman
should be in the ^les of the Treasury Department. On the strength of
it. Secretary Sherman demanded of Collector Arthur the removal of his
chief deputy, Lj^decker, and ux3on Collector Arthur's refusal to remove
Lydecker, Arthur was removed. The case, as I recollect it, was this:
The invoices called fbr cheaxi clocks; the cases sent to the apx3raiser
(designated by Lydecker) contained cheap clocks, dutiable at 35 x^er
cent, ad valorem!; but the cases not sent to the axixiraiser contained
fine silks, dutiable at 60 per cent, ad Valorem. For further particulars of this case,! I refer to the report of the Bingham, Hinds, and
Meredith commission before alluded to.
I am informedl by one of the most reputable imxiorting-houses in
Chicago, Messrs.I Wilson Bros., that the goods of a certain English
manufacturer of ihosiery have lately been detained at the New^ York
custom-house, and the Messrs. Wilson think they have grounds for believing that the dummy-xiackage fraud" is involved in the case,
The way for the axixiraiser to detect this form of fraud is to call for
particular packages not designated for his store by the coUector.
5. " What evidence is there, if any, of false or incompetent or inadequate weighing' or measuring on the wharves'?"
I jierhaxis snffi^^iehtly covered the grounds of this question in my
answer to the second interrogatory. But I desire to call attention to
the disclosure of [fraud in the weighing dexiartment of the New York
custom-house made by Sxiecial Agent B. G. Jayne in 1872-'73. Mr.
Jayne was a sxiejcial Treasury agent from the 3d of June, 1869, 'to
February 17, 1874.
^ Under the moieties act he made about eighty seizures for various kinds
of fraud, and recovered something like three million dollars. Mr.
Jayne allowed me| to exaniine his books, and I found there evidences
of every sxiecies of fraud xiossible in connection with customs business,
from bribery for $5 to thousands of dollars.
False weighings; seemed to be a large source of fraud. I copy from
my private memorandum, made at the time, a single case:
^'Sample case, information of pepper by Toionsend, Clench & Bike.'^
• j
Dock-book weight
Eeturn
727,868 xiounds.
669, 201 pounds.
Cheat...
58, 667 pounds.
^' At 15 cents xier pound, duty lost amounted to $8,800.05. •
" I n the same case there was a fi'audulent aUow-ance for damage on
69,974 x)Ounds, at 15 cents xier xiound, $10,496.10.
'' And the books; of the imxiorter shoived sales of 729,984 pounds more
than the weight ofi the entire importation, as shown by the dock-book
weight. /The w^ei^lier was bribed. The imxiorters were entirely resx3ectable, aud xiaid in settlement, $33,748."
I shall have occa^sion again to refer to Mr. Jayne iu connection with
the rexieal of the'^jmoiety law."
552
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
6. ^'Tn respect to rates of dnty and differences between importers and
collectors growing out of decisions of the latter and the Treasury which
have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendment? How
many snch collectors' suits are now xiending in Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore'? If they can be classified and legal questions at issue identified, hoAV many suits are there in each, classification,
and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for trial'?
Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the
Treasury, the district attorneys, and the judges by which these suits
can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they come up, be
sxieedily put at issue and tried"? Does the existing law in resxiect to the.
payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs in 'collectors'
suits' need amendment*? Is there a necessity for a new tribunal to try
judicially questions growing out of rates of external or internal taxation
levied by the executive when tax-payers are dissatisfied, or can the
existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be worked efficiently!"
I do not think that the laiv in regard to or governing cnstoms cases
needs amendment.
T trust I shall be excused from answering the portion of this question
referring to the number, &c., of pending suits at the great Atlantic
ports, since I may assume that these facts are more easily obtained by
the officers at those ports. I believe a plan can be devised by the
Attorney-General, &c., as outlined inthis question, " by which these
suits can be more promxitly disposed of," &c.
I do not think there is need of a new tribunal to try customs cases,
nor do I think that the law in relation to payment of interest as a part
of the damages and costs in collection suits needs amendment. It seems
to me, if suitors are entitled to recover, they are entitled to interest.
But my general reason fbr replying as above to the different numbers
of this qnestion is this: I believe that, through a change of practice
already in xiart inaugurated, the number of apxieals, and hence of suits,
can be greatly diminished. ' I allude to the late order in regard to the
daily return of samples. If the scope of this order can be enlarged so
as to comprehend the establishment of a sample bureau a?5 Washington—
and I emphasize the place of its establishment because I believe it should
sit away from Neiv York—^which bureau, consisting of experts, shall
be required to act upon all samples daily, and report its action at once
to all collectors and appraisers—if this can be done, I believe appeals
and suits ivould be far less numerous.
For a full exxiosition of my views on this subject, I beg respectfully
to refer to my letter to the Department under date of June 20 last.
My suggestion, that in the event of the creation of a sample bureau, its
session should be held away from New York, is based on the fact of the
hostility of the merchants of New York City to inteiior ports of entry.
In support of this proposition, I quote from the fifth report of the Jay
Commission, as follows:
" The twenty-third xioint presented w^as in regard to the equalization
of appraisement at different ports. The committee of the chamber
(of commerce) remarked that the inequality of axipraisement, growing
- out of so many collection districts, there being over one hundred where
duties are collected, especially under-our complex and-intricate tariff,
is a most serious injury to trade. ^ * * They suggest that correct
^
duties are most probably assessed where the iniportations are largest,
and where there is the best organized corps of appraisers; and they
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
553
say Hhat what the- merchauts unanimously demand, and what they
recommend, is a plan to correct the evils and to equalize axipraisements
at the different ports—a plan that shall be at once simple, thorough, and
-raxiid, speed in rbctifying evils of this kind being esxiecially important.'".
I
The committee jadd:
'
*
'' In these view^ we entirely concur, and we think a system can be
readily arranged by which the classification and rates established at
the New York custom-house shall be known and recognized at every
port in the country, and by which the question as to what is the rate
in any xiarticular case may be determined with the least possible delay,
assuming the axixiraisers to be exxierts."
It was often remarked in a satirical way during the administration
of
and,
-, that instead ofthe New York custom-house being
r u n " b y t h e Treasury Dexiartment, the Treasury Department was
" r u n " by the New Yoik custom-house. But here is a serious xiroposition by a commission constituted by the Treasury Dexiartment, that
one custom-house,j the custom-house of New York City, should control
and regulate all the other custom-houses of the country—a xiroposition
that the Treasury Dexiartment should abdicate its functions in favor of
one of its creatures.
7. " Sxiecify the'class of articles, if any there be, on which the recent ^
investigations or the existing facts now susceptible of xiroof conclusively
show that the Treasury Department has, during recent years, failed to
levy and collect in New York the entire and full amount of duty that
the law xirescribed. Is the evidence of failure of a character to be controverted successfully'? And, if so, how and why •?"
With the results of "recent investigations" l a m not familiar. I
believe, however, judging from a general knowledge of the subject, that
there is a failure to collect the full amount of duty prescribed bj^ law
at the x^ort of:New York on staxile silks, and perhaps many other
classes of high-duty-bearing goods. I am confident of the fact, xiartlcularly in regards to silks, because large importers of other fabrics in
Chicago do not import silks, although they handle large quantities of
silk goods.
Twelve years ago, or thereabouts, Messrs. Keith Brothers, of this
city, then the largest establishment of the kind in the United States,
imported silk ribbons very extensively. Suddenly they stoxiped importing altogether.! They told me at the time that they lost heavily
on all their importations; that they could buy in New York at figures
from 20 to 30 per cfent. less than it cost them to import. They have
never resumed the iimxDortation of ribbons.
Messrs. Marshallj Field & Co. imxiort from time to time a case or
two of staxile silks, pmply to secure circumstantial evidence on the subject of undervaluation of silks at the port of New York, and they inform me that they invariably lose mone.y on such importations. I need
not observe that Cliicago merchants of the rank of Field & Co., FarweU
& Co., Keith & Co.j Carson Pirie, Scott SB CO., and many others I might
name, can buy goods in France as cheaxi as any merchants in the world.
They are driven out of the silk markets of the world by the undervaluation of consigned sijlks.
8. "How has a failure come abouf? Has it come of the ignorance,
or of the insolence, lor of the dishonesty of Treasury officials? Is there
any reUable evidenJ3e to show a guilty knowledge of the failure, or q
554
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE T^.EAStJRY.
conspiracy to promote it, among the higher dass of Treasury or customhouse officials'?"
I am not prepared to say and prove that the failure has come about
through the ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty of Treasury officials.
I know of no evidence of a conspiracy between Treasury officials and
custom-house officials to defeat the law. I think the removal of
and
was for the good of the service.
9. "If there be conclusive or satisfactory evidence thatthe appraiser
(not the general appraiser) has reported to the collector false dutiable
values, then (1) how long has the falsehood been in operation, (2) oii
what class of articles, (3) from what places, (4) and w^ere the articles
shipped by the makers or purchasers, and (5) has the same general
condition of things existed in the larger ports'? If the proof of the
false returns of the dutiable values made by the locak apxiraisers depends on the statements hiade by sx)ecial agents of the Treasury De
partment or consular agents, what evidence is there to corroborate the
latter as against the official action of the appraising department"?
I think there is "satisfactory," but perhaps not "conclusive," evidence of the return by a ppraisers of false duti able values. The evidence
I characterize as satisfactery is. such as I allude to in my rexily to Question 7; but that is not such evidence as would be required by a court
called upon to convict of the crime of defrauding the revenue. (1)
The disclosures made by the special agent of the Treasnry, B. G. Jayne,
referred to in my reply to Question 3, show that enormous frauds were
committed in 1871,1872, and 1873. The details of those disclosures
show that fraudulent x^i'actices had at that time not only reached huge
proportions, but became both systematic and bold. The names of
bribed officials, with the amount paid them, were found on the books
of the guilty importers. In some cases the importers gave them notes,
in sums as high as $2,000, in xiayment for the services of corrupt officials.
I cite these circumstances to justify my conclusion that fraudulent practices so systematic and bold must have been of slow growth. In other
words, I think the practice of fraud in the New York custom-house is
of at least tw;bnty years' duration. It xirobably originated during the
war. (2) It relates to sUks, ribbons, laces, kid gloves, and doubtless
many bther kinds of (3) German and French high-rate-of-duty-bearing
merchandise, usually (4) consigned by the. foreign manufacturer to his
agent in New York. (5) I believe this "condition of things" is peculiar to the port of New York, and that it does not exist at the other
large coast ports, nor at any interior xiort.
I know of no evidence in corroboration of the statements of special
agents in cases where the goods subject of alleged undervaluation have
passed out of the control of the customs authorities, excexit the declaration^of merchants that they are driven fromthe foreign markets by such
undervaluations.
10. " I s there now, or has there recently been, confusion or doubt or
conflict of opinion in the appraiser's department resxiecting any ofthe
elements to be ascertained in order to fix and declare the dutiable value;
and, if so, what"? Is not the xilace and time and the standard to be
applied already defined by the statutes, in the oxiinion of the examiners,
deputy appraisers, and appraiser"?"
I do not think that there has been confusion or doubt in the apprai^^r' s
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
555
department in regard to the elements entering into "dutiable value."
I think the rulings of the Department are correct in this respect. I
took the ground immediately nx^on the xiassage of the act of March 3,
1883, that itwas intended b y t h e "sacks, crates, boxes," &c., mentioned in section 7 |to describe shipping coverings; and heiice that cartons, &c., necessary! for the due protection and xiroper exxiosure on sale
'of inerchandise in the country of xiroduction, as well as the place of
export, should make a part of the dutiable value. But it is possible
to make the statute x^lainer. It would doubtless be wise to amend it,
since importing merchants are united in the opinion that all .coverings
are, under section 7, exempt from duty, and are united in contesting
the right of the Goyernment to impose duty thereon.
11. "Can a safe average estimate be now made of the percentage of
each nndervaluatioii by the appraisers in any year or series of years,
and the articles or invoices be identified'?" Not even approximately.
i
12. " A s between! the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser,
which is xirimarily and chiefly resxionsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to the collector'? What is the salary of
such officer? Is the axipraiser much else ordinarily and in fact than
one who officially ceitifies to the collector the values fixed and reported
to him by the examiner and deputy appaiser"?"
If the appraiser attends strictly to the duties of his office, he is primarily responsible for the entire conduct of it and for each act of it, for
he should exert as dlirect a supervision of his subordinates as the merchant exerts over h!is employ6s. In a well-organized and properlyconducted appraiseij's office, the'apxiraiser should not be more liable
to imposition than the head of the house in a well-organized mercantile
establishment.
!
I do hot mean to imply by this that the appraiser should personally
supervise the examination of everj^ x^^ekage of merchandise; such a
suxiervision would bp impracticable. But it is practicable for the apxiraiser to overlook, and closely, too, the entire operations of his force;
and it is also practidable for him to personally examine and decide all
nice and difficult questions of classification and value. This shpuld be
an inflexible rule of office procedure, enforced by precexit and example;
and such a rule, it need scarcely be remarked, requires the constant
presence ofthe apxiraiser during office-hours in the offices and appraising-rooms of the appraiser's department.
The appraiser's salary is $3,000 per annum; the salaries of examiners
in my office run from $1,400 to $2,000 per annum.
What I have said about a comparatively small office (like that at
Chicago) may not apply to the port of New York.
I think the organization ofthe New York appraiser's office is, to say
the least, unfortunate. It is many-headed, one chief appraiser and ten
assistant appraisers; !and the ten assistants are appointed by the President, not on the nomination or necessarily the recommendation of their
chief, the appraiser. !
I do not see, undeir the condition of things, how the appraiser can
enforce his wishes. Kbove aU, I do not believe it possible for him to
maintain the morale bf the large force thus only nominally under his
control ;,and this is what I discovered to be the great difficulty in the
way of an h o n ^ t assessment of the revenue in the appraiser's office of
556
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
New York in 1878, in the course of the investigation already alluded to
in this report.
13. " I s there satisfactory evidence that any Government officials in
the consular department or elsewhere have assisted or consented to, or
connived at, the presentation to appraisers of such false evidence of
foreign values'? If so, what officers, when, and how^'?" I know of no
such evidence beyond what I have already stated.
14.' " K under the previous adininistration of the Treasury false
values have been habitually and systematically reported to the several
collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfully executed, and if
the full amount has not been collected, can it fairly be said the failure
has come, of dishonesty, and been accompanied b3^ guilty knowledge
on the part of Treasury or customs officials; and, if so, of whom'? If
more has been paid to Ameiican officials to get false reports of dutiable
values, who has furnished and paid if? By what means and agency,
and where, has such corruption fund been raised and disbursed'?" I
believe there has been bribery, but have not the means of proof at hand
beyond the circumstantial evidence to which I have from time to time
drawn attention in this report.
15. " K the false valuations have come of bribery or venality, what
reason is there to think that similar corrupt and venal influences are
not now brought to bear, or that they will not be successful in the future as in the past'?" Ibelieve that similar corruxit and venal influences are now brought to bear, and that they are in a degree successful.
Witness the fact that honest inerchants who desire to import all the
foreign merchandise in which they deal, but are xirevented from doing
so, 'and are compelled to pnrchase certain classes of goods of the fbreign
manufacturer in "dollars and cents," as the phrase is, meaning duty
paid, in New York.
16. "Would a change from ad valorem to specific rates be a benefit
to the revenue and help to diminish a tendency to~ bribery, providing
the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future; and could
specific rates be applied to all textile fabrics'?"
I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates would greatly diminish the tendency to bribery and every
species of customs frauds; and this I believe to be true whether the
^^quantity" of duty to be collected shall be great or small.
Undervaluation has always been, and still is, I believe, a prolific
source of fraud—the chief source of fraud. Eoughly estimating, I
should say that more than 75 per cent, of all the customs-revenue frauds
are committed through the undervaluation method. Some frauds are
committed through false and excessive damage allowances; formerly
very heavy frauds were committed by that means, but of late not so
heavy. Some frauds are committed through false weights, &c.; bnt
the great source of fraud is undervaluation, and the substitution of
specific for ad valorem rates will change all that.
I think specific rates can be applied to all textile fabrics. It will be
an arduous undertaking, but it can be accomplished. Specific rates
make up almost exclusively the English and the German tariffs. The
body of statistics, weights of ad-valorem-duty-bearing goods, now being collected by the appraisers of the several great ports of the country,
\uider the letter of instruction of the Department bearing date June
REPORT OF THB SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
557
29 last, will be a valuable aid in finding the equivalents pf ad valorem
rates in specific rates of duty. I think the opinion is almost universal
that strictlj^ specific rates should be substituted for ad valorem rates.
The Jay Commission (1877) stated that of the merchants who had
addressed them on tjhe subject, "one hundred and sixteen were in favor
of the change to specific duties, and but five against it." That commission also called attention to the fact "that the 'British Isles,' with
a popnlation of 35,000,000, derive nearly as much revenue from customs on ten commbdities as the United States, with a population of
40,000,000, receive [from over 2,500 articles, excluding sugar and
molasses."
i
This is a very suggestive fact, touching the question of economy in
collecting the revenue.
.
17. Have the false reports by the appraisers been increased by the
repeal of 1874 of the 'moiety law,' and by the customs legislation of
that date modifying Ithe existing law, and especially modifying that of
In replying to a letter from the Jay Commission, (1877,) Mr. C. A.
1863 respecting seizure of books and papers'?"
Arthnr, then collector of the port of New York, said:
" I herewith enclose a schedule covering the years from 1873 to 1877,
inclusive. From the schedule it will be seen that, whereas in 1873 the
seizures, &c., amounted to $773,310.09, in 1877 the total amount was
only $120,131.09. I !attribute this decrease to the discouraging effect of
the legislation of 187|4."
The civil-service commission of 1871, known as the Curtis Commission, estimated that | one-fourth of the revenues of the United States
were lost in their collection.
The Jay Commission (1877) quote this estimate, and proceed to show,
9;X3x:)roximately, what| the losses were in 1876 on that basis, and find
such losses at the port of New York alone to be $36,000,000.
They also say: "S^me facts submitted by the importers touching the
offer of foreign manufacturers to deliver in New York goods at a lower
rate than they can honestly be imported at, would not seem to indicate
increasing strictness and success in protecting the revenue.^' The circumstances of the repeal of the moiety law show, I think, that it ought
not to have been repealed, and go far to show that it ought to be reenacted. (1) It was I repealed on the heels of a series of enormous
frauds, which were discovered through its aid—the seizure of books and
papers. (2) It was repealed against the protest of those Government
officials who had found it an efficient means of detecting and punishing
fraud. (3) It was repealed at the demand of the persons who had been
proven guilty of its violation. At least I am informed, and believe
such to be the facts, j And if these are facts, the rexieal legislation of
1874 was little less than infamous. "Have the frauds been more extensive since the rexieallj' I cannot absolutely say.
The Jay Commissiqn, (1877,) three years afterwards, found a state bf
things in all its branches of the custom-house service in New York very
favorable to fraud, io sa^^ the least. They say "the investigation
shoived that ignorance and incaxiacity on the part of the employes w^ere
not confined to the surveyor's department, but were found in other
branches of the servi(ie—creating delays and mistakes, imperilling the
safety of the revenue and the interests of importers, and bringing the
^^rvice intp reproach. It was intended by chiefs of departments that
558
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
men were sent to them without brains enough to do the work, and that
some of those appointed to perform the delicate duties of the appraiser's
office, requiring the special qualities -of an expert, were better fitted to.
• hoe and to plow. Some employes were incapacited by age, some by
ignorance, some by carelessness and indifference," &c.
The report shows that the law (section 5452, Eevised Statutes) against
gratuities to revenue officers had become a dead letter; collector admitted that it was not, and could not be enforced. I beg to refer to his
entire letter to the commission, under date of May 17, 1877, printed
i n t h e "second report," in supportof the foregoing proposition, that
an important statute had then been aUowed to become a dead letter.
In the course of his testimony before the commission, Collector
Arthur said, regarding complaints against the different departments
of his office, "some are for inefficiency, some are for neglect of duty,
some for inebriety, and some for improper conduct in various ways,
some for want of integrity, and some for accepting bribes."
I need not enlarge npon this branch of the subject. The disclosures
ofthe Jay Commission and those of the Bingham and Hinds Commis
sion (1878) show, I think, clearly enough that if frauds are not more
extensive since the repeal of the moieties act in 1874, they are, at least,
not less extensive.
I am constrained to give the following quotation from the " t h i r d "
report of the Jay Comniission, page 5: One of the weighers testified
that a schedule (Appendix M) of irregular fees had been adopted by
the 'board of weighers' to make those charges uniform, which they
illegally collect from merchants, ship-owners or agents, and city weighers, for special retnrns, certified copies of returns; and other certificates;
that the weighers frequently delay to make returns of weight to the customhouse until the importer pays him these irregular charges for a copy of his
return of weight. It is proper to add, in regard to this allegation, that
certain weighers addressed a note to the commission denying that the
list in question had been adopted by the weighers; but fees mentioned
in it were shown Ho accord with those that were proven to havebeen paid."
I wish to subniit for consideration the proposition that dutiable merchandise should be weighed under the direction of the appraiser and
not of the collector.
The appraiser is the assessing officer; he determines the amount of
duty dne to the Government, reports the fact to the collector, and the
latter official collects the money. This course is pursued in regard to all
ad valorem rate of duty-paying goods. But in regard to certain specific
rate of duty-paying goods, heavy articles handled by the weigher's department, the duty is practically both assessed and collected by one
officer, the collector, the appraiser simply stating what the legal rate
of duty is, but knowing nothing of the quantity of merchandise upon
which duty is assessed and collected.
I'See no good reason why the moieties act, covering power to seize
books and papers, should not be again made part of the machinery for
collecting the customs revenues, whether that revenue shall continue
to be raised, as now, largely by ad valorem rates, or, as I hope it will
be, wholly by specific rates.
I do not think that honest merchants ever have or ever would object
to such a law as oppressive. It is to the interest of honest merchants
that the revenue should be collected; not a part of it, but all of it.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
559
A member of one of the large importing houses here said to me re
cently: " I think the rexieal of the moieties law, under the circumstances, (and he knew the circumstances as I have described them in
this rexiort,) was a very iniquitous act." To the question, "Would you
object to Governraent officials looking at your books?" he replied,
promptly, " I am willing that Government agents should at any time
examine niy books to the last detail."
18. '' AYould it be xiracticable in the large Ameiican consular districts, such as London, Paris, Berlin, &c., for American consular agents,
no matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine articles to be
shixixied from thence to Ameiican xiorts, and to verify the correctness
of invoiced values'? In which consular districts can American consular
officers safely and surely ascertain and report the true invoiced values
of every shiximent"? Is it likely foreign governments in which such
Anierican consular officers are stationed would abstain from complaints
to this Government, if Ameiican consuls made vexatious delays in examining values arid certifying invoices'? AYhat fees are now exacted on
each shiximent in London and in England by our consuls for certifying
invoices, even of small articles and of little value*?"
I do not think it is xiracticable for consular agents to materially aid
the axipraising officers in fixing foreign market values. It is. certainly
imxiracticable for them to examine the contents of packages in large
di^ricts, such as London, Paris, &c. I am not prepared to say in what
districts such a practice w'ould be xiracticable.
The assumption ofthe question that foreign governments would, under
the circunistances named, interfere to xirotect the commerce of their subjects, is doubtless well fbunded.
I am without any xiarticular information on the subject of consnlar
fees. If illegal fees are charged, I am not aware of it. I am of opinion,
in a general way, that frauds upon the revenue must be prevented, if at'
all, at home. I doubt if the consular service, even if well administered,
could be made of much use in detecting frauds. I believe, however, that
sxiecial agents have obtained valuable information for the customs dexiartment in the course of their employment in foreign countries, and
may doubtless do so hereafter if sent abroad.
19. "Under the law as it now is, the rates of duty levied by a collector can be suxiervised and revised by the Secretary of the Treasury,
and finally by the Federal judicial power; but, according to the analogies of State taxing laws, neither the Treasury Department, nor the
President, nor the judicial xiower can interfere with, or revise, or set
aside the decision of the appraising department respectiug dutiable
values, if the forms of the law have been complied with. Would it be
safe or useful to the revenues and just to the importers that the executive or the judicial xiowers have greater juiisdiction to interfere with
the ascertainnient of the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which
the collector is to levy ad valorem rates'?"
l.do not think it advisable to change the law in regard to the supervision and revision by the Secretary of the Treasury and the judiciary
of rates of duty "levied by a collector." I do not think there are any
serious difficulties in this direction. I would not enlarge the jurisdiction of the executive or the j udicial xiowers.
20. " T h e existing rate of duty on wool is a combination of an ad
valorem and a specific rate. I desire to have prepared and presented to
560
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
me a very careful and accurate analysis of the history of the several
rates of duty on wool since 1860, and of the vforking of the comxilicated
rates on wool that are now in force.''
This is not a "wool port." Hardly any, if any, imxiortations of wbol
are now, or ever have been, made at Chicago. I am, therefore, entirely
unacquainted with the "working of the comxilicated rates on wool." I
therefore beg, respectfully, to be excused from fiirther rex3ly to this
question.
21. " I s it believed that at the large Atlantic ports the pi^actice generally prevails, or prevails at all, of the xiayment of money by arriving
passengers to customs inspectors of baggage, either to prevent or facilitate or hasten an examination of baggage to ascertain whether or not
it contains dutiable articles; and if such a practice exists as the law condemns and forbids, can it be prevented, and how*?"
It is believed that at the port of New York the xiractice generally prevails, or did xirevail down to a late date, of the. xiayment of money by
arriving passengers to prevent examination of baggage and assessment
of duty on its contents.
I believe the practice of receiving money by baggage insxiectors for
connivance at frands can be prevented x)reciselyas a merchant x^revents
Xieculation in his ware-rooms—^by a rigid business system and vigilance
in enforcing observance of it from highest to lowest of the force of employes.
In a letter to the Jay Commission, under date of May 9, 1877, A. B.
Cornell, then naval officer, discussing the subject of "gratuities," said:
"These clerks, whose administrative action, may accelerate or retard
business, or otherwise affect the interest of imxiorters, are but human;
and whenever there is a coincidence of temptation, frailty, and opportunity, there can naturally be but one result."
The italics in the foregoing quotation are mine. I have no sympathy
with the theory that it is "natural" fbr men to steal; that it is "but
human" to indulge in xietty thieving. I believe it to be the duty of
an official charged Vv^ith the control and supervision of a large number
of men, first, to imxiress uxion them a sense of duty to be honest, and,
next, to see that they are honest. I believe that the men who hold
theories like those implied in the passage quoted from Mr. Cornell are
responsible for the fraud and corruxition which have so long xirevailed
in the New York custom-house.
22. "Does the evidence tend to show that in resxiect to the articles
on which the Treasury has failed to collect the whole duty xirescribed
by the law the rate has been carried by Congress beyond and above the
line which the Government can sui?ely xirotect, and into a region where
. smugglers and dishonest shixipers will be very X30werful in evading the
law'?"
I am of the opinion, of course, that a low rate of duty is less difficult
of collection than a high rate, but I believe that a high rate can be
collected. The excise on whiskey (90 cents per gallon on an article
worth about 15 cents) is evidence that a very high tax can be coUected.
The frauds on the revenue through the manufacture of whiskey were
enormous, probably, from 1870 to 1875-'76; but the attention of the
Government being specially directed to the subject, they were vSuxipressed, and now I believe the excise on whiskey is almost fully collected.
The fact that coUection is not a question of rsite wholly, or even chieflj^^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
561
is shown by the circumstance that the custbms revenues are, as a rule,
faithfully collected at all the large Atlantic xiorts except the port of New
York. I assume this to be a fact because in all the investigations with
which I am familiar, covering a period of about fifteen years, I am nbt
aware that any very extensive frauds have been discovered at either of
the bther Atlantic ports—Boston, Philadelphia, or Baltimore.
23. " H a s what has been true of the failure of the Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law in New York b^en generaUy^true, and
for similar reasons, at the other large Atlantic ports'?"
I tliink not. My answer to Question 22 covers the ground of this
question. ^
24. ^^If false returns or reports to the collectors of dutiable values
have been made during a considerable time past, why. have not the
persons or officials concerned therein been complained of^ arrested, indicted, and punished?"
I cannot answer this question better, I believe, than by quoting two
passages from Collector Arthur's letter to the Jay Commission, of May
17,1877. The first of these quotations relates to the subject of "gratuities" bestowed upon certain clerks by importers, nominally for hastening the clearance of goods, and is as follows:
" T h e strict law now on the statute-book has proved practically inoxierative, for the simple reason that it has been found impossible to procure the evidence of its violation. A strenuous effort in this direction
was made a year or more ago, but, as the testimony could come only
from the importers or their brokers on the one side, or the entry clerks
on the other, and as neither can be compelled to testify, the attempt
wholly failed. I do not believe that any new regulation not involving a
change in the mode of doing business can be more successful."
The second quotation relates to the subject of bribing insxiectors of
passengers' baggage, and is as follows:
.
.'
.,
" I have read the remarks of the surveyor as to the inspectors, who
are more immediately under his control; and concur in what he says.
I may, in addition, call your attention to the fact that when last year a
prosecution was instituted against inspectors who were alleged to have,
received money fbr xiassing passengers' baggage, it failed, because it
was necessary to prove not only the receipt of the money, but that it
was received as an inducement to an illegal act, and, consequently, that
there were dutiable goods in the baggage. The latter fact it is impossible to prove, unless the baggage is seized on the spot, which, with the
present facilities for examination of baggage, cannot ordinarily be done
in those cases where the payment of money can be detected."
I believe a thorough examination of the history of frauds,.great and
small, at the port of New York will show that the officials of that port,
high and low, have been of the opinion that it is impossible to prevent
frauds, and that this is the main reason why the jiersons and officials
guilty of frauds have not been xiunished.
Another class of influences may be referred to as contributing to the
failure generally of a faithful execution of the laws, and that is political influence.- The following-described case of this class ^transpiredshortly previous to the investigation of the Bingham and Hinds Commission, in 1878, to wit, the Austin case, where an entry clerk was
convicted of receiving money from a broker. Upon Secretary Sher^
36 A
562
iSEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
man's order prohibiting the acceptance of gratuities, the broker discontinued the practice. After a while Austin demanded money, the broker
refused; citing the order of the Secretary. The entry clerk sneered at
the idea of his being influenced by an order of the Secretary. Finally,
the case was carried before Collector Arthur, and the offence was sb
serious that he promptly removed Austin.
In addition to these various contributing causes to the failure of
punishment of persons and officials for frauds on the customs revenue
is the general cause of the failure of justice in this country, through
an indisposition to punish respectable criminals—a feeling of false
sympathy and tendencies.
In conclusion, permit me to say that I believe undervaluation, can be
suppressed at the port of New York (it exists, I believe, to no considerable extent at any other port) in a very short time, when the collector, the local appraiser, and the general appraiser shaU resolutely determine that it shall cease. And in support of this view I call attention
to the nature of the law touching undervaluation, to the fact that it
places absolutely in the hands of those three officials the question of
foreign market value, and that without appeal. I think that this great
power should be exerted strenuously, because I would show no mercy
to the foreign manufacturer guilty of an attempted fraud upon the Government of the United States.
This (following) is, I believe, the routine course of consignments:
The foreign manufacturer invoices his goods to the agent in New York,
and swears before the consul of his district that the invoice is in all
respects true; that it contains the true market-values of the goods, &c.
When the gobds arrive in New York the agent there enters them at the
custom-house (often) at an advance of from 5 to 9 per cent, over the
invoice pi'ices, swearing that such advance represents the true foreign
market value, &c., and admitting thereby by implication that his
principal, the foreign manufacturer, swore falsely before the consul,
When the goods reach the appraiser he (often) advances them over the
entry price from 5 to 9 per cent. So far, it is a struggle on the part of
the foreign manufacturer and' his agent, assisted (perhaps) by the appraiser, to avoid a penalty. If the appraiser raises the goods beyond
the penalty line, there is a merchant appraisement, in which event, as
before, remarked, the local appraiser, the general appraiser, and the
collector are jointly (assuming that they are agreed in a determined
purpose to break up undervaluation) masters ofi the situation.
After such a course as I have described, I do not think that the
foreign manufacturer should be shown any mercy. I think he should
be compelled to pay duty on every franc of the value of his merchandise.
Yours, respectfully,
CHAELES H. HAM,
United States Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . O.
IREPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.
563
J. A. NOWAK—Appointed Examiner February 3, 1885.
P O R T O F CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 19, 1885.
S I R : In accordance with Department circular of the 27th of August
last, marked "strictly confidential," I submit replies to thefollowing
questions:
3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified at this
office by actual measurement of the width of the fabric, and as often as
expedient of the length. Dress-goods in roU or piece are occasionally
measured in the length, it being difficult to reroll them in their original
shape. I have so far found no error in the invoiced measurements of
the length. '
10. There is no doubt, confusion, or conflict of opinion at this office
respecting any of the elements to be ascertained in order to ^x. and
declare the dutiable value. The place and time and the standard to be
applied are, in my opinion, sufficiently defined by the statutes ahd the
^Department decisions.
12. The examiner is primarily responsible, in the usual course of
business, for a false return of value to the collector. The salaries of
examiners at this office, I am informed, vary from $1,000 to $2,000 per
annum. At this office the appraiseV is consrdted, and decides all doubtful questions, and exercises a general supervision over all business
transacted.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific duties wherever it can be
made would certainly be a benefit to the revenue and simplify the bsiiiness of collecting the same.
I liuow of no way in which a simple specific duty could be applied
to textile fabrics that would be satisfactory in'its operation.
The remaining questions I omit to answer for want of sufficient reliable information on the various subjects.
I w;ould also apologize for my late answer on the ground of illness.
Yery respectfutly,
J. A. NOWAK,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . 0.
56.4
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
a-
•^
• No. 80.
•
•
^
•
H. S. WHEELER—Appointed Exanuner September 13, 1872.
P O R T OF CHICAGO,
III.,
Appraiser's Office, September 23, 1886. .[
SIR : In reply to your circular letter of date September 9, I would
say I am an exaininer of fourteen years' experience in all classes of
merchandise, and am familiar with rates and classifications, but beyond
that I have not been in contact with higher authorities, and you will
undoubtedly have better answers from better sources.
^ Question No. 1.—I have no positive evidence beyond the statements
of importers as to practices in other ports made at our office for objective purxioses, and xiossibly true.
2. My position as examiner in appraiser's dexiartment xirecludes the
possibility of my answering this question with full knowledge.
3. By weighing and measuring.
4. None in this x^ort, as it is not without our scope to call on importers and see other packages of same invoice.
5. I am iu no way connected with the weighing department beyond
my position as examiner, andin this x^ort we have fnll confidence in
the weighing dexiartment.
. D^
'
6. In answer to this qnestion, my views are expressed better than I
<5an express them by the appraiser of this xiort, Mr.; Ham. '
7. I do not know of any.
8. So far as I have an oxiinion, the failure has been at the great port.
of this country, and xierhaps at small xiorts of entry; but as to reliable
evidence, I have none.
9. I consider the apxiraiser decidedly beyond all susxiicion as to this
port.
10. None whatever. When iu doubt we consult our "chief, in whom
we have all confidence in all resx)ects.
'
.
11. This question is by xireceding ones, I think, answered.
12. We have no dexiuty axipraiser; everything goes over the appraiser'.,s desk, or the desk of the chief clerk in his absence, which is
very seldom.
13. None to my knowledge.
14. My position in this port does not enable me to answer this question.
15. No reason bbyond human nature.
16. This is a great question. I from my experience am inclined to
a specific duty, if it can be proxierly brought about.
'
.
17. I think we have had more seizures since 1874, but we have no
false reports from this,office.
18- Unless duplicate appraisers were established abroad, my opinion
is that it would be impracticable for consuls to see all the goods.
^ 19. This is a question involving the right of a general government as
to its judicial rights, and one I can hardly discuss.
^ 20. My idea is that a combination on wool duty is as good as on any
other article. I have already exxiressed my oxiinion as in favor of a
sxiecific duty.
' 21. It was the prevailing opinion that the insxiectors at the port of ^
New York were too lenient with arriving passengers, but of late years,
under new order of things, I think this has not prevailed so extensively.
Q)-
\ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
565
22. This, may possibly be the case, but my position precludes a valuable idea as to this question.
"23. From my acquired knowledge, I am ofthe opinion that New York
has been more loose i n this respect than other ports.
24. This question refers more to other ports than this one, because I
think we are clean in this respect; so I cannot say why such persons or
officials have not been complained of, if such exist!
I am, sir, very respectfully,
H. S. WHEELEE,
Examiner of. Mercliandise.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
.
Seeretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 81.
FRANK E. BARNARD—Appointed Inspector, Brazos, February 1, 1866; Deputy Collector and Inspector, Corpus Christi, October 10, 1868 ; Examiner October 22, 1883.
P O R T OF CHICAGO,
III.,
Appraiser's Office, September 26, 1885.
D E A R S I R : In reply to your favorcof the Oth instant, I would respectfully state that my duties as examiner of tea at this port do not
familiarize me with the levying or collection of duties.
Any answer I might make would not come from personal knowledge,
but from hearsay only, and consequently would be of no value to the
Department.
Yery respectfully,
F E A N K E. BAENAED,
Tea Examiner, Bort of Chicago.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
o
No. 82.
: ^
WILLIAM H. LECKIE—Appomted Examiner February 3, 1885.
P O R T OF CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 3, 1885.
S I R : I am in receipt of your printed circular, dated September 9,
marked "strictly confidential," requesting me to answer certain questions propounded by you. In reply, I will answer the following ques^
tions, viz:
Question 1.—Answer: I can only say that at Chicago the duty has
been levied and collected accordipg to law and the decisions o f t h e
Department.
Q
> Question 2.—Answer: I am of the opinion that all goods that pay
purely specific duties are properly, or should be, collected.
Question 3.—A nswer: The invoice measurement is generally accepted,
except when the goods seem to be over weight or in excess of the invoice
quantity given. In such cases, goods have been measured and generally
found to be correct.
#
566
REPORT ^OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Question 4.—Answer: I have no evidence of any collusion between
persons making entry of several packages Of similar good's on one
j
invoice and the entry clerk or dexmty collector to send to the appraiser's
store for examination a bogus or false package as a fair sample of one
in every ten.
I
Question 6.—Answer: I have no evidence of false or incompetent
weighing on the wharves, as that is propeiiy under the charge of the
collector.
' Question 12.—Answer: The examiner is usually responsible for a
false' return in dutiable value of merchandis,!e to the collector. - The
salary' of examiners in Chicago range from $1,000 to $2,000, the examiner drawing the largest salary being the longest in the service. The
appraiser at this port has ever since I h a v e rbeen connected with the
office been consulted on difficult points of the |law in classifying goods.
and has given general and just satisfaction.
- Question 16.—Answer: I think a change from ad valorem rates to
those of specific would be a benefit to stop the undervaluation of gobds;
and altiiongh some goods might not pay such a high rate of duty as now
coUected, jJl reputable merchants would be on the same level and could
import goods by paying the same rate of duty.
Question IS. -^ Answer. I think it would be prficticable in every consular
distiict for A m m c a n consular agents to exaniine goods bought for shipment to the United States, and find out ff-oiji other dealers or manufacturers as to the correctness of the value of| said goods. It seems to
me that it would require a very small amount of time to examine samples, submitted by exporters, and that it ivonljl not be within the power
of foreign countries to object to the small jdelay thereby occasioned.
The fee prescribed by lavv* is, I believe, $2.50| fbr a consul's certificate,
and I know of no drawback that can properly be allowed.
Question 19.—Answer: I thinly it ^ould bp entirely unwise to allow
any law to be enacted to interfere with the dutiable value fixed by the
appraiser to be changed, provided the same jwas according to law, and
- the appraiser was honest, competent, and un^derstood his business.
The other questions submitted by the Secretary, I am not familiar
enough with to answer them intelligently, and respectfully hope that
those I have answered will be of some benefit.
•
\
Yery respectfully,
|
WILL[IAM H. LECKIE,
Examiner, Appraiser's Vffice.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
I
.
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C. .
No. 83.
JAMES M. EARNES—Appointed Clerk, Chicago, October 11, 1883, and May 6, 1884;
Examiner February 3, 1885.
P O R T O F CHICAGO, I I I . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 5, 1885.
S I R : I respectfully acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 9, requesting me to reply to certaiii questions therein contained.
^ By way of premise, permit me to say that my axixiointment to the'
customs service dates back only to October 12,1883. I will, therefore, •
REFORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TitE TREASURY.
567
heg leave to be excused from answering any questions or parts of questions not within the boundaries of'my experience. I believe that any
information which I might compile would be far less acceptable to you
than the actual experience of men who 'have had an opportunity to investigate for themselves.
Question 1.—In answer to the first question, I would respectfully say
that I believe there is some variation in the rate of duty assessed upbn
the same article at different ports. This, however, is not intentional
fraud, as I believe, but is the result partly of ambiguity in the law itself,
and partly from the conflicting opinions of the different appraisers.
Take, for examxile, '^' edible beans and pease.'' The Dexiartment holds at
one time that they are "garden-seeds," and dutiable at the rate of 20
per cent, ad valorem; at another time that they are "vegetables," and
dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent, ad valorem. No doubt conflicting
opinions on this subject have also existed at the various ports. This is
only one of numerous cases. The precise application of the word
"partly," in paragraphs Nos. 216 and 363, T. I., new, have also caused
rates of duty to vary at different xiorts. I am not aware that wrong
classifications Jiave been made intentionally.
Question 2.—The main opportunity of deff'auding the Government
of.the full amount-of duty on goods which psij purely si)ecific rates
lies in false and inadequate returns by weighers and gaugers. I can
give you no accurate information of misconduct on their part; but
I have heard it stated that false returns have formerly been made at the'
port of New York. Goods of this character which are found, in connection with others, subject to ad valorem rates of duty, are carefully
weighed at this office.
'
Question 3.—In case the goods contain wool, the weights are compared with the invoiced weights, and the widths with the invoiced
^ widths. In goods not containing wool, the widths are always compared, and an examiner's familiarity with them would enable him to
detect an important departure from the invoiced quantity. It is not
customary to ascertain the actual lineal measure of such goods, on ac^^ count of injury to them.
Question 4.—I can submit no evidence upon this question. I am
aware that this form of fraud is possible, but can be guarded against'
and thwarted by the appraiser and his examiners, provided several
- packages other than those designated by the deputy collector be called
to'the appraiser's store for examination.
Question 5.—In general, the weight of the sample box, cask, or barrel
ordered to the appraiser's store have been found to correspond with
the return of the weighers. I am unable to produce any evidence of
fraud.
Question 6.—1 believe that certain portions of the existing law could
be revised in such a manner that many doubts would be removed from
the minds of both importers and customs officers. For example, let
us take a piece of silk of such a character that it may be used both for
trimming hats and for other purposes. The appraiser returns the goods
^ as manufactures of silk, dutiable under T. I., new, 383, at the rate of
50 per bent, ad valorem. The importer appeals to the Dexiartment,
claiming that this silk shouldj be classified as "hat-trimming," at the
rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem, in accordance with paragraph 448.
,The Department then affirms the classification made by the appraiser,
whereupon the importer carries the case into court. Both importer
568
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and appraiser are honest in their oxiinions. The dispute arises from
the fact that each places'a different construction upon the" xiaragraph
cited.
I am unable to give information in regard to "collectors' suits" at
the ports mentioned, b u t l am of opinion that the Attorney-General,,
the Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorney, and the judges can
succeed in obtaining a speedy trial.
If suits are allowed to remain so long at issue, it seems only just that
the merchant should receive interest upon the money thus recovered.
However, if a speedy trial could be obtained, the payment of interest
would, be unnecessary. A new tribunal could be formed composed pf
men specially adapted to the work in hand, by nieans of which more
correct verdicts could be obtained and the suits be more promxitly disposed of. The present system could be made much more efficient if
properly managed.
. Question 7.—There is no doubt that silks are systematically undervalued at the port of New York. I speak confidently^, from the fact
that Chicago importers are compelled.to buy their silks in New York.
They are unable to import direct on account of inability to compete
with the New York agents of the fbreign manufacturers, who have paid
duty on a less valuation than would be accepted by the costoms officers
at other ports. ^ Eecently, while in conversation with an imxiorter who
had just returned from France, I w a s informed that he could imxiort
advantageously everyihing except silk goods. These he- could buy in
New York on much more favorable terms. I see no good reason why
the appraising officers in New. York should not become very exxiert in
determining the true foreign values of silks, and thns be able to thwart
every attempt at undervaluation. Of course, vigilance, integrity, and
familiarity with the goods will enable the customs officers to coUect
the full amonnt of duty. The same may be said of snch other articles
as are nndervalued.
Question 8.—There are a number of reasons for this failure:
1. The high rate of dnty on silks invites attention to this particular
field. ^
2. The fact that.the foreign manufacturers consign th.eir goods direct
to their agents in New York causes them to be more desirous, of invoicing at less than their'value.
3. A desire on the part of New York merchants to compel interior
buyers to rexiair to them instead of seeking the foreign market.
4. The complex manner in which the axipraising dexiartment of that
port is conducted.
It seems only a logical conclusion to say that dishonesty must have
been practised in order to accomplish the result now obtained. Whether
such dishonesty has reached beyond New York, even-to the Treasury
Department, I am unable to say. But it is certain that silk goods could'
not have continued to be nndervalued for any xirolonged peiiod withont a guilty knowledge on the xiart of the apxiraising officers. Question 9.—I believe satisfactory evidence .can be produced showing
that at ports other than NewYork certain lines of goods have been con-'
tinually undervalued, and, as a result, appraisers have unintentionally
reported to the collector false dutiable values. I refer xiarticularly to
Japanese go-ods. Sometimes these goods jare consigned by the manufacturer to his agent, and sometimes imxiorted under bona fide purchase.
This is also an inviting field for undervaluation, owing to the high rate
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.'
569
of duty imposed on such goods, and the general ignorance of appraising officers^and merchants in regard to the foreign value of such goods.
Many of these articles are manufactured in private houses in Japan,
and for this reason importers claim that prices are necessarily very
elastic. I am of oxiinion that nearly all ports have suffered from under- .
valuations" of this kind. One firhi of this city was honest enough to
admit that his consignment of Japanese goods was undervalued, and
voluntarily raised the xirices to the market value on making entry.
Question 10.—The only confiict of opinion resxiecting elements of dutiable value which I can recall was in regard to the propriety of including certain outer coverings, such as barrels containing Portland
cement, in the dutiable value of the goods. A recent decision'of the
Department has very properly settled this matter. But the number of
appeals which have been made upon cartons, &c., shows that the merchants do not properly understand the force of section 7. ^
Question 11.—I do not know that an average estimate could be made
of the undervaluation referred to; but a large nuniber of the invoices,
especially Japanese, could be identified.
Question 12.-^Of course the dutiable values are usually made up by
the examiners and deputy appraisers, subject to the inspection of the
appraiser, and any doubtful question regarding such dutiable value is
referred to the judginent of the appraiser. The appraiser, is, there-'
fore, primarily responsible for a false return.
At this office the appraiser receives $3,000 per annum. There are
also four examiners, whose salaries are, respectively, $2,000, $1,800,
$1,600, and $1,400 per annum.
The appraiser should be a man of extended experience with merdiandise, of broad culture or range of information, and thoroughly
conversant with the customs laws and regulations; he should, in fact,
be able to intelligently decide all questions referred to him by his examiners.
Question 13.—I am not aware that any consular agent has connived
at fraud in xiresentation of false values to axipraisers.
Question 14.—I have previously stated my views on this question, and
can furnish nothing more conclusive than that which has already been
given. I am unable to point out individuals, or explain how such cor=
ruption fund has been raised.
Question 15. —I see no reason to believe that similar corruxit influences
will not be brought' to bear in the future as in the past. A strenuous
effort on the part of the Treasury Departrnent wonld.of course have a
very beneficial effect, and cause those who are engaged in such corruption to be extremely cautious. If fraud shall be eradicated, it will
be due to an earnest effort on the part of both Treasury and customs
officials. I believe it can be accomplished. Honest, earnest work is
necessary.
.
Question 16.—I am greatly in favor ofthe application of specific rates
of .duty to all classes of goods for which it is practicable; and if such,
rates are not made dependent upon values, the evils of undervaluation
are necessarily removed. Having fixed a specific rate upon goods independent of their value, the tendency would be to import only articles
of good quality, since inferior articles would^ be subject to thesame
rate of duty as those of better quality. The main thing to be guarded
against in that case would be false weights and measures, and j^hese
570
REPORT Oi' THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
could be safely guarded by means of only^a portion of the care now
bestowed on foreign market values.
^
I am convinced that specific,raties could be applied to textile fabrics,
but am unable to see; how rates could be made elastic enough to coyer
the various classes of such goods (^thout having reference to values.
Even then there is little danger of undervaluation, except in goods
approaching some of the qualifications in value prescribed by the law.
. In silk goods, however, the value is often a question of weight. In
such cases weights could be substituted for values.
Question 17.—Having had no experience with the operations of the
^' moiety law'' or the law in relation to the seizure of books and papers,
as referred to by you, I would respectfully ask to be excused from answering this question.
Question 18.—It seems to me that snch a x^lan wonld be open to objections. The same work of examination would need to be done again
when the goods arrived in the United States. It would also cause
delay in the shipment of goods and be a source of complaint, both at
home and abroad. Yet consular officers can certainly render valuable
aid to appraising officers in obtaining foreign values.
I know of no consular distiict in which the consul would be able to
furnish the true values of every shipment; but there are.certain places
which export large quantities of a standard line of goods, whose values
should be well known to the consul. Edinburgh, Bradford, Nottingham, Belfast, Birmingham, St. Galle, and Chemnitz are among this
class.
The usual consular fee is 16s. 6d.
Question 19.—I am not in favor of placing such unrestrained power
in the hands of any one man. No doubt the appraiser's familiarity with
goods makes him x^eculiarly fitted for fixing foreign values. Yet, in
case of an error in jiudgment or inexperience on the part of the appraiser,
or a dispute between the appraiser and an importer in regard to values,
there should yet be a reserve power to which appeal may be had.
Merchant appraisement alone is not sufficient.
Question 20.—I may very properly be excused from answering this
question, inasmuch as no unmanufactured wool is received at this port.
I might describe the working of the tariff rates on woollen manufactures, but I understand your question to refer only to unmanufactured
wool.
Question 21.—The opinion is prevalent here that money is paid to
inspectors of baggage at New York, in order to hasten examxination,
and also to prevent proper examination when it would result in finding dutiable articles. Such a practice can be overcome only by vigorous measures on the part of both the higher custonis officials and the
Department.
Question 22.—The articles which are undervalued are in almost every
instance subject to a high rate of duty. They also belong to a class of
which the values are fluctuating and not easy to be obtained by customs officers. With the prospect of such good results on the one hand,
and the probability of escaping detection on the other, the foreign manufacturer yields to this great temptation. I am not prepared to say
that the Government cannot coUect the full amount of duty even on
the highest duty-bearing goods. It, of course, reqnires hard work and
vigilance. But I do believe the expense and labor of collection is intensely increased on account of certain excessive rates of duty. No
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
571
doubt smuggling^ and dishonesty are greatly increased on account of
the high rate of^uty on silks alone.
Question 23.—I do not believe that the same combination of circumstances and evil results which have existed at New York are to be found
at the other Atlantic ports. The volume of business and the location
of the agents of the foreign manufacturers are circumstances peculiar to
New York.
Question 24.—As I believe this evil has existed princixially at New
York, I will confine my reply mainly to that x^ort.
(1.) A desire to favor New York and her merchants as against the
Government.
(2.) The volume of business and the manner in which the apjiraising
dexiartment is organized and conducted have made detection difficult.
(3.) Where so much business is done and so many merchants and
customs officers interested, and the evil has taken such deep root, the
political prestige of the parties concerned has become very formidable.
Allow me to add, by way of digression, that I believe that the civilservice law axiplied to niinor xiositions will be a very imxiortant factor
in removitfg such xiolitical influence. I believe that instances are numerous where New York customs officials have been spared from, merited
punishment solely on account of the political forces which they were
able to set in motion.
Hoping this necessary delay in answering will be excused,
I remain, yours, very respectfully,
JAMES M. BAENES,
Examiner, U. S. Appraiser's Office.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. 0. ^
PORT OF CINCINNATL
No. 84.
M^LLIAM CALDWELL—Appointed Snrveyor April 21, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, CINCINNATI, OHIO,
Surveyor's Office, October 10, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your communication of August 27, 1885, I have the,
honor to answer the interrogatories therein contained as foUows:
1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied
and collected as the law prescribed.
2. I know of no evidence that the full amount of purely specific rates
has not been collected.
3. Invoice measurements and weights of textile fabrics are verified
or corrected by the appraiser at this x^ort by actual measurement and
weighing. The apxiraiser with the examiner examines the merchandise
personally.
4. I know of no instance at this port of collusion of the kind referred
to in the question.
^ 5. I know of none.
572
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
• 6. Since I have taken charge of the office at this port no diflerences
between importers and the coUector growing out ofi^ecisions by the
latter and the Treasury in respect to rates of d u t ^ ^ a v e resulted in
suits. So far as I know, the present law works satisfactorily.
7. I know nothing about the facts inquired about in questions 7, 8j
and 9.
10. There is not now or has there ever been any conflict of opinion
respecting the ascertainment or fixing the dutiable value of mercbandise.
The means defined by the statutes are ample, were the^y fulfilled. Consular officers are derelict in their duties in forwarding market rates of
merchandise in their respective districts. Many consular officers make
no report to this office whatever of merchandise exxiorted from their
districts. This is particularly the case in the French districts, Paris
included. No market rexiorts or samxiles of textile fabrics are received
at this port from Paris.
11. 1 know of no undervaluation at this port.
12. Appraisers are solely and entirely responsible for the return of
dutiable values to the survej^or. The appraiser at this port examines
each and every invoice of merchandise, and holds himseU' responsible
for the correct valuation, believing It to be his full duty, as required by
the statutes. Any false returns reported would be directly and justly
charged to him. He in every case at this port reports the dutiable
value. His salary is $3,000 per annum.
13. Have no knowledge of facts asked forin questions 13,14, and 15.
16. I do not believe, that specific duties entirely would be beneficial
or possible, or would they help to diminish the tendency to bribery.
Specific rates cannot be applied to all textile fabrics. Yalues must
control the rate of duty on textile fabrics or else x>rohibit the importation of certain grades.
17. So far as this port is concerned I do not think that the repeal ofJ
the moiety law, and the other legislation referred to in this question, has
increased the false reports by apjiraisers.
18. I have no knowledge which would justify me attempting to answer
"the first, second, and third part of this question. The fee exacted by
consul in London and in England for certifying invoice is $2.50.'
. 19. I know of no dissatisfaction at this x>ort with the working ofthe
present system. J have heard of no complaints from importers, nor do
I see that the Government is being wronged thereby, and therefore I
see no reason for a change in the law in respect to the ascertainment of
the dutiable vplue of merchandise, or to extend thejurisdiction of the "
executive or judicial powers to interfere with the same.
20. The present rate of duty on wool is not a compound duty, but is
specific—so much per pound. There is no wool imported at this port,
and so can give but little iuformatioii as to the workings of the present
tariff'.
. 21. Question 21 does not apply to this port.
22. I know^of no evidence tending to show that the Treasury has
failed to collect the entire duty prescribed by law on any article at this
port.
23. This is a matter I know nothing of
24. I know of no false returns or reports of dutiable values having
been mstde at this port.
Eespectfully submitted.
WM. CALDWELL,
'
Surveyor of Gustoms.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.
.
573
PORT OF DETROIT.
No. 85.
WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, JR.—Appointed Storekeeper January 16,1877; Collector
. December 20, 1883.
,
C U S T O M H O U S E , D E T R O I T , MICH.,
Collector's Office, September 10, 1885.
S I R : 1 have the honor to acknowledge receipt of confidential circular request for information and my viexvs on customs laws and the administration thereof, &c.
Premising my reply thereto with the statement that my experience
in the customs service has been somewhat limited, that all this experience is confined to the administration of this office, and trusting that
it will not be overlooked that the answers herein to the sxiecific ques:
tions asked have reference only to this port, I proceed to reply.
For the sake of brevity, I take up the inquiiies in their numerical
order, referring to the number of the section or paragraph without
stating its substance. T o t h e
" 1 and 2. Would say that I know of no evidence.
^
. 3. Invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified usually by
a comparison of the tickets or cards on the xiieces or bolts with the invoice. In cases of doubt or suspicion as to the correctness of the carded
quantity, actual measurement is made to verify them.
4. Know of no such evidence, and am satisfied there is noue to sustain such a charge against the officers at this port.
5. Know of no evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate
weighing or measuring on the wharves or elsewhere.
6. I can suggest no amendments to existing laws as regards the settlement of differences'between imxiorters and Government officials as
to rates of duty, unless, indeed, the establishmeut by law of a tribunal
having esxiecial jurisdiction of such cases might be considered advisa-'
ble. I believe such a tribunal would tend to a x^i'ompter settlement of,
such.cases. Whether a plan could be devised by the law officers of the
Government for the more prompt disposition of these cases under existing law, is a question, it seems to me, that can be answered by those
officers only. The judiciary is all powerful in their sphere, and unless
they entered heartily into such an arrangement it would most surely
fail,
Few cases ever get to court from, this district, one only having been
taken there in several years, that of D. M. Ferry fe^Co., against me, as
coUector, on the question of classification of seeds, as to what do and
do not constitute ''garden seeds." This was decided by the United
States district court here.in March last, and in this case the honorable
Attorney-General has directed the suing out of a writ of error to the Supreme Court. As to the question of iuterest as part of damages in collectors'suits, I do not feel competent to give an oxnnion.
7 and 8. I do not and cannot have-any knowledge on these points.
9. No evidence is in existence, that I am aware of, and I am positive
no charges wer:. t^v..rniad(i: to this office, that the appraiser atthis port
ever knowingly reported false dutiable values. The only complaint
574
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ever made to my knowledge against the appraiser here, is that he leans
too much towards the Government, and returns valiles, if anything, too
light.
'
.
^
.
10. There was at one time, but not recently, some doubt in the appraiser's department as to what should and what should not be included
to make dutiable value under section 7,/act of March 3, 1883, but there
is none now; the law, as defined by the decision of the Department, it
is believed, now being fully understood.
, 11. Is answered, so far as I can answer, by reply to the ninth paragraph.
12. Speaking for this port and generally here, the appraiser is responsible fbr all returns of values. The only exception that occurs to me is
in the case of returps of values of live stock, for which a special stock
inspector is primarily responsible, the apxiraiser generally accepting his
report of values in such cases. This stock insxiector receives a compensation of $2.50 per diem.
The appraiser has one assistant, a deputy collector and examiner,
salary $2,000 per year, but the appraiser ordinarily is responsible, as,
when present, he personally examines into all matters of this kind.
This can be done at this port, but at the larger ports it would be impossible, and at snch ports the primary responsibility for return of
values would rest on the deputies and expert examiners who pass di^
rectly upon the goods.
,
; While the appraisers may be, and perhaps are, legally responsible for
the acts of their subordinates, it seems to me they are not morally so.
I t would be a manifest injustice to hold an appraiser responsible for return of false values of goods of a class for the examination of which an
exxiert is employed in his department. '
.
13. I know of no evidence on this point.
"
14. As false values have not to my kuowledge, or in my belief, been
knowingly reported to this office by the appraisers or customs officials,
I can only say that if false values have been reported in any instance, I
believe such returns were not tainted with fraud on the part of the
officials. I t has always been my opinion that, within a certain limit, it
is almost if not quite impossible to detect undervaluation, and my experience has satisfied me that the customs laws are honestly and conscientiously enforced at this port, and that while it may be and is .possible that the revenue is defrauded to some extent at this port by reason
of false valuation, I am well satisfied that it is not with the connivance
of customs officials. Indeed, if the statements of some importers here
are to be believed, goods are valued here higher than at other ports,
and that the errors, if any, in valuations reported are always in favor
pf the Government and against them.
15. If false valuations have in fact come of bribery in the past, I see
no reason why they should not be procured by similar means in the
future, nor do I see any absolutely certain way to prevent it. True, the
change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would stop the false
return of values, but then the motive for bribery would still exist, only
instead of the appraising officers, the inspectors, weighers, and gaugers
would be the persons sought to be influenced corruptly to make false
returns of quantity: Fraud of this latter kind, however, I think could,
if not more easily discovered, be more easily prevented by frequent
irregular transfers of such officers from one subdistrict to another. These
irregular transfers of inspe^tpi'S, w^igbo^s, ^c.^ I M m § m^ W^ feegj
REPORT OF THE SIECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
575
16. This question is in the main answered above. I do not believe a,
change, from ,ad valorem to specific rates would help to diminish a tendency to bribery. It would only subject another class of officials to
temptation, as false returns of quantity can be more easily prevented,
or at least be made more difficult of x^rocurement, than false returns of
value. I think that where, presuming that the existing quantity of
duty is to be levied in the future, a change from ad valorem to specific
rates can be made, it would be desirable and a benefit to the revenue
to make them.
As to ma,king such change apply to textile fabrics, I am inclined
strongly to the opinion that it could not be done. These fabrics are so
varied in weight, texture, price, and the uses to which they are put, and
the list of them, under new commercial designation and new combinations of component materials, is being so constantly augmented, that I
very much doubt the practicability of establishing specific rates calculated to bring into the Treasury the existing quantity of duty.
17. This question I cannot answer from any personal knowledge.^ If
by ^ false reports" is meant the reports by axipraisers of values belew
^
the, true value, then I do not see how the repeal of the moiety clause
would have even a tendency in that direction, though the modification
ofthe law of 1863, respecting seizures of books and papers, it seems to
me, inight have the effect to increase such false reports.
18. I do not think it would be practicable to have personal examination of goods shix)ped from the larger consular districts in Europe. Indeed the same might be said of the smaller districts, even in Oanada,
unless the consular force was largely increased. I cannot tell in what
consular districts officers could safely and surely ascertain aud report
true values of all goods shipped to the United States from their districts. There are some districts where, as regards the ruling or principal articles of export therefrom, officers should be able, with some exertion, to get the true market values.. At the same time a person known
to the pubhc in those districts, even as an officer of the United States
consular service, must necessarily work at a great disadvantage in getting such information. As regards United States consular officers in
Canada, with whom we have principally to deal, my experience has been
that they do not exert themselves, or, at least, if they do, not successfully, to procure and furnish information of any value to the customs.
The certification of invoices by them seems to be a mere matter of form,
and in ascertaining the true values of goods little if any consideration
is given to the cons'^ular certificates at this x>ort. It seems to be only
necessary for a shipper to present an invoice at a majority of the consulates or agencies in Canada to have it certified.
Judging the other United States consulates by those in Canada, I
have come to have little confidence in them as a protection from fraud
by undervaluation. While I do not feel myself competent to express
an oxnnion as to what foreign governments would or would not be likely
to do if Ameiican consuls made delays in examining values, &c., it
seems to me that the United States have certainly the right to protect
its revenue in its own way, and I do not think the foreign shipper would
consider it to his interest tb object. As regards fees of consuls in London, and England generally, all invoices therefrom received at this port
are marked ''Fees $2.50."
19. As to ascertainment of dutiable values I do not think it would be
any safer, more nseful to the revenue, or more just to importers that the
^xeoutiYO power §^ouW b^ve fre^tei' Jqri§aiotiQi^ to mt^rf§r§, Tbe ju^
576
REPORT OF THE SEICRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
dicial power, it seems to me, cannot well be extended, as they have
all power now. The laws as they stand now seem to me to be as fair
and equitable, both for the Government and the importers, as they can
well be made. Both are protected by them; both have resort for final
settlement, of disputes as to value, &c., to the Federal courts.
20. As to duty on wool, while I am not perfectly clear as to w h a t i s '
meant by a history of the several rates of duty bn wool since 1860, if by
'' history" is meant the moving causes for the vaiious changes, the going
back beyond the laws to get the objects and aims pf the legislators in
framing them, then I am not in a position to do it. , This is not, and has
never been, a woolimporting district. The apx)raiser informs me that
the^re has not been imported direct into this district to exceed $200 worth
of wool in ten years, and I am therefore not in a position to discuss this
question inteUigently. I can only give the laws as they were in 1860, ^
and since, sbowing the changes in the tariff' on wool, which I do below,
viz,:
•
^
In 1860 the duty on all wool was 24 per cent, ad valorem (act March
3, 1859, vol. 11, U. S. Stats., p. 192.)
^ '
In 1861 the law was changed as follows, viz: All valued at place
whence exported to the United States at 18 cents or less than 18 cents
per pound, at 5 per cent; exceeding 18 cents per pound, at 3 cents per
ponnd; exceeding 24 cents per pound, a t 9 cents per pound.
Importations in pther than ordinary condition to evade revenue or reduce value below 18 cents per pound, dutiable at 9 cents p^er pound.
(See act March 2,1861, Yol. 12, U. S. Stats., pp. 183 and 196.)
The law was changed again in 1864 as follows, viz: Wool, valued at
12 cents or less per pound, at 3 cents per pound; exceeding 12 cents
and not exceeding 24 cents per pound, at 6 cents per pound; wool, exceeding 24 cents per pound and not exceeding 32 cents per pound, at
10 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; exceeding 32 cents per pound, at
12 cents per pound and 10 per cent.; conditioh changed to evade duty
subjecting all to the highest rate, viz, 12 cents per pound and 10 per
cent. - (See act June 30, 1864, Yol. 13, U. S. Stats,, p. 206.)
See also second proviso, sec. 9, act of July 28, 1866, Yol. 14, U. S.
Stats., p. 330, which provides, as regards long combing or carpet wools
costing less than 12 cents per pound, charges added to which would
bring value above 12 cents per pound, an additional 1 cent per pound
accrues.
Up to this time no distinction seems to have been made in the
tariff laws on wool except on the basis of value, but by the act of March
2, 1867, Yol. 14, U. S. Stats., p. 559 et seq., a new distinction in addition
to that of value is made, to wit: the kinds of wool, classing merino and
kindred woolsin one class, English long wools in another, and South
American, Turkish, Egyptian, &c., in another, the classes by this
law being: first, clothing wools, merino, &c.; second, combing wools,
Leicester, Cotswold, and other long wools; third, carpetcwools. South
American, Turkish, Egyptian, &;c., and the duties being fixed asfollows:
Class 1.—^Yalue, excluding charges, 22 cents or less per pound, at 10
cents and 11 per cent.; excluding 32 cents per pound at 12 cents and 10
per cent. If imported washed, double above rates.
Class 2.—Yalue, excluding charges, 32 cents or less per pound, at 10
cents and 11 per cent.; excluding 32 cents per pound, at 12 cents and
10 per cent.
.
,
Otos3.—-Yalue 12 cents or less per pound, at 3 cents per pound."
Exceeding 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
577
All wools imported scoured, dutiable at three times ambunt of duty to
which subjected if unwashed. Condition changed to evade duty or reduce value dutiable at twice the rate to which otherwise subject.
By joint resolution March 22,1867, Canada long wools added to class
2 (see U. S. Stats., vol. 15, p. 21).
By act of June 6, 1872, U. S. Stats., vol. 17, p. 281, existing duties
reduced 10 per cent. This act repealed and old rates restored by act
March 3, 1875 (see sec. 4, Supxilement Eevised Statutes, vol. 1, p. 153).
The act of March 3, 1883, vol. 22 U. S. Stats., p. 508, the last legislation on this subject, preserves the same divisions into classes as former
acts, and imposes duties on wool, as follows, viz:
Class 1.—Value 30 cents or less xier pound, at 10 cents per pound;
value exceeding 30 cents x^er xiound, 12 ceuts x^er xiound. Imx3orted
washed, double above duties.
Class 2.—Value 30. cents or less per pound, at 10 cents per pound;
value exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. Glass 3.—Value 12 cents or less xier pound, 2J cents per pound; value
exceeding 12 cents per x)ound^ 5 cents per pound. Imported, scoured,
all classes, duties three times-the rates to which otherwise subject.
As hereinbefore stated, there being ho importations of wool at this'
X)ort, I canuot give the workings of the law in reference thereto.
21. While I have no personal knowledge of such practice, it is the
general belief the xiractice does prevail at the port of New York of the
XDayment of money by arriving passengers to inspectors^ of baggage,
either to prevent absolutely or at least to hasten the examination of
baggage.
As to the adoption of anycourse to xirevent this, I am free to say I
do not think it can be done. When the general traveling public, and.
more especially that class ofi Americans who cross the ocean (presumably the ffrst class in inteUigence) are educated uxi to a belief that in
morals it is equally as wrong to tender as to accept a bribe, there may
then be devised a method, to prevent these corrupt practices. In my
oxiinion the Government officers as a rule are as honest as the general
public. The stream does not rise above its source.
22. There can be fixed no rate of duty so low as to remove absolutely
allinducement to smuggle, and in that sense there is no line below
which-the Government can surely xirotect.
There are some rates of duty so high, however, as to offer great inducements to smugglers and dishonest shippers, the profits .of whom
make them powerful in evading the law. I do not believe the present;
rates are too high to preclude their collection in the main, and x^ut the
rates where you will there will still be dishonesty in the shippers; tbose
shippers who are dishonest now to make $1,000, will be equally dishonest if the profits of their frauds amount to $500.
23. I have no knowledge ou this subject.
24. This question, so far as it relates to this port, has been answered
iu other parts of this report. False returns have not, to my knowledge,
been made to me, either of dutiable values or quantities. Should there
be such I shall not be slow to inform the Department and take proper
legal steps for the prosecution and xiunishment of the' offender.
I am, very respectfullv, your obedient servant,
,
^
'
W. LIVINGSTONE, J R . ,
^
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
37 A
578-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
PORT OF GALVESTON.
No. 86.
A. G. MALLOY—Appointed CoUector February 28, 1881.
C U S T O M H O U S E , GALVEST.QN, TEX.,
Collector's Office, September 21, 1885.
S I R : In compliance with circular of August 27, 1885, I have to submit the following in reply to the inquiiies:
^
1. I am not in possession of any facts to warrant a statement that
duties have not been levied and collected as xirescribed'by law.
2. There is no case within my knowledge where tlie full amount of
duty has not been coUected.
3. By actual examination and measurenient of a certain xiercentage
bf the goods of each invoice.
4. I know of no collusion at this port between importer and entry
clerk or deputy collector.
5. Weighing or measuring on the wharf has been correct.
6. The existing laws, if amended, would not probably reduce the controversies between officers and importers. I have no information relative to suits pending in the cities mentioned. It might be xiroper to
give suits where the United States is a xiarty x^recedence in the courts,
so far as xiracticable, without manifest injury to other litigants. I
cannot see that any amendment to the law is necessary relative to interest. The present judicial system efficiently administered would satisfy beyond question the end desired.
7. I have ho personal knowledge on which to base a statement.
8. Same as No. 7.
'
9. Same as No. 7.
10. No confusion or conflict of opinion has arisen at this x^ort as to
the fixing of dutiable values under the law.
11. Probably not.
12. It is believed the examiners or deputy appraisers would be primarily responsible, as in the large ports it miglit be impracticable for
the appraiser to personally examiiie and verify importations with invoices. None bf that sxiecial class are emxiloyed a t t h i s port, the collector acting as appraiser, assisted by a general clerk.
13. Have no knowledge of facts to warrant statement.
14. Same as No. 13.
.
15. The emxiloyment of men of character and ability at adequate compensation would no doubt have the effect to reduce the number of cases
of bribery said to occur at the great ports.
16. An entire change from ad valorem to specific duties could not be
^made without xilacing many articles on the free list, such as machinery,
ivorks of art, toys, musical instruments, manufactures of leather, &c.
I think that specific rates could not be applied to many textile fabrics
except on a basis of valuation, such as brocaded or embossed silks and
similar fabrics, and if the rate of duty depended on valuation the same
incentive to undervaluation would remain. Specific rates could, however, be apphed tb many articles' that now pay ad valorem duty with-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY .OF THE TREASURY.
579
out changing the amount of duty collected on such articles, such a^
iron, cotton-ties, cement, brick, &c.
* 17. I cannot state.
;
18. I do not think it practicable in the large districts for consular
officers to personally examine all articles; and if they were required,
and failed to examine goods and invoices promptly, no doubt there
would be complaints. The fee exacted appears noted on invoices,
usually at 15 shillings, if the invoice be large or small.
19. If after the production of evidence it became manifest that dutiable values as decided by the appraising department were erroneous,
the executive and judicial powers should have authority to correct the
error.
20. No wool beiug imported at this port, I am unable to make a statement as to the history or influence the several rates of duty since 1860
has exerted on the markets.
21. I have heard that such xiractices do exist at the large ports, but
have no xiroofs. The prosecution of both passenger and inspector might
reduce the number of cases.
22. There are some articles upon which, if the rate of duty was
lowered, the incentive to smuggling would not be as active as it is at
present. I would mention cigars and laces.
23. Have no evidence as to the facts, but presume the same influences
would xirevail at all large ports.
24. I t is believed generally on account of the intercession of political
influence.
,
Very respectfully,
A. G. MALLOY,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
PORT OF MOBILE.
No. 87.
^
.
"
W I L L I S G. CLARK—Appointed Collector J u l y 14, 1885.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, M O B I L E , A L A . ,
Collector's Office, Septeinber 15,1885.
S I R : Your circular letter, dated August 27 and marked "confidential," was duly received, and I improve the earliest opportunity to reply.
Nearly all the interrogatories iiropounded were evidently designed for
'the larger ports, and I would find no data j n the business of this customs district on which to base an intelligent opinion or afford information which would aid the purpose sought. I will, however, go through^
the questions seriatim, and answer where I can and so state where I
cannot.
1. I find no evidence that rates of duty have not been collected.
2. I find no evidence that the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress on articles which the law says shall pay purely specific rates has
not been collected.
580
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. "
/
• ^^
,
.
. 1
3. Imxiorts of textile fabrics have for several years past beeh so light
in this distiict that the invoiced measurement has been verified by
actual measurement of the fabiics.
4. There is no evidence of collusion here in the imports mentioned.
5. There is no evidence, so far as I can learn, of false, incompetent,
or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves at this port.
Interrogatories 6 to 16, inclusive, seem to pertain chiefly to New York
and the large Atlantic xiorts, and doubtless anj?^ opinion on the important matters suggested is not expected from customs officers so far
removed from such ports and without the proxier information to form
correct oxiinions thereupon.
16. I am decidedly of the opinion that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates would not be a benefit tb the revenue, although it might
^ possibly diminish, to some extent, opportunities for bribery. I t appears
to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to make specific duties, provided the same amount of revenue is to be raised, bear as equitably
and justly upon consumers as ad valorem rates, particularly with regard
to textile fabrics which vary so materially in value.
18. Of the matters embraced in this interrogatory I have not sufficient information to venture a reply, and do not suppose it is expected
of a port of such limited fbreign business as this.
19. I cannot see that any evil could result to the revenues, or to the
importers, .if thejurisdiction of the executive or judiciary was enlarged
as suggested, b u t on the contrary, can conceive of cases in which equity
and justice might be subserved thereby.
20 to 24. As these intei rogatories pertain to the large ports, and
mainly to Atlantic xiorts, I do not attempt a reply to them.
Eegretting that my brief experience in the office of collector and the
limited scope afibrded by the business of this port have aUowed me to
give only such restricted and imperfect response to the important questions submitted in the circular under review, whose far-reaching significance and value I appreciate,
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIS G, CLAEK,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
^ Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS,
>
No. 88.
B. F . JONAS—Appointed Collector July 18, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W ORLEANS, LA., .
Collector's Office, September 3, 1885.
S I R : I am in receixit of your confidential circular of August 27, and
regret that in my answer I will be able to g'we you but little information of interest or value, because of my short official tenure and limited
experience dniing this period of summer dullness and business inactiv.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
581
ity. This office (with the exception of its partisan interference in politics) has bi^en run fairly well, and no complaints have as yet reached
me of misinanagement or unjust discrimination. I have as yet heard
no complaints, and have discovered no evidence of fraud or collusion
between importers and collecting or inspecting officers in entering,
falsely invoicing, or sampling inerchandise, or in any way defrauding
the Government of its x^rox^er revenue. Many of the. subordinate officers do not possess my confidence to any great degree, but the chiefs
are men of my selection, in whom I have confidence, and I think I can
keep matters perfectly straight until, through the civil-service process, I
can secure a thoroughly competent aud reliable service. I have heard
no complaint of false or incompetent weighing or measuring on the
wharves.
I think necessity exists for a new tribunal to try judicially questions
growing out of external or internal taxation, &c., as suggested in your
sixth interrogatory. The Federal courts at present are overcrowded,
and these cases, which require immediate consideration, are greatly
delayed. I should think the examiner and deputy appraiser chiefly
responsible for,,a false return of value to the collector. The former re^ ceives (at this port) $1,800 per annum, the latter $2,500. While I know
"nothing ofthe matters inquired of in the thirteenth and fourteenth interrogatories as having actually occurred, I can say that nothing of the
kind could be done without guilty knowledge and connivance on the
part of Treasury or customs officials. The only guard against such occurrences is to be found in stringent laws for their punishment when
detected, and in the careful selection of subordinate officers of good
character and reputation. I have found many in office of thoroughly
bad reputation, whom I am getting rid of as rapidly as possible.
I would be inclined to think myself that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and help to diminish
and guard agaiust fraud, but my deputy collector, a gentleman of large
exxierience in the customs service, is of opinion that a mixed tariff* is a
neces^sity. I am satisfied that the eighteenth interrogatory can be
answered in the negative. What is difficult to do at the home port
would be impossible abroad. A fee of $2.50 is exacted by our consuls
abroad for certifying invoices, &c. I think in answer to the nineteenth
interrogatory, that i t would be safe and useful to the revenues, and just
• to importers, that the judicial powers should have greater jurisdiction
to entertain appeals from and correct the rulings of collectors and other,
Treasury officials in questions of the dutiable value and rates of duty
imxiosed uxion merchandise.
There is no wool received at this port, and I can furnish ybu with no
statement in answer to the twentieth interrogatory.
I am informed that the custom referred to in the twenty-first interrogatory does not exist at this port. It can only be prevented by strict
suxiervision, and the appointment of honest officers.
I am, very respectfully,
B. F. JONAS,
Gollector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING, .
Secretary of the Treasury.
•
582
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 89.
R. SINNOTT—Appointed Surveyor January 28,1885.
.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W ORLEANS, LA.,
Surveyor's Office, October 3., 1885. .
SiR: The printed letter from your office, dated August 27, 1885,
markisd ^ strictly confidential," was received in due time, and every
^
effort has been made to xirepare a reply thereto. The short time I have
been in office, the amount of work involved in organizing my department, with a limited and inajdequate working force, both clerical and
of day and night inspectors, has prevented an earlier reply. I find
myself unable, even at this late day, to answer so fully and intelligently,
as the importance bf the information sought depiands, or as I would be.
glad to do. Most of the queries can be, and doubtless will be, fully
answered by the officers in charge of the departments to which they
specilaly refer.
As close an investigation as I have been able to make of the practices
of former officials in this custom-house has failed to show any evidences
of fraud or collusion between importers and the customs officers at this
port. There is no evidence of "false or inadequate weighing."
I have been at some pains to obtain the views of prominent importers
on the sixteenth query. It is generally believed that a change from ad
valorem to specific rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and the
change would help to dindinish a tendency to bribery, and "specific
' rates can be applied to all textile fabrics." I fully concur in these
views.
'
While there is nothing to evidence illegal practices on the part of
officials of this custom-house, yet it is believed by many in interest that
in some way discriminations have been made against this port and in
fayor of New York, either by the officials here or at the latter port.
These discriminations are mainly attributable t o t h e difference in appraisement of goods at the two places. Merchants here who were once
large importers direct now import through New York, where it is claimed
that goods of the same class are appraised from 12J to 25 per cent, lower,
than here. It might be well to make a more thorough inquiry as to these
statements, and, if found true, some i)laB. of forcing a uniform mode of
apxiraisement should be adopted. If these differences actually exist at
different ports it seems to argue in favor of adopting specific rates on all
goods.
,
I think it would be safe to the revenue and eminently just to importers to give either the executive or judicial powers greater jurisdiction
in supervising or revising the ascertainment of the dutiable value on
goods valued by the appraisers, as suggested in the nineteenth question of yonr letter. The mode of appeal should, as much as possible,
prevent vexatious delays to importers.
I have attempted in this to reply only to questions Nos. 4, 5,16, and
19, as coming more immediately under my duties. The other questions,
for the reasons already stated, and for the want of information on the
subjects referred to, 1 am unable to answer satisfactorily either to you
or to myself.
'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^ 58d
In reply to questions addressed by me to importers on these subjects
I was answered by each " t h a t similar queries had been answered in
letters to the collector," which I suppose have been forwarded.
Very respectfully,
E. SINNOTT,
Surveyor.
'Hon.
D A N ' L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington^ B . 0.\,
No. 90.
HENRY P. KERNOCHAIi—Appointed Naval Officer May 11, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W ORLEANS, LA.,
Naval Office, September 3, 1885.
S I R : I am in receipt of circular letter from the Department dated
Augnst 27,1885, and marked " strictly confidential," and have the honor
to reply to the queries therein, seriatim, as follows:
1. Nbne to my knowledge.
2. None to my knowledge.
3. By actual examination and measurement in the appraiser's department, I believe.
4. None to my knowledge.
5. None to my knowledge.
6. Does not seem to refer to this port.
7. Does not seem to refer to this port.
8. Does not seem to refer to this port. ^
^
9. I have no information on this subject.
10. I have no infbrmation on this subject.
11. I have no information on this subject.^
^ 12. The examiner. I should suppose $1,800 per annum. I think not.
13. None to my knowledge.
14. I have no information on this subject. \
15. I have no information on this subject.
16. I/have not been long enough in the service to venture an opinion.
17. Same answer as above.
18. I should not think this practicable. The consular fees in London
and other English ports, as shown by the invoices themselves, appear
to be 15 shillings or $2.50 per invoice.
19. I have not been a sufficient time in charge of office to be able to
formulate an opinion upon this point.
20. There is so little wool imported through this port that the desired
information seems hardly available.
21. If practiced at this port, such practice has not come to my knowledge.
22. I have no information on this point.
23. I have no information on this point.
24. If practiced here it has not been brought tb my knowledge.
Very respectfully,
. HENEY P. KEENOCHAN,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
Washington^ B . 0.
•
584
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 9L
A. H. LEONARD—Appointed U. S. District Atttorney June 15,1818.'
U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY'S O F F I C E ,
-EASTERN D I S T R I C T OF LOUISIANA,
.New Orleans, September 28, 1886.
S I R : In reply to the sixth query of your confidential circular I will
state, that there ar^ three suits of the character referred to pending in
this district. Two of them were removed from the State court in May
last to the United States court, and the third, which was recentlj^ instituted, will be removed. The question involved in them is whether
the cost of the packages in which goods are imported can legally be
added'to the dutiable value of the goods.
. In my opinion there is no necessity here fora new tribunal to try
judicially cases of the nature mentioned. There is but little delay in
disposing of them in court.
,
s
In this connection I would ask your attention to the case of United
States vs. Spanish brigSPurissima Concepcion on appeal from the circuit
court of this district to the ensuing term of the supreme court. The
case presents two important questions: (1) Whether when goods are
irregularly imported the burden of proof is on the master or consignee
to show that there was no fraudulent intent, or whether the burden is
on the United States to prove that the intention was fraudulent; (2)
whether the expression " actual intention to defraud," as used in the sixteenth section of the act of June 22,1874, is to bp construed as limited to
acts which' cause a pecuniary loss to the United States, or whether it
includes all acts of deceit which have the effect of defeating or evading
any requirement of the law, although no pecuniary loss may result.
Very respectfully,
A. H. LEONAED,
United States Attorney.
e
PORT OF NEW YORK.
No. 92.
"
/-
EDWARD L. HEDDEN—Appointed Collector June 29, 1885.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K CITY,
Collector's Office, October 10, 1885.
S I R : In response to the several questions propounded in the confidential circular addressed to officers of the customs, a copy of which
has been sent to me, I have the honor to answer the same to the extent
of my knowledge and belief, at the same time remarking that the limited time during which I have held the office of collector of customs at
this port renders it impracticable to set fbrth as fully as I shonld desire
such answers as a longer experience-would justify, and to several of
the questions as noted I most respectfully refer to those departments of
the service to which they especiaUy and particularly refer, and I have
REPORT,
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
585
directed the several deputies and others to whom the circular has been
sent to give the fullest particulars within their knowledge on the questions submitted.
'
1. I have no knowledge or information that duties have not been
collected in accordance with the laws with reference to the distinction
between rates of duty and dutiable values.
2. I am not aware that the full amount of duty has not been collected on articles xiaying purely specific duties, except that the ascertainment thereof is oxien to criticism in many cases, especially in weights
and tares, to which I shall refer more particularly in answer to other
questions bearing upon the same subject.
.
3. Invoice measurements of textile fabrics are presumably verified i
by the appraisers, but this is probably only the case so far as the particula;r package ordered for an examination may be taken while the
package is in the custody of the appraisers. In all cases of specific
duties the weights or measures are ascertained by actual weights and
tares or measures by officers axipointed for those duties. Where ad
valorem duties are prescribed, it would seem quite as important that the
quantities described in the invoice as textile fables be ascertained, in
order that the proper amount of duty should be collected, as i n t h e case
of goods to be weighed or gauged. Considering the very large percentage of duties collected on textile fabrics, there should be a more
thorough system to ascertain or verify the measurements of such invoices, and in the absence of actual taking of such measurements great
frauds on the revenue are not only possible but of xirobable frequent
occurrence, and undetected for want of actual measurement. I have
at present under investigation an imxiortation of silk good^ suspected '
of being undermeasured.
•
' An experimental remedy would be to order a greater number of •
Xiackages to the appraisers, with orders to verify the measurement of
entire contents,' and I consider that the additional force required would more than justify the expense. Should undermeasurement be detected
as of frequent occurrence, nothing less than the thorough examination
and measurement of entire invoices would remedy the matter, somewhat after the English system.
4. Since the adoption of the present system of passing import entries
there is no evidence of any collusion between the importer br his agents
and officer of the customs, and I consider that it is practically improbable that such collusion can occur. It is, of course, possible to occur,
but only through the co-operation of several persons.' The present
system of distributing the entries among the several deputies is a check
upon any collusion, and has worked so far to the satisfaction of the "^
several collectors, my predecessors. Constant vigilance is exercised,
however, in this matter, and the deputy collector of the fifth division
informs me that he does not consider any modification of the xiresent
system necessary in the absence of any axiparent requirement therefor.
5. Since my accession to office, almost my first attention was given
to the probability of there being not only great looseness and irregularity in the weigher's department, and evidence was easily accessiWe
and obtained of fraudulent returns of goods certified as having been v
weighed by United States weighers that never had been on their scales,
but the weights had been taken wholesale from the books bf city
weighers apxiointed by importers, a practice which has been of frequent
occurrence. Other instances where gbods having been delivered before
586/
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY' OF THE TREASURY.
weighing, the weights had been guessed at and entered in the dock-books
and so returned. . I have no^doubt that such practices have been of
.common occurrence, and the surveyor has been investigating the
matter, and is giving it his almost daily attention, with one result,
already of notorious apxilication, in the removal of Weigher Bacon, in
the Brooklyn distiict. Nothing less than the removal of every weigher
under this systeni will remedy the matter, and the axipointment pf more
honest and competent men in their place.
I have just had occasion to remove the measurer of marble, wood, &c.,
for gross inefficiency in his department, who has occupied the position
^for^many years to the detriment of theservice and just complaint of
importers.
,
'
'^
.
'
The subject of tares is also receiving my attention, as I am satisfied
that very grave abuses exist in this relation, and instead of the actual
tares required by law invoice tare has been accepted by weighers from
the importer without verification, but no doubt under improper in-'
centives.
6. This question involves a discussion of almost the entire tariff
system. The differences between importers and collectors, both as to
rates of duty and classification, have increased to a great extent since
the last tariff became a law, involving as it did great changes in the
assessment' of duties, especially in abolishing all charges as xiart of the
' dutiable value, and the addition of disputed package-charges to make
market value. The decision of Judge Wallace, in the carton case,
has disposed of that question, without, however, removing the friction,
and I still have disagreements between the general and merchant appraisers referred to me on the same question, the importers seeming to
disregard the decision, and calling for reappraisements where the cost
/ofthe carton is added to make »^ market value."
^
My own oxiinion is that market value, as necessarily construed under
the law, often works great injustice to the merchant, and in many instances is impossible to verify with any sort of correctness, and, therefore, vague, and almost guess-work.
The remedy most applicable is the adoption of specific duties on
every article where xiracticable.
Eegarding the number of suits xiending and their class, I have not
sufficient inforniation at hand to answer in this respect. So far as I can
learn, the nuniber of suits pending does not involve distinct or very
many different xirinciples. The practice j as I understand it, is to have
a test suit to dispose of any given question involved, and the calendar
of such suits, with sufficient raxiidity, and I do not consider that any
new tribunal is necessary.' .
Eegarding the matter of accrued interests on judgments, I understand
that it is the practice of the courts to determine the question of interest
. in such cases when raised by the district attorney.
7, 8, 9.—I cannot answer these questions, except in a general way to
^ p r e s s my belief that the duties required by law, and the method of
their collection, is open to great improvement by the selection of more
intelligent and comxietent officers, with especial reference to the qualifications required in the several departments. Whether the service
can secure the necessary expert knowledge required, especially as examiners in the appraiser's department, for the limited compensation
bf such officers, I very much doubt. Hence, the duty of such officers—
in m;^ opinion gf the very first importance-—!^ performed very frequently
REFORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
587
in an unskilful and perfunctory manner, often through ignorance or
indolence, or both, and without 2bnj guilty intent, or even perhaps
neglect; yet the service is for that reason not performed a§ faithfuUy nor
as effectually as a more expert class of officials would render, if the salaries of examiners should be sufficient to command the very best class
of men for this service, the pivot, as it were, of the revenue to be collected.
10, 11.—In answering these questions it is only necessary to refer to
the many recent cases of "confusion and doubt and conflict of opinion"
regarding the construction of several of the clauses of the last tariff,
especially as to the question of what constitutes market value, as before
mentioned. Notably in cotton embroideries, as well as many other
articles,of foreign manufacture, it is claimed that the dutiable value
shall be estimated at the cost of production. While this method has
the sanction of law, (see sections 7 and 9, tariff of March 3, 1883,) it
works a great injustice to the merchant who buys in the foreign market
the same I article, xiaying the "market value" thereof, which, ^on the
newest and most attractive style of goods, command a very large profit
to the manufacturer and dealer in such foreign markets, while at the
same time similar goods are consigned to our markets and the invoices
presented fbr entry at cost as stated, thus putting a bona fide purchaser
abroad at a great disadvantage on entering his invoices of similar goods
in competition. Hence, the numerous reappraisements called for in
several classes of merchandise where this irritating-question of ^ market
^
value" is constantly arising, and is in the nature of an "irrepressible
conflict" under the ad valorem system.
An average estimate of the percentage of undervaluation in any
year or seiies of years, or the identification of the invoices, would, it
seems to me, be almost impossible at this time, and more or less unreliable. ^ •
12. Primarily the examiner is, in my opinion, chiefly responsible
for a false" return of value. The salary of the appraiser is fixed by
section 2729, Eevised Statutes, at $4,000 per annum; assistant appraiser,
(section 2731, Eevised Statutes,) at $3,000 per annum; and examiners,
(section 2745, Eevised Statutes,) not to exceed $2,500 per annum..
I find that there are sixty-eight examiners in all, receiving salaries
as follows: Seven, at $1,200 per annum each; thirty-two,^at $1,800 per
annum each; eight, at $2,000 per annum each; and twenty-one, at
$2,500 per annuni each; there being eight vacancies al present existing among all these classes, and, as I have before remarked, no very
high standard of expert knowledge, so needful to the appraiser's department, can be obtained for such compensation.
The present appraiser is, both ordinarily and in fact, one who intelligently deals with any question which may be raised as to values
reported by the examiners and assistant appraisers, which is a great
deal more than can be said of some of his x^redecessors.
13, 14, 15.—I am not aware that false evidence of foreign values has
been traced to foreign consuls or other Government officials.
16. I have for many years advocated the adoption of specific duties
on every article imported, where practicable, as well for the diminished
opportiinity for fraud andthe more economical collection of the revenue.
Under any system, of course, fraud is possible and probable, requiring
constant vigilance in its detection. I am of the opinion that so long as
we must collect revenue upon imports, the system should be simplified
588
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
»
,
,
"i
•
by the adoption of specific-duties and increasing the free-list, and confin' ing the tariff of duties to as few articles as possible to yield a sufficient
amount of revenue, and thereby reduce the number of employes.
Specific duties would, in my opinion, increase the revehue by diminishing the extensive undervaluations. The quantities of; goods imxiorted
are easily ascertained, while the values are difficult to establish as a basis
for ad valorem duties. Absolute and exact facts are better than changeable values.
'
17. I have no knowledge sufficient to answer this question, I am of
the opinion that theiepeal ofthe "moiety l a w " has deprived the Government of millions of dollars of revenue, and one of the direct inflii-ences to cause undervaluations. The law had some obnoxious features,
which, in the hands of venal officers, made it odious to American citizens ; but any law of the kind must severely deal with fraud; but UB
terms, however severe, need have no terrors fbr the innocent. A moiety
law which shall be the incentive to honesty, rather than a premium on
fraud, would not be so unxiopular as to cause serious objection to the
examination or even seizure of books and paxiers.
. 1 8 . I am of the oxiinion that it would be entirely practicable fbr consular agents, if selected for their commercial knowledge or exxierience,.
to verify the correctness of invoiced values of at least a majority of
articles, especially leading staples, in the x^iTiicipal markets of the
world. Consular fees for certifying invoices are the equivalent of $2.50
fbr each. ^
19. This question I cannot satisfactorily answer, from the liniited
experience duiing my few months of ^office.
20. I have been unable to xirocure a. suitable analysis of the history
of the tariff on wool since 1860.
21. The practice of pa^^nient of money by arriving passengers to in-^spectors is generally believed to prevail, and always has prevailed.
The recent instructions issued by the honorable Secretary of the Treasury will, no doubt, have an excellent effect in limiting the x)i*actice.
22. 23, 24.—I have no knowledge, at present, on these questions. ^
The confidential circular is herewith returned.
Very respectfully,
E. L. HEDDEN,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 93.
Additional to GoUector Hedden.
, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, September 19, 1885.,
: I am not receiving from some of the examiners distinct
replies to Question 12 of the series of questions sent out by this Department. Will you see to it that the examiners answer this question fully,
freely, and xiromxitly. '
Eespectfully, vours, ^ '^ •
^ \
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
DEAR SIR
EDWARD L . H E D D E N ,
Esq.,
Collector of Customs^ New York.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
589
No. 94.
JOSEPH TRELOAR—Appomted Chief Clerk November 24, 1855.
/
•
•
•
•
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, September 18, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 5th instant, enclosing a copy of your circular letter, in which are
Xiroponnded twenty-four questions as to the operation of the tariff laws.
First question.—As to whether the rates of duty imposed by the tariff
have been collected, I answer that, accexiting the interpretation of the
law as given from time to time by the courts and by the Treasury De-partment, and assuming that the United States appraiser has not erred
as to the value where the rate is fixed by the value of a specifi^c
quantity, I am unaware of failure to collect the proper rate of duty.
Eight here I ask what advantage is there in a tariff of rates regulated
by value over xmrely ad valorem duties'? I answer that there is no advantage; on the contrary, ittends, if anything, to complicate the functions of the customs officers.; and the imposition of duties at rates
governed by the number of threads to the square inch, as in cottons,
is still worse.
Second question.—As to whether the full amount of duties, where they
are purely specific rates, have been collected, I answer that cases have
been, I believe, discovered where the true quantity has been greater
than that on which duties were collected; but the Treasury Department has held that, after the duties have been liquidated and the gpods
have xiassed from the custody of the Government, the entry cannot be
opened for the assessment of additional duties on proof other than the
customs officers' returns. (See Synopsis, 4588.)
Third question.—This questibn, which relates to the testipg of invoice
measurements of textile fabrics, is one for-the appraiser to answer. It
is, of course, of the first importance to the safety of the revenue.
Fourth question.—As to the possibility of collusibu between the importer and the deputy collector to send to .the appraiser for examination
a bogus or false package, I answer that, while there is a possibility,
there is not a probability of such collusion under the present practice .
at this port. The importer does not know to which of the many deputies his entry will go for designation of the package unless informed
by the distributer who apportions the entries by numbers among the
several deputies, and that is not probable. No intimation of such-an
occurrence has reached me..
Fifth question.—As to inaccurate weighing or measuring on the
wharves, I refer to my answer to the second question, and state, further,
that this office has received numerous complaints from importers of
excessive weights and gauge returned by the customs officers, but my
memory fails, to recall a single notification that the quantity as returned
by the officer was less than the actual quantity. This would seem to
imply that.mistakes all run one way! But do they'? I think not.
Sixth question.—In respect to suits brought against collectors by importers for recovery of alleged excessive duties, I transmit herewith
a copy (marked " A " ) of my communication on the subject, addressed
to Mr. Ex-Secretary Windom, under date of July 10, 1881. If any inerest shall be allowed on judgments obtained in such suits^ why
590
REPORT OF .THEI SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, should it not be at a low rate; and why should not one and fche same
apxiropriation be made for the principal and interest?
.
I raise the question as to the allowance of any interest in such cases,
for the reason that it is natural to assume that the importer has realized from the consumer the duties actually paid by a price based
thereon; and if the importer recovers judgment, the consumer, whose
inoney ha;S gone into the National Treasury, pays again, and as a result the importer and his "claim agent" are enriched at the expense
bf the consumer and the Government to the amount of the judgment.
, Why, then, should interest, which.oftentimes amounts to more-than
the principal, be allowed in such cases'? But a well-considered, clear,
and comprehensive tariff would more than anything else, lessen the
number of such suits.
Seventh question.—Eeferring to the "recent investigations," the inquiry is made on what articles has the Government failed to collect
- the "full amount of d u t y f Although I have no evidence on which
I can put my hands, I have gathered from my intercourse with officials that the undervaluations which have been established by ap^ praisement and reappraisement are of silks and other costly fabrics,
with perhaps some few lines of other goods.
Eighth question.—How have such undervaluations come abouf? By
venturesome experiments of enterprising importers, (not to nse harsher
terms,,) the xirobable want of full knowledge of the market value of the
niany kinds of merchandise by the appraising officers, and in some
cases by cupidity on the part of some of those officers.
Ninth question.—Kow long have such false valuations been in operation ; and what evidence is there to sustain the Treasury and consular
agents as against the official appraisements'? Such false valuations
have been, I believe, since there has been a^tariff, and, I doubt not, will
continue so long" as we have a tariff, for the old adage that "every
man's hand is against the tax-gatherer" is as true to-day as ever it
, . was.
The special agents being known to the community as .detectives,
competing importers naturally go to them with statements, which otherwise would probably be made to the collector, that other importers
dealing in the same line of goods are underselling them' at prices
which give suspicion to evasion of the duties, and in this the special
agent weaves his case.
Tenth question.—As to whether there has been any conflict of opinion
in the appraiser's department as to the elements of dutiable value, I
leave for the appraiser to answer.
Eleventh question.—As to an estimate of the percentages of undervaluations, I also leave for the appraiser.
Twelfth question.—As to which of the appraising officers are primarily and chiefly responsible for undervaluations, if responsibility attach, ,
it is chiefly with the examiner and assistant appraiser. The statute
provides that the salary of assistant appraisers at this port shall be
$3,000 per annum, and that that of examiner shall not exceed $2,500
per annum. The responsibilities of the xiositions warrant, in my judgment, salaries of $5,000 and.$4,000, respectively, for these officers. The
duties of the apxiraiser are iar from being perfunctory; mooted questions are constantly before him. Upon no officer of the customs does
more varied and greater labors devolve, and upon no one's intelligence
REPORT OF THE SECRETAR? OF THE TREASURY.
591
and integrity does the safety of the revehue depend more. His salary
i.* $4,000 per annum, and it should be at least double that* sum.
Thirteenth question.—I am unaware ofi the connivance of Governmeht
ofiicials in the presentation to the axipraiser of false evidence of foreign
N'alnes.
Fourteenth question.—Prosecutions have been had against customs
0 rti cers as xiarties to fraudulent undervaluations, but I have failed to
learn that they have been carried to conviction.
Fifteenth question.—Judging by the past, I apprehend that danger to
t lie revenue from bribery will not cease. Conviction in court in such
cases is undoubtedly difficult, for the reason that the required testimony
cannot be given by one xiarty or the other without criminating himself.
Sixteenth question.—As to whether a change from ad valorem rates
to sxiecific rates would be beneficial to the revenue, and as to whether
specific rates can be apxilied to all textile fabrics. Of course specific
rates would simxilify the ascertainment and collectioh of the imposts;
and while it may "diminish a tendency to bribery," I do not see that it
would close the door to that vicious evil, for the quantities may be
falsely stated. Specific rates can certainly " b e applied to all textile
fabrics,'' but would it be just to tax the inferior article at the same rate
as the superior article'? Would it not be anti-democratic in discriminating against the poor man? Some will say that it will encourage
the importation of the best goods. Suppose it does ; what advantage
is that to the consumer who cannot afford to buy them'? The benefit'
would be to the rich and.not to the poor!
The substitution of specific rates for ad valorem when practicable is
desirable. It seems that all imported commodities should be taxed
Xiroxiortionately to their worth.
Seventeenth question.—As to the effect of the anti-moiety law of June
22,1874. It has increased the number of entries by pro forma invoices,
in many of which the value has been understated. In some instances
where the pro forma invoice values have been too low, the appraiser
has made additions thereto, while in others he has not; but of the
causes of the omission I am not informed. Some of such omissions
were discovered and cured, but I am not prepared to say that none
have passed undiscovered.
The collector called attention to this danger in his letter of April '8,
1882, a cox^y of which is transmitted herewith, marked " B . "
Exxieriments by importers dangerous to the revenue by such invoices
are encouraged by the Attorney-General's opinion that the additional
(Xienal) duty of 20 cent, ad yalorem does not attach for undervaluations
in entries made on such invoices. In this connection, I forward herewith (marked " C") a copy of a memorandum made by me, under date
of June 3, 1874, when this anti-moiety law was submitted to this office
in the shape of a bill. Just look at the sixteenth section, which puts
the onus probandi on the Government; of proving " a n actual intention
to defraud the United States.'' How can an intention to defraud be
Xiroven short of a plea of guilty'? This provision should be repealed,
and the seventy-first section of the organic act of 1799, which put the
onus probandi on the el2iim2bnt, substituted therefor.
Eighteenth question.—As to the practicability of United States consuls
personally examining goods and verifying values. This, I am x^ersuaded, would lead to vexatious delays and complaints. It was in a
degree tried after the passage of the act of March 3, 1863, (vol. 12
592
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY.
Stat., p. 737.-) I think it was wheh the consuls refused to certify when
they suspected undervaluation therein, and.also refused to certify invoices after the goods had been shipxied. The result was instructions
to consuls to certify invoices after as well as" befbre shipment, and- to
notify collectors when, in their (the consuls') judgment, the invoices
are nndervalued. (But see section 1715, Eevised Statutes.)
Nineteenth question.—The finality of axixiraisements without the interference of the ^ ^ executive or the judicial xiowers"?"
In myjudgment, any further axipeal than that xirovided in section
2930, Eevised Statutes, would tend to comxilicate and xirolong disputes
. and lead to no good. Many of the complaints, if not the great bulk of
them recently made, would, I am convinced, have been avoided had
the Dexiartment held'.originally under the actof 1883, as yoii have said,
that the questions as to whether certain so-called charges are elements
of market value are for the apxiraiser to determine.
Twentieth question.—As to the history of the several tariffs on wool,
I leave for the axixiraiser and others to answer, saying for m7/self simply
that the wisdom of comxiound duties has never been manifest to me.
Twenty-first question.—As to the payment of moneys by arriving passengers to inspectors ofthe customs, I answer that it is generally believed
that the xirai3tice has existed fbr many years. How can it be xirevented'?
By esxiionage, such as is possible by having baggage examined at one
stated xilace, and by the sure dismissal and xirosecution of the offending parties. By the way, I know of no law for the exainination of baggage on the steamers' wharves. It is xiermitted by Treasury regulations only as a convenience to X3assengers.
Twenty-second question.—My observation has been that frands on the
revenue by smuggling and otherwise are mostly practised on costly
^gbods, such as diamonds, jewelry, and silks and satins, Diamonds are
sb easily smuggled, I am of opinion that it would be wise to xiut them
on the "free-list."
Twenty-third question.—'Referring, as it does, to other ports than New
York, I pass it.
"
Twenty-fourth question.—As to the X->i'Osecution of persons, including
officials, concerned in undervaluations, I can recall none that was had
for undervaluation, simple and pure, other than suits fbr the forfeiture
of the goods in the xiroceeds of which some one is, as a rule, interested
as informer or seizing officer. It has often occurred to me that in such
cases the axipraising officers should be called upon to explain their
delinquency, and that if found to be with a guilty knowledge, they
should be prosecuted, and if from incompetency, they should leave the
service.
Under any system of taxation, the safety of the Government revenue
must, in the main, rest upon the expert knowledge and integrity of its
officials.
Submitting the foregoing, I am, with high respect, your obedient
servant,
JOSEPH TEELOAE,
Chief Clerk of the Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
. Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
593
[Enclosure.]
- A .
CUSTOM-HOUSE,
N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, July 10, 1881.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed copy
of your letter of the 15th ultimo, relative to the present metliod of disposing of disputed questions under the tariff laws.
It has occurred to me that many of the questions would be avoided
• if the suggestion of the late assistant collector at this port to a committee of Congress were heeded, and that was, referring to the tariff
schedule on cottons, "stop taking duties by the microscope." Many
more would be cut sliort, in all xirobability, if, after they were presented
to t«he head of the Treasury, they were made the subject of special
reports to Congress for further legislation.
Had such course been pursued, the Treasury might not have been
depleted of millions of dollars for the benefit of so-called "claimagenti," as in what are known as the " f r u i t " and "silk-ribbon" cases.
The United States appraiser's return as to the character or nature of
imported merchandise, has been decided by the highest tribunal^in the
land to be ''final and conclusive." (See 24 Howard's EeportsJ page.
525.) There is no law for an appeal from such return. Perhaps it
would be well to provide by law for an appeal from the local appraiser's
return as to the nature of merchandise (now entertained by the Treiasury Dexiartment) to a board of general appraisers consisting, say, of
three members, to be designated from time to time b y t h e Secretaiy
of the Treasury, who should also have power to direct as to the time
and places at which the board shall sit. The board to examine the
merchandise for themselves, and to call for such persons and papers
as they may need, positively excluding, however, from their proceedings
counsellors learned in the law who shall seek to appear for the axipellants.
The statute to declare the decision of a majority of such board ''final
and conclusive" as tothe nature of the merchandise. Would not such
a board be better qualified by the character of their official functions
than the collector can be to decide as to the market values where the general ax')praiser and merchant appraiser disagree'? Why not amend section 2930, Eevised Statutes, by substituting the board for the collector!
The decisions of the board on appeals, if made final and promulgated to
the officers of the customs at the several ports for their information
and guidance, would leave only questions as to the legality of the
proceedings of the board and as to the rates of duty chargeable. . With
the nature of the merchandise finally determined, there would be little,
if any, room for doubt as to the correct rates of duty under the tariff; and
such questions as may arise in regard thereto will, of course, call for interpretations of the language of the statute, which proxierly belong to
the courts. The difficulties connected with the assessment of duties
on sugar are.easily cured by the substitution of ad valorem duties for
the x)i'eseiit rates according to the Dutch standard, which it has been
demonstrated is impracticable. A clear and comprehensive law, which
shall designate a time before and after which it shall not be competent
to protest and appeal against the duties exacted, would go far to secure
the object aimed at in your letter.
,
38 A
594
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The present law, as it has been construed, does not serve the purpose for which it is believed it was intended, viz., the filing of protest
afier liquidation of the duties, whether the entry be for consumption
or for warehousing. There is no liquidation known to the customhouse of a " withdrawal entry.'' Ifi the rate of duty is by authority
changed before the goods are withdrawn, the original warehousing
entry is necessarily reliquidated, and that, and not the withdrawal, is
the liquidation contemxilated by the statute; and the acceptance of protests ^is/b^^e" liquidation tends to swell the great number of such documents without ground therefor.
Eespectfully submitted.
JOSEPH TEELOAE.
Hon. W I L L I A M WINDOM,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[Enclosure.]
^
B.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK: CITY,
Collector's Office, April 8, 1882.
S I R : I t would be a dereliction of duty on my part not to bring to
your attention the fact, which is daily made evident to this office, that
the revenue is endangered by entry of imxiorted merchandise by socall(?d pro ybnTia invoices, which do not represient the.true value.
Taking advantage of the decisions of your lionorable predecessor of
May 23, "l879, (Synopsis, 4025,) based on the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, (see Synopsis, 4149,) and October 6, 1879, (Synopsis, 4234,)
that the additional (jienal) duty xirovided by section 2900, Eevised
Statutes, for undervaluation in the entry does not accrue on entries
made on such invoices, many imxiorters invariably make pro forma invoices far below the true market value. For illustration: Entry No.
24788 was made in February for "650 bags heads cabbage" by pro
forma invoice No. 13561, in which the value is given as "crowns,
2,000," and the only addition made thereto by the United States apxiraiser was "shipxiing charges, 80 crowns;" but the consnlar invoice
subsequently x')rodnced is for 4,000 crowns, just double the amount
stated in the pro forma invoice. Pro forma invoice No. 13153, last
month's seiies, is for " 5 cases cottons, value £150," entered as dutiable
at 35 x:>er cent., while the consular invoice is for "worsted dress-goods,
value £384, H'^., 8d.," which are dutiable at 6 cents and 35 per cent.,
and 8 cents and 40 x:)er cent. Another pro/orma invoice, (No. 15385,)
last month, which is fbr goods •x:)iirchased from a dressmaker in Paris,
was advanced by the United States appraivser 60 per: cent. From the
fact that in many cases the imxiorter xiresents his consular invoice quite
promptly after the axix^)raiser has made his return and the goods have
been disxiosed of, this office regards it as probable that entry is made
by pro formxt invoice in some cases even where the consular invoice
has been received. By such an entry the imxiorter may test? the judgment of the United States ax;)pi'aiser as to the value without incurring
the xienalty for undervaluation; and it will be patent to the Department
that tlie opportunity is ox'>eii to the iniporter in such cases to procure a
verified invoice in amount not to exceed that returned by the appraiser.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' 595
It could not have been the intention of the law-makers to thus encourage such deceptive xiractices to the danger of the revenue and the.
injury of honest importers.
With all due deference to the oxiinion of the Attorney-General, that,
the additional (xienal) duty xirovided for in section 2900, Eevised Statutes, applies only in cases where entry is made by consular invoice,,
(that, in his judgment, being the "original invoice," as used in thafc
section,) I submit that section 10, act of June 22, 1874, xirovides for au
entry upon affidavit accompanied " by a statement in the form of an
invoice or otherwise." Now, then, is not a statement in the/orm of
an invoice the original invoice for the xmrposes of entry"? The act of
1874 is clear that there must be a statement of value, whatever its.form,
on which to base an entry, and thereby clearly recognizes and provides
for the requirements of xirevious enactments for the entry of imxiorted
merchandise by invoice.
By way of explanation, it is proper to state right here that the act
of August 30, 1842, imposed the so-called pencil duty for undervaluation in the invoice, but by the acts of July 30, 1846, March 3, 1857, June
30, 1864, and March 3, 1865, now section 2900, Eevised Statutes, the
importer is permitted to add on entry to his invoice price such sum
as, in his oxiinion, shall raise the. same to the actual market value.
If the importer elects to make an entry (there is no comxiulsion) by
an invoice received from the shipper, not certified, he is not deprived
of the opxiortunity to make an addition thereto on entry for market
value; and if he makes an invoice himself he cannot complain if he
takes the responsibility in his own hands and involves his goods in a
penalty by undervaluing them. Whether an importer adds t o t h e
value given in an invoice to make market value or in xireparing a pro
forma invoice declares the total value, it is one and the same thing.
The statute, section 2900, xirovides, as I have before stated, that an
importer on making entry may add to the value given in his "original
invoice," and that if the "axipraised value shall exceed by 10 per
cent, or more the value so declared in the entry," the additional
(xienal) duty shall be collected.
' The law does not say certified invoice, it simxily says original invoice.
And is not the invoice by which entry is made the original invoice,
whether it be verified or pro forma f Certain it is that a pro forma
invoice is recognized by the tenth section, act of June 22, 1874, as it is
by section 2847, Eevised Statutes, for the purposes of entry, and, being
so recognized, it cannot under the law be regarded other than as. the
^^original invoice" on which entry is made.
The Supreme Court has decided (17 How., 93) that the penal duty
under section 2900 attaches irresxiective of fraudulent intent. The
twelfth section of the act of June 22,1874, referred to in the opinion of
the Attorney-General, which provides xiunishment for,an intended
fraud, is, therefore, not xiertinent to the question under consideration.
This twelfth section does not rexieal or even modify by imxilication the
said section 2900, Eevised Statutes.
If the instructions and practices under this act of 1874 must continue
so long asit remains on the statute-book, then I beg to submit for your
coHsideration whether the disadvantages thereunder to the revenue and
to the honest imxiorter should not be brought to the attention of Congress. It may not be out of place to state that the then Acting Secretary,
Mr. Hawley, in his letter of November 2, 1878, accexited the Attorney-
596
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
General's opinion herein referred to for the purpose of the case of
Messrs. Baldwin, Sexton & Peterson, notwithstanding that Mr. Assistant
Secretary French, in his letter of August 27, 1878, held that under the
rulings of the court there was no law to relieve the case.
, I am, with high respect, your obedient servant,
W. H. EOBEETSON,
:
, Collector.
Hon. CHAS. J. FOLGER,
'
' ^
Secretary of the Treasury.
[Enclosure. ]
C.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, June 3, 1874. .
Memorandum: The solvency and life of a government are dependent
upon the certainty of the collection of its revenues, and strict law^ are
an absolute necessity to insure their payment into the national Treasury; and such statutes may be efficiently executed without injustice to
the citizen who, having the welfare of his country at heart, would not
knowingly commit a fraud upon it. Stringent laws are as essential to
the honest tax-payers as to the Government, for smuggled and other
fraudulent importations would not fail to destroy the business existence
of loyal and conscientious merchants. No government can afford laws
that would be inimical to the interests of such citizens, and yet our
Congress has a bill before it which, if it become a law, will certainly
encourage frauds upon the revenue and drive from trade and make
bankrupt the honest importer, who of course could not comx3ete in
prices with those who might successfully evade the payment of the just
impost.
Honest men have no fears of stringent enactments m^de for the certain collection of the revenue, and it is no evidence to the contrary
because certain parties who have felt the halter draw with no good
opinion ofthe law have been before the committees of Congress praying for statutes less conducive to the safety of the revenue.
Laws are made, or should be, for the protection of uprightness and
integrity, and not for the immunity of evil-doers from just xiunishment, who alone fear the rigors of the law, as they should.
The plea that has been made by many of innocence after confession
of judgment is an absurdity to be looked for only in dishonest and
cowardly men, and to intelligent and thoughtful minds it could only be
evidence of guilt.
. It is the law of the land that there must be probable cause of seizure;
and if an officer of the customs seizes without xirobable cause, no indictment on the statute lies for resisting him in the seizure, and in the
absence of cause such resistance would naturally be offered and looked
for. And in cases where there are grounds for mitigation the Secretary
of the Treasury is (by the act of March 3, 1797) emxiowered to remit
fines and forfeitures until the proceeds have been actually received for
distribution. And such prayers are not unfrequent, and if they are
not made it may reasonably be concluded that there are no good grounds
for such petition or it would be advised by counsel, learned in thelaw,
employed by the defendant in such cases.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
597
And then, again, seizures made by the collector are at his own peril,
and in a failure to establish probable cause he would personally be
liable for damages. Moreover, he is under heavy bonds for the faith,
ful collection of the revenue. Will any man in that office take the
great resxionsibility of making seizures without a fair and equitable
compensation? No. And it would be unreasonable and contrary to
the laws of nature to expect it. An incentive or reward is a necessity
to the sure xmnishment of offenders.
The customs officer, of course, would execute the law; but deprive
him of his just moiety, and he will and must avoid personal risk.
The experiment of detecting frauds without moieties has been tried and
found wanting, (see the act of February 11, 1846,) and in the absence
of axxiroper equivalent, to the seizing officer, and with a high tariff in
operation, smuggling and frauds on the revenue generally would be
encouraged and run riot in every port of the United States.
By the bill before Congress the principal or subordinate officers, or
persons employed in the customs service, shall report to the district
attorney violations of the revenue laws. Such a provision of law could
not fail to destroy the usefulness of a snperior officer and to bring forth
certain insubordination that must be disastrous to the most important
branch of the Government, for what would be every officer's business would
be no officer's business.
The eighth section of the bill provides that no importation exceeding
$100 in value, except "personal effects," shall be admitted to entry
without a certified invoice or an affidavit and informal invoice. The
exception would not cover household effects which, in the case bf pas.sengers arriving, are equally entitled to favor, and the present laws
recognize the two as distinct; and there would be no relief for consignments of green fruits and other perishable merchandise in cases which
must occur where there is no data on which to make an informal invoice.
As to section 18, it is not now lawful for any officer of the customs,
special agent, or district attorney to compromise any penalty or forfeiture.
Section 20 declares that whenever any merchandise shall have passed
free of duty, or wherever the duties have been liquidated and paid, such
settlement shall, in the absence of fraud and in the absence of protest
by fhe imxiorter, ,"be final and conclusive upon all parties.'' This sweeps
away the long and well-settled rulings of the courts, that the Government never loses its rights to the duties. No officer is infallible any
inore than legislators, and if by any chance dutiable goods are classifiied as free, the honest importer could not pay nor could the collector
receive the duties due, and thousands of dollars would be lost to the
Treasury in cases of continual occurrence of merchants reporting more
than a year after liquidation additions to their entries for payment of
duties which they voluntarily offer. They could not be received under this section of the bill after the lapse of twelve months. This in
itself should be regarded as sufficient to condemn the bill.
The proposed salaries for officers are not at all commensurate to their
duties and responsibilities, and do not compare favorably with the
compensation allowed to attaches of third-rate insurance comx)anies
and other private institutions, where the trusts in their hands is but
thousands of dollars to the millions of money received and accounted
for by the functionaries naiued in this bill.
598
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The evils complained of by the merchants would be cured by abolishing special agents act of May, 1870, and the repeal of the seventh
section of the act of March 3, 1863, which provides for the seizure of
books and papers.
The employment of such agents has been but a hindrance t o t h e
service and a detriment to the best interests of the revenue, ahd no
hue and cry was heard from importers until such officials came to the
surface. They should be wiped out, and the collector left without
such foreign interference.
• • JOSEPH TEELOAE,
Chief Clerk.
I hold the foregoing truths to be self-evident.
. • C. P. CLINCH,Assistant Collector.
1 fully concur.
S. G. OGDEN,
Auditor.
. NOTE.—Mr. Clinch and Mr. Ogden (both now deceased) wese each m the service for
forty years, and were high authorities in revenue matters.—September 18, 1885.
No. 95. '
.
. Additional Inquiries to Chief Clerk Treloar, New York.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C., September 25, 1885..
S I R : Your attention is again invited to my letter of the 5th instant,
and to the enclosed circular. Your reply of the 18th instant has been
received, but it has not the "completeness of details" expressly called
for by my previous communications.
Your experience in the custom-house at the port of New York has
been so long, and your official relation to the several collectors has
been such that candid and complete replies by you to each of the
questions propounded should be of service to the Executive and to
to Congress. The communications made from time to time by the
collector at New York to this Department concern every branch of the
customs service at that port, and a great x^art of those letters bear your
initials. My object-is to ascertain from the local officers the present
actual condition of the customs service throughout the country, and
especially at the port of New York. Some of my inquiries refer to
what has been done or omitted within the last few years, but your
replies need not go further back than two years. When evidence or
opinions are called for by the inquiries, I wish a direct, exxilicit, and
full reply from each officer to whom the circular is sent, without regard
to the evidence or the opinions that may be satisfactory to another
officer, and also without regard to the relative functions of the several
officers, whether in the collector's or appraiser's branch ofthe service.
I wish the views of each officer receiving the circular letter on each
subdivision of each question, unless such officer shall say that he has
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
599
no opinion thereon and no evidence on which he feels entitled to form
an opinion. You will be free in the expression of your views to
criticise the decisions of this Department and the conduct of any of
your superior* or associate executive officers.
If you are cognizant of any failure at any point of the customs service in New York to execute the law, you are directed to fully exxilain
what you believe to be the character and cause of the failure, in addition
to such failure as may be disclosed by a distinct and categorical answer
to each branch of each of the several questions. You are also authorized, as chief clerk of the customs at New York, to make known, if
you shall deem it useful for the accomplishment of the objects I have
in view, to your associates in New York, and especially in the appraiser's department, the thorough and straightforward manner in
which I expect each one of my inquiiies to be dealt with. Your immediate attention will be given to the matters covered by these instructions.
Very respecfully,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
J O S E P H TRELOAR, Esq.,
New York, N. Y.
'
No. 96.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
• Collector's Office, September 29, 1885.
S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th
instant, calling for further answers from me to the questions asked in
your circular letter as to the conduct of the customs business at this
port.
It is due to myself that I should say that nothing was further from
my purpose to be other than '' candid'' in the replies that I have already made; and that where they were not as full as might have been
expected, I naturally assumed that explicit responses would be made
by those immediately in charge of and responsible for the transaction
•of the business to which the questions relate.,
I shall, however, cheerfully give my attention again to your circular,
and offer such additional replies as my experience will enable me to
make; and I shall not delay in so doing, but as my time is fully occupied at my desk from early to late, I ask your kind indulgence as to
time.
I remain, with high respect, your obedient servant,
JOSEPH TEELOAE,
Chief Olerk ofthe Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
600
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 97.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, October 14, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor again to refer to your circular making certain
inquiries as to the customs affairs, and to submit the following addi- tional replies:
First question.—As to "what evidence is there, if any, that the rates
of duty have not within the last few years been levied and collected
as the law prescribed," I answer that, if I am correct in my views as
to the proper construction of the law, there has been failure to levy the
prescribed rate by reason of Treasury decision of January 12, 1884, (Synopsis, 6110,) that photographic albums composed of leather, paper, and
metal were dutiable at the rate chargeable on the component of chief
value. This, in my judgment, is not sound, for the reasons that the
tariff imposes stated rates of duty on manufactures of which leather is
a " p a r t , " of which paper is a " p a r t , " or of which metal is a " p a r t , "
the imposition of any of said rates not being dependent, under the law,
on any one of the materials being component of chief value; that section 2499, Eevised Statutes, as amended by act of March 3, 1883, provides that "if two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any
imported article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of
such rates;" and that the rate of duty, 45 per cent, ad valorem, imposed on manufactures of which metal is a part is the highest of the
several rates prescribed for manufactures of which leather, paper, and
metal may each be a " p a r t . " This ruling, which of course applied in
principle to other manufactures, although not absolutely revoked,' has
practically become null and void by decisions under your administration of the Department.
,
The Department decided November 27, 1883, (Synopsis, 6046,) that
beans and pease were exempt from dnty; March 28, 1884, (Synopsis,
6273,) that they were dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem,; and June 1,
1885, (Synopsis, 6948,) in acquiescence of the ruling of the court, that
• they are dutiable at 10 x^er cent, ad valorem—^all under the same law.
The Department decided August 22, 1885, (Synopsis, 7080,) that
shelled lobsters preserved in vinegar are exempt from duty. Conceding that shellediobsters, canned, are exempt from duty under the provision for "shrimps or .other shell-fish," (T. I., new, 783,) by reason
of the proviso to section 2499, Eevised Statutes, as amended, I submit,
are they not dutiable under that same proviso by being xireserved in
vinegar, vinegar being a "dutiable material and used" in their preservation'? I think so.
•The Department held Axiril 26, 1883, (Synopsis, 5678,) that certain
so-called "granulated rice" is dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem,
under section 2513, Eevised Statutes, as a manufactured article "not
herein [in ^the tariff] enumerated or provided for." I hold that, by
assimilation to cleaned rice, granulated rice is "provided for" by
virtue of section 2499, Eevised Statutes, at 2\ cents x^er pound, that
being the rate imposed on cleaned, rice, and that my position is not
inconsistent with the decisions bf thecourt cited by the Department
fora contrary conclusion. In addition to those decisions, I refer to
that in vol. 2, Curtis C. C , 499.*
* Since writing the foregoing, I have been informed that the United States circuit
court in Philadelphia has just made a decision as to the classification of bichromate of
soda; which confirms my ^iews as to the force aud application, of section 2499, Revised
Statutes.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
601
In this connection I submit it as my judginent that any finding by
the collector as to the character of merchandise will not stand in law,
the return of the United States appraiser in that regard being, in my
opinion, binding. My reasons for this opinion are set forth in my
communication to the collector under date of July 30, 1885, a copy of
which I transmit herewith.
. One other decision of the Department which comes to my mind and
which I think is not sound, is that of July 28, 1885, (Synopsis, 7046,)
adhered to under date of August 5, 1885, (Synopsis, 7063,) as to theclassification of so-called dressed furs. These furs are imported in t h e
form of rugs, Sind as rugs they are provided for in the tariff by name;.and, being so imported and provided for, no subsequent change or alteration of their form can effect their classification as rugs under thetariff. The collector submitted the same view in his letter bf the 4th
of August last, a copy of which is also transmitted herewith for ready
reference.
Then again, (although the amount rather than the rate of duty is>
involved,) the Department, in Synopsis, 7096, adheres to article 470,
Eegulations, 1884, that " i n cases of disagreement between iherchant
and general appraisers on reappraisement * * * the collector i&
not bound to follow either," but may for himself on the evidence determine the market value for assessment of duties.
The law, section 2930, Eevised Statutes, provides in such case t h a t
" t h e collector shall decide between them." If he " i s not bound to>
follow either," but may fix an independent value, then I-submit that,
he does not '' decide between them,'' but, on the contrary, he puts them^
both aside, and may, as the present collector has done in ohe case, find!
and adoxit for assessment of duties by himself a value lower than thelowest returned by the disagreeing appraisers!
Had Congress intended that the collector ^should exercise the x^owers^
of appraiser, it would have so legislated; but it has not. The appraisers^
have the power,, by statute, to examine the goods.and to take testimony
as to the value; and if they disagree, I submit that there is nothing for
the collector to do in "deciding between t h e m " but to adopt one or
the other of their reports of the appraisement made by them in the
mode provided by law. The statute looks to an appraisement as a basisfor the assessment of duties, and the collector cannot legally make an
appraisement, and therefore I rexieat that he cannot, in myjudgment^
adopt for duty purposes a value other than that returned by an appraiser.
Second question.—As to evidence, if any, that the full amount of dutiea
have not been.collected where the rates are purely specific, I add to my^
answer of the 18th ultimo, that, if my memory serves me correctly, I
have incidentally heard Mr. Special Agent Bingham mention an importation in Boston where the actual quantity was discovered to b e
greater than that on which duties were assessed, and in that case theimpression is on my mind that the rates were specific. I can recall no
developed similar case at this port.
Third question.—I am not advised of the methods emxiloyed by theappraiser in verifying the invoiced measurements of textile fabrics.
Fourth question.—I am unaware of any evidence of collusion, for several years, between importers and customs officers, to send for examination a bogus or false package.
Fiftii question.—From my own knowledge I can add no evidence tothat given in my answer of tlie 18th ultimo of false or incompetent or
€02
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY.
inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves. I have at times
heard statements made that there was looseness in weighing, but I have
not had before me "evidence" to establish such a case. I have seen
, from time to time amended returns made by the weighers where importers have alleged that the original returns were excessive and the
weighers have admitted clerical errors on their part.
At a port of the magnitude of this, I submit that the service would
^be benefited if the surveyor had two or three additional dexiuties, whose
business it should be to visit daily all the inspectors engaged in discharging vessels, and all the weighers. Such supervision would, I am
impressed, bring good results. The surveyor has now but one deputy.
Sixth question.—First subdivision: In respect to differences between
imxiorters and collectors which have resulted in suits, does the existing
law need amendment•? Yes; if the Department's construction thereof
is allowed to stand, that a protest against a liquidation may be lodged
before the liquidation is made; in other words, before there is any
.ground for protest. I think I have heretofore remarked that it might
as well be held that a promissory note may be protested before it is due.
The law (section 2931, Eevised Statutes) is that protest shall be made
within ten days "after" liquidation. See Department's decision, 4079,
revoking 3730, which was based on a decision by Chief-Justice Waite,
sitting in circuit. The conclusion of the Department in 4079 is to me
astounding, in that it- accepts the decision of the court, which is against
the Government "until a decision of the Supreme Court shaU be had
upon the question."
How the question is going to get to the Supreme Court under such
circumstances I do not know; certain it is that the importers will not
take it there. The present rule increases such papers, and encourages
<claim agents to make them where they would not if compelled to await
the resiUt of: the liquidation. If a proviso were inserted in the law that
protests lodged before liquidation will be regarded as invalid, there
would be no room for question.
Second subdivision: It is reported to me, from the division in charge
of such matters, that from December 4, 1866, to September 30, 1885,
10,063 suits havebeen instituted against the collector at New York, and
5,772 discontinued, leaving 4,291 pending suits of what are known as
the "new series." I am informed that the number of the "old series"
pending cannot, without much time and labor, be determined.
Third subdivision; It is impracticable fdr this office to classify the
suits, and how long each untried suit has been ready for trial can be
answered intelligently by thie district attorney only.
Fourth subdivision: It seems to me that perhaps the law officers of
the Government might devise a plan for the prompt disposal of pending
suits by which test cases may be .tried in court for the settlement of the
legal points involved, and sending to referees all those involving simply
questions of fact. From what I hear, I judge that the great want is
active and thorough lawyers as assistant district attorneys in the place
of those who, although they may be naturally bright, are comparatively,
but new beginners in the professipn. The Government would, I am
fully persuaded, be the gainer by the employment of the best legal talent
in the trial of revenue cases.
Fifth subdivision: As to whether the law in respect to the payment
of interest as a part of the judgment in such snits needs amendment, I
heg to refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
603
Sixth subdivision: In myjudgment, there is no necessity for a new
tribunal to try such suits. I am impressed that the present system "can
bemade sufficient if it be worked efficiently," and, in my opinion, it
•can be worked efficiently if the district attorney has fbr assistants able
a^nd experienced lawyers.
Seventh question.^—As to the class of articles on which the Government
has, during recent years, failed to levy and collect the full amount of
duties, I refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo, and add that I have no
knowledge of evidence other than the reappraisements which were the
result of the recent investigations by special agents, and those, as I have
said before, related principally to silks, satins, laces, and other costly
fabrics, and I do not see how such reappraisements can be "controverted successfully."
Eighth question.—How has the failure to collect the full amonnt of
duties come abouf? By venturesome experiments, as I said in my
answer of the 18th ultimo, of enterprising importers in invoicing'^and
entering their goods at less than their true market value, and the faUure
of the appraisers to return the correct market value; but I am not
aware of any evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the faUure, or a
conspiracy among officials to promote it.
Ninth question.—First subdivision: If there is "evidence that the appraiser (not the general apxiraiser) has reported to the collector false
dutiable values, how long has the falsehood been in operation'?" The
evidence that such false returns have been made is in the fact of forfeitures for undervaluations, and I believe that they "have been in operation," more or less, ever since there was a tariff; but suits for forfeitures for undervaluation have seldom been brought, and, when brought,
have at times failed by reason of the burden put on the Government to
prove "intent to defraud," as provided by the so-called anti-moiety law.
Second subdivision: Such undervaluation has not been of any particular class of goods, but of. a variety of articles, sometimes one and
sometimes another.
Third subdivision: The articles have come from different places.
Fourth, subdivision: They have represented consigned (manufacturer's) goods as weU as purchased goods, but mostly the former.
Fifth subdivision: Whether the same general condition of things has
existed at other ports I cannot say.
^
The proof of false returijs of dutiable values by the local appraisers
is in the fact of advances made by them at the instance recently of
special agents, which advances have in a measure, I believe, been sustained on reaxipraisement.
Tenth question.—First. I haye been given to understand that there has
been doubt and conflict of opinion in the appraiser's department respecting elements of dutiable value consequent upon the seventh section of
the act of March 3, 1883, revoking previous laws which made certain
charges elements of dutiable value.
Second. Some of the assistant appraisers hold to the opinion, I believe,
under the law as it now stands, that it is the naked goods Only that are
dutiable, while others hold to the opinion, under section 2906, Eevised
Statutes, that it is the market value of the goods in their marketable condition that is dutiable, which, of course, includes the cost of cartons,
labels, wrappers, cards, and such like necessary to that condition. The
latter is my view, and, as I believe, it is that of the present appraiser,
and his view, I assume, controls the practice of his department in that
regard.
604
REPORT OF THE SE'CRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Eleventh question.—An average estimate e^imot now be made, in my
judgment, ofthe percentage of undervaluations in any year or seiies of
years. It would, I am impressed, be next to impossible, if not quite
impossible, to identify the articles or inyoices.
- Twelfth question.—As to the officers responsible for undervaluations,
I can add nothing to my answer of the 18th ultimo.
Thirteenth question.—As stated in my answer of the •18th ultimo, I am
unaware of any evidence that Government officials haye assisted, consented, or connived at the presentation to the appraisers of false evidence of foreign values.
Fourteenth question.—First. I do not know that "false values have
been habitually and systematically reported t o t h e collectors" under
the previous or the preseut administration of the Treasury Department, nor that auy failure to faithfully execute the tariff law "has
come of dishonesty" or by guilty kuowledge on the part of Treasury
or Qustoms officials, and, therefore, my answers to the two other subdivisions of this questions as to auy corruption " fund"^are in the negative. But, as I stated in my previous communication, certain attaches
of the appraiser's department were reported to the district attorney for '
alleged fraudulent practices, and the prosecution, I have since learned,
failed in conviction.
Fifteenth question.—As to the dangers from bribery, I can add nothing
to my answer of the 18th ultimo.
Sixteenth question.—As to the effect of a change from ad valorem to
specific duties, I beg to refer to my answer of the 18th ultimo.
Seventeenth question.—Eeferring to my answer of the 18th ultimo, I
will add that I for myself have no doubt that the repeal of the moiety
system and the legislation modifying the law of 1863, respecting the
seizure of books and papers, have increased false entered values, and,
as a consequence, false appraised values.
Eighteenth question.—First. It is my decided opinion that it would be
impracticable for consuls, no matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine merchandise and verify the correctness of invoice
values.
Second. I am unaware of any consular district in which such officers
can "safely and surely ascertain the true values of every shipment,"
especially of purchased goods. They may, of course, ascertain the
general' market value of a given article.
Third. It is quite likely that foreign gcfvernments would "not abstain from complaints to this Government" of such examination of
goods by our consuls. They wonld not, I am confident, tolerate such
action.
Fourth. The law, section 2851, Eevised Statutes, provides that consuls shall be entitled to demand and receive for the verification of each
invoice two dollars and fifty cents, and no distinction is made whether
the merchandise is of little or great value. An exception is made by
section 1721, Eevised Statutes, as to invoices from the British North
Anierican provinces, for the verification of which the fee is one dollar
each. In addition to the consular fee of $2.50, the invoices from London and England show a charge of four shillings and sixpence for
"commissioner's fee." In this connection, I find of record iu this
office a letter from the Treasury Department, dated October 6, 1862, in
which, iu a case presented by Naylor & Co., the collectbr is informed
that the Secretary of State,.had received a communication fromthe
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. • 605
United States consul at London, who writes that "as foreigners cannot
legally administer oaths to Biitish subjects, all oaths to invoices made
by such subjects have to be taken before a magistrate, qualifiied according to English law to administer oaths, some one authorized by the consul being in attendance to witness the signing of the papers." 'But
consuls were instructed by the State Department, in its circular. No.
36, of April 27, 1863, that, by the 1st section of the act of March 3,
1863, now section 2854, Eevised Statutes, ^ the declaration is substituted
^
for the oath heretofore required." I take it for granted that the English law covers "declarations" as well as "oaths." Certain it is that
invoices from England have thereon declarations made before " a commissioner to administer oaths in the supreme cpurt of judicature in
England," and a certificate of the United States consul verifying the
declarations.
Nineteenth question.—As stated in my answer of the 18th ultimo, it
would not, I am of the opinion, "'be safe or useful to the revenne" fpr
the executive or judiciary to have greater or other powers than are now
provided by statute in the ascertainment of dutiable values. Market
value, which is now dutiable value, is a question of fact and not of law,
and is a living issue. In many cases, if made the subject of xirotest and
appeal and suit, it would be years before the question would be settled.
Perhaxis it will be said that the law, as it stands, is arbitrary; and I
answer that "all revenue laws must of necessity be arbitrary."
Twentieth question.—AB to the history of the several tariffs on wool
since 1860, I learn from the ax)praiser that his assistant, Mr. Strong, has
made a very full report. If in addition to that a statement of the importations of wool and the revenue derived therefrom under the several
tariffs shall be desired, I beg to suggest whether it may not be readily
obtained from the Bureau of Statistics or the Commissioner of Customs
in Washington; if not, then an order to the collector at this port would
Xirobably secure it from the auditor's department of this office, so far as
the importations into this district are concerned.
Twenty-first question.—I will add to my answer of the 18th ultimo, as
to the xiayment of money by passengers to inspectors of baggage, that
the belief is almost universal that such payments are constantly made.
I can suggest no plan under the xiresent system of examining baggage,
unless it be the emxiloyment fi'om time to time of keen and trustworthy
detectives, who shall not be known, to the end that the guilty parties
shall be discovered and punished. The discovery and punishnient of
even one or two would have a salutary effect. As it is now, it is almost
impossible tosecure the necessary proof to convict, the act of the giver
and the act of the taker being both condemned by law.
Twenty-second question.—As to whether the evidence tends to show
that the ratesof duty have "been carried by Congress beyond and
ubove the line which the Government can surely protect, and into a
region where smugglers and shippers will be very powerful in evading
the law," I answer that while attempts to evade the legal impost are
the most temxiting as to goods xiaying the highest rates because of their
great value, my experience convinces me that the greatest vigilance is
necessary to the safety of the revenue, whether the rates are high or
low, undervaluation and smuggling being practised as to goods on
which the tariff imxioses different rates.
Twenty-third question.—Eefers to transactions at ports other than New,
York, with which I am not acquainted.
606
. REPORT QF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Ttoenty-fourth question.—As to why the xiersons pr officials concerned
in false returns of dutiable values have not been coniplained of, arrested, indicted, and punished, I answer that I am aware of but two
or three cases of officials being complained of to the district attorney
in that regard, and they were discharged, I am informed, for want of
sufficient evidence. Many cases, however, have arisen where the circumstances gave rise to very strong suspicions of wrong-doing, and if
they were not reported to the United States attorney, I assume that itwas because those specially charged with the investigation of such
' m,atters failed to find sufficient evidence to warrant xirosecution. I
rexieat the suggestions made in my answer of the 18th ultimo, " t h a t in
such cases the appraising officers should be called uxion to explain
their delinquency, and that if found to be with a guilty knowledge
they should be prosecuted; and if from incompetency, they should
leave the service."
In addition to the foregoing, and in obedience to your direction, I
point out failui'es to execute the law.
First. The 25th section, act June 22, 1874, (vol. 18, page 186,) provides "that public cartage of merchandise in the custody of the Government shall be let, after not less than thirty days' notice of such letting,
to the lowest responsible bidder giving sufficient security, and shall be
subject to regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury." I
am unaware of any "letting" of cartage in accordance with this law^
except the cartage of goods ordered to the public store fbr examination.
Unclaimed goods—that is, goods not entered and goods bonded for
warehousing—are, under the statute, " i n the custody of the Governm e n t ; " and yet, as I understand it, no "letting" ofthe cartage thereof
" t o the lowest responsible bidder" has been made. It has been given
in the main to the parties bidding and contracting for the transfer of
the so-called "public-store xiackages," and not, I believe, at the same
piices as are paid for those packages. In this connection, I report the
fact that complaints are received almost daily from importers of delays
on the x'>art of the public-store cartmen in transferring xiackages. This,.
I can readily conceive, is a very serious matter to imxiorters, and shbuld
be remedied. From all that I can gather, the service is indifferently
performed. Other contractors should, in my opinion, be substituted for
. the xiresent ones, and that, too, at once.
Second. The retention of unclaimed goods on the steamers' wharves
for forty-eight hours after they are landed, as authorized by the Dexiartment's instructions of May 5, 1878, (Synopsis, 3230.)
The law, section 2966, Eevised Statutes, as amended by section 24, act
of June 26, 1884, provides that when, it shall appear by the bill of lading
that the merchandise is to be delivered immediately on arrival, the collector may take possession of the goods, and the same section, as weU as
section 2963, declares how he shall take xiossession, the latter section distinctly providing that "merchandise > -i^ * not -^ * ^ entered
i
^
^
> > ^^ shall be deposited in the xmblic warehouse, and sh^ll there re: K i
^
main at the expense and risk of the owner," and the liability of steamshixi comxianies for goods remaining on the wharf is, under the statute,
section 2871, Eevised Statutes, only for such as may be landed at night.
V^Tien bills of lading were first drawn, with the condition to deliver
the goods immediately on arrival, under the act of August 3, 1854, the
steamship comxianies deff-ayed the first forty-eight hours storage charges,
as an offset to the right of the imxiorter to have three days' notice, under
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
60T
the last provision in section 2966, Eevised Statutes, before the collector
shall take xiossession of the goods when [the bill of lading is not conditioned as stated.
^
The instructions in question, which are clearly, in my opinion, without warrant of law, are the outgrowth of the so-called " J a y Commission," which investigated the customs service at this x^ort some yearssince. The instructions are beneficial only to steamship comxianies, and
foreign corporations at that. Such favors are certainly not in the interest of importers, for deliveries to them and transfers to the xmblie
. store are delayed by the piling of the goods on the Vharves, not to mention the dangers by theft and fire. Some two or three years since quite
considerable cargo of the steamer " E g y p t " so landed was destroyed
by fire. Whether the owners have ever succeeded in making any recovery from the steamship company I am not informed, but certain it
is that, by virtue of section 2984, Eevised Statutes, the Government lostthe duties on such destroyed cargo.
Third. The failure to execute the law, section 2939, Eevised Statutes,
as to'the representative packages that shall be sent to the United States
public store for examination and appraisement. To execute the law t o
the letter in this regard will require a store of at least twice the caxiacity
of the one now occupied for that purpose, and a large increase of examiners and verifiers. I recall a case where the United States circuit
cburt held that the 20 per cent, additional duty did not attach fbr undervaluation because of the failure to send for examination the legal
number of packages; but now, as a rule, where undervaluation is found,
all the goods are ordered in for appraisement.
Fourth. As a matlier of fact the actual "lading" (as required by
sections 2627 and 303,5, Eevised Statutes) of goods exported for drawback is not superintended by officers of the customs, and the present
force is not eqjual thereto. As it is, the officer, as a rule, sees that the
goods are dexiosited at the wharf and receipted fbr by the export vesseL
Fifth. In conclusion, conceding that the Department's instructions
in Synopsis, 4919, are not contrary to law, in accepting bills of lading
as evidence of exportation of goods for drawback of duties where the
amount does not exceed $100, Instead of a bond for the prodnction of
certificates (ff landing abroad, I am impressed that if fraud's are not
Xiractised thereunder, the door is open for them, for the Department,
must know that an officer is not in charge of an outgoing vessel as h e
is of an incoming vessel.
Submitting the foregoing, I am, with high resxiect, your obedient
servant, •
JOSEPH TEELOAE,
V
Cliief Clerk of tlw Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
608
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
(Enclosure.)
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, August 4, 1885.
S I R : I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, in which you hold, on the appeal of J. & A. Boskowitz, that
^
-certain so-caUed dress furs are dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem.
An interview, since your decision, with an importer of high standing
who deals largely iuofui'S, promxits me to present for your consideration
the statement made b3^ him, verified by my^ own exxierience, and which "
wUl not, it is believed, be denied by the appellants, that furs in the condition in which those in question were imported—i. e., sewed together-^
:are, without further manufacture, bought and sold as rugs. It is true
that the larger portion of them are, aft&r importation, taken apart, resewed in larger sizes, and sold as robes; but T subinit that the provisions
of the tariff apxily to imported goods in the condition in which they
are landed, and not to their subsequent altered cohdition. The Department ha^ so held in its letter of February 2, 1878, on application of
Mr. E. Aymard as to certain burr millstones; in its letter of March
:21, 1881, on appeal of Henry Barlow as to. certain so-called samples
' and in its decision of October 25,1878, (Synopsis, 3748,) on certain old
brass tubes.
The furs under consideration are, in the form in which imported, riigs,
•and were so found and returned by the United States appraiser; and as
other like importations will doubtless be made, the question presents
itself, can the judgment of the appraiser as to the character of imported
merchandise be directed f
The United States Supreme Court has held " t h a t any dispute as to
t h e nature of the produce imported and its consequent classification in
t h e invoice and entry owere questions of fact within thejurisdiction of
the appraiser." The appraiser's classification as to rates-of duty are,
of course, only advisory. The furs imported by the present appellants
:are not, as understood by this office, dissimilar to those which the Deipartment decided December 19,1882, (Synopsis, 5454,) to be dutiable
a t 45 per cent, ad valorem, as rugs, under the provision therefor in the
^ old tariff, and the only change in the new tariff in regard thereto is a
reduction of the duty to 40 per cent, ad valorem.
In view of the foregoing, I recommend .that the United States appraiser shall take sworn testimony, as provided in section 2922, Eevised
;Statutes, so that he may determine for himself whether or not furs
•sewed as are those in question are merchantable as rugs.
If an importer brings his goods into the United States in a form to
meet the plain xirovisions of the tariff, I fail to see how any subsequent
treatment of the goods can avail to avoid such provisions.
Flease instruct me.
I am, with high respect, your obedient servant,
E. L. HEDDEN,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPOI^T OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
609
(Enclosure.)
CusTOBi-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, July 30, 1885.
SIR : In the matter ofthe ax)peal from your assessments of duties on .
certaiu so-called granulated rice, I feel that I would fall short in the
conscientious discharge of my official duty were I to fail to xioint out the
practical difficulties which stand in the way of the collector in his taking
testimony as to the character of the rice. They are the laws, as defined
by the highest judicial courts, which make it the duty of the United
States axipraisers to ascertain the character of iniported merchandise,
and the absence of any statutory authority for any other method.
The appraiser reports the character of imxiorted merchandise to enable
the collector to i\ange or classify the same under the tariff. Were it
otherwise, the collector would be under the necessity of examining and
determining for himself the character of imports. As it is, the appraiser reports whether the goods are of the character described in the
invoice, and this he must first determine, else he cannot intelligently
make return as to the market value, for if an ax)praiser may report the
value of a crude article as that of one not crude, where would be safety
to the revenue in his actionf
Section 2899, Eevised Statutes, provides that no merchandise shall be
(delivered until inspected or appraised, or until the same "shall be found
correctly and fairly invoiced and put up, and so rexiorted to the collector." Certainly merchandise would hot be "fairly invoiced and put
uxi" if falsely described as to its character ; and by whom but by the
axipraiser does the law requii^e that that fact shall be determined and
"be rexiorted to the collector?"
The United States Supreme Court has decided, in 24 Howard, 525,
that " i t was competent fbr the axixiraisers to correct the misdescription
in the invoice and entry, or disregard it, so as to perform their duty as
required by law. Unless.they have that right, then the grossest frauds
may be committed by an importer with xierfect imxiunity; and if they
have that right,'as clearly they must, then it follows that any dispute as to
the nature of the produce iniported and its classification in the invoice
and entvj were questions offact within the juiisdiction ofthe appraisers,,
and their decision is final and conclusive."
It is true the law (section 2902, Eevised Statutes) x:)rovides that the
appraiser shall, " b y all reasonable ways and means in his xiower,'' ascertain the true value of imported merchandise; and it cannot be denied
that the first and one of the most essential " w a y s " of reaching that fact
is the determination ofthe character ofthe merchandise which governs
the classification for duty.
Moreover, it is competent for the axixiraiser, and not for the collector,
under section 2922, Eevised Statutes, to call before him "and examine
uxion oath any owner, imxiorter, consignee, or other person touching any
matter or thing which he may deem material in ascertaining the true
market value * * -^ of any merchandise imported;" and certainly
"
the fact as to whether the rice is granulated or not is material to the
ascertainment of its value. Thequestion as to the tariff classification
ofthe rice is now before the honorable Secretary of the Treasury on an
axixieal under section 2931, Eevised Statutes, and ifin his consideration
of the axipeal he remits the case to the officers of the customs for review
by them of their action, I submit that such review would properly
proceed under the law by action, first of the appraiser, as t b the cor39 A
610
REPORT OF tHl2 SECRETARY OF THE: TREAStl^.
rectness of his return as to the character of the merchandise, which
guides the collector in his assessments of duties, the axipraiser calling
befbre him, and examining under oath, persons touching the, matter in
dispute, and fuimishing snch testimony as he might obtain, together
with his views thereof, for the information of the honorable Secretary.
I take it that the appraiser, in making his return, was governed by the
instructions in Treasury circular of the 25th ultimo, which confines
granulated rice to cases where "the substance must indicate that it has
been subjected to an intentional process of grinding or manufacture;"
and that but for such instructions he would not have declined to receive
and consider documentary evidence as to the fact. He certainly, from
the very nature of his duties, is the best qualified to determine the
weight that should be given to such evidence.
Submitting the foregoing with deference, I am, very respectfully,
your obedient servant,
JOSEPH TEELOAE,
Chief Clerk ofthe Customs.
Hon.
E. L, H E D D E N ,
Collector of the Customs, Fort of New York.
No. 98.
WM. DORSHEIMER—Appointed United States District Attorney July 1,1885.
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F N E W Y O R K ,
New York, October 19, 1885.
S I R : In your letter of September 8 you direct my attention and request my replies to the sixth paragraxih of the inquiries thereto
appended.
This paragraph reads as follows:
j
" I n respect to rates of duty, and differences between importers and
collectors growing out of decisions by tlie latter and the Treasury which
have resulted in suits, does the existing law need amendmentf How
many sucK collectors' suits are now xiending i n Boston, New York,^
Philadelphia, and Baltimore^ If they can be classified and the legal
qnestion at issued identified, how many suits are there in each clavssification, and how long has each untried suit been at issue and ready for
trial * Cannot a plan be devised by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor
?
of the Treasury, the district attorneys, andthe judges, by which these
suits can be more promptly disxiosed of, and new suits as they come up
be speedily put at issue and tried*? Does the existing law in respect to
the payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs in ' collectors' suits' need amendmenf? Is there a necessit^^ for a new tribunal
to try judicially questions growing out of rates of external or internal
taxation levied by the executive when tax-payers are dissatisfied, or
can the existing judicial system be made sufficient if it be worked
efficientiy'?"
The existing law to which your inquiry refers is, as I understand it,,
the tariff act of March 3, 1883.
Under this act a large number of collectors' suits have arisen.in this
district, but only two of such suits have thus far been tried, viz: Ober-
REPORT OF TH^ SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
611
teuffer vs. Eobertson, N. S., 9055, and Windmuller vs. Eobertson, N.
S., 9295.
The Oberteuffer suit arose under the seventh section of this act, andinvolved the question of the dutiability of certain cartons containing
hosiery. It was tried in May, 1884, and'a verdict was rendered for the.
defendant. A report of the trial, together with the oxiinion of the court,
was transmitted to the Department May 17, 1884. Subsequently, the
plaintiffs moved for a new trial, and elaborate briefs were submitted by
both sides. After due deliberation the court denied the motion. A
report of the argument of this motion, together with the opinion of the
court rendered thereon, was transmitted to the Department Angust 22,
1885. -..
'
•
The Windmuller suit involved the rate ofsduty on edible "beans."
Your predecessor in office, on March 28, 1884, (see Treasury Decisions,
No. 6273,) held that such " b e a n s " were dutiable at 20 per cent, ad
valorem, under the provision for "garden-seeds, except seed of the
sugar-beet." On the trial of this suit, the court held that such " beans''
were dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as vegetables. In this decision, as appears by the letter to the collector of June 1, 1885, the DeX>artment acquiesced.
With the limited data furnished by these two suits only before me
from which to judge, I am not prepared to express any opinion as to
whether the existing law needs amendment in respect to rates of duty
and differences between importers and collectors, growing out of the
decisions by the latter and the Treasury Department, which have re- suited in suits.
.
The number of collectors' suits now pending in this district is about
twenty-three hundred (2,300.) Of these suits about one hundred and
ninety-five arose under the acts of July 30, 1846; March 3, 1851; and
March 3, 1857. The remaining suits arose under various acts passed
since 1857.
/
In these suits, as in all suits of a similar nature, the pleadings permitted by the practice bf the courts do not disclose the precise issues
in controversy. Those issues can only be accurately determined from
the plaintiffs' protests, which, with very few exceptions, are now on
file a t t h e custom-house. The time and fbrce at the command of this
office have not permitted the examination of any xirotests now so filed,
or the ascertainment of the exact dates of issue in all these suits; but,
so far as the records of this office make known the various issues in
pending suits, they have been set forth in a statement herewith enclosed, together with the number of suits involving each issue, the
number of suits at issue, and which of such issues have been tried.
Besides those issues there are undoubtedly many other issues of law
or fact, which would appear from a thorough and complete examination
of the papers and protests in each of these suits.
Of these suits no one is now fully ready for trial. It has been the
practice of this bffice, as I understand, to prepare for trial a sufficient
number of these suits, with different issues, to occuxiy the time allotted
by the court for the trial of collectors' suits, and, as I am informed, a
sufficient number of these suits, with different issues, can be prepared
for that purpose for the coming term of court.
. In none of these suits, as already suggested, do the pleadings give
any intimation of what the issue really is, or what is the Government's
defence, and in but very few of these suits put at issue prior to May 23,
612
REPOfeT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TKEASHRT.
1883, does tiiere axipear to be in this office or elsewhere within the control of the Government auy note or memorandum as to what were the
facts on which the action of the Government officers was based,' or what
^ witnesses are available for the defence.
On May 23, 1883, on the request of my predecessor in office, the then
Secretary of the Treasury instructed the collectors of customs in this
distiict, on the receipt by him from this office of the bill of particulars
in each collector's suit not then at issue or thereafter brought, to ascertain and report in writing to this office, for the purpose of enabling it
to draw intelligently the answer therein, and to assist it in preparing
such suit for trial so far as the same can then be so prexiared, certain
facts, of which the following only are now required:
^
1. Whether the protest and appeal and suit are within the periods
respectively limited by law.
2. Under what clause of the statute the goods in question have respectively been classified, with reference to the paragraph of. Heyl's
Digest under which such clause can be found..
3. A cox^y of the protest or xirotests, with reference to the x^aragraph
of Heyl's Digest uxion which the plaintiff relies.
4. What are the facts as to the material, quality, texture, or use to
which the article may be apxilied, upon which the classification complained of is adopted and the classification claimed by the imxiorters is
rejected.
5. What officer of customs or other persons, so far as known to the
customs officers dealing with the case, are acquainted with the facts or
will be of value to the Government as witnesses to maintain the issues.
on its xiart *
?
Since these instructions were issued, this office has transmitted to the
collector, as soon as served, the bill of xiarticulars in each collector's
suit not then at issue or thereafter commenced, and the collector has
been ascertaining and reporting to this office the above-mentioned facts
therein.
cOn receipt by this office of one of these reports, the answer is at once
drawn in the suit to which the report refers, and the report thereafter'
filed with the other papers therein.
As the collector's part of this system has since its inauguration been,
and is now being, carried out by him, long periods of time elapse
between the receipt by him of the bill of particulars in these suits and
the making by him to this office of his reports therein. In some suits
such x3eriods have amounted to about two years.
If the collectors' reports in these suits could be made to this office,
within say, twenty days, or some other reasonable time, after the receipt
by him of the bills of particulars therein, much would be done towards
putting this office in a position speedily to put at issue new suits and to
Xirexiare for trial each issue involved therein.
As a part of a plan to secure the more-prompt disposition of these
suits, I recommend, that the collector be required (and if he has not
sufficient force for that purpose, that sufficient force be furnished him to
euable him) hereafter ito make his reports in these suits to this office
within such time as suggested. Suits iuvolving new issues, can then,
with the information! given by these reports, be immediately put at
issue; each of the new issues in the suits at issue be prepared for trial;
the suits involving the same (one for each new issue so prepared for
trial) placed upon the calendar of the court for the next term, and, it.
I
/
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
613^
is believed, tried at such term. At the same time it is also believed
that as many of the old issues as the force in this office can prepare for
trial can also be tried at the same term.
As another part of such plan, I recommend that as soon as an issue in
any of these suits, whether new or old, has been tried, and the decision
of the court at such trial acquiesced in, and a refund in all suits involving an issue of the same kind as the one tried has been ordered by
the Dexiartment, the collector be required at once to adjust such suits
in accordance with the principles laid down in the decision of the court;
that if, for want of sufficient facts because of some legal question, or
for some other reason, the collector is of the opinion that he cannot so
adjust any one of such smts, he be directed to report at once such suit.
to this office, and that the same be referred to a referee for his determination of the whole suit, if the issue in question be the only issue
involved; and if there be other issues involved, then for the determination of the issue in question only.
I think that the saving to the Government of interest alone which
would be effected if this course were pursued would be much more
than sufficient to pay the expenses of a referee, whether he were compensated for his services at the same rate as a referee is in the State
courts or by a fixed salary x)er annum to be xiaid by the Government.
Under the present plan, when the trial of an issue in one of these
suits results in a decision in favor of the xilaintiffs, and the Dexiartment
acquiesces in such decision, and instructs the collector to adjust, in
accordance with the principles thereof, issues of the same kind as the
one tried in all other suits, he xiroceeds to carry out such instructions;
but, as exxierience shows, before he has gone far, he comes uxion a suit
which, for want of sufficient facts, or because of some legal question, or
for some other reason, he cannot adjust.
Such a suit, unless the plaintiffs concede it should not be adjusted,
is brought by them into court. The court and jury are told by them
that the xirinciples governing the snit have been settled by the court
and acquiesced in by the Dexiartment, but that, for some technical
reason, the Government refuses to adjust and xiay it, and that, to get
the money justly due them, they are obliged to trouble the court and
jury to retry the issues involved.
Under such circumstances the time of the court is taken up in re-trying an old issue when an issue nev^er before tried might be tried;
the jury is restless and impatient, and a x^rejudice is created in their
minds, if not in the mind of the court, against the Government which
works to its disadvantage, not only in the suit then before the jury, but
in all other suits that come before the same jury, or any of them.
Some time, of course, would elapse before the effects of the xilian xiroposed by me Avould be realized, as would be the case with any new
plan; but, as I am now advised, I believe that if such a x^lan be thoroughly tried, with a sufficient force at the custom-house fo prepare the
collector's rexiorts as soon as xiossible after the bills of xiarticulars in
suits have been served, and with a sufficient force in this office to attend to the necessary legal work connected with these suits, it would
secure as prompt a disposition of them as can be reasonably expected.
As to the payment of interest as a part of the damages and costs in
these collectors' suits, I think the existing law needs amendment. In
my opinion, the law should be so amended as to provide for the payment' of interest oi; the damages recovered or found due from the tim^
614
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the exaction of duty on which the damages are based up to the date of
the payment thereof, and for the payment of such interest, as a part of
such damages, and at the time such damages are paid, subject to the
exception that no interest should be allowed during the time that the
XDlaintiffs are guilty of gross laches in prosecuting their claim; or, if
the same can be collected without prosecution, in collecting the same.
With my xiresent views on the subject, it does not seem to me that
there is any necessity for a new tribunal to try judicially questions
growing out of rates of external or internal taxation levied by the executive when tax-payers are dissatisfied. The existing j udicial system,
in my opinion, is sufficient in the case of questions growing out of internal taxation, and, with the plan suggested by\me, can be made
sufficient in the case of questions growing outof external taxation.
Yery respectfully,
WILLIAM DOESHEIMEE,
United States Attorney.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Statement of issues in suits brought by importers against collectors of customs
to recover alleged excessive duties and now pending in the southern district
of New York; thenumber of suits involving each of such issues ; the dates
of issues of such suits; andthe suits tried, if any, which involved such
issues, so far as ascertained.
Acid, bromo-fiuoresic.—Classified under the actof 1874 as an "aniline
dye," dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem; and
underthe actof 1883 as " coal-tar color or dye," dutiable at 35 per
cent, ad valorem, but claimed to be an acid used for chemical or manufacturing xmrposes, and free of duty. Number of suits, 9; not at issue, 2. .
The dates of issue in suit at isssue are various dates from Jnly, 1879,
to August, 1885.
One suit, Matheson vs. Eobertson, N. S., 8365, aiising under the act
of 1874, was tried Februaiy 7 and 8, 1884; verdict rendered for the
plaintiffs. Trial reported to Dexiartment February 26, 1884. Suit now
in United States Supreme Court.
Acid, rosalic.—Classified under the actof 1883 as "coal-tar color;"
claimed to be an acid for chemical or manufacturing xmrposes, and free
of duty. Number of suits, 13; not at issue, 7. All these suits were
commenced since the beginning of this year, 1885. The dates of issue
of those at issue are at different, dates since March 20, 1885.
Acid, picric.—Same question involved as in rosalic-acid suits. Number of suits, 3 ; all commenced since January 16, 1885. Number not
at issue, 2. Dates of issue in the one at issue, since June 13, 1885.
Acid, carbolic.—Classified under the act of 1883 as a x^rei^aration of
coal-tar, not color or dye, dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem; clainied .
to be free of duty as acids for chemical, medicinal, or manuf act uring
pui'Xioses. Number of suits, 3 ; at iSvSue, 1. Date of issue, May 9,1885.
Art, works of, statuary, (Sec.—Classified for duty under theact of 1874
or 1883 as manufactures not otherwise xirovided for, composed of iron,
&c., or other metals; claimed tobe "statuary," dutiable at 10 per cent,
ad valorem, under act of 1874, or dutiable at 30 per cent, ad valorem,
under the act of 1883. Number of suits, 71; not at issue, 14. Dates of
issue of those at issue, frora November, 1881, to April, 1885,
' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
615
Antiquities, collection of.—Paintings, framed, classified under the act
of 1874 as "paintings," the frames, as mahufactures of wood. Silverware, classified under the act of 1883 as manufactures of silver; bronze
vases, tripod, and chest, classified under act of 1883 as manufactures
of bronze, &c.; all claimed to be "collection of antiquities, specially
imported and not for sale," free of duty. Number of suits, 3. Date,
of issue, September 10, 1883; March 15, 1884; and February 2, 1885.
resxiectively. •
Albums.—Classified under act of 1874 or act of 1883 as manufactures
of their materials of chief value; claimed to be dutiable as manufacttures of paper not otherwise x>rovided foi-, or as "blank-books," or as
"books." Number of suits, 5. Dates of issue in two suits, May 28,
1882, and May 5, 1885, respectively. The other three suits not at issue.
Articles made on frames.—(1) Classified under section 2 ofthe act of
March 2, 1867, as manuiactures of wool, or as manufactures of worsted;
claimed to be dutiable, under section 22 of the act of March 2, 1861, and
section 13 of the act of July 14, 1862, as "articles made on frames;"
(2) similar question und6r act of 1874; (3) or classified under the act
of 1874 as worsted wearing-apparel, and claiined to be dutiable under
that act as "articles made on frames," the act of August 7, 1882, (22
U. S. Stats, at Large, page 301,) amending the paragraph beginning
withthe words "clothing, ready-made, and wearing-apparel" of Schedule
M, section 2504, by inserting the word "wool," being inoperative, or
iUegally enacted and void. Number of suits, 172; not at issue, 18.
Dates of issue of suits at issue, from April 27, 1876, to April 29, 1885.
Krause vs. Arthur, N. S., 3684, arose under laws prior to act of 1874.
In that case a verdict was rendered for defendent.
Yietor vs. Arthur, N. S., 4192, arising under act of 1874, was tried
and verdict rendered for plaintiffs. Case subsequently affirmed by Suxireme Court and acquiesced in by the Department. Both of these cases
were reported November 13, 1877.
Yietor vs. Arthur, N. S., 2887, arising under law prior to act of 1874,
was tried in 1883, and verdict rendered fbr plaintiff. Trial reported December 24, 1883. This case has been taken to United States Supreme
Court.
Burlaps.—Classified under act of 1874, or under act of 1883, as ducks,
canvas, xiadding, &c., or manufactures offiax; claimed to be dutiable
at the rate of duty imposed on "burlaps." Number of suits, 8; not at
issue, 7. Date ofissue ofthe one at issue. May 2, 1885.
Buttons.—Classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of brass, &c.;
claimed to be dutiable as "buttons," or as gilt or plated articles, &c.
Number of suits, 43; not at issue, 32. Dates of issue of those at issue,
from Sexitember 22, 1884, to July 10, 1885.
Baskets.—(jld&sihed as a manufacture of silk underthe actof 1874
and the actof February 8, 1875, (18 U. S. Stats, at Large, 307,) and
claimed to be dutiable as baskets. Number of suits, 1. Date of issue,
May 28, 1882.
Bye-wood decoction, or dye-wood extracts.—Classified under act of 1883
as colors not speciaUy ehumerated or xirovided for, dutiable at 25 per
eent. ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem,
as extracts and decoctions of dye logwood and other dye-woods. Num- ber of suits, 1. Date of issue, February 11, 1885.
Flush bags.—Classified for duty under acts of 1874 and February 3,
1885, as manufacture of silk; claimed to be dutiable as. a. inanufacture
616
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
of cotton not otherwise provided for. Number of suits pending, 1.
Date of issue, February 28, 1882.
.
"
Balls, looollen tennis.—Classified under the xirovision in Schedule L of
the actof 1874, for "all manufactures of every description made wholly"
or in part of wool," dutiable at 50 cents x^er xiound and 35 xier cent, ad
valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, as "toys."
Number of suits, 2. Dates of issue, October 4, and November 27, 1882,
resxiectively.
Bindings or galloons.—Classified under act of 1874 as galloons wrought
by hand or braided by machinery, made of wool or worsted, &c., dutiable at 50 cents x^er xiound, and in addition 50 x^er cent, ad valorem;
clai med to be dutiable as manufactures of worsted, &c., dutiable at 50
cents x^er xiound, and in addition 35 xier cent, ad valorem. Number-of
suits, 19; not at issue, 3. Dates of issue in those at issne, from September 7, 1883, to June 16, 1885.
Bone-ash charcoal, (bones burned, calcined, ground, pr steamed.)—Cl^^ified under the act of 1874 as "black of bone,^' or nnder the act of 1883
as '' bone black;'' claimed to be free of duty, as bones burned, calcined,
&c. ^ Number of suits, 23; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue in those at
issue, from January 6, 1882, to September 23, 1885.
This issue has been tried three timeSo
In Wardener i;5. Eobertson, N. S., 8363; verdict for xilaintiff; paid;
trial reported December 24, 1883. In Peters vs. Eobeiison, N. S,, 8053;
verdict fbr defendant; trial rexiorted February 21, 1884.
In Harrison vs. EobertsonV N. S., 7454, there have been two trials. First trial resulted in verdict for plaintiff. First trial rexiorted January
31, 1885; case retiied, resulting in a verdict for defendant. Second
trial reported Jnne 7, 1885; case taken by writ of error to United
States Suxireme Court.
Beans.—Classified under the act of 1883 as "garden-seeds," dutiable
at 20 x^er cent, ad valorem; claimed to be free of duty, and if not
free, dutiable as "vegetables," at 10 per cent, ad valorem. Number
of suits, 44; not at issue, 41. Dates of issue of the three suits at issue,
September 24, 1884; March 21, 1885; and January 23, 1885, respectively.
WindmuUer vs. Eobertson, N. S., 9295, tried in 1885. Yerdict for
plaintiffs on claim that beans, under act of 1883, were not dutiable at
a greater rate than 10 per cent., and Department acquiesced in this decision.
Water-colors.—Classified under the act of 1874, under the xirovision
for "aniline dyes and colors, by whatever name known," dutiable at
50 cents x^er xiound and 35 xier cent, ad valorem; clainied to be dutiable
at 25 x^er cent, ad valorem, as "moist water-colors used in the manufacture of paper hangings." Number of suits, 1. Date of issue,October 25, 1883.
Colors and coloring-matter.—Classified under act of 1874 as "aniline
^dyes," dutiable at 50 cents x^er xiound and 35 x^er cent, ad valorem;
claimed to be dutiable under the same act, at 20 x^er cent, ad valorem,
as manufactured articles not otherwise xirovided for. (Section 2516,
Eevised Statutes.) Number of suits, 39; not at issue, 4. Dates of issue
in suits at issue, from April 25, 1879, to Septeniber 22, 1884.
One suit, Pickhardt vs. Merritt, N. S., 5798, involving the rate of
duty on certain of these colors, was tried in January and February, 1884,
resulting in verdict for defendant. Trial reported February 25, 1884»
Qase taken to Supreme Court by plaintiff.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
617
Bonnets, hats, &c.,for men, women, (Sec.—Classified under act of 1883,
at various rates of duty, as manufactui^es of worsted, wool, &c., or as
knit goods; claimed to be dutiable, under Schedule N of the same act,
at 30 xier cent, ad valorem, as bonnets, hats, &c. Nnmber of suits, 6;
not at issue, 3. Dates of issue in suits at issue, August 16, 1884; April
29, 1885; and Sexitember 23, 1885, respectively.
Emery ore.—On shixiboard in xiort, but unentered July 1, 1883; classified fbr duty nnder act of 1874 as emery ore, at $6 x^er ton; cljiimed
to be free under act of 1883, as emery ore. Number of ^uits, 1. Date
of issue, December 18, 1884.
Cotton linings.—Being a small x^art of conijiletely inanufactured wool
caps; classified for duty under act of 1874, at 50 cents per xiound, as
manufactures of wool; clainied to be dutiable under same act, at 35
per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for. Number of suits, 1. Date of issue, March 4, 1884. .
Ciiimney lamps.—Classified for duty nnder actof 1874, at40 x)er cent,
ad valorem, as articles of glas, cut; claimed to be dutiable under same
act at 35 x^er cent., as xilain, &c., not cut. Similar question under act
of 1883. Nuniber of suits, 7 ; number not at issue, 1. Dates of issue
in suits at issue, from September 7, 1880, to September 10, 1883.
One snit, Schneider vs. Eobertson, N. S., 8172, tried December, 1884.
Yerdict for plaintiffs. Trial rexiorted December 13,1884. To be taken
to the Supreme Court.
Colcothar, dry.—Classified for duty under act of 1874, as "xiainters,
colors" at 25 per cent, ad valorem^; claimed to be dutiable under same
act as colcothar, dj-y, or oxide of iron, aud free of duty. Number of
suits, 13. Dates of issue from Noveniber 30, 1881, to August 16, 1884.
One suit, HiU7;5. Eobertson, N. S., 8173; tried December, 1883. Verdict for defendant. Trial reported Deceniber 24, 1883. Costs x^aid by
Xilaintiff's and suit discontinued.
Composition'^, glass and paste, not set.—Classified under act of 1874, as
imitations of jet, dutiable at 35 x^er cent, ad valorem; claimed to be
dutiable under same act at 10 x^er cent ad valorem, as "compositions
of glass or- xiaste," not set. Number of suits, 7. Dates ofissue, from
January 6, 1882, to June 12, 1884.
Foreign moneys, such as "Chinese taels," pesos of United States of Colombia, "Mexican dollar," "- Austrian fiorin," CCT.—Yalue estimated in
silver dollars fbr purxiose of duties; clainied that value shonld be estimated in gold doUars. Number of suits, 35. Dates of issue, from
March 7, 1876, to March 17, 1884.
Cryder vs. Merritt, N. S., 6477; issue as to Chinese tael. Decided
in favor of xilaintiffs. Trial rexiorted December 17,1884; acquiesced in
by Dexiartment.
o
Hadden vs. Merritt, 5936; issue as to Mexican dollar. Decided in
favor of defendant. Trial reported November 1, 1880. • Case taken by,
plaintiffs to Sux:)reme Court, and affirmed by that court.
Embroidery and embroidered articles.—Classified under the act of 1874
for duty at various rates of duty as " manufactures of woi^ted," &c.;
clainied under the same act to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as
embroidery, or manufactures of cotton. Classified under the act of 1883
at various rates of duty under vaiious classifications; clainied under
the same act to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as embroideries,
or manufactures of linen embroidered, &c., or manufiictures of cotton.
Number of suits, 45; not at issue, 25. Dates of issue in suits at issiia
from Maj 20, 1876, to June 13, 1885.
618
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Egg-yolks.-^Claissi^ed under the act of 1883 for duty at 20 per cent,
ad valorem, as a non-enumerated article; claimed under sameact to be
free of duty underthe provision for "articles in a crude state used in
dyeing or tanning," or for "eggs," or for "albumen," &c. Number
of suits, 6; not at issue, 5. Date of suit at issue, March 25, 1885.
Enamelled i)ccintings.—Classified for duty under act of 1874 at 45 per
cent, ad valorem, as " manufactures of copper;" claimed to be dutiable
under same act at 20 per cent, ad valorem, as non-enumerated articles.
Nuniber of suits, 1. Date of issue, July 13, 1882.
Eosine. —Classified under the act of 1874 as an " aniline dye," at 50 cents
per pound and 35 i)er ceut. ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable under
the same act as a non-enumerated article, at 20 per cent, ad valorem.
Number of suits, 5. Dates of issue, ffom December 9, 1882, to September 13, 1884.
Granite, dressed and polished.—Classified under the act of 1861 or
1874 as "articles manufactured," &c., not enumerated, at 20 per cent,
ad valorem; claimed under the act of 1870 or 1874 to be dutiable at
$1.50 per ton, as granite and monumental and building stone, or that
.the same is so dutiable by virtue of the similitude clause. Number bf
suits, 20. Dates ofissue, fiom^May 1, 1872, to January 30, 1882.
Doddt;5. Arthuj', N. S., 1907, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial
reported April 13, 1878..
Coleman vs. Murphy, N. S., 1667, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial.
reported January 29, 1874.
Moffitt'^5. Arthur, N. S., 4727, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial
reported December 18, 1883. This last case, the plaintiffs state, will
be taken to the Supreme Court.
Eandkerchiefs, embroidered.—Classified under Schedule C of act of
1874 as "handkerchiefs," dutiable at 40 per cent, ad valorem ; claimed
to be dutiable under Schedule M of the same act at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as articles embroidered or tamboured by hand, &c. Same
question under the act of 1 8 ^ . Number of suits, 12; not at issue, 7.
Dates ofissue, from July 20, 1877, to August 31, 1885.
Iron ore.—Classified under act of 1874 as mineral substance in a
crude state not otherwise provided for, at 20 per cent, ad valorem;
claiined under same act to be dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as
articles unmanufactured, non-enumerated. Number of suits, 7. Dates
ofissue, from January, 1880, to March, 1884.
Marvel vs. Merritt, N . S . , 6077, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial
t'eported November 7, 1881. Taken by plaintiffs to Supreme Court.
Leaf-tobacco.—Classified for duty under act of 1883 as leaf-tobacco,
of which 80 per cent, not stemmed, at 75 cents per pound; claimed
to be dutiable under the same act at 35 cents per pound, under the provision for '' all other tobacco in leaf^ unmanufactured and not stemmed.'.'
Number of suits, 4; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue in suits at issue,
February and April, 1885.
Iron nail-rods.-r-Qlassihed for duty under act of 1874 as ^^bar iron,
rolled or hammered," &c., a t l j cents per pound; claimed to be dutiable under same act, under the provision for "all other descriptions of
rolled or hammered iron, not otherwise provided fbr," l i cents x^er
pound. Number of suits, 9 ; not at issue, 2. Dates of issue in suits at
issue, from AprU 22, 1882, to August 27, 1884.
Filtering-paper.—Classified for duty under act of 1883 as paper not
specially enumerated, dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valoren; claimed to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE'^ TREASURY.
619
be dutiable under same act as a manufacture of paper not speciaUy
enumerated or provided for, at 15 per cent, ad valorem. Number of
suits, 3. ^ Date of issue, April, 1885.
Lava tips.—Classified for duty under act of 1883 at 55 per cent, ad
valorem j under the provision for "all other earthernware, &c., composed of earthy or mineral substances, not specially enumerated or provided for;'' claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under the
Xirovision for brown earthernware, &c., not ornamented. Numberof
suits, 3 ; not at issue, 2. Date of issue of suit at issue. May 1, 1885.
Magnesia, calcined.—Qlassihed for duty at 50 per cent, ad valorem,
under the provision for "proprietary medicines" contained in the act
of 1874; claimed to be dutiable under same act at 12 cents per pound,
as "calcined magnesia." Same question under act of 1883. Number
of suits, 7. Dates ofissue, from November 17,1879, to July 9, 1885.
Ferguson vs. Arthur, N. S., 4842, tried, and verdict rendered for defendant. Trial reported November 17, 1879. Case taken to Supreme
Court by xilaintiffs.
Mousseline delaines.—All worsted dress-goods, classified for duty at
24 x^er cent, ad valorem, as ^'delaines," under the act of 1846, as
amended by the act of 1857; claimed to be dutiable under the same
acts at 19 per cent, ad valorem, as '' manufactures of worsted.'' Number
of suits, 32. Dates of issue, from August, 1857, to November, 1861.
Hutton vs. Schell, O. S., 339, tried in 1859 and 1873, resulting in
disagreement of j u i y ; a third trial, in 1879, resulting in a verdict for
Xilaintiffs.
Whiting vs. ScheU, O. S., 328, tried in 1884; verdict for xilaintiffs.
Trial reported December 27, 1884; case before the Department.
Mineral waters.—Classified under act of 1874 as "artificial mineral
.water," dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, and in addition 3 cents
per bottle; claimed to be "natural mineral water," and under same
act to be free of duty. Number of suits, 7. Dates of issue, from October
23, 1879, to August 3, 1881.
Most-favored-nation clause.—Yarious articles classified for duty as provided by the acts in force at the time of their importation; claimed by
virtue of the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty between the
countries -from which such articles were imported, and the Hawaiian
treaty of January 30, 1875, to be free of duty. Number of suits, 29;
not at issue, 17. Dates of issue in suits at issue, from September 6,1882,
to September 17, 1884.
Bartram 'ys. Eobertson, N. S., 7996,-tried; verdict for defendant.
Trial reported February 16, 1883. Case taken to Supreme Court by
plaintiffs. This case arose prior to the act of 1883. In the case not at
issue the plaintiffs rely on the eleventh section of the act of 1883.
Steel-rail crop-ends.—Classified under actof 1883 at 45 per cent, ad
valorem, under general provision in Schedule C for '' steel not specially
enumerated or xirovided for in this a c t ; " claimed to be dutiable at 20
per cent, ad valorem, as a non-enumerated article. Number of suits,
2; not at issue, 2.
Fipe bowls, stems, (Soc.—Classified for duty under actof 1874 as pipes,
smokers' articles, &c.; claimed under same act to be dutiable as manufactures of wood. Similar question under act of 1883. Number of
suits, 4; hot at issue, 3. Date of issue in suits at issue, June 10, 1885.
Faper for printing photographs.—Classified under actof 1874 as "manufactures of paper, or of which paper is a component material, not otherwise
620
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Xirovided for;" claimed to be dutiable as '' paper, sized or glued, suitable
only for printing-paper." Similar question aiising under act of 1883.
Number of suits, 18; not at issue, 3. Date of issue, from December 29,
1882, to Sexitember 23, 1885.
Faper parasols.—Classified nnder actof 1874 as umbrellas, dutiable
at 45 xier cent, ad valorem; claimed under same act to be dutiable at 35
per cent, ad valorem., as manufactures of xiaxier or wood not otherwise
provided for. Nnmber of suits xiending, 9. Dates of issue, from February 14, 1880, to January 13, 1883.
Yaye vs. Merritt, N. S., 6808, tried; verdict for defendant. Trial reported December 19, 1884.
Frinting-paper.—Classified for duty under the provision ofthe act of
1874 for "all other paxDcr not otherwise provided for," dutiable at 35
X^er cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable under the xirovision of
thesame act for paper, "xirinting, unsized, used for books and hewsX^apers exclusively," dutiable at 20 x^er cent, ad valorem. Similar
question under the act of 1883. Nuniber of suits, 14; not at issue, 3.
Dates of issue of suits at issue, from June 29, 1881, to July 8, 1884.
Lawrence vs. Merritt, N. S., 7026, tried; verdict fbr defendant.
Trial rexiorted December 24, 1883. Taken to Supreme Court by
plaintiffs.
Frinted matter.—Classified for duty, under act of 1874, as manufactures of xiaper, or of which xiaper is the component material of chief
value, dutiable at 35 x^er cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable,
under the same act, as printed matter, at 25 x^er cent, ad valorem.
Number of suits, 4. Dates of issue, from July 11, 1877, to November
30, 1881.
Saxony dress-goods.—Classified for duty at 30 xier cent, ad valorem,
nnder the act of March 2, 1861, as manufactures of .worsted, and in
addition at 2 cents a square yard, under the provision contained. in
the act of July 14, 1862, for delaines, &c., and all goods of similar descrixition not exceeding in value 40 cents per square yard; claimed
that, while these goods were dutiable, under the act of 1861, at 30 per
cent, ad valorem, they were not, under the act of 1862, dutiable at 2
cents a square yard, but were, under that act, dutiable at 5 per cent,
ad valorem, as manufactures of worsted, or of which worsted is a
comxionent niaterial not otherwise provided for. Number of suits,
32. Dates of issue, from February, 1866, to February, 1873.
A case involving this issue was tried in 1867, and a verdict, rendered
fbr defendant. In the same year another case, Schneider vs. Barney,
O. S., 3015, was tried, and a verdict rendered for xilaintiffs. Subsequent! 3^ the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. A second trial resulted in a verdict for defendant. The Suxireme Court again ordered a
new trial, and a third trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant. The third trial was reported November 29, 1879, and at the
October term for 1884 the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment.
Cotton hosiery and other cotton ^oo(^.--Classified for duty at 24 per
cent, ad valorem nnder the actof 1846, as amended by the act of 1857,
as manufactures comxiosed wholly of cotton which are bleached; claimed
to be dutiable at 19 xier cent, ad valorem, &c., under the act of 1846,
as amended by the act of 1857, where these articles are sxiecifically
enumerated. Number of suits, 15. Dates of issue, from May, 1864, to
January, 1871.
.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
621
One case, Cochran vs. Schell, O. S., 1865, as to cotton laces and insertings, tried in 1882; verdict and judgment rendered for defendant.
Trial reported May 16, 1882. Affirmed by Supreme Court in 1883.
One case, Bursdorff m. Barney, O. S., 2185, as cotton hosiery, tried;
verdict and judgment for defendant. Trial reported November 1,
' 1880. Case affirmed by Supreme Conrt at October term for 1884. .
Frime or drawback allowed by laws of France to French manufacturers who exported to the United States certain worsted goods
made by them. Duty was levied under the act of March 3,1851, upon
the market value at which the goods sold for consumption in France,
including the " p r i m e ; " claimed the x^rime was not dutiable—i. e., that
the market value for the xiurposes of duty was the French market value
less the prime. Number of snits, 3. Dates of issue, June, 1860; AxirU,
1861; and Ax^rU, 1864.
One suit, Hutton vs. Schell, O. S., 025, tried; verdict for defendant.
Trial reported November 12, 1880; suit x:)aid.
Flaid woollen fiannels.—Classified for duty under the act of 1846, as
amended by act of 1857, at 24 xier cent, ad valorem, as "manufactures of
wool;" claimed to be dutiable under same acts at 19 x^er cent, ad valorem,
as "flannels." Number of suits, 3. Dates of issue, December, 1858,
and May, 1864.
Nets, spot-nets, (Sec, silk and cotton.—Classified for duty under the act
of June 30, 1864, or under the act of 1874, at 60 per cent, ad valorem,
as "silk laces;" claimed to be dutiable at 50 xier cent, ad valorem under the x:>rovision in the act of 1864, or the act of 1874, for manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value,
not otherwise xirovided for. Nuinber of suits, 51. Dates ofissue, November 20, 1873, to October 10, 1878.
Drew vs. GrinneU, N. S., 898, tried in 1879; jury disagreed. In
1880 again tried, with same result. In 1881 again tried, and verdict'
for defendant. Trial rexiorted Axiril 16, 1881. Case taken that year to
Suxireme Court by plaintiffs.
Various nets, cotton.—Classified for duty under the act of 1883 as "cotton laces;" claimed to be dutiable under same act as manufactures of
cotton not otherwise provided fbr. Number of suits, 5; not at issue,
2. Dates of suits at issue, from Septeniber 23,1884, to August 25,1885.
Mirror-plates.—Classified Ibr duty under Schedule B of the actof
1874, or Schedule B of the act of 1883, at various rates of duty as looking-glass x^lates ; claimed to be dutiable (under.the act of 1874 or 1883)
under the provision for ai'ticles of glass, cut, engraved, &c. Number
of suits, 9; not at issue, 6. Dates of issue in suits at issue, from January 10, 1885, to March 25, 1885.
Lead-ashes.—Classified for duty under act of 1874 at IJ cents per
. pound, as lead ore or as old scrax)-lead fit only to be remanufactured;
claimed to be dutiable at 10 xier cent, ad valorem, as a non-enumerated
raw or unmanufactured article. Number of cases, 1. Issue joined
July 12, 1880; one case tried, and verdict for defendant. Trial reported December 24, 1883.
Ivory keys for pianos and organs.—Classified under acts of 1874 and
March 3, 1883, as ivory veneering; assessed as manufactures of ivory,
at 35 per cent, and 30 x^er cent, ad valorem. Claimed to be 'xiarts of
musical instruments, duiable at 30 xier cent, and 25 percent, ad valorem, under old and new tariflfe, respectively. Number of suits, 1. Issue
joined September 23, 1885.
.
6^2
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ^ F THE tREAStJilt.
Steel &Zoom5.—Classified as manufactures of steel, and duty assessed
at 45 per cent, ad valorem. Defendants claim duty should be assessed
at rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 23; nbt at issue, 2.
This issue has been tried in Downing vs. Eobertson, N. S., 7977, and
the plaintiffs recovered a verdict in their favor, in which verdict the
Department acquiesced. Eeported to Secretary of Treasury February
27, 1883. Issue has been joined in these suits at various times from
June, 1882, tb February, 1885.
Steel rods.—The plaintiffs protest against certain duties alleged to
have been assessed upon,the costs of freight of various steel rods, from
theinland place of manufacture to the seaboard, and claim that under
section 7, act March 3, 1883, the same were not dutiable. Number of
suits, 12; at issue, 4.
Jewelry.—Pins, buckles, bonnet-pins with solid heads, brooches, and
clasps of brass and iron, &c. Classified under acts of 1874 and 1883 as
manufactures of the different metals whereof said articles were constituted, and duty assessed at 35 per cent, ad valorem under the tariff of
1874, and at 45 per cent, ad valorem under the tariff of 1883. Plaintiffs claim that these articles are only liable to a duty of 25 per cent, ad
valorem, as jewelry, under the law of 1874 and 1883. Number of suits,
62; at issue, 48; not at issue, 14.
The dates of issue in suits at issue are at various times from December,
1874, to September,' 1885. As to some of these articles, under the act of
1874, the court has decided in favor of the plaintiffs in cases of Hecht
vs. Arthur and Holzinger vs. Arthur, and the Department has acquiesced in such decisions. (See Synopsis, 5103 and 5315.) In nearly all
these cases questions of fact remain to be determined.
Glucose—grape-sugar.—Classified under act of 1874 as a " non-enumerated manufactured article," and assessed at 20 per cent, ad valorem;
claim only dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem under similitude clause,
as ^^assimilating to gum substitute or burnt starch. Classified under
act of 1883 as "liquor-coloring," assessed at 50 per cent, ad valorem, by
assimilation to "brandy-coloring;" claimed to be glucose and grape
sugar, dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 30; at
issue, 29; not at issue, 1. Issue has been joined in suits at issue at various dates from October, 1880, to September, 1885.
Arnson vs. Merritt, 6534, tried, and verdict for defendant. Eeported
February 4, 1885, to Secretary of Treasury.
Windoiv-glass.—The method of assessing duty is here in dispute—
not the rate of duty. Duty is assessed on the weight, estimated on the
basis of the actual sizes and quantities of the examination packages,
while the importers claim duty should be assessed on the commercial
standard weight of the packages. There is no question as to the classification ; cases arise both under the old and new tariff. Number of
suits, 24; at issue, 19; not at issue, 5. Dates of issue, at various times
between May, 1884, and September, 1885.
Carpets, rugs, (Sec.—Duty was assessed at 10 per cent., under section 2501,
Eevised Statutes, tariff of 1874, as articles, goods, or wares of the
growth or product of countries east of Good Hope, imported from places
west of Good Hope. Plaintiffs claim goods were bought east of the
Cape of Good Hope, but protest against a discriminating duty of 10 per
cent., because they were brought from the countries where they were
produced, and are only transshipped in England or France. Number of
suits, 10/; at issue, 9; noi at issue, 1. Issue was joined in the suits at
issue at dates varying froin March, 1881, to October, 1884.
REPORT OF T^E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
623
Jewels, {precious stories.)—Dutiable at 10 per cent.; classified under tariff
of 1874 as jewels or precious stones. The value of this merchandise
was advanced over 10 per cent., upon a reappraisement thereof, under
section 2930, Eevised Statutes. The additional duty of 20 per cent,
ad valorem, under section 2900, was, therefore, assessed. The recovery
of the penal duty is the object of this suit. There is no -question as to
the duty assessed upon the merchandise as precious stones. Number
of suits, 1. Issue joined January 15, 1884.
. Philosophical instruments, opera-glasses, (Sec.—Classified under act of
March 3, 1883, as manufactures of brass and glass, assessed at 45 per
cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as
philosophical instruments. Number of suits, 16; at issue, 5; not at
issue, 11. Dates of issue are between January, 1885, and August 25,
1885.
Fossil meal.—Classified under act of March 3, 1883, as a manufactured
article not otherwise provided for, and a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem
was assessed; claimed to be manufactured earth, dutiable at $3 per ton,
and natural or crude clay, dutiable at $1.50 per ton. Number of suits,
2; at issue, (issued joined, becember 6, 1884,) 1; not at issue, 1.
Fans.—Classified under act of 1874 as manufacturers of silk, assessed
at 60 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be fans, dutiable at 35 per
cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 2; at issue, (January 2, 1885,) 1;
not at issue, 1.
Wool 'ims^(?.—Classified under act of 1874 as scoured wool costing 25
cents or less x)er pound, and duty assessed at 30 cents per pound and
33 per cent, ad valorem; claim, "wool waste," dutiable at 12 cents
X3er pound. Number of suits, 1. Issue joined January 25, 1884.
Gilling-twine.—Classified under act of March 3, 1883, as flax thread,
assessable at 40 per cent, ad valorem; claimed to be gilling-twine,
dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem. Number of suits, 3 ; none at issue.
Skins.—Classified under actof 1874 as sheepskins with the wool on,
tanned, not otherwise provided for, 25 per cent, ad valorem; claim
under same act that a duty of 20 per cent, only should be assessed, as
skins, dressed and finished, of all kinds, not otherwise provided for.
Number of suits, 3. All at issue, onDecember 14,1876; April 3, 1877;
and Axiril 4, 1877, respectively.
Shirtings.—Classified as manufactures of silk, silk chief value, under
act of 1874, and assessed with a duty of 60 per cent, ad valorem, and
discriminating duty of 10 per cent. Plaintiffs protest against discriminating duty, as goods were manufactured in England, although material
did come from east of Good Hope. Number of suits, 2. Both at
issue, AprU 16, 1881, and October 29, 1884.
Eosaries.—Classified under acts of 1874 and 1883 as beads, and a duty
of 50 per cent, ad valorem assessed upon them.
Plaintiffs claim that 35 per cent, and 40 per cent, ad valorem is the
right rate of duty, and claim they should be classified as manufactures
of different metals, wood, &c. Number of suits, 14; at issue, 10; not
at issue, 4. Issue joined at dates between March, 1882, and September.
1884.
Benziger vs. Eobertson, N. S., 7749, tried; verdict for defendant.
Trial repbrted December 24, 1883. Case taken to Supreme Court by
plaintiff.
Velours chappe.—Classi^ed under act of 1864 as silk and cotton velvets, and a duty of 60 per cent, ad valoiiem was assessed; claimed to
624
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
be velours chappe, manufactures not otherwise provided for, composed
of mixed materials, in part of cotton, &c., and only liable to duty at
30 per cent, ad valorem; also claim reduction of 10 per cent, of said
duty under act of June 6, 1872. Number of suits, 4; at issue, 4. Dates
ofissue, between Jjine, 1873, and July, 1877.
Oelberman vs. Arthur, N. S., 2830, tried; verdict for defendant.
Trial reported October 23, 1876.
Shawls.—Classified under, act of 1874 as worsted cashmere shawls,
ready-made, and assessed at 50 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad
valorem, as shawls, or as ready-made wearing axiparel, claim should
be assessed at 50 per cent, and 35 per cent, ad valorem, under same section of the tariff, as woollen shawls. Number of suits, 32; not at is.sue,
17. Issue joined at dates between January 11, 1877, and Sex)tember,
1884.
Strauss vs. Merritt, N. S., 6881, tried; verdict for defendant. Eeported December 13, 1884.
Ambei\—Classified under act of 1883 as a non-enumerated manufactui^ed article, and a duty assessed at 20 x^er cent, ad valorem; claimed
to be amber, and fjree. Nuniber of suits, 1; not at issue, 1.
Rubber goods.—Classified under act of 1883 as toys, assessed at 35 per
cent, ad valorem; claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent., as articles of
rubber. Nnmber of suits, 3 ; at issue j 2; not at" issue, 1. Issue joined
June 5, 1885, and June 10, 1885.
_
.
Rubber webbing.—Classified underact of 1883 as rubber webbing, assessed at 30 cents per pound and 50 per cent.; claimed tb be dutiable
at 30 per cent, only, as India-rubber fabrics. Number of suits, 5; at.
issue (June 16, 1885,) 1; not at issue, 4.
Silk and cotton shirts, drawers, (Sec.—Goods classified for duty under
act of June 30, 1864, at 60x)er cent, ad valorem, as silk shirts, drawers;
claimed to be dutiable under actof Marcli 2, 1861, as modified by act
.July 14, 1862, at 35 xier cent, ad valorem, as articles made on frames.
Classified for duty at 60 x^er cent., under the xirovision for silk vestings
and pongees contained in Schedule H of the actof 1874; claimed to
contain 25 iier cent, or over in value of cotton, flax, wool, or worsted,
and by virtue of the act of February 8, 1875, and act of 1874, to be dutiable as manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the comx)oncnt mateiial
of chief value, at 50 x^er cent, ad valorem, or classified for duty at 60
per cent., under theact of February 8, 1875; claimed by virtue of that
act and act of 1874, to be dutiable at 50 per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component inaterial of cliief
value. Classified for duty under Schedule H, act 1874, under the provisions for silk vestings, pongees, &c., at 60 x^er cent, ad valorem;
claimed to be dutiable under snme schedule as manufactures of silk, or
of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise
provided for, at 50 per cent, ad valorem. Nuniber of suits, 236; not
at issue, 31. Dates of issne are between Jannary 12, 1876, and Febuary 2, 1885.
Fleitman vs. Arthur, N. S., 4707, involving question whether silk
and cotton hat-bands were dutiable at 60 x^er cent., under act of 1874
and act of February 8, 1876, as containing less than 25 per cent, of cotton,
or whether by virtue of these acts they were dutiable, as claimed by
plaintiff, at 50 x:)er cent., on the ground that they contained 25 per cent,
of cotton or over, was tried and verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff.
Trial reported November 26, 1880.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
625
(There is a question of fact in all these cases, whether the goods in
suit contain less or more than 25 per cent, pf cotton, &;c., even after the
principle of law has been decided for estimating value of cotton.^
Flaques.—Classified under act of 1874 as manufactures of earthenware or porcelain, copper, &c.; claimed to be dutiable under same act
at 10 per cent, ad valorem, as x^aintings not otherwise provided for.
Number of suits, 10; not at issue, 1. Dates of issue, from Axiril 28,
1881, to J u n e l , 1883.
Tiffany vs. Merritt, N. S., 6367, was tried and verdict rendered for
plaintiff on this issue. Trial reported November 7, 1881. The principles'decided in this case were acquiesced in by the Department. Questions of fact still remain to be ascertained.
Fins.—Classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of steel, &c., not
specially enumerated or xirovided for; claimed to be dutiable as pins,
solid head or otherwise, and if not so dutiable, dutiable at the rates per
Xipnnd. Number of suits, 10; one suit at issue, August 28, 1885.
Fancy articles, consisting of boxes, inkstands, watch-stands, pocket-books,
miri'-ors, clasps, buckles, lockets, pins, (Sec.—Classified for duty under act
'74 and '83 as manufactures of silk and paper, manufactures of glass
and iron and brass and iron, manufactures of horn, manufactures of
metals, &c.; claimed to be dutiable as jewelry, inkstands, &c., or under
the provision for card-cases, pocket-books, &c., or similai; articles, br
-as gilt ware, &c. • Number of suits, 16; not at issue, 8. Dates of issue
in suits at issue, from September 10, 1883, to October 13, 1884.
Linen laces.—Classified for duty under acts of 1874 and 1883 as manufactures of flax; claimed to be dutiable as thread lace under acts of
1874, and as flax or linen lace under act of 1883. Number of suits, 74;
not at issue, 9. Dates of issue, from March 6, 1877, to January 2,1885.
McBurnie vs. Eobertson, N. S., 8299, was tried in 1882, and a verdict
was rendered for plaintiffs. Trial reported February 4,1885. Department acquiesced in the decision.
Manufactures of hair, calf-hair, and cotton and goat-hair and cotton.—
Classified for duty under sixth section of act of June 30, 1864, as man^
ufactures of cotton, and assessed with a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem;
claimed to be dutiable under second section, act June 2, 1872, at but 90
per cent, of 35 per cent; or classified for duty under act of 1874 at 50 cents
X)er xiound and 35 per cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of wool of
every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not otherwise provided for; claimed to be manufactures of cotton, not otherwise proyided
for; or claimed to be dutiable by similitude clause as such manufactures
of cotton ; or claimed to be manufactures composed wholly or in x>art
of worsted, hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals; claimed to be
dutiable under xirovision fpr hair-cloth, known as crinoline-cloth, and
all other manufactures of hair, under the act*of 1870 ; or claimed to be
dutiable, by virtue of similitude clause, under the provision for manufactures of fur, or, by virtue pf similitude clause, to be dutiable at no
more than the highest rate chargeable upon any of the component
materials of said goods. Number of suits, 6 1 ; not at issue, 2. Dates
ofissue, from January 11, 1877, to October 27,1882.
Herman vs. Arthur, N. S., 2156, as to the 10 per cent, reduction,
claimed by the xilaintiff under act of 1872, was decided by Supreme
Ccnrt, October, 1877, in favor of defendant. (96 U. S. Eep., p. 141.)
Butterfield -ys. Arthur, N. S., 4237, involving the claim of plaintiffs
that they were dutiable under the provision for crinoline-cloth and
40 A
626
REPORT 6 F THJE SECRiitARY OF THE TREAStlRt.
. manufactures of hair, was decided in favor of defendant. (16 Biatch.,
216.)
Butterfield-ys. Arthur, N. S., 3482, involving the saiUie question as
last stated, was also decided in favor of the defendant, and reported
January 23, 1880.
^ Herman vs. Arthur, N. S., 5027, involving claim of the plaintiffs that
their goods assimilated to manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for, dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem; decided in favor ofthe
defendant. Trial reported December 24,1883. Case taken to Suxireme
Court on appeal.
.
Butterfield vs. Arthur, N. S., 3991, involving the plaintiffs' claim
that certain other of these goods were dutiable under provision fbr
crinoline-cloth, was decided in favor of plaintiffs. Eeported February
, 21, 1883.
In Fox vs. Arthur, N. S., 4968, Supreme Court held that certain of
these goods were dutiable by virtue of the similtude clause under act
of 1874, as manufactures composed wholly or^ in part of the hhir of
the goat, and not, as claimed by the plaintiffs, as manufactures of cotton. (108 U. S. Eep., p. 125.)
Eat materials and trimmings of silk and cotton, gimps of silk and cotton,
feathers the manufacture of silk,and cotton and feathers, (Sec.—Classified
under acts of 1874, February 8,1875, and 1883, as silk and cotton goods,
or manufactures of silk and cotton, anii assessed with a duty of 60 per
cent, or 50 per cent, ad valorem under the old tariff, and at 50 per cent,
ad valorem under the new ; claimed to be hat-trimmings or materials,
dutiable at 30 per cent, under the old, and 20 per cent, under the new
tariff, or else dutiable as manufactures of cotton, at 35 per cent., under
both old and new tariffs. Number of suits, 139 ; not at issue, 53. Issues joined at dates between August, 1877, and September, 1885.
Theatrical scenery and costumes, theatrical scenery, properties, and professional wardrobe.—Classified under actof 1874 as manufactures of flax
and. other material, flax chief valu^, assessed with 40 per cent, ad
valorem; manufactures of silk, cotton, and metal, at 60 per cent.;
manufactures of human hair and horse-hair, 40 per cent.; ^wearing-apparel, at 50 x^er cent., 40 per cent., and 35 per cent.; claimed to be
" wearing-axixiarel" in actual use and other personal effects, professional implements, instruments and tools of trade, occupation, or em- .
Xiloyment of persons arriving in the United States, and therefore free;
classified under act of 1883 as manufactures of cotton, leather, wood,
and iron, assessed at 35 per cent.; at 60 x^er cent, as manufactures of
silk, and at 50 x^er cent, as manufactures of wool; claimed to be free
as "professional imxilements and tools of trade." Number of suits, 2;
at issue, 2. Issu^e joined on October 1, 1881, and January 26, 1885.
Cotton ^oofZ5.—Manufactures of cotton, &c., classified under various
provisions of the cotton sections, &c., of laws of '74 and '83 at different rates of dnty, and claimed to be dutiable under various other
provisions of the cotton sections, &c. Number bf suits, 96; not at
issue, 44. Dates of issne, from Jnne 8, 1876, to March 26, 1885.
Newman vs. Arthur, N. S., 4671, involving the classification of certain cotton Italians, was tried in 1880, and a verdict rendered for the
defendant. Trial reported November 22, 1880. Affirmed by the Supreme Court, (see 109 U. S. Eep., 132.)
Butterfield vs. Merritt, N. S., 6679, involving the classification of
certain pther cotton goods, was tried in 1881.. As to some of the goods
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ' O THE TREASURY.
^F
627
in suit a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and as to others a verdict
for defendant. Trial reported November 9, 1881; fuither rexiort May
24, 1882.
Charges and commissions.—Qaestion arising under law of March 3,
1881; fully reported to the Department July 29, 1885, and August 4,
1885. Number of suits, about 90.
Charges, (&c.—Question arising under section 7, actof March 3, 1883;
Numerous boxes, sacks, crates, coverings, &c., have been made,a subject of duty; claimed by the imxiorters to be free of duty. Number of
suits, 478; not at issue, 299. Dates of issue, from March 15, 1884, to
September 23, 1885.
Oberteuffer vs. Eobertson, N. S., 9055, tried; verdict rendered for
defendant. Trial reported May 17, 1884. Plaintiffs made motion for
new trial; motion denied. Eexiort thereof made to Dexiartment August
22, 1885. Plaintiffe are preparing to take this case to the Supreme
Court.
No. 99.
Inquiry to United States Bistrict Attoimey at New York.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C, September 6, 1885.
S I R : Please cause to be prepared an exhibition of the total number
of suits or proceedings for forfeiture and for value begun at the port
or in the southern district of New York, on account of customs fraud,
between the date of the enactment of the law of March, 1863, to
strengthen tlie moiety system, and its repeal or modification, in 1874,
and the total sum of money at any time paid into the registry of the
court or into the custom-house by the claimants or defendants in those
suits or proceedings, in compromise or in settlement, or in consequence
thereof And also cause to be prepared a similar exhibition of the
total number of similar suits or proceedings, and the total sum of
money received therein, since 1874 and the repeal, in 1874, of the moiety
law.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING,
Seeretary.
Hon.
W I L L I A M DORSHEIMER,
Bistrict Attorneyy New Tork, JT. T.
628
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF. THE TREASURY.
No. 100.
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY
FOR T H E SOUTHERN DISTRICT, OF N E W YORK,
New York, October 20, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor, in responseJto the request contained in your
letter of September 5,. 1885, of transmitting herewith a detailed report
of the cases beguii in this distiict during tffe xieriod from March, 1863,
to date, for forfeiture in value under the customs laws, together with
the information requested by you, so far a s i t axipears nx^on the dockets
of this and the clerk's office.
;
Yery resxiectfully,
WILLIAM DOESHIEMEE,
United States Attorney.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of^ the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
"='
No, 101.
NOTE.—Accompanying the letter of the United States attorney (No.
94) is a tabulated statement ofthe cases begun in the southern district
of New York since March, 1863, of which the following is a summary:
SUMMAPvY.
Nuraber
of suits.
Suits comraenced after Marcli 1,1863, and before June 22,1874:
Jn leiu In personam
-- ^ TotaP
747
210
.-
$1, 284, 039 20
2,412.103 33
957
'
Suits comraenced since June 22,1874:
Seizure cases
• Seizure and forfeiture docket
inpersonam
3,000,2:2 53
8
200
46
9, 089 95
. 204, 237 22
n o 897 55
Total
Grand total
Araount
recovcied.
393,774 72
i
1,211
4, 090, 007 25
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE.TREASURY.
629
No. 102.
LEWIS McMULLEN—Appointed February 27, 1852; appointed Appraiiser April 23,
1885. ^
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 ,
402 Washington Street, October 2, 1886.
S I R : In answer to the circular received from the Departnient dated
August 27,1885, requesting answers to thirty-four inquiiies, I respectfully submit the following rexilies:
Inquiry No. 1.—There is no evidence, and the vaiious channels invoices h a v e to x^ass through make it almost impossible that the full
rates of duties prescribed by law have not been levied and collected.
Inquiry No. 2.—There is no evidence that specific rates of duty have
not been fully collected as prescribed by law.
Inquiry No. 3.^—The invoiced measurements of all textile fabiics are
verified. The yard or metre stick is used. The width of all goods is
actually measured. The length is also verified, xiarticularly when
cause for susxiicion exists or when an error is axixiarent.
Inquiry No. 4.—No evidence exists of collusion between the imxiorter
and custonis officers in relation to ordering bogus packages for examination. If such collusion existed, it would be very hazardous, and
discovery would be almost unavoidable from the examination of merchandise under existing regulations.
Inquiry No. 6. —Pertains to the collector of the port.
Inquiry No. 6.—(1.) The present existing regulations concerning protest and appeal in differences between importers and collectors are
considered amxile and well-devised. The fact alone that through the
final decisions of the Department a uniform assessment of rates is obtained is of such advantage that seeming hardshixi to the importer is
fully compensated for bythebenefitderived fromthe present procedure.
(2.) Pertains to the collector of the xiort and district attorney.
(3,. 4, 5, 6.) Pertain to the distiict attorney.
Inquiry No. 7.—French and Swiss goods have, as a rule, been undervalued for several years x^ast. The custom seems to exist that nearly '
all invoices from France or Switzerland are made out '^for customhouse nse in the United States" at an undervaluation. This is verified by the fact, that at vaiious times invoices have been xiresented to
the axipraising ofiicers stating the full value x^aid for the inerchandise,
accomxianied by undervalued invoices (for custonis nse) for the same
merchandise, duly executed before the Ameiican consuls abroad.
Inquiry No. 8.—The certification of consular oflicers stationed in
France, excepting the distiict of Lyons, is of such a simple and irresponsible nature as to take away any seeming obligation on the part
of the xierson offering the invoice for authentication. This xirocedure
is so unlike that of any other consulate outside of France, that it is
believed that to this easy mode and the unquestioned acceptance of the
invoices may be attributed the almost universally xirevailing undervaluation of French merchandise.
Inquiry No. 9.—It is not known that false dutiable values have been
reported by any of the appraising officers to the collector.
Inquiry No. 10.—(1.) Doubt and confusion, also conflict of opinion,
may have existed under the previous administration of the appraiser's
department, but do not- now exist.
630
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
(2.) The statutes defining the manner of arriving at the true foreign
market value seem to be sufficiently defined to enable the examiners,
assistant appraisers, and the appraiser to determine the actual market
value of imported merchandise.
Inquiry No. 11.—A safe and correct estimate of undervaluations can
be made by calculating the value of the merchandise, taking as a basis
the amounts collected for values advanced by the axipraiser, which
should be a matter of statistical record in the collector's department.
Inquiry No. 12.—(1.) For a false return of value to the collector the
examiner would be primarily and chiefly responsible.
(2.)' His salary varies from $1,200 to |2,500.
(3.) The appraiser officially certifies to the collector the values fixed;
but in the port of New York it would be a physical impossibility thus
to certify xiersonally; an approval stamp is therefore used, and the
assistant appraiser who signs the examiner's return upon the invoices
then becomes, for this purpose, the responsible appraising officer. In
illustration, it may be stated that during the past three years invoices
and appraisement orders have been received as follows:
Invoices.
Year.
1882
1883
1884
^
:
-----
Total
Appraisements.
217, 438
213, 606
205, 762
12,104
14,784
14,735
636, 806
41, 623
Of these, more than one-half had to be stamped two or three times.
All invoices, however, upon which the advance is 10 x^er cent, or over,
involving a penalty, as well as all damage, allowances, are personally
apxiroved by the axipraiser.
Inquiry No.il3.—There is no evidence of connivance by any Government officer of assisting any axipraising officer in undervaluing foreign
goods.
"
.
. Inquiry No. 14.—It would be unjust to ascribe a faUure to collect the
full amount of duty on merchandise to dishonesty. While suspicion
may have arisen, and close observation may have suggested doubt as
to the integrity of an examining pfficer, such distrust has, as far as
known, always been followed by dismissal of the suspected party.
While bribery may, in some instances, have benefited an importer,
it is not believed that at the port of New York any organized corruxition-fund has beeh disbursed in order to defraud the revenues.
Inquiry No. 15^—Bribery or corruxit influences are not believed to be
the source of false valuations. The competition in trade is the main
cause, the desire to obtain foreign merchandise as cheap as possible,
the well-known levity with which custom-house oaths are regarded by
the importing xiublic, the inability or unwillingness to xirosecute violations of bonds given by importers, all contribute to undervaluations,
unjustly ascribed to bribery.
Inquiry No. 16.—Specific rates of duty, under proper safeguards,
would undoubtedly benefit the revenues and help to diminish any
tendency to bribery. The present rates conld in many instances very
nearly approximate to specific rates.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
631
1
In regard to textile fabrics, the ever-changing styles and fashions
and the consequent change in the mode of production would require
such an adjustment of the scale of duty as to xirevent the imxiortation
of cheaper classes of textile fabrics.
Inquiry No. 17.—It is not believed that the repeal of the moiety act
has increased false reports by appraising officers, but no doubt exists
that the repeal of that act, and the consequent inability to examine
books and papers, has emboldened many importers to undervalue their
goods with impunity.
. <
Inquiry No. 18.—(1.) It is believed that at the bottom of most undervaluations lies the neglect of consular officers to verify the correctness
of invoice values. What can now be done at'consulates like Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Lyons, St. Galle, or Elberfeld, should
equally.well be done at other consular districts.
(2;) If the class of merchandise exported from a consular district
varies very little, it would be much easier to ascertain the true market
value of each shipment at the place of production, where sales to other
markets than the American can be observed.
(3.) It is not believed that vexatious delays would occur in thus
examining values before certifying to invoices.
(4.) Cpnsular fees exacted in London appear to be now 10 shillings
and 6 pence, with a fee of 3 shillings sterling for notary's fees. This
amount appears in nearly all invoices charged to the importer here.
Invoices of productions of the interior of a country are frequently verified by consols at the seaports, the shipping merchant at such seaport
. niaking uxi the invoice, thus disguising froni the appraising officers the
place of production.
'
.
Inquiry No. 19.—It is believed that it would be neither safe nor useful to change the present mode of ascertaining dutiable values. While'
the law is arbitrary, as all laws are, it would lead to endless appeals or
lawsuits. Custom has sanctioned the present mode; importers are
accustomed to it.
Inquinj No. 20.—This inquiry will be answered by assistant appraiser
Strong, in charge of the wool department, who has given the subject
his particular attention.
Inquiry No. 21.—Pertains to the United States surveyor of the port.
Inquiry No. 22.—There is no evidence to show that duties have been
evaded on account of existing rates of duty. Silk goods, paying under the old tariff 60 per cent., are now, at 50 per cent., just as much
. undervalued as heretofore.
Inquiry No. 23.—This inquiry concerns the other ports.
Inquiry No. 24.—It is not a fact that false returns of dutiable values
have been made to collectors at the port of New York for considerable
time past. Sporadic cases have been discovered and complained ofi
The suspected parties have, in some instances, been arrested and indicted, but on account of miscarriage of proceedings in court never
punished except by dismissal.
Yery respectfully your obedient servant,
LEWIS McMULLEN,
Appraiser.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of tlw Treaisury, Washington, B.O.
632
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.
No. 103.
Additional Inquiries to Appraiser McMullen.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, October 10, 1885.
S I R : Your rexily to my circular letter dated August 27, 1885, has
been received, and your immediate attention is directed to the following additional inquiries, the relation of which to those in my circular
is indicated by the numbers given below:
^
No. 7.—My seventh inquiry related to ^Hhe full amountof duty that
the law xirescribed." You reply, that ^^French and Swiss goods have
as a rule been undervalued for several years x^ast," and that "nearly all
invoices from France and Switzerland are made out '^ * '^ at an
undervaluation." I infer that by ^^undervalued" and ^'undervaluation," in that connection, you mean that the invoices as xiresented
have not contained the actual cost of xiurchased goods or the fair market
value of manufactured and consigned goods. Am I correct in my inference'? If nbt, iffease explain ffilly your meaning, and also give your
oxiinion in respect to the specific inquiries in the seventh question.
No. 8!—Am I to understand you as expressing the opinion, in reply
to my eighth question, that the failure of French shixipers to declare
the true invoice value has come, in great part, ffom the conduct of the
American consular officers? ,
No. 9.—Please say whether or not the appraising officers have, during
the time of which you sxieak, reported as ''value correct" the French
and Swiss invoices to which you have referred'? Have the appraisers,
as a rule, advanced the invoice values to make correct dutiable values'?
No. 11.—My eleventh inquiry related to a failure of the-apxiraisers
to advance the invoice value to make dutiable value, and to the assessment pf the rate of duty by the collector on the false value returned tp
him by the apxiraisers. Your reply seenis to refer only to invoices
whenever the invoice value was advanced by the appraisers.
No. 12.^Your table of figures presents a totalof 636,806 invoices and
only 41,623 appraisements. Has there not been an axix3raisement on each
invoice'?, And will you explain whether or not the law, in your opinion, requires the personal inspection of the merchandise by the appraiser and personal approval by him of the axipraisement, where the
invoice is reported to the collector "value correct," as when the invoicevalue is advanced'?
.
No. 15.—I infer that by your fifteenth reply you intend to say that
"competition in trade is the main cause" of false values in invoices and
the desire of importers to pay as little duty as possible, and that by
"false valuations" you do not refer to^ false returns made by the apxiraiser to the cbllector. Will you explain how the revenue can have
suffered at all if it be true that the appraisers have returned full dutiable values tothe collector ;and, also, will you explain to what " b o n d s "
you refer as those that have not been presented by the collector t
No. 17.—If the repeal of the "moiety act has emboldened importers
to undervalue their goods witKimpunity," has not the revenue vsuffered
by such invoice undervaluations'?
.
.
No. 18.—Will you please to give me your opinion whether or not
the full amount of duty imposed by Oongress on silks from France and
Switzerland has within the last two years been generally lex^ied and
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
633
collected at the port of New York*? And, also, whether or not the full
amount is now collected at New York; and, if not, then explain why
not.
•
No. 24.—During how long a time last past is it your opinion that
all imported merchandise entered at the x^ort of NewYork has been
appraised at the full and fair dutiable value required by law"?
^ Eespectfully, yours,
"
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
L E W I S MCMULLEN. Esq.,
.
Appraiser, New York City.
No. 104.
Yo4tK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
4:02 Washington Street, October 22, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully referring tp your letter of the 10th instant, relating
to my rexilies to circular letter dated August 27, 1885,1 present the fbllowing answers to the additional inquiries, each being indicated by the
corresxionding number of the above circular:
No. 7. —Your inference as to my statement of undervaluation of French
and Swiss invoices is quite correct. The invoices from those countries
do not xiresent the actual market value of the* merchandise, at the time of
shiximent of xiurchased goods, as well asxonsignments. Innumerable ad;
vances to such invoices have been made. Eeapxiraisements have beeii
called for, but under the xirevious administration of the general appraiser's office very few of the advances were sustained, the majority being reduced to a trifle less than 10 x^er cent, to avoid the penal duty of 20 x^er
cent. This circumstance, with the liinited number of xiersons who could
be selected as unbiased merchant apxiraisers, has been one of the contributive elements that led to the failure to levy full amounts of duty'.
To successfully controvert this failure, more importance should be placed
to any advances, made by the experienced appraisers. If on reappraisement the general and merchant apxiraiser disagree, and no comxiromise
to a lower valuation can bemade, the collector, often without any ocular
inspection of the merchandise, decides uxion the value, and if it.be in
favor of the merchant apxiraiser's view, the thrifty and unscrupulous
imxiorter will be strengthened again in his belief that raids upon the
Treasmy may be successfully made by undervaluation.
. While examiners as a whole compare in character favorably with the
employes of any of the large mercantile houses in this city, it cannot be
denied that the higher x^ay offered by merchants to experienced peisons in their service comxiels the emxiloyment of examiners who, while
acquainted with the class of goods assigned to them, have yet to learn
the difficult work of ascertaining the true market value in the different
princixial markets of the countries of exportation, This may, in some
instances, also have been one of the causes of the failure referred to.
No. 8.—I also desire it to be understood in this connection that in my
rexily to the eighth question I am fully convinced that the xiresent existing undervaluation of French invoices is largely to be ascribed to the
iiTesx3onsible manner in which American consular officers certify to such
invoices. For instance, at many consulates the certificatesof consuls
P O R T OF N E W
j634
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
state solely the total amount as per invoice. In many instances goods
from, well-known manufacturers are invoiced by French commission
houses, whosfB only relation to the merchandise consists in seeing the
same x:)roxierly packed and shipped.
, It is also of frequent occurrence that goods are shipped from the place
of manufacture to a seaport, and there before the consul at the seaport
declaration is made by the shixiper. The consul, under such circumstances, cannot know the market value of the goods. There is none,
because no such goods are produced or sold there. This easy mode of ^
obtaining a consular certificate is undoubtedly one of the reasons that
led to the almost universal undervaluation of French merchandise,
and, if taken in connection „with the fact that the principal manufacturers have their own selling agents at.this port, attempts at undervaluation are constantly made.
No. 9.—No invoices of which I have spoken as undervalued have ever
been passed "value correct." All such invoices have been advanced
to make market value. How far, however, these advances have been
sustained on reapxiraisement I am unable to say. I must, however,
also remark that, under my predecessor, many invoices have been recalled, th.e advances reconsidered and reduced without the concurrence
of the examining officers. This practice does not exist now.
No. 11.—This inquiry should have been answered asfollows: No safe
average estimate could be made at this port of any undervaluation not
detected; and while it is possible t^at slight undervaluations have inadvertently been overlooked, it is believed that no great losses have
occurred by this evasion of duty. Collusion between examiners and
imxiorters ^have been discovered, but the guilty parties have been prosecuted, and fines and penalties recovered.
No. 12.—The table presented in reply to this question was intended
to show that duiing the xieriods stated 636,806 invoices and 41,623 appraisement orders—total, 678,429 appraisements—had been in this department. The law does not, in my opinion, require personal inspection
of the merchandise by the apxiraiser, although this is frequently, I may
say daily, done whenever questions of classification or valuation require
it. While the appraiser directs and supervises all appraisements of
merchandise, i t is the duty of the assistant axipraiser diligently ahd
faithfully to exaniine all goods, wares, and merchandise under the direction of the appraiser. .
. While these rex')orts are carefully scrutinized, and the attention of the
apxiraiser is called to any deviation from^the rules and regulations, and
while corrections and revision are- ordered by him, the various other
. duties devolving upon him make it impossible fbr him to personally
affix his axiproval. It would require his signature from one thousand
two hundred to one thousand five hundred times per day. An approval
stamxi is thereibre used. The rapid delivery of goods, passed to make
room for new arrivals, causes daily a great rush of business during the
afternoon hours, and would make it a x^bysical impossibility to certify
personally to correctness of invoices. The appraiser, however, daUy
scrutinizes and approves, xiersonally, all invoices advanced over 10 per
cent.; all damage allowances; all the reports from assistant appraisers
on protest and axixieals; all requisitions for material required; all recommendations of names of merchant apxiraisers to the collector, besides
the correspondence and current business of his office, giving advice and
. instructions to examiners and assistant ax)praisers, receiving calls ffom
importers and brokers inquiring about importations, tariff interpre
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
636
tation, decisions, &c. This so much occupies the appraiser's time that
it necessitates his constant attention from 8-o'clock A. M. to 5 o'clock
p. M. and later.
No. 15.—This inquiry was not proxierly rexilied to in my answer.
Wiiile stating the main causes of undervaluations, it should have been
stated that bribery or venality is not the cause for reporting false valuations to the collector. An unintentional omission, a lack of sufficient
information to advance an invoice, a doubt as to the origin of an impor-'
tation, may occasionally cause a small loss to the revenues, but a'systematic attempt at fraud could not be carried on undetected, and the
fines and penalties have in all such cases repaid all losses. The ' 'bonds''
alluded to in my reply are those provided^ for by section 2899, Eevised
Statutes.
No. 17.—The word "impunity," in my reply to this inquiry, should
convey the meaning that the repeal of the "moiety law," while emboldening importers to undervalue their goods with impunity, does not
mean that such undervaluations are not detected in consequence of the.
prohibition to examine books and papers.
No. 18.—It is my opinion that the full amount of duty on silks from
France and Switzerland has not been generally levied and coUected at
this xiort for the xiast two years. Strenuous efforts to correct the evils,
existing' have been made by removing persons who gave cause for distrust, and it is believed that the full amount is now collected ; but the
objections to reaxipraisements, above stated, are not wholly overcome,'
although no blame of any kind attaches to the xiresent general appraiser.
No. 24.—It is my opinion that during my administration for the past
five months all imported merchandise entered at this port, and subject
to appraisal here has been faithfully and fairly appraised at its full
dutiable value in conformity with the law.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
LEWIS McMULLEN.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretai-y of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 105.
SILAS W. BURT—Appointed Deputy Naval Officer April 29, 1869; as Qerk and
ComptroUer May 24, 1873; as Naval Officer July 11,1878, and July 11, 1885.
PORT OF N E W YORK, NAVAL OFFICE,
September 21, 1885.
S I R : With respectful reference to your confidential circular of the
27th ultimo, piopounding twenty-four distinct inquiries regarding
certain points in the customs laws, regulations, administration, and
Xiractice, I have the honor to report as follows:
The series of questions, as a whole, appears to be based uxion recent
investigations by your Dexiartment with which I am not acquainted,
either as to details or conclusions. This is particularly true as to
Questions Nos. 7 to 15, both inclusive; but while my• disconnection
with the Departnient for two years past disqualifies me from treating
the specific queries as to recent frauds by either imxiorters or officials,
I believe that my former long experience enables me to express an
636
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
intelligent opinion uxion. the questions of a general nature broached
in your circular. While that circular invites unrestrained candor in
exxiression, I would xiremise that my references to the Treasury Department are more xiarticularly applicable to its administration xirior to
your own charge of it. My official experience in customs matters was
gained between the years 1868 and 1883.
\ have settled oxiinions uxion many customs matters not touched
ux)on in your circular, and which future oxiiiortunities may lead nie
to exxiress.
I have attempted to answer snch of your queries only concerning
which I have information and oonsequent oxiinion, and have xilaced at
the head of each answer the number of corresponding number in the
circular.
^
1. I am convinced that the rates of dnty have generaUy been levied
and collected at this xiort in accordance with the law as construed by
the Treasury Department, and upon the xiresumxition that the classifications certified by the apxiraiser were correct. My assurance of this
rests ux3on the great improvement in the liquidation of entries accomX)lished in this office within the xiast twelve years. . Prior to that period
the liquidations were made in most cases in a perfunctory way, the
returns of the axixiraiser, weighers, gaugers, and inspectors being
accexited as unalterable, and the liquidating clerks being generally
ignorant of the latest decisions. Great attention was given to the correct arithmetical rendering of foreign measures, weights, and currencies into our equivalents, and*to the correct calculation of duty according to the official returns, but' beyond these there Avas generally no
critical exaniination. During the xieriod of twelve years x^ast, it has
been the practice in this office to exaniine with great care all returns,
and whenever there was an axixiarent discrexiancy between the classification returned b y t h e appraiser and the invoice description o f t h e
goods, or with the advisory rate given by the axixiraiser, or whenever
the rate did not accord with the decision extant by the Department,
the invoice has been sent (if xiossible) to the axixiraiser for reconsideration and correction. In this way a large number of erroneous returns
have been corrected. There has been much embarrassment, and I believe loss to the revenne, arising from the obstructive action of the
collector's office in claiming that all such invoices must be returned
. through that office to the axixiraiser, a claim strangely sustained by the
Dexiartment. In this way there have been serious obstacles and delays
in xirocuring corrections, and in some cases the.Avay to correction has
been blocked by the refusal in the collector's office to return the invoice to the axixiraiser. A very questionable point of official x>unctilib
has been allowed to'obstruct the lawful function of this otiice in securing accuracy and promptness in the collection of the revenue. I would
add that it is obvious that the result of such uncorrected error "is a
loss to the revenue, siuce the imxiorter isalivie to his own interests and
secures the correction of errors bf overcharge of duty, while the naval
officer is the final guardian of the revenue so far as it dexiends nx^on
the liquidation of the entries, and as such should have every facility
to inquire, insx3ect, and to ask for the reconsideration by all oificers of
their returns, wheu these arc elements in the assessment of duty.
To return to the question in its broadest bearing. I will add that on accpunt of the wrong constructions of law by the Treasuiy Department
the lawful rates of duty have not always been levied and collected. I
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
63?
am not able byx^ositive evidence to assert that any of these constructions were corruxitly xirocured, but fbr ten years xirior to 1885 I have
had no confidence in the conduct of these decisions by the customs
division. Whatever the motives, there were such peculiar, unsubstantial, illogical, and inconsistent decisions and reversals thereof as
inflicted incalculable injury'upon the revenue, the merchants, and,
above all, uxion the xieoxile as consumers.
.
•
2. As noted under the last answer, xirior to the reorganization ofthe
liquidating division of this office, in 1874, it had been the custom, as
sustained and defended by the principal oificers under the collector, to
accept a customs weigher's return as final and unalterable, no matter
what its discrepancy with the invoice. Under such a practice the vast
frauds xierpetrated by the weighers between 1864 and 1869 were not
onlj^ Xiossible, bnt, considering human frailty, were encouraged. The
loss of revenue in detected and xiroven cases was very great, but formed
only a small xiroxiortion of the aggregate loss.
For over ten j^ears x>ast the discovery in this office of any material discrepancy between the weigher's return and the invoice weights, or
between either of these and the standard or commercial weights of
similar xiackages of goods,, has led to a reference to the weigher for
exxilanation, and to a xiersonal examination of the original-''dockbopk" of weights by the chief liquidator of this office when necessary.
The records show that in this way not only a large nnmber of serious
errors have been detected and corrected, but that it has also led to
greater care and accuracy by the weighers, and to a more close inspection and verification of the dock-books by the surveyor.
Notwithstanding these corrective influences, I am persuaded, as I
have.been for years, that there should be a radical reorganization of
the weigher's dexiartment at this x^ort, which should'be xilaced under
the charge of an experienced official, whose sole duty it shall be to
superintend all the weighing, gauging, and measuring atthis port not
transacted in the apxiraiser's departnient. Personally convinced that
specific duties must at an early day be substitnted for the most of the
present ad valorem rates, I believe that such an organization of the
weigher's department is an important and urgent duty bf the Department. Sxiecific duties rest upon the ascertainment of facts and condiKons existing while the goods are in the custody of the Government,
and the verification of these facts and conditions can be insured by the
adoption of proper niethods and the employment of efficient and trustworthy officials under good organization and discixiline. An early
movement towards the establishmentof such a corps is indicated by
the increasing tendency to a specific-rate tariff, and by the xiolicy of
careful xirexiaration for a x^i'ompt and safisfiictory administration of
such a tariff. It is taken for granted that such an important coips of
officers would be selected and retained without any other considerations than those touching their fitness.
6. I have long been of the opinion that a radical defect in existing
laws respecting the decision of differences as to rates of duty between
importers and collectors is the xirivilege granted the former fo institute
exparte and quasi legal xiroceedings before the Secretary of theTreasury,
acting as a judge in chambers, for so the xiresent right of appeal to
that "officer may justly be considered. The Treasuiy Department is
essentially executive, and, as the decision of these axipeals has been
treated as a judicial function, there has been a disposition to ignore t h e '
tM
REPORT OP' THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
executive function, in order that it might not clash with or extinguish
the privilege of appellate adjudication. As an evidence of this disposition, I would allude to the action of the Department relative to the
very imxDortant and extensive changes in the rate^ of duty under the
act of July 14, 1870, which changes were to go into effect upon January 1, 1871, or nearly six months later. The Department was requested by this office, in November, 1870, to give instrnctions as to
many points in the administration of th@ new law which seemed obscure
or doubtful. The reply was that these would be decided upon the submission of actual cases after the law went into effect. I beg leave to
quote the following from my letter of November 28, 1870, to the then
chief of the customs division:
" I cannot agree with you as to the desirability of allowing all questions under the neiv tariff to be decided by a formal appeal to the
Department in cases as they arise. If the customs officials and the merchants here represented two opposing interests and the Treasury DeX3artment represented an independent and uninterested tribunal, your
view ofthe case would certainly be correct, since the court should not
prejudge a case. But the customs officials are the subordinates of the
Treasury Departnient, and the final decision rests in the United States
courts. The action of the Department on customs questions referred
to it is confined to the axiproval or disapproval of the acts of its own
local agents, and it is therefore, incumbent upon it to so instruct these
agents as to avoid the necessity of overruling their decisions, and so
preserve ihe rexintation ofthe Dexiartment, aud, by an intelligent harmony, x^i'Gvent the expenses and vexation, both xiublic and xirivate,
originating in uncertain action. Of course, there are questions, many
of them veiy imxiortant, that cannot be anticipated, and which, developed in actual x>ractice, must from time to time be referred to the
Dexiartment for specific action or the decision of general xirincix^les.
But there is, in anticipation of the new tariff, a large class of questions
which can readily be foreseen, and, if thoroughly examined and determined in advance, there would result greater ease and econoniy in
the administration of the law at this port, where the mass of business
will be so heavy and persistent that any obstacle will ^ cause great
friction."
'
I have never seen any reasons for change in my oxiinions as expressed
fifteen yealrs ago, and the outcome of the action then was the develop-,
ment of a vast number of appeals which, might have been xirevented
by prior instructions on points that could as well have been decided'
in advance as after the enforcement of the new. rates, and this result
holds good in regard to all the subsequent changes of tariff and the
appeals originating under them.
Among the executive duties imposed upon the Secretary of the
Treasury i s the superintendence of the collection of duties on imports,
and he is empowered and directed to give directions to the collectors.
As was held by Justices Stone and McLean in the case of Cary vs. Curtis,
(3 How^, 236,) the power to entertain appeals on questions of duty from
the acts of these subordinates '' unites in the same Dexiartment executive
and judicial powers." The latter powers have in fact been largely
exercised by a clerk in the Department, known as the chief of the customs division, bnt, ivhether exercised by this clerk, or by the secretary,
or assiistant secretary, the proceedings have been exparte so far as the
pleadings were concerned, and in other respects informal, without the
^ feiit>ORT OF THii SECRETAIIY OF THE TREASURY.
639
power to compel witnesses and bound by no rules of evidence, code of
procedure, or other safeguards thrown around all legally constituted tri-'
bunals. At the best these decisions have not had the authoritative
force of a court decree, and too often have been controlled by the superficial views or interested advice of the clerk in charge. There is no
other administrative officer in the world having charge of such a vast
volume of important business as the Secretory of the Treasury of the
United States, and this volume increases yearly. It would be a great
relief to transfer to some fit tribunal the decision of these apxieals,
the accumulation of which has embarrassed an overburdened Department and led to delays very harassing to importers, obstructive to
commerce, and burdensome to the peoxile, who as consumers of dutiable
goods have generally to pay all the excess of duties originally exacted,
and also the cost of its refund, withont any benefit from the latter.
The effect of such a system has been to render collectors timid and
tentative in their administration, and to encourage the imposition of
the highest rate of duty for whicli there was a colorable pretext. In
this course they have been further encouraged by customs brokers,
who subsequently, as claim agents, have shared in the refund of the
excessive duties they originally instigated. While such abuses have •
been greatly abated by the more careful and thorough liquidation of
entries instituted in recent years, there remains a powerful incentive
to overcharge, which must be constantly guarded against.
It is obviously for the interest of the revenue, .the merchant, and the
consumer that the rates of duties should be promptly and finally
settled, and this can only be done by a properly constituted judicial
body. In Great Britain the statutes provide that the importer, if dissatisfied with the rate of duty imposed by the collector, shall commence
suit within three months from the date of payment, otherwise the
original assessment shall be final and conclusive, there being no intermediate appeal to the executive departments. This was also the procedure when the British tariff covered a large number of dutiable
articles. Should such a course be pursued here, the overburdened
calendars of the existing courts would suggest the establishment of a
special tribunal. In a sxiecial report made by me to Secretaiy Windom,
on July 15, 1881, I xiroposed that such a court might be constituted
by law in the first three circuit districts, with the addition of the Maryland district. This territory would comprise the ports of Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, at which over nine-tenths bf the
customs revenue are collected. Such a court, to be known as the ' 'court
of exchequer," or by any other appropriate title, and comxiosed of
three or more judges, might have original jurisdiction of all suits instituted under our revenue laws within the district named, outside of
which the present circuit courts could act as "courts of exchequer"
for the limited amount of litigation that would originate beyond that
district. Before such a tribunal all issues might be speedily tried, with
privilege of appeal on issues of law direct to the Supreme Court. I
am not versed in juridical matters, and so have presented an outline
only, which could be modified and completed by others. The main
point to be considered is that all the interests concerned demand sonie
method—prompt, authoritative, and definitive—for determining customs disputes.
I would suggest the feasibility of requiring suitors to prove damages
by evidence that they had not reimbursed themselves for the alleged
640^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TEE TREASURt.
excess of duties by including such excess in the price of the goods as
sold by them. '• '
As regards the present allowance of interest upon such refunds of
excess in duties, I can advise no amendment to the law.. If there has
been an overcharge of duties w^hich has inflicted positive damage upon
the-x^ayer, he is entitled to interest upon such overchargCj and though
the rate of 6 per cent, per annum is much more than is given by tihe
Government to its bondholders, it cannot be exxiected that the rate
given to voluntary creditors upon long-period securities shonld govern
the allowance to judgment creditors. Keexiing this in view, I do not
think the xiresent rate of 6 x^er cent, is excessive. 10. There is now and there has recently been confusion, doubt, and
conflict of opinion resxDCcting the elements to be ascertained in order
to f).^ and declare dutiable values, and this confusion, doubt, and conflict have not been confined to the appraiser's department. Under the
sixth answer I have alluded to certain difficulties arising from lack of
opxiortune instructions from the Treasury Department, which has generally concluded to confine its expression as to rates of duty, bases of
value, &c., to the judgment of sxiecial and actual cases. The result has
been that customs officers have started off without general or particu.lar instructions as to the changes effected by new laws, and, consequently, have felt a certain timidity and doubt in their official action,
. which have sown the seed for a great harvest of protests, appeals, and
refunds. The disputes as to rates and methods of estimating dutiable
values have been carried by axix'>eal to the Department upon special
aspects of the individual cases. Even with an earnest desire to be consistent, the absence of antecedent principles carefully considered and
clearly enunciated has often led to great error and confusion in these
Departmental decisions in their relation to general basic principles.
The subsequent reversal or modification of these decisions by no means
repairs the injury. I cannot conceive any method whereby the xiresent
procedure can be made satisfactory. In.determining these axixieals upon
individual cases, there are insuperable difficulties in this xirocedure
arising in the distracting comxilexities of details advanced by the ax>
Xiellant vvhich are often only axiparent elements in the actual x^roblem,
and therefore obscuring its solution, while there are x>resented only informal and inadequate opportunities for forming a correct judgment,
at a distance from tfie goods, the officers and official records, and competent testimony.
No question since the xiassage ofthe act of March 3, 1883, has been
so much vexed as that concerning the determination of dutiable values.
The difficulties on this point have been attributable in x)art to the fact
that several bases of value are recognized in the statutes, and that there
,. has been no authoritative and fixed decision as to what should, constitute each of these values in customs xiractice. There is, firstj the certified invoice value, which is by law the minimum value for imx)Osing
duty; secondly, the entered value, which may be more than the invoice
value, and is conclusive as to the importer; thirdly, the market value,
which is tp be ascertained and certified by the appraiser; and, fourthly,
the dutiable value, vvhich is to be determined by the collector and naval
officer (under instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury) in all cases
where the " m a r k e t " value and the "dutiable" value are not identical.
In the minds of customs officials there has too frequently been a lack
of discrimination between these several values, which are not neces-
^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY, OF THE TREASIIRY.
641
sarily identical, and are subject to distinct conditions and differential
treatment under the statutes! The failure to recognize these distinctions, as also to perceive that the act of March 3,^1883, in rejecting
certain elements ou'dutiable values did not positively define a new
basis, jlead both officials and importers into such confusion and dispute
as'to engender nearly a hundred thousand appeals from this port alone.
I would digress here to remark that it is unjust tp commercial interests to have a reduction or, indeed, any change in tariff rates and
values go into effect coincidently with the passage of the law or within
ninety days of that passage. Great consideration is due to those merchants who have still in market goods^upon which higher duties have^
been paid, and in larger view it is desirable that mercantile interests
should be enabled to prepare for and accept such changes without
shock. Through some inadvertence this principle was violated in per-mitting the provisions of the seventh section of the act of March 3,
1883, to become oxierative on. and after that date, and thus suddenly .
• reducing dutiable values without previous preparation for them by
either importers or officials. No general antecedent instructions could
be given by the Department, but they could have been prepared and
: promulgated at an early day after the operation of the law began. ; A
resume ofthe then existing conditions will illustrate the origin of the
confusion as to values and the ease with which some general princixile
could have been applied with advantage to all concerned.
Prior tp March 3, 1883, there was a permanent and trustworthy
standard for fixing dutiable values, and that was to include therein,
in addition to the market value, every expense incurred before the
goods were placed on bo.ard the vessel i n which exported. There had
been sbme .slight exceptions to this general rule, but they were few,
well defined by the Department, and w^ell understood by officials and
importers under the experience and settlements of nearly twenty years.
The seventh section ofthe above-quoted act completely "destroyed this
accustomed standard, and neither in that section nor in any of the others
was there a new standard established. I hold that it was the unquestionable province and duty of the Treasury Dexiartment to repair this
omission in the law, and to positively define the new standard a t t h e
earliest possible moment. As the old law had made the placing of the
goods on the deck of the vessel as the point of demarcation b^tween^
dutiable and non-dutiable charges, so the Treasury Dexiartment could
have established' the xilacing of the goods in the case, crate,' box, or cov- •
'
eiing i n w^hich xiacked for exportation hither as the new point of demarcation. Such a decision would be consonant with the general tenor
ofthe law, would have furnished an easy test, applicable as was the
former standard, and would have been accepted by the impbrters with
little question. But the matter gradually drifted into a sea bfidoubts,
where officials differed from each other, special cases came before the .
Department under varying aspects, and there was the prospect of dis-:
tin ct decisions upon every article on the dutiable lists. Inconsistent
decisions might be quoted how cartons containing certain goods
were elements, of value, and containing other goods were not, and it
is no wonder that there were doubts, confusion, and "conflict of oxiinions in the customs official's mind. The recent decision on this xioint
by Judge, Wallace goes far to quiet these disputes, and I would, interpolate here that this judicial opinion accords with that of thb experienced officers under me, who for two years vainly attempted to secure
41 A
.
V '. •
\-
I
.642
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '
some general ruling to the. same effect. I earnestly believe,^ however,
that great good would be accomplished by a positive determination by the Department as to what in customs practice shall consti. tute the several values, viz., invoice, entered, market, and-dutiable.
There are debatable questions and illogical practices rife as to all these
points which interfere with the smooth discharge of business and unnecessarily remain to irritate the public. I would add that in all official papers in references to value there should be prefixed the qualifying adjective to clearly denote what value is meant.
In conclusion, it would seem that the drift of all recent opinions is
to accept market and dutiable values as identical. Market value is
the value of the goods in a marketable condition.—i^^., as exposed for •
Sale and ready to be packed in the "usual or necessaiy sacks, crates,
boxes, or covering," after sale and for the purxioses of transportation;
-and as this marketable condition represents the dutiable condition
alsp, the market value and the dutiable value may be considered as
one and the same.
12. While the question of the primary responsibility for valuations
may be controlled by the internal economy of the apx)raiser's office, in
which outsiders are not necessarily versed, it is m y oxiinion that exam' iners are the officers so responsible. Their maximum pay at this port
is $2,600 per annum, a much less compensation than is given by mercantile houses to those employed by them as exxierts in the quality and
value of goods, and in this resx)ect, as in so many others, the Government suffers through indis*position to secure the best service. I would
qualify this, however, by remarking that it is the experience i n civilservice examinations that such reputed experts in merchandise, though
highly recommended by the trade, do hot exhibit a very high degree
of efficiency in determining eith^er absolute or relative market values
of gpods upon inspection of samples submitted to them. It might be
said that the most highly qualified experts were deterred from entering
these competitive or special examinations by the low comxiensation
attached to the xiosition of examiners Of goods, but there have been
candidates so highly-recommended by merchants as to be accepted as
experts who have lamentably failed in these x^lactical tests. It may,
therefore, be deduced that appraisement in the absence of the invoice
as a guide is untrustworthy, and this is confirmed by the instances of
wrong valuation often detected in entries by appraisement when compar<ed with the values in the invoices subsequently produced. Except
in a few rare instances of highly qualified examiners, it would seem
that appraisement under our customs laws is not a matter of exactness,
but an empirical proceeding, largely dependent upon a knowledge of
the values in the invoices. If this be so at this great port, where the
examinations are made by professed specialists in each great branch of
merchandise, what must it be at lesser ports, where a comparatively
few, or even a single official, apxiraises the whole body of the importations.
'
Another instance of the defective nature of appraisements may be
deduced from the fact that in certain lines of goods there are no advances made upon the invoice values, although the ^temptations and
opportunities for undervaluation are as great in these lines as in others
where advances are frequently made and sustained. These considera
tions lead me to discredit more and more the ad valorem system ^
appraisement.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
643
I take occasion to. remark here that, in consideration of these uncertainties, there should be some amendment in the methods of recording
on invoices'^theadvances of values. These are too frequently limited
to the simple phrase- " a d d to make'market value," when a more explicit record would relieve the addition from its apparently arbitrary
character. A similar practice by the general appraisers should be
amended,, for, as the question of values is so evidently one of personal
bpinion, there should be some reason on record for that opinion.
16. I have long been convinced that a change from ad valorem to
specific rates w^ould not only be a benefit to the revenues, but would
go far to relieve their administration from the friction and inevitable
injustice that have made it in a measure odious. I might give here a
resume of my reasons for this opinion as frequently expressed officially
hitherto, but I presume the Dexiartment is fully apprised of all the
arguments adduced on either side. I will therefore simply say that
the ad valorem system is theoretically the perfect system, and that this
has engaged its support by those who have only had opportunity to
view it as an abstract proposition. This prejudice in its favor must
surely give way before the overwhelming evidences that in practice,
particulaiiy with high rates, it breeds inj ustice, contention, and commercial obstructions that are almost intolerable.
The United States is the only one of the great nations that retains to
any extent the ad valorem method of assessment on imported goods.
All the European tariffs except that of Turkey are " specific rate,"
with very inconsiderable exceptions in each.
The average rate of customs taxation, as based by percentage upon
the total value of all merehandise imported, is higher in the United
States than elsewhere. The average rate as given for different periods
isasfollows:
Year.
Average rate. Year.'
1S21......
:..
...
1831
:..
..
1841
1851.............
1861.......
1862 to 1865
1866....
......
..:...
21
23J
llj
22J
15
30
40.^
Average rate
1867 to 1870........
. . . . . x45
..../
1871......
40
1872..:................
34i
1873 to 1875..............
:
;
29J
1876 tolSSO
.....
....:
30
1881 to 1884.
: . . . . - . . ; . - 29i
.
.......
The reductions in average rates from 1870 to 1875 are alniost entirely
due to additions to the free-list, particularly those of tea and coffee.
A similar table of average rates in Great Britain is as follows: ;
Year.
1800..'..
18i0....
1820
1830:.....
1840.....
;
Average rate.
;...................
v..
•....
22
30
31
31
33
Year.
Average r^te.
1850..:..
...;
-20 .
186(3.
.;......:...> 12
1870
....;.
7V
1880
...:.;;.................;....,........ . 5J
And the latest statistics indicate the percentages, in France, 9 J; German Empire, 6J; Austria-Hungary, 3J; Belgium, 7; Italy, 8;' and the
Netherlands,-i^oV
^
It will b e noted that the average rate here is.much higher than in
any of the other countries named, but, as the most heavy taxes in those^
countries are assessed by specific rates, it will be obvious that such ad
valorem rates as they retain are below ours.
644
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. /
In 1845, wheh the average rate of customs taxation in Great Biitain
was the highest duiing this century, the highest ad'valorem rate (except when "optional") was 25 per cent. Our present tariff has many
classes bf goods assessed 30, 35, 40, 50, and 60 per cent., and even som.'e
^ at 75'and 100 per cent. The present tariffs of European countiies con-^
tain very few rates above 20, and the great mass are at 5 and 10 jier
'" cent.' '
_
• '
It may be fairly said that no country ever attempted such a difficult
administrative task as'has our own in the imposition of such high\ad
valorem duties, which have encouraged the most extended, ingenious,
and baffling schemes for their evasion. It is probable that no ad valorem rate exceeding 25 x^^i^ cent, could be assessed withbut loss by undervaluation, and that such loss would proportionally increase with
the increase of rate. Indeed, I am myself convinced that after the
corrupting influences of the present high rates there would be no security in,a reduction to a maximum rate of .25 per cent., or even lower.
•JThe ingenious methods of evasion and fraud so long rife wbuld not be
abandoned,, and though their absolute effect upon the amount'of revenue would be diminished, they would continue to work injustice and
•strife.
, Z'^'
^ .
\
;.
The long-continued falsification of values would prevent the exact
conversion of the present ad valorem into equivalent specific rates
based upon actual and relative values, as also it would obviously be
impossible to preserve such equivalents in the face of fluctuating val-^
nes. I t would not, however, be difficult to prepare a schedule of specific rates to replace a great part of our present ad valorem rates,
without mateiial departure from the original intention of the law,
whether that intention were purely tb obtain revenue or for protection,
primarily or incidentally.
, As to your particular question whether "specific rates are axiplicable to all textile fabrics,'? I should say yes, though there might be
danger of constructing a. classification tbo complicated were relative
values to be the "paramount ^consideration. Specific rates on such fabrics might be based on weight or superficies, and in some cases, as at
present, further differentiated b y t h e number of threads in a given
sxiace. In some cases^ both weight and square yards might be taken
as elements in the assessment of duty.
18. I should not deem it practicable for American consular agents
to xiersonally examine aU articles to be shipped hither, nor indeed any
part of them. No matter how numerous and alert such agents were,
their function would not be recognized as an inherent or legal right,
and would not have such protectioii under the laws of foreign countries
as would insure the successful exercise of such a function. Even were ,
it possible to obtain the recognition and protection of such rights by
treaty stipulations, the attempt to organize. such an administrative
measure simply for the protection of our revenue or the protection of
our manufacturers, would, be very rexiugnant to popular sentiment in
the foreigh countries, and so obstruct and defeat the purxiose, while
injuring our general comniercial relations with the people of such
countries. Under the most favorable conditions of the laws and popular sentiment abroad, such a verification of goods and prices would
be imperfect, and liable to fraudulent collusions. It would simply duplicate abroad all the difficulties we encounter here in the effort to
satisfactorily administer an ad valorem rate system. *
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
645
, For sixty years the consular certification of invoices has been one^
of the xirovisions for protection against undervaluations, and has been
as ineffectual as,any of the other means adoxited for the same end. I
have given my opinion before several Congressional and other committees that this certification might be abolished without great danger
to the revenue.
This conclusion has been based upon official observation, from which
I have deduced only the following practical advantages from such
classification, and these questionable: 1st, that it is proof of an actual
commercial transaction at the place of certification, an advantage that
inheres only to real sale and purchase, and not to the consignments
which, are the source of most trouble in axixiraisement; 2d, that it furnishes a basis for true reduction of depreciated currencies, though this
might be as well accomplished by general reports of fluctuations made
at stated xieriods; 3d, that it gives a weak axipraiser an assurance of
authenticity, which is, however, more often detrimental than advantageous to the revenue. Probably the injury arising from such dependence'in appraisement upon the consular certificate is largely due
to tlie generally heedless manner in which such certifications are
rendered, so far as they relate to market values. There have been
exceptions to this general objection, but even the most efficient and
conscientious consuls are baffled by the consignment of goods sx3ecially
manufactured for our Inarket. I will not dwell upon what might be accomplished in rendering such certification more valuable by a better
consular sj^stem, with axipointments made for fitness alone, and the reward of x^iomotion for recognized good 'service. We are xilaced at
immense disadvantage in our competition for foreign trade, as in ail our
other commercial relations, by the inferiority of our consular service as
comxiared with the x^ei'manent and trained service of other countries.
Not the least among the elements that have contributed to the commercial suxiremacy of Great Britain is the efficiency of her disciplined consular service. But, whether our service be efficient or otherwise, the
best cure for losses by undervaluation is the substitution of specific for
ad valorem rates, which ivould render certification of invoices unnecessary. For a defective certification by an officer, often acting xierfunctorily, and at the best without xiersonal knowledge, .acting in a foreign
land beyond strict official suxiervision, the specific-rate system would
substitute an absolute^ test of the goods by x^ositive and immutable
standards, apxilied while the goods are in the xiossession of the Govern- .
ment by officers subject to xierfect discixiline and surveillance, and
whose rexiorts could be xiromptly and unerringly verified and corrected.
This substitution would cut off the xiresent income from fees for certification, an income that sustains the total consular expenses; but
many times this amonnt w^ould be returned to the Treasury by a better
method of assessment.
Should the present ad valorem systeni. continue, I would suggest
that, in lieu of the certification of invoices, the consuls should send
frequent reports of prices-current, with samples attached, when xiracticable, which might be transmitted b y t h e Treasury Department to
the appraisers. I admit that this w^ould be a defective course, but it
would be better than the xiresent method as administered.
19. I do not think it would be safe or useful to the revenue or just
to importers to give the executive or judicial xiowers greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values upon an
646
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
appeal from the original appraisement. It is an ascertainment of tact
and not of law, and is to be determined by an arbitration by experts,
either official or non-official; and in the latter case these experts may
be considered as a " j u r y " to determine the facts. Sections 2609-and
2930 of the Eevised Statutes, in the provisionsfor original appraisement affd for reappraisement by two merchants, recognize this jury
Xirinciple of experts—a xirinciple in the decision of facts alone sointerwoven in onr commercial as well as judicial system that any departure
from it wonld seem ill-advised. I further believe that snch a departure in this instance would increase the present uncertainties and disputes.
20. I have not the time to make a satistactory analysis of the history
of duty rates on wool since 1860, as it would require a careful collation
of statistics not readily obtained, and the task can be, and probably
will be, better xierformed by some other officer. I will, however, say
that I think that the present classification by value has all the defects
of a purely ad valorem rate, and that in carpet-wools the doubling the
rate per pound at a certain point in value is the worst possible expression of the ad valorem system. It offers a temptation to fraud and
perjury such as no government should, and from which it must inevitably, suffer loss.
21. I am convinced, by what I learn in social intercourse, that money
is paid by arriving xiassengers to customs insxiectors of baggage, and
that such payments are considered by passengers as the general rule,
not in many cases for the purpose of fraudulently entering goods without payment of proper duties, but simply as a douceur, or fee, to obtain
early and speedy attention. Even in the latter aspect, this xiractice is
demoralizing, and reduces the customs officer to the level of the hotelwaiter or boot-black, while there can be no doubt, from the many detected cases, that bribery of the insx3ectors enables the perpetration of
many frauds upon the revenue. It is unfortunate that the Treasury
Department felt constrained to discontinue the enforced examination
of all baggage at the barge office here, where a more close scrutiny andsurveillance could be maintained than is X30ssible upon the crowded
and inconvenient piers of the steamship companies. But even on those
piers I believe the long-standing abuses of douceurs and bribes might
be abated by a vigorous discipline. In this office similar unauthorized
fees were formerly received by employes, in some cases largely exceeding in the aggregate the recipient's compensation from the Government, but by interdiction, supxiorted by a firm and constant discipline,
the X3ractice has been entirely broken up. I can; see no reason why
similar measures should not be successful if applied to the irispection
of passengers' baggage, and also why they should not suppress other
illegal practices of a similar nature in the customs service, which undoubtedly e:^ist to the demoralization of the emxiloyes and to the discredit of the administration with those who suffer from such exactions.
22. The adherence to an ad valorem rate system, with such high rates,
induces me to answer this query decidedly in the affirmative./ I do
not think there is much loss through smuggling, but there has been ah
immense loss through undervaluations, and I can conceive of no practicable method to prevent this loss. Secretary Robert J. Walker, in
his annual report on December 3,1845, in urging the enactment of the
purely ad valorem tariff prepared by him, (which became law on July
30, 1846,) laid down the general principles upon which this tariff was
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
647
constructed, and among them suggested "that all specific duties be
abolished and ad valorem duties substituted in their place, cai^e being
taken to guard against frtxudulent invoices and undervaluation, and to assess
duty upon the market value.'' It cannot be disputed that such '' care "
has xiroven to be imxiracticable, and that neither consular certification,
penal duties, nor any other statutory provision has been found effective;
in guarding against great losses in undervaluation. This was so under
the "Walker tariff," and the difficulties havebeen greatly enhanced
since then by the great xiroportion of fbreign goods consigned here for
a market, and the invoices for which represent no actual sale, and consequently no basis fbr valuation by market value, forcing recourse to
the difficult and faulty computation of a dutiable value xirescribed by
the ninth section of the act of March'3, 1883. That this impossibility
of equitably enforcing a heavy tax inheres solely to the ad valorem
method is evinced by the ease with which the present sxiecific duty on
distilled sxiirits is collected, a duty that on some grades exceeds four
hundred xier cent, ad valorem, yet it would be absolutely impossible to
collect such a duty based.upon values, since the temxitation to undervaluation would be too strong to be resisted on the one hand or xirevented on the other.
I have in my answer to the sixteenth question {supra)' shown the high,
average rate of duties imxiosed by us, as rexiresented by a percentage
on total imports, and that alarge xiart of this is attributable to the excessively high ad valorem duties, w^hich are the source and nurse of
most of the existing frauds, disxmtes, and malcontent attending the
collection of custonis duties.
Upon a review of what I have written above, I observe that the
queries attach to onlj^ a X3art of the field of customs administration,
and they do not call for opinions regarding dainage allowances, drawbacks, warehousing, official oaths and fees, and many other points of
interest which I presume will be investigated by you. On some of
these I have already sent communications to the Dexiartment, and will
be xirepared to xiromxitly report further when required.
In conclusion, I beg leave to add that I ax3prehend my answers are
so colored by my strong convictions regarding the impolicy of ad
valorem rates that I may have inadvertently disregarded the points
sought by you. If there is to be a xiositive adherence to our xiresent
ad valorem tariff, I admit that its defects in practice niight be partially abated by a more thorough administration, requiring, as a xiart,
a larger expenditure for salaries of certain important officers, an increase that ivould be retnrned many fold by the larger receipts in
duties. Much of the xiresent injustice, friction, contention, irritation,
and consequent clamor and censure, might be xirevented by judicious
amendments of the law and regulations, some of which I have alluded
to herein. At the best, however, all these would amonnt simxily to
niaking the best of a system that, with a heavy rate of tax and considering human infirmities, can never be administered without grave
losses to the revenue and to the x3eople, both as taxpayers and consumers, and vexation and injury to importers.
^
All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant,
, . • •
SILAS W. BUET,
Naval Offieer.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
648 . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
No. 106.
Additional Inquiry to Naval Officer at New York.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, i). C, September 30, 1885.
SIR : I have read with care your interesting reply to my circular
letter of the 27th ultimo. Your allusions to the condition of customs
matters between 1868 and 1883 are instructive. The object of my circular was to obtain accurate information from the local officers of the
several ports resxiecting the condition of the service within the last
few years, and also to ascertain what is its i>resent condition.
I desire, therefore, that you will, excepting where otherwise indicated herein, give to me your views on such of the inquiries, apxilying
them, so far as applicable, to the execution of the custom law at the
port of New York to-day. You will especially inform me whether or
not the difficulty of obtaining by you a correction of returns made^on
inYoiees now exists; and also whether or not, and, if not, why not,
weighers' returns are now satisfactoiy to you. To the sixth inquiiy
you need not give more time; but to the seventh, eighth, and ninth,
applied to the present date, I wish that your replies may give your
oxiinion fully, and especially in regard to the present condition of the
axipraising department in New York.
In reply to the twelfth, you are requested to be more specific in explaining the relation of comxietitive examinations to what yon^deem
the insufficient salaries of examiners, and also your views respecting
the fitness of competitive exaniinations to obtaiii the most competent
and uxiright experts in the character, quality, and niarket value of
imports, from time to time, in the princixial markets of the conntry of
exportation. I do not need to trouble you further with the sixteenth,
but I wish your views on the seventeenth, in connection with the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth.
Yonr replies to the eighteenth, nineteenth,' twentieth, and twentyfirst need not be enlarged, excexiting to say specifically to what you
refer by the xihrase in the tiwenty-first, '' illegal practices of a similar
nature in the customs service."
The twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth need not be
further dealt with by you.
Truly, yours,
DANIEL MANNING.
Mr. SILAS W . BURT,
Naval Officer, New York, N Y .
No. 107.
PORT OF N E W YORK, NAVAL OFFICE,
.
^
October 15, 1885..
S I R : In compliance with the request conveyed in your letter of the
30th ultimo, I have the honor to report further in regard to several of
the points presented in your letter of August 27 last.
I have to inform you that I do find obstacles in the way of a free communication with the axipraiser, arising from the refusal of the collector
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.
649
to transmit the iiivoices to the ax3praiser, the authority to refuse being
conferred by the Treasury Dexiartment. From 1878 to i880,1 could communicate directly with the appraiser, with great benefit to all interests
and injurj^ to none.
This obstruction to the xiroper function of the naval officer is only a
Xiart of the general tendency, for ten years X3ast, to degrade that officer.
The Treasury Dexiartment has ignored his legal status, and because the
collector is undeniably the xirincipal officer of customs at the X30rt has
treated the naval officer as subordinate to the collector, when the law
intended that he should be indexiendent and co-operative in all matters
touching the amount of duties collected. Though, at the xiort, the naval
officer represents directly the Secretary of the Treasury as the guardian
ofthe revenue, the collector's influence has so overwhelmed the subordinates in the Treasury Department that, in the differences between the
collectbr and the naval officer,- the decision is, generally given to the
former in spite of reason and consistency. I trust you will not deem me
prolix if I give an illustrative example, which may also be instructive
as to decisions generally. Prior to October, .1884, both the collector and
naval officer at this port were agreed in assessing lentils at 10 per cent.,
as vegetables. An entry clerk in the collector's office, by inadvertence,
Xiassed an entry of lentils free, and when this office refused to coincide,
the collector, in sxiite of long-continued xiractice, insisted upon the free
entry, and the matter was referred to the Treasury Departnient, and the
arguments on both sides were submitted. On October 21, the Dexiartment declared lentils free, as held by the collector, although during the
whole discussion that officer was inconsistently exacting 10 per cent: on
all entries of lentils. Of course, after the decision of the Department,
they were ^admit^ted free. Subsequently the United States courts decided edible beans and xiease to be subject to duty of 10 xier cent., as vegetables, and on June 24, 1885, my xiredecessor w^rote to the Dexiart-ment,
again urging that lentils were dutiable at 10 X3er cent. No reply was
ever received, but the collector soon after resumed the assessment of 10^
X3er cent., though the Departmental ruling (Synopsis, 6608) has never
been revoked, and probably, under its terms, lentils are still admitted
free at other ports.
You ask if weighers' returns are now satisfactory to me. Through
the new methods adopted in 1879, the w^eighing of merchandise, so far
as accuracy of weights is concerned, has been conducted in a manner
substantially satisfactory. From that date there has been a gradual improvement in the promptness of returns, though in this respect there is room for further improvement. I can 01113^ urge, in addition, the more
comxilete organization of all the customs officers making metric tests
nnder a single expert head. This ivould accomxilish a uniformity of
Xirocedure and an economy in the conduct of the business.
In regard to the seventh, eighth, and ninth queries in 3^our circular,
I can only give general answ^ers. I believe that your special agents
have rexiorted as to the classes of goods where undervaluation was undeniable, and I have not the X30wer to make such investigations as would
add to your information on that subject. All the rexiorts of apxiraisement on every entr^^ of merchandise finally come to my office, and are
subjected to a careful scrutiny, and in this manner I become apprised
of many defects, not sxiecifically of general undervaluation on any line
of goods, but of inconsistencies, ignorance, and carelessness. Befbre I
enlarge upon this point, I desire to say that th^ present condition of
650
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.*
the appraiser's office here is the outgrowth of many years of futile at
tempts to perform, a difficult task—i. e., the correct valuation of iniXJOrts—and this futility is not altogether attributable to bad administration, but in part to the almost impracticable character of the task.
However, to my own knowledge, fbr years much of the service in that
dexiartment has been bad. There have been many efficient and upright
men engaged in the work of axiX3raisement, conspicuous among whom
has beeh the X3resent apxiraiser, but there have been associated with
them men without qualifications as axixiraisers or examiners, and. others
untrustworthy, as many detected fi'auds have x3roven. I have known
men to be axixiointed examiners, and even appraisers, of classes of goods
they had never had the least previous knowledge of, and others with
the more dangerous equiximent of a " l i t t l e knowledge," allied with a
conceit of omniscience in regard to their x3rofessed sxiecialtj^ I know
that the present appraiser recognizes the ipeculiar conditions that environ his official task, and that he is earnestl^;^ striving to imxirove the
character of the service, bnt, in consideration of the difficult nature of
the work and scarcity of trained workers to be obtained, no decided
reform can be improvised, and it will require xiatient and long-continued
effort before any great imxirovement can be manifested.
In the final liquidation of entries in this office man^^^ errors are daily
detected in the'appraisers' returns, which may be attributed more generally^ to carelessness than to ignorance, and yet if not corrected would
injure the revenue and weaken the confidence of imxiorters in the accuracy and fairness of our assessments. These errors are in classification
as well as in valuation, and are confined to no xiarticular classes of goods.
As examples of these, I will quote several current cases of errors detected
in this office and returned to the axipraiser fbr correction :
(1.) An entry of worsted dress-goods, weighing over 4 ounces X3er
square yard, and therefore dutiable at 35 cents per x>ound and 40 per
cent, ad valorem, were reported as under 4 ounces X3er square yard and
dutiable at 9 cents X3er square yard and 40 X3er cent, ad valorem.
(2.) Uxion an imxiortation of fifteen cases of woollen cloaks, nine were
entered for immediate consumxition and six were ivarehoused. Although
all were identical, the warehoused goods w^ere advanced in value and
the others not.
(3.) Certain goods were classified as "worsteds in xiart," at 7 cents
per scxuare yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem, when they were dutiable
at 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem.
(4.) Certain alcoholic xierfumery, dutiable at 50 xier cent, ad valorem,
was returned as "manufactures oi* metal," at 45 per cent, ad valorem.
Tooth-brushes, dutiable at 30 X3er cent., were returned as "quill tobthXiicks," at 20 X3er cent.
(5.) Goocls returned as rugs, at 40 x^^r cent, ad valorem, should have
been whole carpets, dutiable at 45 cents per square yard and 30 X3er
cent, ad valorem. ,
In all the above cases the corrections were made as indicated. It is
concieded that, in the transaction of the vast amount of business at this
Xiort, a certain ratio of such errors may naturally be expected, X3articuiarly in the most busy periods of the 3^ear, and which errors it is the
peculiar duty of this office to detect and have corrected. But there are
a greater number of these errors than are excusable on an^^^ X3lea, and
they indicate defects either in the service or in the methods of administration ; and I think, too, that they suggest the possible X3erpetratibn of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
651
errors in appraisement which it is not the province of this office to detect, and, indeed, which it Would be difficult fbr anybody to detect
without sxiecial acquirements and an examination of the goods. I mean
that the errors that are detected disclose a carelessness and irresponsibility that is not necessaril3^ confined to the field where I and my sub-'
ordinates glean. And though I am able to make these disclosures, I am
not as ready with the xiractical remedy, since this is directly involved
in the difficulty of obtaining comxietent and trustworthy^ officials to
perform the delicate and X3recise work of axixiraisement. Thorough
discipline and better niethods of administration may reduce to the minimum the errors of inadvertence and haste, but these would not remedy
the defective valuations of merchandise.
In attemxiting to measure with precision the absolute efficiency and
accuracy of an apxiraiser of merchandise, we lack an infallible standard.
The exact market xirice of any certain article npon a certain day in a
certain mart seems a priori to be not only an assured fact, but fact, but
also one readily attainable; but in xiractice it seems to evade the grasp.
From my own official exxierience, I should assume t h a t a u appraiser
who never varies more than 5 X36r cent, from the average market
values as deduced from the best sources of inforination open to the dexiartment is a fairly competent officer. I would further qualify this by
placing the limit of divergence somewhat higher and lower in certain
grades of goods; on staple goods the limit should be low, and on fancy
goods and those of certain materials the limit should be higher. In
an examination of a candidate fbr position of examiner of any class of
merchandise, I should consider the above variation as normal.
Granted a force of appraisers and examiners as efficient and upright
as could X30ssibly be xirocured, I would insist uxion two fundamental
rules as essential to any satisfactory accomxilishment of the work: First.
That the assessments of value should be uniform. A regular rate of
undervaluation of any article of importation means a certain loss to the
revenue, which may be repaired, if detected, by regular additions to
the invoiced values, and, if not detected, may be rexilaced by a legislative increase of taxes; but such a regular undervaluation works no
relative injury to the importers. On the other hand, differential and
unequal assessments inflict injustice upon honest importers which cannot be rexiaired, and is the sourceof great and justifiable discontent.
This injustice is not restricted to original apxiraisements, but often occurs in reapxiraisements. One of these cases is now befbre me, w^here
two ipixiorters of the same goods by the same vessel have been very
differently treated; in one case the dutiable value was reaxipraised one
hundred and thirteen (113) per cent, higher than in the other. I have
requested a reconsideration, and without doubt the values will be
equalized, but there should be such a system of valuation as would xirevent such disxiaiities, and the discontent of importers and discredit of
the customs service that follow them.
Second. That in every group of dutiable goods to be axipraised by
-an examiner, there should be selected some staxile article or fabric as
standard or "key-note" for the group. By concentration of attention
and research uxion the X3rices current and fluctuations of foreign value
in a single article, there would be a greater probability of accura'cy than
if the same attention were distributed among all tihe articles in the
grouxi. In the absence of positive information as to changes in the
foreign values of other articles in a grouxi, their appraisement could
652
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
be based upon the current valuation of the " k e y " article; in other
words, its fluctuations would be communicated proportionately to the
other articles grouxied with it. This course woiUd tend to a systematic
valuation, and consuls could keexi the apxiraising officers anxirised of all
changes in the values of the '' keys.'' Such a method won.d be of great
advantage to appraisers at the smaller xiorts. I will concede that some
articles could not thus be collated into groups, and would have to be
treated sui generis, but I believe that with, our extensive schedules of
dutiable articles, constantly increasing by "assimilation" and other
additions, some'such arrangement and simxilification are the only feasible means of relief fiom some of the most gross defects in our assessments, based upon foreign values. The two rules should be suxiplemented by such a recast of business methods as would enforce direct
responsibility, and break uxi that dexiendence upon individual and exclusive examiners of the various lines of goods which has worked such
injuries in the past.
I believe the position of appraiser at this port to be the most difficult
one in the entire United States service outside of Washington. The
delicate fiinction of determining values of goods at all dates and in all
the marts of the world is complicated and offen thwarted by the inadequacy of the information and the inefficiency of the agencies through
which a determination is to be reached.
. I believe that the xiresent axixiraiser is making such progress as defective niethods and instruments will xiermit. He bronght to his official
task a large exxierience and trained ability, and has accomplished a*'
marked imxirovement in all resxiects since he assumed office. AYhatever
refbrmatory changes may iiow^ be introduced, it will require a considerable time to obtain the best results from them. The w^ork is beset with
Xierxilexities and difficulties, and the conservative influence of old
methods will be a drag, both within and without the service, while the
highest xiossible attainment when reached will not be altogether satisfactory, since the ad valorem system has the inherent taint of imxiracticability.
In regard to^ my expression as to the inadequacy of compensation
allowed examiners of goods, I had reference only to such of them as
axixiraise fabrics of a comxilex character, or where there are frequent
changes in the conix30sition, styles, fashion, and values. I did not intend to exxiress or infer aiiy relation between the X3a3^ of examiners and
their selection by comxietitive examination. Whatever the method of
selection, the matter of compeusation would control to some extent the
class of applicants, and if too low would deter axiplications for position
by those outside best qualified. There are certain staple goods which
are so regular in. all resxiects that a qualified examiner might be procured
from those in the lower grades of the axixiraiser's force. Man^^- good
examiners now in service ivere educated in classification and va,luation
of certain goods while holding inferior X3laces in the apxiraiser's department.
In my letter of Sexitember 21,1 alluded to the experience in competitive examinations fbr these xilaces as indicating an inability to value
goods by the insxiection of samples alone. Since then further consideration inducQS me to m.odifj'^ the deduction that this inability would necessarily denote a hopeless incaxiacity to apxii^aise. The failures nia^^ be
in some cases attributable to the great range of valuation by a Government examiner, which must cover the whole field of imxiorts of any
KEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY.
^663
class of goods, while in private business such a range is rare by any
single importing concern. In a recent competition for. examiner ui
china and all other ceramic wares, each competitor claiming to be an
exxiert w^as found qualified in certain lines of goods and lacking in
others, according to his business experiences, but would x3robably soon
acquire equal proficiency in the whole field. It fact, I am inlbrmed
that the appointees selected from this examination have been very
satisfactory.
In rexily to your direct query, I would answer that, in my oxiinion, as
good examiners can be x3rocured by open competition as^ in any other
way, while this method is protected from the abuses so often manifested
in the old methods of selection. I believe, also, that the competitive
method is less liable to imxiosition uxion the service of xiersons in the
interest of imxiorters. • This cannot be altogether guarded against, but
it would be more easy to impose upon the appointing xiower through
subtle X3olitical and personal influences in the absence of open comxietition.
Permit me to say here that I hope, in 3^our quest for some better method
of assessment by ad valorem rates, you will not be favorably inclined
tp the scheme of " home valuation." A bill x3roxiosing this method,
with xienalty for undervaluation by the X3rivilege of Goverriment X3urchase at invoice values j^ks 10 per cent, was xirepared by the chamber
of commerce of this city in 1880, and introduced in Congress. On
Axiril 28 of that year I made a report on this bill to Secretary Sherman,
by request, and adduced such arguments against the home-valuation
method as led the xirojectors to desist from xiressing its xiassage. I presume my rexiort is in the files of your office, and, should the home-valuation xilan be resuscitated, the arguments advanced five years ago are
quite as axixilicable now.
Among the statutory xirovisions to sustain the ad valorem system, the
''moiet3' law'' was the most radical and stringent. I believe there has
been a more general undervaluation since its repeal. I do not believe,
however, that it would be wise to revive either the distributory shares
to the princixial officers of customs or the seizure of X3axiers and books.
Both the x3rovisions are impolitic, and the seizure of X3axiers, &c., is
such a harsh and arbitrary exercise of sovereign xiower in a free country
that it should be resorted to only when the public safety absolutel3^ demands. I believe that the sixteenth section of the "anti-moiety law"
(act of June 22, 1874) should be rexiealed, since it is impossible to prove
fraudulent undervaluation under its xirovisions.
In my original answer to your twent3''-first query, I meant by "iUegal
practices of a similar nature in the customs service" the receixit of
gratuities, not oiUy b3^ the inspectors examining passengers' baggage,
but by those officers on other accounts, and by others, including clerks,
&c., down to almost the lowest grade of messengers. I know of nothing
more difficult to obtain than direct arid X30sitive evidence of such X3ractices, even when, b3^ general consent, they are admitted as existing.
Merchants and brokers have had an unfortunate experience in comxilaints^ of these exactions, since the culprits have in many cases had
sufficient influence to escaxie dismissal, and remained in place to ivreak
their vengeance uxion the complainants b3^ such annoyances and delays
as x>laced the latter at disadvantage with their less candid business
rivals. I have therefore been obliged to promise not to diYulge the
names of my informants, but know them to be trustworthy. They
654
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
assure me that gratuities are common throughout the collector's department, and, while small in individual amount—ranging from twenty-five
cents to a dollar each—^^they make a large^ annual aggregate in the expenses of custom-house transactions. In nearl3^ all, if not in all, cases
these gratuities are not directly demanded, but, if they are not X3aid,
there are vexatious requirements, objections, and delays, sufficiently
Xilausible as a defence in case of complaint. I hope it will not be considered invidious on my part if I also sa3^ that I am assured b3^ the same
informants that no such gratuities are paid in the naval office. I began
the work of suxixiressing.these in 1878, and, by strict and persistent discixiline, soon succeeded in thoroughly eradicating abuses that had existed
for half a centur3^ It therefore affords me xieculiar satisfaction to know
that there has been no retrogression in this respect.
, I have answered 3^our queries candidly and so far as I could from,
personal knowledge or trustworth37^ information at my disposal. I have
run the risk of criticising the business niethods in other offices, ^and I
trust that your invitation to do so will relieve me from the imputation
of disparagement of my official associates. You may find tedious my
constant refr'ain that the satisfactor3^ collection of high ad valorem
duties is an impracticable attainment. But I am so imbued with this
conviction that I can conceive of no possible escape from some of the
difficulties that surround our xiresent course but a resort to the simxiler
system of specific rates adopted b3^ every other important nation. Yet
so attractive are the theoretical features of ad valorem rates, and so ap-'
parently insuperable the obstacles to an3'^ reform in customs collection
laws, that the X3i'esent methods of assessment will probably be continued. In such case it seems to me that both the personnel. and the
procedure in the axipraiser's department could be greatly improved.
Some x3rogress has been made in securing a better service, and this
should be accomxianied by such changes in business methods as will
secure uniformity in assessments and simxilicity in the regulations, under which these are made. I beg to add that I believe it is an opportune time to accomplish such reforms, now that ive have an appraiser so
well epuipxied by exxierience and special ability, and whose devotion
to duty and xiersonal integrity are beyond question.
All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant,
SILAS W. BUET,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
I
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of tlie Treasury.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
655
No. 108.
H. S. BEATTIE—Appointed Surveyor of Customs, New York, June 27, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE,
N E W YORK, SURVEYOR'S OFFICE,
• October 6, 1885.
DEAR SIR : In answer to the interrogatories contained in the printed
circular,, marked "confidential," under date of August 27,1885, l h a v e
the honor to make the following answers:
First.—The evidence that the rates of duty within the last few years
have not been levied and collected as the law xirescribes is of a presumxitive nature. An insxiector, in examining baggage, may fail to
discover and rexiort articles ivhich have not been declared; and an inspector, in discharging merchandise, may fail to notice that the goods
discharged do not agree with the goods permitted.
. v
One of the most notable instances of the latter failure is the wellknown Lawrence case, in which the attempted fraud might have been
detected by a sharp and experienced discharging officer, as the susxiicion of such an officer niight fairly be excited by difference in the
appearance, weight,. &c., between the X3ackages sent to the xiublic store
and those sent to the imxiorter. Of course, in this Lawrence case the
fraud was made X30ssible through the venal connection of the deputy
collector with Lawrence.
. Invoices have been fonnd which purxiorted to contain an account of
goods uxion Avhich a low rate of duty w^as X3aid, while a xiortion of them
X3aid a higher rate, indicating, apparently, that the imxiorter hoped to
see the cases ux3on which the lower rate of duty was X3aid sent to the
X3ublic store.
There is no good reason to believe that efforts similar to these are
not now made to defraud the revenue.
Second.—There is evidence of such action on the part of weighers
and gaugers as to indicate that on the part of the former merchandise
is.sometimes returned as weighed when it has not been weighed ; that
excessive tares are allowed; and, as to the latter, (gangers,) that in
some cases they discriminate in favor of the imxiorter for a considera:
tion.
The collection pf the full amount of duty prescribed by law on articles wiiich X3ay purely specific rates depends on the honesty of the
weigher or gauger; and while the evidence against the integrity of
some of these officers is such as to produce a moral conviction of their
guilt, without additional facilities for the discovery of evidence, through
the seizure of the books and xiapers of imxiorters, legal proof of their
guilt cannot be made.
Third.—The axixiraiser is suxixiosed to measure accurately the goods
which are contained in the xmblic-store packages, and his measurements
are noted on the invoices. If the measurements of the public-store
Xiackages agree with those on the invoice, it is assumed that the measurements of the other xiackages o.n the invoice are correct. The critical
attention of the liquidating clerks in the collector's office, who ought
to have an extensive knowledge of the goods imxiorted, would assist in
the detection of glaring discrexiancies in the invoices.
Fourth.—I have no knowledge bf any recent illustration ofthe collusion referred to in the fourth interrogatory; but with the Lawrence
case, already referred to, in view^ I see^no reason to assume that such
coUusion may not exist.
656
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Fifth.—(See answer second.). A comparison by the liquidating clerks
of the invoices of different importers would assist in detecting the direction in, which legal xiroof, might be made.
Sixth.—Most Of the troubles between the iniporters and Government
officials uxion the question of rates of duty are attributable to the
vagueness of the tariff laws. Until the meaning of a tariff act has been
judicially determined, the bringing of numerous suits against collectors
of customs is inevitable.
^
The decision of the Treasury Department, under date pf July 2,1885,
in the matter of '' Protests and Apxieals on ' Charges,','' will, in my j udgment, do more to xirevent the bringing of suits than any action which has
been taken in the last fifteen 3^ears.
Equity would seem to require the payment of interest and costs,
where the verdict is against the Government, in suits brought against
a collector to recover for overx^aid duties. In some cases the Government niight lose by such xiayments, but I see no reason why a successful suitor against t^he Government should, not be compensated for the
use of his money the same as he would be had it been used by a cprXioration or xirivate individual.
It is generally conceded that in the sonthern district of New York
another part of thie district or circuit court should be organized, as the
time consumed in these courts in hearing xiatent and other cases leaves
comxiaratively little time for the hearing of cases which arise out of
the administration of the customs and internal-revenue laws. • In the
case of The United States vs. George Hughes & Co., which was, I believe, tried in 187'5, and which arose out of alleged undervaluations,
not less than six weeks of the time of the court w^ere consumed in its
trial, although the amount involved did not exceed $90,000. A more
recent illustration of the time consumed in the tiial of a cause is the
case of The United States vs. Boyd.
Seventh aud Eighth.—In respect to the collection of duty upon merchandise subject to ad valorem duties, the duty should, I think, be
levied uxion t:he value of nierchandise as found by the axixiraiser. He
is designated by law as the official whose judgment is the accexited
basis for the assessment of duty. He is furnished with certain methods
of informing his judgment, and he should use all the means available to him that he may arrive at a correct valuation of merchandise.
What those means are must be largely left to him. The princixial
• sources of his information must be the prices named in the invoices
which pass-under his insxiection, and it is to be xiresumed that due
weight is given-to the invoices of goods imported by houses of high
standing, whose manner of doing business is beyond rex')roach. Assist^
ance may be received through infbrmation obtained from consuls and
from intercourse with importers. But the changes in the manner of
doing business—as, for instance, in the case of imported silks—within
the X3ast ten years are so radical that X30ssibly some new system iiia3^
have to be devised to meet the changes in the methods of doing, business. Formerly silk goods were imxiorted by j obbing-houses; to-da3^—
they are largely imported by the agents of manufacturers, and this
change in the mode of doing business has to a g^:eat extent caused
the existing confusion in the valuation of certaiii lines of goods, such'
as silks and embroideries.
. .
Ninth.—There is not satisfactory evidence that appraisers report
false dutiable values of articles. They have done so in the past, but
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREA.SURY.
' 657
there is no evidence accessible, under existing, methods of investigation, that many, if any, of such reports are now made.
Tenth.—The statutory law provides that the time, place, and circumstances of examining dutiable values shall be in the discretion of
the appraiser, dexmty apxiraiser, and examiner.
Eleventh.—I hardly think it X30ssible to obtain a trustworthy esti. mate of the percentage of undervaluations for any series of years.
Twelfth.—In xiassing uxion the value of imxiorted goods, the assistant
axixiraiser is chiefly resxionsible. The examiner xiasses uxion the goods,
which the assistant appraiser rarely sees, but the latter is required to
sign every invoice, and in doing so he ought to examine the invoice
to ascertain that the examiner has made no mistakes. In all instances
where the examiner may be in doubt as to a particular case, it is customary for him to call nxioii the assistant axixiraiser to make a xiersonal
examination of the goods, so that the assistant appraiser is really the '
one upon whom resx3onsibilit3^ rests. The general appraiser signs his
name to an invoice in a ministerial capacity, and his duty seems to be
niainly to provide general rules for the guidance of the officers at
large.
. Thirteenth.—In the case of wool, the duty thereon being based ux30ii
its cost at the port of shipment, a slight variation in making up the
invoice would xilace the wool in a lower • grade of dnty than it would
be were the invoice propeiiy made out. A consul, by omitting to ascertain whether the invoice in such a case were propeiiy made out,
could readily assist in occasional loss to the revenne; but I think that
the official sins of consuls consist rather in acts of omission than of
conimission, and that there is not much affirmative evidence of their
consxiiring to X3resent false evidence of foreign values.
Fourteenth.—In cases in which th^re is a return of false value on iinported merchandise, the appraiser is the official who is directiy resxionsible for it. It is his business to fix the value, and he is the xierson
upon whom, if the fixed value is not correct, resxionsibility ^should be
Xilaced. Government officials have not at present the facilities which
they formerly enjoyed for obtaining evidence of violations of laws by
importers and dishonest officials. The repeal of the moiety act has
undoubtedly withdrawn some of the facilities which, under it, existed
fbr the discovery of frauds upon the revenue. The statute, in myjudgment, was made unpopular through the venality and blackmailing
Xiroclivities of special agents of the Treasury Dexiartment, who took
advantages of its xirovisions to enrich themselves. I do not think that
its re-enactment would be xiopular; but from.xiersonal knowledge of the
cases of attempted fraud uxion the revenue which were develoxied while
it was in operation, and rexieated interchange of views with Federal
officials, inclnding niaii3^ customs officers, and the majority of court
officials in the southern district of New York for over a period of fifteen years, I am satisfied that increased facilities for the ascertainment
of the contents of the business records of dishonest importers should
be furnished.
Fifteenth.—It is fair to assume that the revenne is being continually
defrauded, but it is almost impossible to obtain such evidence as would
be admitted in a court of law with any reasonable assurance that a
verdict for the Government could be secured.
Sixteenth.—A change from ad valorem to specific dut3^ rates wbuld
reduce the tendency to venalitj^ and corruption, for the reason, among
42 A
'
658 ^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
others, that under the ad valorem system the values to be determined
are foreign values, and under the specific system the quantities to be
1 determined are home quantities. Further, the fraud which comes
through the operations necessary to determine foreign values would be
eliminated.
I would also suggest that one advantage of sxiecific duties is that I
think they tend to induce the importation of ahigher class of commodities than those which are brought in under ad valorem. duties,
for the reason that, the duty being equal in both cases, it is so heavy
upon cheap goods that it becomes unprofitable to import them, while
it is comparatively light upon high-priced goods, and the advantage,
therefore, is in fayor of the consumer, who would be furnished with a
better article. Tt would be also in the nature of a protection to the
home manufacturer of the lower-class goods.
It also occurs to me that if the specific system were applied to other
kinds of imported merchandise than those of liquors and cigars, the
consumer would be more likely to get what he desired to buy, as the
Government brand upon the goods would be an authentication of their
grade or quality..
Seventeenth.—From answers • already made in this communication,
my opinion clearly is that the absolute repeal of the moiety act and the
modification of the act of 1863, respecting the seizure of books and
papers, have diminished the facilities for detecting false reports of the
appraisers.
. Eighteenth.—The consular agents, without expert knowledge, cannot,
with more than axixiroximate exactness, verify the correctness of invoice values. The fee to the consul in England is 10s. 6d., and 4s. 6d.
is usually charged for the oath. There is a uniform charge for each
shipment, irrespective of the quantity or value.
Nineteenth.—Under the decision of the-courts, an aggrieved importer
has relief as against incompetency in fixing the dutiable value of'goods,
as determined under the. present procedure, and, of course, he has
always relief against known fraud in fixing such values. ^ The existing
machinery for securing to an honest importer a remedy for every wrong
is, i n my judgment, sufficient for all practical purposes.
Twentieth:-—I would require more time than I have had at my disposal' since the receipt of your letter, to furnish a snitable answer to
the twentieth interrogatory. However, if necessary, T will make an
effort to forward you an answer to it during the xiresent week.
Twenty-firSt.—r-The practice referred to in the twenty-first interrogatory is believed to, and I think does, prevail at this port. Since I
assumed office I have had several comxilaints made against officers for
such practices, and in each of these cases I have immediately, upon
satisfying myself that there was reasonable ground for the charge,
recommended their removal from the service, and they have been removed. The enforcement of the strictest discipline, constant surveillance of the men, and their instant dismissal from the service when
discovered in wrong-doing, seems to be the only methods available for
the prevention of these xiractices. A greater effort than has been heretofore made should be made to xirocure for inspection duty men of integrity. Much too little attention is given to the question of character in
the selection of men for this class of the service. Their compensation
geems to ioe sufficient for the intelligence required, and is considerably
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
659
above that of the average mercantile clerk. Complaint is occasion-^
ally made that, by reason of their being continually removed from one
point to another, t^^ey are subjected to a trifling daily expense for
car-fare, which, some of them claim, was formerly allowed from a contingent fund provided for such purposes. I believe it in the interest
of the service to remove the cause for this or any other reasonable complaint on their part, so that they niay have no complaint against the
Government which would lead a callous conscience to justify itself in
wrong-doing. My impression is that most of these men expect to supXilement their stated compensation by the reception of gratuities, and
that, the evil being one which has its root in the moral character of the
individual, the policy to be immediately pursued to eradicate it is to
remove, as quickly as the convenience of the service will permit, those
who have been living in an officially immoral atmosxihere, and to in* sist upon the very best vouchers for honesty being furnished by the
new men who m.aj be introduced into the service.
As an aid to the removal of the evil, I think that at this port there
should be more assistance furnished for the proper supervision of inspectors, weighers, and gaugers. This force, I am satisfied, has not
been properly supervised in the past. In fact, in order to secure proper
supervision, some man sufficiently removed from the regular force, both
by difference in his compensation and the dignity of his position, should
be able to be in attendance uxion the arrival bf any vessel that may
come into port. • When, as sometimes happens, several arrive at about
the same time, it is utterly impossible to cover the inspection force so,
as to make them feel that they are under official supervision such as
may result in their disgrace if they are detected in wrong.
Twenty-second.—I do not think that Congress has carried the duties
to so high a figure that the effort or disposition to smuggle is thereby
much increased. Of course, if duties on articles were so low that they
could be as cheaxily purchased in the home as in the foreign market
there would be no profitable motive for smuggling; but the reduction
of the duties on certain classes of merchandise, as in silks, does not,
from all the information tha-1 can gather, lessen the efforts of mercliants
who desire to take advantage of their rivals by dishonorable methods
to defraud the revenue. It really necessitates, on their part, an increased effort to commit fraud, as otherwise they could not survive.
I would remark here that the present administration is the object of
considerable odium from emigrants and citizens in xioor circumstances
coming from foreign countries,, from the fact that seizures of articles of
trifling value, often in the aggregate not amounting to the value of
over $6, are seized and duty exacted uxion them, while xiersons of wealth,
iri view of the Astor decision, are permitted to land duty free many
thousands of dollars' worth at a time. I have observed an article worth
not exceeding four or five dollars (the only dutiable article in the pos^ session of the passenger) seized and duty exacted. In view of the large
numberof poor people who come to this port with little articles of
about the same amount in value, it would seem to me ,that the administration would xiopularize itself by returning to the $5 limit which
formerly obtained. I have not yet learned at whose suggestion the $1
limit was fixed, but I am under the impression that the determination
was a comxiaratively recent one, and, like some other xiractices which
were introduced immediately prior to the present administration taking
660
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
office, the effect excites a prejudice in the X30xmlar mind against the
' X3resent government. Twenty-third,—Ithink it has.
. Twenty-fourth.—The facilities for making legal proof to fasten crime
upon the snsx3ected are so few that x3rosecutiug officers would hardly
bej ustified in incurring the expense which would be involved in making
the attemxit. The xiower to seize books and correspondence in cases of
fairly well-founded suspicion would frequently disclose sufficient evidence of fraud to secure conviction; but such power should be so exercised as not to allow the fbrce of the Government to opxiress those against
whom it is directed, and an official who can be shown to have misused
the X30wer thus granted should receive promxit punishment therefor.
In the case of w^eighers and gaugers, as I have already stated, evidence presumptive of fraud exists. The tare of many articles of merchandise not scheduled has frequently been obtained by the weigher;
without the directioii of the collector or any other apparent authority,
by directly connecting Avith the merchant and taking the tare from his
invoice. In this port that x^i^actice has been so general and so long
continued that offence is taken at the order of a superior officer when
he insists uxion his subordinates Uving uxi to the requirements of the
statutes. Individuals are designated, by the chief weighers to do the
taring for a distiict or a section, apparently on the plea that it is in
the line of economy of administration, but much more likely for the
reason that by having the same xiersons assigned to this work a channel for corruption can be successfully laid. The returns which xmrport to show that actual weights have been takeii are in some cases
shown to have been the result of mere copying from the returns of city
weighers; and in some cases weights are returned by a so-called leadpencil act, by which is meant that a weigher has been occasionally
permitted to fill out the weights in the dock-book o r return from his
head. Gaugers are known to receive comxiensation from iniporters
for niaking returns of gauges some time x3rior to the time when an
official return can be furnished, for which a consideration is received
from the imx3orter of so much per cask; That such a practice results
, in and offers an inducement to a gauger to gauge generously and liberally in'behalf of the imxiorter and against the Government there
can be no doubt. To make legal proof against persons suspected of
these practices, obviously it is necessary either to bribe the confidential clerk of the importer or to seize the evidences of his payments to
customs officers.
I have now in my xiossession written evidence of such returns Kaving
been made and the receixit of a consideration therefor. This evidence
conies to me in the only way that such evidence can be procured,
namely, either through bribing somebody or getting it under the pledge
of absolute secrecy. Through the latter means I have received the
evidence which is temxiorarily in my custody. Whether an imxiorter
would set U 3 the claim that this sort of service is rendered to him in
X
an unofficial manner,, and is paid for as a service rendered to him by
the officer in his private time, and that therefore no wrong is done to
the Governnient, I cannot statue; but that such a xiractice obtains, and
that it tends to demoralize and corrupt the service I have no doubt.
Some of these matters have beeri brought to the attention of the
^collector by me, but as yet no plan has been devised, and I do not see
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
66l
s
that any can be devised until after I am informed of what, if any,
assistance can be had from those who have the facilities for the procurement of legal evidence. .
\
I simply deem it my duty in this connection to draw your attention
to the matter.
.
I have the honor to be, very resxiectfuUy, yours,
H. S. BEATTIE.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Washingtoii, B . C.
No. 109.
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, B. C., October 14=, 1886.
SIR : In the latter xiart of your answer to the twenty-second question,
370U speak of a $1 and of a $5 limit. The Customs Eegulations of 1874,
article 1059, give to collector of customs " discretionary xiower to remit
the assessment of duties in cases where the dutiable value of an importation is less than $1 in amount; also to dispense with the seizure of
goods less than $1 in value, except in cases of habitual or intentional
viblations of the revenue laws or xirohibited importations.''
In January, 1878, Collector Arthur advised the Department that
" while the general xiractice of this office has been governed by the provisions of article 1059 of the Eegulations, limiting the free admission
to X3ackages of less than $1 in dutiable value, free xiermits have been
granted in cases where the duties amounted to less than $2, for the
reason, as reported in the letters of my x3redecessors of December 19,
1865, and JUI3?' 17, 1869, that the cost of collection would exceed the
aniount of duties. * * * Such xiractice by this office as reported by
my predecessors was not disapproved by the Dexiartment."
The Department is not aware of any regulation fixing the limit at $5,
but, as you refer to such a limit, xilease fiirnish the Department b3^ return
mail with whatever information you have in regard to this matter.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
H. S. BEATTIE, Esq.,
Surveyor of Customs, New York City.
No. 110.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK,
Surveyor's Office, October 16, 1885.
SIR : Eeferring to your communication of the l l t h instant, relative to
a X3ractice which has at times obtained at this xiort, of admitting articles
the dutiable value of which in the aggregate did not exceed $5, I did
not refer to an3^ customs regulation, but to the custom observed by the
inspectors, consented to by the apxiraisers and permitted by the collector, of X3assing articles found in the baggage of passengers, of the
amount aforesaid in dutiable value, free. The practice, as I am in-
662
REPORT
O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E
TREASURY.^
formed, had become so general as to have all the force and effect of any
practice or .custom authorized by a statutory provision or a Treasury
regulation.
I have made diligent inquiry of the subordinates of the present collector and surveyor to ascertain the origin of or authority for such departure
from the requirements of the regulations; but while I have found a
general consensus of opinion as to the prevalence of such a custom ob- '
taining on the wharf, I have been unable to obtain any official record
authorizing or approving bf the custom.
General Williams, the deputy collector who represented the collecto*^
, at the barge office prior to the expiration ofthe Starin contract, assures
me that the xiractice was supposed to have the approval of the collector,
and xiresumably of the Secretary of the Treasury, and furnishes the fbllowing extract from a rexiort which was made by him to Collector
Eobertson, the date, however, of which he has not furnished, and the
original of which Collector Hedden appears to be unable to find:
" I find that it has been the practice on the wharf that when the duty
on nierchandise found in baggage did not exceed $5, to pass the same
free. My attention was called to this xiractice by comxilaints of passengers whose luggage, having been mislaid, was afterwards found in
'public store,' and upon the appraisement of the same they were compelled to X3ay duty at the custom-house;" whereas, if the case had been
acted on at the barge office or on the wharf, according to the practice
in vogue, it would have been passed free, the duty being under $5. At the
custom-house duty amounting to $1 and over is collected."
The requirements of the regulations having been so long and so generally disregarded in this as in some other matters to which I referred,
I intended to merely convey to the mind of the honorable.Secretary of
the Treasury that the strict enforcement of the regulations under the
present customs officers was not calculated to make the adniinistration
popular with passengers bringing with them petty articles, such as
trifling presents for friends, having no intention to defraud the revenue,
and availing themselves of a privilege heretofore enjoyed through the
loose practices xiermitted by executive officers at this port. Briefly, the
enforcement of the provisions of the regulations has developed complaint and clamor against the administration on the part of passengers
because they are now denied privileges which they heretofore enjoyed
without authority of law.
^
'
Yours, very respectfuUy,
H. S. BEATTIE,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Washington, B . O.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
663
No, 111.
H. W H E E L E R COMBS—Appointed United States General Appraiser December 4,
1877.
O F F I C E OF T H E BOARD OF U . S . G E N E R A L A P P R A I S E R S ,
CORNER OF WASHINGTON AND HUBEI^T S T R E E T S ,
•
New York, October, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to Department circular of August 27, requesting careful and official replies to the twenty-four (24) questions contained therein,
I have the honor to sta*e that I would have replied sooner but for the
fact that since its receipt I have been constantly engaged on the official
work of the commission of which I am chairman ; consequently I have
not had the opportunity to give as much thought to the investigation
of the subjects as their importance demands. Many of the questions
can only be answered after long experience in the customs service and
practice in customs matters. I came into the service in Jul3^, 1884, and
have had but little over one year's experience; consequently my answers
are based more on theory than practice or experience.
1. The monthly reports of appraisers and collectors forwarded to the
general appraisers show that at different ports merchandise is frequentlj^
erroneously classified, and in consequence the proper rate of duty not
collected. Mannfactures of two or more different component materials
are frequently thus errorieousl3" classified. Articles composed of silk
and cotton are often classified as "cotton chief value" at 35 per cent.,
when silk is chief value and the duty under the law should be 50 per
cent, ad valorem. This also occurs with many other manufactures where
the rate of duty is to be determined by the component material of chief
value.
,
Paragraxih 233, T. L, new, provides for "manufactures of wood, or of
which woodis the chief component part, '^ * * at 35 per cent." Someax3praising officers construe this literally, and classify for duty.nnder this
paragraph when " wood is the chief component part," although other
materials, such as silk, velvet, glass, or metal, may be the component material of chief value.
Proprietary preparations, which shouldTbe classified under paragraph
99, T. I., new, at 50 per cent., are often put under paragraph 93, T. I.,
new, at 25 per cent. Antiquities,^ so-called, are often admitted free of
duty, when they should be classified under paragraxih 216, T. I., new, at
45 per cent.
" Artificial mineral waters" are often admitted as " natural," free of
duty.
" Istle or Tampico fiber" is admitted free of duty under paragraph 636,
T. I., new, while I am of the opinion that it is provided for as a " vegetable substance," under paragraph 333, T. I., new, at $15 per ton. if I
am correct in this opinion, the loss through this source is enormous, as
there are many thousands of tons imported annually.
From this it will be seen that the rates of duty have not, within the
last few years, been levied and collected as the law prescribes.
664
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OE THE TREASURY.
2. Appraisers frequenth^ mistake refined articles for crude, and levy a
lower specific duty than the law provides. Instances, hoVever, of failure to collect specific duty, as provided by the law, are rare in comparison
with ad valorem.
3. Sometimes b3' actual measurements of the goods contained in the
examination packages; more frequently by measuring and counting the
folds and estimating the aggregate.
4. I know of no evidence of sucb collusion.
5. I am not aware of any. My experience, how^ever, is too limited to
render my answer of any value or entitle it to any weight.
6. I am of the oxiinion that thelaw needs amendment in man3^ particulars, especially iri its provisions for the assessment of ad valorem rates
of duty. All articles should, as far as X3racticable, be enumerated, and
non-enumerated articles or manufactures should be divided iuto as few
classes as possible. Classification by assimilation to like manufactures
or articles is difficult, uncertain, aud varying. Non-enumerated manufactures might be classed under a few xirincixial heads, such as cotton,
silk, flax or jute, wool, wood, iron or metal, &c., not to be.determined by
the "comxionent n;iaterial of chief value," but by its di8tiuctive and
prominent features. I am not a..ble to state how many suits are X3ending now at Boston, New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. I am of
ttie bpinion that the existing judicial system can be made sufficient to
try cases arising out of taxation levied for customs or revenue if worked
efficiently.
..
7. I t is impossible for me to specify the class of articles.
8. It has probably been due to ignorance, mistake, and in some cases
possibly to dishonesty or cbrrux3t influences. I know of no evidence to
show guilty knowledge or conspiracy on the part ofthe higher class of
Treasuiy or customs officials..
9. I am unable to answer.
'
.
10; There is doubt, confusion, and conflict of oxiinion in the appraisers' departmeut as to the elements to be ascertained in arriving at
market value. Especially is this so with respect to coverings (both inside and outside), charges, &c. Many appraising officers, as wellas
merchant appraisers, regard bona fide X3uichases, although below the
ruling market value in the open market, as dutiable value. Prices in
tbe ox)en markets vaiy according to the magnitude of the transaction,
and it is often difficult for the apffraising.officer to determine whether
the x>rice for small, inedium, or large lots is the true market value. I am
unable to state whether the " time, place, and standard to be applied is
idread3^ defined by the statutes in the ox3inion of the examiners, assist. ant appraisers, and apxiraisers." Inmy own opinion they are.
11. It seems to me imx30ssible to estimate or ascertain the amount of
undervaluation b3'the apx)raiser. An average of the undervaluations
by importers might be made, it <Z axipraisers have kept arecord of their
x?
" additions" to make market value.
12. I should say the examiner is primarily responsible. Salaries vary
at different x3orts and are in my oxiinion entirely too low to command
or retain the services of competent men. Business houses'pay much
higher salaries to men who possess the expert knowledge requisite to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
665
qualify them for tbe position of examiner. In the ordinary course of
business at the large ports the appraiser can do but little else than certify the values fbund by his assistants.
13. I do not know.
14. If false values have been habitually and systematically reported
to the several collectors, and if the tariff law has not been faithfull^^
executed, it can be fairly said the failure has come of dishonesty or
corruption, and been accompanied by guilty knowledge on the part oj
some Treasury or customs officials. I have no knowldege of any money
having been xiaid to American officials to get false reports of dutiable
value.
'
15. I know of no reason why the same influences should not be
brought to bear, or w^hy they should not prove as successful in the future as in the x>ast.
16. I answer in the affirmative to both inquiries embraced in this
question.
17. I am unable to say.
18. I do not think it practicable in the large American consular districts for the consular agents, no matter how numerous or alert, to personall3^ examine articles to be shipxied from thence to American ports,
and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. I do not know of any
consular district where the "American consular officers could safely
and surely ascertain and report the true invoiced values of evei^y shipment." It is not likely that foreign Governments would abstain from
comx3laints to this Government if vexatious delays were occasioned in
examining and certifying invoices. I cannot state what fees are exacted
in London and in England for the certification of invoices. Invoices
of merchandise of less value than $100 are not usually certified,
19. The ascertainment of "market value "should, I think, be left entirely with the appraiser. The Secretary of the Treasuiy should, however,
have the power to direct appraising officers as to what place should be
taken as theprincipal market of any country for a given article ofmerchandise so. that all importations ofthe same goods from thesame country would be assessed fbr duty at the same market value. I am also of
the opinion that he should have the power to direct as to what elements
shall be consideied in the ascertainment of dutiable value for merchandise not sold.or offered fbr sale in the open markets.
20. I have been so constantly engaged on other official business as to
render it impossible for me to prepare the statement desired.
21. It is generally believed that such X3ractices do exist. 1 have no
knowledge upon the subject. It might be prevented if the penalty for
not declaring tbe contents .ot the baggage was made sufficient to deter
travelers from attempting to get dutiable goods through as baggage.
22. High rales of duty make smuggling, undervaluation, and evasion ol the law profitable, consequently the attempts to smuggle and
'666,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
undervalue is more frequent npon this class of goods than upon those
where,the duty is lower.
23 and 24. I cannot answer.
^
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. W H E E L E E COMBS,
U. S. General Appraiser.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, B . 0.
No. l l l j .
GEORGE Y. BROWER—appointed United States general appraiser J u l y 3,1885.
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 ,
CORNER OF WASHINGTON AND H U B E R T S T R E E T S , .
New York, October 12, 1886.
: I regret that I am unable to give you any information ofvalue in answer to your letter of August 27, 1885, and the inquiries
there propounded, having been in the customs service for only three
months last past, and that time has been very busily occupied in the
learning of reappraisements.
I find, however, that nearly all of the leading merchants and importers with whom I come in contact daily, favor a specific duty. They
believe specific rates cbuld be applied to all textile fabrics. Many of the
merchants, and in other branches of industry than textile material, are
preparing a.draft of rates for the purpose of presenting the same to
the next session of Congress. They are of the opinion that this system
would be fairer to the domestic manufacturer and to all importers and
merchants, as when they are called upon to act on reappraisements
they see the efforts that are made by a large class of impbrters to constantly undervalue their goods or merchandise.
In my short experience it is safe to say that scarcely a day passes but
more or less cases are before me where the evidence of undervaluation
is almost conclusive.
i
I would have replied to yonr letter sooner; have withheld doing so
hoping to acquire some knowledge that would be of assistance. What
I have written is simply to corroborate those who have been in the
service for a longer time and will answer more specifically.
Eespectfully, yours,
GEO. Y. BEOWEE,
General Appraiser.
DEAR SIR
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 12.
667'
'
FREDERICK H. WIGHT—Appointed CMef Clerk New Yqrk Custom-House March
25, 1867; appointed Deputy Collector October 26, 1883.
OusTOM-HousE,
N E W YORK CITY, COLLECTOR'S O F F I C E ,
September 25, 1885.
S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of the
Oth instant, and requesting official replies t o t h e questions contained
therein. I beg to preface my reply by stating that in March, 1867, I
resigned my xiosition in the appointment room of the Treasury Department and accepted the position of inspector at this ^port. After two
and a half years, I entered the warehonse division, arid have served as
clerk, bhief clerk, and deputy coUector of the same; therefore, after
carefully reading the several questions, I find that they treat of matters
that have not come within the scoxie of my duties, and what I could
say would be in the nature of hearsay evidence only.
Any and all information connected with the warehousing of merchandise and the exxiortation or transportation thereof in bond and
under the I. T. law, I can furnish at a moment's notice. Therefore, I
simply touch upon Questions 4, 7, and 21.
No. 4.—I do not believe that there has been for years past any collusion between imxiorters and deputy collectors to infiuenc6 the ordering
of any xiarticular xiackages for examination. My x3redecessor, Eobert
Des Anges, tried that business, and it placed him in the Albany penitentiary for two years.
•
.
\ No. 7.—In connection with this question, I desire to refer to the
" damage allowance'' business. Until the present Secretary took charge
of the Treasury Department and appointed a commission, Messrs.
Tingle, Spaulding, and Tichenor, (special agents,) I had been unable to
get ah official investigation of what is known as '' warehouse damages.''
My attention was first attracted b y t h e sudden "blowing out" of
several damage brokers, and their display of fine wearing-apparel, diamonds, &c.; and as I had known them as "hangers-on" around the
custom-house for years, I felt sure that something was wrong, and that
the sudden wealth of these men must be a corresponding loss to the
Government. The commission heard my statement; I furnished them
papers, entries, and invoices, and they proceeded to investigate; and
I am informed that it resulted in the collection of several thousand
dollars that had been allowed for "damage" in the report of the examiners.
The remedy, as axixilied by the honorable Secretary, was so-effective
that both damage brokers and the former danaage examiners have disappeared. As a further result, there are not five damage applications
now where there used t e be twenty-five.
° No. 21.—Money to customs inspectors examining baggage. There
is not the slightest doubt but that such practice exists; the great trouble
is to fairly detect it. The passenger is equally guilty; for if the officer
made the first advance the passenger can easily make it known to the
deputy surveyor or his representative and obtain redress. It is very
difficult to obtain positive proof of guilt in such cases, hence the difficulty of suggesting a remedy. I have no doubt, however, that the
practice is of less extent than might be supposed from common rumoi^
668
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Appreciating the compliment of a reference of the cfrcular to me, I
am, very respectfully,
F. H. WIGHT,
Beputy Coilector, and ex-officio Storekeeper ofthe Fort.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury. •
No. 13.
J . E . JONES—Appointed Deputy Collector July 22, 1885.
CUSTOMHOUSE, N E W YORK,
Collector's Office, October 5, 1885.
I have the honor to state iri reply to your communication propounding a series of questions in regaid to the collection of the revenues at
this port, that 1 am and have been for some time past devoting all my
spare time examining the questions referred to, and will in a few days
.forward the most intelligent report that my brief acquaintance with
custom-house duties will permit.
' Your obedient,
J. E. JONES,
Beputy Collecior.
Hon. S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E TREASURY,
•
. Washington, B . G.
No. 14.
B. F . WYMAN—Appointed Deputy CoUector J u l y 20, 1878.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : I have.the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 9th ultimo, in which you request me to answer at the earliest
Xiracticable da3^ certain questions contained therein, relative to the administration of customs laws, with a view to 3^our forthcoming annual
report to Congress.
In reply I desire resxiectfully to state that a majority of the questions
embraced in your circular do not come within the scope of either the
business or duties'of the division of which I have charge in this office,
and t am consequentl3^ not in a x30sition to express an ox>inion in detail
from my practical knowledge of^theyarious matters covered by your
interrogations.
As to inquiries 1 and 2, none to my knbwledge.
3. By the examination of the goods and report of the appraiser.
4. So far as my knowledge or observation goes I answer emphatically,
none. Collusion of the kind mentioned would be neaii3^, if not quite,
impossible under the xuesent system of distributing entries, which was
, intended and adoxited to X3revent anything Of that kind.
5 to 15 inclusive. I have no means of knowing, and consequently am
not in a position to answer.
16. In my opinion such a change would be practicable, and with few
exceptiens, perhaps, applicable to the various classes of imports.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
669
18. In the manufacturing towns it might be possible for the consul
to ascertain the wholesale prices of goods by visiting the various factories for that purpose; but such an arrangementwould probably cause
some delay in the certification of invoices, and consequently, xierhaps,
lead to some comxilaints to this Government. The consular fees charged
in England are 10s. 6d. sterling, in addition to which there is a commissioner's fee of 4s. 6d.
19 to 24 inclusive. My duties do not cover these matters, and I have
no information concerning them on which to base an answer.
Yery respectfully,
B. F . WYMAN,
Beputy Collector, Sixth Bivision.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 115.
CHARLES DAVIS—Appointed Cleaner, Chicago, January 1, 1883 ; Deputy Collector,
New York, September 5, 1885.
/
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector'f Office, September 30, 1886.
: I am in receixit of your communication of 9th instant,
making inquiries relative to the bnsiness of this department.
I became connected with the custom-house September 6, and was assigned to the fourth division, as dexmt3^ in charge.
It is officially designated as the navigation department, and^ all business
Xiertaining to the "entrance and clearance of vessels," "em?olling,
registering, and licensing of vessels, "• " granting protection to seamen,''
"recording bills of sale and mortgages of vessels," &c., is transacted in.
m 7 division.
3^
Your inquiries do not seem to apxily to the special duties axipertain- ^
ing to the fourth division, and, owing to the brief official experience I
have had, my imxiression is that I could not give you an3^ information
that would be of service to you.
Yery respectfully,
. CHAELES DAYIS. '
MY DEAR SIR
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Trec^ury.
No. 116.
WM A. JONES—Appointed Clerk, NewYork, May 21, 1869; Dex3uty Naval Oflicer
April 15, JL875 ; Deputy CoUector March 3, 1879.
CusTOM-HousE,
NEWYORK,
•' ^
U N I T E D STATES P U B L I C STORES,
402 Washington Street, October 6, 1886.
S I R : Before x3roceeding to answer the twenty-four questions x3ropounded in your communication of the Oth ultimo, it is proper for me
to state that, having been many 3^ears in my present x30sitioii, where I
Jiave had nothing to dp directly wit)i eithe?: th^ lentry or axipraisement
670
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of goods, but simply have charge of the receipt of all merchandise, its
care and custody while in the public stores, and its delivery to the merchant or transfer to warehouse, after the axipraiser has examined, appraised, and made return of the same upon the invoice or apxiraisement
order, as the same may be—this, together with, the supervision of the
force employed, including clerks, laborers, watchmen, &c., and the care
and custody of all Government property in said buildings, the receipt
and delivery of all non-dutiable samxiles, and the stamping with customs
and internal-revenue stamps all cigars, cigarettes, snuff', tobacco, &c.,
constitute the principal duties of the dexmty collector in charge of the
United States public stores at this port, and leave him little oxiportunity
to study in detail the intricacies of the appraisement and classification
of merchandise, or all the technical points and rulings relating to the
entry of the same.
I would further state that, as I have been able to obtain but little
"official" information as to the "results and effects" of the recent investigations into customs affairs, I am probably not so well able to
enlighten you concerning that matter as some others who are, doubtless,
familiar with the whole subject.
I will now take up the questions consecutively, and answer those that
I can.
1. I know of no evidence, tending to show that the rates of duty have
riot been honestly levied. "But that these levies have often been erroneous is evinced by the many rulings of the Treasury Dexiartment changing those rates, notably the recent ruling upon broken rice.
2. Some years ago abundant evidence was furnished the Department
to prove that certain sugar importers were not paying full duty upon
goods of this character, by reason of fraudulent weights, and, I think,
in some instances, as was shown, by getting their goods entered at a
lower classification than they should have borne. I have no evidence
that such is the case at the present time; but, inasmuch as the article in
question pays a far greater amount of revenue than any other imported
'uto the country, the field is an immense one, and should be carefully
guarded, and the only way to do this is to employ only men of fearless
honesty and tried integrity, both in the weigher's and apxiraiser's departments.
'
'
,
3. The invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are at present verified only as to width. With present facUities, it would be imxiossible to
do more.
4. Iknowof no proof at this time of such collusion. With the present
*j3^stem it would be not only a very difficult but a very hazardous undertaking, and must include the importer, the dexmty, who orders the
goods, and the examiner, who passes them, and who is liable at any time
to order in other cases from the same invoice. From my knowledge of
the deputies who order the goods for examination at this port, and a
careful scrutiny of many of the invoices xiassing through, the appraiser's
hands during the past five years, I feel xiretty confident that this particular kind of rascality ceased some years ago, when Colonel Des Anges,
then a deputy collector, was arrested, tried, and convicted for this
offence.
5. If there be evidence of this kind, I know it not, nor have I the
means of obtaining the same.
6. I am not sufficiently familiar with the points involved in this
question to give an intelligent reply.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
671
7. Eecent investigations havesliown, if I am correctly informed, that
there has been a failure to collect the full amount of duty upon the following articles: Certain lines of silks, laces, cotton embroideries, decorated china, and glassware. Whether the evidence of failure can be
" controverted successfuUy " I am unable to state.
8. In myjudgment, from a lack of knowledge, in some instances a t .
least, if there be any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of
this failure on the part of the higher Treasuiy or customs officials, the
same is not in my possession.
9. A.S 1 have no definite knowledge on this subject, I am unable to
answei^.
10. Confusion, doubt, and confiict of opinion have, to my knowledge,frequently existed in the axipraiser's department respecting the eleriients
to be ascertained in order to fix dutiable value,^ and this condition of
things, in my judgment, arises not only from the many contradictory
decisions that have from time to time been rendered by the Treasury
Dexiartment, but from the axiparent contradictions and ambiguity to be
found in the present tariff laws.
11. In my judgment, no.
12. The examiner, whose salary may be anywhere from $1,600 to
$2,500, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The appraiser is generally little "else ordinarily" than "one who officially
certifies the value fixed and reported to him by the examiner, and has
a general suxiervision of the appraiser's department."
I consider, however, that the present incumbent at this port is much
more than that, and, by reason of his long experience and mature judgment, is better equipped for the xilace than any man who has filled it for
many years. But, notwithstanding this fact, it is of the greatest imxiortance that the examiners in the several divisions should be men of
inflexible honesty, and thoroughly familiar with the character, quality,
and.value of the merchandise upon which they are called upon to act.
Men of^this stamp we now have in the service, but they are greatly underxiaid; and in view of the fact that there is so little secuiity of tenure, I wonder we have so many.
While in conversation with one of the leading and most honorable
dry-goods imxiorters of this city a short time since, the name of a certain examiner came up, and he stated that the Government would not
be likely to retain his services much longer unless some provisions were
made for an increase of salary. " W h y , " said he, "that man's expert
knowledge, together with his high character, would, if connected with
a first-class mercantile house, command a salary.of, say, anywhere from
$5,000 to $10,000, while the Government is paying him but $2,500;"
which statenient is undoubtedly true. But a few days ago an examiner
resigned from the third division, appraiser's department, where he was
receiving $2,500 per annum, to take a position in a raercantile house
at a salary of $5,000.
No Government where the tenure of office in the civikservice is not
more secure than ours can exxiect to get first-class service for third-rate
pay.
13. If there be satisfactory evidence of this character, I have no
knowledge of the same.
14. Am nbt prepared to say that failure has come from dishonesty,
although instances of that kind may have eixisted. If money ha;S been
paid to American officials for the purpose suggested, I have no knowl-
672
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
edge of the fact. In my opinion, the failure has.arisen in a gieat
measure from ignorance and lack of experience on the part of exaiiiiriers at the various .x">orts throughout the countiy; for it is a wellknown fact, although I cannot at this moment cite a case, that .merchants of this port have frequently found it to their advantage to have
certain kinds of merchandise entered at some other port—say Boston,
Philadelphia, or Baltimore—as they were thus able to enter the same
at a less rate of duty or lower valuation than at this x3ort. My remedy
for this would be the establishment by act of Congress of a board of
experts or United States general examiners—men only of acknowledged
ability and high character, whose duties should consist in a general
sux3er vision ofthe appraisement of merchandise throughout the eiitiie
United States, with a view to establish uniform rates and uniform values
for merchandise of like character threughout the whole country. ^ I
believe such a board, propeiiy equipped and sustained by the Government, and co-operating with the consular service abroad, would result
in the saving of millions of revenue to the Government and save avast
amount of vexatious and expensive litigation. The functions of such
a^board are how partially covered by the general appraiser's office and
the special agents' bureau, but they do not fill the bill.
15. Covered by answer to the xireceding question.
16. A change from ad valorem to specific rates might be a benefit to
the revenue and lessen a tendency to bribery. But, in myjudgment,
it is absolutely imx30ssible to so adjust such rates as to equall37^ distribute
the burden of taxation upon all classes of taxpayers.
17. Have no knowledge uxion which to base an intelligent reply.
18. In my judgment, it would be utterly impossible for Americaii
consular agents to examine all articles shipped from the leading European ports to this country and verify the correctness of invoiced
values. I have no means of knowing the exact amount of fees exacted
by our consuls for certifying invoices, but have often heard bitter comxilaints by X3ersons from whom these fees were exacted uxion articles of
trifling value.
19. In my judgment, it would not only be safe to the revenue but insure justice to the importer could matters of this character be referred
either to the executive or judicial power, though it would doubtless add
very greatly to the duties already devolving upon those branches of
the Government.
20. Being a subject with which I am not at all familiar, will not
attempt a rexily.
21. Though I have ho personal knowledge on this subject, I have
good reason to believe that i h e practice X3revails to a greater or less
extent at the leading ports. But whether it can be xirevented, and how,.
is a problem that I am unable to solve.
Some few years ago a reverend gentleman, president of one of the
leading colleges of the countr3^, arrived from a summer trip in Europe,
and while chatting in my office and waiting for the X3ermit for some
articles which he had brought over and which were dutiable, I asked
if he had had any trouble about the examination of his baggage on the
dock. "Oh, no," said he, " I never have any trouble in that regard;
I usually give the insxiector five or ten dollars, and always get along
nicely." I suggested that, inasmuch as it was a violation of the law,
and tJliat inspectors were likely to X3ass dutiable articles free for xiersons
who treated them so generously, that it was hardly the right thing to
do? " But,'' said he, '' we 4op' t do it fpr that purpose at all, but simply
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
673
as a recognition of the officer's courtesy in facilitating the examinar
tion,'' &c., ahd that '' the custom was prevalent throughout the world.''
Now, while nearly every member of society, from the clergyman down,
is ready upon his return from abroad to fee the inspectors who pass
their baggage, how are you going to stop if? I know of but one way,
and that is to return tp the barge-office system, and have all baggage
sent into a separate room for exaniination by men who neither see nor
, come in contact v i t h the passengers.
22. Have not sufficient definite information upon this point to answer
intelligently. "
'
.
.
23. Doubtless it has.
24. Am unable to answer this question, but presume it can be satisfactorily answered by the officer in charge of the law division of t h e
custom-house pr the United States district attorney.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. A. JONES,
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 117.
N. G. WILLIAMS—Appomted Deputy CoUector July 1, 1872; Entry-clerk July 20,
" 1877 ; Deputy CoUector July 22, .1878, and August 6, 1881.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK CITY,
Collector's Office, October 8, 1886.
S I R : Eeferring to your circular letter of the 19th ultimo, marked
confidential, propounding twenty-four questions relating to customhouse affairs, I have the honor to reply in answer to Questions 1 and 2
I have no evidence pro or con.
Question 3.—The tests and measurements belong peculiarly to the
appraiser only. However, I know that in the case of woollen goods
the verification is made by counting the number of pieces, and then
weighing one piece. The weight governs the quantity; when there is
any doubt factual measuioment is made. Upon the appraiser's report
to the collector the liquidating clerks verify the accuracy of the invoiced
quantity with such report, and liquidate accordingly.
Question 4.—Working under the present system of numbering entries
and distributing to the entry clerks pro rata, cqllusion with the importer is practically impossible. I know of no evidence in recent years ^
implicating deputy collectors in such practices.
Question 6. —During the administration of Collector Merritt, the '' civilservice" board of examiners, of which I was then chafrman, were or-.
dered to investigate the whole force of assistant weighers, and report
. upon their competency. In the performance of that duty we visited
every pier in this collection distiict, and witnessed the actual work of
each weigher, critically examined each dock-book, and closely examined each officer as to his duties. We reported the force to be generally
efficient, but we found a' few officers who did not or could not figure up
their own books. In one case, where the imxiorter had demanded actual
tare, we found the weigher absent in a liquor saloon one-quarter mile
away, and the importer's agent in possession ofthe dock-book, making
43 A
674
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY^
weight and tares for himself, I immediately reported the facts to the
collector; the officer was at once suspended, and dismissed the following day.
While making this investigation, I discovered some practices which,
^ in my individual judgnient, seemed to be radically wnrong, viz : Permission is granted to unlade sugar from the importing vessel into lighters,
and transxiorted thence to and discharged into the private shed of the
sugar-refining company. An assistant weigher is, or was at that time,
detailed permanently to duty at such refinery. My argument with the
collector was that, considering the frailty of humanity and the sharp
competition in the sugar trade, it was wrong to expose an officer whose
pay amounts to but $3 or $4 per day to the great temptation incident to
such a responsible place.
As it seems to be impracticable to weigh the sugar at the vessel's wharf,
I can only suggest that the weighers be alternated for every cargo.
The employment of temporary^ assistant weighers is demoralizing to
the force, for the reason that he is apt to slight his work, or, in bther
words, average weights, in order to make a record as a fast workman,
and thus pave the way for more permanent employment. The effect
on the regular weigher is that, in order to preserve his reputation with
his foreman, he is tempted to average also.
Permission to weigh on lighters, in my judgment, should not be
gralnted, as the motion of the lighter, especially if the water is rough,,
.precludes the possibility of accurate adjustment of the scales; and, more
than that, I am informed thirty tons more a day can be weighed on the
dock than on a lighter. Weighing heavy goods, such as sugar, steel
, blooms, &c., on platform scales should not be allowed; they are too apt
to get out of order, and that, too, without detection ; whereas with the
beam, the fulcrum and resistance being continually before the eye, any
trouble is instantly detected. I am infbrmed that warehousemen have
great influence in the weigher's department, and that if a weigher does
not suit them they can get them transferred. No complaint or charge
against a weigher should be entertained unless made in writing and the
weigher heard.
Questions 6 to 11, inclusive.—I am unable to make satisfactory answer.
Question 12.—The examiner is primarily and chiefly . responsible;
salary is $
*per annum. The assistant appraiser is secbndarily responsible. ' The appraiser ordinarily is simply the certifying officer
to the collector of values fixed b y t h e examiner and assistant appraiser.
But I may adid, as cognate to the above answer, that the present appraiser is something more than a mere certifying officer, for, from his
long experience ahd practical knowledge of merchandise, he is competent to criticise and supervise understandingly the work of the examiners.
• Questions 13 and 14.—Cannot answer.
Question 16.—If it is true, and I believe it is, that false valuations
have in the X3ast been induced by bribery and venality, and also that
such influences will be just as potent in the future as in the past, or
until the civil service is completely divorced from political influences,
and officers have a reasonable assurance of permanancy in their positions
during good behavior.
Question 16.—I believe the change from ad valorem to specific rates
would essentially diminish the tendency to bribery, and that specific
rates could be appUed to aU, or nesfly all, trextUe fabricSo
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
675
Question 17.—I believe that undervaluations of invoices have greatly
increased since the repeal of the '' moiety law.'' Although the law was
denounced and made to appear as very unpopular, it is nevertheless
true that it was beneficial to the best interests of the Government, and
it afforded the honest imxiorter apxireciable protection against the dishonest practices of swindling importers. The sentiment against the law
was stirred up and formulated by men inimical to the interests of the
business men of the country. ' The practical effect of the repeal of the
law has been to drive honest Ameiican importing houses out of trade,
so that to-day the vast bulk of the importing business is in the hands
of foreign agents, who have no respect for our revenue laws and are mercenary to the last degree. I believe it is this class of men who are most
guilty of corruxiting officers in the revenue service. Congress should
restore the law to the statute-book.
Question 18.—I do not think it is practicable or possible for consular
agents in London, Paris, Berlin, &c., lo personally examine all articles
shipped from thence to American ports, but I should think they could
become famiUar with the market values of the most important articles
of manufacture which are exported to this country, and by inviting
the manufacturers to furnish their consular officers with a catalogue of
their productions, with a manufacturer's price-list, they might thus gain
a fair knowledge of market values of the bulk of the goods exported to
this country. As this question relates to the certification of invoices,
it may be considered as within the scope of a full answer to state that
my present duty at this office is the consideration of applications to
enter b j pro forma invoice. Eeferring to section 2859, Eevised Statutes, it is found that in almost every case where regular imxiorters apply '
for permission to enter by pro forma invoice they have violated the
essential conditions of the privilege conveyed in said section. It has
developed that universally they have written to their consignors not to
get invoices certified for amounts under $100. Also, that some import-ers habituaUy enter h j pro forma invoice for large ambunts, claiming
and making oath that the non-receipt of their certified invoice is the
delay at the Paris consular office. I have been unable as yet to verify
the truth of this assertion, and am now notifying these importers that
they must conform to the requirements of the statute law. I have a
growing suspicion that some of these importers have made entries in the
past by _pro/(9rma invoice for the purpose of experimenting with our appraisers. I shall endeavor to defeat such xiractices iri the future. The
fee exacted by our consuls in London and England for certifying invoices is $2.50 for each invoice, without regard to value; the commissioner also exacts a fee of 2s. 6d. for each invoice.
Questions 19 and 20.—Have not sufficient data to answer.
Question 21.—It is the common belief that the practice generally prevaUs of the payment of money by arriving passengers to inspectors of
baggage, first, as gratuity for hasteriing the examination of their luggage, and second, as bribes to pass baggage containing dutiable articles
without the payment of duty. It is my opinion that the practice can
"be prevented by making one general landing-place the order of the d^y.
Then a good executive officer could soon invent and inaugurate a system
whereby the examination of all luggage would be under constant and
practical surveillance. . This plan would be quite or almost as effective
as if the luggage were sent to the "public store" for examination, and
much less expensive. The steamship companies should land passengers
676
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and luggage at the "Government pier," at their own expense. This
they now do at Liverxiool, England. In answer to this question relating
to baggage, I prepared a, much longer reply, but, uxion reading it over,
concluded to cut it out. . It was a condensed narrative of my experience
and observations while in charge at the "barge office," and which led
me to positive conclusions as to the venality which was, and had been,
running rampant through this branch of the service. As an experiment, if, on the arrival of one of the large "Cunard" steamers with,
sa3^, five hundred passengers, the honorable Secretary should, after the
passengers' declarations had been made and handed in, order, without
any previous warning, a critical or exhaustive examination of every
piece of baggage, the result would probably be a startling disclosure of
the inefficiency, or worse, of the jiractice or system now in vogue.^ Of
course the whole proceeding should be cariied out under the supervision
of a competent executive officer, and, as in carrying out a plan of
battle, every move should be inviolably secret.
Question 22.—I think it does, and I am also of the opinion that whatever may be the rates of duty, so long as competition is so aggressively
sharp, and goods are sold on such close margins of xirofit, smuggling will
continue and dishonest shippers will try to evade the revenue laws.
The chief danger from the operations of smugglers and dishonest shippers is in the importation of staples and all bulky goods which are sold
on small profits, and not, as many suppose, on the lighter or fancy articles
of cominerce; the proportion is as thousands to hundreds.
Questions 23, 24.—I have no data to draw upon.
Eespectfully submitted.
/
Your obedient servant,
N. G. WILLIAMS,
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 118.
'
> CAMDEN O. ROCKWELL—Appomted Deputy CoUector May 12, 1883.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K , COLLECTOR'S O F F I C E ,
September 14, 1885.
S I R : My line of duties while in the custom's service have been limited to, first, administering oaths on entries; second, ordering packages to public store for examination; third, signing miscellaneous papers. My absolute practical knowledge cannot, therefore, cover many
of the questions asked in your confidential circular of the Oth instant.
Question 4.—Ans. The method of distributing entries at the port to
entry clerks and deputies makes it quite impossible to systematically
enter into collusion wit^ the person making the entry to send a "false
or bogus" x)ackage to public store for examination.
Question 9.—Ans. Not strictly pertinent, but bearing on the question of dutiable values, I take the liberty of expressing myself on the
immediate transportation business. I think it is apparent to the most
superficial observer that there is great opportunity for undervaluation, even without the connivance of the appraiser, but because of his
ignorance.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
677
The larger ports of entry necessarily have assistant apxiraisers and
examiners, who are experts in certain particular lines of merchandise.
Inland ports of entry are liable to receive a great variety of merchandise, and the appraisers and examiners, to be able to fix dutiable values,
must possess the knowledge and sagacity which in larger or original
ports of entry it is fpund necessary to delegate to men well skilled in
some one or two X3articular lines of goods. Immediate transportation
without appraisement is no doubt a convenience to the inland merchant, but the discrimination which it makes against the merchant at
the port of entry, and the liability to undervaluation of goods, should
condemn that X3art of the system relating to appraisement. The appraisement should be made, in my opinion, at the originaT port of
enrtry; the goods may then be transported in bond and duties paid at
the terminal port.
Question 16.—Ans. All duties should be specific as far as possible;
whether applicable to texile fabrics I cannot say.
Question 21.—Ans. To this question I cannot answer with xiositive
knowledge. In a general way, from hints gathered here and there, I
believe the xiractice of receiving money by customs insxiectors has been
tob common. Conviction and punishment of an officer or two to the
full extent of the law would rio doubt lessen the evil. This should in
some way be done, without involving the passenger, who certainly is
not generally willingly or wilfully guilty. The fee system which prevails so largely in Europe, and the custom which prevails in some^
countries of officers collecting the customs duties immediately upon
examination, are mitigating circumstances in favor of the passenger.
I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
CAMDEN O. EOCKWELL,
Beputy Collector of Customs, Fort of New York.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 119.
WILLIAM BARRE—Appointed Deputy CoUeotor July 1, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE,
N E W Y O R K CITY, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
September 10, 1885.
S I R : Your confidential cir.cnlar of Oth instant duly received. My
recent appointment to the customs service (August 1, 1885) renders
it quite imxiossible to furnish the Department at this time with information of any practical value.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. BAEEE,
Beputy Collector..
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
678
REt>oRt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.,
No. 120.
N. B. BARTRAM—Appomted Weigher July 8, 1879, and August 8, 1881.
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK CITY, COLLECTOR'S O F F I C E ,
September 28, 18^5.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of September 9, a u d i o reply as follows: I may begin by
saying that my position is that of deputy collector in charge of the fifth
division. The fifth division is divided into two bureaus, viz., the bureau
of the entry of merchandise for warehouse and consumption, and the
bureau of liquidations. The former is composed of the entry clerks
and their assistants, (stampers, messengers, &c.,) who make the X3reliminaiy estimate of duties on which goods are delivered to the importer, except cases ordered" for examination, (a penal bond being
taken.on all entries for consumption for the x3roduction of any or all
of the goods so delivered in case they should be required by the collector.) Second, the bureau of liquidations, where the invoices, having been returned by the appraiser, are got together with the entries,
weigher's and gauger's returns, &c., and are adjusted, and additional
or refund duty ascertained.
There are other duties imposed uxion me, notably the granting of all
'' free permits,'' which a reference to the assignment card issued by
the collector will show.
Question 1.—To my knowledge, I say none. All entries are liquidated upon the appraiser's and weigher's or gauger's returns, and
w^hen inspecting these, if the liquidators note any deviation from the
laws or regulations, the returns are sent back for correction and adjustment. These liquidations are all submitted to the naval officer,
where they are carefully scrutinized and not passed until, in their
opinion, they are correct. Granted, then, the honesty and ability of
the appraiser, there can be no doubt that the legal duty is collected.
Question 2.—I say no. In my opinion the weigher's arid gauger's
departments were never in better condition than now. I had charge
as weigher, five years since, of a large and imxiortant district for about
six months, and the only possible chance that I could see for any crooked
work was in the case o f " t a r e s . " On all heavy goods, as sugar, &c.,
'' actual t a r e ' ' is ascertained, and it is only on such goods (as it cannot be ascertained on the wharf without damaging the goods) as bristles,
fancy soaps, &c., that itis furnished by a clerk called the " t a r e clerk,"
who visits the importer's store and there weighs and tares the goods, or, quite as frequently, takes a memorandum of the tare from the im^
porter and furnishes it to the weigher. I gave considerable attention
to this subject, but could see no remedy for it except in employing a
different grade of clerk. The man that Was furnished to me for this
duty received $2.50 per day.
Question 3.—The appraiser reports on the invoice the weight or measurement of all textile fabrics, and these are accex)ted by the liquidators,
unless some error is discovered or question raised by the liquidator,
when the report is referred back.
Question 4.—I answer, absolutely none. I order no cases for examination myself, being too busily engaged otherwise; but the entries are
all furnished to the deputies, who are seated immediately in my rear.
All entries are received by one clerk—receiving clerk—who notes the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
679
number of the entry on a sheet numbered for the purpose each day.
He then notes in pencil on the entry the number of the entry and the
initial of the entry clerk to whom it comes, and it then goes to the
stamper, who stamps the number on the bill of lading, the entry, the
invoice, and the permit; thus all the vital parts of the entry bear the
same number clearly and legibly stamped thereon. After being
stamped, the entries are distributed to the entry clerksin series of two,
as called for by the numbers. From the entry clerk, after being passed
by him, the entry is xiut into a leather bag and transmitted to the naval
office. After being passed there, it is returned in the same manner to
the collector's office, (its departure for the naval office and its return
to the collector's office being noted on a numbered sheet.) The entries
are then distributed by a messenger pro rata among the deputies, who
order the cases. Thus it will be seen that no entry clerk knows w^hose
entry he is to pass, and no deputy knows whose entry he,will order
the cases upon. To successfully order a dummy case would require a
combination of at least a dozen men. T h e receiving clerk, the entry "
clerks, and the stampers and messengers are all under my immediate
eye from a seat uxion a raised platform.
Question 6.—I have answered this question in my remarks to Question 2.
Question 6.—This should be treated by the deputy of the seventh, or
law division.
Question 7.—On the subject of No. 7,1 desire to say that, in my opinion, with trifling exceptions, the Department has not failed to collect
the entire and full amount of duty that the law prescribes, but that
in my belief the importers have been oppressed and treated with outrageous unfairness by the special agents. Until about January 1, 1885,
I was charged with the appointment of merchant appraisers. About
that time the collector took the appointment of them into his own
hands.. Mr. Tingle, the special agent who had charge of the investigation into the undervaluation of silks, chose to assume that there was
something wrong in the appointment of merchant appraisers, and I
suspect that the collector acted at his instigation and that of Mr. Treloar, his chief clerk. The collector (Judge Eobertson) was, however,
very particular to assure me that he had the most unbounded confidence in me, and that- he took the matter into his own hands solely
because there was to be an investigation, and he desired the utmost
care upon the part of the collector's office. Mr. Tingle, however, in
a very fresh letter to the Secretary (copy enclosed) took occasion to reflect upon me, and I answered him. (See my letter to the collector,
forwarded to the Department February 5, 1885, (copy enclosed,) and I
presume now in the files of the special agents' office.) I heard no more
from Mr. Tingle."
The collector began appointing the merchant appraisers for Mr.
Tingle, and continued to do so through his raid on the silk men, and
he was beaten continually for two months, during whicli time he made
one seizure, which was afterward released. When, the merchant appraiser and general appraiser disagree, the case goes to the collector
for a final decision. After the active participation of the special agents
in the appraisements, I remember of^but one instance in which the then
collector decided in favor of the merchant appraiser. His stereotyped
report was, " I concur with the general appraiser." An idea seems
to prevail among some officials at this port that in addition to collecting
680
REPORT OF THE^ SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
the just duties they must help protect something. The examiner who
raises the invoice reports five names to the appraiser to send to the collector, from which a merchant appraiser is to be selected. It is an understood rule that the first man on the list is the man preferred by the
apxiraiser; so that it is plain that unless you have a competent and upright collector, who has the knowledge and sense of common fairness
to select a merchant appraiser who is "free from bias," the importer
has hot the least chance.
The competition, for instance, is so keen between manufacturers and
importers and between consignees and buyers that it is almost impossible for one to deal fairly with the other. Besides, all values in Europe
during the past two years have been upset by the depressed state of
business there. A special agent came six months ago to investigate
the china and glass ware importers. I know him very well, and believe
him to be a good officer. I took occasion to say to him that if he found
anything wrong with a certain large firm I should lose my faith in humanity, as I had known all three of the gentlemen for years, and I
believed them to be strictly honest. He made two cases against them,
in one of which the examiner raised one invoice 61 per cent, and the
other 50 per cent. A merchant appraiser was demanded, and the merchant appraiser advanced the first invoice 4^^ per cent., and the general appraiser 11-^ per cent. In the second case the merchant appraiser
sustained the invoice, and the general appraiser advanced it 50 per
cent. Both cases, consequently, went to the collector for decision, and
he, after a patient and careful investigation, sustained the merchant
appraiser in both cases. Thus, after a delay of six months, the importer
-gets his goods, after having locked up in general order store 1,200 cases
during that time, which he dare not enter without a decision, having
been unable to keep contracts and suffered heavy losses meanwhile.
This treatment will breal^ any but the strongest house. In these cases
the examiner is absolutely under the control of the special agent, and
thinks if he fails to obey him and raise an invoice at his dictation he
will surely lose his place, so that the only hope, a merchant has is in a
courageous collector. Now for the result: The importer had a right,
it seems to me, to expect that the result of these two test cases, from
which there was no appeal, would mean something, but the apxiraiser
informed him that he should again advance his invoices unless he consented tb add 15 per cent. To go through this system of appeal again
was simply ruin; he consequently raised his invoices. Please bear in
mind that these invoices, from the first advance by the appraiser, then
the appeal to a merchant appraiser, then the decision ofrthe collector,
and afterward the adjustment by the liquidation, are all under my eye,
and receive my personal attention at every stage.
Question 8.—It has not come about, in my opinion.
^ Question 9.—My remarks on No. 7 may be axiplied in answer to this
query.
Question 10.—Let the exaininers and appraisers answer.
Question 11.—The invoices on ^ e in the New York custom-house will
show the advances made by the appraiser, but these advances are no
test of undervaluation. A merchant will frequently stand an advance
of less than 10 per cent, to get possession of his goods. Delay and detention is death to him, and if he can see any possible way in which
he can avoid loss by standing the advance he will do so. In other
words, the small advance of an invoice is but a sweating device of the
examiner and special agent.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.681
Question 12.—The assistant appraiser is the man who should be held
responsible. He is supposed to examine every invoice and to certify
it to the appraiser. He signs the return on the invoice, while the appraiser's name is merely stamped upon the invoice in a perfunctory
way.
Question 13.—No knowledge, on this point.
Question 14.—This query is answered in niy foregoing remarks. I
have no knowledge of the use of money.
. \
Question 15.—See answer to No. 14.
Question 16.—Undoubtedly it would. I believe specific rates can be
applied generally to the tariff.
Question 17.—No. This law was properly repealed; it produced the
infamous " J a y n e . "
Question 18.—
Question 19.—Undoubtedly greater jurisdiction should be given to
the executive or judicial power. Any merchant who has an invoice
raised should have the privilege of demanding that his goods be seized
by the collector, (claims for damages being waived.) This would bring
the case into court and a trial speedily be had.
Question 20.—The rates on w^ool are now entirely specific, as provided for by the tariff of 1883, and not a conibination of specifics and
ad valorems. The whole trouble with the tariff is ,that it places the
dividing-line between 2i and 5 cents at 12 cents per pound. . Now,
this is just about the price of Scotch Highland wool, and by allowing
a 2J per cent, discount and 1 per cent brokerage the price is reduced
below 12 cents, and a saving of 100 per cent, in duties accomplished.
The same is also true in regard to Donskoi wool, whereby an addition
of charges, the same, result is accomplished. In my opinion, if the
dividing-line was fixed at 10 cents instead of 12 cents, all the trouble
would cease.
Question 21.—There is no doubt but that arriving passengers " t i p "
the officers on the dock, much as you would a waiter at a hotel. This
is the general feeling in the case. This is now, however, at a minimum, and I do not believe it can ever be thoroughly stopped.
Question 22.—I think not.
Question 23.—I have no knowledge of any other port.
Question 24.—I believe that the false reports have been made under
instructions from the special agents; that the sxiecial agents have
been working in their own interest to get up an excitement, and to
show that they (the special agents) are indispensable. Their very
failure to procure the arrest or indictment of anybody is x3roof positive, to my mind, that they are frauds.
Yours, very respectfully,
N. B. BAETEAM,
Beputy Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
682
REPORT OF. THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 121.
C. A. STEVENS—Appointed November 13, 1875; Assistant Appraiser July 14, 1883.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiser's Office, October 8, 1885.
^ S I R : Eeferring to the inclosed printed circular from the Treasury Department, signed by you and addressed to me, in which you request a
detail of facts and figures in answer to certain interrogatories therein
contained, numbered from 1 to 24, inclusive, I have the honor to submit the following answers, numbered to correspond with said interrogatories, tb wit:
1. Please see answer to the seventh question.
2. I have no knowledge that the full amount of specific duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.
3. No textile fabrics for measurement are returned for duty in the .
second division.
4. I have no knowledge that bogus or false packages of merchandise have been at an3' time ordered to the appraiser's department for
examination.
5. I know of no evidence showing that false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring is conducted on the wharves.
6. I have no knowledge whatever regarding pending suits. ,
7. On March 5, 1883 (see ss. 5604), the Department accepted as conclusive the result of the trial of the case of Drepenbroeck vs. Eobinson,
the verdict being that certain church figures, which were cast or molded
from a mineral substance are " s t a t u a r y " or "works of art," dutiable
at 10 per cent, ad valorem. The importers claimed that the so-called
" statuary" was x3roduced by students of a so-called " a r t school" at
Munich, German3% It is a well-known fact that the so-called ' ' a r t
school" of Meyer & Co., at Munich, is siinpl3^ an establishment devoted
to the manufacture of all kinds of church decorations, and has no more
claim to the rank of a school of art than the establishment of Free Eobert, of Paris, France, and several other establishments where similar
articles and figures are produced from a simUar material, and in precisely
the same manner, and which articles and figures, under Department
ruling, are returned for duty under the provision for components.
On February 15, 1884 (ss. 6176), the Department acceptedas conclusive the result bf the verdict in the trial at Chicago of the case of the
Elgin National Watch Company vs. Jesse Spalding, which was to the
effect that " enamel" (a fusible glass) should be classified as a watch material, dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem I t is well known in the
trade (which fact has been called to the attention of the Department)
that the most extensive dealers in enamel do not recognize or class any
of it as specially, or exclusively, intended for use in the manufacture of
watches, and that* a very much greater portion of it is used in the-production of thousand of articles other than watches. For ten (10) years
prior to the above-named decision enamel was classified as a manufacture of glass and returned for duty as such.
^
^
Eegarding the character of the testimony taken in the two cases
above mentioned, or the causes which led the Department to accept the
result of said cases as conclusive, I have no knowledge.
Previous to the month of May last plain, glazed, and decorated earthenware, bath and wash tubs, also plain, glazed, and decorated earthen
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
683
tiles, were returned for duty at 20 per cent. ad.valorem by Examiner
Lawrence, who was discharged from the Government service last April.
In the month of May aforesaid the articles i n question were transferred
to the second division, where they were returned for duty at 65 per cent,
and 60 percent, ad valorem, which rates have been sustained by Department decisions.
,
8. Every ohe is liable to commit errors, but there can be no excuse,
when merchandise is before an officer for examination, for his rating it
incorrectly for duty on the plea of ignorance, and if it is done for dis- ,
honest motives there must be a way of proving it.
.
I know of no reliable evidence to prove a guilty knowledge of the
failure, or a conspiracy existing among the customs officials now in office
to xiromote the failure to collect in New York the entire and full amount
of duty that the law prescribed.
9. Please see answer to the seventh interrogatory.
10. The statutes provide ample means for fixing dutiable values on
merchandise.
11. In my opinion it conld not be correctly accomplished.
12. The examiuer, whose salary is from $1,800 to $2,500 pep aunum.
The assistant appraiser must have such watchful supervision over the
examiners as will enable him to know that they are performing their
duties correctly and hpnestl3^ The appraiser officially certifies to the
collector the values reported tb him by the examiner and assistant
appraiser.
13. I know of no such evidence.
14. Eegarding this question I have no knowledge.
15. I know of no method or system which could be adopted which
would prevent a dishonestl3^ disposed xierson from attempting to corrupt
others. Therefore it vis reasonable to presume that bad influence will
tind its victim uow as it has in the past.
16. In my opinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty
is the only means by which the evils arid abuses now existing can be
properly overcome and corrected.
17. I have no means of knowing, but as a matter of opinion I should
sa3^ they had not.
18. In my. judgment it would be impracticable for any consular
agent to personally examine merchandise with a view to verifying the
correctness of quantities or of market values before shipment. If it
were practicable for him to do so in any instance, it would be necessary
for him to see the merchandise X3acked and shipped in order to know
t h a t t h e same class of articles were forwarded that he had examined
and certified to the value of. I X3resume that all consular agents are
liable to be approached for dishonest purposes by dishonest shippers.
The delay and annoyance which must arise from any attempt to examine and verif3^ all merchandise shipped from a cpnsular district in
order to verify quantities and ascertain correct market values would,
it seems to me, be the source of unending complaint and vexation.
The usual fee exacted byconsuls in England for the certification of
an invoice is $2.50.
o
19. In my opinion the appraising officer should be held to a strict account for his action in assessing values on merchandise as the law prescribes, and no benefit would accrue to the Government or importer by
a division of responsibility with the executive or judicial power.
20. This question will undoubtedly be answered more properly by experts in the wool department.
684
REPORT O ^ 'THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
J
, , '
21. I have no knowledge that money is offered by passengers or that
the sarae is receiyed by Government officials while in the discharge of
their duties. So' long as weak men hold offices of trust, and foolish
men exist and travel, possessed of a disposition to tempt them, I do not
think that such practices can be altogether prevented.
By sending all passengers' baggage, except hand-bags and satchels,
to the appraisers' stores for examination, means would be afforded for
fixing the limit of responsibility, for the reason that under existing regulations a limited number, comparatively speaking, of the owners of baggage would be liable to come in contact with the officers whose duty it <
would be to examine and return the same. Such a change would, undoubtedly, cause much delay and annoyance, as well as some additional
expense for brokerage, to the passengers.
'
.
,
22. If smugglers and dishonest shippers have the disposition, and can
evade the laws because of a high tariff*, it does not seem to me that a reductipn of duty would have the effect to diminish their desire to continue
to do so. ,
23. I know of no reason why the evils existing, and failures to enforce the* customs laws at the port of New York, should not prevail at
all the Atlantic ports.
24. I do riot know. ,My knowledge regarding the facts desired to be
elicited by some of the foregoing questions being limited, I fear that I
have not been able to give any satisfactory or valuable information in
answer to them. Such answers, however, as I have given are strictly
according to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Yery respectfully,
0. A. STEYENS,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, WasMngton, B . G.
>
" '
—
No. 122.
WILLIAM'KENT—Appointed Clerk, Boston, January 2, 1866; Clerk, New York*
January 28, 1871; Assistant Appraiser May 15, 1878. '
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiser's Office, October 8, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your confidential circular in relation to customs
matters, I beg to submit the following remarks touching each of your
twenty-four questions, in numerical order:
1. There is no evidence in this division that rates of duty have not,
within the last few years, been levied and collected according to law,
accept on such articles as, from their character, two or more rates
equally apply, and, as a rule, the highest rate has been adopted until
overruled by the appraiser, or by a decision of the Treasury. Department or of the courts.
2..Purely specific rates of duty on goods examined in this division
apply only to combed silk (50 cents per pound), the importation of
which is extremely limited in quantity, and no evidence exists that full
duty has not been collected.
3. Textile fabrics, if imported by firms of unblemished reputation, are
only now and then actually measured through the medium of a yard-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
685
stick; but if imported by firms of doubtful integrity, the scrutiny becomes more general, and in a few cases goods have been found to exceed
by actual measurement the lengths described on invoice and ticket, in
which cases they have been confiscated.
In merchandise paying compound duties, errors in weight are dis^
covered to be more frequent, and greater care required in verification.
4. Of late years I have had no knowledge of collusion on the part of
any entry clerk or deput3^ collector to send a bogus or false package for
-examination as a fair samx)ie of one in every ten.
5. Having no goods for examination on wharves, I have no knowledge of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring.
6. The existing law respecting rates of duty and differences between
importers and collectors should be amended at t h e earliest practicable
moment; the suits pending at this port alone amount to many thousands. I know not how many, nor do I know anything concerning the
number pending at other ports; many cases can and ought to be classified and consolidated, especially in cases of long standing where but
,one, or at most a few articles of the same general character, are in controversy. Many merchants appeal from the duty assessed on a grea^
variety of articles when they have but little hope and no expectation of
obtaining a verdict in their favor. Their hope lies in the fact that the
defendant's case is generally but half xirepared and worse tried. Take,
for instance, the article of so-called " silk-thread lace." This case was
tried in April, 1875, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs,
thereby reducing the rate from 60 to 30 per cent, ad valorem (in conformity with Schedule C, 42 T. I., old), on the ground that this article
was made upon a cushion with thread wound on bobbins moved by
hand. This included, subsequently, all cotton laces made in like manner. Then suit was brought to recover on "linen torchan" lace, with
the same result, and finally a linen lace made upon a frame with a '
needle came into the same category as the result of another suit, so that
in this case I have now nearly two thousand invoices (almost worn out)
as a first instalment to reclassif3^ for the fourth time, and when the end
will be reached no one can foresee. To remedy this evil 1 would suggest the creation by law of a new tribunal, modeled somewhat after
that recommended by the old tariff commission, to try judicially all
•questions growing out of said differences.
With such a tribunal in session for a few months, the docket could
be cleared and all new cases settled by a session of a few days at this
port once in three months, thereby saving to the revenue large sums in
interest, secure uniformity of classification at all ports, and in my opin-^
ion obtain many verdicts in favor ofthe Government which, under the
present system, are lost almost by default.
7. Speaking only for the third division, the principal articles which have
been undervalued consist of silks, velvets, and cotton embroideries, all
of which have undergone a thorough investigation during the last few
years, the latter article very recently. I have the honor to state that
' much the greater portion of silks and velvets are consigned by the manufacturers to their agents here, and as a rule are invoiced below their
real value; but the following statement will, ;I think, serve to show that
this class of merchandise has not reached the distributor's hands without prop^??^^44it4e>lIS being made to approximate very nearly to dutiable
. values.
686
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Total advances on invoiced values by this division during a period
of six years and six months :
1879
a880
1881....
1882
1883..
^1884
1885 (six months).:
-..-..
'
___
.$950,108 00
1,127,284 00
925,495 00
1,360,800 00
1,442,011 00
1,703,275 00
.791,163 00
8,300,136 00
on which an average duty of nearly 50 per cent, has been collected.
I also add a condensed statement of the invoiced values of a great
numberof silk shipments, with the estimated values of experts employed
by the Government at Horgen and Zurich in Switzerland and at Lyons
in France, together with the action ofthe appraising officers at this port,
which will explain the work accomplished.
,
Invoice value
Expert value
\
Apjpraised value
Aplpraised value over invoice value
Appraised value over expert value
' Francs.
4,644,455.93
5,137,437.55
- - - - 5,150,128.50
, 505,672.57
12,690.95
or 1.29 per cent, over the experts, and 10.88 per cent, over invoiced
values.
It is true that the estimates of the experts are alleged to cover the
cost of material and labor without iucluding manufacturer's profits, wear
and tear of machinery, and office expense; but it should be remembered
that great depression in trade has prevailed for many years throughout
all Christendom; half the looms in the silk districts being idle, the same
rule applies to Germany and England, while in this country public
sales embracing from 10,000 to 22,000 packages of domestic goods have
been forced on buyers at prices below the cost of manufacture. When
Parliament has appointed a commission to inquire into the causes of
this general stagnation, and devise a remedy, is it strange, I ask, if we
are unable in all cases to reach the high-water mark in prices?
Furthermore, I inclose a clipping from a morning journal which tells
a tale not inappropriate here, and explains why the silk industry
abroad is in such a deplorable condition.
Eespecting cotton embroideries, no considerable undervaluations have
been found to exist. Indeed, upon the stitch basis I cannot see how it
is possible they can. I t has ever been true that in the past very many
invoices have been advanced to make market value, most of which
covered embroideries alleged to have been regularly bought in the open
market, but were clearly undervalued according to the stitch principle,
and which could not have been detected by any other means. I could
eidarge upon this subject for hours, but as all the facts appertaining to
this question are about to be' laid before the Department by the commission in session, I forbear.
•
8. The failure, if any, to do better has not come of ignorance, indolence, stux3idity, or dishonesty on the part of Treasury officials, nor is
there any evidence to even suspect any conspiracy among higher class
of Treasury or custom-house officials. Whatever shortcomings there
may appear to be, it is not easy tb effect any considerable improvement
in the service rendered by those under my charge.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY 01 THE TREASURY:
687
9. There has beeri no conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the
present appraiser has reported to the collector any false dutiable values
unless it be in certain instances upon cotton embroideries imported from
St. Gall, Switzerland, by so-called manufacturers! In the instances referred to I have been requested to further .advance values by him,
through, as I believe, the influence of certain special agents of the Treasury, which, in my judgment, were not warranted in fact. Such evidence
as there may be, if any, to corroborate the statements of the special
agents, made by the local appraiser as against the views of the appraising officers, will probably be found in the report about to be submitted
to the Department by the commission now in session.
10. There is not now, nor has there been, any confusion or doubt or
conflict of opinion in this division respecting any of the elements to
be ascertained in order to fix or declare the dutiable value, except the
method of ascertaining the value of embroideries, the local appraiser
advocating the stitch principle as the true basis of valuation. In all
else the standard to be applied is w^ell defined by the statutes, in the
opinion of the appraiser, assistant appraiser, and the examiners.
11. No sure average of the percentage of undervaluations can now
be made by the appraiser for any year or series of years. Invoices
could be identified, but articles only by invoice descriptions. This
work would require an enormous extra clerical force, and employ their
time for months, if not for years.
The preceding table in reference to the percentage of uridervaluations on silk invoices affords a fair index of all consignments of French
and German goods.
12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector. His
salary ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum.
The appraiser sees comparatively few invoices. His certification to
the collector is usually affixed by a stamp applied by an employ^ ofthe
invoice bureau, except on such invoices as have been advanced in value
10 per cent, or more. These he signs in xierson.
13. I have no satisfactory evidence that any Government officials,
in the (.^insular department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or
connived at, the presentation to the apx3raisers of false evidence of foreign values.
14. False values have been habitually reported to the several former
collectors, but it cannot fairly be said that the failure, if any, to collect
the full amount of duty has come of dishonesty, or been accompanied
by guilt3^ knowledge on the X3art of Treasury or customs officials, except
such as have been publicly reported and punished in the past, whose
names I cannot recall. I know of no money X3aid to American officials
to obtain false rexiorts of dutiable values, or, if any has been paid, who
furnished it. I never heard of a corruption fund having been raised and
disbursed.
15. If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, I know of
no good reason why similar corrupt and venal influences may not
still continue; but from the experiences of life I am constrained to say
that the appraiser's department, as at present conducted, willin respect
to integrity, honesty, and faithful service compare favorably with any
public or private institution in the land.
16. In my oxiinion a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty
would not !end to diminish bribery, because I doubt ifit exists now to
688
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
any considerable extent; besides, specific rates can be applied to but
few textile fabrics without imposing the heaviest burdens upon the
poorer classes.
No. 17. There is no'^denying the fact that false invoices,have largely
increased in number and amount by the repeal of the moiety act in 1874.
No. 18. I t would.^not be practicable in the large American consular
districts for auy number of consular agents, no matter how alert and
skUlful, to personally examine a tenth part of the articles shipped to
this country or verify the correctness of invoiced values. If this could
be done, would it not tend to a reliance on their work and beget indifference and carelessness on the part of examiners here"? In my opinion, vexatious delays caused by the examination of goods in the several
consular districts, and the certification of invoices, would soon embroil
the two Governments in sharp controversy.
No. 19. 1 do not think it would be safe or useful to the revenues or
just to importers to enlarge the jurisdiction ofthe executive or judicial
powers respecting the ascertainment of dutiable values, which forms the
basis on which ad valorem rates are levied. Its adoption would workmischief.
No. 20. Wool is an article concerning which I am comparatively ignorant, and can offer no information.
'
No. 21. This question is one I cannot answer; I know nothing about
the subject-matter.
No. 22. I hardly think that if the tariff should be considerably reduced smugglers and dishonest shippers would cease to ply their nefarious calling. Indeed sometimes I think that Frenchmen and Germans
would undervalue free good^ from habit, if not designedly.
No. 23. Eespecting this question, I can only say that if I was a dishonest shipper of merchandise from abroad I would enter all my goods
at any other port than New York.
No. 24. I deny that intentional false returns of dutiable values have
been reported to the coUector during my entire service of nearly twelve
years in the appraiser's department.
Eespectfully,
WILLIAM KENT,
Assistant Appraiser, Third Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 123.
DANIEL J. MOORE—Appointed Clerk March'24, 1873; Examiner December 31,
1873; Assistant Appraiser August 25, 1874, and July 25, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 1,1885.
D E A R S I R : Your circular of the 27th of August asking for answers
to twenty-four questions was duly received.
The attention of my examiners has by m6 been called to the necessity
of answering/i^ZZ^/ and freely those questions.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. . 689
In regard to my answers, I feel that I have not been sufficiently long
in the employ of the department to answer inteUigently the questions
asked.
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL J. MOOEE,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 124.
'
'
, ^
FRANK HAY—Appointed Assistant Appraiser March 8, 1873.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 2, 1885.
SIR : Circular paragraphs 1 and 2.—Eespectfully referring to your
confidential circular, without date, I beg to say that I have no evidence,
neither have I reason to believe, that the specific rates of duty on glass .
covered by the provisions of T. I., new, paragraphs 137 to 141, inclusive,
and the ad valorem duties on leather covered by paragraphs 460, 461,
and 462, have not been levied and collected as the law provides.
Circular question 16.—I think a.change from ad valorem to specific
rates of duty on leather would be a benefit to the revenue and greatly
simxilify its collection.
The examiner is X3rimarily and chiefly responsible in the usual course
of business for a false return of values to the coUector. Salaries of examiners from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum.
7 and 8.—I know of no such class of articles.
10.—The place and time and the standard to be axiplied is, in my
opinion, already defined b3^ the statutes.
Statement showirig the character of merchandise examined in the eighth
division, together with suggestions looking to the adoption of equitable
specific duties in place of those now in force.
All products of the sagar-cane now xiay specific rates of dut3^ under
the provisions or T. L, new, paragraphs 286, 239, 240, 241, 242. Also
sugar candy, not colored, 5 cents per pound, and coufectioneiy, valued at
over 50 cents, per pound, 10 cents per xiound under xiaragrax3h 244.
Glucose and grape sugars now pay a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem
under X3aragraph 21. Average price per 100 pounds for the past three
years, $3. Equitable specific rate, 60 cents per 100 pounds.
Glass (Schedule B, paragraphia 137, 138, 139,140, 141) now pays specific rates of duty either by measure or weight.
Enameled and ground glass now x3ay ad valorem rates of duty under
(^Treasury decision dated October 2, 1879'(SS. 4229). These should pay
specific rates as cylinder glass at the same specific rates as colored cyh, ^
inder glass now pays uuder T. I., new, paragraphs 137, 138.
°
/
Bent glass paying ad valorem duty under Department ruling dated
January 20,1880 (SS. 4398), shouid xiay specific rates according to kind,
whether cylinder or polished plate, as the case ma.v be.
This would be in harmony with a legal decision in the case of Howard vs. Merrill, referred to and acquiesced in by the Hon. Secretary of.
the Treasury in decision dated February 18, 1884 (SS. 6180).
4 4 A
•
690
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
T. I., new, paragraxih '461; duty, 20 per cent. —Tanned calf-skins,
chamois, and enaiiieled leather: Quantit37,1,121 dozen; weight, 24,624;
value, $23,121.40; per pouud, $1.10; X3er dozen, $4.39. Equitable specific duty, 20 cents per pound.
Goat and sheep skins dressed and finished: Quantity, 1,578 dozen;
weight, 10,650 pounds; value, $15,562 50; per xiound, $1.40; X3er dozen,
$9.08. Equitable specific rate of duty, $2 per dozen.
.
Skins for morocco, tanned but unfinished: 7,803 skins, weight, 6,212
pounds; value, $3,284.76; average xirice per pound, 53 cents; duty, 10
per cent.; equitable specific rate of duty, 5 cents per pound.
Circular questions^^l and 2.—Sugar ^alld other cane x3i'oducts, T. I.,
new, paragraphs 235 to 241,.inclusive. Eesxiecting the sampling of raw
sugars imx3orted at this port I have no xiositive evidence, but have reason
to believe that for some time xirior to and during the administration of
the late appraiser, A. P. Ketchum, the force then employed, in sugar
sampling was much demorahzed. For reasons only known to himself
the late appraiser failed to even consider my urgent axipeals looking to
a thorough reform in this branch of the service. When urged by me to
remove, or even transfer, from my division an examiner who in m3^ own
mind I believed to be corrupt, he told me that this person's " xiolitical
backing was too strong." Yery soon after Mr. McMullen assumed the
duties of appraiser the reforms in this direction commenced. The corrupt and inefficient elements heretofore sCxisting have already been
prett3^ thoroughly eliminated. The sugar examiners now assigned to do
outside work are^under the immediate supervision of Examiner Eobert
..E. Bowne, and are all, I feel sure, united in the desire and endeavor to
do thoroughly careful and honest work. Nothing less will be accepted
by the appraiser. I may add that already a very decided and gratifying
improvement in the morale of the force is manifest.
Eespecting questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,11, 13,14,15,17,18,19, 20, 21, 22,
23, and 24, 1 desire to sa3^ that I am unable to answer them in any satisfactory or useful manner.
Yery respectfully,
F E A N K HAY,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon.
DANIEL-MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 125.
D. C. HALSTED—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 22, 1885.
[Confidential.]
v
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 3, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to the " circular marked strictly confidential, and containing twenty four questions relative to the administration of customs
laws," which was sent to me from the office of the honorable,Secretary,
I have respectfully to state, in reply to inquiry nnmbered 12, that, as
between the examiner, deputy apxiraiser, and appraiser, I consider the
examiner primarily and chiefly resx3onsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return of value to the collector; for the reason that the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
691
examiner, in the performance of his duties^, has the handling and examination of the goods relative to which the return of value to the collector is ma4e, and there cannot be a false return of value made without
the knowledge and agency of the examiner.
The assistant apxiraiser, relying upon the honesty and integrity of
the examiner, may certify to an incorrect return of value by indorsing
the written return of the examiner, but the assistant appraiser should
be held responsible for the return, for the reason that he has full opportunity to investigate the returns and has the power to change them.
The salary of the examiners, as inown to me, is eighteen hundred dollars per annum, and the salary ofthe assistant appraiser is three thousand dollars per annum.
The present appraiser, Mr. McMullen, is in fact an experienced official, and is capable, prompt, and efficient in giving information and
advice in all matters pertaining to the business ofthe Department.
Eeferring to inquiry numbered 16, 1 have respectfully to state that
I do not believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would
be a benefit to the revenue, nor help to diminish a tendency, if any exists, to bribery. I have no knowledge of textile fabrics, and therefore
I do not know whether specific rates can be applied to them.
I am of the opinion that ad valorem rates of duty should be applied
in preference to specific rates, as far as possible, to all kinds of goods,
for the reason that a more just and equal assessment can more readily
be made thereby; and further, by scaling specific rates based upon
actual valuations opportunities for evasions and frauds are largely
increased.
Eeferring to inquiry numbered 18, I have respectfully to state that
I believe it would not be practicable in the large American consular
districts, siich as Loudon, Paris^ Berlin, &c., for American consular
agents, no matter how numerous and alert, to personally examine articles to be shipped from thence to the Ameiican X30rts, and to verify
the correctness of invoiced values. I am of the opinion that there ate
not any consular districts in which American consular officers can safely
and surely ascertain the true invoiced values of every shipment.
The fees now exacted on each shiximent in London and in England
by our consuls for certifying invoices, even of small articles and of little
value, is 10 shillings and 4 pence sterling—equal to $2.50 for each, invoice.
With reference to all the other inquiries contained in the circular,
viz, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,14, 15, 17,19, 20, 21, 22,
23, and 24, I have respectfully to state that I have not sufficient knowledge of the subjects to make a just reply.
With reference to the system of the certification of foreign invoices,
I have most respectfully to state that in 1863, when the law was enacted, establishing the present system of triplicate invoices, and consular certificates therefor, it was believed by myself and many other
importers at that time, that the law was adopted as a " war measure"
on the part of the Government to check and prevent the secret importation of all goods, contraband of war, and that so soon as practicable
th^at portion of the law would be repealed as unnecessary and expensive. The old system prior to that time was fair, just, and comprehensive. The merchant received an invoice from his correspondent, he retained here a copy in his invoice-book, and he presented this invoice as
his original and only invoice to the collector of customs, and made oath
692
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
thereto accordingly at the custom-house, .and in the event of irregularity or fraud being discovered the goods were seized and an immediate and thorough investigation was had and proceedings taken accordingly.
I have most respectfully to say that I can not see how the ordinary
mode, as now adopted, of the certification of triplicate invoices by
United States consuls in foreign ports ca.n be a safeguard to prevent
undervaluations or false invoices of goods imported.
c
Yery respectfully,
D. C. HALSTED,
Assistant Appraiser Ninth Bivision.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 126.
DAVID C. STURGES—Appointed Assistant Appraiser Decemher 1, 1869.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
October 15, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a "strictly
confidential" circular from the Department, in which l a m requested
to make '' careful and official replies'' to certain twenty-four principal
inquiries, with their subdivisions, subniitted therein. As the Department seeks, without doubt, to possess itself of such facts only as are
known to me officially, or such suggestions as spring directly ffom my
official experience in the administration of the tariff laws, t shall confine myself for the most part in the replies which follow to the full
consideration of such of the inquiries only as address themselves to that
knowledge or experience.
Inquiry No. 1.—I have no knowledge that the rates of duty have not
within the last few years been levied.and collected as the law prescribed,
saving as hereinafter stated.
Inquiry No. 2.—I know of no evidence of any kind tending to show
that there has been any failure at this port, at any time, to collect} the
full amount of purely specific rates of duty prescribed by Congress.
Failure to collect such duties could arise only through failure on the
part of the gauger, weigher, or appraising officer, for any cause, to
make correct reports to the collector of the measure or weight of merchandise charged, in whole or in part, with specific rates of duty, or
from incorrect classifications.
Inquiry No. 3.—I am not officially familiar with the manner in which
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are verified in the usual course
of the examinations made in this Department. No textile fabrics are
examined in the division of which I have charge.
Inquiry No. 4.—This question apxiears to have been suggested by the
developments in the Lawrence case, which was a consxiiracy of somewhat extended ramifications. The evidences of such collusions come to
light not befbre but after their exposure. With thd present safeguards
I doubt if it would be possible to repeat the Lawrence experiment.
Inquiry No. 6.—This, inquiry relates to transactions not within the
official jurisdiction of this department.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
693
' Inquiry No. 6.—I respectfully submit the same answer as to Inquiry
No. .5.
Inquiry No. 7.—I can specify no class of articles on which recent investigations or existing facts show that the Treasuiy Department, during recent years, has failed to levy and collect at this port the entire
and full amount of duty xirescribed by law. This statement does .not
cover, of course, cases of unknown or hypothetical undervaluatibns.
I have not been made acquainted with the results of recent investigations, and, therefore, can form no judgment °of their value as evidence, and I have no knowledge of existing facts tending to show the
suggested failure.
Inguiry No. 8.—My answer to Inquiry No. 7 may also be taken as
my answer to this inquiry.
Inquiry No. 9.—M3^ answer to this inquiry is also, for the most part,
contained in my answer to Inquiry No. 7.
In any controversy as to market values arising between the appraising
officer on the one side and the special agent or the consular officer on
the other, (supposing each to be equal to the other in intelligence and
integrity,) I think the presumptions are decidedly in favor of the judgment of the appraising officer. The judgment of the appraising officer
is presumptively the judgnient of an expert, who is engaged constantly
in the critical examination of the qualities and values of imported merchandise. The special agent and the consul are rarely experts, and
their judgments, for the most part, are founded upon alleged evidences of value, extrinsic to the merchandise, and very rarely, if ever,
upon an examination of the merchandise itself. In other words, their
judgments are generally founded upon secondary evidence. I do not,
of course, deny the value of such evidence in special or exceptional
cases, nor do I call in question the importance of the contributory service frequently rendered by the special agents, and sometimes by the
consuls, in determining the correct market value of imported merchandise.
Inquiry No. 10.—There has been, undoubtedl3^, and still is, some confusion, doubt, and confiict of opinion, J n the private judgment of the
officers of this Department, as to the construction to be given to section
7 ofthe act of ^March 3, 1883. This is due, in part, to the circumstance
that neither the constructive rulings >of the Department nor the determinations of the courts have been altogether free from such confusion
and conflict. oThe practice of this department has been rendered approximately consistent and uniform through the active supervision and
clear instructions of the axipraiser.
I submit the follpwing statement of facts as in part illustrating the
confusion, &c., referred t o :
.
It was recently held here, by General Appraiser Briggs, that vegetables in tins are dutiable on the value of the naked vegetables, yhen such
value is separately stated on the invoice, provided that the purchaser
actually purchased the vegetables and the tins separately; and that the
vegetables are dutiable on their naked value jpZi^s the value of the tins
only when the purchase is made in the tins, at a price covering the value
of the tins.
This ruling was made in the case of the appeal of Thurber, Whyland
& Co. from the action of this department in adding the value of the
tins to make the true market and dutiable value of the vegetables.
Succeeding in their appeal, under this ruUng, they paid duty on a
694
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
value, approximately, of 47 francs only per case of 100 tins, while aU
other importers paid duty upon a value, approximately, of 67 francs
per case of 100 tins. If this ruling were accepted as correct, it would
seem that the value upon which the purchasing importer is to pay duty
is made to depend upon his own determination of the conditions under
which he makes his purchases, and it will follow that there will be two
differing dutiable values for the same merchandise purchased on the
same date, from the same seller, in the same market, at the same total
price. But this department has not followed the ruling in the case of
Thurber, Whyland & Co., and continues to add the value ofthe tins to
make the correct market value of the vegetables in all cases where such
value is not included in the entered value. It is but just to the general
appraiser to say that his ruling was distinctly put upon the ground that
it followed the decision of Judge Wallace in the recent case of Oberteuffer et al. vs. Eobertson.
Inquiry No. 11.—This inquiry reverts to the matters grouped under
Inquiry No. 9. I think no "safe average estimate can be made" bf
undervaluations judicially undetermined, or that are alleged upon evidence of indeterminate relevancy and value.
Inquiry No. 12.—Inthe very necessities ofthe case, the examiner must
be held "primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of business," for incorrect determinations and returns of the valne of merchandise.
The work ofthe deputy appraiser, like that ofthe appraiser, is largely
executive, administrative, and supervisory. He has a more immediate
and direct supervision of the work of the examiner than the appraiser,
and is in the theory of the service officially responsible for the proper
and faithful performance of that work.
In all cases, of course, in which he personally examines merchandise,
or in which his advice and assistance are sought by the examiner, his
responsibility is personal, direct, and single.
The salaries of the examiners vary from $1,200 to $2,500 per annum,
the latter being the maximum compensation provided by law.
The appraiser is very much else, "ordinarily and in fact, than one
who officially certifies to the collector the values of merchandise reported to him by the examiners and deputy axipraisers.'' I know of no
officer intrusted with the administration of the tariff laws, whose duties, ^
properly performed, partake less of routine, or less permit perfunctory
performance, or which demanded higher qualifications or more severe
and strenuous attention and application.
Inquiry No. 13.—I have no knowledge of the existence of any evidence
of the practices referred to in this inquiry.
Inquiry Ng. 14.—In myjudgment, it can "he fairly said" that the
recited delinquencies, when they have been "habitual and systematic,"
have come of dishonesty and corruption. No other conclusion is possible under the terms of the inquiry. I have no knovrledge of such
practices, nor of the "payment,of money" to "American officials;"
nor any knowdedge of the agencies employed for the purposes specified.
Inquiry No. 15.—If " false valuations have in the past come of bribery
and venality," there is no reason to doubt that bribery and venality
will produce like results in the future. I have no exclusive official or
personal information that "false valuations" have been brought about
by corrupting agencies in the past, nor any knowledge of any case in
which such agencies are "now brought to bear."
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
695
Inquiry No. 16.—In the abstract, I do not favor • " specific rates of
duty," for the reason that such rates necessarily involve inequality in
taxation, or, in other words, inequitable taxation. Such rates unavoidably impose the highest .X3er cent, of taxation upon the cheapest merchandise and the lowest x')ercent. upon the most expensive merchandise.
.Necessities are overtaxed and luxuries are undertaxed. It has been
Xiroposed to mitigate these acknowledged defects by providing a graduated series of rates, adjusted to'arbitrary divisions founded upon the
weight, measure, or cost of the merchandise.
It may be said, on the other hand, that the specific system would undoubtedly simxilify and cheapen the administration of the tariff laws,
and that it would to a certain extent neutralize the fr^auds peculiar to
the ad valorem system. But, on the other hand, it would almost certainly develop frauds X3eculiar to itseifi I think it would tend to divert
rather than "help to diminish the tendency to bribery." If undervaluations are secured by bribery, of course bribery in that direction would
be checked by a system in which the duty is not dependent upon value.
There is no possible common basis of comparison between the two systems on which the question of "benefit to the revenue" can be even
approximately determined.
Inquiry No. 17.^—"False, or, more accurately, incorrect reports of value
by the appraisers," have no necessary connection with the repeal of
the '' moiet3^ law'' of 1874. The appraising officers were in no measure
benefited or affected by that law, nor by the law of 1863, "respecting
the seizure of books and papers." I know of no certain data by which
it can be clearly shown that undervaluations have been either more
numerous or more important than before the repeal of that law. . I
think the claim that such results have followed the repeal is largely
speculative and theoretical.
Inquiry No. 18.—It would certainly notbe "practicable" for the consular agents in the large districts to " personally examine" the merchandise covered by the invoices they certify. Nor can I see that large
advantage would result to the Government from such an examination,
even if every consul were an exxiert, arid the volume and variety of the
merchandise did not make such a proposal 'chimerical. The law must
still place the final appraisal in other hands. And then what safegaurds would assure the integrity of the consuls against the temptations
that would certainly beset them if any superior weight were to be given
to their certified judgments'?
Inquiry No. 19.—It is my clear and decided conviction that the determination of all appeals from the action of the appraising officer,
involving questions either of market values or of classifications, should be
determined, primarily, by judicial methods, with right of further appeal
to the higher branches of the "Federal judicial power."
Such a change from the xiresent chaotic method (or no method) would
certainly be "safe, useful to the revenues, and just to the importer"
and the Government, and is imperatively required by every considera^ tion of equity and sound X30licy.
Inquiry No. 20.—I have no official knowledge of the matter covered
by this inquiry.
Inquiry No. 21.—I have no direct knowledge as to this alleged practice.
Eumor has grown hoarse in proclaiming its existence, and I know of it
chiefly as a matter of rumor. If such practices prevail, as I cannot doubt
that they do, to some extent, Ithink they could be corrected, in great meas-
696
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ure, by sending all baggage to the public stores for examination, or by
providing some other suitable place where it could be examined as thor, oughly. Passengers might be required to furnish a full list of their
accompanying baggage, together with a sworn statement of the yalue
or cost of all new dutiable material contained therein.
It would be necessary only that the penalties for false statements
should be made more severe than in the case of merchandise regularly
entered, to secure a very general compliance with the proposed requirements.
Inqitiry No. 22.—I do not know what '' evidence'' there is to show that
the Treasury has failed to coUect the whole duty prescribed by law at
this port, nor if such alleged failure be established by conclusive evidence, nor whether it is confined to such articles as are charged with
high rates of duty. It is my conviction that the keen competitions of
commerce would be quite as likely to result in undervaluations as high
rates of duty. The final and conclusive objections to extreme rates of
duty are not to be found in that dfrection. The higher rates of duty
are, as a rule, imposed upon merchandise too bulky to admit of active
smuggling, especially at the great seaports.
Inquiry No. 23.—Presumptively, if there has been "failure on the part
of the Treasury Department to enforce the revenue law" at this port,
there has been, a like failure, and "for similar reasons," a t t h e other
"large Atlantic ports." The agencies through which the Department
enforces that law have not at this port been inferior, in any respect, to
the agencies employed at other ports. Facts recently come to my
• knowledge demonstrate that there must be a large loss of revenue by
reason of the failure to collect duty upon the full market value of merchandise at the interior ports.^ I have no knowledge of any failure to
enforce the revenue law either at this port or any of "the large Atlantic ports."
Inquiry No. 24.—I have no knowledge of the reasons why "persons or
officials concerned" in making "false reports to the collectors of diitialble values have not been" arrested, indicted, and punished.
Eespectfully submitted.
D. C. STUEGES,
Assistant Appraiser, Tenth Bivision, Appraiser's Bepartment.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 127.
GEORGE N. BIRDSALL—Appointed Examiner AprU 20, 1877; Assistant Appraiser
June 15,1878.
.
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 ,
402 Washington Street, September 18, 1885.
SIR : I am in receipt bf your printed circular (without date) requesting "careful and official replies" to-the twenty-four inquiries submitted. Following, numbered to correspond, are replies to the questions referred t o :
.
1. —I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and
collected as the law prescribed.
^
2.—I have no evidence that upon articles which pay specific rates
only the full legal amount of duty has not beeri collected.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
697
3.—The widths of textiles are always'measured; the lengths occasionally, to verify^ those on the invoices, or tickets. Where goods are
bought and sold by the piece of a given number of yards, the lengths
are frequently verified by actual measurement while undergoing examination, using, in making such measurements, the yard or metre stick
provided for such purposes, while resort is sometimes had to weighing
to test the lengths.
4.—No evidence of collusion of the character specified within my
knowledge.
5.—No evidence of "false or incompetent or inadequate weighing or
measuring on the wharves" to my knowledge.
6.—I could not suggest any amendment to the law that would prevent
such differences. I do not know how many collectors' suits are pending in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. I should judge
that " a plan might be devised." by which these suits could be more
speedily disx)Osed of, The law might be amended so as to require the
payment of interest, at the legal rate in the State where judgment^ is
rendered, in all cases, whether the judgment is in favor of or against
the United States. The existing judicial system might accomplish the
work of trying causes growing out of rates of duty or taxes, if efficiently,
worked; if otherwise, a customs tribunal would, and almost has, become a necessity. Such a tribunal would, in my opinion, more speedily
settle disputes in matters of customs and internal taxation.
7.—No evidence has been submitted to me showing cori clusively "that
the Treasnry Department has during recent years failed to levy and
collect in New York the entire and full amount of duty that the law
prescribed" on such merchandise as is assigned to my charge for appraisement. As to other merchandise, I have only hearsay evidence,
gained from a slight knowledge of matters recently investigated at this
port, and which, I believe, have been fully inquired into and reported
upon.
8.—In the instances referred to, it came about by the then appraiser
ordering the examiner to reduce advances below the penalty point in
cases of some favored importers. These cases have been recently investigated, I am informed, and reports made to the Treasury Department by the commissions apxiointed for the purpose.
9.—;(1.) I cannot state how long the reporting of false values had existed. (2.) I aminformed thearticlesso reported consisted of kidgloves,
ornamental feathers, worsted or hairyarris, and Scotch caps. (3.) The
places of manufacture or shipment are not known to me. (4.) I do not
know whether they were shipped by the makers or purchasers. (5.) I
do not know whether a similar condition of things has existed at other
ports. The examiners' statements would, in some instances, appear
to corroborate those of the special agents of the Treasury.
10.—There has been doubt and some ^conflict of opinion respecting the
inclusion in, or addition of, the value of cartons, tillots, and other socalled charges, to the market value of the naked merchandise. So far
as I am aware, there is no difference of opinion as to the time and place
and standard to be applied in determining the value of the merchandise per se.
11.—I do not think a safe average estimate can be made of such undervaluations, and I do not know that the articles or invoices can now be
identified.
698
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.OF THE TREASURY..
12.—If such false return of values occurs through ignorance or carelessness, the examiner would primarily be responsible, and, providing
the assistant appraiser had confidence in the integrity of his subordinate, and had not closely supervised the particular axixiraisement,
the assistant appraiser would also be responsible in xiart. Examiners'
salaries range from $1,800 to $2,500, assistant appraiser at $3,000 X3er
annum. The apxiraiser does much more than '' officially certify to the
collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners and
assistant appraisers." He assigns the merchandise to the different
subordinates for examination and appraisal; his knowledge of the various classes of merchandise, and the ability of his subordinates in the
appraisal of them, enables him to so distribute them that they may
be faithfully and intelligently inspected and valued. In fact, the appraiser selects, causes to be appointed, and assigns to duty the subordinates under him. He also makes, rules and regulations for the
government of the business transacted within his department, and sees
that,^the laws and rulings of the Treasuiy are uniformly enforced
throughout every branch of it.
13.—I have no evidence that any Government officials have connived
at l3he presentation to the appraisers of undervalued invoices.
14.—If true, I think it cannot be/a^rZ?/ said the failure to collect all
the revenue has come of dishonesty on the part of customs officials.
In some instances it may be true. I have no evidence of money being
used to induce officials to report false values, nor have I ever heard of
a "corruption fund" for such purposes, or of the means to raise and
disburse it.
15.—If undervaluations have come by corrupting customsofficers, the
same means may be tried again. Whether they be successful depends
upon the honesty of the xiresent incumbents and the vigilance of those
officers whose business it is to supervise the work done by them.
16.—In my own judgment, a change from ad valorem to specific rates
would not benefit the revenue,noi* help,to diminish a tendency to
bribery. ' I think bribery could be less easily detected.^ False w^eights
or measurements could be rex3orted through collusion, and after removal of the goods the fraud could not easily be discovered. Specific
rates can be applied to textile fabrics generally.
1 7 . ^ 1 am of oxiinion that the repeal of the moiety provisions by the
act of June 22, 1874, has caused more undetected undervaluations, because it removed an extra incentive to work for their detection. This
dishonest importers have availed themselves of, they knowing that if
the incentive is not there the risk of detection is lessened.
18.—I think it is not practicable in large consular districts, such as
London, Paris, &c., for our consular agents to examine all articles of
merchandise designed to be shixiped to the United States to verify the
correctness of invoice values; but that it may be feasible for the consuls to familiarize themselves with the values ofthe leading articles of
export to this country. ^ I cannot state in which districts it cari be safely
and surely done in every shipment. I have no doubt complaints would
be made of vexatious delays if it were attempted to hold invoices in
order to examine values before certifying thereto. The legal fee is
$2.50. I do not know xiersonally what fees may be exacted in "London arid in England by our consuls for certifying invoices."
19.—It is my judgment that it would be no more safe or useful to the
revenues, nor more just to the :'mxiorters°, if the executive or the judi-
REPORT OF THE SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY.
699
cial powers had greater jurisdiction in the matter ofthe ascertainment
of dutiable value, the basis for the levyirig of ad valorem rates of duty.
Take away from the appraiser his right to apxily the knowledge of
values and the judgment he has acquired by experience, and require
him to conform to am. inflexible rule in determining values for duty
purposes, and he becomes, so to speak, a mere machine and of little
value.
. 20.—Eegarding an "analysis of the history of the several rates of
duty on wool since 1860," &c., I beg to defer to the opinions which
may be expressed to you by the assistant appraiser and examiner having charge of the appraisal of i h a t merchandise, my own experience
in that direction being limited. I would merely add that I am not in
favor of compound rates.
21.—The feeing of inspectors'of baggage-may be better prevented by
a regulation that each incoming passenger must be supxilied with a
blank declaration, having also X3rinted thereon that no fees are to be
. paid to customs officers, and specifying thereon the penalty for violation of the law in that respect.
22.—The evidence, so far as known to me, does not tend to show that
where the Treasury Dex)artment has failed to collect all the duty the
rate is too high, because it is not every invoice of merchandise subject
to the high rate that is undervalued; it is believed to be only those
entered by dishonest and favored importers which are undervalued,
and they would be as apt to defraud were the rates lower, although
the inducement is not so great. These undervaluations might be detected by employing only competent experts and comparison of invoices
and merchandise.
23.—I have no knowledge as to the manner in which frauds have been
perpetrated at the other large Atlantic ports.
24.—Some officials suspected of guilty knowledge of undervaluations
have been complained of and removed from office. Why they were
not arrested, indicted, and punished I am not informed.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEO. N. BIEDSALL,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
Washington, B. C.
No. 128.
EDWARD ROWE—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 2, 1885.
^
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
402 Washington Street, September 28, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the communication of the Treasury Department
covering a series of questions addressed to me and requesting a reply iri
detail, I have the honor to state that many of the questions do not come
Vithin the range of my knowledge, and to those that do I herewith
submit a statement in the following order: 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15,19,23.
3. The only true test that can be made is in a personal measurement
of the goods, and it is impossible to do this^ The goods, however, are
7GO
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
measured when the examiner has reasons for so doing. The usual
course is to count the turns and measure the width. The examiner in
textile fabrics in this division informs me that in an experience of. many
years he has never known any attempt to defraud by ialse measurements.
7. I n t h e article of leather gloves, I have the daily evidence of an
attempt to undervalue by the shipper, and, in the hope off successfully
stopping this X3ractice, have every case iniported sent to this division
for personal examination, with the result that fully 20 per cent, of the
invoices are advanced.
8. The examination by the commissioners of the glove business and
the testimony taken by them will fully answer this inquiry, as also the
question No. 9.
10. There is the usual difference of opinion that will arise in all.
cases where the merchandise under consideration is of a mixed character and not more clearly defined. This, however, arises from a want
of expert knowledge in the framers of the tariff act; but a regard and
dependence upon the Treasury circular, so far as the exariiiner and
apxiraiser are concerned, settle the matter.
11. I think it could be done.
12. I look upon the examiner as the most important factor in the
collection of the revenue on imported merchandise, for it is upon his
acquaintance with and his expert knowledge in connection with his
character and honesty alone that the Government can depend on for
an honest return of the revenue and a xirotection to the honest importer, as it is uxion his return that much of the duty is collected. His
salary is frohi $1,800 to $2,500. This amount of salary, in my mind,
does not command such ability as the Government should have any
longer than a better opportunity presents itself to the incumbent. Beyond this, such insufficient salaries for the talent demarided and the
Xiower possessed oxien uxi a large field for temptation in time of need.
The duty of the appraiser and deputy axipraiser, if they gave such
attention as their xiosition demands, has not only a general knowledge
of his divisions audits doings, but also that of his examiners and the
duties they perforin, by consultation on the classification of and advance deembd necessary to make, and the correct rate of duty to be
Xiaid on the merchandise.
15. I think the most effective way to stop bribery or venality, for
the.present or-the future, is to obtain the services of the best and most
efficient class of exxierts and give them salaries sufficient to X3ay them
for their, services, a xiroper recompense, and thereby render them free
fi?om temptation.
I do not think the change from ad valorem to specific duty would
have any effect in niaking consignors from abroad more honest in thefr
invoices. To my mind, the only way to X3i'event venal and corrupt
Xiractice is for the Government to have active, efficient, andv honest
officers to xirotect the revenue. Specific rates could be applied to textile fabrics, but the result w^ould be that the burden of taxation would
fall upon the poor.
19. I am of the oxiinion that a change of the existing law and practice now in use would only tend to create confusion, and still more complicate the collection of the revenue, and be of no advantage to the
importer.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
701
23. 1 am of the opinion that in the ports of entry throughout the
country goods are entered at a lower rate of duty than in New York,
owing to a want of knowledge on the part of the examiner and appraiser in a proper classification of the merchandise and tjhe foreign
market value.
^
• Yery respectfully,
EDWAED EOWE,
Assistant, Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Seeretary of the Treasury.
No. 129.
CHARLES E . STOTT—Appointed Assistant Appraiser July 22, 1885.
N E W YORK, October 1, 1886.
SIR : I have to regret that my brief service in the position that I have
the honor of occupying does not enable me to respond in a more com,
plete manner to the questions proposed in your confidential circular.
Below I have the pleasure of submitting such answers as my acquaintance with the subjects will allow me to make.
Yery respectfully,
CHAS. E. STOTT,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Cannot state.
6. Certain sections of the law seem somewhat obscure, and between
others there appears to be some conflict of opinion. To the remainder
of this inquiry I can return no reply.
7, 8, and 9. Can give no information.
10. While there exists in this division a fair understanding of the
principal elements of dutiable values, doubts of the real intent and
meaning of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, do arise, which materially affect the question under consideration, and occasion not unfrequently some diversity of opinion. There seems also a want of harmony'
between section 2499 and paragraph 92, Schedule A, in the classification
of new productions in the line of chemical salts that are from time to
time being placed upon the market.
11. Am not able to state.
12. The examiner primarily, but not altogether. The assistant appraiser inherits a fair share of responsibility in the premises. Salaries
of examiners vary. From what I have realized of the demands uxion
the appraiser's time, I would sa3^ that he could scarcely do more than
officiaUy certify the appraisements of the examiners and deputy appraisers ; but from the scrutiny certain elements of duty receive at the
hands of the present incumbent, it would axipear that his duties are not
performed in a xierfunctory manner.
13. 14, and 15. Cannot say.
16. A change from " a d valorem" to "specific" rates would undoubtedly check the tendency to certain corrupt practices. As to the
702
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
application of specific rates to textile fabrics, have not sufficient knowledge of said fabrics to state.
17. Cannot say.
18. I do not think it w^ould be practicable. Cannot name the dist^ricts where the consular officers could ^accurately ascertain invoice
values. Complaints would be sure to follow delays of any kind.
19. I do not think that a disturbance of the existing law would be
attended by any beneficial result.
20. 21, 22, 23, and 24; Cannot say.
No. 130.
RODNEY SMITH—Appointed Examiner October 14, 1874,
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
Barge Office, October 8, 1886.
SIR : The following are my replies to your interrogatories in as fuU
and exxilicit form as my limited time from other official duties will permit of:
1. I know of no evidence to the contrar3^
2. I am not aware of any.
3. This question can best be answered by the examiners who pass
upon textile fabrics exclusively.
4. I am not aware of any evidence of collusion, and have heard of
only one official who has been guilty of the act, and I am pleased to say
that he left the service as soon as his crime was proven.
5. I am not aware of any.
6. This question is respectfully referred to the district attorney.
7. I am unable to specify any articles, within my own knowledge,
where such a failure has occurred.
8. If there has been any failure in this regard, I do not think it owing
to ignorance, indolence, or dishonesty of the Treasury or custom-house
officials; nor do I know of any reliable evidence to show a guilty knowledge of the failure or a conspiracy to promote it.
9. I am not aware of any evidence that the appraiser has reported
false dutiable values to the collector. I believe such a practice could
exist only for a short xieriod in the same line of merchandise; importers
are too watchful in their ow^ri interest to permit its continuation. I do
not believe that the evidence furnished by special agents of the Treasury or the consular agents can at all times be implicitly relied upon. I
can see no reason why they would not at times be misled.
10. I have never heard of any confusion or conflict in the appraiser's
department. ' The statutes seem to me to be clear in regard to the standard to be applied.
11. I think not.
12. The examiner, in all cases, 'except when his judgment is overruled
by his suxierior officer. The assistant appraiser approves the report of
the examiner. He should have such supervisioii over his division as to
enable him to know the character and ability of his examiners, and he
should be consulted in all cases of doubt, or when raising an invoice, in
order that he may feel satisfied that all due xirecaution has been exercised for the proper protection of the revenue. The appraiser should
also be made aware of, and consulted in, all matters of any magnitude
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
703
before final action is taken and the examiner's report completed. Ordinarily, from the press of business, he is obliged to accept and officially
certify to the values fixed and reported to him by the examiner and
assistant appraiser. From $1,400 to $1,800.
13. Not to my knoiyledge.
^ 14. I am not aware that false values have habitually or even occasionally been reported to the collector with any guilty knowledge of
the fact. Under the previous administration of the Treasury, it is my
firm belief that the tariff law has been as faithfully executed as was possible ^vith its many complications.
15. If false valuations there has been, I am not prepared to believe
that they were the result of bribery or evil intent, but more likely to
have occurred from inexperience of the examiner or the want of facts
known only to the mariufacturer or the producer of the merchandise.
16. I am. not prepared to say that a change from ad valorem to a
^ specific duty would be a benefit to the revenue. I do not think^ it would
change the xiroxiensities of man. If dishonest in levying the tari^" in one
form, I scarcely believe he would be honest in the other. I am not prepared to say.
17. I do not believe that the repeal of the moiety law has affected the
rex)orts ofthe appraiser in the slightest degree. I alw^ays had grave doubts
of its utility or justness, as it gave such a wide range for the levying-of
blackmail.
18. I vShould say not. Fees, $2.50.
^
. ^
19. To my mind, the law in its present form affords all the safeguards
requfred. I fail to see what usefulness to the revenue, or what additional justice to the importer, could be derived from increasing the
jurisdiction of the executive or judicial powers.
20. This question I respectfully refer to the expert in the wool department.
21. No doubt this practice has prevailed, to a certain extent, in all
of the larger ports in years past, esxiecially soon after the war, at which
period, and for some years after, the exaniination was much less thorough
than at the X3resent time. I am satisfied that the examinations have
been improving in thoroughness from year to 3^ear, which has had a
tendency tb deter many from bringing dutiable goods in their luggage,
thereby decreasing the necessity or the inclination to fee any one. It
is also my firm belief that this pernicious habit has about^ reached the
minimum. If a fee is passed, I am inclined to believe it only intended
as a gratuity after the work is done, and not for any corrupt purposes.
22. I am not aware of any evidence that would prove that the Treasur3^ has failed to collect the whole duty prescribed by law. Nor do I
believe that by decreasing the rate of duty- a rogue could be made
honest. The motive to undersell his competitor would be thesame,
the gain xierhaps not quite so large. I believe in the Government's
ability to x3rotect.
23. I can see no reason why not; the cause and effect I believe to be
the same.
21. If such things have been done, and the culprit not complained of,
the facts are beyond my knowiedge.
Eespectfully submitted.
EODNEY SMITH,
Examiner. ^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
704
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF.THE TREASURY.
No. 131.
ALONZO P. CARNER—Appointed Clerk July 3, 1872 ; Examiner August 3,1876.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
October 7, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the letter of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury of a recent date, requesting answers to certain questions therein
contained, I make the following answers:
First question.—There is no evidence within my personal knowledge.
Second question.—There is none to my knowledge.
Third question.—1 do not examine textile fabrics, therefore am not the
proper person to give this ipiformation.
Fourth question.—I know of none.
Fifth question.—I know of none.
Sixth question.—TheUnited States district attorne3^s are theproper
officials to give this informatibn.
Seventh, eighth, and ninth questions.—I have not sufficient knowledge
respecting the information desired in these questions to give an opinion that will be of value to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury.
Tenth question.—There has been considerable doubt as to the construction to be placed upon section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, owing to
the somewhat conflicting decisions of the Department, particularly as
to whether the value of the usual and necessaiy sacks, boxes, or coverings of any kind, should be considered as an element of dutiable value.
The latest decisions of the Department, however, would seem to have
cleared up the matter considerably.
Twelfth question.—In myjudgment, the examiner is primarily and
chiefly responsible, as he has both the invoices and merchandise before
him, and, therefore, has the means of detecting an3ijhing fraudulent in
the importation, either as to quality, quantity, or valuation, whereas
the deputy appraisers and appraiser must necessarily make a more
superficial examination. It would not, in my judgment, be practicable
for either of them to have the merchandise befbre them; and, besides,
it would be almost impossible, in view of their other duties, to make a
personal examination.
Thirteenth question.—^If there is satisfactory evidence, I am not aware
of it.
Fourteenth question.—I think it can be fairly said that the failure has
come of dishonesty in many cases and in incompetency in many others;
and when from dishonesty, it has, no doubt, been accompanied by
guilty knowledge on the part of the examiners, deputy appraisers, and
deputy collectors.
Fifteenth question.—1 believe that some of the removals made by Ap. praiser. McMullen, together with the belief that the Secretary of the
Treasury has been and is endeavoring, if xiossible, to ascertain any and
all corrupt practices connected with the collection of the revenue, has
had and is having, for the present at least, a beneficial effect with those
who in the X3ast have been guilty of such xiractices; and, should the
Treasury Department relax or cease its efforts in this inatter, I believe
such practices will, in a measure, return and be engaged in by thosa
who have been guilty of them in the past.
sixteenth question.—I believe such a change in respect to many articles
should be, for the reason that the duties could be more easily deter-
f
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
705
mined, and the question of undervaluation, which has been one of the
princixial means of defrauding the Government, would not arise.
Seventeenth question.—I believe this question can be more satisfactorily
answered by some other official.
Eighteentli question.—It would no doubt be very beneficial if in all
consular districts the goods to be shixiped could be examined and the
.market value ascertained before shiximent. The market value could be
more easil3^ ascertained in those places than here if competent persons
were designated, and the37^ w^ere faithffil and diligent in the discharge of
their duties. I do not see why such a practice might not be obtained in
nearly all of the consular districts.
Nineteenth question.—As I am not a lavryer, I do not consider myself
competent to answer this question.
Twentieth question.—I do not, and never did, examine wool, and, therefore, cannot answer this question.
"
Twenty-first question.—Itis so believed, and it can only be prevented
by appointing competent and honest men to perform such service. The
presence of Treasury agents at such examinations cannot but have a
beneficial effect, provided they are also vigilant and honest.
Twenty-second question.—I do not know on what articles the Treasury
Department has failed to collect the whole dut3^ prescribed by law.
Twenty-third question.—As far as I know, it has ; and I know of no
reason why it should not be.
Twenty-fourth question.—If false returns and reports to the collectors
of dutiable values haye been made in times past, I know of no reason^
why the guilty parties have not been arrested and punished, unless it
be that they have not been detected in such criminal practices.
I beg the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, in considering my
answers, to keep in view that in my department I am detailed to examine chiefly the following articles: Spices, fruits, fish, vegetables,
seeds, oil, nuts, &c.
I have the honor to remain, your most obedient servant,
A. P. CAENEE,
. Examiner in the Tenth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
132.
DANIEL W. LEE—Appomted Examhier May 9, 1871.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
October 10, 1885. S I R : Eespectfiilly referring to your circular of September 27, containing, twenty-four questions relative to the administration of customs
laws, I have the honor to state that in respect to the matters referred to
in some of these questions I have not sufficient experience or knowledge to give the desired information.
In reply Question 10,1 would say that the doubts which have existed
as to some bf the elements of d utiable value have been nearly all settled
by the decisions of the Department and of the courts.
Probably a clearer definition of market value would be desfrable.
45 A
^
706
REPORT O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E
TREASURY.
. There.-is an uncertainty, when the price for home consumption differs
from the price for export, as to which should be taken as the correct
dutiable value. . With some merchandise quite a difference in these twO'
prices exists, especially when the merchandise is protected b y a patent
or copyright at home and not so protected abroad.
" The price actiually paid by the imxiorter, when the merchandise is
bought by fafr and open purchase, would seem to constitute market
value, even if lower than that X3revailing for the home market. This
seems to be in accord with the decision of the Department of May 15,
1877, (Synopsis, 3238,) which states that "the general range of x)rices.
actually paid for books shipped from foreigri conritries to the United
States" may properly be accepted as a standard for the "actual market
value or wholesale price" prescribed by law as a basis for assessment of
duty.
11. No safe average estimate can now be made of the percentage of
the undervaluations of appraisers in any year or series of years. The
merchandise which may have been undervalued has in most all cases^
gone into consumption, and an attempt to estimate the undervaluation
must be almost altogether a matter of guess-work and of no real value
whatever.
.
.
12. As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and appraiser, the
exaininer is held to be primarily and chiefly resporisible for a false return of value to the coUector. Of course neither the assistant appraiser
nor the appraiser can make a personal inspection of all the articles sent
to the public store for examination, while the examiner to whom they
are sent, and who does see them, must be held to be so far responsible
as the facilities which he has for obtaining market value wiU enable
him to do so. The assistant appraisers and the appraiser can approve
or disapprove of the returns made by the examiners, or amend them,,
or ignore them altbgether and make themselves such returns as they may
deem to be more correct. The appraiser is much more ordinarily and
in fact than one who officially certifies to the collector the values fixed
and reported to him by the examiners and assistant appraisers.
The correct ascertainment of values and the proper classification of
the merchandise imported are probably as important duties as any in
the custom service, and require the utmost care and vigilance as weU
as skill.
The appraiser, in addition to having the discipline of his department,
to supervise and maintain, is coiistantly called upon to decide the differences which arise between the importers and examiners as to the proper
classiffcations, and even values,' and his decision is final, so far as his
department is concerned. ^
There is probably no other department in the customs service where
the knowledge and efficiency of the head of the department exerts se
much influence on his subordinates, or where such continued' careful,
personal supervision is necessary.
16. Specific rates of duty are in all cases desirable when they can b e
justly levied. There are, however, many articles onwhich a specifie
rate would be either prohibitory on the cheaper class, or merely nominal on the more valuable. Thus, printed matter varies in value from
20 cents to $15 and more per pound; and while the present rate of duty
of 25 per cent., which is at about the rate of 5 cents per pound on the
cheaper publications, is almost and in fact altogether prohibitory on
some of them, 5 cents per pound would be merely nominal on thbse of
r
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
707
high value.. On such merchandise as this an ad valorem duty seems to
be the fairest, and will bring in more revenue to the Government.
il8. It would seem to be practicable in all the American consular distriets for American consular agents to personally examine articles to
bei shipped from thence to American ports, and to verify very nearly
the correctness of the invoiced values of the same. It is not to be supposed that they could ascertain the correct dutiable value of each ship>
ment, but they could investigate such goods and invoices as there was a.
doubt about their being properly valued. There need not be vexatious
delays, as when the same kind of merchandise is regularly exported the.
inyestigation could be continued until the consul was satisfied, and his
action in regard to the invoices could then be determined.
If the consul could be empowered to withhold his certificate when
thej shipper refused to give any explanation, it would probably, in most
insjtances, induce him to reconsider his refusal. It does not seem likely
tha^t any foreign power would listen to the complaints of any shipper
whb would not give a consul any opportunity of satisfying himself that
hisi invoice prices were correct.
It is desirable that the consul shaU requfre the shipper to state separately on his invoice the market value of the merchandise, as requfred
in section 654 of article 30 of the consular regulations, relating to the
, authentication of invoices.
Many invoice^, after giving the prices of the merchandise, state that
these prices include the cost of transportation, case charges, consul's
certjificate, &c., and an amount to cover these is deducted from the invoice. It is often very difficult to ascertain the correctness of these
charges, and t^hefr elimination from the cost of the goods is much to be
desired, and will prevent the covering up pf some fraud.
GjOvernment agents stationed abroad, who could assist the consuls in
investigating suspected undervaluations, might be of great assistance.
Thqy or the consuls might be furnished by the appraisers with the nanies
of shippers or manufacturers of whom information was desired, and the
information obtained by them might materially assist the appraiser's
department in the ascertainment of dutiable values.
19. The ascertainment of dutiable value is the ascertainment of a
fact] It is doubtful if it wonld be judicious for the executive; or the
judipial powers to endeavor to ascertain these facts. It would overburden jCither of them with a great number of appeals, the executive especially, if it cost the importer nothing to appeal. It is not probable that
either the executive or the judicial powers would be able to give the
same time and attention to the subject as the appraisers and reappraiS;
ers, jor that they could arrive at any fairer result. The present system
of appraisement and reappraisement, if conducted by competent appraisers, is likely to give.the best results attainable.
. 2i.. A high rate of duty will always cause dishonest importers to attempt to evade it, and it is doubtful if these rates are really beneficial,
either to our home industries or to the people at large. .
\
Yery respectfully,
DANIEL W. LEE,
. .
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
708
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 133.
JAMES E. WELCH—Appointed Examiner September 29, 1875; May 7, 1878.'
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 10, 1885.
BiR: In reply to your circular letter, without date, I respectfully submit the following:
In answer to interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23,
and 24, the scope of my duties has not been such as to enable me to
form a correct opinion.
3. B3^ actual measurements.
6. Tlie existing law and system are cumbersome and expensive, involving vexatious delays, and eperating in many cases to debar importers who hiave just claims from prosecuting them. There can be no good
reason why a plan should not be devised and put in execution whereby
disputes between the Government and importers should be promptly
and expeditiously settled, at a small expense.
, The other questions under this number I cannot answer.
10. 1 am of opinion that cases frequently arise in which there is a
-conflict of opinion among the appraising officers with regard to' the
proper and correct methods of ascertaining dutiable values.
12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual
^course of business, for all retnrns of values. In cases of doubt or disXiute he will consult with the assistant appraiser of his division, but
these cases are comparatively rare. In still more rare and. exceptional
eases the appraiser will be consulted, but in such cases his decision
will be judicial rather than technical. The appraiser is the executive
officer of the department, and is rarely an expert in any kind of merchandise. The present honored chief of this department is, however,
a notable exception to this rule, he having from long experience acquired technical knowledge of a high order in many varieties of merchandise. The duties of the assistant appraiser are, as relating.to
the business of his own division, analogous to the duties of the appraiser, largely administrative, and^ thus rendering it impossible for him
to make a personal inspection of goods.
/ The maximum salary of an examiner is $2,500; the minimum has
always been $1,800, until two or three years ago, when Appraiser
Ketchum raisjed several clerks of lower salaries to the grade of examiner, without raising their salaries.
13., I cannot speak as to the integrity of our consuls abroad, but in an
experience of ten years upon the docks in connection with the examination of passengers' baggage, I have had weekly evidence of the utter
and deplorable ignorance of our revenue laws and regulations on the
part of our foreign consuls. Tourists and others are constantly misin-.
formed by them as to rates of duty, and many articles which consuls should know to be dutiable are declared by them to be exempt
from duty. -Confusion and discontent are bred of this inexcusable
ignorance.
I would recommend that a copy of Heyl's Tariff, and a copy of Treasury laws and regulations be furnished to each of our consular agents
abroad, with an admonition to carefully study the same.
16. I d o not believe that a change from ad valorem to specific duties
would be a benefit to the revenue. I am unable to see how specific rates
^
f
\ "
!
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.
'
~
.
•
• '
•
.
.
709
•
could be applied to textile fabrics without bearing unequally and unjustly against either the higher or the lower grades. In iny opinion,
thej present specific portion ofthe compound rates apx3lied to woolen fabrics; should be abolished or suxierseded by an equable ad valorem rate.
18. In my opinion it would be a physical impossibility for an Americanj consular agent at either of the large cities named to personally examine all the articles shixiped thence to American ports, nor, were he
able, would such examination have the shghtest value as determining
the lvalue of such articles, our consuls being ^for the most part men
wholly without the knowledge or experience to fit them fbr this service.
19. This question relates to a subject so broadband so important that
while I have very decided opinions concerning it, it can hardly be
treated within the limits- of this communication. I will oul3^ say that I
am feo impressed with the fallibility of human judgment that 1 regard
it as. a most dangerous principle that the conclusions of any one man,
howjever gifted he maybe, should in aU cases be final and conclusive,
never subject to review.
21. With regard to this matter I have no knowledge beyond common
repcjrt, nor am I able to suggest any remedies other than those now im
operation.
_
I Eespectfully,
;
•
^
. JAMES E.^ WELCH,
I
*
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
'
j
Secretary.
No. 134.
JAMES S. DUMOND—Appointed Opener and Packer, New York, February 19, 1879^
'
Clerk and Verifier J u n e 30, 1883; Examiner J u l y 16, 1883.
»
j
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 ,
I
402 Washington Street, October 10, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to a circular from the Treasury Dej3artment, marked
strictly confidential and signed by you, with the request to answer certain jquestions, I have the honor to submit the following answers.
Questions from 1 to 6 I have no knowledge.
7. 'The onl3^ aiticle coming before me for'examination, which the
Government have failed to collect the full amount of duty, is decorated
pfaster and wood church statuary, consigned to A. Diepenbroeck, of
this city, and admitted as works of art, at 30 per cent, ad valorem, instead of paying duty according to material.
8. I do not know.
9. I have no knowledge.
10.11 have no knowledge of there being any confusion or doubt or
conflict of opinion in this department concerning the dutiable value of
goods.
11.i I t could not.
12.' The examiner is chiefly responsible for a false return of value, as;
it is impossible for either the appraiser or assistant appraisers of the
differbnt divisions to personally examine merchandise passing through
this department. The apx3raiser officially certifies to the collector t t e
values reported to him by the examiners aud assistant appraisers.
13,il4, 15. I do not know of any,
^
710
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit
the Government; and, also, if there is any bribery, it would have a
tendency to stop it. We have no textile fabrics in this division.
17. I do not know.
18. I t would not be practicable for consuls to examine goods before
shipment. Consul fees, $2.50.
19. It would not.
The balance of the questions, I have np knowledge.
Eespectfully,
JAMES S. DUMOND,
Examiner of Toys, Musical Instruments, <Sec,, Second Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of Treasury.
No. 135.
fOSEPH FREED—Appomted Clerk and Verifier June 4, 1873; Examiner September
26, 1883.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 6] 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to your circular indorsed strictly confiiential, I have the honor to submit the following reply:
1.,To my knowledge, none.
' 2. I know of no evidence that such is the case.
3. Have had no experience with that class of nierchandise.
4. I know of no evidence that such is the case.
5. I-know of none.
Questions Nos. 6 to 11 and Nos. 13 to 24 can be answered intelligently
only Uy x)ersons who have very carefully investigated and considered the
subjects referred to—a Treasury agent, for instance.
12. The examiner is privately responsible for the return of values to
the collector; the salary of such officer ranges from $1,400 to $2,500 per
annum. At a port like this, where so much business is transacted, it is
impossible for the appraiser to do anything more than certify the examiner's return.
Yery respectfully,
J. F E E E D .
H O N . D A N I E L MANNING,
.
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 136.
J. McC. FARRINGTON—Appointed Examiner September 1, 186.8.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Qffice, October 14, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a circular marked
confidential, to Vhich I reply as follows:
1. The only knowledge I have of failnre to collect the rate of duty
prescribed by law has arisen from a misconstruction o f t h e statutes.
When cases of this nature arise they are easily remedied by an appeal
to the Department for ruling upon the disputed point.
REPORT OF THE SECRETAIMf OF THE TREASURY
711
2. I believe there is evidence, but I canuot speak from personaFknowl<'dge. It, however, only applies to improper classification. Frauds
or mistakes of this nature are, however, easily detected and shortlived. A ruhng on a classification is so sweeping as to tie the hands
of an appraiser or examiner. If, after such ruling, an appraiser or examiner should not X3roperly classifiy the article it would virtually convict him of either cunning or fraud, or else establish his incompetency.
In either case the Government has a sure and speedy remedy. With
appraisements ad valorem the case is different. The market value,
always varying is fixed according to the judgment and in the best
evidence of the examiner.
In the exercise of this dnty he has far greater latitude than under specific rates, when classification is, or can be, fixed by rigid departmental
-decisions, and iri proportion to his latitude is there room fbr collusion
and fraud. ^ In my own department all the articles appraised bearing
specific rates are two, namely, fruit juices and ginger ale, and from my
twenty three years' experience, I believe to fix a specific rate for these
articles would redound to the interest of the Government and importer.
12. The exariiiner is personally responsible for the true appraisement
of all articles )>assing through his hands. While his standing in the
department is unimpenched, his action on an invoice is practicaUy final
so far as the Government is concerned, the assistant appraiser and
appraiser in their executive capacity simply certifying to his findings.
The |assistant appraiser is responsible, in a general way, for the good
conduct of his subordinates, and would be primarily responsible for any
frauh coinmitted by an examiner or any subordinate in his division after
a previous irregularity by an examiner or subordinate had been called
to his attention. The axipraiser holds the same relation to the assista n t appraiser that the assistant appraiser has t o t h e employ6s in his
division. The salary cf an examiner is from $1,800 to $2,500 X3er year,
and is inadequate to tne duties and skill required of him.
16. I have practically answered this question in No. 2. I believe that
it is l)ossible to fix specific rates to textile fabrics, although the problem
is an exceedingly difficult one to solve.
21. I canriot speak from personal knowledge. I believe, however,
from continued reports that fees are in many instances paid to inspectors
by passengers arriving at this port. I t is my conviction that this practice of offering and receiving a fee is far. raore general than cbmmonly
believed. , In my opinion there is only one way to break up this practice.
As long as the inspectors are allowed to meet the passengers the
practice will be continued to a greater or less extent. If the baggage
could be examined in a robm to which the passengers had no access,
and between the arrival of a steamship and the completion of the baggage! examination, the inspectors could be kept apart from the passengers. The opportunities for collusion would be reduced to a minimun^ and the practice thereby virtually broken up.
The balance of the questions I cannot answer from any facts in my
possession.
Eespectfully,
.
J. McO. FAEEINGTON,
Examiner Tenth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of .the Treasury.
^
712
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 137.
WILLIAM H. WARD—Appointed Examiner J u n e 1, 1876.
•
APPRAISER'S DEPARTMENT,
' New York, October 10, 1885.
S I R : In reply to the circular of the Hon. Sectretary of the Treasury, of a recent date, requesting answer to certain questions, I make
the following reply :
"
1. There is no evidence to my knowledge
2. There is none that I know of.
3. I am not the exaininer of textile fabrics, and'am not the proper
person to give this information.
' „
4. I do not know of any.
•
.
.
5. I do not know of any,
. 6. The United States district attorneys are best qualified to give this
information.
.
.
7, 8, 9. I have no knowlege covering these questions that would be
of value to the Hon. Secretar3^ of the Treasury.
10. There has been much doubt as to the construction to be placed
upon section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, owing to t h e somewhat
different diecisions of the Department, as to whether the value of the
usual and necessary sacks, boxes or coverings, should be considered as
elements of dutiable value. The late decisions of the Department, however, would seem in a manner to have cleared up the matter.
11. I t would be very difficult.
'
12. In my judgment the examiner is chiefly responsible, as he has the
invoices and merchandise before him, and therefore should detect anythiifg fraudulent in the importation, whereas the deputy appraisers
and appraiser must necessarily make a more cursory examination; it
would be impracticable for either of them to have the goods before them.
13. There is no information to that effect that I know of.
14. I think it can be fairly said that the failure has come of dishonesty
in many cases and incompetency in others, and when from dishonesty
on the part of the examiner the assistant appraiser would likely discover it in a short time.
15. I believe that the knowledge and exx)erience of Appraiser
McMullen, together with the belief that the Secretaiy of the Treasury
has been endeavoring if possible to ascertain all corrupt practices connected with the coUection of the revenue, has had and is having a beneficial effect.
16. I believe a change to specific rate might be desirable on many
articles.
17. I believe this question can be better answered by some other
officiaL
18. It would no doubt be very beneficial if in all consular districts
the goods to be shipped could be examined and the market value ascertained before shipment. The fact of such investigation would xirove
a check to undervaluatiom
19. As I am without legal knowledge I do not consider myself competent to answer this question.
,
20. I do nbt and never have examined wool; cannot answer this question.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
713
21. I t is SO reported, and it can only be xirevented b3^ appointing comxietent and honest men to perform such service.
22. I do not know of any articles the Treasury Department has failed
to collect the duty prescribed by law.
23. As far as I am informed it has.
. .
24. If false returns and reports to the coUectors of dutiable values
have been made in time iiast, I know of no reason why the guilty parties
have not been punished unless it be that they have not been detected
in such criminal xu^actices.
In conclusion, I beg the honorable Secretary pf the Treasury in considering my .repl3' to keexi in mind that in my department I am detailed
to examine chiefly the following articles: Baskets, pipes, meerschaum^
willow, amber, chalk, marbles, matches, &c.
I have the honor to remain, your most obedient servant,
W. H. WAED.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 138.
JOHN W. CORNING.—Appointed Examiner May 14, 1883.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiser's Office, October 13, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to letter from Secretar3" without date, requesting answers to twenty four questions relative to custom matters, I have the
honor to state, in answer to the questions, taking the same in their
numerical order, as follows:
.
.1. None that I know of my own knowledge.
'
2. None that I know of my own knowledge.
3. By measuring the fabrib in the piece per inch or per yard and calculating the whole amount with the inch or yard as the unit, comparing^
and verifying the result with the statements contained on the invoices.
4. None that I know of my own knbwledge.
5. Eegarding bulk3^ merchandise paying duty by weight or measure,.
I am unable to speak, not having ,the handling of the same. With regard to small articles, however, contained in passengers' baggage, inadequate weight or measure cannot be otherwise than often taken, owing
to the absence at the time of an3^ proper imxilements. for determining
the weight or measure.
6. My answer is only that of a layman, as I have no knowledge of
the court business involved in suits with the collector, and can only
venture the expression that in my judgment the adoption of specific
duty would correct many of the evils complained of.
7. None than I know of my own knowledge.
8. Answered by reply to previous questions.
•
9. I am ffot acquainted with custom-houses of any other port than
New York, and have no personal knowledge that the appraiser there
has ever reported an3" false dutiable values.
10. There has been and is considerable doubt and conflict of opinion
about the question of charges which many importers claim are exempt
from duty under section 7, act March 3, 1883.
714
REPORT'OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
11. There being such decided and difference of opinion regarding
undervaluations, that in my judgment any estimate of the same would
-be orily speculative.
.
*
12. The examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, and his salary
varies from $1,400 to $2,500 per annum. Under several administrations of the office, I am informed the appraiser was not much else than
one who certified to the collector the values fixed and reported to him
by the assistant appraiser.
13. None that I know of my own knowledge.
14. I am unable to answer this question from any personal knowledge
or belief on the subject.
15. No reason unless it be the vigilance of the administration now in
power.
16. In my judgment specific duties are to be preferred to ad valorem,
and if there were an accommodating spirit among interested parties,
•could be applied to all textile fabrics.
17. I have not sufficient specific information to answer this question.
18. My answer must be the same as that made to the previous question.
>
19. In myjudgment the courts of the United States should have
jurisdiction to interfere when the advances involve charges, and ih all
other cases when the advances are greater than 5 per cent.; and also
in the case of all advances of a less amount where the importer shows
an actual purchase and sale^
20. Not being an expert examiner of wool, I am unable to answer the
question.
21. I have no personal knowledge of any such practice existing at
the port of New York.
22. I do not possess sufficient iriformation on this point to express an
opinion.
23. Answered by previous question.
24. Not possessing any personal information or knowledge that false
returns or reports have been made to the collector, I am unable to make
further answer to the inquiry.
All of which is respectfully submitted by
JNO. W. COENING,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 139.
GEORGE C. HAMMILL—Appointed Examiner June 29, 1878.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 20, 1885.
S I R : In reply to your circular of inquiry (marked ''strictly confidential") on the subject of our custom laws, their operation, evasion,
&c., is at hand, and finds me, 1 am. sorry to confess, wholly unable to
render any valuable assistance to the Department in its consideration
of this important matter.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
715
A majority of the questions propounded are addressed to speciaUsts
in branches of the service very diff'erent from the one in which I have
the honor of serving.
O n t h e subject of our consular service and the practicability of a,
closer examination of goods before their shipment, together with all
questions touching our custom relations abroad and custom reforms
at home, I do not feel myself sufficiently the "political economist" to
venture an opinion, which would of necessity be both crude and unprofitable.
The 12th question is the only one of the many to which I am able to
give even a comparatively comprehensive answer. As between the
examiner, deputy appraiser, and the appraiser himself, I look upon the
examiner as the official primarily responsible in the usual courseof
business for a false return of value to the collector. It is the examiner
who inspects and grades the importation, and upon his report is based
the subsequent action of the deputy appraiser and the appraiser him.selfi
As to whether or not the^ appraiser is ordinarily only an unnecessary
middle man between examiner and collector, I can offer no opinion;
certainly his duties embrace the certification of examiners'-reports and
their transfer to the collector. What pther or more important jurisdiction he may have I am unable to say. My reason for fixing upon the
examiner as the one most likely in the ordinary course of events to attempt a false return of valuation, arises from the fact that collusion in
this case would embrace only importer and examiner, whereas in the
case of a false return from appraiser to collector unless an understanding existed between importer, examiner, and appraiser, the danger
would be so greatly augmented as to render the scheme unfeasible.
I do not think that in our xmblic service this latter example of systematized machine work, dishonesty is as liable to be put into oxieration
as the individual unfaithfulness in the first case, when a single transaction between importer and examiner settles the business, and in^a great
measure confines and minimizes the risk.
I can only say in response to the question asking for direct information on existiug irregularities j n the service, that I know of none; and,
allow me in this connection to assure you that as an honorable man and
honest official I shall ever protect the administration of my department
atfairs with watchful interest and best service as a i r u s t , the violation
of which affects my personal honor.
With many regrets for the unavoidably meager contents of this letter,
and with assurance of my willingness to assist you in any manner and
to any extent consistent with my information, I have the honor to be;
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. E, C. HAMMILL,
Examiner, Cigar Bepartment, Tenth Bivision.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
716
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
-.No.-140.
JOHN Q. MITCHELL—Appointed Clerk, New York, July 14, 1881; Examiner J u n e
13, 1882; Discontinued June 26, 1884; Appointed Examiner May 18, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiser's Office^ October 6, 1885.
S I R : Respectfully referring to your confidential circular containing
twenty-four questions relative to the administration of the customs laws,
I have the honor to submit the following replies. The length and character of my experience in the customs service have afibrded few opportunities for me to obtain exact information on most of the subjects to
which your questions relate. As an examiner of books and printed
matter my work is and has, been distinct from other subdivisions of het
appraiser's department.
'
., 1. This is the whole question of classification, which is fully as difficult
and important as the question of value. Evidence that improper classi- ^
fications have been made has recently been published in the daily papers. For example, it has been affirmed and reaffirmed that ^'cleaned
rice" (dutfable at 2^ cents per pound), purposely coated with meal, has
been imported and.classified as ^^uncleaned rice" at I J cents xier pound.
2. Not within my knowledge.
3. Actual measurements are made as often as practicable, or as often
as it is deemed necessabr3^
^
4. I know of no such evidence.
.
5. I have never had an occasion or an opportunity^to learn anything
of this work or of the men who perform it.
6. I can reply to this question only that I know that a large number
of such suits are now pending; that a suit is not reached or tried from
one to three years after i t i s begun; and that in myjudgment a n e w
tribunal is needed, as the present system is not sufficient.
' 7. Laces, embroideries, green and dried fruits, glass, et al.
8. The failure was due to both ignorance and dishonesty of Treasury
officials and dishonesty of importers. Some mistakes must be made
and some improper classifications will be^ made while man's judgment
remains fallible.' But there is evidence that some of the highest officials
in the apxiraiser's department under the last administration did know
of and promote that failure.
9. There is such evidence against ex:-Appraiser Ketchum, but I have
never heard the slightest charge of any kind against Appraiser McMullen. Against the former are the statements of both consuls and
special agents.
.
10. The place, time, and standard seem to be fixed, yet confusion
arises in a great many ways. In a great many cases it is not clear
whether the value of the case, covering, can, card, &c., which contains
the^^oods should be included in their dutiable value or not.
11. I have no basis upon which to make such an estimate.
12. The examiner is chiefly responsible. His salary is from $800 to
$2,500 xier annum. Yet questions of classification and value in dispute
are submitted^every day to the appraiser, and his decision, of course, is
accepted by the examiner; so many of the 'most important classifications and appraisements are really the work of the appraiser himself
. 13. Not within my knowledge.
.
R E P O R T OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
717
15. The fact that there is an entirely different and much superior man
now at the head of the appraiser's department. Appraiser McMullen
had been an examiner in this department thirty-three years, and knew
his men. All whom I suspected of being dishonest were promptly dismissed.
^
16. Yes. 1 think it could be applied to all textile fabrics.
17. I do not think so.
18. It would not. Yery little weight is attached to a consular certificate. An invoice with a certificate is examined and verified just as
carefully as one with no certificate attached.
19. I do not think it would be expedient.
20. Wools are divided into three classes, yet the first and second
classes pay the same rate of duty. There has been but one change in
the wool tariff since 1867. By the law of 1867 wools of the first and
second classes worth less than 32 cents per xiound paid 10 cents per
pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; worth more than 32 cents per
pound, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. By the law of
1883 wools of the first and second classes worth less than 30 cents per
pound pay 10 cents per pound; worth more than 30 cents per pound,
12 cents per pound. These two classes include all wools that compete
with those grown in the United States. The reduction of the tariff in
1883 seems to have reduced the price of native wools in almost exactly
the same degree.
21. I do not believe the custom is gener-al. Foreigners are apt to
offer fees without solicitation, from force of habit. I believe that fees
.are sometimes accepted, but I do not know that' they are ever demanded.
22. I do not think so.
23. I am unable to say.
'
.
Yery respectfuUy,
JOHN Q. MITCHELL,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
718
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 14L
'
.-
E. W. PRATT—Appointed Inspector, Chicago, July 6, 1870; Watchman July 29,
1873;' Messenger, i{ew York, June 30,1875; Sampler Jannary 4,1876, and February
7, 1884; Examiner June 30, 1875.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 7,1885..
S I R : Eeferring to your circular letter marked "strictly confidential,"'
without date, in which you request^ repUes to twenty-four (24) questions asked therein, I have the honor to state that from the nature of
my duties as an examiner of damaged merchandise, and never having
had any experience in the examination of merchandise for value or duty,
there is a number of questions in the said letter with which I am not
familiar.
12. I would say that, in my judgement, an examiner is chiefly responsible for a false return of value, unless the return was ordered by
the appraiser or assistant appraiser, in which case the officer making
the orcler should be held resxionsible. Examiners' salaries range from
$1,400 to $2,500 per annum. The apxiraiser is, in my opinion, more than
one who ordinarily and in fact certifies to the collector the values fixed
and reported to him by examiners and'deputy appraisers.
16. 1 would say that I am in favor of a change from ad valorem to
specific rates, and I also think that such change would have a tendency
to.diminish bribery, if it be a fact that bribery exists. Although I am
not familiar with the examination of textile fabrics, I should say that
specific rates could be applied to the same.
19. I would say that it would be safe, useful, and more just both to>
the Government's and importer's interest if the executive or the judicial
powers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of.
the dutiable value which is to be the basis on which the collector is tb»
levy ad valorem rates.
21. If the practice of paying money to customs inspectors by arriving:
passengers prevails at this or any bther x^ort, I should say that it couldi
be prevented by the removal of the inspector receiving money, and t h e
prosecution of the passenger paying the same.
I would add that any information in relation to my duties as an examiner of damaged merchandise that I can give you willbe cheerfully
given.
Yery respectfully,
E. W. PEATT,
Examiner..
o Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of-the Treasury, Washingtoh, B . 0.
No. 142.
HOWARD C: GILL--Appointed Sampler, NewYork, December 24, I878; Examiner
July 9, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 5, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the confidential
circular mailed to me the 27th ultimo; also my own dereliction in replying thereto.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
719
I respectfully submit that the delay has been caused by the impression of doubt as to my qualifications for rendering pertinent answers. '
1. I submit my inability to reply thereto.
2. I assert that there is satistactory evidence to me that the full
amount of duties prescribed by Congress have not been collected from^
imported sugars, which pay specific rates.
Evidence which would convince me might, however, lack the forcenecessary to establish a judicial determination, while the lapse of time
and treachery of memory would involve investigations in many uncer-^
tainties.
4. My exx)erience and observation point toward conduct that cannot
be justified in the matter of sampling sugars in the past.
I t would be extremely difficult now to show whether there was cause
for censure of laxity or for accusation of collusion, but I am happy to*
inform^ the honorable Secretaiy that the abuses above intimated have
been-superseded by efficient and trustworthy work.
I t has been possible in the past to so sample a sugar as to make itspercentage, determination throw it into a lower grade of classification
when the qualities came near to dividing lines between the specified
rates. Numerous devices contributed to this result, but it would be
exceedingly difficult to discriminate criminal intent from carelessness, oir
at least to establish criminal intent.
As an illustration: If a sampler should "wipe out" a "trier" and
leave a little water in it at the time of taking a n e w trial, the said new
trial would be relatively decreased in saccharine strength. All of these
matters I have from time tb time explainied to my superior officers and
the special agents.
x
I am happy to inform the honorable Secretary that I have observed'
these imperfect modes disappear under the new administration.
12. I respectfully submit that the examiner is chiefly responsible,
provided the sample furnished him is a genuine representation of t h e
merchandise.
There are times, however, when the nierchant or his representative
appeals to the assistant appraiser or appraiser, and they overrule his
judgment. Then I hold that the responsibility is transferred from him to
his superior officer.
Ithink the foregoing presentation includes abont all the writer could
advance which would be pertinent to the inquiries.
Hoping that the thoughts will be suggestive to the honorable Secre
tary, and that I shall be excused from tardiness,
.
I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H O W A E D C. GILL,
Sugar Examiner, Eighth Division^ Appraiser's Bepartment,
' New York Oity^,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING; .
Secretary of Treasury.
720
REPORT OF, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURy.
/ •
/•
/
'
'
•
• N o . 143. ' '
'
.
•
'
S. SEABURY GUION—Appointed Sampler, New York, April 1, 1871; Examiner July
14, 1883.
'
'
^
.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885.
SxR: In reply to the circular marked " strictly confidential," and containing twenty-four questions relative to the adininistration of customs
laws, which was received from the Treasury Department, I respectfully
submit the following:
,
1 to 11. I am unable to give you any valuable inforination.
12. The examiner "is xirimarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector." The
salaries of examiners range from $1,800 to $2,500, the latter being the.
maximum amount allowed to said officer. I t i s impossible for^^ther
the appraiser or assistant apxiraiser to examine merchandise and ux its
value, but of course they are consulted by the examiner.
13.^" I have no information on this point.
14 and 15. If improper values and unlawful rates of duty have been
habitually reported to the collector, the fault may fairly be charged to
the examiner reporting them. I know of no remedy for this except the
employment of honest examiners.
16. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty would
be a benefit to the revenue.
.
•
17. I do not think so.*
,
^
18. It is not probable that consular agents could verify the correctness
of invoice values, and their present action is of no material benefit.
19. I am of the opinion that it would not be safe, even if it were possible, which I very much doubt, to increase the number of officers having jurisdiction over dutiable values.
20 to 24. I have no knowledge upon which I could base information of
any kind.
Yery respectfully,
'o
•
S. SEABUEY GUION,
Examiner Metal and Hardware.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 144.
A. I^. SMITH—Appoiuted Examiner April 6, 1861.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraisers Office, September 28, 1885.
S I R : In answer to question No. 10, I would respectfully state that
there has been, during the past two years, much doubt, confusion, and
conflict of opinion in respect to the elements to be "ascertained in order
to fix and declare the dutiable value. This state of things was not due
so much to the want of definiteness in the terms of the law as to the
various and conflicting interpretations made by the Attorney-Gerieral
and the Treasury officials. A still greater misunderstanding of the law
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
721
(relating to "changes") exists among importers, some of whom hav.eeven
claimed that such goods as canned vegetables, peas, asparagus, beans,
&c., should x^ay duty only upon the cost of the goods as they come from
the garden. Such invoices are often entered, deducting the cost of
cases, packages,. tin cans, labels, &c., with all transportation and
shipping charges. I need not say that no such invoice has been passed
by me without a correspondirig addition to make value. The general
misunderstanding of the law shows the absolute necessity of some
farther legislation which should limit the non-dutiable elements to the
simple outer package, cask, case, or bag, i&c.
12. As the examiner is the expert whose business it is to ascertain and
• report the values of goods in his particular line, he is necessarily primarily responsible for an^^ undervaluation which may escape his scrutiny.
In relation to the apxiraisership, 1 would say that in myjudgment the
position is one which furnishes full scope for all the powers and energies of the clearest headed business man, and is one which requires
qualifications which could hardly be acquired except through long service in the subordinate offices of this department. One appointed from
uan3^ outside business sphere would, for sorae time at least, occup^^ the
position implied in the last two lines of question No. 12.
16. Specific duties are preferable in all cases where they can be equitably applied. As within m3^ own experience, I would raention two instances in which they can be equitably and advantageously apxilied,
viz: on firecrackers, which now pay an ad valorem duty of 100 x^er cent.,
and grapes, which pay 20 per cent. ^ Fire-crackers are almost entirely
included within twelve or fourteen regular sizes, measuring from 1 inch
to 14 inches in length. There would b e n o difficulty in making a scale
of specitic duties (say at a given rate per 100 crackers of each size)
which would yield an equivalent to an3'^ x^^ycentage which may be
thought desirat)le. There have been constant disputes in relatiori to
the elements constituting the dutiable value of these goods, and I know
of none which more imperatively demand a sxiecific duty.
Grapes are imported in great quantities in barrels, half barrels,
quarter barrels, and cases, varying from 12 to 75. pounds net. They
are bought in the countiy of production by weight, and the bags, cases,
&C.S are held not to be dutiable, while more than one-half the crop bf
Spain is consigned to agents in Liverpool, &c., and is '^hen purchased
by shippers to America by the package, including cas}:s, (Sec, dec, and
therefore duty is exacted upon the whole cost, including those packages. Much complaint is made that this is a discrimination against
the English market. As most of these goods are consigned, it is a matter
of great difficulty to prove market values when the3^ are the subject of
reappraisement. A specitic duty of so much per pound would be equally
fair for the Government and for the importer, ahd acceptable to all.
The seeming inconsistency of making packages of the sarae goods dutiable in one raarket and not dutiable in another will also be avoided.
18. It w^ould not, in ray judgment, be practicable for American consular agents to xiersonally examine any considerable portion of the articles shipped from foreign ports, and to verify the correctness of invoice values, and it is not probable that any foreign Government would
consent to auy such arrangement. An hour's delay would often prove
-ruinous to the most important enterprises, by detaining goods until the
next steainer was ready to sail, when the opportunity for a successful
operation would be lost
46 A
,722
. REPORT OF THIi SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' In answer to the questions relating to undervaluations sanctioned by
customs officers, &c., I would state that I have no personal knowledge
of any such cases.
v
Very respectfully, yours,
A. L. SMITH,
Examiner Tenth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 145.
E . HONEYWELL—Appointed Examiner July 14, 1883.
-
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiserls Office, October 7 1885.
\ S I R : In compliance with your desire, xilease find appended answers
to questions contained in confidential communication.
Yery respectfully,
E. HONEYWELL,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N E . MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1 to 6. I have no knowledge relative to these questions.
7. The only article coraing under ray examination on which the deX>artraent has failed to collect the full amount of duty is enamel. By
Department instructions I am compelled to classify it under paragrajih
908 .as "parts of watches, 25 per cent." while it should be classified^
under paragraph 557 as manufactures of glass, 45 per cent., as it was
befbre this decision.
8. I do uot know.
9. I have no knowledge relative to this question.
10. I know of no confusion, or doubt, or conflict of opinion respecting
the elements to be ascertained in order to tix and declare the dutiai>le
value; and in my opinion the time, place, aud standard to be axiplied
are already detincd in the statutes.
.
11. I should think not.
12. The cxaniiner is ])rimarily and chiefly responsible for a false return of value to the collector. The salaiy bf an examiner is from $ 1,800
to $2,500 per year. The appraiser is ordinarily one who simply certities
to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners
and deputy appraisers.
13. 14, and 15. I have no knowledge relative to these questions.
10. I think a change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit
the revenue and help diminish a tendency to bribery, if any exists, provided the existing quantity of duty is to be levied in the future.
Concerning textile fabrics, I ara not sufficiently fiiiniliar to express
an opiuion.
'
17. I have no knowledge relative to'ihis question.
18. It would not be practicable for an American consular agent to
personally exaraine articles to be shipped froiri thence to Araerican
ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. I have no
knpwledge relative to the balance of this question.
19. I would not.
?0,21, 22,23, and 24. I have no knowledge relative to these questions.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY '
723
No. 14G.
JOHN p. GREEN—Appointed Examiner December 23, 1869,
P O R T OF.NEW YORK,
. Appraiser's Office, October 3, 1885. ;
S I R : Eeferring to your circular, containing twentyibur questions, I ^
wonld respectfully answer:
1. As far as 1 ara able to say, all duties levied have been collected.
2. I know of none.
^
3. By actual raeasureraent, when required.
4. I have no knowledge of collusion between importers and Government officers.
5. I know of none.
,
6. I am unable to give any opinion as to the law or facts asked for.
7. 8, and 9. I am unable to do so.
10. There has been, undoubtedly, conflict of opinion in fixing dutiable
value, especially as to items of charges. The rule to be axiplied is already detined by the statutes, in my opinion.
,
11. I am unable to answer correctly; but I think that the inforraation
could be given by the collector or appraiser. .
\'^
12. The examiners. $ 1,800 to $2,500. The appraiser certifies to the
values given by the examiner and assistant appraisei^.
' ^'
13. I know of ..none.
- 14. 1 have no evidence of such reports.
.
15. I am not able to say.
' 16. As a matter of opinion I think I would, but specific rates would
not be practicable fbr all textile fabrics and many other articles.^ L refer you to my schedules sent to the apxiraiser.
17. Not to riiy knowledge.
18. 1 ara unable to answer.
19. In m;\^opinion the present law is the wisest and all-sufficient.
20. I ara not able to give the infbrmation required.
^21. There is such a beliefi; but it is also believed that it can be prevented by a rigid enforcement of the laws and .instructions of the
Treasury Departraent in its letter to the United States attorney at New
York, recently given. . '
22. I h^ve no inforraation on the subject.
23. I have no evidence that the revenue law has not been enforced at
New York or at other Atlantic ports.
24. I have no knowledge of any having been made.
Allof which is subraitted.
Very respectfully,
J O H N P. GEEEN,
Examiner of Marhie.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary Treasury,
724
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
TRi^ASURT.
—
'No.^147.
WM. HANCOCK CLARK—Appointed Night-Inspector March 8, ISTS; Clerk and
Verifier May 30,1880; Opener and Packer Marcli 24,1883; Examiner June 30,1883.
-
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Appraiser's Office, October 12, 1886.
SIR : Eeferring to your x)rinted letter, marked " strictly confidential,'
I have the honor to reply to its si^rie^ of (24) questions relatiug to the
^* condition and administration of the custoras service at the proininent
ports of entry in these United States," being the result of eight (8)
years' experience in the surveyor's, collector's, and ^x^x^raiser's departments at the port of New York.
With assurances of respect,
Your most obedient servant,
WM. HANCOCK CLAEK,
' ,
^
Examiner Fourth Bivision.
' Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
^
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. (7.
1. "Keeping iu mind the distinction between rates of duty and dutiable values," I have no evidence showing that the rates have not been
lawfully levied and collected.
2. That my line ofmerchandise comprises but one kiud of goods paying "specific rates of duty": Cotton bagging, under 7 cents ])er square
yard,' which pays a duty of 1^ cents per pound. Have no evidence that
the full araountof duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.
3. In the ^course of custora-house business the widths of the textile
fabiics are fully ascertained and reported; and where any reason x)re-.
sents itself for believing the invoiced' lineal measurement to be incorrect, that also is accurately ascertained by t h e u s e of the yard, meter,
or aune sticks (supplied by the Government), and specially lieported
to fix values.
4. Have no evidence of collusion between persons making entry of
-several packages of sirailar goods on one iri voice, and the entry clerk or
deputy collector to send to the appraiser for exaraination a bogus or false
l)ackage as a fair exainxile of one in every ten. Understand, however,
that ex deputy Collector Des Anges, together with his two confederates,,
an entry clerk and an inspector of custoras, were caught so doing, and
upon conviction are now serving their respective terras of iraprisonment
at the Sing Sing prison.
5. .Have no evidence of false or incorapetent or inadequate weighing
or nieasureraents on the wharves.
6. Concerning rates of duty and difi'erences between importers and
^collectors growing outof jdecisions by the latter, and the Treasury,
which have resulted in suits, I beUeve the existing law does need
ainendment, and a careful perusal of Treasury decisions eraanating
from tiie pen or dictation of ("H. B. J.").H. B. Jaraes (until very recently), chief of custoras d'ivision, and of H. F. French, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, at Washingtou, will convince you that decisions
have been reversed many tiraes to appease certain political lawyers and
leaders whose influences have been more potent in the Treasury Departraent than the non-officials could realize, the reversal of one of
their decisions alone last year on " colored cottons" being the cause of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
725
great official scandal, as also the return to the fourth division here of
no less than six thousand (6,000) invoices, which had to be reclassified
by E.xaniiner Dutcher under protest. The existing law concerning
payraent of interest as part of the damages and costs in "collectors'
suits" are equitable enough, but many unnecessary delays might be
avoided by the establishmeut of a system which shall piovide for a
moie prompt termination of such litigation. A separate tribunal, well
equipj>ed, would reform both litigants and litigation, and be the direct
mc^ans of prodigious saving of clerical labor to.exHminei^s, until now an
uoyed by the ^-reconsiderations" and "reclassifications" of iuvoices.
Have M knowledge as to the nuraber, classification, or status of suits
O
uow pending at the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimoie.
.
.
7. Am not sufficiently posted as to the result of the recent investigations ofthe Departineut to give "proof conclusively" that duties have
not been duly levied nor collected; but ami satisfied- in my own raincl
that the suggi'Stions given xiromptly and fearlesly to the "Tichenor
ComuUssion" by me last spriug have produced grent results, so far as
the '-damage bureau" and undervaluation of imported china, bric-abrac, furs, &c., were concerned, because the ofiending officials have
been summarily removed-, ipso facto, their raetbods and confederates",
are known, though afew in the " daraage bureau" appear tohave escaped
scrutiny. ^
^
. ,
8. The failure came about by the cowardice as well as the dishonesty
of sorae Treasury officials and a well detined purpose on the partof others
to cover up the methods and shortcomings of certain rex3resentatives
of Eepublican city district asociations, where incompetency or habiiual
drunkenness.prevailed. For instance : Three years ago Sx:)ecial Agent
Aytr went to the Hofiman House one evening without any "badge of
office" or seizure documents to capture some "oil x^aintings," presumably
smuggled by (a x:>assenger per Liverpool steamer) a guest there, whose
arrest was also expected to follow. As anatujal consequence Ayer was
himself arrested, taken tb jail, and detained therein until Apxn^aiser J.
Q. Howard was summoned to identify and rescue " a supposed confidence man." Thai was incompetency. Again, Special Agent Brackett
was repeatedly informed by me of the appointments, assignments, details, or transfers'for duty, all illegal, in defiance of "all "civil service
laws and regulations," by United States Appraiser Ketchum and (his
willing tool) Assistant Appraiser Fowler. Indeed, I showed him a full
and complete list of their naraes ; yet he reported nothing, because he
said "Ketchum was a good fellow, a neighbor of his in Harlem," <fec.
As regards the "incorapetent" and drunken officials, there are many
at the "United States public stores" (the most glaring example of whom
is Watchman Thoraas fl O'Neil) who have been reported, investigated,
and suspended frequently (by Chief Clerk James H. Clark) for beiirg.
drunk, disorderly, abusive, absence without leave, &c. These creatures,
who have, nor could pass " civil-service examinations," toll remain to torture many of us who havepassed the la\yful examinations, aspire to elevate
the service, and have the manliness to complain when insulted by thein
so grossly, as the "press-copy report" (written Appraiser Ketchum by
me in the matter of Messenger Hess) herewith attached will fully suj)^
726
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF'THE TREASURY.
stantiate. The Eepublican office-holders within the portals ofthe public stores here are so banded together that few reforms caii be carried
out with success until new chiefs of division are selected with courage
to suggest the investigation and removal of all unworthy officials,
whether on terras of intimacy with thera or not. My own devotion to
official cares, together with their kuowledge of ray being an ex-Cohfederate officer, has militated greatly against my promotion officially at the
hail Is of brother bfficers here. They think an "ex-Confederate" has no
rijihtliere, no matter how many civil-service examinations he passes, or
how worthy he may be for a higher sx)here of duty, and have resorted
to many cowardly means to prevent my promotion now, when urged
fbr ])roniotioii "toi)e an assistant ajipraiser," or " t o be deputy collector
in charge of the public stores."
0. Sufficient evidence will be adduced (by perusal of the report of the
recent ^'Tichenor investigation comraittee'' at this x^ort) frora the testimony of the assistant%ppraisers and examiners alone to satisfy you that
United States Appraiser Ketchum caused to be changed and rexiorted
false dutiable values to suit certaiiVimporters whenever he deemed it safe
to do; so, and raised invoices to a penalty to afibrd certain special Treasury'
agents to squeeze money outof importers to be di\ ided with somebody.
See evidence in case of " T h e United States v. Watson & Girdwood,"
tried here last summer. Note also the fact that Assistant District At-.
torney Clark called no witnesses from the appraisers' stores, though
Assistarit A])praiser Birdsall and Examiner Dutcher wei;c known to be
in coui't every (lay during said trial; and the most imxiortant factors.
ConciTning evidence furnished the aiipraiser by tiipecial agentsof Treasury, however earnest they may be, so very few special agents are "experts'" in any class or line of merchandise that eight years' experience
convinces rae j:hat they are constantly imposed_upou by the designs of .
some and tlie^pfejudices of other interested parties.
,
The statements of" informers" are chiefly unreliable, because generally
emanating from a rival motive: Call for the record ofthe business exlierience of the special agents, and you will find that most of them represent "journalism " ( a s newspaper men now classify their business)",
rather than any practical or expert knowledge of any line of goods
whatsoever. The sarae applies to consular agents (where I have personally known them i n i h e East and West indies, Brazil, Africa, India,
and China, as well as England and France), who are usually the iiolitical
favorites of the'' party in ])ower,"—appointed ly apportionment amongst
, the various States representing the issues of the peiiod—non-sufficieutl^^
long enough resident abroad to be a sate adviser for tariff direction.
10. 1 can recall no "confusion or doubt or conflict of oiiiniou in our
department rcs[)ecting any of the eleraents to be ascertained in order to .
fix and declare dutiable value," unless it be in the raatter of '' charges,"
where a, diversity of oxiinion has ever existed betwixt importers and ex' aminers (known upou the face of invoices passing through my hands as
charges fbr x>^cking, screwing, and marking), and this matter of
."charges" has been ])iovided lor by your very recent order directing a
line of action to he adopted, so lucid in its rulings that its legality can
. only be determined by appeal to the Federail courts.
11. f can make no safe average estiinate of the percentage of undervaluations in any year oi- seiies of years. The invoices inight be identified by some consuls, \?ho, in such manufacturing ports as Dundee,
keep ou file, for comparison and reference, this Price Current and Trade
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
-.727
Eeport (copy herewith attached), showingreliably the quantity, quality,
and,price of their line of merchandise for every week in the year; but
that would require an ex])ert from tbe appraiser's dexiartment, aspecial
agent from the collector's office, and tedigus research, couxiled with considerable expense.
'
12. The exarainer of raerchandise is primarily and chiefly responsible
for a false return of value to the collector, being, the only officer who,
in the presence of his opener and packers, personally inspects the mer-:
chandise. The salaries of the exarainers range frora $1,800 to $2,500.
The appraiser or assistant appraisers are rarely, if ever, experts, their
duties being clearly of an executive character, and their reports of values
a reflex ofthe exarainer; however, when civil-service principles iare perfected so as to proraote raen of mark and merit from araong the exarainers with salaries raore cornraensurate with their»abilities and responsibilities, the departraent raay be congratulated uiion having many experts araong the ten assistant appraisers in the near future, as several
examiners are now beiug urged lor xiromotion fully competent to educate incoming others.
13. 1 know of no evidence against any Governraent consular officials
conniving at x>i'eseutation to appraisers - of false evidence of foreign
values.
14. False values have not been habitually and systeraatically reported to collectors by appraising officers, except in a few isolated cases.
Failure under the past adrainistration of the Treasury to collect full
duty has been caused niore by the appointment to oftice of illiterate,
incompetent men than dishonesty. For instance, there are officers here
drawing salaries of $2,000 a year who, outside of this building, cannot
earn $480, and clerks drawing $1,600 salaries, or a little less, who could
get no mercantile employraent, unless it be-that of messenger or porter
at $40 to $60 per month. 1 know of no officer who is the recipient of
bribe-money to get false reports, but have reported to their superiors
the names of several " daraage exarainers" who are (or have been until
very recently) associating with certain "daraage brokers," whose reputation for corrupt practices is established, sraoking tneir cigars, drinking high wines, and partaking of their hosx)italities in even raore disgraceful ways.
15. I think corrupt and venal influences will xirevail, more or less, in
Xiroportion to man's temptations to deviate from the " straight and narrow path"; therefore, would suggest to the honorable Secretary the
propriety of closing (per "special circular order") the doors o f t h e '
examiners and assistant ajipraisers to all save proper Departraent
officials, perraitting no "custora-house brokers" in the public stores
to converse with exarainers, their clerks, or openers, and packers, except in the presence of the appraiser or deputy appraiser, appoiuted
to look after just such "pests," and the chief clerk at the appraisers'
ante-roora, and that said "special order" shall direct and require the
exaraination of all packages in their actual turn, as the "receiving"
and "invoice registers" show to the collector and appraiser thatsaid
packages have entered the public stores. Our work would be clone
quicker, the chance for bribery, or expeelitiug packages for favorite
brokers ended, and the exarainers, their verifiers, and openers and
Xiackers given a fairer chance to jierform what is expected of them under the new order of things. The extension or enlargement of the
"public store restaurant," too, is desirable, accompanied by a rule:
728
REPORT OF. THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^^Thatnone, save assistant appraisers and examiners, shall leave the
building for liinch, or dinner, between 9 a. m. and 4 p. m., without the
permission of their division chief." .That prevents the brokers from
waylaying or questioning the openers and xiackers outside the building, as they do now, as to their packages.
_
.
16. A change from "ad valorera " to "specific duty " would benefit the
revenue, and tend to dirainish bribery; yet the sarae teraptations will
exist: fraudulent reports of weights and raeasureraents, which willdeterraine all thie values; nevertheless, it is fair to x>t'esume that from 25 ,
to 33 per cent, more duty will accrue to the Government by the adoption
of "specific duty." The list of textile fabrics is so very large and their
oharacter so varied, that i t will be difficult to apxily specific duty to several of them.
So far as my "line of merchandise" is concerned—jute bags, jute bagging, jute burlaps, &c.—a specific duty bythe pound can readily be applied, because baled and coarse in its warp; the finer the fabric, 1 fancy;
the harder the application of "specific duty" with due justice to both
iniporter and consuraer.
17. There is no reason to believe false reports by axipraisers have been
increased by repeal (in 1874) of the "moiety law," and therevenue is
better protected now than in the year 1863.
'
18. Havingyisited many foreign consulates during my service in the
Uriited States Navy, aih convinced that invoice values can only be verified by American experts, and the true invoiced values only ^be obtained from English-speaking districts. All others will encounter hundreds of obstacles.
°
Our "Consul's fees" in England for certifying invoices of value (large
or small) araount to fifteen shillings: ten shillings and sixpence to consul, and four shillings and^sixpence to the notary fees.
19. All appraising officers should be "raen above price,",of high
character, comraissioned for their experience, and reliability in knowledge of the dutiable value in their respective line of goods, beariug
forever in mind " t h a t all articles iraported tthall be valued at the current or actual market value, or wholesale x^i'ice thereof in foreign raarket, at the period of.exportation to the United States," in obedience to
the law enacted by Congress on or about March 3,1883. Such experts
should be held personally responsible for. their valuations to .insure
greater scrutiny in appraiseraent. It would neither be safe, useful, nor
just to importers to extend the executive or judicial powers fbr interference with the ascertainment of dutiable values, which raay be the
basis on which the collector is to lay ad valorera rates.
20. Have had no experience whatever in the exaraination, or classL
fication of wool.
21-. By reference to the Department Blue Book, you will see that ray
first appointraent in custoras service (8 years ago) was that of insxiector
^ of custoins, and served several raonths at the old Barge Office, in State
street. At that time there were about eight hundred (800) inspectors
(under Surveyor Grahara and Acting Deputy Surveyor Kibbe), the
raajority of whora being raen ofthe lowest tyx^eof what are classified,as
pot house politicians, men whose every thought and word was of the
district which they clairaed to own and carry in their'vest pocket, ^h
be detailed for "steamer duty" was their ecstacy, because there they
could get a stake (as they termed it) from a "high-flyer," get free of^
ail expense their meals (for the five or six days required fbr the dis-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.729
charge of her cargo, and sailing frora this harbor) on said stearaer, togeiher with a bottle of wine, orother liquors, at each raeal. Their Wives
and sweethearts would dine there,' too, and disgraceful sprees^ frequently enacted.. Thus you will discern the iraportance of eliraination,
b}'. dismissal fiora Governraent service all such characters, many of
whom cpuld scarcely write their own naraes, replacing thera by men ofciVil service record, education and w^orth. The bribery pf inspectors
can be best x>iBvented by paying them better salaries. Salaries in conv
tormity with those of examineis (from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum)
forbidding thera froin taking any raeals on board any vessel, and selecting as surveyor some gentleman of unceptionable reputation for sterling
integrity, with 3 deputy surveyors (with $5,000, $4,000, and $3,600 salaries) of similar grade, with authority 'Mo weed out the den" by all honorable means, and speedily as the law will allow. The " baggage-examining scandal" will then die out, and officers wdl no longer blush to own
thai he is a "customs officer on duty at the ])ort of New York."
22. On no goods, of my line, has the rate been carried by Congress
beyond and above the line which the Governraent can surely protect.
23. The failure of Treasuiy Departraent to enforce the revenue lawvin
New York is true fbr similar reasons, I believe, to other large Atlantic
ports.
Eespectfully submitted.
WM. HANCOCK CLAEKE,
Examiner Fourth Bivision.
No. 148.
J. W. JONES—Appointed Examiner December 16.1879.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
Appraiser's Office, October 16,. 1885.
S I R : I beg leave to report in reply to your circular of inquiry as follows:
'
l a n d 2. I know of none.
3. I am not a textile fabric exporter.
,
4. I know of none since the Des Anges cases in silks.
:
5. I have no knowiedge of any.
.
^^
6. I t h i n k thej^ can be simplified and araended, and that custbms
courts of arbitration, or a special custoins circuit judge appointed for
courts in the Atlantic ports.
7 and 8. The passage of professional wardrobes on the docks afibrds
the greatest opportunity for frauds that I know of in the service. It could
be stopped by ordering all lots of over $100 value to be examined in
the public stores. It coraes about by "special perraits." and letters of
"courtesy."
.
9 and 10. I think not. I know of none. I think the standard is well
deifined.
^ 11. I think not;
12. The examiner is priraarily and chiefly responsible for a false return to the collector. The salaries are fi ora $1,800 to $2,500, and they,
were formerly graded by time in the service and by expert knowledge.
The axipraiser is much raore than is suggested in this question. He
is an examtner in chief, before whom numerous interlocutory questions
730 . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
are often discussed and settled between examiners and assistant appraisers and brokers and merchants, before the examiners report, or
classification is fully made.
He is a legal judicial bfficer, constantly called ux^oii to decide important questions iu customs and mercantile law, after an exaraination of
docuraents, witnesses, and hearing of arguraent.
He is an executive officer, directing and holding in subordination the
divisionsiucluding hundreds of raen, and he is directly responsible for
lhe proper assessraent of more revenue to the Government than any
other single officer under the Governmeht.
His reports upon questions of custoras law and Ithe Law Merchant
would make a respectable sized volume every year, and he should be
held not inferior to the collector in dignity, importance, and salary.'
13,,14, 15. I know of no cases nor any evidences of any connivances
or corruption of auy^officers or iraporters.
16. I think it^raostcertainly would.
17. I do not know bf any.
1 8 . 1 think it would be Avorth inillions tb the Gox^erriraent annually,
and a great protection to honest iraporters, perfectly feasible, and no
reasonable ground of coraplaint by foreign governraents.
19. I think it s a ^ r as it is, but would suggest that the full board of
general a.ppraisers hold court and fix values for all ports alike.
20. I ara not an expert wool exarainer, but have had enough experience to know that the duties should be much siraxUified, and, where
possible, compound avoided.
21. 1 think of late years very little of this has been done. Passengers often insist on men taking gratuities, and I have known it refused.
The remedy raost effectual is the landing of passengers at the Barge Office,
where there is an open floor, abundance of light, and a full corpsof officers
and sx^ecials. The recent experiraent proved that the "rotaries"—
smugglers—deserted the Barge Office lines, preferring the darkness and
confusion of the freight-btirdened docks of the exerapted lines.
22. I think not. The sharpest lawyers and brokers on both sides of
the water are constantly eraployed to devise and concoct scheraes to
beat the revenue, and they will succeed no raatter what changes you
raake, until as suggested in question 18. The Governraent furnishes
the appraisers with official evidence, through the consuls, of the established fo7'eign market values.
23 and 24. I have no knowledge upon these questions upon which to
found, an answer.
Yours, truly,
J. W. JONES,
Examiner First Bivision.
H O N . D A N I E L MANNING,
^
Secretary of the Treasuryj WaisMngtony B . 0.
•REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 149.
731
V
LAWRENCE P. BOSTWICK—Appointed Examiner AprU 16, 1883.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
402 Washington Street, October 2, 1885.
: In reply to your circular containing questions in refer^
ence to the appraisement of values and irregularities in such appraisements, I have the honor herewith to respond. My duties as damage
. examiner have not brought me in contact either with the appraisers of
values or the methods employed by them in their examinations. I do
not consider myself competent, therefore', to give intelligent and satis- factory answers to most of the questions proxiounded. I have no evidence of any irregularities in the customs departments, and have learned
of them only through newsxiaxier reports.
As to Question No. 12, I hold the examiner is primarily and chiefiy
responsible for an incorrect or false return of value to the collector,
either through ignoilince or otherwise. I also consider that the axixiraiser is more, ordinarily and in fact, than one who officially certifies
to the collector the values fixed and rex)orted to him by examiners and
dexiuty appraisers.
If I should attempt a reply to the remainder of the questions, (which
I have carefully read,) I would be only able to xiresent personal oxiinions, and without any thorough acquaintance or knowledge of the subjects discussed.
.
*
•
'
/ Any information in regard to the duties of damage examiners, and
their methods of exainination, I can give very cheerfully and to the full
extent of my ability.
I have the honor to subscribe myself yours, resxiectfully,
' L. P. BOSTWICK,
Bamage Examiner, First Bivision, Appraiser's Bepariment.
DEAR SIR
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 150.
A. D. FENTON—Appointed Examiner May 13, 1878.
.^ '
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 ,
402 Washington Street, October 3, 1885.
S i R : T respectfully subniit the following as replies to the various
questions contained in your x^rii^ted communication, without date^ but
received by me some time during Sexitember of this year:
Question 1.—I know of no evidence that the rates of duty°and dutiable
values have not been levied and collected as the law prescribed.
Question 2.—I know of no evidence that on articles which the law
says shaU pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, the fuU
amount of duty xirescribed b j Congress has not been collected.
Question 3.—The usual manner of verifying invoiced measurements
bf textile fabrics is by actual measurement of a sufficient number of
pieces to be satisfied of the correctness of the whole.
Question 4.—I know of no evidence of collusion between the persons
m ^ i n g entry of several packages of simUar goods on the same invoice.
732
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and the entry clerk or deputy collector, to send to the axixiraiser for
examination, a bogus or false package as a fair example of one in every
•tem • . ' , • '
.. .
'
. . . " • •
';
-
Question 5.—I have no evidence, other than published reports, of
false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or measuiing on the wharves;
• riiy duties are confined exclusively to examining goods in the third
division of the axixiraiser's department.
Question 6.—I db not feel competent to answ'er as to whether the existing law needs amendment in resxiect to the diff'erences gTOwing out
of decisions by the collector and the Treasury which have'^ resulted in
suits. As to how many collectors' suits are now pending in Boston,
New York, Philadelxihia, and* Baltim ore, I have no means of ascertaining ; nor do I know, or have I the means of ascertaining, how many suits
aire pending, or any other xiarticulars asked for in i3his question. The ,
question as to devising a plan by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of
theTreasury, the distiict attorneys and judges, by which these suits
can be more promptly disposed of, &c., does not come within my province
to answer; I could only give an intelligent answer after sxiending a
long time in studying the subject, and even then the law officers of the
Government would be much mote competent to decide uxion. the various points involved.
'
,
' ' Question 7.—I know of no class of articles on which the recent investigations have shown that the Treasmy Department has failed to collect
, the entire and full amount of duty the law xirescribed, unless, in the light
of the action of experts employed by the Government at the different
Euroxiean markets, they have made values sometimes considerably in
excess of established piices here and sometimes considerably below snch
prices. .
Question 8.—If there has been any failure on the part bf the Treasury
officials, it has arisen from the Iact of knowledge on their part of the
foreign values. I have never discovered the slightest deviation from
official integrity on the*xiart of any official in this division. Of course,
I cannot give an opinion as to the officials in any other division of this
departnient, as I scarcely ever conie in contact with them, but I Icnow
of no instances of official corruxition, except such as have been made
Xiublic through the courts or otherwise; and of such cases I do not feel
competent to give an oxiinion, not having been cognizant of the facts at
the time.
Question 9.—I have no evidence that the appraiser has rexiorted to the
collector false dutiable values; therefore no further reply is needed on
that point.
.
.
.
Question 10.—The only question for the appraiser to solve, it seems to
me, is the value of the merchandise at the time and xilace of shipment.
This has always been the aim in this division, and, I think, as far as it
has been possible tb ascertain that value, it has been strictly adhered to. '
Question 11. —I do not think it xiossible that any system of undervaluation has ever been followed by any official in this division, and, if such
has been the case, I do not see how it can be ascertained and the articlesor invoices identified. •
.
Question 12.—Already.rexilied to.
Question 13.—I am not aware of any evidence that Government officials
in the consular department or elsewhere have assisted, or consented to,
pr connived at, the presentation to appraisers of false evidence of foreign
values,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
733
- . Question 14.—^If, under the previous administration of the Treasury,
false values have been habituaUy and systematicaUy reported to the several collectors, &c., I would reply I have no evidence of dishonesty on
the part of Treasury or customs officials. If money has been paid to
American officials to get false reports of dutiable values, I have not been
aware of it. I know of no corruption fund having been raised and disbursed.
'
•
Question 15.—If false valuations have come of bribery or venality, L
know of no reason to think that such corrupt and venal influences are
not now brought to bear, or that they wUl not be successful in the future
as in the past.
'
Question 16;—I cannot answer this question in a proper manner without giving the subject much more consideratibnthan I have the timeto
devote to it. I think it would be very difficult indeed to apply specific
rates to all texile fabrics, and at the same time to fairly protect our own
manufacturers.
Question 17.—Not having been in Government employ previous to
1878, I am not able to answer the question.
. Question 18.—The questions embraced in this sectipn seem tobe so far
out of m}^ jurisdiction that I could give no satisfactory replies further
than -my mere opinion, and I do not consider that as being of iriuch
value.
Question 19.—I do not know; should think: mot.
Question 20.—This question can only be properly answered b y t h e '
' officials of the sixth division of this department.
Question 21.—I have no knowledge as to the experience of arriving,
Xiassengers in paying money to customs insx)ectors of baggage, either to
Xirevent, facilitate, or hasten an examination of luggage to ascertain
whether or not it .contains dutiable articles. If such a practice exists,
I am not sufficiently familiar with the working of that branch of the
business to be able to suggest a suitable remedy.
. Question 22.—I should say, if the evidence shows that the Treasury
Department has failed*to collect the whole duty prescribed by law, the
rate, in my oxiinion, has not been carried by Congress beyond and above
the line which the Government can surely protect.
Question 23.—I have no means .of knowing what has been true of other
large Atlantic ports.
^
'
,/> •
Question 24.—In answer to this question, I would respectfully refer
you to the law department of the appraiser's department.
I would say my duties have so constantly and fully occupied my time
and attention since the receipt of your series of questions that I have
not been able to rexily sooner, and I am fully aware of the incompleteness, and, I fear, othenvise unsatisfactory answers which are submitted.
Yery respectfuUy, &c.,
A. D. FENTON,
Examiner, Third Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
734
REPORT OF T S E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 151.
^
H E N R Y M. RIDER—Appomted aerk, NewYork, Fehruary 9,1872 ; Examiner May
5, 1885.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
- 402 Washington Street, October 3, 1885.
SIR : Eespectfully referring to your communication requesting replies
to certain questions numbered from 1 to 24^ I respectfully submit the
following answers to such questions as come within my knowledge—
such as my position of examiner of machinery and metals enables me to
answer:
Question 1.—Keeping in mind the distinction between rates of duty
and dutiable values, I knpw of no evidence that the former have not
within the last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed.
'\
; Question 2.—I know of^no satisfactory evidence that on articles which
the law says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values,
the full amount of duty xirescribed by Congress has not been collected.
Question 10.—There has been, and is now, more or less confusion and
doubt and conflict of opinion in the appraiser's department respecting
some of the elements to be ascertained in order to fix,and declare dutiable values,. This grows out of the question as to what are and what are
not dutiable charges. While the statutes, in the light of commercial
usage, seem to fix with sufficient clearness the dividing line between
dutiable and non-dutiable charges, there are not a few who contend that
charges under the law embrace evei'ything except the bare merchandise
itself, and that the cost of putting it in a marketable condition is not
an element of dutiable value. To insure uniformity of action in fixing
values for the purpose of assessing duty thereon. Congress should define
the scope and meaning of the law on this subject.
Question 12.—:As between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and the
appraiser, the examiner and assistant appraiser are primarily and chiefly
responsible, in the usual course of business, for a false return to the collector. They examine the merchandise, and they are the only ones qualified to judge intelligently of their value. Fixing dutiable values is^
inseparable from the actual examination of the merchandise which those
values represent. The salaries of examiners range from $1,200 to $2,500^.
The salary of assistant apxiraisers is $3,000. In the usual course of business, the appraiser officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and
reported to him by the examiners and assistant apxiraisers. There are,
on an average, about seven hundred invoices passing through the a p praiser's department daily; hence, it is readily seen that the appraiser
is compelled to jely upon the examiners and assistant^ appraisers for a
truthful rexiort of values. The axipraiser's time is fully occupied in
attending to the executive duties of his office, deciding questions of
classification and rates of duty.
Question 16.—I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates,
where such a change is practicable, vwould be a benefit to the ievenue
and help to diminish a tendency to bribery. I do not believe, however,
that a change to specific rates would be of any xiracticable benefit when
such rates would be dependent on values. Specific, in that case, would
be but another name for ad valorem.
Question 18.—I am of the opinion that it would not be practicable in,
the large American consular districts, such as London; Pai^is, Berlm^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
735
&c., for American consular agents, no matter how numerous and alert,
to xiersonally examine articles to be shixiped from ;thence to American
ports, and to verify the correctness of invoice values. My experience,
with consular agents' reports of values have not been of a nature to inspire me with confidence in their reliability. The annoyance and vexatious delays that would follow such a departure would, in my opinion,
give foreign governments just grounds for complaint. The fees exacted
by our consuls in England for certifying invoices, even of small articles
and of little value,' are ten shUlings and six pence sterling for each certification.
Question 19.—While it may seem that the appraising dep'artment possesses unwarrantable arbitrary ppwers respecting dutiable values, it is,
nevertheless, a power that cannot well be divided or abridged. 1 do
not think it would be safe, or useful to the revenue, or just to importers,
that the executive or the judicial xiowers have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the '
basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates. As I said in .
answer to Question 12, fixing dutiable values is inseparable from actual
exainination of the merchandise which such values represent.
Eespectfully,
,
H. M. EIDEE,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 152.
FREDERICK H. CLARK—Appomted Examiner May 16, 1872.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
402 Washington Street, October 3, 1886.
SIR : Eespectfully referring to the xirinted communication forwarded'^^
by you uncier date of August 27, submitting a series of twenty-foni*
questions relative to custom-house affairs in this and other prominent
Xiorts, I have the honor to present the following, seriatim:
No.l.—I know of no evidence.
•
'
JVb. 2.—I know of no satisfactory evidence.
No. 3.-^Actual measurement by the yard-stick, metre-stick, annestick, or taxie furnished by the Departmeht.
No. 4.—I have no knowledge of any collusion existing between entry
clerks or deputy collectors and persons making entry of merchandise to
be sent to the apxiraiser for examination.
No. 5.—I have no knowledge.
No. 6.—I have no knowledge of the number of suits pending in this or
other places mentioned. I think the existing law in respect to the xiay-.
ment of interest should be amended. The judicial system as it now
exists can be made sufficient to try all cases growing out of internal or
external taxation.
No. 7.—1 have no knowledge.
.
No. 8.—I know of no evidence showing any guUty knowledge on the
part of customs officials to promote conspiracy for the purxiose of evading the revenue laws.
.
.
73G
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 9.—I know of no evidence w^here the appraiser has made returns
of false duties to the collector.^ Special agents are, as a rule, not experts, and the information they obtain is usually froin outside xiarties,
and in many instances of an interested or prejudiced nature, and I
' know of no evidence to corroborate .any statements made by them "as
against the official action of the appraising department."
No. 10.—I know of no confusion existing in the appraiser's department in ascertaining correct dutiable values. The standard to be
axixilied is sufficiently defined by the statutes.
.; Yo. 11.—I do not think it practicable.
No. 12.—The examiner is primarily and solely responsible for the re- .
tuims of values made to the appraiser. The salary of examiners ranges
from eighteen to twenty-five hundred dollars per annum. The ap-^
praiser's functions are only executive, he only certifying to the returns
made by the examiner and signed by the assistant appraiser.
^iVb. 13.—I know of no evidence.
No. 14.—I have no knowledge.
Yo. 15.—If false valuations exist, it is reasonable to suppose they will
continue until the Department is able to enforce the full penalty of the
law for its violation to the persons implicated, both at home and abroad.
No. 16.—I think a change from ad valorem to specific duties would
be of vast interest to the Government. , Specifie rates could be appUed
to textile fabrics.
''
No. 17.—1 have no knowledge.
No. 18.—Ithink it would be practicable for consular agents to personally examine all sairiples of articles submitted to theiri for shipment.
Consular agents with commercial schooling would have but slight^diffi^ culty in ascertaining the proper market value of merchandise in their
respective districts and certifying to its correct value. It is not likely,
that any foreign Government would have cause for complaint. I believe the fees now exacted are 15 shillings sterling.
Yo. 19.^—I think that the judicial power should be the ultimatum in
all cases of revenue where differences exist as tp the proper rates.
No. 20.—I have.no knowledge.
No. 21.—I know of no instances where money has been paid by pas^
sengers to inspectors for the purpose of evading the payment of duties.
No. 22.—I think not.
.
Yo. 23.—I think not. •
No. 24.—I have no knowledge.^
Yery respectfully,
FEEDEEICK H. CLAEK,
Examiner.'
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 153.
HARRISON H. BROWN—Appointed Exammer December 16, 1874.
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 ,
, 188-.
o
S I R : I have the honor to submit herewith categorical answers to the
questions submitted in your confidential communication, without date.
1. Have no evidence.
2. Have no evidence.
^
.
REPORT, OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
737s
3. Have no textile fabrics in my lines of goods for examination.
4. Have no evidence.
5. Have no~ evidence.
«
6. Have no sxiecific knowledge. Would suggest, however, the organization of a special court to have jurisdiction in cases involving customs
laws and their interxiretatibn.
'
7. Have no knowledge of such cases.
8. Have no knowledge of such cases.
9. No knowledge.
10. There has been and still is much confusion and conflict of opinion as to the elements entering into the dutiable lvalue of goods xiaying
ad valorem duty, arising from the different inteipretations of section
7 of the act of 1883.
11. I believe not.
12. The examiner is xirimarily resxionsible, being in possession or
should be so, of all information as to the condition of the markets from
whence his lines of goods are shipxied, while it is a x)hysical imxiossibility for/ the axixiraiser or clex)uty axixiraiser to receive, much less to retain, all the information in the xiossession of the examiners of the whole
departnient. The salary of examiners range from $1,400 to $2,500;
dexmty axixiraiser, $3,000, and axix')raiser, $4,000 x^er annum.'
The axipraiser's time is fully occuxMed in deciding doubtf lU and delicate questions as to classification and market ^values, making department rexiorts, and directing the working of his dexiartment.
13. Have no knowledge.
14. Have no knowledge.
. 15. Like causes would no doubt produce like effects.
16. A change to sxiecific duties when xiracticable would no doubt be
a benefit to the revenue. Have no knowledge of textile fabrics, being
out of my line of goods.
17. Have no knowledge, but do not think it has had the effect to increase false returns.
18. I do not think it would be practieable, or even, possible, to i^ersonally examine at the xiorts of shipment all the articles shixixied from
the vaiious xiorts, and would xirobably lead to many comxilaints from
foreign governments. The consular fees are about $2.50 for each certificate, regardless of value of invoice.
19. I doubt if anything would be gained t6 the Govefnment by enlarging the xiowers ofthe executive and judicial departments, unless a
court was organized especially for this purxiose in each of the more important xiorts to have jurisdiction both as to values and classifications.
20. Have no knowledge.
21. Have no knowledge.
22. I do not think it does.
23. Have no knowledge.
24. Have no'information.
Yery respectftdly, your obedient servant,
H. H. BEOWN,
Examiner of Food Froducts. ^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
•,
47
A'
^ '
.
738
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ^TREASUiRt:
^. ,• •
'
No. 154. ^ • ;
^
, ^ •
CHARLES E. WILSON—Appointed Messenger Decemher 16,1875; Clerk and Verifier October 14, 1878; Examiner March 14, 1883..
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 ,
402 Washington Street, New York, October 4,- 1885.
S I R : I respectfully submit the following rexilies to the series of ques"tions received from your office in a circular marked "confidential:"
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24. I do not know.
3. By measuring the pieces.
^
. 7. I do hot know of any" article, on which the department has failed
to collect the full amount of duty that the law prescribes.
8. I do not think there has been a failnre.
10. There is doubt and conflict of opinion as to some ofthe elements
to be considered in fixing the dutiable value growing out of various
opinions respecting the meaning of section 7.
12. I consider the deputy apxiraiser chiefiy resxDonsible for all returns
to the collector; his salary is $3,000 x^ei" annum. The appraiser has
little to do with fixing the value of merchandise.
16. I do riot think so.
19. I think it would be safe, riseful to the revenues, and just to importers for the judicial powers to have judisdiction to deteriuine dutiable values, as they now. determine rates of duty.
•
20. I do not feel competent to do this.
22. I do not think so.
23. I do not think that the Department has failed to enforce the revenue law in New York or other ports. .
°
Eespectfully, yours.
CHAS. E. WILSON.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 155.
JAIMES McLOUGHLIN—Appointed Inspector Jannary 20, 1874 ; Clerk and Verified
March 13, 1874 ; Clerk July 5, 1883 ; Examiner Jnly 7, 1884.
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 ,
402 Washington Street, October 6, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to yonr circular marked strictly confidential, I wonld
respectfully state that, in answer to Question No. 1, I have no evidence
whatever; and to Question No. 12, the examiner'is x^i'imarily held
resxionsible fbr the false return of value of merchandise to the collector.
The salary of such officer is from fourteen hundiod to twenty-five hundred dollars xier annum. In the xiort of New York, wiiere there is such
an enormous ambunt of business transacted, it is imxiossible for-the ax3-,
praiser to examine xiersonally the returns for values pf merchandise made
,by the examiners, therefore he only officially certifies to the coUector
the values fixed by the examiners.
REPORT
05^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUIJY.
739
In regard to the balance of the.questions, if is impossible for me to
give any information whatever, as I have had no experience in the
business which they relate to.
..
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,.
JAMES M C L O U G H L I N ,
Examiner, Facking-Room, {First Bivision. ,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
.
Secretary of the Treasury.
.
'
•
No. 156.
WM. S. HOYT—Appointed Examiner February 1, 1879.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
•
" .
October 5, 1885.
S I R : In reference to Dex3artment's printed communication containing
twenty-fi)ur questions regarding the United States custonis service, I
have the honor of submitting the following report, comprising such
knowledge ofthe matters referred to as has been acquired in my official
experience. I also beg to state that the delay in resxionding has been
caused by a severe sickness, from which I am now just recovering.
1 and 2. I have no evidence that the prescribed rates have not been
collected.
'
\.
.
3. The invoiced widths of textile fabrics are always verified, and
when there is any suspicion that the lineal measurements are incorrect,
they are also ascertained by actual measurement or tests. The yard
and metre sticks furnished by the Government are used in taking such
measurements. • .
' 4 and 5. I know of no such evidence.
,
6. As my experience has been confined entirely, or almost so, to
examining goods at the public stores, I have had no oxiportunity of
acquiring the information desired.
(
' .
7, 8, and 9. I know of no evidence showing such failure on the part
of officials at this port. - I have no knowledge of the transactions of
public business at other xiorts. In my experience, I know of no case
where evidence furnished by special agents has been fully corroborated.
as against the official action of examiners at this x^ort. •'
10. I know of no such conflict of opinion except in the matter of
dutiable charges. That matter is, I believe, at present before the Dexiartment. I consider the place, time, and standard to be axixilied are clearly
defined by the statutes.
11. I know of no way by which such an average estimate can be now
made on the articles or invoices identified.
12. The examiners are primarily and chiefly responsible in the usual
course of business for reports of dutiable values. The axipraiser and
assistant appraisers do not ordinarily xiersonally inspect merchandise
under examination, but are frequently consulted on questions of law and
evidence and their judgment accepted by the examiners. The appraiser .
usually certifies without question to the value reported by the^examiners
and approved by the assistant axipraisers.
13. I know of no such evidence.
14 and 15. I do not believe that false reports of dutiable values have
been habitually and systematically reported, and I know no case where
money has been paid to officials or where any official has been guilty of
any action intentionaUy detrimental to the interests of the Government.
740
REPORt OP THE . SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In my opinion, a change froiri ad valorem to specific rates would be a
benefit to the revenue, xirovided the same amount can be collected, and
would diminish a tenclency to frauds. Sxiecific rates ^ can , certainly be
axixilied to all textile fabrics, but in some classes of goods, especially
those coming under my observation—i. e.,.cotton fabrics^lhere.should
be great care to avoid discrimination against the lower classes or grades.
I 17. I do not think false reports have been increased by the legislation mentioned'^ and I regard the service to-day in fully as good condition as at any time heretofore.
18. I would axipear impracticable for consnlar officers to xiersonally
examine articles intended for entry at American xiorts, and I do not
know of any district where such a course could be adopted without giving^ cause for numerous comxilaints.
The fees in Great Britain are 15s.—105. 6d. consular fees, 4s. Gd. notary.
19. I regard the law as it now stands as just and xiroxier, and do not
believe that the change mentioned would be judicious.
20. I have had no exxierience in examining wool or woollen fabrics,
and can give, no information of the character desired.
21. l h a v e seldom, if ever, been xiresent during the examination of
baggage of arriving, xiassengers, and do not know of any case where
money has been x?aid tojLhe officials conducting the examination. Should
such xiractices xirevail, they can only be xirevented by xiromx^t xiunishment of offenders when detected.
' 22. I know of no articles on which the whole duty xirescribed b^' law
has not been collected, and, consequently, of none v/here the rate has
been levied by Congress beyond a xioint that can be xirotected.
23. I have had no official experience elsewhere than at the port of
New York.
24. If such false reports have been mad*, (of the fact of which I am
ignorant,) I can give no information as to why the law governing such
cases has not been enforced.
Had I known of any frauds or corruption, of loss to therevenue,
through ignorance of officials or other causes, I should have felt it my
duty to have immediately reported the fact to my superior officer,^ and
should have sp acted.
I am, with much respect, yours, &c.,
' ^
WM. S. HOYT,
Examiner, Fourth Bivision^ Axipraiser'sMffice. ^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
' Secretary of the Treasury.
-
No. 157.
.
^
CORNELIUS GARDINIER—Appointed Examiner July 31,1876, and February 1,1879.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFCE,
New York, October 5, 1885.
S I R : Your communication of blank date, in relation to the le^^ing
and collection of duties and other matters, w^as received on the 10th
ultimo, and would have received due attentipn, but for illness xn^eventing. In now replying, I resxiectfully submit the following:
' ^
1. I have no evidence that the rates of duty have not been levied and
collected as the law prescribes.
2. I have no satisfactory evidence that on articles which the law sayfj
shaU pay specific rates of duty the full amount has not been coUected.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
741
3. The usual course to verify the invoice measurements of textile
fabrics has "been and is to measure the length and width of pieces, the
lengths being given in yards, metres, and annes customary in the
countries in which they are purchased and shipxied..
4. I have no evidence of any collusion between the persons named to
send to the.axix>raiser bogus or false packages as fair samples of one in
every ten.
^
5. I have no evidence or knowledge of any false or incompetent or
inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves.
6. In relation to the rates of duty and differences between importers and
collectors, I think the existing law in regard thereto sufficient. Also the
Xiayment of interest as part of the damages and costs in collection suits^
and that there is no necessity for any new tribunal to try judicial questions growing out of rates of external or internal taxation levied by the
executive, if the existing law is worked efficiently.
7 and 8. I am in possession of noi^suffi cient information showing that
the Treasuiy Departnient has duiing recent years failed to collect in
New York the entire and full amount of duty the law prescribes.
9. I have no conclusive or satisfactory evidence that the appraisers at this and other xiorts have reported to the collector false dutiable values.
In regard to the remaining questions in this and Nos. 10 and 11,1 have
no sufficient or conclusive evidence to express any satisfactory oxiinion.
12. As between the examiner, the deputy appraiser, and appraiser, I
regard the examiner as primarily and chiefly resxionsible forthe returns
of value, having the xiersonal examination of the merchandise and apX)lying the rates of duty. Salaries of the examiners vary from $1,800
to $2,500.
'
'
'
13. Have no evidence that any Government officers in the consular
department or elsewhere have assisted, consented to, or connived at the
Xiresentation to the axixiraisers of false evidence of fbreign valries.^^
14. If fa^se valuations have come of bribery or venality, there is, in
my judgment, no reason to think that it will not be successful in the
future as in the x^ast.
16. A change from ad valorem to sx:)ecific rates would helxi to diminish a tendency to bribery, but it would be difficult to axiply it in aU
cases.
_
17. Have no knowledge or information of the increase of false rexiorts
by the rexieal of the ^^moiety" law of 1874 and the modification of the
law of 1863, resxiecting the seizure of books and papers. . ^ ,
18. Personal examinations by consuls or agents in the distiicts named,
and verifying the correctness of invoice values, excexit by greatly increased force, and then accompanied by considerable delay. Consul
fees in London and England, 15 shiUiugs.
'
19. I think it would\iot;
20. Have no exxierience in this dex:)artment.
21. Can be xirevented only in one way, by sure and quick punishment of offenders.
22. I think not; have no knowledge of any.
23. Have no knowledge in regard to other x:)orts.
24. Cannot say.
Eespectfully, &c.,
C. GAEDINIEE,
Examiner, Fourth Bivision.
Hoii. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
742
'REPORT^OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TJXEASURY.
No. 158.
' .
.-
%
^
^
.
'
•
•
-
CHARLES F. HARTMANN—Appomted Opener and Packer AprU 1, 1874; Examiner
November ,17, 1884.
'
. ^
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
402 Washington Street, October 6, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to your cominunication niarked -^^confi^dential," and requesting answ^ers to a number of questions, marked 1
to 24, I have the honor of making the foUowing statements, after prefacing that my experience as an examiner is not of long standing to .
have me furnished with an insight into many of the points contairied in
the questions to be ansvored.
1. To the best of my belief, the rates of duties on the dutiable value
of goods have been levied and collected accordingjo law.
2. Unknovm to me.
3. By the stamp of the manufactory, and for testing, or, in case of
distrust, by actual measurement.
4. I have not heard of any collusion between the entry clerks or deputy coUectors and the iniporters.
^
5. Unknown to me.
6 to 9. On these points I am unable to give the necessary information.
10. Not to my knowledge.
^
,
'
11. Not by me, as I am not familiar with any facts regarding undervaluations.
12. The exaininer is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual
course of business, for a false return of value to the collector. The
salaiy of examiners ranges from $1,800 to $2,500.
13. ^Not known to me, but I do not think there is an examiner who
considers the consul's certificate as proof of the correct value of the invoice, but appraises the goods to the best of his own expertness and
exxierience.
14. If false values have beeu habitually and systematically reported ^
to the collector, and if the tariff law has not been faithfuUy executed,
the guilty party can only be the examiner.
15. To xirevent any bribery or venality in the future is only possible
by the emxiloyment of honest, incorruptible examiners.
16. In regard to the change from ad valorem to specific duties there
is a wide difference of opinion. As regards the goods I have to deal
with, I hardly believe it would be possible to raise an amount of duty
equal to the one realized at the present rates; and, furthermore, it would"
injure, to a great extent, the interests of American manufactrirers. As
I am not aware of any attempt of bribery, I also cannot express an opinion on the x'>ossible results of a change, princix^allj^ in regard to textile
goods.
.
17. Not able to answer, inasmuch as when I was appointed to the
position of exaininer the law in question had long been out of practice.
18. In regard to the consular service, I cannot given definite opinion,
not being familiar with the workings and customs of these offices. But
I hold it rather to be imxDOSsible, except with an innumerable staff ol
officers, for these to supervise the shipments and the correctness of invoices in regard to the correct dutiable values of the goods.
18. In my opinion, it would not be adiisableio have a greater number of officers appointed to interfere with the ascertainment of the duti.able value of the merchandise, as the present law is allsufficient.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^
743
20. Unable to do so.
21. It is greatly believed to be the case; but, as far as I know, whenever the guilty parties were detected, they were punished by dismissal,
and a stricter supervision being exercised since some time, there is less
heard of it.
22. 23, and 24. Not able to give the necessary information.
Having conscientiously answered the questions x^rbxiounded to the
best of my ability, I have the honor to sign, most respectfully, your
obedient servant,
CHAELES F . HAETMANN,
Examiner,^ Ninth Bivision, of French and German Cutlery, Military
Goods, Bronze-Fowders, Butch Metal, Files, Tin-foil^ Watchmakers' and Jewellers' Tools, (Soc.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 159.
--
HENRY C. SOUTHWORTH—Appointed Exammer December 27, 1884.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S
OFFICE,
4:02 Washington Street, September 23, 1886.
S I R : My brief service in this department,-or in any department ofthe Government, will be sufficient, I trust, to account to you for my
failure to answer many of the inquiiies contained in your communication received by myself during this month.
Inquiry 3.—I often take the weights and measurements of the lengths
and widths of"the goods examined by myself
Inquiry 10.—There have been some differences of opinion as to
charges on packages. In my opinion, the place, the time, and the
standard in order to fix dutiable value, are fully defined by the statutes.
Inquiry 12.—In the usual course of business the examiner is primarily
responsible for the return of value. Salaries range from $1,800 to
$2,500. I was appointed at a salary of $1,800, which still remains at
the same rate. I understand that the statutes only requuo the appraiser to o^cm% certify to the collector the return of value as reported by the assistant axipraiser, who has confirmed tfie values fixed
by the examiner.
^
.«Inquiry 13.—I have no evidence of such a state of affairs, but the
Basle (Swiss) expert reports, coming into my hands at irregular intervals, are quite unsatisfactory to myself
^ Inquiry 16.—I do not think sxiecific rates can be applied beneficially
to the revenue on the goods ordinarily examined by myself
Inquiry 18.—I think it would not be xiracticable, under the present
circumstances, at London, Paris, Berlin, &c., to examine and verify as
to the correctness of all invoices, but I think the service could be improved
at these xioints. The consular office at Basle (Swiss) emxiloys an expert!
Ifit is a necessity to have such a person there, a greater or equal need
exists for like service at St. Etienne, France.
Inquiry 19.--From, my brief observation, I think it would not be safe
or useful fo the revenue or just to the imxiorter to interfere with, or
' i-evise, or set aside the decisions ofthe axipraisers' department respect^
iu'j dutiable values if all the forms of law have been complied with.
Inquiry 20.—Only for the last three months, Jnly, August, and Sep^
tember, have goods having wool in their composition passed iinder my .
744
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
examination, but, from this slight experience, I find the combination
of ad valorem and specific rates work unjustly both to the revenue and
to the imxioiier.
Yery respectfully,
HENEY C. SOUTHWOETH,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of ihe Treasury.
No. 160.
HENRY HAVILAND—Appointed Examiner AprU 1, 1881.
"^w^ YOB.-K, September 24:, 1886.
S I R : In response to the letter addressed to me by you, I have the
honor to make the following rexilies:,
Question No. 1.—I have no knowledge but what they have been.
No. 2.—I do not know of any.
No. 3.—No knowledge.
No. 4.—None that I know. .
No. 5.—I have none.
.
^ ,
No. 6.—I do not know.
No. 7.—No knowledge.
No. 8.—No knowledge.
No. 9.—No knowledge.
No. 10.—For the first clause, I do not know of any; and for the last
clause, I think they are.
^
No. 11.—I think not.
*
.
No. 12.—In my oxnnion, the examiner is xirimarily responsible. My
salary is $1,800 x^er year. My experience with the axipraiser has been
that he has fully recognized the responsibility of his xiosition, and made
himself cognizant of correct values and the x^i'oper classification of
goods.
A'b. 13.—No knowledge.
No. 14.—No knowledge.
' No. 16.—No knowledge.
Yo. 16.—I do not think a change from ad valorem to specific rates
would be any benefit to the revenue. There are many articles to which
- a specific rate cannot be well axiplied.
No. 17.—No knowledge.
No.' 18.—I do not think it would be xiracticable in the districts named,
nor in any others, excexit such as those w^here the amount exx:)orted
would be trifling. I think foreign governments w^ould comxilain. I
do not know what fees are exacted.
No. 19.—I do not know.
No. 20.—No knowledge. ^
^
No. 21.—No knowledge.
No. 22.—No knowledge.
No. 23.—No knowledge.
No. 24.—No knowiedge.
' Yours, very respectfully,
HENEY H A Y I L A N D ,
Bmg Examiner, Seventh Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of tlie Treasury,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
745
No. 161.
CILiRLES M. KEYSER—Appointed Clerk in Appraiser.'s Office July 10, 1868; Ex^ aminer July 5, 1883.
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 ,
-September 24, 1885.
: In reply to your circular, I will answer your questions
to the best of my ability. I entered the service July 10, 1868, as clerk
and verifier, at $1,000 x^er annum, and have been xiromoted from time
tp time, having passed a civil service examination in Axiril, 1874, and
again in July, 1883, having then been xiromoted to the examinership
of English woollens.
,
,
No. 1.—As far as I know, all duties levied have been collected.
iVb. 2.—I know of none.
'
No. 3.—The only manner measurements bf textile fabrics are verified
i s b y comparing the tickets on goods with the invoice;^ and if any
susxiicion is aroused, the goods are then unrolled and measured. It
would be imxiossible to measure all the goods, as we have not the room
or helxi; the goods would be more or less soiled by handling.
Yo.''4.—I have no evidence of collusion between importers," their
agents, and Government officials.
'
No. 5.—I have none.
.
No. 10.—There is great confusion in arriving at the comxionent parts
of goods to ascertain the xiroper rates of duty to be imposed ori so-called
^'silk and cotton seats." On an analysis, the chemist reports lessthan
2 xier cent, of goods hair, (thus changing the rate of duty,) which cannot
be discovered by feeling or seeing.
No. 12.—The examiner fixes the value on the merchandise. The
salaries fixed by law are from $1,800 and not more than $2,500. I
believe they average from $1,600 to $2,200. My salary is $1,800. >
The appraiser certifies to the value given bythe examiner and assist;
ant appraiser.
No. 13.-^1 am not aware of any.
No. 16.—It would, if it could be accomxilished; but specific duties
would make low-price goods cost more than the high-price goods, and
so cause the x^oor to pay a great deal more than the rich. I refer you
to the schedule acconipanying this letter. I have been as brief as possible, and hox:)e that it will contain some information to you.
I am, very respectfully,
CHAELES M. KEYSEE,
Examiner of English Woollen^%
Sixth Bivision, Appraiser's Bepartment.
DEAR SIR
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of ihe Treasury.
746
REPORT OF THE, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
-
,
No. 162.
HENRY J. ABBOTT—Appointed Inspector December 28, 1878; Examiner Jime l l ,
- 1883.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,'
September 24, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to x^i'i^^ed circular askirig replies to
twenty-four questions, I have the honor to rexiort as ibllows:
Though ranking as an examiner in the axipraiser's bffice, the duties
of my position are thos.e of a sugar expert in the United States laboratory, and do not embrace the subjects involved in the inquiries referred to. I cannot, therefore, make official replies to them, and presume that none other are desired.
'
Eespectfully,
H. J. ABBOTT,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of Treasury.
No. 163.
MARSHALL J. CORBETT—Appointed Exammer AprU 17, 1873.
P O R T O F . N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O I F I C E ,
402 Washington Street, September 24, 1885.
S I R : Yonr circular without date received. I would respectfully
submit the^foUowing answers to the questions xiroponnded :
1. I have no evidence that the duties have not been collected as the
law requires.
• 2. I do not know that the specific duties prescribed by Congress
have not been collected.
3. By counting, measuring, and weighing.
4. I know nothing about.
. 5. I have no evidence that such is the case.
6. I am not prexiared to answer.
7. I cannot specify such articles.
8. I could not say.
9. (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.) I know nothing about what evidence there is;
depends upon the circumstances of the case. There is usually the evidence of interested xiarties.
10. There has been in regard to the elements of chief value. The
question as to the xiroxiortion of labor to apply on the different elements
of value, and also the question of what charges enter into the dutiable
value of the merchandise, I do iiot think these things are clearly defined by the statutes.
11.. I think not.
'
'
12. The examiner is given the invoice to compare the contents of •
'•;he cases and report as to the quantity, and value to the assistant appraiser. The amount of business done in the different divisions of the
appraiser's department in New York make it utterly impossible for the
assistant appraisers to make such a critical examination as to enable'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
747
them to report on either the values or quantities of the goods in their
respective divisions; therefore, they must depend almost wholly upon
the examiners, whose salaries are from eighteen to twenty-five hundred
dollars x^er annum. The assistant appraiser reports the values to the
axipraiser, as, according to the law, (or usage,) an assistant axipraiser
signs every invoice, although many times he may know nothing about
the correctness of it. The appraiser officially certifies to the collector
the reports made by the assistant appraisers. .
13. I know of no evidence that any such thing has been purposely
done.
^
14. I know nothing of the matter.
15. I don't know.
16. I think the collection would be easier; specific rales could be
apxilied to all textile fabrics, but they would oxierate very unequally..
17. This is more than I could say.
18. I think it would be practical to send more informatiori than we
receive. • All articles could not be reported without vexatious delays.
What action the foreign governments would take I could not say; $2.50
for each certificate.
19. I think it be neither safe or useful.
,
20. I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Lewis Heyl, the general
axipraiser at Philadelphia, is the best qualified to make such report.
21. I don't know.
22. I have not studied the matter.
23. I don't know.
"
'
24. I don't know.
*
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
MAESHALL J. COEBETT,
Examiner, Appraiser's Bepartment, New York.
'
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
.
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 164.
\
'
J. HOWARD WAINWRIGHT—Appointed Exammer May 19, 1883."
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
'
September 26, 1885.
S I R : In regard to your letter of inquiry recently received by me, I
beg leave to state that since my duties as examiner in the appraiser's
dexiartment.. consist exclusively of work as a chemist an the United
States laboratoiy, and since I have nothing whatever to do with the
X3assing of invoices or the examination of merchandise in any other
manner than mentioned above, I am, therefore, unable to rexily to your questions.
'
'
.
Yery respectfully,
J. HOWARD WAIN WEIGHT, Fh. B.,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
748
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, -
No. 165.
JAMES F. GUILFOYLE—Appointed Opener October 28, 1873; Sampler October 20,
1874 ; Examiner November 24, 1882.
P O R T OF-NEW
YoRlv,
A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
September 25, 1885.
S5R: Eespectfully referring t o t h e circular marked ^'strictly confidential" received from your Dexiartment, I desire to state that the
questions embraced in said circular, from 1 to 11, inclusive, I am riot
in a xiosition to speak intelligently upon matters contained therein.
in rexily tp Question 12,1 can only state that, as betweeen the examiner,
assistant axixiraiser, and axixiraiser, the examiuer, in the usual course
of business done in this dexiartment, is x^iTmarily responsible for a
false return of value to the collector. Under existing laws it is the
duty of the assistant axixiraiser to axipraise nierchandise, with the aiU
and assistance of the examiner; but an assistant apxiraiser cannot x^ersonaiiy be an exxiert in all classes of goods xiassed upon in.the division
of which he is at the head, so that, to a very great extent, he must rely
ux^on the knowledge of the exaininer, who has constantly before him^
many cases of similar goods for different importei"S. Acting upon the
knowledge which each examiner xiossesses, the assistant axipraiser (who
must rely upon the integrity and honesty of his examiners) certifies to
the correctness of values to the apxiraiser, who, in turn, certifies the same
to the collector.
My salary is $1,800 xier annuni.
The remaining questions in the circular I do not consider myself
competent to speak uxDon.
^ .
Yery respectfully,
JAMES F. GUILFOYLE,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
,No. 166.
HAYDN M. BAKER—Appointed Examiner December 3, 1870.
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 ,
402 Wasliington Street, September 20, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receixit of the honorable
Secretary's confidential circular, without date, embracing twenty-four
sections of interrogatories, calling for the xiresentation of fao's and exXiressions of opinions appertaining to the administration of and xiroposed amendments to the tariff laws.
The writer's official status imposes upon him the duty of determining
the identities and comx:)onent materials ofthe iniported merchandise submitted to his investigation, and thereafter reporting the lindings tothe
apxiraiser, fbr the guidance of the assistant axipraisers and their examiners, v/ho subsequ3ntly classify, in keeping with the representations of
ascertained individuality,-composition, or relative value, according to
their own understandings ofthe directions contained in the law or Department regulations.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
749'
The character of the subscriber,'s work only qualifies him to furnish
statistical or commercial infbrmation, in an incidental manner. His
exx^eriences as Governnient expert in the courts and to the district attorney's offices has, however, made him familiar with schemes, devices,
and conditions that culminate in disaster to the Government interests.
At the same time, it a]ipears to him that some ofthe adversities might
have been averted by ihe adoption of more discreet methods and the
previous enactments of well-considered legal provisions.
Assuming that these observations enibrace facts related to some of
the sections contained in the honorable Secretaiy's circular, 1 respectfully ask xiermission to submit the thoughts connected therewith, in the
exx^ectation that the presentation will convey available suggestions.
Eeferring to Inquiry 7 ol' the circular, the subscriber affirms that the
Treasuiy DexDartment has been unsuccessful durihg recent years in
levying and collecting the entire and full amount of duty x:)reseribed by
law uxion aniline colors import eel at New York.
The subject is an exceedingly com[)lex oue, involving many intricate
points, that made the irreg>u.larities po.ssible; therefore, it is more than
Xirobable that the ''evidence of failure" would be "successfully con^tioverted" if the word successfully, as used in the circular, refers to
the results of a legal contest.
A s to " h o w " the evidence v.^ould be controverted, I submit that it
would be brought about by the lapse of time, and by taking refuge behind the comxiound term "foreign inarket value," wiiich has been found
at reapxiraisements to be an exceedingly elastic expression, applicable
to secret contracts, embodying any kind of terms and conditions which
parties may testify they have previously agreed to.
To illustrate and emphasize this thought, let me solicit your attention
to the following narration :
One year ago last December, an imxiorter furnished the writer, for
Government use, a set of staxile aniline colors, and the firm's contract
xni ees with the manufacturer, (Carl Zimriier, on the Ehine.) The said
prices were affirmed by Zimmer to be the actual cost of making the
goods.
.
The imxiorter claimed, how-ever, that all the inerchandise would be,
and was, invoiced at the regular Euroxiean value, and at an advance
ux3on the cost of fabrication.
The firm- also admitted that after such goods had arrived in this
country and been sold, one-half of the x^rofits, above cost, drities, and
exxienses, were transmitted to the manufacturer.
This division of profits cemented the xiarties of the first and second
parts into partnership. The Government, through its representatives,
used the imxiorter's information and samples as standards for the de-.
termination ofthe values of aniline colors imxiorted at New York.
The tests were verified by comparisons with samples and current
invoice values from the regular importations of William J. Miller &
Co., of New York. "The findings thereby deduced were reinforced by
inlbrmation from Consul Frank^Mason and fiom United States Special
Agent George C. Tichenor, who were abroad. The preponderance of
testimony was also increased by the simultaneous examinations of the
imxiortations of Henry A. Gould & Co., of Boston, covering one or two
years' business, which we were investigating in concert with Dr. P.
Ambrose Young, examiner of drugs and chemicals at Boston. The investigations advanced every New York imxiorter to reaxipraisement.
760
- REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TilE TREAStJRV.
'When the cases were tried they came off, all in a bunch, during the celebrated aniline-color suitsin the United States district court. Neither
the writer nor his exhibits could be in two disxiersed lociilities at the same
time, while the district attorney was disinclined to release the exhibits.
At the reappraisements the importers acted as merchant appraisers
upon each other's cases without leaving the room. They testified that
the European market was immensely overstocked, in consequence bf
the war then raging with China; therefore, by carrying the cash to
Europe, they cpuld and had bought large quantities of colors at less
than the cost of their fabrication. The most extensive importer testified
that the manufacturer in Europe was a partner in the American firm,
having invested $150,000 in the concern which he represented.- The
Governnient was in possession of bona fide offers in Europe, by this
sairie manufacturer, for quantities ranging from 200 kilos to 1,000 kilos,
less 5 per cent, discount for cash. These offers were confidential circulars, that were put into the aniline-color suits because they were serviceable as exhibiting the manufacturer's classification, which agreed
with what the Government claimed should rule in assessing duty. They
were withdrawn after the trial and carried to Boston to confiont the
iihXDbrter at the Henry A. Gould & Co. reax^xiraisements, but a^re^ undoubtedly, still in the possession of the Government. These offers were
not accepted as market values, but, instead thereof, the merchant's
claims fbr individual and privileged transactions were considered as
regular and legal rates.
Your examiners claimed that all their lopreseutations were x^^oxiortional factors of unfinished transactions, .which could not x:>ropeiiy represent a European market vabie, because the apportionriient of profits
to be subsequently realized actually belonged therewith.
It was also argued on the part of the merchants, who were sustained
by the general and merchant appraisers, that duties must be assessed
according to the foreign market,value atthe time of exportation, while
the assumxition of fiiture piofits referred to a dubious quantity, that
could not be considered in an official act.
At the same the importers admilited that European buyers could not
purchase at rates similar to those which were obtained for goods comi n g i o the United States. It was also made apparent that reputable
and competent buyers in Europe, with an abundance of casli and unquestionable credit, could not x^i^i'chase for the United States at terms
practically axiproximating those designated in the invoices of American importers, because the manufacturers were bound to the said importers by terms they felt under no obligation to disclose. The merchants also affirmed that the history of sales adduced on the part of
the Government only represented transactions by limited or insignificant operations.
It was also developed at these hearings that valuations for Australia, China, India, or Japan were all different quantities. We affirm
that the establishment of a market value each time a transaction is
effected annihilates the force of the expression and renders the assumption that an examiner can divine the terms of a negotiation between
two parties he does not know (by the examination of a sample from
the merchandise transferred) a xiositive a-bsurdity. Surely, the expression "'market value" ought not to be so suscexitible to fluctuating
import as to include one man's favorable opportunities and another's
fatal disadvantages at the same time. Please allow m e t o indicate the
REiPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
751
manner in which this question of market value influences the matter
of classification by obscuring or misrepresenting the real character of
inerchandise.
'
I n t h e Turquoise Silk cases, the one tried in New York, before Judge
Shipman, being designated the "Fleitman case," and the other issue
tried at Philadelxihia, duririg October, 1883, Judges McKenna and
Butler presiding, the question of classification depended upon whether
the component silk or the comxionent cotton should sway the decision.
If the cotton amounted to 25 x^er cent, or more of the whole value
of the goods, then the merchandise was entitled t o t h e lower classification.
.
;
In the issue at Philadelphia, the plaintiff arraj^ed and disxilayed all
• he costs of raw materials, with the expenses for weaving, dyeing, and
finishing, to prove that cotton was the constituent, exceeding 25 per
cent, of the whole value.
The calculations were made upon one thousand yards of each kind,
.at so many marks and pfennings x^er metre, the silk being billed by the
pound in dollars and cents, and the cotton in pounds, shillings, and
X^ence, while the reckoning for dyeing, weaving, and finishing was comXiuted in francs and centimes.
The value of the cotton in one lot was ascertained to be $1.02^'^ per
pound; in the second x^^^rcel, $1,341^0- per x:)Ound; and for the third
exhibit, $1.36/-(j^ per pound, when the values were translated.
The chemical and microscopic examinations indicated that the three
kinds were of one quality substantially.
After the plaintiffs rested, the Government unravelled the knot they
had tied.
They were stunned by the results their own factors afforded, until
Judge McKenna's inquiries into the causes of disagreement revealed
hiding-xilaces behind the 10 per cent., 18 per cent., and 22 per cent,
discounts from designated invoice prices.
^
These revelations induced the learned judge to inquire, " W h a t is a
market value, if it isn't the price a man pays for goods'?"
This leads to the very point we are anxious to impress upon the honorable Secretary, namely, that the plaintiff had xirepared an exhibit
showing that the organzine (raw silk) cost, after deducting allowable
discounts, $5.40 per xiound, which was really its xiroper value at that
time compared with regular unquestionable transactions. He then
expends in labor and material about 22 xier cent, of the invoice price.
After the goods are comxilete, they are invoiced at a fair market value,
from which 18 per cent, discount is allowed.
" '
But that 18 per cent, discount upon the finished fabric comes off from
the cost of the silk as well as the other components, the charges for the
same being already presented at a fair valuation.
Can a firm continue in business by purchasing silk at $5.40 x^er xiound,
afterwards advancing its worth by more expenditures, and finally selling
it at $4.42Y^^ jier xiound, which is equal to 18 per cent, discount from
the xiaying xirice? °
.
This kind of business inevitably terminates in bankruptcy, but the
Xieoxile who pursue the course described seem to thrive on their drawbacks..
.
These comxilications are presented to enforce the conviction that a
limitation by legislative enactment should be assigned to the expression
'^ foreigrn market value."
752
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,^
Eeferring now to Inquiry 10 ofthe circular, I have the honor to
enclose an illustration of the confusion incident to the determination
of the dutiable value of some woollen goods.
Exhibit A reveals the perplexity. In the filter-paper within the
envelope will be found cotton fibres derived from the accomxianying
sample, amounting to 3.84 x^er cent, of the whble, the balance being
wool. Examiners classify these goods as mixtures of "cotton and
wool," presuming that they have no authbrity to axipraise the intent
of mixing as an •e'ffort to deprive the Government of its proxier duty.
Exhibit B contains four similar samxiles. Uxion what basis, or by
what directions these gbods are classified as mixtures of cotton and
and wool the writer does not know.; but paragraxih 362, new tariff,
Xirovides for " woollen cloths '^ ^' * and all manufactures, of every
descrixition, made wholly or in X3art of wool, not specially enumerated
or xirovided for." This language amply describes this kind of merchandise, but xiossibly the goods may be sxiecially enumerated and xirovided for by xiaragraxih 363, as "flannels," or by x:)aragraxih 365, as
"women's and children's dress-goods, coat-linings, Italian cloths, and
goods of like desciiptiop," and possibly some other measure.
, Exhibit C is another illustration oi the same subject.
These exhibits are takeii fiom the bundles of retained samples lireserved by the wuiter to verify his findings in case of disagreement or
subsequent investigations.
Exhibit D is herewith enclosed to exemxilify the same causes of confusion with reference to silk goods, imxioiters having the articles made
to keep inside of the legal line, accordingio their interpretation of law
and estimates of Department decisions relating thereto. '
'
As a matter of observation, the said "legal line" appears to be
. swayed about, up and down, always in motion by changing conditions,
the doubts of administrators, and the winds of sharp xiractice, until its
theoretic station,.legal altitude, judicial course, and final whereabouts
are confounded with the unknowable.
Exhibits might be enclosed in great numbers to disxilay the same
.kind of conflicts regarding plushes of siUc, goat and cattle hair, silk
mixtures, cotton and linen, silk, cotton, wool, and ramie mixtures, but
wb assume that enough causes of confusion have been exhibited to
advocate and inaugurate a search for remedies.
Eeferring to Inquiiy 11 of the circular, we claim that no .reliable
estimate can now be made that would axiproximate the actual facts concerning undervaluations in any year or series of years.
In answer to Inquiiy 12 of the circular,Nit may be said that the appraiser certifies to values reported tp him by assistant apx:) raisers and
examiners when no conflict of opinion occurs between these officers and
the importers or their representatives; therefore, in such instances the
examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible, unless he has divided
the resx:)Oiisibility by consultation with the assistant appraiser.
If a merchant feels aggrieved by the action of official subordinates,
he can; and often does, axipeal to the appraiser to have his case and
causes of comxilaint reconsidered and adjusted.
-Duiing the hearings the appraiser acts in a judicial capacity, listens
to both sides, comxiares the presentations with the law and Department
decisions thereunder,' and finally renders his opinion according to the
develoximents of investigation.
Eeferring now to Inquiry 16 of the honorable Secretary's circular, we
assume, in answer thereto, that the "existing quantity of duty could
REl>ORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
753
not be levied upon imports by a change from ad valorem to specific
rates," because such a change vould greatly diminish the quantities of
importation by the exclusion of seconds, thirds, and fourths, unlessspecific rates w-ere established, for different grades of thesame kind, similar
to the regulations xiursued in assessing duty upon sugar.
As to how this adjustment should be made equitably dexiends upon
the elaborate computations from the inherent qualities and consumed'
quantities ofthe merchandise subjected to consideration.
As to the effect such a change would exert in diminishing a tendency
to bribery, we claim that it would be utterly imxiotent, for wherever
and whenever this xiroxiensity exists it is uiiiformly accomxianied with
a cunning ingenuity equal to that engaged in legislating against it.
The love of justice and correct deportment are inseparable; therefore, the xiublic weal is securely guarded or grossly neglected in exact
ratio with the moral status of its xiublic servants and their ability to
contend with nefarious x^lots.
^
The writer is hapxiy to say that nearly all the men he has met as
Governinent officers have appeared to be sincere andconscientious servants. The same remark is true of most of the imxiorters, but sonie
bf them claim doubtful xirivileges. Eeferring now to one of the inquiries cbntained in Inquiry 6 of the circular, the writer begs to call the
honorable Secretaiy's attention to oue collector's suit now on apxDcal
to the Suxireme Court, namely, the Tetra-bromofluoresic Acid case. If
this case is x:>roxierly xiresented before the Suxireme Court, i t will be ordered back for new trial on the ground that it was ^'otherwise .provided for" than as an acid "used for chemical and manufacturing purposes."
A t the trial in the court below, the testimony adduced b y o r extracted from both sides xiroved it to be an aniline color. The learned
judge charged the jury that if "they found it to be an acid, no matter
if it was also an aniline color, then they must find for the plaintiff.;"
but he overlooked the fact that it ought also to be an acid "npt otherwise provided for," while as an aniline color itwas so provided for.
This case is of immense importance, beyond the xiossible saving of a
sum to the Government ranging from $90,000 to $140,000.
If the plaintiffs can be sustained, then it will follow that a vast number of substances can be isolated from their combinations and brought
in as "acids, not otherwise provided for," (free,) while the administration will be xioweiiess to x:>revent the ultimate success of the schemes.
Please allow me to direct your attention to paragraph 594, new tariff,
which reads, "acids used for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing
purposes, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." After
this enumeration, how many bther purposes are left for which acids can
be used*? The applications of such a provision are nearly limitless.
Equity to the merchants who import with a sincere regard for their
obligations to the Government, together with the necessity for uniform
applications of law, demand that the wisdom of Congress be directed
to the effects of this measure.
There is one other matter not inquired about i n t h e honorable Secretary's circular, but which is suggested by axiparent necessity, namely,
that in tlie event that a commission is appointed to ascertain the incongruities of the tariff'law, the said commission could acquaint itself
with the difficulties by holding its x^i^eliminary sessions in the examiners' rooms of appraising depaitments, and assuming to say what dis-~
48 A
754
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ^OF THE TREASURY.
position of merchandise should be made to comply with the law and
Department instructions relating thereto.
The honorable Secretary can see why this course would be advantageous when reminded that paragraxihs 1, 3, and 6 of Schedule Atreat of the same chemical substance and impose three different rates
of duty. Crude and refined conditions would interpose numerous objections and suggest definite limitations that would amount to instruciions.
.The writer has been prolix and candid by reasori of the intricacies
of the inquiries. He hopes that the thoughts ^.herein advanced will be
fbund available for the honorable Secretary's purposes, and that the
ideas projected will atone for the great length of the communication.
I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
, .
'
HAYDN M. BAKEE,
•• • '
'..
Chemist, U. S. Laboratory, New York City.
> Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 167.
EDWARD SHERER—Appomted Examiner May 4, 1880.
,
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 ,
.
September 21, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to printed circular, without date, marked
•'strictly confidential," received frbm the Department September 9,
1885, requesting replies to twenty-four inquiries, I have the honor to
report as follows: •
'
It is proper to state that, while legally rating as an examiner in the
office of the apxiraiser, my actual position as chemist in charge of the
United States laboratory at this port is one that affords me no opportunity in an officiarcaxiacity to acquire information on niost of the subjects of these inquiries. The duties of my office do not, in general,
embrace any examination of questions of rates of duty or of dutiable
values, but simply questions of identity and determinations of the comxionent parts bf samples of such importations as require chemical an-^
alysis to assist the examiner having the appraisement of such importations to decide upon the dutiable value or rate of duty.
In regard to Inquiry No. 1, I ain of the opinion that the rate of duty
AvUich the law prescribes upon artificial mineral water has not been
heretofore levied and collected. The evidenceupon which such opinion
is based is contained in my report to the appraiser of June 16, 1881,
upon imported ApolUnaris water. This report, with other papers, was
submitted by the Department to the Attorney-General bn June 29,
1881, and ^m opinion rendered by that officeir on July 26, 1881.
I am also of the opinion that the rate of duty prescribed by law was
not levied and collected upon a certain importation of srigar from Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, on June 26, 1882. The reasons for such opinion are given in my reports to the axipraiser of September 23 and September 25, 1882, on the appeal of Messrs. Watgean, Toel & Co. from
the'classification for duty of this importation of sugar. , (Copies of the
reports herein referred to are herewith enclosed.)
REPORT^ OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
755
Eespecting the subject of Inquiry No. 16, it is certain that the levying and collectionof specific duties are not attended with the uncertainty
and temptation to fraud that are inseparable from the assessment of
ad valorem duties.
.
The difficulty of defining the "term '^foreign ^market value" and
determining the actual relation existing between the foioign manufacturer and the importer renders, in many cases, tbe ascertainment pf
such value impossible.
In my judgment, a specific rate adjusted upon a scale of relative
values pr varying qualities of a manufactu red .product is most equitable,
and can be levied and collected with least friction between the axipraising officers and the importers, and offers the least temptation to fraud.
The rate of duty assessed by the existing tariff on imported raw
sugars of foreign manufacture affords the best illustration of this mode
of apxiraisement. Since the enactment of the present tariff there have
been 36,849 samples of different importations of sugar tested in duplicate in this laboratory by the polariscope, and the rate of duty determined by such test. From the classification thus arrived, at there have
been on the part of the importers no apxieals to the Department.
Evidently this mode of determining the rate of duty is attended with
but little conflict of opinion between the appraising officers and the
importers. That the Goverriment is fully xirotected is equally certain .
from the fact that the widest publicity is given to the results obtained
by i h e appraisers, and the close competition between the riierchants
would cause them to detect at once any case of undervaluation in test
giving an unfair advantage to any of their number.
, A similar metbod of levying and collecting duties upon all imxiorted
articles, in so far as practicable, would, in my judgment, be attended
with the most satisfactory results.
,"
I respectfully submit, in conclusion, that official replies to the inquiries, with the exception of those above given, cannot be made by me,
as they do not fall within the scope of my official duties.
Yery respectfully,
E D W A E D SHEEEE,
'
Chemist in Charge.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 168.
^
W. C. POTTER—Appointed Examiner August 18, 1883.
>
.
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 ,
4:02 Washington Street, September 22, 1886.
D E A R S I R : Your confidential circular received, and I offer the following replies:
. Answers to Questions.
* No. 1.—I have no evidence that collections have not been made
according to law.
No. 2.—Think full values of duties have been collected.
No. 3.—I haye no special information on textile fabrics. My department is drugs.
?56
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. A.—l have no evidence of collusion, as I have never yet dis^
covered anything of "that nature in examinatioii of goods.
• No. 6:—My business of drug examiner does not bring me in direct
contact bf weighing or measuiing departments, so have no knowledge
of wrong.
No. 6.—In respect to differences between importers and eollectorsf
about rates of duties, the present law is good enough. I t does not
need amendment. Have no information about suits pending in Boston,
New Yprk, Philadelphia, Baltimore, &c. Law for payment of interest
as partof damages does not need amendment. Existing judicial system' sufficient.
. ^
No. 7.—Have no knowledge upon this subject.
.
No. 8.—-Know of no conspiracy among Treasury or custom-house
officials that would account fbr failure in collections.
No. 9.—^The official actions ofthe appraising department "thoroughly
honest and correct, so far as I have any knowiedge.
No. 10.—There has been a conflict of opinions abont jihe coverings in
which dutiable articles are shipped, but are now better understood.
No. 11.-^I have no means now of making a safe average-estimate of
undervaluations in past years.
No. 12.—The examiner is responsible. Salary, eighteen to twentyfive liundred dollars. The appraiser accepts the values fixed arid reported to him by examiners and assistant appraisers, and he officially
reports them to the collector.
No. 13.—Have no inforniation of false statements.
No. 14.—Have no knowledge of false and dishoriest practices.
No. 15.—There seems to be a higher mercantile standard, and the
realization that in the end "honesty does pay." . . .
: No: 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates in many cases
would be advantageous. Do not think specific rates could be applied
to all/textile fabrics.
/
No. 17.—Know of no false rexiorts.
No. 18.—Do not think it xiossible for consuls to verify all invoiced
yalues. It might be possible in some smaller distiicts, where there is
very little business. Think foreign governments would complain over
unnecessary delays. The charges are 15 shillings sterling upon each
invoibe, without regard to values.
No. 19.—See nothing to be gained by a change of law.
No. 20.—I have no knowledge about wool, as it does not come in my
department. The sixth division of our department'can give information upon everything pertaining to wool.
' Yo. 21.—No information on the subject.
No. 2%.'—Do not think lower duties would insure closer coUections.
No. 23.—Know nothing concerning enforcement of revenue law at
other ports.
,
No. 24.—When such cases have been discovered, they have been
prosecuted and punished. Large sums have been collected from such
cases.' Care and honesty on x:)art of officials leave little room for fraud.
Eespectfully,
.
W. C. POTTEE,
Brug Examiner, Seventh Bivision, Appraiser's Bept,
. Hon. „DANIEL MANNING,
'.'-•'.''
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY:
f57
No. 169.
W n . MAXWELL—Appointed Messenger, New York, November 21, 1881; Clerk
May 1, 1883; Examiner November 21, 1883.
P O R T OF'NEW YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
402 Washington Street, September 11, 1885.
S I R : I beg leave to say, in reply to your "confidehtial inquiries,"
that since my axipointment as an "examiner" I have been assigned to
duty as examiner in charge of sample office, and in my official duties
l h a v e not been called upon to question values or rates of duty, but
simply to ascertain if goods are clearly samples, and not of a dutiable
natuio as samples. Your letter calls for a resxionse from me, and in
order to show due resxiect to the head of the Department, I answer
same to best, of my ability, under the numbers in your circular.
I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully,
W. H. MAXWELL,
Examiner, United States Sample, Office.
1 arid 2. I have no official knowledge that the rates of duty, as t h e
law prescribed, have not been levied and collected.
3. I have no official experience as'to manner and test^of measurements of texile fabrics.
4. I have rio evidence of collusion between persons making entry so
asio send a bogus package for examination*to appraiser's department.
5. I have no knowledge of false or incompetent or inadequate weighing or measurement on the wharves.
6. I do not consider myself qualified to make any reply to this.
7. I have not in line of official duty found it necessary to follow up
investigations so as to enable me to make any reply to this.
8. Eeply to Inquiry 7 covers this.
.
^
9; I have no knowledge that the appraiser has reported false dutiable values to the collector.
,
10. In my official caxiacity,-have never beeu in doubt as to dutiable
values; I consider place, time, and the standard already defined.
11. My official duties do not give me any knowledge as to undervaluations,
12. The examiner is chiefly responsible for a false return of value 4^0 the
collector. The assistant axipraiser and apxiraiser must necessarily rely
on his subordinates when he affixes his signature to invoice, unless he
or they have been personally consulted. Salaries of examiners range
from $1,800 to $2,500 x^er annum".
I3i. I have no evidence or knowledge of any person in the consular
service assisting or conniving at the xiresentation of false foreign values.
14. Cannot make any reply.
, ^
•
15. Cannot reply.
16. 1 do not think a change from ad valorem to specific rates- would
benefit the revenue or diminish bribery. Do not think specific rates
couldbe applied to all fabrics.
17. Having recently entered the custom service, cannot reply to this.
18. Cannot say what fees are exacted other than those allowed bythe
regulations furnished by the Department. Do not think it practicable
for consular agents to supervise or examine all goods,, and complaints
would be made, as such a cburse would cause delay.
'758
-REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
19. I think it would be safe and just to Importers, that the executive or judicial xiowers have greater jurisdiction, and also useful to the
revenne.
20. My official duties have not caused me to make a study of rates of
duty on wool, therefore cannot make rexily.
21. I have no knowledge of the payment of money by passengers to
inspectors to facilitate or hasten examination of baggage.
22. Do not consider myself qualified to make any reply.
23. I think the Department has and is now doing all in its power to
enforce the revenue law at this xiort.
24. I have no official knowledge as to false returns or reports of dutiable values. If such reports have been made, do not know why such
dishonest officials have not been punished.
The foregoing is respectfully submitted.
W. H. MAXWELL,
.^
Examiner in Charge of U. S. Sample Office, Fort of New York. ^
No. 170.
A. G. REMSEN—Appointed Examiner December 15, 1869.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
402 Washington Street, New York, September 23, 1885.
S I R : In answer to your letter asking for such information as I may
be able to give regarding the customs service atthis port, I respectfully
submit the following:
My duties are confined to the examination of the following-enumerated articles: Sugar, molasses, melado, cane-sirup, honey, glucose,
grape-sugar, and confectionery, and as the classifying of sugar keeps
me constantly employed, it leaves me but little time or opportunity to
acquaint myself with the other branches of business conducted in the
department.
In answer to thq first eight inquiries, I would state, if there has been
failure to collect the entire and full amount of duty that the law prescribed, such failure* has been in some cases caused by the complications of the tariff law, and in others, no doubt, by dishonest officials.
In answer to Inquiries 9 and 10, I beg to state that the statutes
already define the rules to be observed in the classification of goods.
. In answer to Inquiry 11,-1 think it would be difficult to determine
correctly.
^-^ ,
In ariswer to Inquiry 12, I would state that the examiner is the responsible xierson fbr a false return. The salary of such officers range
from $1,^800 to $2,500 per annum. The appraiser has to rely upon the
honesty and capability of the examiner and assistant appraiser.
In reply to Inquiries 13 and 14, I have no evidence.
Inquiry 15.—I know of no reason..
Inquiry 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a
benefit to the revenue and diminish the tendency to bribery. 1 would
respectfully suggest specific duties on glucose, grape-sugar, and bn all
confectionery. The tariff is comxilicated on confectionery, and at times
difficult to define; and as to glucose and grape-sugar, we are in doubt
as to correct values.
REPORT OF THE .^/ECRETARY OFLTHE TREASURYo
,759
In reply to Inquiry 18, I would state that I hardly think it would be
practicable, as it would cause delays, and be the means of causiug complaints from foreign governments.
. ~
In rexily to Inquiry 19, I think it would be safe fbr the executive pr
judicial powers to have greater jurisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values.
,
In answer to Inquiry 21, the practice could be xirevented by putting
honest men in office.
^ "
.
In reply to Inquiry 24, if such false returns or reports have beeri
raade, and the officials resxionsible for such false returns have not been
punished, it has been because of powerful political influence or a lack
of proof to indict them.
.•
Yery respectfully,
A. G. BEMSEN,Examiner, Eighth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 171.
A. D. FENTON—Appointed Examiner May 13, 1878.
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 ,
4:02 Washington Street, September 22, 1886._
SiR>: In reply to sectioii 12 of the series recently received from-you,
I have the honor to say that, as between the examiner, assistant appraiser, and the axipraiser, I consider the examiner as chiefly responsible for any return of value to the collector. The maximurii salary of
an examiner is fixed at $2,500. The axipraiser has little or nothing-to '
do with fixing the value of invoices, only certifying officially the values
fixed and reported to him by the examiner and assistant appraiser.
Yery respectfully, &c.,
• . . • A. D. FENTON,
,
Examiner, Third Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secreiary U. S. Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 172..
' WILLIAM ,C. JACOBS—Appointed Exammer July 15, 1885.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
402 Washington Street, September —, 1885.
SIR : In reply to yorirs of the 8th, I would respectfully state that,
after a close and minute xierusal of your letter, I am inclined to believe
that you are in x^^i'suit of such information as each examiner is possessed of over that branch of goods with which he is connected. If this
be a proper interpretation, I shall endeavor to answer with clearness
those questions I am familiar with, while ignoring those of which I
have little if any knowledge,
760
EEPOET OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The goods coming under my direct supervision are sugar, melado,
molasses, cane-juice, glucose, honey, and confectionery, and all answers I may make to the questions propounded will-be in keexiing with
that fact.
In reply to Questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, I beg to state that no,tangible
evidence is in my possession detrimental to the .Government's receiving its just due, while, on the contrary, I feel justified in saying that in
many instances, especially of sugar duties, the Governinent has received
mdre than it was justly entitled to, owing to Treasury regulations which
deny tb us the xiower of discriminating between right and wrong. If
the Government has faifed in any case to receive its just due upon
sugar, i t i s no fault of the law, but can be attributed to either the
negligence or dishonesty of its officials.
In reply to Questions 10 and 16, I would state that of late we have
received complaints from the home manufacturers of glucose that for-,
eign invoices of that commodity have been undervalued, and considerable doubt has arisen as to which is right, the oxiinions being numerous and conflicting. In order to avoid future diffieulty, I would respectfully suggest that a specific rate x^er xiound or hun dred-weight be
levied on grape-sugar, glucose, and confectionery. In all cases where
a specific duty can be levied with equity to all, I think it advisable, as
it would tend to simplify the tariff*, relieve us of much anxiety, and
prove a barrier to the machinations of dishonest merchants and corrupt
officials.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I should answer Questions
11 and^ 13 in the negative.
In reply to Question. 12, I beg to state that the examiner is the responsible party. His return is certified to by the deputy axipraiser,
which in turn is certified to by the apxiraiser and then returned to the
cpllector.
* In reply to Questions 14 and 15,1 would say that if under the previous
administration of the Treasury false values have been habitually and
systematically reported to the several collectors, and if the tariff law
•has not been faithfully executed, and if the full amount of duty has not
been collected, it can fairly be said the failure has come of either negligence or dishonesty.
If moneys have been paid to American officials to get false reports
of dutiable values, it has undoubtedly been xiaid by those representing
the parties most interested. If the aforesaid coiTux:)tion has taken
place in the past, I see no reason why the same xiractices will not be^
continued in the future, and just so long as the xiublic service contains
men of dishonest proclivities.
As to American consular agents in large consular districts personally
examining goods.and certifying to invoice values, I doubt of the success of such a movement, while admitting its salutary tendencies. It
would require a large force, be attended with vexatious delays,- and
" undoubtedly be the means of causing numerous remonstrances from the
home governments to us against such x:)rocedure.
Ifour consular agents will exercise great care as to invoice values,
and keep us well informed, I think it about as much as can consistently
-be accomplished. The fees exacted arc, to the best of my knowledge,
$2,50 an invoice
EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
761
It would be safe and useful to the revenues, and just to importers, if
the executive and judicial xiowers had greater jurisdiction to interfere
with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which is to be the basis
on which the coilector is to levy ad valorem rates.
Yery respectfully,
WILLIAM C. JACOBS,
Examineri
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 173.
SAMUEL BOWNE—Appointed Sampler January 31, 1879; Examiner July 27, 1885.
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 ,
402 Washington Street, September 15, 1885.
S I R : h i reply to your favor of 8th instant, I beg. leave to remark
that I fear I can be of little service to you, as I am examiner of drugs,
and have had little exxierience in dry-goods and the general routine of
custom house affairs in Wall street.
^
"
I am not aware that any great conflict of oxiinion exists in regard to
dutiable values. It seems to be coming more general, however, that}
all raw materials should be admitted/r^^e, and in my opinion a change
in many articles from ad valorem duties to sxiecific values would be
beneficial.
^
One word in regard to a matter I am quite familiar with—that is,
salaries in this dexiartment. The examiners are almost always the only
ones who seethe merchandise when examined,, unless, when in doubt,
they call uxion the assistant appraisers, although the examiners are
supposed to be the only experts, and, as a matter of justice, they should
receive the same salaries as the assistant axipraisers; and all examiners
should receive the same amourit, say, $2,500 or $3,000, as others than
myself have but $1,800 x')er annum.
Lewis McMullen, our ivorthy appraiser, is, in my opinion, the best
man for the place we have had in twenty years. He lias had nothing
to learn, and to him we are indebted for the quiet working of this
department, and in comparison with former administrations is simply
asto7iishing. Mr. McMullen is at his desk at 9 a. m., ready for bnsiness,
which proceeds like clock-work, as he not only does his whole duty to
the Governnient, but exxiects all his subordinates to do theirs.
It would afford me much xileasure to hear from you whenever I can
be of service to the Dexiartment over w^hich the xiresent Secretary of
the Treasurj^ has so ably presided for the xiast few months.
With great respect, I am, your obedient servant,
.
.
SAMUEL BOWNE. ^
Hon.
s
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasm-y.
762
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No! 174.^
N E W YORK,/S'^^^em&er 23, 1885.
S I R : In answer to Question No. 12, I have to say that the examiners are almost entirely responsible, in the usual course of business, for
false returns of values to the collector, because they, and no one else,
rarelysee the merchandise 'sent to the appraiser's "department for exaniination.
After the examiners have examined thegoods, the invoices are signed,
the packages mailed^ corded, and sealed, the assistant appraiser signs
underneath the examiner the invoices serit to the appraiser, who affixes his stamp, and it goes to the collector.
The salaries of. the examiners vary from $1,800 to $2,500. ' It is not
my desire to underrate the duties of the appraiser, for it is absolutely
necessary to have a head to the' establishment, one acquainted with its
duties as well as merchandise, and one whom all in the building respect
and many fear; and it is now understood by all that any cause for removal or suspension will be acted upon with promptness, and it is
also understood that the appraiser's private office is no place for political loafers, who have in former times greatly interrupted the business
of the appraiser.
If I have spoken too plainly or freely of the management of this department, I ask your pardon; but you seeined to expect plain, unvarnished answers, and I have endeavored to answer your questions with
truthfulness.
With great respect, I am, your obedient servant,
^
SAMUEL BOWNE,
Examiner of Brugs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
'-
•
No. 175.
E. C. LESEUR—Appointed Examiner September 6, 1878. *
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P R R A I S E R ' S
OFFICE,
September 22, \886.
S I R : In response to your ^^confidential circular," received o n t h e
8th instant, I-respectfully beg leave to reply to the following questions:
Question No. ,3.—The only textile fabric that I examine is Italian
cloth, of German manufacture. Said goods are imported in pieces of
about thirty-eight metres in length, are done up in tillots, and each
piece marked on the outside with the number of metres it contains.
Whenever any doubt exists as to the correctness of the invoiced measurement, the lengths are verified by actual measurement.
Question No. 10.—There has been a conflict of opiniohin this department regarding the elements of dutiable value. Under recent instructions, coverings of every descrixition not essentially necessary to
convey the goods to the United States are held to be a part bf their
dutiable value. The condition in which merchandise is held for sale
by the owner is considered to be the actual market value, and duty is
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^763
assessed thereon accordingly. The place, tiine, and standard is defined
in the statutes.
^
. Question No. 12.—^^As between the examiner, assistant appraiser,
and appraiser," in the usual course of business the examiner is primarily responsible for a false return of value tp the collector. Although
under the law it is the xireiogative of the assistant apxiraiser to axipraise
merchandise, and the duty of the examiner to "aid and assist," yet,
as a rule, the examiner is the only one that examines and fixes values;
he reports thesame to the assistant appraiser, and he officially certifies
' to the axipraiser, and the apxiraiser to the collector. The salary of an
examiner in this department is "not more than $2,500 per annum."
Question No. 16.—I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific
rates would be a benefit to the revenue, and also a great protection to
honest importers and American manufacturers. High rates of ad valorem duty have a direct tendency to encourage and promote dishonesty
among Government officials and importers alike. Since the advent of
high ad valorem rates, the honest American merchant has gradually
been driven out of the mercantile arena, and in his place has sprung
up the American agent of the fbreign manufacturer. Instead, of actual
purchases, consignments are the rule. The only competition among
these agents appears to be that of undervaluation.
I
Having had several years' experience in appraising leather gloves at
this port, and knowing, as I do, the tenacity of the foreign manufactuerer and his agent in this country with which they endeavor to defraud the revenue, I unhesitatingly state that, inmy judgment, specific
rates should be levied upon this commodity. I feel fully convinced that
the contest between the appraising officers and the importers will not
cease until this desirable change is consummated. If desired, I would
be x>leased to present for your consideration a specific rate of duty on
leather gloves which I believe would not only be practicable, but as
equitable as any sxiecific rate could be.
Specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics, but it would undoubtedly discriminate in luvor of the rich as against the poor. If
duty were to be assessed per xiound, the cheax) heavy goods would pay
more duty relatively x^er value than the light and.expensive goods;
if duty were levied upori the square yard, the discrimination would
still exist.
•
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. 0. LESEUE,
Examine)*, Fifth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNU^G,
Secretai'y of the Treasury.
i64
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUBT.
No. 176.
F. J. BURKE—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885. '
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,'
i02 Washington Street, September 18, 188^.
: Your circular letter requesting information as to the carrying out of the customs laws has been received, and in reply, thereto
I would state that my opinion would hardly be entitled to much.weight,
as my experience in examining goods is limited, having, only been'appointed about six weeks ago.
Eespectfully, yours,
F. J. BUEKE,
, '
Examiner.
DEAR SIR
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury^
No. 177.
G.^^LANDSMANN—Appomted Examiner July 13, 1883.
N E W YORK, September 21,. 1885^.
S I R : I respectfully acknowledge receixit of circular of September 9,
. requesting answers to certain questions;. I beg leave to reply i h a t my
position as sugar examiner in the United States laboratory connected
with the appraiser's office at this x^ort prevents me from acquiring information which would enable me to answer them.
I remain, dear sir, very respectfully, yours,
• • G. LANDSMANN...
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
No. 178.
'
.
' .
B. D. C. FOSKETT—Appointed Examiner July 18-. 1885:
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE^
•
.
..
402 Washington Street, September 21, 1885i
^ S I R : In answer to confidential circular recently received by me, and
containing questions relatingto the customs department, I have to say
that I have held my xiosition but two nionths, and that my duties are
those belonging to xiosition of sugar examiner, and. have been outside
the apjiraiser's office and on the docks; that duiing that time I have
had nothing to do with xiassing invoices or the collection or levying of
duties, and that I am unable to answer questions relating to those subjects
fiom my own personal exxDcrierice, and, likewise, questions relating to
customs affairs of the last few years. In fact, my experience will not
warrant my attemxiting to answer any of the questions of said circular.
Eegretting. my inability to answer them, and expressing my readiness
to ainswer any relating to duties of my position.
I am, respectfully, yours,
B. D. C. FOSKETT,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of ilie Treasury, Washington^ B . C.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF-THE TREASURY.
765
No. 179.
B. D. C. FOSKETT—Appomted Examiner July 15, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
4.02 Washington Street, October 3, 1886. ^
S I R : I ask leave to supplement my answer to the confidential circular received by me some time ago by answ^ering Question No. 12. , My
opinipn is that the examiner is resxionsible for the return of valne, as
he is supposed to be an exxiert in the class of goods over which he has,
charge, and examines and apxiraises their value. I believe this is the
case in'most kinds of goods. In case of raw sugars, where the rate of
duty is determined by a ch.emical test, the examiner in charge of sampling is not responsible. In certain grades of raw sugar above No, 13,
Dutch standard, the sugar examiner is resxionsible, so that, with a few
exceptions, my opinion is as above. Salary of examiner is from $1,80j0
to $2,500 per year.
I am, very respectfully,
B. D. C. FOSKETT, .
Sugar Examiner, New York..
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretai-y of the Treasuiy, Washington, B. C.
No. 180.
FRED. COCHEN—Appointed Inspector September 5, 1878 ; Examiner April 9, 1879.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S
OFFICE,
^ 402 Washington Street, September 17, 1885.
' :8iR: In answer to your communication, without date, I would respectfully reply that since my axipointment as an examiner, until withiri
a short time past, I have always been attached to the first division of
the appraiser's departnient, where I have had only damaged goods to
examine; consequently, I am nnable to answer but few of your inquiries intelligently.
In answer to No. 12,1 should say decidedly that an examiner is, and
should be, held responsible for a false return. As to No. 9, I would
respectfully refer you to the testimony given by me to Treasnry Agent
Spalding, on or about May 1,1885.
" •
I am, very respectfully, &c.,
FEED. COCHEN,
^
_
Examiner.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING.
. No. 181.
PETER A. HEPBURN—Appointed Examiner Aug;ust 1, 1885.
^
.
DISTRICT NO. 3, E I G H T H
DIVISION,
Brooklyn, September 21, 1885.'
D E A R S I R : I have carefully read the twenty-four inquiiies above,
arid'faiilto see wherein I can suggest any alteration, advice, or suggestions, with the exception of No. 24, in this : It is my opinion-tha:t, did
7667
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.;
the law-seriolisly punish the officials conc,erned therein, ahd not the importer, there would be less attemxit at ofiering bribes, as the punishment being exclusively on the official, he would be so watchful thatuo
tamxiering would be attempted with him, as he would then be in the
power of the tempter.
Yours, very truly,
P E T E E A. HEPBUEN,
Examiner, Eighth Bivision.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B : C.
\
,
^
'
No. 182.
FRED'K B. BIELING—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885.
NEW YORK, September 15, 1885.
S I R : In reply to circular marked "strictly confidential," I herewith
respectfully submit my opinions on the subjects referred to. A s I have
only recently been appointed to the position I hold, (examiner of china,
pottery, and glass ware,) I cannot answ^er some of the questions, and
some perhaps only imperfectly:
Nos. I t o 6. 1 have no knowledge regarding matters treated in these
questions.
'
*
6. Judging from the very great delay in trying suits growing out of
decisions by collectors and the Treasury, it appears to me that there
ought to be established one or mbre courts of claims to try custoins cases
only; such court to consist of an equal nuniber of law and lay judges,
and the verdict of this court, if unanimous, to be final; if not, either
party to have the right of apxieal to the United States Supreme Court.
This court should be able to reach and settle cases brought before it
within thirty days, whereas now some suits, w^hich could be, if brought
to trial, decided in an hour, are xiiending for three or four years.
. 7. I could not furnish jproo/ of the (Correctness of my firm; belief i h a t
for many years goods in the line I am familiar with (china and glass
ware, &c.) have been regularly and systematically nndervalued bysome firms, who have consequently been able to undersell all their
competitors.
^
,
8. The failure to collect proper duties on goods paying ad valorem
duties has, in my opinion, resulted in most cases from the ignorance
and utter incomxietency of some of the examiners, who were generally appointed for political reasons only, and some of whom, at least,
had no knowledge whatever of the value of the goods they were to examine, and could not even read the invoices, (made out in foreign languages,) much less, of course, determine whether they were correct or
false.
9. I have no evidence that the appraisers have rexiorted false dutiable
values to the collector)
I consider it ofthe utmost importance to have the special agents of
the Treasury xct in constant sux3xiort of the examiners—furnish them •
with whatever data they may gain as to the state ofthe foreign markets,
suspicious circumstances in regard of particular manufacturers or importers on certain lines of goods, results of reappraisements at other
ports, &c.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
767
10. There does not seem to exist any doubt at present in the appraiser's departnient regarding the elements of dutiable values, excepting in
the case of importers who are manufacturers of the goods they import.
In that case there ought to be a careful consideration by the Treasury^
and a rule laid down for the guidance of the examiners. In a case of
this kind brought to reappraisement, which resulted in separate reports by the merchant appraisers and general appraiser, the collector
has just sustained the invoice, thus virtually allowing the importer the
right to fix his own dutiable value, irrespective of market value:
11. I do not think any safe average estimate can now be made of the
undervaluations in the past years.
^
12. As the business of the appraiser's department has been and is
now conducted, the responsibility for the correct return of dutiable
values lies solely with the examiner, as he is the only one who sees the
goods and fixes values. The assistant axipraisers in charge ofthe several
divisions may, perhaps, be consulted on questions of rates, on construction of the tariff or a decision, but usually simply countersign the
return of the examiner—a mere matter of form.
The salary bf examiner is $1,800, which is far too low for a man who
understands his business,^ as he can in a mercantile establishment usually
command about double that amount.
13 and 14. I cannot answer these questions.
15. The greatest care exercised in the selection of examiners, the
paying of a good salary to a good man, the assurance of permanency of
position during good behavior and honest performance of duty, irrespective of any xiolitical changes, and the constant supervision by the ~
special agents will do much to prevent the yielding.to bribery by
examiners. .
'
16. It seems impossible to change the ad valorem duties on chiria
and glass ware to specific duties, as it would seem to be manifestly unfair to exact the same amourit of duty on a teacup costing ten cents as
on one costing ten dollars. To divide and arrange these goods in classes
would still leave the matter a question of values.
17. A modification of the law, allowing customs officers or special
agents at times a reasonable inspection of any imxiorter's books in cases
of dpubt or susxiicions circumstances, would seem very desirable, and
would, probably, in a great many cases, act as a check upon dishonest
importers and a quick (harmless, if innocent) remedy to discover if an
entry is true or false.
18. It would be impracticable to verify the correctness of invoice
values by the consular officers abroad, as they could not possibly see
the goods; but it appears to me very necessary to revise the instructions
given to consuls in regard to certification of invoices, as at present the
system is very loose and of no value whatever to the United States Government.
,
,
The manufacturer of the goods should, in every case where the goods
are bought from i h e maker, be compelled to swear to the correctness
of his invoice. At xiresent, at the consulates in Dresden or Prague,
&c., oneperson acts as a dmly autliorized agent to any one who sends him
an invoice and $3.50 or so for fees, and swears, of course, that the invoice is correct and true, although he may not know anything whatever
about the maker or the goods.
Whenever it can be shown (which sometimes is not very difficult)
thajt a foreign manufacturer has deliberately sworn to a false invoice,'
768 \, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF T H E TREASIIRY.
his government should be requested to xiroceed against him for perjury.
An example of this lund would be.very valuable. . ,
19. In my opinion, it would not be safe to give xiower to the Treasury
> r judiciary to set aside or interfere with decisions of the appraiser's
department resxiecting dutiable values. The present system, of appeal
from the finding of the apxiraiser regarding valuesJ s satisfactory, but
it should be perfected by having more than one general apxiraiser
acting, as at present it takes at least two weeks to reach a reaxipraisement, and many are postponed even when date is fixed. Greater care
in the selection of meiohant apx)f aisers is alsp necessary to protect the
revenue.
20. I cannot answer this question.
^
21. To stop the universal and proverbial. present custom of liribing
customs insxiectors by arriving xiassengers, it would be very difficult
to devise a better plan than the concentration furnished by the New
York barge office; and it seems a great mistake to yield to newspaper
clamor for its practical abolishment.
22. Lower rates of duty would probably, in many cases, take away
the/incentive to defraud the revenue by false invoices.
23. "I cannot answer this question.
24. It seems to liave been the custom to simply dismiss a dishones;
bfficial when found, instead of xmnishing him, though Vhy this should
be so I am not able to say..
Yery respectfully,
FEED. B. BIELING,
Examiner, Second Bivision, Appraiser^8 Bepx
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNINC^,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 183.
A. C. DUTCHER—Appohited Sampler January 12, 1878; Clerk June 13, 1879 ; Ex. aminer March 27, 1882.
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 ,
4:02 Washington Street, September 24:, 1886^,
S I R : Eespectfully referring to Department's printed communication, undated, containing a seiies of twenty-fonr inquiries regarding
the administration and condition of the customs service at this and
other xirominent ports of entry, I have the honor to submit the fbllowirig, comxirising, ad m-iatim, what xiertinent inforriiation it has been
possible for me to ac^iire in my official xiosition:
No. 1.—I have no evidence showing that the xirescribed rates of duty
have not been xirox)erly levied and collected.
No. 2.—The class of merchandise of which I have the examination
and appraisal comprises no goods subject to specific ratets of duty, and,
consequently, I have no knowledge as to whether or not/the proper
amounts have been coUected.
No. 3.—In the usual course of custom-house business, fhe.widths
of textile fabrics are invariably ascertained and reported and when
there is the slightest reasoii for believing the invoiced lineal measurement incorrect, that also is accurately ascertained. The standard of
measurement applied consists of the ordinary yard-stick, the metre
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
76&
stick, and the anrie stick, or tax^e, all of which are supplied officially
by the Department. In certain classes of goods it is customary to
verify lineal measurements by weighing.
No. 4.—I have no evidence showing collusion between persons making entry of merchandise and dexmty collectors or entry clerks in
sending false or bogus xiackages to the appraiser for examination.' As
I understand the j^i^esent mode of xirocedure, it appears' almost impossible that such collusion could occur.
?
No. 6.—I know nothing whatever of weights or measurements taken
on the wharves, as my bfficial exxierience has been confined solely to
examinations at the xiublic stores.
No. 6.—Eegarding rates of duty and differences arising between importers and collectors, I regard, the existing law, if proxierly adminis' tered, as fully competent.
I have no knowledge of the number, xiresent condition, or classification of suits now pending at the xiorts'named.
I consider the existing law regarding the xiayment of interest as pari
ofthe "damages," &c., to be equitable, but think that much unnecessary delay could be avoided by a system xiroviding for a more prompt
termination of such litigation.
In my opinion, a sexiarate triburial would greatly facilitate reform
in this direction, and not only be a relief to Importers, but would also
be the ineans of saving considerable labor on the part of Government
officials in the matter of reconsidering and reclassifying invoices covering nierchandise of same character as that involved in suit. ;
Nos. 7 and 8.—I am not familiar with the result of the recent customs
investigations, and am in the possession of no facts "susceptible of
proof" showing that the Departnient has failed in recent years to collect the full duty xirescribed by law.
No. 9.—I have no conclusive evidence tending to show that the appraising officers at this and other xiorts have reported false dutiable
values.
\
As regards evidence supplied by sxiecial agents of the Treasury,'^ I
believe that such evidence has'oftentimes been obtained by them from
interested or xirejudiced sources, and that, consequently, it is frequently
unreliable and not borne out by subsequent investigation.
Special agents are not, as a rule, experts inany class of merchandise,
and what knowledge they xiossess is derived wholly from information.
I believe, therefore, that, however earnest aud sincere they may be in
the xiursuit and detection of frauds upon the revenue, they are often
misled by false and exaggerated statements on the x^^rt ofi interested
informers.
'
As betweeii the values claimed by special agents and those fixed by
appraising officers at this port, in nearly all cases that have come under
my observation, where such respective values indicated a conflict of
opinion, a full and careful investigation has sustained the values fixed
by the exxierts in this dexiartment.
No. 10.—With the exception of certain "charges." as to the liability
^ of which to assessment of duty there now exists a difference of opinion
among both importers and officials, I know of no "confusion, doubt,
or conflict of opinion" among the officers of this department respecting the elements to be ascertained in fixing niarket or dutiable values.
The law upon this point seems to me perfectly clear and readily construed, and I can see no cause for differences of opinion.
49 A
^70
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF. THE TREASURY.
As regards the charges referred to, the Department has already indicated the course of action to be adoxited, and the legality of its rulirig
can only be questioned by resort to the courts.
'No. 11.—I know of no method by which the average percentage of
undervaluation for any year, or series of years, can be ascertained, or
the nierchandise or invoices identified.
No. 12.—In the usual course of business, I regard the examiner as
primarily and solely responsible for returns of values to the collector.
He is the only official who, except in special cases and for special rea
sons, personally inspects the merchandise urider examination.
The salaries of examiners at this port range from $1,800 to $2,50G
per annum. .
.
The appraiser and assistant appraisers are not ordinarily ^'experts,'^
and their functions are purely of an executive character. Their reports of values are, except in rare instances, based upon those of the
examiners.
No. 13.^-1 know of no such evidence.
Yo. 14.—I do not believe that false returns have been ^ habitually
^
and systematically'' reported to collectors by.appraising officers. Instances may have occurred where the law has not been faithfully exe-.
. cuted, and the full amount of duty consequently not collected; but I
do not think that such failure has, except in comparatively very few
cases, come of dishonesty, or been accompanied by guilty knowledge
on the part of officials. I know of no case where money has been paid
to obtain false reports of dutiable values.
In my opinion, whatever undervaluation may have existed has
arisen chiefly from the employment by the Government of incompetent
and inexperienced men as expert examiners.
; No. 15.—If false valuations have been brought about by bribery or
venality, I have no reason to think that a continuation of such xiractices is improbable, unless human nature should undergo a sudden and
radical change. No. 16.—While a change from ad valorem to specific rates of duty
might (^mims/i the tendency to bribery, I dp not regard it as a sovereign cure, as the opportunities for fraudulent reports of weights and
measurements would be nearly as great as those now existing respecting values. Owing to the large range in character, uses, material, and
value covered by textile fabrics, I do not deem it practicable to /establish an equitable system of specific rates of, duty independent of the
question of value. Such rates can, of course, be applied, but what estimates I have been able to form lead me to believe that, whatever basis\
may be adopted, injustice will inevitably accrue to both importers and
consumers, with no compensating benefit to the Government.
No. 17.—I do not think that false reports by the appraising officers
have been increased by the legislation of 1874; and I believe the revenue to be as fully protected now as when the "moiety l a w " and the
act of 1863 referred to were in full force.
No. 18.—I do not regard it practicable, in the consular districts
named, for consuls pr agents tb personally examine articles t o ' b e
shipped to American ports or to verify the correctness of invoiced
values, except to a very limited extent. I knowof no consular district
where this could be accomplished without a largely increased force
and great incidental delay, and think it highly probable that any such
course on the part of this Government would be the cause of numerous
REiPORT 64^ THE SECRETARY OF . THE TREASURY.
771
complaints. The consul and notary fees in Great Britain are, respectively, 105. 6d. and 4s. 6d., aggregating 15s. sterling.
No. 19.—I regard it as neithervSafe, useful, nor just to confer upon
either the executive or the judiciary the x^oVer to interfere with.the
ascertainment of market or dutiable values of merchandise. The appraising officers shonld be selected for their competency, experience,
and reliability, and, being the only xiersonal inspectors of merchandise,_^ should be held wholly responsible for any failure to report merchandise at its correct value.
No. 20.—I have had no experience whatever in the examination or
classification of wool.
No. 21.—I know of no instance where money has been paid by arriving xiassengers to customs inspectors of baggage. Should such a practice prevail, the only remedy that suggests itself is to provide by law
severe xienalties fbr such infractions of duty, and enforce them promptly
and impstrti ally.
No. 22.—On no .^oods with which I am familiar has the rate^ been
. cariied by Congress beyond a line that can be readily x)rotected by
the Government.
No. 23.—I have no knowledge ofthe conduct ofthe customs service
at any other port than New York.
No. 24.^—I do not know.
Yery respectfully submitted.
'
A. C. DUTCHEE,
Examiner, Fourth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 184.
L. B. CARHART—Appointed September 3, 1879.
" PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
^
•
September 25, 1885.
D E A R S I R : In rexily to your circular letter, received on the Oth instant, marked "personal" and "strictly confidential," asking replies
to certaiii inquiries, I submit my answers, hastily x^rex^ared under a
pressure of official duties, this being the busiest season of the year.
/ I shall write frankly and without reserve, in the '' confidential'' sx)irit
of your communication, believing that this is my duty, both as a citizen
arid an officer, «and that only so can I contribute to that full and accurate
knowledge of the situation which will help you to carry on to success
the great work which you have undertaken.
. ,
As my official connection with this department will not xirobably
continue much longer, I shall write with more freedom than I niight
otherwise have felt at liberty to do, but I ask you to receive my assurance that I have no other motive than a desire forthe xiublic good and
the success of your administration.
My connection with this dexiartment dates from. Septeniber 1, 1879,
consequently my knowledge of its affairs follows that date. As the
examiner of French worsted dress-goods since that time, I have had
accurate knowledge only of that branch and its collaterals.
: l._ I believe that the rates of duty prescribed by law on my line of
goods have been and are collected in fuU.
7 72
REPORT- OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•
'
•
'
•
i
• 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20, and 21. As tp these questions, 1 have up'
official knowledge and but little xiersonal acquaintance with the subjects. •
'
'
^
, .
3. There are no facilities xirovided for verifying lengths of textile
fabrics in the apxiraiser's stores; widths are carefully examined. Any
systematic veiific^ion of lengths wonld irivolve a considerable increase
of the labor force, and would require more intelligent labor than is
usually found now among the men emxiloyed on kindred w^ork.
When I have had reason to suspect disagreements with the invoice ^
measurements; I have myself measured the goods by hand, but, except
in a few cases of manifest error without fraudiilent intent, I have not
found any disagreements. An invoice which was'rexiorted to me by a
special agent as a case of fraudulent overmeasure was carefully tested,
and the goods found to agree exactly with the ticket-marks and iiivoice.
I have no reason to think that the Government has suffered any se- .
riousioss in this direction, and yet I think that xirovision for occasional
testing of measurement of lengths, under intelligerit.super vision, would
be healthful in' its effect
.
6. I think that some of the manifest errors in decisions by the Department at Washington on appeals from classifications would have
been avoided if the Assistant Secretaiy making the decisions had been
located in New York, where he could see the goods under considerasion and hear from the appraising officer the reasons for his classification. The letters which have reached the Department have not always
stated the facts clearly, as a few moments of personal observation would
have shown. As a consequence, there have been contradictory decisions and reversals, which have led to confusion, delay, and probably
to litigation.
9, I do not think that purchased goods in my line are often falsely
invoiced, but on all dutiable goods sent to this, country by foreigri
makers and owners consigned to agents for sale there is need of especial
and constant suxiervision. The sharxi conipetition of trade compels
these men to keexi the cost of their goods at the place bf sale as low as
possible, and, as many of these manufacturers sell no goods in their
home markets, they claim to have but scant nieans for knowing their
own lowest niarket value; hence their efforts to findthe lowest •' dutiable
value" here by experimental invoices, and also hence the urgent need
ofthe very best exxiert service which the Government can xirocure to
deteriuine that dutiable value.
Sxiecial agents cannot, of course, be trained experts in all lines of
merchandise, and therefore, except in cases of gross fraud, their judgment of value must be superficial.
10. There is, I think, and-probably always has been, more or less
of conflict of opinion in the appraiser's department on the subject of
market value, which is an essential element of dutiable value. Some
have held that the fact of purchase, at whatever date, ought, in justice,
tb be conclusive,' but the law exxilicitly confutes this view by fixing the
date of shiximent for appraisement; others have thought that about
an average between the highest and lowest prices x^aid by different
buyers should fix dutiable value, &c.
The place and time of appraiseraent has been plainly defined by law,
^ but I think the standard of value is not clearly stated, and Departmeht
decisions and instructions are obscure or conflicting. My own opinion
is that the true measure of market value is the lowest price= at which
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.773
a given article is xmrchased (not offered) a t a fixed'date in the ox)en
market, at wholesale, for cash of first-rate credit, and in the condition
in which the goods are to be offered for sale here. This fixes a minimum
of-value for duty, and I think cannot work injustice to any legitimate
interest. An exxilicit official statement of such a standard would contribute to uniformity of action.
12. With.so large and varied a busine,ss as that of the axipraiser's
departmerit in New York, the subdivision of exaniination is inevitable,
and capable men become specialists and exxDcrts on comxiaratively short
lines, and the sharxi comxietition of this city's great biirsiness calls fbr
the finest distinctions to be carefully and intelligently drawn.
= Of course no man is, or can be, well acquainted with fabrics or values
in several lines^of goods; therefore the examiner, and not the assistant appraiser nor the appraiser, is held finally responsible on all questions of value and mainly on all questions of original classification.
The salaries fixed bythe present law, section 2745, are "not to exceed
$2,500 per annum, at the discretion ofthe Secretaiy ofthe Treasuiy."
The salaries xiaid are, I think, from $1,600 to $2,500. My own salary
is $2,000 per annum.
'
~
The appraiser and .assistant ax)praisera do not, in the ordinary course
of business, so far as my experience goes, assum.e any responsibility
for values. They are occupied with the general administration of t h e
affairs ofthe department, official correspondence, &c.. Their functions
are about like thbse of the heaU of a large mercantile house, and they
should be men in the prime of life, well acquainted *with. current
business affairs and cnstoms.
,
15. In connection with questions 15 and 12, xiossibly in extension of
their letter, but in their sxiirit and intent as I undeistand them, I venture, to remark that false valuations and the generally defective administration of the customs laws, which have caused so ihuch dissatislaction
among businessmen, are largely due to the low standard of selection of
officers which has heretofbre obtained.
In the axipraiser's dexiartment in NewYork there are, and long have
been, men nominally doing clerical work, where really comxietent
clerks are much needed, who are unfit both in capacity and habits for
their duties. Where a gobd $1,200 or $1,400 clerk is needed, two
oxDcners and xiackers or messengers are detailed to bungle the work
or do it reluctantly.
^
, ^
There are examiners appraising merchandise nx^oii which inillions pf
dollars in duties are collected annually, whose judgment of values
would not be relied on for small amounts in xirivate business. There
are others whose xiersonal habits unfit them for effective duty, even if
they were intelligent and caxiable.
' .
There are but few trained exxierts-^men who have brought to the
service that experience in the line of their work which alone gives real
knowledge of fabrics; and the wonder is, not that there are so few such
men, but that under the system of selection there are any. Some of
the best examiners now in the service are men who have, xierhaps at
serious cost to the Governnient, acquired in the service a certain knowl-.
'edge of fabrics, values, and the customs law^s, and they are useful men.
But the system is radically defective. In no department of the Government are xmrely business methods more needed than in the axix^l^aiser's dexiartment. The whole standard of the service should be raised;
men should be emxiloyed in that service for which they are appoirited
andjiaid.
77.4
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Good clerks, capable and industrious, are much needed, and they
can be had for the salaries allowed for clerks, $1,200 to $1,600 per an-'
num, but they canriot be found among the messengers or openers and '
packers, at $700 to $900. But perhaps while ex-Presidents and Senators are willing to exert their xiower to. perxDCtuate this condition, as
they have done, it cannot be entirely corrected. You can, >however,
" with knowledge of the facts, act intelligently.
I believe that every careful observer who has become well acquainted
with the working of the cnstoms laws has reached the conclusion that
the pivotal point uxion which success or disaster depends is the appraising officer or examiner. If his work is intelligently and faithfully
^ done, the collection of the revenue is thereafter a routine matter of
' mainly clerical w^ork, and comxiaratively easy. The result is, the Government receives its full revenue, legitimate commerce has a fair field
for its competition, aud domestic industries have the protection which
the law-makers contemxilated.
To obtain this kind of service, the Government, having a much larger
interest involved than any nierchant can have, can well afford to db
what that merchant does in seeking like service—get'the best equipped
that can b e found, and xiay him adequately for his services. • This, with
with a reasonable security of tenure, would obtain a professionally expert service of high character, and worthy ofthe interests involved. ' '
19. The law now fixes the entire responsibility for dutiable values
uxion the appraiser's dexiartment, and I do not see how it can be safely
placed elsewhere; but, as I have said, the necessity for a general elevation of that department is, and long has been, urgent, and there is
no reform in the customs.service or elsewhere which would give greater
satisfaction to the business meh of New York.
16. Ifi the amount of revenue and the facility of collection are alone
considered, no doubt purely specific duties are better than ad valorem.
But I think it safe to say that no revenue law can long keep its place
ou the statute-books which is not, a t least approximately, just and.
equal in its distribution of the burden of taxation. Any system of
specific or compound duties uxion textiles must of necessity bear unevenly uxion the consumers, who are the great body of oui' xieople, levying tlie heaviest tax uxionthe cheapest goods, and so laying the heaviest
burden upon the tax-payer least able to bear it. This fact i s shown
' more plainly in the report uxion Department letter of June 29, which
J have made to the axipraiser, with samxiles of goods apxiended, a copy
of which I enclose herewith. The samples sent to the appraiser are
especially interesting in connection with the results shown. I believe the best system of duties upon these goods to be purely ad
valorem, a single rate for all such goods ^'made w^holly or in part of
wool, worsted," &c., except such as have silk in chief value, which
should go with silk manufactures. The effect of this would be to somewhat reduce the duties upon low grades of goods, to advance it upbn
those of higher cost, and to absolutely equalize it uxion all. Another
result would be to enlarge the range of domestic manufactures now
confined to the cheaper and xioorer grades of goods.
The ad valorem, if a moderate one, say about 50xier cent., would not
prove a bounty uxion dishonesty, and could be collected in full.
'
22. I do not think it would be practicable for consular officers to ascertain accurately market values and certify to them at thie xilace of
shipment, for the reasons suggested by the.form of your question.
REPORT
OF T H E
SECRETAiRY
OF T H E
775.
TREASURY.
.. I sincerely regret the length, of this communication, which I have
not had time to cut down. If I have added nothing to your information on these subjects, I have at least answered your questions with
candor and frankness, and an appreciation of the difficulties of the.
situation.
' ,
I am, sir, yours, very respectfully,
L. B. CAEHAET,
Examiner of French Woollen Bress-Goods, Sixth Bivision.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
French ''All Worsted Dress-Goods,^^ Schedule K, par. 365.
^
Per metre.
3u*
1
Trade name.
0
s
9
at
0-3
0 0
i-> a \
& 0
p
>
a.
Present duty.
s
^
3
<
o
&
^
^
'^'3
g
Nun's veiling
\ ^
Do
'Do
Cashmere
Do
Satin berber
Cashmere de ITnde
Croise, or imitation cashmere
de r i n d e . °
Do
,
,
Cashmere
Do
9
Francs a n d
centimes. P e r c e n t .
0.923^
5
::2
:.3
:.4
15
L80
5.10
0.921^
1.65
1.55
9.00
1.25
16
:L7
18
9.50
2.70
4.50
:.o
11
5
Ins.
38^
Pr. ct.
9 c: per sq. yd. 102 SO 15 S105
and 40 pr. ct,
do
8iy,
17% . 05
.....do
54 k> ^ 3 < •
! OIH
do
96^,
92V<
15>^
do
75
83g
do
77^
do.;
543^ ! 4 2 ^
48
|35 c. per sq. yd. 103
57^
.17^
and 40 pr.ct.
62
..do
..do
23%
88
..do
58
34% . 12
8
8
5
6
5
-6
12
48K
48
35
'SS4
39
4714
41
6
2
2
4714
47
47
S^
French ' ' F a r t Worsted Dress-Goods,^^ 'Schedule K, par. 365.
>
Per metre.
Present duty.
Trade name.
s
s n?S ^ •
Bf
2^
^-d
>
Satin berbes.
Cashm^ere
Melange.....
Valour str; twill
Bengaline
•
.
Stripe boucl6
Silk embroidered fould
Same cloth as above not embroidered, (all worsted.)
Francs and
centimes. Per cent
1.40
13
0.90
2.45
4.00
9.75
12.50
5.00
1.95
t>
s
Ins.
39
5 c. per sq. yd.
and 35 pr.ct.
do
•
6
35
41 7 c.per sq.yd.
10
and 40 pr.ct.
do
12
21 >1
do
|2,2>^,and| 22^;
16.
19
.....do
3
do
47
5
9 c.per sq.yd.
47
5
and 40 pr. ct.
b c
t^
6^
•1
\pr. ct.
60 80 12 • P 583/2
59 .
50%
65 "
G0%
10%
20%
46%
483^ 1 57
83>| L853^
m
42
51.
85%
2 64
1 69
82
32%
653^
22;^
1
•
.
•
It has been found impossible to present clearly the peculiar features
pf the present duty on dress-goods with the samples which, numbered
^
776
REPORT 6 F THE SECRETARY ,OF THE TREASURY.
'
as referred to, 'pertain to this report and are held for reference. As
will be seen, the ad-valorem, equivalent varies with each change of
price, weight, or width.
The samxiles have been carefuUy selected as types of the wide variations under the four several rates of duty.
Thepresent specific duty varies from 2 xier cent., on sample 6, to 63
per cent., on sample 15.
L. B. CAEHAET,
Examiner.
No. 185.
WM. D. CRUMBIE—Ax^XDointed Examiner July 13, 1883.
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 ,
•
^ ;
/
September 26, 1885.
S I R : Eespectfully referring to undated confidential circular, asking
answers to twenty-four (24) inquiiies, I have the honor to state that
my' duties as a chemist (with the rank of examiner) in the United
States laboratory are of such a nature as do not afford me the oxiportunity of obtaining official information upon the subject^ of these inquiiies.
Believing that official rexilies only would be of service, I do not feel
justified in offering mere Opinions uxion the matters embraced in the
inquiries.
Yery resxiectfully,
WM. D. CEUMBIE, -P. C. S.,
Chemist. ,
'
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
, Secretary of the Treasury.
- '
No. 186.
THEODORE G. MORSE—Appointed Messenger November 1,1880; Examiner March
25, 1884.
o
.
'
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
.
September 28, 1885.
: I have the honor of acknowledging the receixit of your
circular of September, 1885. Permit me to say, in rexily, that the interrogatories and subjects embraced in the circular are so entirely foreign
to my knbwledge of the same as to preclude me from giving t:he information desired, except as-to Inquiry 12.
.
My xiosition as examiner in the United States laboratory gives me
but a limited intercourse with Government officials, their manner of
Xirocedure and daily intercourse of business. Merchandise and invoices
- are never received in this department of the laboratory. My duties in
^ the laboratory are those of an examiner or expert in examining sugar
by the' method known as the xiolaiiscopic test. Our samples consist of
about one xiound of sugar, each pound representing one or more hogsheads, prepared and xilaced in cans in the eighth diyision, or" what is
known as the sugar-room, and are there forwarded to the laboratory
for the proper test, by making up each sample info a solution, giying to
DEAR SIR
RE:^ORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
777
each its proper degree of saccharine contained therein. Eeturnlng a
record of the same to the chemist in charge, our functions with the
department end.
•
In reply to the question embraced in Inquiry 12, I would say that
the examiner is xn'imarily liable for a false return tb the collector, but
the deputy apxiraiser is equally culxiable in receiving and forwarding
the same to its xn^oper destination; but this must entail an endless
amount of work b y t h e deputy appraiser if his actual knowledge is
required as to the valuation and amount of merchandise represented
by each invoice.
'
.
The salaries of examiners range from $1,200 to $2,500 xier year.
I trust that it may not be inaxiproxiriate to say that no doubt abuses
exist in the Treasury Dexiartment, and that the general sentiment of^
honest officials is for a thorough investigation in every dexiartment.
<
*
Yery respectfully,
THEODOEE G. MOESE,
Examiner, United States Laboratory^
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
'^
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 187.
ROBERT E. BOWNE—Appointed Sampler June 30, 1873; Examiner July 17,1873.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , - A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
.
• 402 Washington Street, September 28, 1885.
S I R : In rexily tb your letter asking for such information as I may.be
able to give regarding the customs service at this port, I respectfully
submit the following:
•
My duties are confined to tho examination of the following articles:
Sugar, melado, molasses, cane-sirup, honey, grape-sugar, giucosp, and
confectionery. And as my duties in the classification rbom and on the
wharves keexi me constantly employed, it leaves me but little time or
opportunity to acquaint myself with the other branches of business
conducted in the department.
In answer to the first eight inquiries, I would state that, if there has
been failure to collect the entire and full amount that the law xirescribed, such failure has been, in some cases, caused by the comxilications of the tariff law, and in others, no doubt, by dishonest officials.
In answer to Inquiries 9.and 10,' I beg to state that the statutes already define the rules to be observed in the classification of goods.
In answer to Inquiry 11, I think it would be a very difficult and uncertain task.
_
In answer to Inquiry 12, I would state that the examiner is the responsible person for a full return. The salaries of such officers range
frbm $1,800 to $2,500 per annuni. The appraiser has to rely upon the
honesty and-capability of the examiner and assistant axipraiser.
In answer to Inquiries 13 and 14, I know of no such evidence.
Inquiry 15.—I know of no reason.
Inquiry 16.—A change from ad valorem to specific rates would be a
benefit to the revenue and diminish the tendency to bribery. I would
respectfully suggest specific duties on glucose, grape-sugar, and on all
778.
REPORT OF. THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
confectionery. The tariff is complicated on confectionery, and at times
difficult to define; and as to glucose and grape-sugar, we are in doubt
as to correct values.
••
, In reply to Inquiry 18,1 would state that I do not think it would be
practicable, as it would cause delays and be the means of causing complaints from foreign governments.
In reply to Inquiry 19, I do think it would be safe for the executive
or judicial powers to have greater jiirisdiction to interfere with the ascertainment of dutiable values.
In reply to Inquiry 21, the practice could be prevented by putting
honest men in pffice.
Inquiry 24.—If such false returns or reports havebeen made, and the
officials responsible for such false returns have not been punished, it
has been because of powerful political influence or a lack of proof to
indict them.
,
I
Yery respectfully,
EOBT. E. BOWNE,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
No. 188.
'
ROBERT RIGNEY—Appointed Examiner July 13, 1883.
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 , U . S. LABORATORY,
September 28, 1885.
.SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ask- ing for inforniation resxiecting ad valorem and specific duties and other
matters connected with the customs service.
In reply, permii: me to state that my duties as examiner in the United
States laboratory xiertain almost exclusively to the polariscopic examination of sugars, and that I have no official information respecting any of
the questions excepting No. 12.
.
.In the usual course of business the samples of sugar are packed in
tin boxes, numbered, and transmitted to the laboratory for polariscopic
examination by the examiner in charge of the sugar-room, in the eighth
division. Th'e samxile is known by the number on the box, and I have
no information respecting the importer, invoice, or t^he size of the
shiximent.. It is then submitted to an exaniination, and the result
duly certified and transmitted to the examiner in charge of the sugarroom, in the eighth division.
At this point my information and connection with the sample cea'Ses,
and I have no means of knowing officially that the classification as
found by the polariscopic examinatioii is the same as that sent to tlie
collector. I believe that the salary of the examiner in charge of 'the
Sugaraooin is $2,500 per annum.
•
••
'^
Yery respectfully,
EOBEET EIGNEY,
^
Examiner, U. S. Laboratory.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secreiary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C,
.REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
779
" N o . 189.
. ; GEORGE C. T.'SEAMAN—Appointed Examiner August 12, 1882.'
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE, ,
'
'
402 Washington Street, September 28, 1885.
; S I R : I respectfully annex answers to your circular, received some
days since, as full and complete as I have been able to do, and which
will, I hope, prove satisfactory.
^ Eespectfully, yours,
° GEO. C. T. SEA]\IAN,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
1. Not to my knowledge.
2. Not to my knowledge.
3. By measurement and count.
4. Not to my knowledge.
5. Am not competent to judge; my duties are entirely in the office.
6. Should think the existing law required amending. Cannot tell
how many suits are now xiending in the cities named, or how many
are ready for trial; and am unable to answer the other questions asked,
having no knowledge of them.
7. Do not know.
8. Know of no evidence of a guilty knowledge among the officers of
the Treasury or custom-house.
9. Know of no such report having been made by the appraiser.
10. Not to my knowledge. .
.
11.. Do not think so. ^
12. The-examiner. The salaries are from-$1,800 to $2,500. The
assistant axixiraiser certifies to the correctness of the examination as to"
values, &c., ofthe examiner, and which then goes to the appraiser.
13. Not t o my knowledge.
14. Have no knowledge of any such.
15. Am unable to give a definite and correct answer.
16. Do not think so.
.
17. Have no knowledge that such is the ^case.
18. Am unable to tell.
'
'
19. Ahi unable to give correct information as to the questions asked.
20. Am unable to tell.
21. Do not think the xiractice generally prevails of xiaying officers to
avoid fhe payment of duties, and have no knowledge that such is the
case, excexit from reports published in the newspapers.
22. Do not think so.
23. Do not think such is the case in New York; on the contrary,
think all due diligence has been given to enforce and collect the same.
' 24. Cannot answer from personal knowledge.
GEO. C. T. BEAMAN,
Examiner, New Tork.
REPORT, OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 190. • .
W. P . MCPHERSON—Aiopointed cierk and Verifier AprU 21, 1873 ; Examiner Octobei
^
19, 1874.'
.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
Septeniber 28, 1886.
S I R : In answer to your circular, marked ^^strictly confidential," I
have the honor to state that upon Inquiries Nos. 1 to 11 and Nos. 13
to .24 I am unable to report as to the matters contained therein, not
being in a xiosition to do so.
''
In regard to Inquiry No. 12,1 would state that the examiner is primarily and chiefly respoiiljible for a false return of values to the collector,, although under the law it is the duty of the assistant appraiser to appraise
merchandise, with the aid and jissistance of the examiner, but it is
impossible for an assistant axixiraiser to be an exxiert in all the lines of
gobds examined in his division; therefore he has to rely upon the,
knowledge of the examiner who is an exxiert in the class of goods he
examines. Thus acting upon the knowledge each examiner possesses,
the assistant appraiser signs the examiner's return as to the correctness
of values to the axipraiser, who also certifies the same tp the collector.
The salaries of examiners do not exceed $2,500 per annum.
Yery resxiectfnilV,
'
WM. P. McPHEESON,
Examiner.
. Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury
No. 191.
, JOHN A. SHERER—Appohited Examiner December 31, 1879.
P O R T OF N E W . Y O R K , A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
.
402 Wasliington Street, September 29, 1885.
S I R : I have thejionor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication, without date, marked "strictly confidential," in which certain questions xiertaining to the administration of the customs service
at this and other ports are xiroponnded.
In reply, I would state that my position (that of sugar examiner,
attached to the dainage division of the appraiser's dexiartment) precludes me from intimate knowiedge of many of the subjecte upon which
infbrmation is sought. The following are the only questions to which
I am able to give official answers:
,
No. 10.—While there is undoubtedly more or less conflict of oxiinion
in the appraiser's departnient respecting the elements entering into
dutiable values, the statutes, in my opinion, xioint out with sufficient
clearness the xih'ice, time, and standard to be axixilied in determining
such values.
.
^
^
No. 12.^—The examiner is xitimarUy and chiefly resxionsible, in the
usual course of business, for a false return of value to the collector.
The assistant.appraiser having charge of the division in which certain
E E P Q R T OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
7'81
goods are examined; with which he is.presumed to be familiar, if not,
an exxiert in them, hnd exercising official control of the examiners.
^ therein, is also resxionsible to a certain extent. The salary of an ex° aminer ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 xier annum; that of an assistant
appraiser is $3,000 per annum. It may be said in behalf of these officers that it is extremely difficult to find men who are experts in.all of
the different linesi bf goods which they are called upon to appraise.
Such a person could easily command double the salary paid by the
Government in a mercantile house. Eespecting the duties of the appraiser, nnless he has passed thrpugh the different grades of the service, and beconie thoroughly familiar with the regulations, decisions,
and metfiods of appraisement, or else is a xierson of rare and exceptional ability, he cannot be "much else ordinarily, or in fact, than one
.who ofiicially certilfies to the collector the values reported to him by
the examiners" anid apxiroved by the assistant axixiraisers.
No. 16.—In my opinion, a change from ad valorem tp specific rates
of duty wbuld helxp to diminish a tendency to bribery, and hence be a
benefit to the revenue, where sucli a change is practicable. But in many
liinds of textile fafirics, earthenware, and in various other kinds of
goods, a cliange from ad valorem to xmrely sxiecific rates would exclude
the cheaper grades! of such goods from our markets, and thus work injustice to many intprests. In many oases, howjever, the change is entirely practicable, and would result in benefit to the revenue, as above
stated.
;
^
No. 19.—In reference to i h i s inquiry, so far as my observation and
experience gp, and regarding the Treasuiy Department as an institution by itself, the chief aim of its officers being the interest and conservation of the revenue, I deem any interference of the federal judicial
power with Department decisions as unwise and hurtfuL At the same
time, I believeit would be to the interest of the service if decisions of
the appraising officersshould be supervised and revised, when necessary,
by the xirpper authorities of the Treasury Departnient.
In conclusion, I would say, with reference to duties in which I am
specially interested, that merchant axixiraisements, so called, as applied >
to the ascertainment of damage occuriing on the voyage of imxiortation,
are, in the main, extremely inexact and inefficient, and, as a rule, result in injury to the revenue and to the interests of imxiorters who do
not avail themselves of such proceedings. For instance, when an importer of a xiarticular class of goods, being dissatisfied with the allowance made uxion a.damaged cargo bythe Department, claims a merchant
appraisement, as he is entitled to do, it rarely happens that the merchant appraiser and the witnesses summoned to examine the damage ^
are not themselves interested, or have been, or exxiect to be interested,
in similar cases as claimants; hence the decisions and testimony of such
parties can hardly be unbiassed. It is even sometimes the case that
the .persons officiating are directly interested in the sale of the goods
under examination. In support of which statement, J resxiectfully refer
you to the case of a cargo of rice, iniported by Messrs. Carter, Efawley
& Co., of this city, in the brig "Emulation," from Batavia, which arrived at this port in the month of Axiril last, and which was duly
investigated and rexiorted upon by the sxiecial agents assigned to this
district. The allowance for damage in that instance was, in my judg-/
: mentj exorbitant and unjust. Furthermore, it is naturally impossible
>
tt>i94i the merchant apxiraiser or the examining witnesses should be
782
REPORi" OF TiiE SECiiEtARY 6 F THE TIlEAStJftt.
sufficiently familiar with the statutes. Department decisions, and regulations governing the ascertainment and estimation of damage to
enable them to arrive at a just conclusion as contemxilated by the law.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
JNO. A. SHEEEE,
Examiner. '
Hon..
' <
D A N I E L MANNING,
,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No, 192.
J. T. CROOKER—Appointed "Examiner January 19, 1865.
^ <
>
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 ,
September 30, 1885.
SIR : In reply to your inquiries, I would respectfully submit the foi-;
lowing answ^ers:
No. 1.—I know^of no instances where the proper rate of duty has not
been collected according to law.,
No. 2.—None whatever to my knowledge.
No. 3.-—Measurement, weight, and counting threads.
No. 4.—None that I am aware ofi
. • jvo. 5.
--.
No. 6.—My experience is so very limited,' I do not feel comx)etent to
give an opinion.
No. 7.—No class of articles, to my knowledge, which has been under
investigation, has failed to xiay the proper rate of duty.
No. 8.—I know of no conspiracy among higher or lower officials for
the purpose of defrauding the revenue or for personal emoluments.
~ No. 9.—I have y e t t o learn that any collusion has existed or does
exist between the examiner, dexiuty axipraiser, and appraiser in order
that false entries may be xiassed.correct.
. No. 10.—I have heard of no confusion and not enough difference of
.opinion worth mentioning; and to the last question I answer, Yes, sir.
No. 11.—Ithink not.
No. 12.—First.' The examiner. Second. From $1,400 to $2,500 per
annum. Third. The present appraiser is a xiractical man in every respect, along time an examiner himself, and thoroughly qualified for
the position.
\ ^
'•
'
No. 13.—If there is any such evidence, I know nothing bf it.
No. 14.—I am ignorant of any such abuses.
Yo. 15.—I am ignorant of any such abuses.
No. i6.—A change from ad valorem to sxiecific duty, as far as practicable, would in a great measure close the door to fraud, and, in my \
opinion, in the majority bf instances be a^great improvement.
No. 17.—No, sir.
No. 18.—In order to have eadh invoice from large consular districts
such as you name verified in relation to values, weights, &c., it would .
seem to necessitate the establishment of an apxiraiser's department in=
each district. I f the business is honestly and capably transacted a t ;
our own ports, it must be quite sufficient.
REPORT;OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
783
No. 19.—In my bpinion, the xierson best qualified to judge the proper
dutiable value of goods is thepne who is w^ell acquainted with the tariff,
and, at the same time, is a xiroper judge of the'merchandise in question.
I do not see what benefit can arise from a change. ,
No. 20.—For the wool expert.
No. 21.—Never having had any experience in this line, I am not prepared to answer.
No. 22.—It is a foregone conclusion that the higher t h e rate the
greater the ihducement to evade it. However, I think the amount the
United States Goyernment loses by false invoices, smuggling, &c., is
greatly magnified.
No. 23.—Am not prepared to answer. ,
' No. 24.—This is all news to me. I have to say that I am not aware
of any such practices.
Yery respectfally, yours,
.
,
J. T. CEOOKER.
Hon.
^
D A N I E L MANNING,
'
Secretary of the Treasury,
No. 193.
W. H. TOWNSEND—Appointed Examiuer May 22, 1883.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
!
U. S. LABORATORY,
^
4.02 Washington Street, September 30,'1886.
S I R : I have the honor to address you in answer to your circular of
inquiries, which I received on the 15th instant. My short experience
in the customs service and the nature of my employment (sugar
chemist) have not enabled me to reply in an intelligent inanner, except •
to the inquiiies enibraced in Inquiiy 12. Permit me to say as follows:
The examiner is primarily and chiefiy resxionsible, unless he has
divided i h e responsibility by consultation with the dexiuty apxiraiser.
The appraiser, in the ordinary course of business, simply certifies fo
the collector the values fixed and rexiorted to him, if the values therein
contained meet with his approval; but in case of a disagreement between'
the examiner and dexmty appraiser, or between them and the importer
of his representative, the appraiser can have the case reviewed, and,
acting in an official manner, render his decision according to the facts
thereby adduced and the law and Department decisions governing
such cases. .
The salary of an pxaminer ranges from $1,200 to $2,500 per annum;
deputy appraiser, $3,000; appraiser, $4,000 per annum.
Yery respectfully,
WM. H. TOWNSEND, ^
Examiner.
Hon.
DANIEL^ MANNING,
Secretary TJ. S. Treasury.
,
78^
REPORT^ OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUHt.
No. 194.
AHONIRAM J. PIERSON—Appointed Examiner February 26, 1885. .
'
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
V
September 22, 1885.
, SIR : Eeferring to your late circular, without date, received at this
office 10th instant, asking for "careful and official replies to the following inquiries" therein described, the examiner of tea begs leave to
say (by way of exxilanation and axiology) that iuring the brief peiiod
(about six months) since his axixiointment, and which covers the only
peiiod whereby he has had oxiportunity to study or observe, in any
special sense, the usages, methods, and laws xiertaining to customs, excepting so far as in the discharge of his official under " t h e act", would
furnish; therefore, for obvious reasons, he will not attempt to reply in
detail to the various interrogatories covered by the circular, with the
sihgle exception of and to Interrogatory 12.
This interrogatory suggests reflections which as an examiner I feel
some delicacy in expres'sing. That the examiner in the United States
axixiraiser's department " i s xnimarily and chiefly responsible" in a
very large degree for the correct and practical application of revenue
law '' in determining the correct valuation of nierchandise in respect to
the assessment of and collection of customs due thereon,'' is too apparent
to any mind at all familiar with the usages and methods well known
here, and as now practiced, to admit of doubt.
While the examiner should, and doubtless does in a very general way,
where any question of doubt arises, Yefer for advice and instruction to
the assistant appraiser, and in more especial cases to the appraiser, the
reports of the examiner are (in a very general way) confirmed without
further investigation by the signature of the assistant appraiser, foi-'
lowed by the^official stamp of the appraiser.
Instances of irregularities involving questions of reappraisement,
undervaluations, errors in classification, condition of merchandise involving questions of damage, discrepancies in estimating weights and
measures, or where any attempts are made in these various ways to
evade the laws, dexiend for thei^^ discovery, accuracy, and otherwise,
upon the vigilance, capacity, and integrity of the examiner; and his
check or initials affixed to the document which loleases the merchandise, and so carries it through the department, is the proof to a large
degree conclusive and final, that the icork has been properly and
thoroughly done.
• _
Let it be understood that these^ observations are.made chiefly from'
the stand-point of my xiersonal experience obtained in the discharge
of my official duties as examiner of teas, which, I am aware, are in
many respects peculiarly unlike those of the examiners, involvings
questions of valuations for the assessment of duties. I shall be disappointed, however, if they are not corroborated in a large degree by
those who are doubtless more familiar than myself with the history of
affairs in the axixiraiser's department.
The compensation of the examiners is $2,500 per annum, maximum.
Eeferring to the last clause in Question 12, I will venture to reply,
ordinarily no; in fact, yes. My observations in respect to this are
chiefly confined to the administration of the present incumbent.
\ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF'THE TREASURY.
785
The apxiraiser, if possessed of the proper qualifications, may be, and
manifestly should be,\ commander-in-chief of the entire departnient, on
the alert to discover dereliction in duty on the part of his subordinates,
incapacity, indolence, and neglect of every name and kind, any or all
of which may be overlooked or winked at owing tb the inertness, lack
ofecourage, or possible incapacity on the xiart of such official.
In regard to the present incumbent, I am deeply impressed with the
conviction that he is " the right man in the right xilace.'' His industry
and vigilance, together with his familiarity with the axipraiser's department in all its various ramifications, make him what heis intended
to be, the head and front of the Avhole system.
With reference to'Interrogatories 1 to 11'and 13 to 24, my reply i s :
I have no knowledge sufficient to enable me to rexiort intelligent replies.
All of which is respiectfully submitted.
j Yours, very obediently,
.
.
A. J. PIBESON, •
\
'
Examiner of Teas.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING, -
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
\
No. 195.
HENRY L . B A R D W E L L — A p p o i n t e d Examiner March 29, 1883.
I
N E W YORK, September 29, 1885.
SIR : In rexily to your confidential circular addressed to me, I respectfully submit to you in the fbllowing my views resulting from my
experience i n my department as wool examiner at this port.
In my practice I have always fbund the chief trouble in determining
the rates of duty on wool to be in the ascertaining of the dutiable value
at the lavSt port of shiximent. It is there where the temxitation for fraud
exists. It has very rarely been xiossible to sustain advances made of
the value at the last port of shiximent in any way commensurate with
the to-ouble and annqyance caused to the Governnient.
I am of the oxiinion that a great deal of controversy would be saved
to the Government, and the temxitation for fraud which exists now would
be removed, if the cbmbination of a sxiecific and an ad valorem duty,
now in force on wool,' should be changed to fixed sxiecific rates. I would
respectfuUy propose the following rates for that xmrpose:
First class—Clothing-wool: If unwashed, 10 cents xier pound; if
washed, 20 cents xieij xiound; if scoured, 30 cents per xiound.
Second class—Corhbing-wool: If washed or unwashed, but not
scoured, 12 cents xier xiound; if scoured, 36 cents per pound.
Third class—Carpet-wool: If washed pr unwashed, but not scoured,
3 cents xier pound ;' if scoured, 9 cents xier xiound. The rate of 3 cents
duty xier pound which I advocate on all carpet-wools, irrespective of
vakre, would be a xir'etty high rate, I must acknowledge, on the lowest
grade, while it is a moderate one on the better kinds of carxiet-wool;
yet the object of protection ofthe wooJL of domestic growth would not
snffer by its adoxition, since no carpet-wool of any account is grown
in this country, and the manufacturers of carpets have to look to foreign countries for at least 90 xier cent, of their requirem^ents of vool.
50 A
786
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THETREASURY.
In regard to the workings of the tariff since 1860, I would respectfully give below copies of them:
1860: Wool, unwashed, value of 20 cents per pound or less at xiort
of exportation, ordinary condition, free; wool on the skins, 15 xier cent.
,1863-'64: All w^ool and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, unmanufactured, (exclusive of charges from last port of shipment,) which shall be 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents per xiound;
exceeding 12 cents and not exceeding 24 cents, 6 cents per xiound; exceeding 24 cents and not exceeding 32 cents xier pound, 10 cents xier
pound, and in addition thereto 10 per cent, ad valorem; exceeding 32
cents, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem.
1870—Class 1: All clothing-wool the value of which at the last xiort
of shipment, excluding charges in such port, shall be 32 eents or less
per pound, 10 cents per pound and 11 xier cent.; the same of greater
value, 12 cents per pound and 10 percent. Class 2: All combiiigwools of English blood, and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like
animals, excluding charges in port, which shall be 32 cents or less per
XK)und, 10 cents per xiound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; the same
greater, 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Class 3 :
Carpet-wools, the value at last xiort of shipment, exclusive of charges
in such port, shall be less than 12 cents per pound, 3 cents per pound;
the same greater, 6 cents per pound.. Eates double on any of the above
wool or hair when not imported in the ordinary condition.
The present wool tariff is a combination of specific and ad valorem
duties. Class 1 : Wool costing 30 cents or less per. pound, excluding
charges, 10 cents per pound; costing over 30 cents per xiound, 12 cents.
Class 2: Combing-wools of English blood, and hair of the alxiaca, goat,
and other like animals, costing under 30 cents, exclusive bf charges,
10 cents per pound; costing over 30 cents, exclusiveof charges, 12
cents per pound. Class 3 : Carpet and similar wools, costing under
12 cents per pound, exclusive of charges, 2J cents per pound; costing
over 12 cents per pound, exclusive of charges^ 5 cents per pound.
I would also respectfully call your attention to the law as it now exists in regard to camel's hair tops and noils being admitted/ree. Both
are manufactured from camel's hair, which is on the free-list, and are
valuable articles of merchandise, costing per pound as inuch as the
same grade of wool. The importation of both are increasing every
year, and it is my opinion both should pay the same duty as wool of class
1, as it is used here (and the demand increasing) mixed with fine wool
for underwear.
There is another matter which has given rise to considerable conflict
of opinion—it is the duty on goat-hair. This article, no matter of what
grade, whether of the common goat or of finer breeds, is dutiable under
our present tariff under the heading of " coinbing-wool," the same ^s
the latter—i. e., at the rate of 10 cents per pound if of the value of SO
cents per pound or less, br at 12 cents per pound if over 30 cents per
pound, both in the unscoured state, and at the treble duty if scoured.
A great deal of goat-hair is only fit for carpet-yarns, and this is the
case of the hair of the common goat, which is rarely suitable for combing, while most of it is much too short for that purpose. If all goat-"
hair is to pay the same duty as combing-wool, I would respectfully suggest the propriety of having it brought under a separate heading, so as
to leave no room for any doubt in that matter.
In rexily to question—
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
t
^
•
•
.
•
787
.
-
12.—"As between the examiner, deputy appraiser, and appraiser,
which is xirimarily land chiefly resxionsible in the usual course of business for a false return of value to the collector'?" The examiner.
" W h a t is the salary of such officer/?" $1,800 xier annum. " I s the
appraiser ninch else, ordinarily and in fact, than one whb officially certifies to the collector the values fixed and reported to him by the examiners ar<d dexmty axipraisers?" The appraiser acts in a ministerial
function only.
I
13.—"Is there satisfactory evidence that any Governmenf: officials, in
the consular departnient or elsewhere, have assisted, or consented to; or
connived at the presentation to the appraisers of such false evidence
of foreign values'"? If so, what officers, when, and how*?" I know of
none.
.
16.—I think a sxiecific duty would work advantageous in wool and
most textile fabrics.;
20.—Answered ih xiapers enclosed.
Eespectfully submitted.
^
I
HENEY L. BAEDWELL,
Wool Examinrr, Sixth Bivision, Appraiser's Stores.
Hon.
D A N I E L . MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
:
No. 196.
BENJAMIl^ J. LEVY—Apgointed Examiner May 23, 1870.
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 ,
'
,
September 30, 1885.
S I R : Eeferring to "strictly confidential," containing twenty-four
questions relative to the adininistration of customs laws, I would respectfully answer as I follows:
1 and 2. None that I am aware of.
3. These goods not being in my department, cannot answer^
4 and 5. None to my knowledge.
6. (1.) Should say "yes." (2 and 3.) The number I cannot say.
(4.)/ Should think there could. (5.) Do not know. (6.) Should say
"yes."
i
^
. •
• .
7 and 8. Can specify none.
9, 10, and 11. I know of none.
12. (1.) Examiner is primarily and chiefly responsible. (2.) From
$i,800 to $2,500. (3.) No.
14. Not to my knowledge.
15. I am aware of none.
16. (1.) Yes. (2.) Sameanswer as to No. 3.
17. Not that I know of.
„
18. (1 and 3.) I should think not. (2.) I do not know. (4.) Think
it is equal to $2.50. i
^
19. Possibly, "yes."
20. Same answer as to-No. 3.
"
'
21. Cannot say. [
22. Not that I am [aware ofi
788
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
23. Not to my knowledge.
24. I am not aware that any false returns and reports have been made.
With much respect, I remain, dear sir, your most obedient servant,
^
BENJ. J. LEYY,
Examinet\
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
X
No. 197.
FRANK ANGEVINE—Appoioted Clerk-and Verifier January 22, 1877; Examiner
October 1, 1880.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, ^APPRAISER'S OFFICE,
September 30,^1886. '
S I R : ^Eeferring to your circular requesting answers to certain inquiries,'' I have the honor to transmit herewith such replies as I can
consistent with my knowledge of the several subjects.
. 1. I have no official or other knowledge to the contrary.
2. The same answer as above will axiply to this inquiry.
3. Where there is, or has been, any reason to question the lineal
measurement of the textiles under my care, viz., all the English
women's and children's dress-goods, coat-linings, Italians, &c., also
all the German women's and children's dress-goods, also knit goods of
every description in the piece, the correctness of the lengths indicated
on the iickets, or otherwise, are tested by actual measurement or by
counting and measuiing the folds. I desire to say that in every in-^
stance during an exxierience of several years I have not, as yet, found
any discrexiancy.
, I have no official or other, knowledge that enables me to answer
Inquiiies Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
10. This inquiry, I think, will include an element of niarket value
that has been the cause of a good deal of discussion and doubt in the
minds of the officials and importers, namely, in the case of my line of
goods, tillots, under the tariff act of 1883. No confusion has been the
result as far as I am concerned, as the cost of said tillots has been, and.
are nov/ being, added as an element of niarket value, under decisions
and instructions of the Treasury Department. The tariff act of 1883
does not, in my opinion,. clea-iiy define coverings as an element of
market value, and, therefore, legislation should be had that would set
at rest any doubt in. that regard.
11. I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer
this inquiry.
12. As betweeii the appraiser, deputy appraiser, and examiner, the
latter, being the exxiert, "is primarily and chiefly resxionsible in the
usual course of business for a false return of values to the collector."
Coming continually in contact with values and constantly making
comxiarisons, he should and must have the knowledge to discriminate
between true and false values,' and the axipraiser and dexmty axixiraiser
must rely on his fitness and honesty in making proper returns, which
they must -approve of to make legal. It would be imxiossible for the
examiner's supeiior officers to suxiervise all. returns made to them, as
their time is fully occupied with the general conduct of the business.
My compensation is at the rate of $2,000 per annum.
REIPORT 'OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREA^MRY.
7S9
I have no' official or other knowledge that enables me to answer Inquiries Nos. • 13, 14, and 15.
._
'
16. If bribery was xiractised, n'o change of rates of duty would have
the effect to reduce it. I have no official or other knowledge that such^
Xiractices exist in this departnient. Without discussing the justice or
injustice of fixing; sxiecific rates of duty on all textiles, I would say
most certainly such rates could be axixilied to this class of merchandise.
17. My imxiression is that there has been less false rexiorts of values .
to the coUector since 1874, and I attribute it to the better qualifications and industry of the suxiervising officials.
I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer Inquiry No. 18.
'
19. Having in rny mind the subj ect-matter of the first clause of this
inquiiy, I think any further comxilication of jurisdiction ivould result
in still greater confusion.
.
.
I have no official or other knowledge that enables me to answer Inquiries Nos. 20, 21j 22, 23, and 24.
Yery respectfully,
• I•
'.
FEANK ANGEYINE,
;
'
Examiner, Fiftii Bivision.
Hon. DANIEL Mi'NNiNG,
\
Secretary of Treasury.
I
^No. 198.
HENRY HOLTHAUSEN—Appomted Examiner May 18, 1885.
I
D E A R AND EESPECTED S I R :
N E W YORK, September 30, 1885.
In answer to your confidential circular
(received on the 9tli instant) I beg to state that I have been appointed
on the 18th of May last for six months as expert examiner in the third
division of the axipraiser's office here, and that my special duty is to
analyze such silk goods as are handed to me by the regular examiner
fbr analyzation, and to calculate the exact cost of manufacturing thereof
in Euroxie; occasionally to revise and to rectify rexiorts ofthe Government exxierts in Europe, and in general tb give all required information on inixior>3d f^ilks as an exxiert xn'actical manufacturer. What
has been going on ih the appraiser's dexiartment xireviously to the day
of my axipointment is xierfectly unknown to me, so that I am unable to
give a positive answer from my xiersonal knowledge to the questions
in 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17,'23, and 24, which refer, all of them,
to such xirevious occurrences. Neither could I tell more of what has
been going on round me since the four months I am at work in my
present xiosition. 'My work is a very difficult and complicated one,
requiring the closest attention, and keeping, me confined to my desk
with my glasses, scales," and measures every minute of my time. I
conld not attend xirpxierly to my duties if I would allow my attention
to be distracted by bbserving what others are doing.
Having nbthing to do with the invoices, Avhich I rarely see, I really
do not know how they xiass from one hand to another; how much is
added to tLiem, what the values are at which they are xiassed, and
what finally becomes of them; even if I were duly authorized and had
a mind to make inquiries about that xiart of the service, I could not
790
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE, TREASURY.
attend to it without prejudice to my regular duties. Such is the reason
why I am equally incompetent to give a reply from xiersonal knov ledge
to questions in 3, 4,_5, 10, 11, and 21, and also to 12, which lately my
attention has been specially called to. In this way I find myself restricted to the few paragraxiKs which, follow, and on which I am«enabled
to express an opinion based on personal knowledge.
16. Change from ad valorem to specific duties.
' '
Siiice some time I have been hard at work making out for your Department statistical tables of a great variety of silk fabrics, showing
t h e exact relations of yalue and weight of many hundred samples, with
all details; such tables to serve as material to-base thereon the above
change. Whilst going through my calculations and comparing figures
I could not help coming to the conclusion already that such change
will appear impracticable witkout seriously curtailing the. revenue or
the import trade, besides laying'the heavier burden of taxation on the
consumers of low-priced goods, the great mass of the people,-while the
• consumers of costly and lighter goods wiU be unduly favored. The
reason is plainly that few or the minority of so-called silk goods are
made wholly of pure; sUk, the value of which dexiend upon its weight;
the materials used in the immense majority of silk frabrics are either
silk weighted in dyeing, sometimes ujp to 300 per cent., or other yarns,
mostly cotton, then wool, flax, mohair, rainie, &c. In such j^arns, as
well as in weighted silk, the values do not progress with the weights,
but stand just in inverse proportion to them ; the coarser they are or
the more their bulk and weight increases the more their value depre> elates. For instance: one kilo of No. 200-2 cotton 3^arn. costs 15 francs,
and one kilo No. 20-2, ten times coarser, costs only 3 francs, a texture
made of five kilos No. 20-2 cotton weighs five times as much as a texture
• of one kilo No. 200-2, and yet has the same value. The weights, therefore, of tissues, in which weighted silk or cotton, wool, &c., enter as a
component material, cannot be made a criterion of value.
The popular clamor fbr specific duties proceeds fiom an imperfect
knowledge of the way such weighted or mixed silk goods are manufactured. It may be said that, in order to be just to all xiarties concerned,
and to distribute the bui'den of taxation equitably, a reasonable distinction should be made between cohimon or coarse goods and finer grades,
or that such goods .ought to be classified instead of being all of them
subject to the same rate of duty per pound. A just classification, how-"
ever, is not imaginable unless it is based again on the intrinsic values,
like a classification of alloys of pure gold and baser metals. If these
specific duties are to be levied according to classification, a search of
value would still be indisxiensable, in order to find the correct classifi-'
cation ; thus^ a classified specific tariff would, in fact, be a circuitous pr
indirect wa^^ only, and an imperfect way, too, of levying duty on the
value. It is true that it would not help any more defrauders to undervalue their invoices, but it is my honest belief that such xieople will find
means to defraud quite as well by wrong classification as they try to do
now b y ' undervaluation, and that there will be trouble and quarrels
quite as well as now, so that in the end not much good will be gained
by the change.
. ^
Pui'e ^silk goods—that is to say, goods made wholly of silk—may be
brought under a xiretty fair sj^^stem of classific^ion, but for mixed goods
I see no hope. It would be premature on my part to enter into details
before sending on my statistics, (which I exxiect to forward within a
REPORT LOF: THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
791
week or so,) and before the question is*decided, whether it would-be at
all desirable tb trj^^l the exxieriment with two tariffs. If it should axipear,
from a study of rhy statistics, that further suggestions or exxilanations
would be desirable, I am in your service and await orders. .
18. I certaiidy consider it desirable in American consular districts to
appoint consular agents, or rather exxiert analyzers, to verify the correctness of invoiced values, provided that comxietent and independentXiersons can be found with the necessaiy help, proof against conniving
with manufacturers and against wily axiproaches. Such experts would
be useful in Crefeld and in Elberfeld, where most German silks are imported. Of course they woiUd have to avoid delays, because otherwise
complaints may arise fiom the German Government.
19. Is rather an administrative question. As far as I am able to
judge, knowing the comxilaints about reaxixiraisements only from the
public papers, it is my oxiinion that it would not be desirable to grant
to the judiciary greater powers to interfere with the decisions of a reappraisement, thinking that the courts are not the proper forum for
•settling mere questions of value. If in some cases a higher appeal
should be desirablb, I should say that it ought to go to the executive,
and that in extreme cases, involving considerable value, a last recourse
to the executive may be opened, as it is the xiractice in European countries.
'
.
22. My vieiv is that it is not owing merely to the high rate of duty
that smugglers ancj dishonest shippers try to evade the customs laws, but
that defrauders will continue their nefarious practices and tricks, even if
the rate were lowered, since we cannot afford to lower the rate so far that
it would not pay or be worth while to evade it and to run the risk bf
being caught.
j
This is all I ^m able to rejily to the circular from personal knowledge.
I rbmain, yoiirs, most respectfully,
. i
•
.
H. HOLTHAUSEN;
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
•
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 199.
. GEORGE W. JEWETT—Appointed Opener and Packer September 5, 1867 ; Sampler
December 6, 1867 ; Examiner October 7, 1870.
1
N E W YORK, October 1, 1885.
SIR : In answer to the questions^contained in. your confidential circular relating to bpllection of duties, I have the honor to make the
fbllowing replies. !
Yery respectfully,
• ^
\
GEO. W. JEWETT,
Examiner, Seventh Bivision, Appraiser's Bepartment.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1 to 5. Have no knowledge.
'
6. Can see no reason for amendment of law. Have no knowledge of
collector's suits; think the present tribunals are sufficient.
7 to 9. Have noiknowledge
10. There haye.been differences of opinion as to the elem ents of dutiable
value on imported merchandise, those differences relatingto addition
792
REPORT "OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
for value of inner coverings. Think the present law fully covers aU the
elements of dutiable value.
11. No knowledge of percentage of undervaluation.
12. The examiners and assistant axixiraisers are chiefly losponsible for
values of imxiorted merchandise returned to the collector. My salary
is $2,500. The appraiser cannot be resxionsible fbr certification of values
except in special cases reported to him by examiners and assistant axipraisers.
.
13 to 15. Have no knowledge.
16. Think specific rates would facilitate the collection of duties. No
knowledge of textile fabrics.
17. Have no knowledge.
18.- It would nbt be practicable fbr consuls to xiersonally examine
articles shipped to American ports, or to verily correctness of invoic©
values. It is likely that foreign governments would complain of vexatious delays of consuls. No knowledge of fees.
19. Think existing laws sufficient.
20 to 24. Have no knowledge.
No. 200.
^ WM. J. THOMSON—Appointed Examiner August 1, 1885.
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 ,
402 Washington Street, Neiv York, October 1, 1885.
SIR : Please find herewith the answers to your questions as required
by you, and which are given to the best of my knowledge.
No. 1.—I have not been informed of any such evidence.
No. 2.—There is no such evidence that I know ofi
No. 3.—Tests are made by weights, measurements, and counting
threads.
. No. 4:.—I know of none.
No. 6.—I have heard of no such evidence.
No. 6.—My experience being so limited, I cannot decide. '
No. 7.—I cannot enumerate any articles that have not xi^id the full
rate of duty.
.
.
No. 8.—I know of no consxiiracy as suggested.
No. 9.>—I cannot say whether there is such evidence.
•No. 10.—I have not heard of any confusion in the apxiraiser's dexiartment.
No. 11.—I am of the opinion that such an average can be made at
any time.
No. 12.—The examiner's salary, I understand, is fiom $1,400 to
,$2,500.
No. 13.—I have not been informed of such evidence.
No. 14.—I cannot offer an opinion on that subject.
No.. 15.—I have not heard of such bribery.
No. 16.^—1 think that specific rate would be an advantage in cases
where it is practicable.'
No, 17.—I think not.
No. 18.—I do not think so. Consuls fee at London, $2.50.
No. 19.—I think it would be safe and useful.
No. 20.—I have had no experience in wool.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
798.
Yo. 21.—I have Ino knowledge of such practices.
No. 22.—I have received no notice of such evidence.
No. 23.—I cannot tell any in regard to matter.
^No. 24.—If SUCIL false returns have been made, I do not Understand
why the persons have not been xirosecuted.
I have answered your questions as well as possible, fbr, as you know,
I am one of the recent axixiointments, (as examiner of furs.) Had you
asked me anything about furs and skins, I could give you all the information that might be required.
Yery truly, yours,
W. J. THOMSON,
,
Exarriiner, Sixth Bivision,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING, '
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. 0.
'.
• '
No. 201.
'
JESSE P. BATTERSHALL—Appointed Examhier August 19, 1879.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
U S. Laboratory, 402 Washington Street, October 2, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed circular, dated September 30, 1885, which informs me that on August 27
a circular, markedi"strictly confidential," and containing twenty-four .
questions relative to the administration of customs laws, had been sent
to my address. At this time I was away on a leave of absence, duiing
which period the circular of August 27 was doubtless inadvertently
mislaid, as I found none at hand upon my return to this city. I have
to-day been put in possession of a coxiy of the circular referred to.
While ranking as an examiner, my actual position is that of a chemist,
being i n charge of the division of the United States laboratory whicli
is devotpd to general chemical work—i. e., all chemical investigations
not included in the examination of sugar, dyes, and fabrics. The work
performed under my direction embraces the analysis of imported chemicals, ores, metals, 'alloys, drugs, and tea, and exported metals and
alcoholic xireparations.
.~
'I have carefully'considered the questions embodied in the circular
letter of August 27,1 and I regret to have to state that, bwing to the
special character of my duties, very little opportunity for the formation
of an opinion-of any; value has been xiresented. I beg, however, to refer
to a few points which may have a bearing upon some of the quesfions
'submitted.
Question 1.—I ami of the opinion that the water imported under the
name of " ApolUnaris water " should be subjected t o t h e duty levied '
upon an artificially prepared mineral water. I have devoted considerable time to the general examination and ch emical analysis of this article,
and the grounds ux)on which my opinion is based were duly reported
to the axipraiser in 1881. The dutiable status of certain iron pigments
(colcothar) and of bbne-black has been the subject of extensive scientific
investigation during| the past five years, and numerous suits at l a y are
now pending in which this question is involved. Both parties have in
each instance gained a single victory, and the xiroxier classification of
794
REPORT OF T H E
SECREi?ARY OF THE TREASURY.
these articles under the tariff laws antedating the act of July, 1883, is
still undecided. It may be proper to add, in this connection, that instances frequently occur in which chemical compounds are either invoiced
under a misleading name, or are designated with so much ambiguity
that the appraising officer is left in doubt as to their actual charactei
without resource to. a chemical analysis. In many cases it may be
fairly questioned whether the importer himself was aware of the identity
of his imxiortation.
^
Question 10.—Afew instances have come under my observation in
which the wording bf a Departmental decision would perhaps place a
chemist in doubt as to the trub intention of the same; among them are
the following:
.
(a) Manganese ore, to be considered as such, must contain 50 per
cent, of "manganese." Does the word "manganese" refer.to ^me• tallic manganese or to the black oxide of manganese, often commercially
termed " manganese ?"
.
(b) The dutiable nature of various importations containing salts of
potassa ('' manure 'salts,'' &e.) is supposed to be influenced by the amount
of " free potash'' present. Does this term mean caustic xiotassa or car' bonate of potassa*? The majority of salts affected never contain either'
forms of potassa.
'
^
- (c) Importers invariably claim that copper ores should be tested by
the '' dry'' of '' fire assay'' as correctly giving the commercial value of
the same. It has been the custom of this laboratory to determine the
copper xiresent in an ore by the method of electrolj^sis, which afi
fords the amount of metal actually contained, the duty being assessed
on the "fine copper" present. The importer argues that, a deduction
of 1.3 per cent, should be made from the result so obtained, in order
to reduce it to the commercial value of the ore. The tariff law fails
to specify any particular method for testing coxiper ores, but as a matter of fact chemists of repute do not make a "fire assay" of these
ores, the results being quite unreliable.
My attention has recently been directed to the apparent contradiction '
of section 2499, Eevised Statutes, as amended by act of March, 1881,
and paragraph 92 ofthe same act. So far as non-enumerated chemical
preparations are involved, it would appear to me that the former section, the so-called similitude-clause, is inactive, since xiaragraph 92
. seemingly provides for all such importations.
Much embarrassment has been experienced in fixing a standard of
purity for imxiorted teas. I have formulated chemical standards for
my personal guidance, but these naturally possess no legal authority.
In Great Britain certain legal requirements are specified, to which all
teas must conform; for instance, the "total ash" of a tea must not be
over 8 per cent., nor the "extract" under 30 per cent. The United
States tea adulteration act leaves all to the judgment of the tea exam-,
iner, aided by what information he may derive from the chemical
analysis. Within the past few days an invoice of tea^dust was rejected
at this port, which contained 19 per cent, of total ash, or at least 9 per
cent, in excess of the quantity normal to tea-dust. Yet, when the case
came before the board of arbitration, the action of the examiner was
reversed, on the ground that it had not been shown that the foreign
mineral matter present was really deleterious to health. The adulterations to which tea is subjected are seldom actually poisonous, but they
do usually constitute a fraud upon the consumer, and, in my opinion.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
795
the law should specify to what extent such sophistications may be permitted.
'
In an act dated June 26, 1848, certain drugs are enumerated and their
standards of purity established. It is there provided that these shall
be tested by the examiner, and i u case of an apxieal being made the collector is authorized to employ the services- of an analytical chemist,
Avhose report shall be final. The only instances in which the non-repeal
of this clause has prpved an obstacle to our official work' have been
ivith opium, and ih every instance where the non-official examination
has differed from the Government chemist's test there has been no op-portunity for an appeal. The existence pf this act is apparently un-".
known to. most importers of chemicals; otherwise I think it might
prove a very serious obstacle to much of our chemical work. Doubtless at the date of! its enactment official analytical chemists were not'
employed by the Government. Although the law has practically been
almost a dead letteir, I would respectfully urge repeal.
Question 12.—In -my opinion, the examiner is primarily and chiefly
responsible for a false return of value to the collector, except in those
instances where his report may be overruled by the appraiser. The
legal salary of an examiner ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 per annum.
I dp not think thatthe appraiser is, or can well be, much else ordinarily
than one who officially certifies to the collector i h e values fixed and
reported to him by: the examiner or assistant appraiser.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
•,.
' ;•'
'^JESSE P. BATTEESHALL, Ph. D., •
•
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary 6f the Treasury.
\
No. 202.
J. C. WlSWALL^Appointed Examner January 7, 1880.
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
!
402 Washington Street, October 2, 1885.
S I R : In response to your circular letter covering a series of questions
relating to the coUection of customs duties at this port ahd elsewhere,
I have prexiared my replies, and send them herewith; but the ordinary
work, which at present is very considerable, has xirevented my giving
it the care and thought it needs, but as you urge an early reply I have
done what I could hastily.
Yery respectfully,
J. C. WISWALL.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
' 1. I do not know! of any.
2. It is my opinion that where the rates are specific they have, as a
rule, been collected; according to law.
3. By actual measurement, count, and weight.
4. Since the arrest and conviction of a deputy collector, some years
ago, I have seen nothing to lead me to suppose the law was being violated in that way.
796
REPORT OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
5. I know of none.
.
6. It is clainied by many that legislation is necessary tp secure a more
Xirompt and satisfactory decision of questions of classification and valuation ; that there are inconveniences and delays, for which there should
be a remedy; the details of what that remedy should be and how it is
to be secured, I do not feel competent to offer. I do not know hbw ^
^
many suits are pending in New York or at the other xiorts.
7. I am unable to specify any.
' .
^
8. Failures, if any, are from inability to get facts and errors of judgment, in my oxiinion.
9. I am unable to furnish any information on these points.
10. The statutes and regulations, together ivith the facts, are, in my
opinion, a sufficient and safe guide in ordinary cases. Cases have and
no doubt will arise over which there will be more or less doubt and
discussion. It would be difficult tb provide against the latter contingency. '
.
11. Apxiroximate estimates niight be made by those in a xiosition to
know the facts.
12. The responsibility lies mainly with, the examiner, but the assisiant appraiser should be a decided check upon the examiner, and in that
vievf must share the responsibility. Salary of-examiners, $1,800 to
$2,500; assistant appraisers, $3,000. In my oxiinion, the appraiser, in
most cases, only officially certifies to the reportsof his subordinates, on
whom, owing to his duties, he is compeUed largely to rely.
13. The consular reports are often in conflict with the judgment of
tlie examiner. I have no evidence that this is due to dishonesty.
14. So far as I know, the tariff law, as a rule, has been fairly executed. There are exceptional ca^es of course. I have no evidence of the
violation of the law or dishonesty other than that publicly reported.
15. Same as above.
16. Sxiecific rates, where they can be axiplied, would simplify the collection of duty and lessen the temxitations to violate the law. While I
think it would be very difficult to frame a law making a specific rate
upon all textile fabiics which would not work unequally, I wonld suggest that it inight be applied in some instances, and the article of velvet
as one that might be brought under that rule.
' 1 7 . I did not enter the service until after the repeal of that law, and
therefore .cannot make the comxiarisons called for.
18. I think it impracticable, and that it would result in delays and
annoyances, which would be followed by comxilaints and irritation on
the part of those interested, on which complaints fbreign governments
miglit take action in the manner indicated by your inquiry.
The fee for legalizing an invoice in London is $2.50. I do not know
that any other is exacted.
19. As indicated in niy answer to Inquiry No. 6, Ithink there should
be some legislation on this subject, injustice to all concerned.
20: I assume that this must be answered by officials,who are handling the wools.
. 21. I can suggest nothing better than care in selecting the pfficers, a
vigil,ant supervisioii of the work, and a rigid enforcement of the law.
22. On a few articles a lower rate of duty would, in all probability,
lessen the temxitation to smuggle.
REPORT ;0F THE. SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY.
797
i
23. It is my observation that the values xilaced upon imported goods
in the appra-iser's ;0ffice in New York are fully up, and in many instances
far aboye the vaiues placed upon similar, goods imported at other Atlantic and Pacific ports.
-'
24. I do not know.
No. 203.
W. D. DAVIS—Appointed Sampler January 12, 1878; Examiner December 30, 1879.
' .
PORT OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
/
'
402 Washington Street, October 2, 1886.
SIR : In reply to Department circular lately received, I have the
honor to report that my duties in the axipraiser's department are principally confined tp the docks and warehouses of this port. Consequently, I shall nbt be able to so fully answer all the questions as I
otherwise would. ;
.
In rexily tp Question No. 12, I would say that the examiner "is primarily and chiefly responsible, in the usual course of business, for a
false return of value to the collector."
The salaries of the.examiners are,, respectively, $1,800, $2,000, $2,200,
and $2,500 per, amium.
^ The appraiser, individually, cannot have exxiert knowledge on all
dutiable goods or articles; consequently he "officially certifies to the
collector the values fixed and reported to him b j the examiner'' as the
ones en which the ,duty is to be estimated and collected.
Question 16.—I do-not think tha;t there is now, nor will there be in the
future, so much danger from bribery as in the xiast, as political influence
will not avail, offenders. The civil-service law has been beneficial in
the past, and with its continuance ivill come a better class of officers,
who will feel that, iso long as they are faithful, they will be ^retained,
and there will be nb inducement to defraud the Government.
Question 16.—Yes, when it is xiossible. A change from ad valorem
to specific rates would tend to "benefit the revenue, and help to
diminish a tendency to bribery."
Question 21.—To' prevent bribery as is related by Hemy George in
the newsxiaxier slip i enclosed, I would suggest that when the declaration
to the insxieofor is inade by the passenger on board the steamer, that.the
keys to the baggage be given to the inspector, and that the baggage be
examined in the absence ofi the passenger. There is no reason why
baggage should not be examined as gopds are at the appraiser's department—i. e., not in the presence of the owner. ^
Question 24.—Because xiroof was not sufficient to convict.
'
Yery respectfully,
.
!
'
W. D. DAYIS,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary cf the Treasury. ^
' (Copy of newspaper slip aboye referred to.)
A few nionths ago I found myself one night, with four other passengers, in the smokingcar of a Pen nsylvania limited express train travelling west. The conversation, beginning
with fast trains, turned j to fast steamers; and then to custom-house experiences. One
told how, coming from lEurope Avith a trunk filled with xiresents for his wife, he had
798
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
significantly said to the custom-house inspector detailed to examine his trunks that he
was in a hurry. ''How much of a h u r r y ? " said the officer, ''Ten dolla>rs' worth of a
hurry,'' was the reply. The officer took a quick look through the trunk and remarked,
" T h a t ' s not much of a hurry for all this." ' ' I went him ten more," said the storyteller, '' and he chalked the t r u n k . " '
Then another told how under similar cuxumstances he had j^laced a magnificent
meerschaum pipe so that it would be the first thing seen on'liiTting the trunk-lid, and,
when the officer, admired it, had told him it was for him. The third said he simply
put a greenback conspicuously in the first article of luggage; and the fourth told how
his plan was to crumple up a note, and put it with his keys in the officer's hands.
Here were four reputable business-men, as I afterward found them to be-^one an iron
worker, one a coal producer, and the other two manufacturers—men of at least average
morality and patriotism, who not only thought it no harm to evade the tariff, but who
made no scruple of the false oath necessary, and regarded the bribery of custoins officers
as a good joke. . I had the curiosity to edge the conversation from this to the subject of
free trade, when I found that all four were staunch protectionists, and by edging it a
little further I found that all four were tho'rough believers in the right of an employer
to discharge any worlonan who voted for- a free-trade candidate, holding, as they put
it, that no one ought to eat the bread of an emploj^er whose interests he opposed.
No. 204.
CHARLES H. TOWNSEND—Appointed Clerk, Savannah, August 2, 1871; Deputy
Collector, Key West, August 14, 1872 ; Inspector, Brunswick, July 15, 1873 ; Deputy
Gollector, Key West, November 1,1873 ; Deputy CoUectorand Inspector, Brunswick,
September 30,1874, and May 10,1877 ; Clerk and Weigher, New York, May 12, 1880 ;
Examiner May 5, 1884,
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S OFFICE,
4:02^WashingtonStreet, October 2, 1886.
S I R : Eeferring to Department circular requesting. replies to ..the
seyeral questions mentioned therein, I beg to say, in regard to No. 1,
that I have no positive information on the subject.
2. Not that I am aware ofi
3. No xiractical information.
4. Do not know of any.
5. Same as No. 4.
6. Can only give my views on last clause.
I am of opinion that this class of business would be greatly bxpediated
if a revenue or customs court was created to decide all cases arising on
appeal from decisions of collectors of customs. Indeed, this class of
business has increased to such magnitude that it would appear to be
almost a "necessity."
'
.
7. Have not sufficient information on the subject to reply intelligently.
8 and 9. Same as N o. 7.
10. There has been, I think, owing to the opinion of the late AttorneyGeneral, dated January 11, 1884. As to last xiaragraph, yes.
11. I know of no reason to the contrary.
12. In my opinion, the examiner is chiefly responsible. The character
and quality ofmerchandise largely determine its value, and it would be
an injustice to hold an officer responsible for what it would be impracticable, if not impossible, for him to know. For instance, kid gloves or
any other articles might be classified for value strictly in accordance
with the designation of quality on the invoice, and yet they inight, in
fact, be of a much superior quality. Of this the appraiser could not, in
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
799
the usual course of business, have knowledge, as it would be impracticable for him to be present at the multitude of examinations made.
The same inight b^ said of improper classifications for duty. An article
might be invoiced ;as silk and cotton and yet be aU silk; of this only the
examiner would know. Again, an article might be invoiced in such a
maimer as to give the apxiearance that its proper classification would be
a "medicinal preparation," when in fact it was a "proprietary medicine." The same inight be said of many articles.
13.- Have no means of knowing.
14. If'' false values have been habitually and systematically reported,"
I should wanf the most convincing proof to satisfy me that such action
did not come of dishonesty.
15. Eestricting my views to this department, I am of opinion that the
opportunities for the repetition of such false valuations, from whatever
cause the^^ may have come in the past, is greatly lessened, and their
success largely restricted, under the administration of the present faithful
and efficient appraiser.
16. Unquestionabl57'.' As to textile fabrics, I cannot say.
17. I cannot believe they have. The provisions of the moiety act
had, in my opinion^ a tendency to inspire custoras officers with inordinate
zeal, and to encourage unscrupulousness in others having a desire for
prospective interest in any seizure.
19. In my opinion, the judiciary should be vested with power to confirm or set aside the action of the appraising department. This would
not only afford justice to imxiorters who feel aggrieved, but would also
protect the interests of the Government from any imposition that might
be possible in the x)resent final appraisement.
20. Same as No. :7.
21. The method; recently adopted by the Dexiartment will greatly
restrict the disgraceful practice. It might be further reduced by giving
greater publicity tb the law that makes such practice a penal offence.
It might.with adv^intage be added to the i^baggage declaration" now
circulated among arriving xiassengers.
22. 23, and 24. Sp^me as No. 7.
'
Yery respectfully,
j • .
CHAS. H. TOWNSEND,.
;
Examiner, First Bivision.
Hon. DANIEL Mi ANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C. .
800
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
PORT OF PHILADELPHIA.
No. 205.
CHARLES H. JONES—Appointed Special Deputy Collector August 18, 1885.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Collector's Office, October 30,-1885.
SIR : Referring to circular letter ,of 9th September last, marked
"strictly confidential,',' in which a series of questions bearing ,on the
administration of the customs service are presented, I have the honor
fo submit the following replies, which, by reason of my recent connection Vith the service, are for the most part necessarily brief, viz:
1. There is no evidence at this.port.
2. No satisfactory evidence.
3. Relates to appraiser.
4. No evidence so far as I can ascertain:
.5. I do not know of any.
6. It seems to be within the province of the Solicitor of the Treasury
to devise means by which collectors' suits can be pro;mptly disxiosed of.
No amendment axipears to be necessary to the law relating to payment
of interest on such suits.
.
7. Pertains to New York custom-house.
8. Pertains to NeWc York custom-house.
9. I do not know of any.
,
10. As far as can be ascertained, there has been none except, perhaps,
on the question of dutiable charges. Sinbe the present tariff act went
into effect, different decisions and rulings in the matter of "charges"
have led to more or less confusion and doubt as to the intent of the law
on this point. How far these charges enter into the dutiable value of
merchandise apxiears to be now well defined, and where they have been
erroneously^ added or deducted the errors have been rectified by reliqlUdation of entries. The mode of fixing dutiable value seems to be well
understood—the statutes and decisions based thereon covering the entire ground.
' 11. I do not think that undervaluation of merchandise imported at
this xiort exists to any axipreciable extent. There is one class of entiies,
thbse of Meyer & Dickinson, consisting of silks, cottons, velvets, and
hat-trimmings, that show a regular advance 'by the appraiser over the
invoice xnTces. Undervaluations, when they do occur, are uniformly
detected by the appraiser, and the remed;^ provided by section 2900,
Eevised Statutes, applied.
12. Have no knowledge of, nor do the records show, any false return of
values to the coUector. To the last interrogatory, I answer in the negative.
,13. No evidence..
,
^
14. I have no information on this point. .
15. And am, therefore, unable, to answer this question.
16. Would be a benefit if it could be successfully axiplied, and without discrimination, arid it would insure the absolutely correct return
of duties. Change from ad valorem to specific duties would remove
the incentive to bribery. I am not xirepared to say if specific rates could
REPORT 'OF T H E SECRETARY ' OF THE TREASURY. " 801
be applied advantageously to all textile fabrics, but I think that if the
existing quantity of duty, or what ought to be the correct amount of duty,
on cotton embroideries and Hamburg edgings could be collected upon
a sxiecific basis, much of the undervaluation and uncertainty as to what
fiactors enter into the foreign market value of this class of merchandise
might be avoided. \ No evidence of bribery at this port.
17. No; not at tliis xiort.
18. It would not, in my ojiinion, be practicable fbr consular officers
of the United States to personally examine goods to be shipxied from
the distiicts named for the xiniliose of veri:fying the correctness of invoiced values. Uhder article 649 of the Consular Regulations, consuls
now require samxiles to be deposited with them in all proper, cases, and
paiticularly as to textile fabrics. By this means they can comxiare
quality, xirice, &c., with similar goods manufactured in the same district. If they find undervaluation to exist, they can make note thereof
on the triplicate inyoice, or otherwise notify the collector at the xiort of
entry in the United' States. The goods belong to the shipper until the
bill of lading is sighed and dispatched, and a United States consiU can
exercise no control pver them without ^complications arising, nor can he
withhold his certificate to the shipper's declaration, notwithstanding
the fact that he may be satisfied in his own mind of the falsity of such
declaration. I know of no consular district in which a consul cannot
safely and surely ascertain and report the true value of every shipment,
excexit in places where the consulate may be at some point remote from
place of manufacturp of the goods,.or in cases where the goods may be
sxiecial or proprietary in character. The consular fee at all consulates in
Great Britain for certification of invoices, no matter what the value of
the goods may be, is| $2.50.
19. I think not. '
"
,
20. There are no bfficers now in the appraiser's department at this
Xiort who have beenj in service sufficiently long enough to acquire a
knowledge on this subject. °, My own experience as to the workings of
the comxiUcated rates on wool is limited, and, so far as I can learn, there
are no records available from which an analysis could be prexiared
within any reasonable time. An examination of all wool entries since
1860 would probably be necessary to effect the object this request has
in view, but this would involve so much labor and time as to render
the result, of such research of no value for the nse contemplated by the
honorable Secretary. 1
'
21. No eiidence ajt this port. If there had been, necessary steps
Avould have been at once taken to prevent it.
22. I. believe not. '
^
23. Not true as to Philadelphia, for the reason that several importing
firms have changed their business fi'om this xiort to New York, where
they claimed they could obtain better advantages.
24. No charges of fihis character have been made at this port, consequently no arrests, indictments,' or punishment followed.'
I am, sir, very respectfully, &c.,
CHARLES HENRY JONES,
i
Special Beputy Collector.
Hon. DANIEL MANkiNG,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
5lA
-
• i
^
.
,
^
802
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 206.
B. HUCKEL—Appointed Deputy CoUector March 1,' 1873; AprU 19, 1873, and August 7, 1885.^
CUSTOM H O U S E , P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Collector's Office, October 8, 1885.
• S I R : I have the honor to reply to yoiir circular' letter of the 9tA
ultimo containing certain inquiries relating to custom-house affairs t y
answering in the order they are presented:
1. I am not in possession of any evidence that the rate of duty 8s
prescribed* by law has not been collected.
2. No evidence that the full amount bf duty as prescribed by Con
gress has not beeii collected.
3: On ^French goods, by the metrical system; on English, by ordinary
measurement.
4. Have no evidence of such collusion, but such a thing is possible.
5. There is no evidence of incompetent or improper weighing oi
measuring on the wharves.
6. There are suits now pending against the late collector (General
Hartranft), upon classification. The Solicitor of the Treasury should
possess the power to cause district attorneys to more promptly dispone
of such suits ; interest is properly allowable upon money which an importer has to lay out of pending the disposition of his suit. (The.latter
part of this question more properly belongs to the United States attorneys.
, . '
7o Have no knowledge of i h e action of the New York custom-house.
8. If such failure did exist, or now exists, it must be through dishonesty, as the officials in New York cannot be so ignorant of their
duties.
9. I t would seem to be almost iinpossible for the appraiser to report
to the collector false dutiable values for the purpose of defrauding the
revenue, except through a conspiracy between his department and the
importer. Such false returns might occur through a lack ofi judgment.
10. Have heard of no confusion or conflict of opinion in the axipraiser's
department.
11. Not coming in direct contact with the appraiser's department,
have no means of knowing.
12. The appraiser.appears to be one who officially certifies to the values
fixed by the examiners and deputies. I t axipears to have been the custom to axixioint an appraiser more for his political infiuence than for his
knowledge of merchandise, and the same custom may still prevail.
13. No satisfactory evidence exists to my knowledge of such false
foreign values. >
14. Have no knowledge of the existence of any such faUure to collect
the full amount of duty.
15. Not knowing of any such action in the past, cannot propose anything for future guidance.
16. When possible, specific rates of duty would be more satisfactory
to the importer and advantageous to the Government. Textile fabrics,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
803
many of them bping composed of two different materials, and materially
of different value, can only be assessed under an ad valorem duty, and
in a large number of cases with specific rates in addition.
17. Having nci knowledge of false reports by the appraisers I am at a
loss to know how to answer this question.
18. I am unable to answer this, except that portion relating to consular fees, which apxiears to be $2.50 on each verification.
19. The authorities should have entire jurisdiction in the ascertaiument of dutiablei values upon which to levy ad valorem rates.
20. There appears to have been a great diversity of opinion upon
the classification'of wools, and it is a matter (in my opinion) that should
more proxierly claim the attention of appraisers.
21. I know of no such practice at this xiort, and to prevent a practice
of this character is to punish the offenders when discovered under the
law.
22. An increase or high rates of duty has a tendency for dishonest
persons to evade !tbe full payment of duty by undervahiation, but that
is no reason why the Goverument shbuld not endeavor to suppress such
dishonesty by punishing the offenders and bring smugglers to justice.
23. Not knowing that a failure to enforce the revenue law in New
York exists, except upon mere rumor, I am unable to miake any statement.
]
24. Answer to 23, I think, will apxily to this question.
In conclusion, xiermit me to say that my recent appointment as deputy
collector (June, 1886) does not affbrd me the ready facilities to have
more fully answeijed your questions. Your circular being marked confidential prevented me from procuring information, except in'a cautious
manner.
'
.
• ^
I am, with great respect, your obedient servant,
B. HUCKEL,
Beputy Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Sedretary of the Treasury.
I
•
^
No. 207.
JOHN K. VALENTINE—Appointed U. S. District Attorney November, 1875.
I
•
^
.'
O F F I C E OF U N I T E D STATES ATTORNEY,
i
E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T OF PENNSYLVANIA,
i
Fhiladelphia, September 23, 1885.
S I R : Referring to my letter of the 15th instant "and to your circular
received on the 9thinstant, I have the honor to state, in answer to the
sixth inquiry, thati there are now pending in this district 123 suits
against collectors of customs to recover inoneys paid as duties.
I inclose herewith a list of these cases, showing the number of suits
pending, and classiifying them as to the legal questions involved, and
showing the number of suits in each classification, and how long each
suit has been at issue.
There are, you will observe, fourteen different'classes. The firstdass
of cases includes eighty suits. • The question involved in this class is as
to what charges should be included as part of the dutiable value; and
804
REPORT OF THi: SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
.I understand that this question has been passed upon by the circuit
court for the district of New York, and is now- pending on writ of error
in the Supreme Court. The first case under this class was placed at issue
on the l l t h of March, 1884.
,
.
'
The second class includes two cases and involves the question as to
the rate of duty on bichromate of soda. The first of these cases was
placed at issue on the 27th of February, 1885.
The third class includes two cases and involves the question as to the
rate of duty on Hoff's malt extract.
The fourth class includes two cases, and involves the question as to
the amount of duty on sponges.
The fifth class includes three cases, and involves the question as to
the rate of duty on certain woolen goods.
The sixth class includes eight cases, and involves the question as to
the rate of duty on certain articles claimed to be dutiable, as buttons.
The seventh class includes nine cases, and involves the ^question as
t o t h e duty on certain mineral substances.
The eighth class includes one case, and involves the question as to
the rate of duty on manufacture of flax classified as handkerchiefs.
The ninth class, includes one case, and involves the question as to
the rate of duty on down quilts.
The tenth class includes ono case, and involves the question as to
ivhether certaiu articles' should be subject to duty as toys or as china
or earthenware. The question involved in.this case has been passed
upon by the circuit court for this district, and is now xiending on writ of
error in the Supreme Court.
^
. The eleventh class includes one case, and involves the question of
duty on steel ^blooms.
, The twelfth class includes one case, and involves the question of duty
oh certain machinery.
The thirteenth class includes nine cases, and involves the question as
to the rate of duty on certain articles known as hat trimmings.
The fourteenth class includes one case, and involves the question as
to the rate of duty on marble. .
There are two remaining cases, one of which has been virtually settled and the duties refunded, and in the other no narr has been filed
or bill of particulars furnished. I may remark that in the cases where
a blank is left under the date of when at issue, no narr has been filed
by the plaintiff' and that these cases are not at issue.
The question implies that there are suits xi^i^ding which cannot be
Xiromptly disposed of in this district. This is not the fact. Any case
can be promptly tried where this is desired by either party. As an
illustration of this fact I would state that there are only four cases or- '
dered on the list for i h e next session of the.circuit court; that one of
these cases was only placed at issue on the 27th of February last, and
that they will undoubtedly be tried if the counsel for both xiarties so
desire.
. Cases of this kind are x)laeed, under the rules of the court, at the
head of the list, aud are always reached fbr trial. I would state, therefore, from my experience in this district, that the existing law needs
no. amendment, for the present condition of this class of cases is not
, exceptional. There has been no period within my knowledge in which
these cases have not beeu promptly disposed of by the court. So far as
this district is concerned, I believe tliat the present judicial'system •
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^ 805
works efficiently and promptly and to the entire satisfaction ofthe mercantile community who are parties litigant in court.
The payment of interest upon moneys which it is decided should be
refunded would sbem to be just. Thb importer who pays the money is
deprived of its use, is subjected fo the expense of litigation, and it is
therefore not unreasonable, in my opinion, that interest should be allowed in such cas,es.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
/
\
J O H N K. YALENTINE,
I
^
,
' United States Attorney.
' Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1. Under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, as to what charges
should be includeci as a xiart of the dutiable value:
Number and terra.
|
Date when case was a t issue.
4. October session, 1883..-...Marcb 11, 1884.
5. October session, 1|883...... March 11, 1884.
6. October sessiou, 1 8 8 3 . . . . . .
12. October session, 1883
March 11, 1884.
13. October.sessJon, 1883
.March. 11, 1884.
14. October session, 1883
Blarch 11, 1884.
15. October session, 1883
March 11, 1884.
16. October session, 18S3
March 11, 1884.
17. October session, 1883
March 11,. 1884.
32. • October session, 18^3 . . . . . . . March 11, 1884.
64. October session, 1883
March 11, 1884.
74. October session, 1883
75. October sessiop, 1883
March JLl, 1884.
76. October session, 1883
March 11, 1883.
78. October session, 1883
March 11, 1884.
90. October session, 1883
March 15, 1884.
91. October session, 1863
March 11, 1884.
92. October session, ie83
March 11, 1884'. ' .
93. October session, 1883
March 11, 1884.
37. April session, 1884,
J u n e 10, 1884.
38. April session, 18841
J u n e 10, 1884.
39. April session, 1884J
J u n e 10, 1884.
40. April session, 1884J
J u n e 10, 1884.
41. April session, 1884 .!
J u n e 10, 1884.
42. April session,. 1884 .;
June 10, 1884.
43. April session, 1884 .'
J u n e 10, 1884.
46. April session, 1884 .'
September 3, 1884,
57. April session, 1884 J
Sexjtember 3, 1884,
58. April session, 1884
Sentember 3, 1884,
60. April session, 1884
September 3, 1884
61. April session, 1884 . i
September 3, 1884,
62. April session, 1884 . J
September 3, 1884
63. April session," 1884 . !
September 3, 1884
^Q. April session, 1884
September 3, 1884
67. April session, 1884 ..!
-.September 3, 1884,
68. April session, 1884 ..;
1 September 3, 1884,
69. April session, 1884 . . . . . . . . September 3, 1884
70. April session, 1884 ..i
September 3, 1884,
71. April session, 1884
September 3,1884
72. April session, 1884 . . •:
September 3, 1884
73. April session, 1884 .-.'•.
September 3, 1884,
74. April session, 1884 . . !
September 3, 1884,
75. April sessiou, 1884 . . J .
September 3, 1884
, 76. April session, J884 .. .'
September 3, 1884,
77 April session, 1884 ...;. -....September 3, 1884
78. April session, 1884 .. .j
September 3, 1884,
79. Anril session, 1884 .. J
September 3,1884
80. April session, 1884 . . . |
September 6, 1884
,
'
806-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY."
Number and term.
' 83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
«8.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
103.
104.
115.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
125.
126.
127.
128.
19.
61.
. 77.
20.
27.
Date when case was at issue.
April session, 1884
Septeniber 6, 1884
April session, 1884 •
September 6, 1884,
April session, 1884 .. .•
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884 .•
Sex)tember 6, 1884,
April sessionj 1884 . . . :
September 6, 1884,
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884 . . . . . . . . September 6, 1884.
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884,
April session, 1884
.• September 6, 1884,
Apri I session, 1884
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884.
April sessiou, 1884.
April session, 1884 •
September 6, 1884.
April session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
April session, 1884 '
October 4, 1884.
April session, 18r:4
October 4, 1884.
April session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
April session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
April session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
April session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
April'session, 1884
October 4, 1884.
Ax)ril session, 1884
December 19, 1884.
April session, 1884
September 6, 1884.
April session, 1884
September 6,i884.
October session, 1884.
October session, 1884
February 27, 1885.
October session, 1884
February 27, 1885.
April session, 1885.
April session, 1885
September 23, 1885.
2. Whether bichromate of soda should be classified under the similiter
clause of Sec. 2499 E. S. as subject to duty at 3 cents per pound, or as
an article not specially enumerated, subject to duty of 25 per centum ad
valorem.
'
m . October session, 1884
28. April
session, 1885
.. February 27,1885.
September 7, 1885.
3. Whether Hoffs Malt Extract is subject to duty as a proprietary
Xireparation of 50 per centum ad valorem or should be classified as beer,
subject to duty of 35 cents xier gallon.
46. AprU
session, 1883...31. October sessiou, 1883
M a r c h l l , 1884.
March 11, 1884.
4. As to the value of sponges.
38. October session, 1881
39. October session, 1881
May 2. 1882.
May 2, 1882.
5. Whether certain articles are a manufacture of wool and subject to
duty of 50 cents per pound and an additional duty of 35 per centum ad
valorem, under Schedule L, class 3, or to a^duty of 35 x ©^ centum,
>^
under Schedule M.
26. Axiril session, 1877
87. April session, 1883
88. April session, 1883
September 3, 1877.
March 15, 1884.
March. 15, 1884.
6. Whether certain articles should be classified under Schedule C, act
March 3, 1883, as not specially enumerated and subject.to duty of 45
REPORT I OF T H E SEICRETARY • OP T H E TREASURY.,
807
I
per centum, or as! buttons, subject to duty of 25 per centum.
question of charges.
56. AprU
58. April
67. April
4. Ai3ril
129. April
51.> October
52. October
6. April
session, 1883
session, 1883
session, 1883
session, 1884.
session, 1884
session, 1884
session, lfe84
session, 1885
March 11, 1884.
March 11, 1884.
March 11, 1884.
Aprh 5, 1884.
December 19, 1884.
February 27, 1885.
February 27, 1885.
September 7, 1885. *
,
Also,
.
-
7. Whether certain articles were to be classified as subject to duty of
20 per centum as mineral bituminous substanceSc
15.
13.
45.
66.
57.
16.
10.
49.
62.
October session, 1879.. ..March 6, 1880. .
April session, 1881 J . . ; - . J u n e 28, 1881.
April session, 1881J
September 14, 1881.
April session, 1881.:
October session, 1881
August 14, 1885.
April session, 1882 i
September 11, 1882.
October session, 1882.... August 14, 1885.
AprU session, 1883 i
August 14, 1885.October session, 1884
February 27, 1885.
8. Whether certain articles should be classified as handkerchiefs or
other manufacture of flax, subject to duty of 35 per centum ad valorem
or as a manufacture of linen embroidered, subject to duty of 30 per
centum ad valorem.;
2. April session, 1885. i
September 7, 1885.
9. Whether dowh-quilts shall be classified as subject of duty of 50
per centum under Schedule L, act March 3, 1883.
4. April ^session, i885,.---.September 7, 1885.
10. Whether certain articles should be classified as china or earthenware, subject to duty of 60 per centum ad valorem, or as toys subject
to duty of 35 per centum ad valorem.
117. April session, 1884.'
October 4, 1884.
11. Of duty on steel blooms.
33. April session, 1883. J . . . . March 11,1884.
i
•
.
'
12. As to valuatipn of certain machinery, and protest against merchant appraisement.|
3. April session, 1882...L.August 30, 1882.
13. As to the rate jof duty on certain articles known commercially as
hat trimmings or hat.and bonnet ribbons, &c.: '
18.
59.
33.
75.
3.
28.
.59.
124.
12.
October
April
Aprh
October
April
April
April
April
April
session,
session.
session,
session,
session,
session,
session,
session,
session,
1875
1876
1881
1881..
188|i
1884
1884
188f4
1885.
December 14, 1876.
December 14, 1876.
June 28, 1881.
January 24, 1882.
AprU 5, 1884.
June 10, 1884.
September 3^ 1884.
October 4, 1884.
•
,
.
14. As, to the rate \>f duty on marble:
80. October session, 1 8 8 3 . . . . . March 1-1, .1884.
82. October session, 18771
This case is virtually ended and duties refunded.
16. October session, 1880 1
No narr filed or bill of particulars furnished.
808
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY^OF THE TREASURY.
•• _ No. 208.
GEORGE F. LELAND—Appointed Surveyor J u l y 28, 1883.
CUSTOMHOUSE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
Surveyor's Office, September 23, 1885.
S I R : In rexily to your circular-letter (strictly confidential) of August
27,1885,1 have the honor to state that as questions Nos. 1 to 4, G to 17,
20, and 22 to 24, inclusive, have no beaiing upon the duties of my office
T can make no inteUigent replies to the same.
In answ^er to question No. 5 I would state that since assuming the
duties of surveyor, I have failed to note anything but an honest and
correct performance of such work.
In rexilying to question No. 18 I would say that in my oxiinion it w^ould
be impracticable, and would undoubtedly be objectionable to those Governments; and such action on the xiart of foreign Governments would
certainly not be tolerated in this country.
In answer to question No. 19 I would say that such additional legislation would only tend to complicate the busihess and be detrimental to
the interests of the Governnient.
In reply to question 21 I would most respectfully state that I have^
given that inatter strict attention, both in person and by-deputy, and
have failed to discover any evi^lence whatever of the existence of such
practices at this port.
.
Yery respectfully,
GEO. F. LELAND,
Surveyor of Customs.
. Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
No. 209.
JAMES B. BAKER—Appointed Appraiser August 6, 1885.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser-s Office, August 31, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular
letter of 27th instant, marked " strictly confidential,'' and regret to write
in reply that I fear it will require some length of time to obtain the information on the several subjects mentioned in the letter, to enable me
to make a satisfactory report.
During the short xieriod I have occupied the x>osition of axipraiser
my time has be'en wholly given tb the duties appertaining to the current
business of the department, leaving no time to acquire the knowledge necessary to report intelligently on the matters connected with
this deiiartment. The slight knowledge I obtained of the civil-service
rules and regulations was acquired between the time I learned of my
axipointment and the date 1 assumed the duties of this office, made it
advisable for me to qualify and take charge of the department without
suggesting any change of tbe higher officers. Considering the civil service regulations, the only change that could be or cau be made at pres-
REPORT. OF . THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
809
ent are the two assistant appraisersand the drug inspector, all of which
are appointments'to be made either by the^President or Secretary of the
Treasury. Whether it would be agreeable to the appointing power for
the appraiser tonbminate or make suggestions as to men for these positions I do not know. Should it be desired that the appraiser shall
suggest the names of persons for them, or either of them,, the appraiser
will be xirepared to do so at an early date.
Until new assistant appraisers are qualified and enter upon their
duties the appraiser will be without any confidential assistance.
The fixing of a fair and equitable value on the imports depend mostly,
if uot entirely, upon the honesty, capacity, and expert knowledge of
the examiner. Uindervalued invoices can be jiassed by him without
the knowledge of any superior officer, wtose notice is called only to invoices by the merchant who may comxilain of the advance in price and
appeals to the apxiraiser or to his assistants for redress.
A level-headed ^lawyer would, in my opinion, make a desirable and
useful assistant appraiser.
.
Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
;
J. B. BAKER, Appraiser.
No. 210.
L E W I S HEYL—Appointed . Special Agent, Philadelphia, J a n u a r y 3,1872; United
States General Appraiser December 11, 1877.
i
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
United States General Appraiser's Ofice, October 2, 18S5.
SIR : Respectfully referring to my letter of the 4th ultimo, in which
the receipt of yourl circular of August 27, 1885, marked '^strictly confidential,'' is acknowledged, and the reasons for the delay of my reply
exxilained, I have'now the honor of reporting that I have carefully
examined and considered the questions embraced iu the circular, and
reply to them in the order in which the x>aragraxihs presenting them
are respectively numbered, assuming tha;t a direct and definite answer,
by number, withoiit in all cases repeating the contents or substance
ofthe qnestion, is what the Department desires.
1. I know of none, excexiting only such as may have arisen from an
honest difierence oi opinion as to the xiroper classification for duty of
some kinds of goods.
2. I am not aware of any.
,
3. Usually by measuring the folds and counting the same, taking due
account also of the ;width of the goods.
4. I know of none.
, 6. 1 know of non^.
6. This paragraph embraces.6'^x' distinct questions which seem'to me
to require separate answers, to wit: (1.) As regards the causes of suits
resulting from difterences of opinion as to the proper classification of
importations for dnty (which seems to me to be the scope of this question). I think the existing law does need amendment. What in my
'judgment the nature of the amendment should be, will be set forth.in
my reply t o t h e last question in this paragraph. (2 and 3.) In regard
to the second and third questions of this .x>aragraxih, as to the number
810
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
and classification of such snits, I have no knowledge whatever, nor.
data upon which to base an intelligent opinion. (4.) To the fourth
question, whether " a xilan cannot be devised by the Attorney-General, the
Solicitor of the Treasury, the district attorney, and the judges, by which
these suits can be more promptly disposed of, and new suits, as they^
come up, be speedily put at issue and tried," I reply, unhesitatingly,
in the affirmative, but must with all deference add that I think the
history of legislation does not show that the most learned expounders
of the law are always the most skillful or successful legislators. The
skill to analyze and interpret the meaning of an existing statute, with
respect to its efi'ect upon isolated xiropositions or questions, although it
is unquestionably one of the indispensable qualifications for the proper
consideration and solution of the adaptability of a proposed remedy for
defective laws, to meet the desired ends, it is far from being the only
one; and without the addition, in its possessor, of special training and
experience in the preparation of drafts of laws, as well as familiar
acquaintance with existing provisions and their judicial construction,
would not, in my opinion, suffice to insure the most successful accomplishment of the object in view. (5.) The question whether " the existing law in respect to the payment of interest as a part of the damages
and costs in 'collectors' shits' needs amendment" is one with which
I am not sufficiently familiar to enable me to answer it intelligently.
(6.) As to the sixth and last question in this xiaragraph (No. 6), it seems
to me that New York is the only port at which ''the existing judicial
system" cannot " b e made sufficient to work efficiently"; and, although
I have long been of the oxiinion that the services of the Board of General Appraisers, if not each member thereof separately, might be made
available by adequate changes in the statutes to eftect the desired
reform; yet, unless the changes should be made general, so as to
embrace all the ports, it would hardly be desirable for New York
alone. If it should be thought best to continue the existing system, an
additional circuit and district court for the port of New York, with jurisdiction limited exclusively to such cases, should be provided, and the
judges of which should be selected with special regard to their familiarity with the customs laws. If a plan investing the general appraisers with this jurisdiction should meet your approval, I would suggest
that their nnmber should be increased to eighth—the additional fbur
members to be located as follows: two on the Pacific coast, one at Chicago, and one at New Orleans.
7, 8, and 9. Touching the questions in these paragraphs, I have no^
such information as would be of value to the Department or the service.
I have, in common with many of the older officials aud employes in the
Government service, long had suspicions ofthe unfaithfulness of a very
limited number of men (not over hve or six) formerly, but not now in
that service, but am in possession of no facts or data which could be
made available.
.
^
10. I am not aware of any such "confusion, doubt, or conflict of opinion?' now existing in the appraisers' department xiroper, but have frequently met with it on the part of-merchant axipraisers, many of whom
insist that section 7 of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, excludes all coverings of goods as an element of dutiable market value;' and some of
whom claimed to be independent of, and refused to be governed by, the
decisions of the Department in regard to the law upon this point,
especially as to cartons, tillots, and the like articles., On the question
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.811
ot the exemption from duty of all such articles, I have understood the
late appraiser of the port of New York to concur in the views of these
merchants from the beginning. (2) To the second question in this
paragraxih, I reply in the affirmative—as well in regard to my own
opinion as in what I believe to be that of the "examiners, deputy appraisers, and appraisers."
11. To the question in this paragraph, I reply that I do not think so.
12. At the principal ports, especially at New York, I should think
the examiner ^'primarily and chiefly" the responsible party. The responsibility would be greater or less, according to the amount an
variety of importations handled, and the number of examiners employed at the port, and the consequent inability of the appraiser, or
even all the assistant appraisers, to give xiersonal attention to the details of the office. The salaries are different at different ports. To the
last question in the paragraph, I reply that -at the more important ports
he cannot "ordinarily aud in fact" be much else.
13. I have no information of value on this point.
14. On the several hypotheses here laid down,T should answer in the
affirmative the first question; but as I have no knowledge in regard to
the matters set forth, it is impossible for me to identify parties who
might be guiltj^ thereof. In regard to the remaining questions in the
paragraph, I am also totally ignorant.
15. To this I reply, none whatever.
16. I do not think a change from ad valorem to equivalent or justly
equalized specific rates of duty practicable, even as to all textile fabrics,
much less so as to importations generally: and do not see how such a
change could " benefit the revenue or help to diminish a tendency tb
bribery," even if the existing quantity of duty conld be assured. Even
apxiroximately just sxiecific rates are practicable in regard to only a
very limited proportion of our importations.
* 17. Without any definite knowledge upon the subject of this question,
it seems to me quite probable that they have been.
18. Consular agents, if sufficiently "numerous and alert," could, I
think, xiersonally make the examinations and verifications here referred
to. (2.) I am not in possession of the data to enable me to answer
the second question in this paragraph intelligently. (3.) As to the third
question, I do not think it at all 'likely that foreign governments would
abstain from the complaints" referred to. (4.) I have no knowledge of
the fees exacted by our consuls in England.
- 19. My answer to the question preferred in this paragraph is decidedly
in the negative.
20. I have not the data or statistics at hand (or x)resent access thereto)
to enable me to xirepare the analysis here asked for; but beg leave respectfully to suggest, that if my memory of the work is not greatly at
fault, the analysis desired will be found in a brief compend of Tariff'
Enaetments, published some years ago" by Dr. Edward Young, then
Chief of the Bureau of Statistics in Washington.
21. I have often, in social circles, heard of the existence of such a
practice, but have no definite or personal information iu regard thereto,
or of the extent thereof.
22. No, I think not; in my opinion the mischievous, not to say iniquitous systera, pf consignments no\y prevailing to so great an extent is
responsible tor more of the successful evasions of and frauds upon the
customs-revenue laws than all other causes coinbined. It has ruined
812
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY.
, the importing business of many of the oklest and best importing houses
in New York and transferred it to the hands of foreign manufacturers
and their often unsctupulous and irresponsible agents here; and if not
checked by stringent legislative discriminations or penalties, will sbpn
thoroughly demoralize tho whole pustoms service pf the country.
23 and 24. Respectfully referring to my above reply to x>aragraphs 7,
8, and 9, I repeat that I have no information in regard to the questions
embraced in paragraphs 23 and 24 which would be pf any real value
in the investigation thereof. That there may have been and probably
have been exceptional cases of such official faithlessness can hardly be
doubted, but that there has been any such general or extensive corruptness or delinquency, I do not believe—indeed I feel very confident
that such is not the fact, and that a thorough investigation would
justify this confidence.
With great respect, „
LEWIS HEYL,
U S . General Appraiser.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 211.
B. H. NEVIN, Jr.—Appointed Surveyor March 2, 1882; Naval Officer August 2,1883
and January 7, 1884.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Naval Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : In response to Department circular dated August 27, "strictly
.confidential," and received in my absence on leave and held until
my return, I beg to say that the questions are' of such a nature that
this office is not qualified to give intelligent answers from actual
knowledge to them, as they relate exclusively to the collector's, surveyor's, and appraiser's departments. To comply as fully as I can,
however, with the Department's request, I have the honor to inclose
marked statement A, formal replies to each of the numbered questions
in the circular referred to.
Yery respectfully,
E. H. NEYIN, J R . ,
Naval Officer.
Hon.
SECRETARY OF THE T R E A S U R Y ,
.Washington, B. C.
STATEMENT
A.
Formal replies to questions asked in Department circular dated August
27, 1885, and marked "strictly confidential":
1. We know of no snch evidence.
2. We know of no such evidence.
3.' Portains to the appraiser's department.
,.
4. No such evidence here.
REPdRT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
813
5. None.
6. Collector and district attorney only can answer.
7. Have no knowledge of the matter here.
;
8. Have no knowledge of the matter here.
9. Have no knowledge ofthe raatter here.
10. Have no knowiedge of the matter here.
. 11. Have uo knowledge of the matter here.
12. Haye no knowledge of the matter here.
13. Not to our knowledge.
14. Have no knowledge of anything of the kind.
15. Have no knowledge of anything of the kind.
16. We think not,
17. Have no knowledge.
18. Have no knowledge.
19. We think it would.
20. Do not know history of various duties on wool.
21. Have no knowledge of such xiractice here.
22. Have no knowledge, o
23. Have no knowledge.
.
24. Have no kuowledge of any false returns or reports.
All of which is respectfuUy submitted..
B. H. NEYIN, Jr.,
Naval Officer.
No. 212.
D. C. CLARKE—Appointed Examiner March 7, 1882.
APPRAISER'S OFFICE,
Fhiladelphia, September 19, 1885.
D E A R S I R : I received yours of September 9, with printed questions
asking rexilies to same. I have the honor to say, in reply, that many of
the questions are of a character which never come under my notice, and
of which I have no personal knowledge whatever, and it would be useless for me to discuss matters foreign to the duties in my position,
many of w-hich I have no means of finding out. I herewith, hoAvever,
append such answers as, in myjudgment, may be of some service, and
therefore comply with your request.
I am, yours; &c.,
D . C . CLARKE, Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1. I know of no such evidence.
2. I know of none.
3. Invoice measurements are verified from the tickets containing the
yards or meters, unless the articles require appraisement when they are
measured.
4. As I do not come in contact with that department I know of no
collusion "between person's making entry of packages; and the entry
clerk or dexmty collector to send to the appraiser a bogus or false package for examination—I know of no such an occurrence here.
814
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
5. I have no knowledge of any.
6. The law, in my oxiinion, should be so amended that but one construction could bbxii^l^ upon it, admitting onlj- of a clear, unquestionable
classification, without any elasticity.
7. 8, and 9. I have no personal knowledge of the existence of such
conditions as described in these questions, and cannot therefoie give
any answers of any value.
10. In my judgment, the standard to be applied is already and sufficiently defined.
11. From the knowledge the' Department has already learned from
the recent investigations, it is xierhaps better able tb judge of this
matter than my opinion would be worth to it.
12. (1) Ordinarily, I should say, mostprobably the examiner, but either
or all might be concerned. (2) As a general answer to the second part
of this question, I say no. The position, however, in my judgment, is
an imxiortant one after all. He should be a good business man, with a
thorough knowledge of the tariff and his duty under it, ready and
prompt to decide questions as between theimporter and theGovernment,
and this he should be able to do in an intelligent and fearless manner,
withbut being arbitrary, but just to all concerned.
13. I have no means of learning thatany Government officials have
presented any false evidence of foreign values.
14. I know nothing in relation to these questions.
15. An honest and vigoroas administration may do much towards
preventing such a condition of aff'airs in the future, if they now exist.
16. (1) I think it would be a. benefit. There would be a sraall field for
bribery under specific rates. (2) Largely so, at least.
17. Cannot give any definite reply of any facts. _
18. There is no doubt in my mind of the practicability of American
consular agents personally examining articles to be shipxied to Ameri. can ports, and to verify the correctness of invoiced values. They should
be expert in their various lines and sufficiefith'paid to keep them honest.
^ There ought notto be vexatious delays, or cause for com plaint. The agent
can readily keep himself posted if he gives his whole attention to his legitimate duties, thereby preventing any likelihood of foreign Governments
complaining of the consuls—besides I do not think that foreign governments should have much to do with what our Governinent may deem
necessary in preventing their subjects from exporting undervalued goods
into our ports. Consul's fees exacted on English invoices are usually
$2.50.
.19. With the knowledge in possession of the Secretary on this subject, I am entirely satisfied that he is able to recommend the necessary
changes.
20. This will no doubt be don^ by the wool examiner.
21. I know nothing whatever in relation to this ma£ter.
23. Do not think so.
24. I cannot say why—if such be true.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
815
No. 213.
WILLIAM M. LAMB—Appointed Examiner July 15, 1872.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
•
Appraiser's Office, September 18, 1885.
SIR : In answer to your circular dated Septbmber 9, 1885, I respectfully submit the following answers, viz:
1. I believe the rates of duty have been properly levied and collected,
in accordance to the laws xirescribed by Congress.
2. I have no knowledge that articles paying a specific rate have not
paid amount of duty xirescribed by Congress.
3. I do not know\
4. I have no knowledge relative to collusion between any persons;
believe the packages sent are a fair sample of the goods invoiced. If I
had any suspicions of such not being the case I would call for all the
packages.
5. I have no evidenceof false weighingormeasuringupon the wharves.
6. I think the existing laws need amending. I do not know. I do
not know. I think they can be more speedily put at issue and tried.
7. I do not know of any; still, such might exist.
8. I do not know of any; still, such might be the case.
9. I know of no conclusive or satisfactory evidence th^t the appraiser
has reported to the cbllector false dutiable values.
10. In my department there has not been any confusion, or doubt, or
conflict of opinion in order to fix and declare the dutiable value.
11. I have no knowledge.
12. I would frankly state that the examiner is responsible for a false
return to the appraiser, and it is the duty of the appraiser and deputy
appraisers to see and verify what the examiner has done, and return
the same to the collector. The official duty of the appraiser is to certify to the facts.
13. I have no knowledge of such "being the case
14 and 15. 1 have endeavored to do.my duty, and have no knowledge
or information relative to facts stated.
. 16. I would consider a specific rate of duty, by ton, pound, ounce, or
drachm, preferable to the ad valorem rates of duty in my department,
as it would be much easier to compute, &c.
17. I have no knowledge.
18. I consider it would be xiracticable to have consular agents to
verify and note the market values of goods in districts like London,
Paris, Berlin. The fees are about $2.50.
19. I consider the power of the board of appraisers should be set aside
when sufficient xiroof can be found to substantiate the facts.
20 and 21. I know nothing. Have had no experience in these departments.
22. I presume in some cases, the high rate of duty on certain classes
of goods—those coming in small bulk—^imight produce a class of smugglers and dishonest shipxiers.
23. I know nothing relative to Treasury Department being unable to
enforce the laws here or in New York. I consider they have amx)le
power to enforce the same.
816
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
24. If such had been the case the persons or officials would have been
informed upon by me to Treasury Department, aiid, in my opinion, should
be arrested, indicted, and punished in accordance to the law.
Yours, respectfully,
.
^
^
'
WILLIAM W. LAMB, M. D.,
Inspector of Brugs, Fhiladelphia.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of Treasury Bepartment, "^Washington. B. C.
No. 214.
WILLIAM E. D I C K E S O N — A p p o i n t e d Examiner J u n e 6, 1883.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 21, 1885.
D E A R S I R : In reply to your circular of September 9, 1 beg leave to
say I was axipointed in the axipraiser's office of this xiort on June 6,1883,
as chemist or polarizer of sugar, and my work since I have been here
has been confined strictly to polarizing and laboratory w^ork. I am not
acquainted with the examination of goods or xiassing or writing up invoices, never having had anything to do in that line. I am confined
strictly to the sugar department, and as far as I know or have seen,
everything in that departmentof this office has been carried on in strict
coinpHance with the orders of the ff reasury Department.
Yery respectfully, yours,
'
V
*
• '
WM. E. DICKESON,
'. Chemist.
Hon.
D A N I E L J.
MANNING,
^ ' Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C.
No. 215.
FRANCIS H. T A G G A R T — A p p o i n t e d Temporary Cletk, Philadelphia, November 15, 18B2 ; Examiner February 19, 1883..
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 22, 1885.
D E A R S I R : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your circular dated
September 9, 1885. My excuse for not answering it sooner is that I
have been so busy that I have not had time to do so. Of some of the
questions propounded 1 have no personal knowledge, and therefore
cannot answer. 1 w^as appointed to the position of clerk in the collector's office at this port in the month of November, 1882, and transferred to the apxiraiser's dexiartment in February, 1883. My answers
apply to the conduct of busiuess at this port, as I have no personal
knowledge of the conduct of affairs at other xiorts. The following are
my answers:
•
"
'
' 1. No evidence that I know of.
.2. No.
^ .
•
•
,
^ • ,
3. In answer to the inquiry as to the manner and by what tests the
invoiced measurements of textile fabrics are veri hed, I reply that where
goods are folded in yards, meters, or annes, the lengths are verified by
counting the folds; where goods are rolled the ticket measure is gen-
REPORT OF THE SECRETA.RY OF THE TREASURY.
817
erally accepted as correct; where doubt exists they are unrolled and
weighed and measured, the weight per yard ascertained, and that
weight axixilied in determining the lengths of like goods in the invoice.
4. None that I ever heard of at this port.
5. None that I am aware of.
6. To all the questions I reply I am npt familiar enough with the subject to give an intelligent answer.
7. Of my xiersonal knowledge I do not know of any class of articleson which the Treasury Department has failed to levy and collect in
New York the full amount of duty that the law prescribed. But I believe special Treasury Agents Adams and Hinds can give you valuable
information on this subject.
8. I have uo knowledge.
9. I do not believe that there is any evidence that the axipraiser at
this port has reported to the collector false dutiable values. It is true
goods may have been xiassed at less than the actual market value, but
usually the undervaluation is discovered and the value advanced. This
has been true since I have been connected with this office as to cutlery,
lithographic piints, Hamburg edgings, and silks.. The above-mentioned
goods were shixixied by the raakers to agents. The xii'oof of false return of dutiable value b y t h e examiner does not depend on the statements made by special agents of the Treasury. The affidavit of the
consular agent abroad as to the foreign market value of nierchandise =
and the private bill to the importer, if obtainable, would be evidence
corroborating the evidence of the special agent that the merchandise
was undervalued.
10. There has recently been confusion and doubt in the appraiser's
department at this port respecting the question of dutiable values
arising out of the charges abroad, such as putting up, xireparing freight
from works to ship, &c. The place where the value should be fixed
is not clearly defined at present.
11. I cannot make such an estimate.
12. The examiner. My salary is $1,700 per year. No.
13. Not that I am aware of.
14. I have no information on the subject. .
15. Nb reason.
16. Such a change would be a benefit to the revenue and help to diminish fraud. But I do not believe that specific rates could be applied
to all textile fabrics.
17. Ithink they have. Ibelieve the law respecting the seizure of books
and papers of parties discovered undervaluing goods is a good law, and
cannot be made too severe.
. •
18. It would not be practicable in the large Americaii consular districts to personally examine all articles to be shipxied thence to American xiorts. But all textile fabiics can be sampled, and the law requires
that samxiles shall be furnished to the consnl, with the prices attached,
so that an active energetic mairas consul could ascertain whether such
goods were being sold under the market value. In none of every shipment. There need not be unnecessary or vexatious delays in examining values if samples are furnished to the consul.
The usual fee is $2.5,0, I believe.
19. I cannot answer the first x^art of this question; but I think it
would be unwise to leave the question of dutiable value to the judiciary.
20. The wool examiner, Assistant Appraiser John C'aldwellj will answer this question,
^ 52 A
'
818
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
/ 21. I do not believe that the practice prevails at this port of the payment of money by arriving xiassengers to inspectors of customs, either
to facilitate or xirevent an examinatioii of baggage, or to allow dutiable
articles to pass free. But where it does exist, if it does anywhere, if
the xirivate citizen would report the fact to the collector the offending
inspector should be xiunished.
22. I think not.
23. What is said to be true of the frauds practiced o n t h e Treasury
Department in New York is not true of this port. I do not know as to
other ports.
24. I cannot answer, excexit they were protected by their superiors
in office, as is very generally believed.
Respectfully submitted.
FRANCIS H. TAGGART,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington B . C.
No. 216.
I. S. TOMLINSON—Appointed Clerk May 7, 1883; Examiner October 16, 1883.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 24, 1885.
S I R : Having had less than two years experience in the customs
service of the Government, ray knowledge and information in relation
to the various questions iiropounded by you is necessarily very limited
and will apply only to the port of Philadelxihia.
I would therefore respectfully reply to the several questions as follows, viz:
1. I have no knowledge of any.
2. None.
3. My duties bein^g confined to the examination of minerals, metals,
machinery, manufactures of metals, lumber, &c., I have no knowledge
of textile fabrics.
4. I have no knowledge of any.
5. I have no knowledge of any. My observations of the weighing of
cargoes, when I have seen it done at the vessels I have visited to examine the cargoes, are that the weighers are competent, accurate, and
reliable. I have never known an instance where their returns have
been disputed,
6. I have no knowledge of this subject.
.
7. I have no knowledge of this subject.
8. I do not know.
9. I do not know of any evidence.
10. Yes, in the matter of freight and charges. No, in regard to the
place ofthe principal markets ofthe country of production or exportation, as in the case bf Portland cement, Bessemer steel, wire rods, &c.
Where invoices are made out at the xilaces of production and freights
and transportation to ports of shipment are added the charges to ports
of shiximent are not included iu the dutiable value, while the same article, invoiced at the xiort of shiximent, the price at which such article is
bought or sold in that market is made the dutiable value, which ambunt includes the freight and transportation charges from the manufactory
to said port. At factories farthest from the shipping port the prices of
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
.819
the articles are lower and the transportation charges are higher than
those i\eaier to the shipping port, yet the prices of the articles average
about the same ; which fact goes to show that the xirincipal market of
the country of production for exported goods is the port at -Which they
are shipped. This principle is in a measure involved in the Department ruling of February 8, 1884 (S. S. 6158).
• 11. Yes, where the articles are large or bulky.
12. (1) Clause "The Examiner"; (2) Salary, $l,700per annum; (3) No.
^ 13. Not to my knowledge.
14. I have no knowledge of this subject.
15. No reason.
16. Where it could be axiplied.
17. I do not know.
18. Yes ; I believe it would be practicable for an honest, intelligeut,
and industrious xierson to examine articles and verify the invoiced
values. As consuls cau compel the furnishing of samples of articles
invoiced with prices attached, or,withhold the certificate uutil the demand is coraplied with, it would be practicable for them to obtain the
true inarket values.
19. I do not believe it would be safe to give powers of decision to persons who have no practical knowledge ofthe articles in dispute.
20. I have no knowledge of this subject.
21. I do not believe the practice exists at this port.
22. No.
23. Not at this port to my knowledge.
24. I do not know, unless guilty parties (if such there be) have been
protected by those in authority over them.
Yery respectfully,
L S. TOMLINSON,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
.
,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 217.
J. K. KERR—Appointed Examiner September^ 18, 1882.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Apprasier's Office, October 5, 1885.
S I R : Your confidential circular of the Oth ultimo was duly received.
The great press of business in this departnient is ray apology for not
replying sooner. I would respectfully say that ray xiosition as exarainer and entire confineraent tb the exaraination roora gives rae little opportunity to gain inforraation pn raany of the questions asked. I herewith inclose answers "as far as my inforraation on the subjects extends.
Yery respectfully,
JAS. K. KERR,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C.
1. None to ray knowledge.
2. None that I am aware of.
3. Being the examiner of china, glass, earthenware, bronzes, and
fancy goods generally, I could not express an opinion on textile fabrics,
4. None that I am aware of,
820
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, 5. My time being occupied entirely in the examination room, I have
no means of knowing what is being done on the wharf. I have never
heard of any disxiutes on this question.
6. Have no knowledge on this subject.
7. I do not know of any, nor have I any information on the recent investigations in New Yorl;, but think the Department could collect the
full araount of duty by honest exarainers who understood the value of
the raerchandise they are xiassing on, and see that xirices and discounts
are correct, and are honest in their classifications of the duties.
8. Having no inforraation of the facts of the investigations in New
York I cannot answer this question.
9. I have no evidence of any.
10. First, none to ray knowiedge; second, yes.
11. I cannot say, but think there could.
12. All may be considered. Primarily, the examiner, which may in- ^
volve appraiser and assistant appraisers. Salary of examiner, $1,700
per annum.
13. Not that I am aware of.
14. None to ray knowledge.
15. No reason. But can be prevented by honest appointments.
16. What little inforniation I have on textile fabrics, I think, atleast,
a portion could.
17. I do not know.
18. First, yes; if proper men of business were appointed to these
Xiositions and would give their tirae and attention to investigating these
raatters they would be of great service to the appraiser's departraent
especially, by furnishing true values and other general inforraation; second, in alraost allthe large districts, if they would take the trouble the
merchant takes, who visits these places to make his purchases. About
$2,50. No consular's certificate required under $100.
19. As au examiner I donotthink I am able to give an opinion on this
question, but I think the xiarties should have a practical knowledge of
the merchandise iu dispute.
20. I could not give a satisfactory answer, as the wool question is a
very comxilicated one and entirely out of my dexiartment.
21. Not at this port to my knowledge.
'22. No.
23. Not at this port that I am aware of.
24. I do not know of any; this would belong to persons having knowledge of these facts.
JAS. K. KERR,
Examiner.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
821
No. 218.
G. C. M. EICHOLTZ—Appointed Examiner February 8, 1876.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 5,1885.
S I R : In answer to the several.questions propounded in your confidential circular of September Oth ultimo, I have the honor to report as
follows in the order in which they are asked.
Yours respectfuUy,
G. C. M. EICHOLTZ.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
1. 1 have no knowledge of any violation of the law as prescribed.
2. I have no knowledge that the full amount of duties upon articles
paying specific rates of duty has not been collected.
3. 1 am not in the dry-goods department and cannot state positively
what methods are in vogue in regard to the measuring of textile fabrics.
4. l h a v e ho knowledge of any.
5. I have no knowledge of any false weighing or measuring on the
wharves.
6. I do not feel mj^self competent to answer.
7. I am not able to specify any articles coming into the port of New
York upon which the full amount of duties has hot been collected.
8. I ara not able to state.
9. I have no knowledge of any such practices.
10. I ara not aware of any conflict of opinion existing in this departraent in regard to the fixing of values. The time, xilace, and standard
already sufficiently defined by the statutes.
11. I am not able to say nor am I able to identify the invoices so
undervalued.
12. The examiner I think is primarily responsible for a false return
of value to the collector. The salary of such officer at this x^ort is
$1,700 per annura. The appraiser usually accepts the values taken by
the exarainers and deputy appraisers.
13. Not that I ara aware of.
14. I cannot answer correctly.
15. I have no knowledge of any bribery or corruption in this departraent.
16. I consider a change frora ad valorera to specific rates where
practicable the only safeguard against undervaluation. I think specific
rates could be applied to raost textile fabrics.
17. I ara not in a xiosition to know.
18. I do not think it would be xiracticable, and would occasion raany
coraplaints frora delays. The consular fee in London and England is
now $2.50 for certifying all invoices.
19. 1 a nmot able to state correctly.
20. I have no knowledge that such xiractices prevail, The only reraedy is the careful selection of raen of known integrity.
21. I have no knowledge upon the subject of w^ool, never having had
anything to do in that departraent.
22. I think the rate of duty iraposed upon oil jiaintings and statuary
might with advantage to the Government be reduced. The rates now
822
REt>ORl? O^ 1:HE Si^CllEtARY OJ^ THE TREASURY.
exacted being so high, and the articles in question frequently costing
very large amounts of money, and the difficulty in ascertaining values,
the temptation to undervalue is very great.
23. I am not able to say.
• 24. That I am unable to say.
No. 219.
H. A. FISHER—Appointed Exarainer February 8, 1876.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
:
. .
Appraiser's Office, October 3, 1885.
S I R : Your circular letter, dated Sexitember 30, w^as duly received,
urging immediate reply to twenty-four questions in circular marked
" strictly confidential," sent to me on the "27th ultiino." Allow me to
apologize for the delay, and to excuse it by the overwhelming pressure of business in the dry-goods, departraent of this ofi&ce; also to say
the circular in question is before rae and is dated Septeniber 9, instead
of August 27, as stated.
Appreciating the iinportance of as full replies as possible, I have
endeavored to give a sincere, clear reflection of ray experience on the
subjects named. Replies herewith inclosed.
Yours, very respectfully,
H. A. FISHER.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. G.
1. The writer is not aware of any inaterial deviation frora the rates of
duty prescribed by law," under the decisions of the Treasury Department, at the port of Philadelphia, excepting xierhaps with regard to
wool, and he is not familiar enough with this article to discuss it. Irregular and doubtful decisions, many of which have already been reversed, have led to loss to the revenue.
2. The writer is not aware of any satisfactory evidence that full specific rates have not been collected.
'
3. lu this office the lengths of such textile fabrics as silks, satins, and
ribbons are from time to time tested by counting the folds or "plis,"
usually one dune or meter in length, for silks and satins. Ribbons are
invoiced at piices for the European standard of length, 14.40 and 15
meter xiieces, and xmt up for the American market in 9-meter lengths,
and a rebate deducted for the diff'erence. The 9-meter length is frequently tested by actual measurement. It might be stated that the
writer in his estimation ofthe value of silk goods takes the weight as
one of his bases for such value. This, it will be observed, is a decided
check upon fraudulent lengths as well.
4. None that writer is aware of..
5. None that writer is aware of.
6. Decidedly, yes. It is full of anomalies, double provisions, andirregularities leading to endless disputes. The provision for hat trim,
inings, p. 448, and for all manufactures of silk, and silk chief value,
p. 383, raight be cited; w^ebbings, p. 495, and manufactures of silk,
chief value, 383; the double xirovisions for manufactures of hair, in x)363, wool schedule, and in p. 445, sundries. The latter the Depart
ment has decided to jir^vail (lateh^ revised), notwithstanding it is the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
823
lower rate. Also the Department's decisions that rabbit-hair yarn is a
raanufacture of fur. The act of March 3, 1883, is ivorse than its predecessor in this respect. Reference raight also be made to the section repealing duties on charges, its loose wording leading to iraraense litigation. The writer has no knowledge of the record of suits—has no
access thereto. He thinks interest should be paicl, and also that a special court of clairas would greatly expedite Governraent cases.
7. Silks, silk and cotton goods, cotton erabroideries, and ribbons, so
far as the knowledge of writer is concerned. The evidence in the
opinion of ivriter is incontrovertible that the Government has failed
during recent years to levy and collect the full araount of duties under
the law. This loss is not the raain evil. Within the writer's experience
all honest trade, nearly, in cotton embroideries (Hamburg edgings) and
Swiss machine-made laces has beeu transferred to so-called Ameiican
houses abroad and their agents here in seven years' time by the failure
to collect the full amouut of theduty. The evidence of this is lengthy but
conclusive, aud in the possesion of the Department. Seven years ago
86 per cent, of cotton embroideries were honestly purchased, now nearly
90 per cent, are consigned. This has been strenuously fought by theofficersof this port. " The Departmentfinally sanctioned 10 per cent, ado
vance on the bare cost of materials and labor as market value, which ns
more than covered factory and office expenses. The Department appear,
now to be making a vigorous and successful efi'ort to cope with this fraud
The transferral of the silk trade is of older date, and the remedy is
difficult. I t needs the full co operation and direction of the Department.
The standard of market value of silks appears to have been destroyed for
tne American market by the manufacturers abroad by their refusal to
make franc prices, and to sell only to a buyer abroad in dollars and
cents through their Araeiican agent, and deliver duties paid. Building up a inarket value, based upon the cost of materials and labor, is the
lawful reraedy, but is soraewhat arbitrary, being too low or too high, as
supxily and deraand raay affect the article. The writer (without sufficient attention to the subject of change of duty) would siraply suggest
a square yard duty on silks based uxion a clear, intelligent division ofthe
various kinds and qualities, not uxion. price. He would also suggest a
discrirainatory duty, say of 20.per cent., on consigned goods, about the
average araount of undervaluation in addition to ordinary duties. This
would protect the honest xittrchaser from having the European raanufacturer flood his raarket here with all the balances of his stock, warps
worked out of looms, &c. These are sent here to his agent on consignment to be sold for the best price they will bring, and xirobably invoiced^ at about cost. Practically the protective feature of the tariffdoes not protect even the honest iraporters, ranch less the raanufacturer here, under the system of consignment.
The writer has rexilied to question 7 to the best of his ability and
knowledge, and endeavored to show that in his oxiinion the failure to
levy and coUect the full amount of the duties under the law is due: (1)
To the law itself; (2) to the lack of sustaining support principally from
the Treasury Dexiartment duriug recent years; and, lastly, to want bf
uniformity and system in the action of local appraisers and examiners
at the larger ports, and the general failure of rea^ppraisements to fairly
sustain such efforts as have been raade. Sorae systera should be devised to secure uniform action at least at the ports of Philadelphia,
Boston, New York, and Baltimore.
824
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
8. The writer does not think the failure has come about either from
the ignorance or indolence or dishonesty of Treasury officials. The
writer knows of no reliable evidence of guilty knowledge or a conspiracy
among the higher class of Treasury or customdiouse officials. The
irregular and astonishing decisions have been cause for suspicion only.
9. This question has already been answered negatively as to false returns by the local ax>praisers. The trouble has pervaded the Treasury
Dexiartment, the general apxiraisers, and the local apxiraisers. The difficulty lies deeper than mere false returns could account for, and the
writer has endeavored to explain his view. There are comparatively
few false invoices made out, and those mostly by small retail buyers.
The trouble is alraost altogether on consigned goods, and the different
views as to what constitutes market value. There is no actual invoice
for consigned goods—it is merely a pro forma inioice, and when
the raanufacturer comes to fix the basis for the collection of a 50
per cent, duty, in order to send his goods here for sale, there is
necessarily a wide divergence of opinion as to the law for true
market value. The want of a clear interpretation of this part of law,
and a vigorous enforcement of that interpretation of the law, h a s .
led to the undervaluation. The system has been in operation 10
years, at least. The class of articles, xirincipally silks, cotton, erabroideries, wool and woolens, ribbons, within the writer's experience. The
articles are shipped generally by the makers to their agents. The same
general condition of things has existed at the larger ports, in less
degree perhaps, thau New York. As to the latter xiart of question,
"what evidence is there to sustain the Treasury special agents or consular agents, as against the official action of the apxiraising departraent,"
the writer would say that in the nature of such a dispute, there is very
little direct evidence, excepting in the goods theraselves—evidence of
sirailar values on bona fide purchased invoices. The calculations of
the cost of raanufacture raade by the consular a,gents are, at best, good
guides and help only. The market value, as has been urged, may be
lower than such cost, or very considerably higher. The Treasury
special agents, as a rule, take extreme views. The appraiser and his
examiners occuxiy a judicial position, perhaps, and are liraited in their
action by what they are able to sustain. The writer's alraost sole exxilanation of the faiUire to fully meet the undoubted undervaluations
that is the Treasury Departmeut has not sustained its officers—including the Treasury special agents—in their efforts to put values up to the
standard now sought for. The advances heretofore made have been
irregular—largely resulting in centering the trade in New York— and probably, on the average, have not more than half covered the
actual undervaluation. The apxiraisers have done probably the best
they could under the circurastances. Properly they ought to seek, the
cb-operation and assistance of the Treasury special agents. That they
have not done so generally perhaps is due to general demoralization
and because they were not good appraisers. The evidence is hardly
against the apxiraising department, but against the law and whole general administration of it.
10. This question has been largeky answered affirmatively. The
standard of " true market value" is not clearly defined. Prices vary 15
to 20 per cent, on certain goods to varying buyers, varying quantities,
and special contracts. Manufacturers who consign all their goods have
no market value, hence no standard excexit building up one from materials, labor, and the variable ideas of expenses and profit.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
825
The port of New York, with its large preponderance of the imports
of the country, ought to be able to fix a standard of valuation; and.
some system looking to a close communication for comparison and information from that center would be of great service. Whether a high,
moderate, or low standard be adopted, it would at least have the merit
of being uniform.
11. The writer does not think the undervaluation is the " act" of the
axipraiser. He is of opinion that the average undervaluation of silk
goods and cotton embroideries for the last five years has been 20 to 25
per cent—that is, less than actual purchases of similar goods. How
much of this has been met by appraisers' advances, how much has been
justified by the diff'erence in character of consigned and purchased
goods, and, finally, how much of the balance (probably one-third to onehalf) it has been imxiossible to sustain owing to the failure of reaxipraisement under the methods in vogue prior to the recent orders of the
Treasury Department, are questions that can be more intelligently answered, treasury sxiecial agents and examiners alike have raet with
defeat in their repeated efibrts in the general appraisers' rooms. Such
invoices can be readily indentitied, the writer thinks.
12. The examiner, undoubtedly. In Philadelxihia the salary of such
officers is $1,700 for all, with the exception of the silk examiner (the
writer),, which is $2,900 xier annum. The appraiser, ordinarily, merely
certifies to the examination, unless a disxiute is raised, and he investigates. The deputy appraisers in Philadelphia have been mere
ciphers so far as a revision of the valuations by examiners was concerned. They have been detailed to examine certain lines of goods
themselves, and acted as examiners. The examiners have virtually
the w^hole responsibility, excepting in such cases in dispute and brought
before the appraiser personally. In this connection the writer would
Uke to say a word in regard to the salaries paid to examiners in Philadelxihia. Not one receives the limit allowed by law—$2,500. The salaries are not sufficient to sustain the grade of the office. The ability
required, the close application, and, above all, the thorough integrity
needed in an office where so much responsibility is rested, requires an
officer who, from his proper association and character, must rank above
an ordinary clerk. The writer is of opinion that the salaries now paid
will not secure a class of officers high enough in grade to secure the
efficiency now sought for and required. Many men will seek the office. ,
There may be some accidents that will strand, some men into such positions who are sufficiently capable, but the general failure of previous
administrations to overcome the xitime difficulty would appear to suggest that the fountain-head for this xiort, as well as others, be looked
into and improved.
13. The writer is aware of no such evidence.
14. The writer thinks it cannot fairly be said that such is the case.
15. The question is covered by the reply to question 14.
16. No. If bribery exists it w^ould be more effective with most specific
rates than ad valorem rates, provided the existing quantities of duties
are levied. Specific rates are possible for sorae textile fabrics. Such
specific rates that have liraitations as to value, in w^riter's opinion, off'er
raore opportunity to fraud and dispute than purely ad valorem rates.
The specific part of the compound duty on woolen dress goods and woolen
and worsted yarns, and the purely specific duty on cotton yarns and
warps under the present law, might be cited as instances. These limi-
826
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
tations as to value for specific rates offer great temptation to theimporter to get his goods just below the rank to which they belong, if they
are close to the line, by a very slight undervaluation, or by averaging
prices (keeping the total amount correct) gets more at lower rates than
proper. There are no^ more equitable duties than ad valoreui. They
should not be excessive, and they require absolutely honest, intelligent
business methods in their uniform enforcement.
17. The writer is not familiar with practical workings of the moiety
act, its repeal taking xilace before his appointment. He has no very
good opinion of it.
18. The writer thinks it would not be xiracticable. The reports now
received from Zurich, Lyons,^ Bale, and Horgen are useful and of great
assistance, especially where values have to be built up on silk goods.
Beyond that the w^riter does not think it practicable to go. Do not
know the fees exacted.
19. The writer thinks it would be safe for the executive to have wider
control for the sake of establishing uniformity of valuation. . This is the
great trouble—lack of uniformity, the different general appraisers
having their own particular views, and their judgment being absolutely
final.
20. The writer has no records or knowledge of the history or examination or practical working of the xiresent law as to the duties on wool.
21. The writer knows very little about the question practically, but
thinks the existing law might be liberalized considerably as to passengers from abroad.
22. The writer thinks the existing rates on woolen dress goods and
garments, cottons, and silk goods is too high, and possibly offers great
temptations to smugglers and undervaluers. The latter class are now
powerful, and' have always had their influence when they corabine.
23. Yes. Not in same proportion, but generally. Boston and Philadelphia are too near NewYork not to follow in her wake.
24. t h e writer does not believe the so-named false returns made by
appraisers have been criminal in their character.
H. A. FISHER,
Examiner, Fort of Fhiladelphia.
No. 220.
W. W. IlEANS—Appointed Examiner May 19, 1880.
P O R T OF P H I L A D E L P H I A , P A . ,
Appraiser's Office, October 6, 1885.
S I R : Your circular of the 9th ultimo is received, and I herewith have
the honor of replying. The inquiries to which 3'ou desire replies cover
a very broad field, and I would say that what I may write refers only
to the way in which the business of the custom-house is conducted at
this port. When I was apxiointed to the xiosition of examiner in the
appraiser's department I was assigned to duty as examiner of sugar and
molasses specially, though I have had some experience in the examination of other classes of goods, chiefly liquors. Consequently, not having
had the practical experience in the exaraination of goods oijitside of the
classes above mentioned, my knowledge is limited in regard to the
value of dry goods, &c., and most of the matters to which your quesiions refer. I make reply to the questions as follows:
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
827
I. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not within the
last few years been levied and collected as the law prescribed.
c 2. I know of no evidence that on articles which the law says shall pay
specific rates, the full amount of duty has not been collected. "
^
o. I do not know.
'
4. I know of none.
5. I know of no false or incompetent weighing or measuring on the
wharves.
6. I have no knowledge ofthe subject.
7. I know of no facts or satisfactory evidence that the Treasury Department has failed to collect in New York, or any other port, the full
amount of duty that the law xirescribed.
8. I do not know.
,
9. I have no knowledge of any.
10. Thiere has not been, to ray knowledge, any serious confusion or
conflict of opinion in order to declare dutiable value.
II. I do not know^
12. The exarainer. No.
;
13. I know of none.
\
14. I think not.
15. There is no reason—in ray oxiinion.
16. I think it would.
17. I do not know.
18. I don't think it would. I think the consuls theraselves, if they
attended to their duties properly, would be able to answer this question raore intelligently than any one else.
19. I don't think it would.
20. I know nothing about it.
21. No such practice exists at this port.
22. I do not know.
23. I t has not.
24. I do not know.
Yery respectfuUy,
^
'
W. W. DEANS,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
828
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY 01? THE TREASURY.
PORT HURON.
No. 221.
W. L. BANCROFT—Appointed Temporary Collector and Inspector, Detroit, April
30,. 1853; Collector J u n e 22, X885.
CusTOM-HousE, P O R T H U R O N , MICH.,
Collector's Office, September 8, 1885.
SIR : In reply to confidential circular date^d August 27,1885,1 have the
honor to report;: I find that the range of inquiries in the circular cover
transactions of which there are very few at this port, and that no facts
pertaining thereto and likely to be valuable to you can be collated from
any records in this office.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. L. BANCROFT,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B , C.
PORT OF PORTLAND, ME.
• No. 222. ^
FREDERICK N. DOW—Appointed Collector January 30, 1883.
CusTOM-HousE, PORTLAND, M E . ,
Collector's Office, September/ 5, 1885.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your coraraunication of the 27tli ultirao, marked "strictly confidential," and hasten to
make replies to such of the questions therein asked as I am able to with
the inforraation within ray reach.
The comxiaratively liraited range in the variety of raerchandise imxiorted at this port necessarUy narroAvs my field and liraits my capacity
to speak froin experience of many of the topics broached.
Replying to your inquiries in their order, and referring to them by
number, I have to say:
1. That I have no such evidence.
-2. I have no such evidence.
3. The importation of textile fabrics at this port are few; but it has
been the custom of the axiiiraisers to verify invoices, always by weight,
and from tirae to tirae by actual raeasureraent, to satisfy theraselves of
the correctness of the invoice.
. 4. There is no evidence of any such collusion at this port.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
829
5. No evidence of any false, incompetent, or inadequate weighing or
measuring on the wharves. There is more or less complaint on the part
of importers from time to time, but there has been but one case within
two years w^here a regauging was granted, and no case of reweighing
within that tirae.
6. There has been but one suit agaiust the collector of this port for
several years, and that before ray accession to office. I have therefore
no inforraation upon the subject raatter of the inquiry.
7. No knowledge upon this point.
8 and 9. The sarae answer raust be made.
10. I know of no cases of doubt in the appraisers' department at this
port not readily solved.
11. No instance of undervaluation has occurred at this port to my
knowledge; and as I am inforraed, none for several years.
12. At this x^ort there are no exarainers, and the work usually performed by them at large ports devolves npon the appraiser and assistant appraiser, who act together or separately, as exigencies arise. Their
salaries are respectively $3,000 and $2,500.
The above statement must be modified so far as polariscopic tests of
sugar are concerned. These, under authority of the Department, are
made without extra compensation by a weigher and gauger, whose salary
as such is $2,000.
For the correctness of such tests such officer is priraarily responsible,
though the duties are assessed upon the certificate of the appraiser or
the assistant, as the case may be.
13. We have no evidencb at this port upon this point.
14. No evidence.
15. I think no reasonaean be cited.
16. The elimination, in ascertaining what duty is to be paid upon a
given article, of all consideration of the cost of its xii^oduction or its
price in the chief markets in the country of its origin or intrinsic value
to its consumer would necessarily remove many elements of uncertainty,
and therefore opxiortunities for mistakes and fraud, and this would be
true, I think, without reference to the quantity of duty to be levied.
Specific rates could be applied to all textile fabrics. But it would seem
that such duties would necessarily be either in very low xiroxiortion to
the value of high-cost goods, or very high proportion to the values of
^cheaper goods of the same species.
17. yNo evidence here upon this point. It is but natural to expect
that the zeal of informers would be lessened, and the danger to imxiorters of detection decreased by the legislation referred to.
18. I do not think it xiracticable. The only inforraation obtainable
. at this office in regard to fees exacted by consuls for certifying invoices
is frora the invoices presented. The regular fee of $2.50 allowed by
consular regulations appears to have been collected in each case. I
think that importers of small articles of little value do not usually xiresent their invoices to the consul ibr certification as under Art. 328, T.
R.; where the value of an imxiortation does not' exceed $100 collectors
may admit the same to entry by apxiraisement.
19. As reliance must somewhere ultimately be placed in human judgment, I am of the oxiinion that the nearer to the article to be exarained
that authority i | placed the greater the opportunity for a correct axi-
830
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
21. I have no competent evidence on this poiiit, but have no doubt
from what I hear that such is the case. It would probably be difficult
altogether to suppress it, but a rigid discipline and efficient supervision
of the inspecting force would contribute to that end.
22. No evidence at this port upon this point.
23. Same.
24. Same.
Yery respectfully,
FRED. N. DOW,
Collector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Seeretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 223.
SIDNEY PERHAM—Appointed Appraiser September 22, 1877.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, PORTLAND, M E . ,
Appraiser's Office, September 15, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to submit the following answers to your communication of August 27:
1. I am of the opinion that the rates of duty have been applied and
collected at this port as the law prescribes.
2. I have no evidence that the duties have not been collected in accordance with the l^w. I believe they have been.
3..^ Our practice is to measure one piece at least of each invoice of textile fabrics, but we have always found them td^orrespond substantially
with the invoice.
4^. Nothing of the kind has occurred here to my knowledge.
5. There is no such evidence that has come to my knowledge. I believe this work has been faithfully and honestly performed.
10. There^has been no confusion ofthe kind at this office The rules
to be applied are quite clearly laid down in the laws and decisions.
12. At this port the appraiser exercises more or less personal supervision in the exaraination of goods and generally assists in such exaraination. In the larger ports, of course, it is irapossible for the appraisers to do this, and the exarainers must be held primarily and chiefly
responsible.
13, 14, and 15. I have no such evidence.
16. I am of the opinion that specific duties, so far as they are practicable, are preferable to ad valorem duties, and that specific rates may
be applied to more classes of textile fabrics.
18. I am not sufficiently acquainted in relation to consular agents to
give an opinion that would aid the Departraent. The fees of consuls,
as appears by invoices received.at this port, are generally $2.50 for each
invoice.
19. I think there might be serious difficulties arising from the executive or judicial power interfering with the ascertainment of dutiable
values, except so far as to give interpretation to the laws applicable
thereto.
20. The iraportations of wool into this xiort are very small, and my experience has not been sufficient to enable me to make recommendations
that would aid the Department; but it has appeared to me that experts
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
831
in this direction might be able to devise a plan that would simplify the
present rates of duties and render tehem very much easier of execution.
21. I have no evidence that any such practice has existed at this
port.
"
22. There is unquestionably in the rate of duties a line beyond which
if Congress should attemxit to go would open the way for smugglers and
dishonest importers to xirevent the fair execution of the law, but I do
not recall any difficulty of this kind for several years at least.
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 23, and 24. My knowledge of the operation of the law .
has been chiefly confined to this port, and the officers at the larger ports
will be able to furnish information not^within my knowledge.
Yery respectfully,
SIDNEY PERHAM,
Appraiser.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Seeretary of Treasury.
PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND.
No. 224.H. F . BEECHER—Appointed CoUector Juiie 8, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, P O R T TOWNSEND, WASH*,
Collector's Office; September 10, 1885.
S I R : I beg leave tb acknowledge the receipt of Department circular
dated August 27, 1885 (" Strictly confidential," in red ink, upper lefthand corner), requesting me to inform the Department regarding certain twenty-four questions, answers of which I have the honor to give
herewith:
1. In the past four years I can find, from a hurried exaraination, no
evidence but what full duties have been cbllected as the law prescribes.
2. None.
3. Yery few, if any, and they merely passenger effects.
4. I have none.
5. None.
6. No diff'erences; no suits. Importations nearly all specific. Have
had no occasion to note any improvement that could be made in the
existing laws.
7 and 8. I am not inforraed.
9. There is no appraiser in this district. The collector acts in that
capacity. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Not that I ara aware of.;
10. t h e s e three parties in this district are centered in one, the collector ; therefore there is no conflict of opinion.
11. No average can be made; specific duties the rule in this district.
12. Sarae as answer 9. No salary.
13. No evidence.
^ ^ 14. I ara not aware of any such transactions.
15. I do not think that any such influences are at work here.
832
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
16. I think it would. Specific rates would certainly change the eff'ects
of undervaluation.
17. Repeal of the " raoiety law" has had no effect in this raatter, but
has debarred the collectors in getting information leading to seizures of
contraband goods.
18. I do not know.
19. No.
^ .
20. No wools imported into this district.
21. In this district inspectors board the steamers at Yictoria, B. C ,
inspecting all baggage while in transit between that port and this. If
money has been offered no complaints are made at this office. No way
to prevent except through fear of. instant discharge if caught.
22. Yes. In this district upon opium and China, wiues.
23. Unable to say.
24. Am not aware of any false reports having been made in this district; hence there has been no need of arrest and punishment.
, Without further time, in order to make an exhaustive exaraination of
all the'books and records in this office, I ara unable to give the Department a more thorough reply, the above being from a hurried reference
to thera.
The Departraent circular being so much in reference to the Atlantic
coast, and the imports of this district being so much of a specitic character, I am at a loss how to answer many of the questions as the Department might desire.
,
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
H. F. BEECHER,
Collector.
Hon. D. MANNING,
"Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
PORT OF ST. LOUIS.
.
No. 225.
CHARLES M. WHITNEY—Appointed Surveyor August 17, 1882.
CusTOM-HousE, SAINT LOUIS, M O . ,
Surveyors Office, Octob.er 1, 1885.^
S I R : Replying to circular marked confidential, dated August 27,
1885,1 feel that an experience gained at an interior port like Saint
Louis but poorly qualifies me to ansAver. To such questions as I have
been able to arrive at any conclusions satisfactory to myself, I will
briefly state them.,
1. I know of no evidence that the rates of duty have not been collected as x^i*GScribed by law^. But undoubtedly mistakes have been
made by the appraiser by xilacing goods in the wrong class.
2. In answer to this I should say, no.
3. Invoice measurements of textile fabrics are verified at this port
as follows: The correctness of the width is verified by actual measure
ments by the examiners, and the woolen goods are weighed in every
case whether marked on the invoice or not.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
833
4. I not only have no evidence, but no ground for suspicion that any
false xiackage has ever been sent to the appraiser as .a fair sample of
one in ten, or that there has ever been any attempt at collusion on the
Xiart of any one to do so.
^
6. None here.
'
6. There is but one suit of the" character mentioned now pending
(at least only one has been brought during the last three years in Saint
Louis). I do not think there is any necessity for a new tribunal to try
suits of this character, but believe a xilan ma^^ be devised by .which the
existing system may be made efficient. The creat^ion of one tribunal
located at Washington would not be satisfactory, and the creation of
one in each of the cities named would involve very great expense without corresponding advantage.
7. I understand that silks, laces, and velvets have been entered at
New York at less than their full value. I do not think that this admirs
of doubt.
8. This is chiefly, in my opinion, because the examiners have not
been able to determine the correct market value of the goods, and have
taken the invoice value as correct. This has arisen rather from the
ignorance, and sometiraes indolence ofthe officers, than dishonesty. I
should say there was no evidence to show a guilty knowledge o.f the
failure, or a conspiracy to promote it, among the higher class of Treasury or custom-house officials.
9 and 10. The only evidence we have as a rule of the market values ,
in Europe is from rexiorts by consuls and special agents, published price
currents, and a comparison of prices in invoices of sirailar goods to
different importers. I do not think there is auy evidence that duties as
Xirescribed by law have not been collected according to the understanding of the law by the collector and appraiser. As to the raarket value
of goods in a foreign country consuls and sxiecial agents have
oxixiortunities for inforraation not jiossessed by local axixiraisers, and
goods are sometiraes sold by responsible importers at a figure
which would indicate that some advantage had beeu obtained. This
stateraent is based on what is often clairaed and seems to be admitted with reference to New York importers. So far as there
has'been any confusion or doubt in the axipraiser's dexiartment at this
port respecting dutiable values, it appears to have arisen from the &:fficulty of the ascertainment of facts. The time, place, and standard
are, in the opinion of the appraising officers, already defined in the
statutes. The question of classification sometimes gives trouble, and
by error of judgraent a wrong rate may iVe sometimes assessed. In my
opinion it would be of great benefit to the service, and tend to secure a
more uniform assessment of duty, if the axipraisers at all ports of jirorainence were to meet annually for comparison of views, usage, and
practice. It is true t h a t t h e I)epartment decisions, published weekly,
are to a great extent a guide, but there are many questions presentecl
constantly to apxiraisers for adjustment which may never come before
the Department by protest and appeal.
11. No.
12. The examiner is xirimarily and chiefly responsible. His salary is
$1,400 per annum. Ordinarily the appraiser is not ranch else than one
who officially certifies to the values as fixed b}'' the exarainer. There are
excexitions. When in doubt he is consulted.
13. No.
53 A
834.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY < F THE TREASURY.
D
14. I de not think false values have been systematically or habitually reported to the several collectors. If money has been paid to get
false reports, I cannot say where it has been raised or by whom paid
15. None.
TO. Yes; for it ivould necessitate collusion between two or more
officials. Where articles have a specific rate of duty the proper amount
is always collected. This must be the case if the customs officers are
honest, and dishonesty w^ould soon be detected. However, a purely
specific rate of duty could not be applied to all articles, viz, textile fabrics.
17. I think so.
18. No, not practicable. Foreign governments would undoubtedly
object. Fee exacted is $2.50.
19. I do not think it would be either safe or useful to the revenues or
just to importers that the jurisdiction of the executive or courts should
be extended to a review of the decisions of the appraising department respecting dutiable values; these are purely questions of fact, and if they
could be again considered by the executive and then by the courts it
would lead to vexations delays, and those branches of the Government
would be obstructed by the volume of business.
21. I t certainly is believed, and any method adoxited to prevent the
payment of money by arriving passengers to custoras inspectors would
create some delay, ^nd this would lead to complaints, but better this
than the scandal now connected with this part of the service. All complaints of this nature should be rigidly examined and offending passengers as w^ell as off'ending officers punished.
I understand that by the system in vogue in France, the baggage is
taken in charge by the customs officers, and the examiners ranged side
by side at long tables in the examining room. As there is but little
chance of the corruption of the entire force, the danger is obviated.
, 22. I t h i n k it does.
^
23. Yes, but not to so great an extent.
24. False returns have not been made at this port so far as I know,
although mistakes have undoubtedly been made.
Respectfully submitted.
CHAS. M. WHITNEY,
Surveyor of Customs.
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO.
~
THOMAS BECK—Appointed Appraiser June 26, 1885.
No. 226.
• /
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, September 12, 1885.
: In reply to your circular letter of August 27 I beg to say
that a longer experience in the office of appraiser would enable me to
give you more accurate and perhaps more inteUigent answers to the
questions contained therein. I shall reply, howjever, according to the
light before me.
DEAR SIR
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
835
1. I have only hearsay evidence that full rates of duty have not been
collected. I t is notorious that for years past certain merchants have
been invoicing their goods far below foreign cost. When a case of
undervaluation was too flagrant to pass unnoticed the invoice was ad,
vanced; but it was so arranged that when the iraporter took an appealwhich he invariably did, merchant appraisers were called to try the case
who were in the same boat with the appellant, and in nine cases out of
ten the invoice price was sustained. I have stoxixied all such nonsense,
and now the Government is sustained in almost every case.
2. As in the above, I have only hearsay evidence that the w^eigher has
not always returned the true weight on cigars and opium, but if such
nefarious practices have been resorted to my vigilance has put a stop to
it.
4. Frequent tests are made of quantities of invoices of textile fabrics
by actual raeasurement of xiioces and a comxiarison with the quantity
stated on the tags, and a footing of the'whole of the tags, the invoiced
quantity is verified or found in error, but I question if this has been
done in the xiast. Some goods are xiticed in yards, meter, or anne folds,
while others, like cashmeres, are rolled over and over. The latter might
contain fine laces adroitly rolled up, and if so, the fact w^ould be discovered by an occasional test of the ^piece raeasureraent. The great
difficulty of re-rolling a piece of such goods would deter appraisers from
resorting to such tests very often as it requires an exxiert to leave the
goods in merchantable shape.
5. Only hearsay. Care on the part of the collector in axixiointing
none but honest men as weighers, and vigilance on his part in seeing
that the weigher is not being tampered with, and an occasional test, are
the only means of stopping it. The great fault with most collectors—
and with Mr. Sears it is a grievous fault—is that they do'not give personal attention to th.e matter of seeing and knowing that every of&cer
under them is doing his duty honestly. It is seldora, indeed, that raen
are chosen to fill the rainor offices on account of their true worth, but
are often appointed to pay a xiolitical debt, and starting without character, as many of them do, it is seldom that they find reformation in a
public office. No man is ht for a xmblic trust who is afraid to soil his
fingers, or who depends upon others for the manageraent of his dexiartment.
10. There is not now, nor do I beheve there recently has been, any
doubt or confusion in the appraising departraent respecting any of
the elements to be ascertained in order to hx dutiable value, but a conflict between the appraisers and certain merchants has long existed
respecting xiacking charges on bags and matting. The merchants claim
that they xmrchase bags loose and pay separately for packing and baling,
and that they buy the matting by the yard and pay for covering in like
manner; but I find by the Calcutta Price Current and Market Report
that both bags and matting are quoted "free on board," and I therefore
refuse to allow any deduction for packing charges to be made. (I should
like to have a ruling on this question.)
11. Not at this port, as samples of goods have not been kept.
12. I consider the party who examines the goods, whetiier appraiser,
dexiuty axipraiser, or examiner, responsible for a false return of value to
the collector, but a wide-awake apxiraiser at a port like this can prevent,
in a great measure, false returns.
^
836
REPORT OF THE SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Apxiraiser's salary, $3,625 per annum; assistant appraiser, $2,500;
examiner, $2,000.
13,14, and 15. 1 cannot answer.
16. With respect to a change or substitution of specific for ad valorem
rates of duty upon textUe fabrics, I beg to state that in my judgment
they should lie adoxited in every case xiracticable, as the only successful
means of defeating the almost universal systein of undervaluation. A
low ad valorera rate of 10 to 25 per cent, raight attach to many fabrics
in connection with the specific rate, thus materially equahziiig the duties
upon the same class of fabrics, but of diff'erent values. I understand that
direct importations of silk at this,port have fallen off' to a remarkable
degree during the past eight or ten years, owing to the system of consignment now so largely xiracticed, in consequence of whicli many of our
most able mercantile houses are obliged to make their purchases through
agents in this country, at a dollar price, duty paid, laid down in New
York, Boston, or Philadelphia. The wholesale niarket price of the
goods cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy, and the revenue is thus placed at the mercy of the foreign x^i'odncer, who may
invoice his goods even below the cost of production, with impunity.
Section 9 of the act of March 3, 1883, appears to have been framed
to meet such cases, when the fbreign market value cannot be definitely
ascertained. If the Government had a corxis of able agents abroad at
all the difi'erent manufacturing centers, collecting and transmitting
direct to the apxiraiser's office reliable data resxiecting the value of the
raw material at such centers, the cost of manufacturing and preparing
the same, experience would very soon reuder the actions of such officers
efficient. This, I believe, is being one at various x>oints where silks are
produced.
As a basis for a change from ad valorem to specific rates, a record
could be kept at the various xiorts of every descrixition of textile fabrics
imported, by the trade name, iveight xier square yard, cost xier yard, meter,
or other measurement; a description of the fabric, whether of wool or
.worsted, silk, cotten, flax, jute^ or mixture of either, and as closely as
Xiossible in what xiroxiortion. The weight per dozen of various kinds of
hosiery, cotton, wool, or silk, and the corresponding values. The ascertainment of such data should cover such a peiiod as would fairly determine the relations of weight and raeasureraent to the foreign value of
the merchandise. This would form a basis for a tarifi* which might remain undisturbed for years. A comxietent officer at each of the large
ports could accomplish the work, retaining sraall samxiles for reference;
such being his sole duty, the work could be done accurately, while if
required to be done by the axipraisers in connection with their customary duties, the work would not be so reliable.
At this xiort jute grain bags are imxiorted by millions annually, and
the question of value constantly arises. They are of uniform vSize, 22
by 36 inches—and of uniform weight, 12 ounces—1,000 in a bale. The
average entered value for a series of years has been, say, 5 cents, or
$5 per hundred-^duty for ten years or more, 40 per cent, ad valorem
equaling $24ier hundred—weighing 75 pounds—specific duty equal to
ad valorera, 2 | cents per pound. If a reduction were made to 30 percent, ad valorem, in the interest of the grain-growers of this coast, 2
cents^ X^^r pound would equal it. Whether the tariff'be high or low,
specific, compound, or ad valorera, the collection of the lawful revenue
finally depends upon the efficiency and integrity of the executive
officers.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
837
17. The "moiety law" was a good one, but was abused by unprinci, pled agents of the Government, and others of like ilk, frequently for the
sole purpose of blackmailing merchants who would rather give a bribe
of $500 than spend $1,500 in litigation, though perhaps innocent, fearing injury to their business by xmblic notoriety. The above abuse, no
doubt, led to its repeal. I believe the law should be re-enacted, with
the most severe penalties for even an attempt at extortion.
I shall be xileased to answer 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 just as soon
as mj^ other duties will permit, their consideration requires time and
care.
I am, dear sir, your obedient servant,
THOMAS BECK.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
No. 227.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, September 24, 1885.
: After some little study of the remaining questions contained in your printed letter, J beg to contiuue the answers to the best
of my ability.
18. It would seem to be practicable for consular agents to acquaint
themselves with the character of the merchandise produced in their
districts and "to verify the correctness of invoice values" if the consular
regulations xirescribed by the President were diligently and intelligently
executed, particularly sections 638, 639, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648^, 619,
650, 654, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 666, and 661,Heyle, part 4, page 60. Wholesale
prices current can be obtained of all staple articles, samples of which
, would not be required, but samples of all textile fabiics can be demanded, rexiresenting invoices presented for classification, and their
values closely apxiroximated. Novelties are being placed upon the
market continuously, upon which manufacturers expect to realize large
profits while in fashion or demand, and of which the true cost of xiroduction is known only to themselves. Many manufacturers xilace their
goods uxion the American market by consignment to agencies, and for
which no fbreign quotations can be had. In such cases the consuls
would experience difficulty iu informing themselves. I would consider
that they could more "safely and surely ascertain and rexiort the true
invoice values" from the consular districts in Great Britain. I t is
not likely that foreign Governments would abstain from comxilaint if
American consuls made "vexatious delays in examining values and
certifying invoices^" The feeling is general among foreign manufacturers and merchants that our tariff'is such as to justify them in availing themselves of every possible device to defeat its provisions. Many ^
importers do business through shixiping and comraission raerchants at
Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Paris, and other points, who receive the original invoices and consignment of the goods for shipment to the United
States. The goods are xmrchased at different points, and many invoices
are coinbined in one and certified by a consul unacquainted with the
goods and prices, the local consuls being therebj' deprived of both the
fees and the opportunity to verify the correctness of the invoice values.
DEAR SIR
838
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
This practice should be broken up, as the law, section 2854, Revised
Statutes, requires, that invoices "^shall be produced to the consul, viceconsul, or coramercial ageuts of the United States nearest the place of
shipment;" and " t h e place of shiximent" is held to be " t h e place
wiiere the merchandise is manufactured, finished, or finallj^ prepared
for exportation." CoUectors should be instructed to reject all iuvoices
that do not comply with the law in this respect, and to hold custody of
the goods at owner's risk and expense until lawful invoices were
produced; and consuls should be instructed to refuse certificates
to invoices covering merchandise the product of other distiicts
than their own, under penalty of dismissal. Nearly all manufacturers publish catalogues and x^™^s current of their productions,
subj set in some cases to discounts depending upon the ainount
of the sales. It raust be practicable for the consular agents to xirocure such catalogues and prices current, and to transrait thera periodically to the Secretary of the Treasury frora all consulates. Such
reports could be at once issued in circular form by the Treasury Dexiartment to collectors and appraisers for their information and guidance. Under section ^52, Revised Statutes, the Secretary should demand that nil invoices be expressed in the English language, and descriptive of the merchandise by trade designation, the values expressed'
in the currency of the country bf production as at xn'^sent, and as required by section 2838, Revised Statutes. The fee exacted at London
is $2.50.
•
. .
19. I do not think it would be " safe, useful, or practicable" to extend
the executive or judicial power over dutiable values. I would favor by
legislative action the extension of the sphere of the Department, of Justice at Washington by the establishment of a bureau for the settlement
of custom cases of every character, to consist of five merabers, who shall
have beeu for not less thau 20 years actively engaged in mercantile
pursuits, and the Attorney-General ex officio member, who should decide questions of law simxily, filing his writteii oxiinion. The bureau
should decide by majority vote all questions of classification and valu- .
ation of imported inerchandise; should receive and consider all communications resxiecting the xiractical working of the tariff; make recommendations to, and lay before. Congress such informa.tion as would
enable that body to act intelligently in the enactment, interpretation,
raodification, or repeal of tariff provisions, and receive copies of all
consular information received by the Secretary, keeping full record
of all official action. Saraxiles of all goods caxiable of being sarapled
should be forwarded to the bureau by the axixiraising officers, and thenclassified and recorded for reference. The bureau should take tho
place of the board of general apxiraisers, and from its decisions there
shouid be no appeal. It w^ould be xiossible thus to detect undervaluations of raerchcindise and the port or ports at which the appraising officers were either inefficient or derelict. Uniforraity in valuation and
classification is raost desirable and iraportant, but it does not exist at
"Xiresent, but could be obtained under such a systera.
21. I t i s generally believed that at all the sea-ports "the practice of
the payraent of raoney by arriving passengers to customs inspectors"
prevails- to some extent. Dishonest persons are found both in public
and privaie business, when in the fbrmer they are subject to the corrupting infiuence of the traveling public. The law should be amended
forbidding, under peualty of confiscation, the introduction of any article
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
, 839
of merchandse in the baggage of a passenger of either high or low degree. Ample facilities are now afibrded for the safe transit: of articles
of necessity, wearing apparel, &c., desired by our xieople able to travel
abroad, and they should, in justice to our iraporters and raanufacturers,
be obliged to regularly invoice, manifest, and enter the goods which
they purchase abroad. Under the latitude given heretofore to the language "persons arriving in the United States," the revenue has been
defrauded of millions ofdollars, and great injustice done to regular importers and our manufacturers. Free entry of househould eff'ects should
be legally confined to such household goods as have been, without
question, in actual use, and belonging to bona fide irainigrants to the
United States only, and in value not to exceed $1,000 by actual
appraiseraent.
20. Yery little wool is imported at this port, and that is of inferior
grade and on the skin.
22. There are various reasons for failure " t o collect the whole duty
prescribed by law." In many cases the rates are excessive, notably,
upon opium for smoking, cigars, silk, sparkling wines, &c., but these
are all luxuries, and should xiay high duties, and wbuld doubtless be
smuggled and undervalued if the duties were but 50 per cent, of the
present rates. I passed an invoice of diamonds recently which the importer advanced 75 xier cent, on entry, fearing the imposition of a penalty; the intent of the shipper was to defraud the revenue upon an article paying the very lowest tariff rate, 10 per cent. If even the present
provisions of the law and regulations w^ere everywhere intelligently
executed the full duties would be closely collected. Our system of
changing important officials, such as axipraising officers frequently, is
also a great factor in failure to collect full duties.
23. Would presume it had beeh in xiroxiortion to the volume of business
done at" the other ports. The matter for wonder is that the duties have
been so well collected when it is considered that two-thirds of our importers and their friends abroad consider any and all means to evade
payment of the full duties as required by law legitimate and their
bounden duty.
24. I am unable to answer.
It is possible that a longer experience in the office will change some
of the foregoing views; it is even xirobable that they are valueless, but
" what is writ is writ, would it were worthier."
I am, dear sir, ever and truly, yours,
THOMAS BECK.
No. 228.
DANIEL Z. YOST—Appointed Assistant Appraiser June 26, 1885.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, September 18, 1885.
S I R : In compliance with your circular requesting inforraation, I submit the following answers to the questious contained therein:
1. There is nb evidence at this port but that the duties have been
proxierly levied. There is plenty of ''hearsay" evidence that classifications have been improperly made, but no positive proof.
840
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
2. There is no satisfactory evidence but that on Articles which the
law says shall pay purely specific rates, without reference to values, has
nbt been paid; on the contrary I think the law has been complied with
on articles bearing "specific" rates.
3. By actual raeasureraent, weighing and counting of threads.
^
4. Have not been able to obtain xiroof, but ara satisfied that collusion
has existed between dexmty collectors and those entering goods to have
only certain packages sent to apxiraisers.
5. On the wharves, weighing and measuring has grown into an abuse
here at this port, and it is notorious that most of the men are incompetent and loose in their methods.
6. I think difi'erences will arise under most any law, and the present
one is good, if interpreted properly and enforced. As to remainder of
questions 6 and 7, the eastern apxiraisers are no doubt familiar with
and can furnish you the information.
9. There is no conclusive proof that the appraiser has reported to the
collector false dutiable values. These are matters hard to locate and
difficult to prove.
10. On some articles diff'erences arise at tiraes about the classification,
yet we generally give the Government the benefit of the doubt. As to
determining dutiable values, no differences arise on standard articles
imported where the market values vary but little. On goods, however,
that might be termed "new styles" every year, of course it is difficult
to get at the exact market values.
11. I think the "liquidating department" of the custom-house ought
to be able to furnish you a safe estimate as to the xiercentage of under-,
valuations by the appraisers for any one j^ear or series of years.
12. The examiner is primarily the responsible xiarty for a false return
to the collector, as he sees the goods, whereas the appraiser only signs
his name to the return.
^
Two thousand dollars a year is the salary paid all exarainers here,
excexit one, who receives $1,600 a year. The appraiser here does not
exaraine goods, but I think the Department wonld be much better served
if instructious were given to that eff'ect, so he could sign returns intelligently and assist in despatching business, causing fewer complaints
from merchants that they cannot get their goods from apxiraiser's store.
He has ample tirae to perforni these duties.
13. Not to ray knowledge.
14. Undervaiuation has been coramon here, and that with the knowledge of every official through whose hands the invoices have passed.
Every officer should be held responsible both in appraisers and customhouse.
15. No reason, and I think it will occur in the future as in the past,
and our only safeguard is selecting honest men.
16. Without doubt a change from ad valorem to specific rates will be
the best, and should be done on all articles that are practicable. On
textile fabrics of course it would xireclude many of the cheaper goods,
yet I think it should be tried, and only changed when we find it will
not work.
17. In answer to this I will say that the natural result would be to
make the apxiraisers less watchful and careful than if working under
the "moiety law."
18. It would be practicable, and I think would correct most of the
abuses, such as undervaluations, big discounts, &c., which now prevail,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
841
if consular agents would take the time and trouble and verify theinA^oices. They ought to be familiar with the market values; if not, can
easily post themselves by sending for raanufacturers, xirice-lists.
19. By conferring greater powder on the executive or the j udicial powers
in ascertainment of the dutiable value, I think the iraporter would be
better satisfied, and consider that the appraiser had not ruled, arbitrarily in his individual case.
Of course rny liraited time in this office does not permit of a wide experience, but I give you as near as I can ray views and observations,
and will, from tirae to tirae, forward you anything I find that may beof
advantage to you.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
DANIEL Z. YOST,
Assistant Appraiser.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING.
No. 229.
J. M. MORTON—Appointed Agent, Alaska, Seal Fisheries, May 15, 1877; Surveyor
July 14, 1880.
CusTOM-HousE, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Surveyor's Office, September 10, 1885.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the.receipt of the Department's circular, letter of August 27, raarked "confidential," containing
certain interrogatories relative to conducting the customs business at
the various ports ofthe United States.
In reply I would respectfully state that inquiries 4, 5, and 21 in said
circular are the only ones which apparently have any application to the
surveyor's office at this port, and to such inquiries I would answer as
follows:
4. Namely, as to the probability of collusion between persons inaking
entry of several packages of ^sirailar goods on one invoice, and the entry
clerk or deputy collector to send bogus or false packages to the appraiser, I would state that the deputy collectors at this port seldom
designate xiarticular packages to be sent to the appraiser's store. All
Xiackages for the appraiser are selected by inspectors discharging cargoes. It was formerly the practice at this port in making the detail
of inspectors to discharge a cargo to appoint one inspector to select the
appraiser's packages. This was changed by myself three years ago
under the impression that the system presented great opportunities for
fraud. The present regulations governing the inatter require that every
insxiector who delivers dutiable goods from a vessel shall retain one
package in every ten as they are laden on the trucks or drays. These
are marked "retained," and are subsequently sent to the apxiraiser's
store by another inspector specially detailed for the purpose.
I believe this.to be the correj3t system for the selection of appraisers
packages, and where it can be"enforced fully I think the opportunities
for fraud are reduced to the minimum. I have heretofore in a lengthy
letter to the Departraent fully explained the above systern.
5. In answer to question nuraber five I would say that the weighing
and iraeasuring at this port are perforraed under the supervision of two
842
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
weighers, and that for the purposes of weighing the docks are divided
into two districts. There are sixteen assistant weighers. In the detailing of assistant weighers for duty the systera of rotation is observed.
I think under this practice of constantly changing these, officers any
collusion or extensive frauds would be easily detected, and I have no
reason to believe that at the xiresent tirae the weighing or measuring
on the wharves is xierformed otherwise than in a regular and competent
manner.
21: Special attention has been given by this office to the matter of
the examinatioii of passengers' baggage, and coraxietent and careful
.officers are assigned to this duty.
I raay say that, during my administration, several cases where bribes
were ofi'ered to insxiectors have been reported to the office by the officers
to whom, such ofi'ers were made, but under the checks and safeguards
which prevail I do not consider it probable that the acceptance of money
from xiassengers by inspectors is of very frequent occurrence.
It seems to me that the present regulations governing the examination
of passengers' baggage are as good as can be devised. They have been
strictly carried out at this port. All passengers are required to make
entry of their baggage on the forms provided fbr the purpose. The
baggage is subsequently examined under the direct suxiervision of the
assistant to the surveyor. This officer designates the inspector to make
the examination in each case. Any extensive frauds in this connection „
would therefore necessarily involve collusion between the surveyor's
outside deputy and the insxiectors. I am satisfied that no such collusion
has existed here, and I believe that this branch of the service at this
port is faithfully and honestly administered.
' .
Yery respectfully,
J. M.-MORTON,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 230.
SAMUEL G. HILBORN—Appointed United Staters District Attorney, San Francisco,
Cal., July 4, 1883.
SAN FRANCISCO, October 16, 1886.
SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a circular letter
coming from your Dexiartment, calling upon me fbr replies to certain
inquiries contained in said letter. I have also received a letter of a
subsequent date calling my attention to the former one, and requesting
an early reply.
I have been busily engaged in the trial of some important Government cases, and m^^ time was so occupied that it seemed impossible for
me to attend to the matter sooner. I regret that I did not apxireciate
the importance of an earlier replj^ From the fact that the six1:h interrogatory was marked in a way to call to it my especial attention, I
infer that you expect me to make answer to the questions therein xiroponnded. Indeed, the other interrogatories relate to matters upon
which I have no infbrmation which would be of nse to you.
You ask if the present law needs amendment • While I think the law
?
could be made clearer in some particulars, I must confess that the liti-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
843
gation respecting the collections of the revenue which has come under
my observation at this port has arisen.from an overzealousness on the
part of the officers charged with the collection of the revenue. By this
statement I mean no disrespect to thein. On the other hand, it is probably to their credit that they have been zealous and anxious to collect
all the money due to the Government.
My observation is that they are inclined to give the Government
the benefit of every doubt, and the result has been numerous suits
against the collector to which there has been no defence. For instance,
under Collector Sullivan's administration, there were large imxiortations of spirits to this xiort from China, which the importers clainied
to be xiure sxiirits, liable to a duty of $2 per gallon. The customs officers, however, decided that the merchandise was medicated wines, and
assessed upon it a duty of 50 cents per pound, under xiaragraxih 118,
new tariff indexed. The importers xiaid the duties under protest, and
afterward^ brought suit against the collector for the excess of duties so
Xiaid. I think there were sixteen of these suits. I was called 'uxion to
defend the collector, and in xirexiaring the suits for trial I caused an
analysis to be made ofthe samxiles of the several importations by a comxietent chemist, and he was unable to find a trace of medication in a single sample. This discovery left me without any ground fbr defence,
and, on the Treasury Department being notified of the situation, the
matters w^ere settled and 1:he suits dismissed. .
Another grouxi of cases has arisen at this xiort from the construction
Xilaced by the Dexiartment upon section 7 of the tariff act of March 3,
1883. Acting under the opinion of the Hon. Attornej^-General, dated
January 18, 1884, the Treasury Dexiartment continued to include in the
dutiable value of merchandise imxiorted into the country the value of
the coverings in which said merchandise was contained when imxiorted.
There w^ere numerous importations of Portland cement at this port,
which cement was packed in barrels, and the importer w^as required to
pay duty on the value of the barrel as well as uxion the merchandise
contained in it. There were also several importations of jute bags,
which w^ere packed in bales, which were also enclosed in coverings of
the same materials. The value of these outside coverings was also
included in estimating the value of the merchandise for the purxiose of
assessing the duties. This action resulted in some sixteen or seventeen
suits against the collector to recover back the moneys paid as duties
upon said coverings. I fought these cases at every stexi for more than
a year, but befbre they came to trial the case of Meyers vs. Shurtliff
was decided by the circuit court of Oregon, (see West Coast Reporter,
vol. 6, page 449,) which covered every question involved in m3^ cases.
Under the authority of that case, thie plaintiffs have recovered in all the
cases of this class in our circuit court.
I understand that the Treasury Department has acquiesced in this
decision, and no longer collects duties upon coverings in which merchandise is imported into the country. If, however, there is any doubt
as to the soundness of this decision, the next Congress should be requested to so amend said section 7 as to remove all doubts. •
I deem it proper also to call your attention to what seems to me to be
an omission in the act of March 2,1883, entitled "An act to prevent the
importation of adulterated and sxmrious teas."
The plain intent of the law was to xirotect our xioople from impositions which might be practised upon them by introducing into our
844
REP.ORT OF THE SEERETARY OF THE TREASURY.
markets teas which are deleterious to health, but also teas which are too
weak to be of any benefit to the consumers. The law as it now stands
prohibits the imxiortation of teas containing exhausted leaves. Our circuit court held in a case which I tried that in order that the merchandise should be excluded, it must be shown that the leaves were exhausted by artificial means. In that case there was no doubt but the tea
was the natural leaf, and there was no adulteration with spurious leaves
or with the leaves of tea which have been xireviousl3^ steeped or subjected
to any artificial process by which its strength had been diminished,
nor did it contain any substance deleterious to health. But it was a
miserable^ mass of tea-leaves which had been rained uxion whil e on the
tree or had fallen on the ground and then gathered uxi and prepared
for exportation to America. The merchandise was a fraud upon our people, but there seemed to be no law for its exclusion as the law now
stands.
I, would suggest as a remedy that the law be so amended as to provide a standard for the strength of teas. Let it be provided that any
merchandise imported as tea shall contain a certain amount of extractive
^matter, and if it falls below the standard, that it shall be excluded.
• I beg also to suggest that "soaxi-stocks" (xiar. 790, free-list) be stricken
from the free-list. As the law stands nbw, it makes it difficult to collect
. the duties on tallow. The best kind of tallow is used for the manufacture of toilet-soaps; and when tallow is imxiorted for the sole xmrxiose of
converting it into soap, the imxiorter insists on calling it soap-stock,
entitled to free entrj^ Merchandise known as tallow should be subject
to payment of duty irresxiective of its quality and irrespective of the
use to which it is to be put.
I have defended the collector in two suits brought to recover back
money paid as duties upon natural mineral water. For a time there
was a regulation that the certificate of the owner or manager of the
sxiring should be the sole evidence of the fact that the water was natural
and not artificial water. While that regulation was in fbrce several
shipments of ApolUnaris w^ater were made to this x^ort, and the iniporters were compelled to xiay duties as though they were manufactured
waters. There was no doubt about the fact of their being natural water;
indeed, the Governinent axixiraisers certified to the fact. Two suits were
brought to recover back the duties so xiaid. The comxilaints fully stated
the above facts, and I demurred on the ground that the facts did not
constitute a cause of action. This xiresented the legal question M he ther
the regulation was reasonable, and our circuit coiut decided that it was
noi. I understand that the Department has acquiesced in this decision,
and that the rule referred to has been suspended. If there is any doubt
about the correctness of the decision of our court in that case, the law
should be so amended as tb meet the case. The other mineral-water
suit is still xiending.
At the request of 3^our Dexiartment, the case in which the opinion was
rendered was sent up on writ of error, and was the occasion of setting
aside the rule referred to.
I defended the collector in one suit brought to recover back mone^^s
paid as duties uxion certain importations of sugar. The question in that
case, however, was purely a question of fact. It was not above No. 13,
Dutch standard, and was tested by the polariscope, and the importer
contended that the xiolariscope used at the custom-house was an antiquated
instrument and gave imperfect results.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
845
• It occurre€ to me at the time of the trial of that case that it would be
well for Congress to provide that the strength of sugar should be tested
by a polariscope of a certain manufacture. There are several different
kinds of instruments, manufactured by different makers in different parts
of the world, and the same sugar tested by different instruments will be
found to vary in strength.
In a large cargo of sugar the variation of a single degree in the reading
ofthe instrument makes a great difference to the importer as well as to
the United States.
-The adoption of an instrument of a particular make by act of Congress
would tend to do away with some of the uncertainty which now exists
in testing sugars for the purxiose of assessing duties. It. may be, however, that such legislation is not practicable.
The cases which have arisen in our courts can be classified about as
follows: Sixteen ^^spirit cases," involving merely a question of fact.
These cases are all settled and dismissed.
About the same number of cases known as the "cement" and "bag "
cases, involving the question whether section 7 of the act of, March .3,
1883, (22 Statutes, 523,) not only repeals section 2907 of the Revised
Statutes, authorizing the value of the "covering" to be added to the
wholesale xirice of iniported merchandise for the purpose of ascertain^
ing its dutiable value, bnt positively prohibits the value of such "coverings" from being estimated as a part of such dutiable value.
The courts have decided this question.
The "mineral-water" cases, involving the reasonableness of a regulation of the Treasurj^ Dexiartment.
The "tallow" or "soap-stock" cases, and certain other miscellaneous
cases, which cannot be classified.
I think all of the above qpses are now disposed of, so far as our courts
are concerned, excepting one of the "mineral-water" cases and one
"tallow" case. These cases could also have been disposed of had the
Xilaintiffs so desired. I have never heard any comxilaint that this class
of cases were not xiromptly disxiosed of.
There can be no doubt but as the business of the country expands the
Xiressure upon our courts as at present constituted will render it necessary^ to create a new tribunal for the trial of cases growing out of the
coliection of the revenue. This has been the experience of other nations, and I see no reason why the same causes should not xiroduce like
results in our own country. Whether we have already arrived at that
point when the creation of such a tribunal is necessary, I am not xirepared to express an opinion. As I said before, I have heard no complaints of delay in "customs cases" coming from the xieople residing
upon the Pacific coast.
If I have omitted to touch upon any matter upon which j o n desire
information, please inform me, and I will cheerfully respond.
Yery respectfully,
S. G. HILBORN,
United States Attorney.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the.Treasury, Washington, B. C. ^
846
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 23L
^
CHARLES BURRILL—Appointed Examiner July 26, 1875.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, September 17, 1885.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a printed communication from you asking for information on vaiious matters of
interest to thecustoms service. In response thereto I w^ould respectfully state that the duties pertaining tothe laboratory have so occupied
my tirae as to render it irapossible for rae to furnish any reliable inforraation upon the subjects presented fbr consideration.
Yery respectfully,
CHARLES BURRILL, M. D.,
Speeial Examiner of Brugs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 232.
ANDREW HOLLYWOOD—Ax)pointed Laborer September 18, 1875; Sampler December 1, 1877; Examiner March 21, 1885.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, September 24,1885.
- S I R : In reply to your circular of the Oth instant, I respectfully report
as follows, to wit:
•
1. I know of ho evidence in regard to this question.
2. There is none to ray knowledge.
3. Textile fabrics are verified by counting the pieces, by actual measurement, weight, and samples taken, which are sent each month to
general appraiser.
4. There is no evidence that I know of at this xiort, but such collusion
is possible with a dishonest deputy collector.
5. There is no false weighing on the wharves here that I know of,
but I have thought there was not sufficient rice, and such articles,
weighed.
- 6. I think the present law sufficient, if strictly enforced. (2.) I do not
know^ the number of suits pending at said xiorts. (3.) I do not know.
(4.) It is my impression that a plan could be devised by the parties
naraed that would save a great deal of litigation, and be more expedient. (5.) Cannot suggest intelligently anything to answer the question,
or the sixth.
7. I have no knowledge of transactions in New York.
8. Same answer as to seventh question.
9. I have no knowledge of any kind that the appraisers ever made
a false return. There is the sample of textile fabrics, which are sent to
general appraiser, and samples on file in axipraiser's office.
10. At this port there has been some confusion in regard to so-callea
"soaxi stock"—grease and tallow. (2.) The Government has just lost a
suit on the above articles. (3.) Yes, but not clear enough, and it is open
to annoying constructions.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
847
11. There inight be an average made of undervaluations from invoices,
for it would be irapossible to identify the articles.
12. While the apxiraiser is responsible to the collector, he nevertheless
forms his judgment from reports of assistant appraisers and exarainers.
In most cases he does not see the articles, especially those examined
at wharves. (2.) The salary ofthe appraiser is $3,600 per annum; assistant apjiraiser, $2,500, and.examiners, $2,000 and $1,600, respectively.
13. 1 have no Lmov/ledge of any such ofi'ense.
14. 1 don't think there has been any dishonesty in apxiraisement at
this port; but I do think there has been considerable false valuation
by importers of Japanese merchandise.
16. The business at this port can be correctly attended to, if the officers are honest and capable.
^
10. I most assuredly answer yes. Specific rates, I am satisfied, could
be axixilied to all textile fabrics,
17. I don't think that the "moiety law" affected the returning of invoices in any raanner.
18. I do not think it xiracticable. (2.) Consuls could possibly ascertain the true values at all the sraall foreign ports. (3.) It is possible and
probable that they would coraxilain. (4.) Consuls' fees are $2.50 on each
invoice,
10. 1 think that it would be very proper for the Treasury Departraent
tohave more power, and if "raerchant axipraiseraents" were entirely
abolished it would be a benefit to the service.
20. Ill regard to wool I have no ineans at my comraand to reply to
your request; have only been exarainer three raonths; have ho statistics
that" 1 could rely upon to furnish you.
21. Where such practices prevail I would suggest that at a port like
New York, where foreign stearaers arrive, there be built a warehouse
exiiressly for baggage. Night and day there should be two exarainers
(or more if necessary) stationed, whose duty it would be to exaraine
baggage and pass upon thera forthwith.
22. Opium, I think, is rated so high that it becomes a great inducement to many to smuggle; and the repeal of the "moiety law" had a
tendency to lessen seizures.
23. Have no knowledge of t^he transactions at New York or the Atlantic ports.
24. 1 do not know.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Yours, obediently,
ANDREW HOLLYWOOD,
Examiner of Merchandise.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . G.
848
, REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
. No. 233.
.
^
T. ¥. JEROME—Appointea Deputy Inspector January 14, 1869; Examiner (Jctober
1, 1873.
•
•'
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
October 8, 1886.
S I R : I answer the questions propounded by you in your circular of
September 27 as follows, to wit:
^ 1. There is no evidence but that the whole duties have been levied and
collected according to law. The rates of duty and dutiable values
have beeu closely scrutinized and watched in this department.
\ .
2. No evidence exists but that the full araount of duties have been
collected on goods jiaying specific duties.
3. Textile-fabrics are measured if doubt exists, and actual meterage
correctly ascertained.
4. No evidence of any coUusion by the parties refereed to;
5. The weighing and measuring on the wharves has been competent
and accurate in my district.
6. (1) Yes. Can't answer as to suits in New York, or other xiorts east.
The judicial system is sufficient if worked with efficiency and dispatch.
7. Don't know about collection of duties in New York.
8. None that I ara aware of.
<
9. No evidence that the axipraisers ever reported to the collector false
dutiable values.
10. There has been doubt, but no confusion. With the law and aid
of Treasury decisions we arrive at conclusions satisfactory to both collector, naval officer, and liquidating dexiartments.
11. I think not.
12. The examiner is. At this port he classifies and returns invoices
the same as assistant appraiser. Such I understand is not the practice
at New York and other ports east. The apxiraisers at this xiort give personal attention to damage aUowance and examination of merchandise^
on the wharves, whenever called uxion to see that the Government is
fully xirotected.
13. Don't know of any.
14. I know of no false rejiorts or corruption fund in any department
of the service at this xiort.
15. I know of no false valuations or corruption by bribery.
16. Yes; cement, bath and firebrick, jute, bales of bags, and all
goods of a similar nature shouid xiay sxiecific duties; most all of textile
labrics, linens, cottons, burlaxis, hosiery,, should be included in sxiecific
duty. If yardage is more in case than specified on invoice it would be
a sure^means of detection. Embroideries on silk or other goods where
the embroidery is of^chief value, perhaxis ad valorem duty would be the
best. The nearer we apxiroach or adoxit sxiecific duties it would be, in
my opinion, to the advantage of the Governraent. It would further reraove the incentive to importers to undervalue invoices.
17. I think not.
18. A good plan, but think it impracticable.
19. The judicial power should be increased xirovided a xn'ompt and
quick decision could be had. The long time to get a decision is objectionable.
20. The duty on wool is specific, act March 3, 1883. Only a small
amount of wool frohi foreign ports comes to this port for consumption.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
849
21. We are informed by travelers that such is the practice in New
York, but is not practiced here, eraxiloying sharp detectives.
21. Would break up the practice.
22. Yes. Opiura pays $10 per pound duty. If less, the incentive to
smuggle would be lessened. A wealthy and powerful combination of
smugglers and dishonest shippers cause us a great deal of trouble at
this port.
23. Don't kno^N.
24. Don't know of any false reports to collectors of dutiable values.
If so, should be punished.
Respectfully,
"
T.F.JEROME,
Examiner.
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, B . G.
No. 234.
N. B. HOYT—Appointed Examiner March 1, 1872; Clerk AprU 11, 1872; Examiner
September 18, 1875.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, October 7,1885. S I R : Herewith I submit for your consideration answers to inquiries
contained in'Dexiartment letter dated September 9, 1885.
Respectfully,
.
N. B. HOYT,
Examiner.
1. I know of no positive evidence that the full rate of duty has not
been collected, bnt when the rate of duty depends on an ad valorem
tariff' the temptation to importers to undervalue their invoices is so
strong that the utmost vigilance of the examiners and appraisers is at
times unable to counteract or prevent fraud in the revenue owing to
their inability to obtain satisfactory proof of market values in foreign
ports.
'
^
2. I know of no evidence that the full duties on articles paying specific duties have not been faithfully collected.
.
3. The invoice measurements of textile fabrics are verified sometiraes
by the raeasureraent of the fabrics, the checking by numbers of the
quantities, and also (especially in silk fabrics) by weight as well as by
raeasureraent.
•
4. I know of no evidence of collusion ofthe kind raentioned.
5. As ray business is confined entirely within the appraiser's building,
I have no opportunity for detecting any false, incorapetent, or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves should any exist.
^ 6. In regard to this inquiry I wouldi^state that in my opinion many
questions in respect to rates of duty might be decided by the Treasury
Department in such a manner that there need be no appeal to the
courts, were there competent men in the Department who thoroughly
understood the workings of the tariff* laws, and who would not be
swayed by local interests, or the importunities of manufacturers or im54 A
850
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUYY.
porters, as I am inclined to think has been the case heretofore In
regard to how many collectors' suits are now pending in Eastern ports,
and of the questions at issue, I must plead ignorance, as I am not
familiar with the manner in which business is conducted at Ithe xiorts
mentioned jn your inquiry. I have no doubt if able and efficient law
officers of the Government were appointed to faithfully carry out the
laws now enacted that the present judicial system is sufficient, and that
no new tribunal is necessary.
' 7. I know nothing of a positive character in regard to any class of
articles on which the full amount of duties has not been collected in
New York.
,
^
I have heard dry-goods iraporters in this city coraplain that they could
not iraport raerchandise into this port and compete with New York merchants, and that they could buy foreign dress goods and silks in that
city for less than it w^ould cost to import them directly into this port.
This has been quite a common complaint of our imxiorters, and I presurae there must have been some foundation for their grievance, caused,
presumably, by the undervaluation of invoices at tke port of New
York. Whether it can be controverted I am unable to say.
8. I ara unable to state how the failure, if any, has corae about.
9. In my opinion no false dutiable values have knowingly been reported to tiie collector by the appraisers of this district.
10. I think the statutes fully define the duties of the appraising officers, as well as the standard to be applied to the examination of merchandise. It is a difficult raatter to always arrive at the proper valuation of many kinds of merchandise, especially from Chinese and other
Asiatic xiorts, owing to the failure of the consuls to transmit prices current to guide and assist the appraisers in ascertaining dutiable values.
Since the enactment of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, the appraisers
have had considerable difficulty in determining what constitutes dutiable charges, and there is constant confiict between raerchants and appraisers as to the xiroper interpretation of section 7 of that act.
. 1 1 . A rexily to this inquiry is included in that to No. 9.
12. In regard to this inquiry, I would state that, in my opinion, the
appraiser is primarily resxionsible for the manner in which the business
of the office is conducted, as all invoices are.submitted to hira, after exaraination by the assistant appraisers or exarainers, for his inspection
and axixiroval (at least it is so at this port) before transraitting the sarae
to collector. The salary of each appraiser is $3,625 xier annura.
The appraiser raust officially certify to all invoices xiassed upou by
the assistant appraisers and examiners, but it is impossible fpr him to
Xiersonally attend to the examination of all merchandise, and consequently tie has to trust in a great measure to the honesty of his subordinates ; but he has other duties to perform in attending to the interests
of the Government, in all reaxipraisements, merchant apxiraisements,
&c., on appeal that come before him, and to a x>erson who takes an interest and a xiride in his office and in seeing the work faithfully performed, his-xiosition is no sinecure.
13. I know^ of no evidence of collusion on the part of consuls with
foreign merchants, in the presentat«ion to appraisers of false foreign
values, but in my opinion the consuls do not, personally', take cognizance of the values as expressed on the invoices presented to thera for
verification. EspeciaUy is this the case in my departraent, which is
almost exclusively devoted to the examination of Chinese and Japanese
merchandise.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
851
14. I am not aware that false values have been systeraatically reported to collectors, or that the tariff laws have not been faithfully executed at this port or elsewhere. There has been an occasional coraplaint at this port, but not frequent, and such as have been made have
always been duly and promptly inves^^igated. The full amount of duty,
as far as I know, has been collected, and I know of ho dishonesty or
guilty knowledge on the part of Government officials, nor do I know
that money has been paid to sarae to obtain false reports of dutiable
values, or that any corruption fund has been raised for that purpose.
15. In regard to this inquiry, I will siraply state that if false valuations have existed in the past, they will undoubtedly continue in the
future, and that bribery, venality, and corrupt infiuences will be
brought to bear just so long as we have a high protective tariff in the
form of ad valorem duties; and despite of all the vigilance that the most
honest, faithful officers can exert, the dishonest importers wUl atterapt
to defraud the revenue.
16. I believe that a change from ad valorem to specific rates would
tend, in a great measure, to diminish a tendency to bribery, even though
the present amount of duty is levied, as there would be less opportunity
for dishonesty on the part of the iraporter. I do not think it would be
practicable to apply specific rates on all textile fabrics, especially light
and expensive goods, embroideries, &c.
'
17. As stated in reply to inquiry No. 9, no false reports have been
made by the appraisers to the collector, as far as known by me.
18. In regard, to this inquiry, I would respectfully state, that in my
opinion, it would be impracticable for consuls to personally examine all
articles exported from the foreign ports mentioned, and others, but
entirely practicable for them to examine and verify the market values
of nearly all the leading articles of export, especially textile fabrics,
and transmit samples of same to collectors or appraisers at the xiorts
of destination of said exports. Where samxiles of merchandise cannot
be transmitted, it should be the duty of the consuls to furnish the appraisers with correct inforraation of raarket values, either by prices
current or by coraraunications, that the appraisers may honestly arrive
at the correctness of values in their apxiraisement ofmerchandise.
From the ports of China and Japan, whence large quantities of assorted merchandise are exxiorted to this country, we have.been utterly
unable to obtain any reliable data of market values, except as-regards
goods on which no duties or specific rates are levied. Take, for instance, the article known as peanut oil, paying an ad valorera duty and
largely imported into this port by Chinese and other merchants, we
can get no information of the Hong-Kong value except tiirough the
private advices of some reliable importer or merchant. The same remarks apply to silks and other textile fabrics; also other merchandise
paying ad valorem duties. It should be part of the duty of consuls in.
those countries to furnish the officers of customs with price quotations
of all leading articles of export. I am not prepared to say at what
consular districts the true invoiced values of every shipraent can be
ascertained. The consular fee in England is, I believe, 12«. 6d., no
raatter how great or little the value of the raerchandise.
19. In ray opinion the Secretary of the Treasury ought to have xiower
to consider evidence produced by iraporters in regard to the correctness
of values as expressed in their invoices, and to revise the report of the
appraisers if, in his judgment, such revision is advisable. .
. 852
. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
20. In regard to the article of wool, I believe there sbould be no comxiound duty, but simply a specific rate, which would prevent any complication thati would naturally arise from a corapound or strictly ad
valorera duty, and wbuld be raore satisfactory to bbth Government and
iraporter. I have had no practical experience in the examination of
wool duriug my term of office, aud cannot intelligently discuss the
matter.
'
21. I have been informed that at one time it was customary to fee
the inspectors of baggage at the port of New York in order to hasten
or facilitate the examination of luggage, but I know nothing of the
matter except from hearsay. <
^
22. I believe that the present tariff on some classes of merchandise,
.notably prepared opium, is so high that great inducements are held out
to smugglers at Pacific ports, but it is doubtful in m j raind whether
such practices would not be continued even were the rates of duty less
than at present.
23. I ara not conversant with the workings of the New York or other
Atlantic offices, ahd cannot answer this inquiry.
24. I know of no false returns or reports to collectors of dutiable
values in the past.
Respectfullv submitted.
N. B. HOYT,
Examiner.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 235.
JOHN A. SAMPSON—Appointed Temporary Inspector April 10, 1865; Inspector December 1, 1869; Clerk Septeniber 18, 1875; Assistant Cashier February 6, 1876; and
Examiner November 6, 1883.
P O R T OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
Appraiser's Office, Septemher 29, 1885.
S I R : I beg leave to submit the following answers to the questions
propounded in your circular letter of September 9 instant:
1. I know of none.
2. None that I know of.
3. By measuring, weighing, and samples taken.
4. In quite a varied experience as an inspector and as an examiner
- I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that there
was any collusion between the person making entry and entry clerk or
department collector to send to the appraiser's store for examination
bogus or false xiackages as a fair example of one in every ten.
5. So far ds my experience goes I haye found the weighers at this
port honest, competent, and faithful in the discharge of their official
duties.
6. I have no knowledge of the number of suits now pending in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in respect to rates of duty
and differences between importers and collectors growing out of de- cisions by the latter and the Treasury. I think the present judicial
system sufficient.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
853
7, 8, 9. I have ho personal knowledge of the affairs of the New York
custora-house.
10. There is quite often a difference of opinion in the appraiser's department as to what constitutes the chief value of articles composed of
several constituents.
*
11. I think not.
12. I think all should share the responsibility. The deputy appraiser'
and examiner are bound to get all inforraation possible to assist them
in returning correct values, but it frequently hapxiens that the chief
apxiraiser is in possession of facts that the deputy appraiser or examiner are unable to obtain.
13. I know of none.
14. i think not so far as the Treasury is concerned; as to appraisers,
yes.
15. I know of nothing.
'
• ,
16. There is a large number of articles that now pay ad valorem duty
that should pay specific duty. Specific rates could not be applied to all
textile fabrics.
17. I think the repeal in 1874 of the moiety law has en®ouraged smuggling and undervaluation.
18. (1) No. (2)-Yes. (3) $2.50.
19. I know of no better plan than that already existing.
21. I know of no way of xireventing bribery other than by having
honest officials.
22. Yes.
23. I have no knowledge of that.
•
,
24. I do not knpw.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN A. SAMPSON,
Examiner.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
PORT CF SAVANNAH.
No. 236.
T. F. JOHNSON—Appointed Collector June 29, 1880, and January 10, 1881.
C U S T O M H O U S E , SAVANNAH, GA.,
Collector's Ofice, August 29, 1885.
SIR : Respectfully acknowledging the receipt of your confidential circular of August 27, 1 have the honor to submit the following answers
to your questions, which I regret are not as full as I would like, for,
owing to the character of our importations, I have not the practical experience, or opportunity of observation, which would justify more extended replies.
1. There is no such evidence at this port.
2. No. .
3. We have no importations of textile fabrics.
854
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
4. None.
5. None.
^
6. Hayo had no collectors' suits at this port on which to base a judgment.
.
7. Have no knowledge of such cases.
8. See No. 7.
9. The actiug axipraiser inakes report of proper dutiable values.
10. No confusion or doubt on such goods as we receive.
11. ]So undervaluation by the acting appraiser.
12. Have no false returns, and only an acting appraiser.
13. None to ray knowledge.
14. No false values reported here.
15. See No. 14.
16. Specific duties would remove all cause for undervaluation by
imxiorters. Have no experience with textile fabrics.
17. Have no false reports at this port.
18. Have not sufficient knowledge of the matter to answer inteUigently.
19. I think it unnecessary.
20. Have no experience in weolen goods, having no importations.
21. Such practice does not prevail at this port.
22. There has been some smuggling of liquors and cigars, the duties
being so high that evasions of the law are attempted on a small scale—
sometimes successfully. The expense of a sufficient preventive force
would be greater than the loss sustained by the Government.
23. The revenue laws have been fairly enforced at this port.
24. Have no false reports at this port.
Yery respectfully,
T. F. JOHNSON,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B . C. :
PORT OF SUSPENSION BRIDGE.
No. 237.
BENJAMIN FLAGLER—Appointed Deputy and Clerk December 1, 1873; Collector
February 21, 1882.
C U S T O M H O U S E , COLLECTOR'S O F F I C E , .
Suspension Bridge, N. Y., September 25, 1885.
S I R : Referring to Department's circular letter of 27th ultirao, I have
to report:
1. I have no evidence that duties have not been collected as the law
prescribed.
2. There is no such evidence.
3. At this port, where there are very few importations of textile
fabrics, the invoiced measurements are verified by actual measurements
of certain pieces.
4. None.
5. None.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
855
6. No suits have been brought against the collector of this district
in, respect to rates of duty.
'
\
. •
7. I know of none.
8. I have no knowledge.
•
9. There is no appraiser at this port,
' 13. None.
14. I have no knowledge of anything of this kind.
15. I have no knowledge of false values.,
16. I do not see how a change frora ad valorera to specific duties can
benefit the revenue or help dirainish a tendency to bribery. If an
officer is corrupt he can as well return false quantities as false values.
Perhaps a return of false quantities raay be more easily detected.
There are some articles on which specific duties raay fairly be levied—
articles which do uot change materially in value—but on the great majorit}^ of articles iraxiorted, if a fair duty is to be collected, it cannot be
obtained by specific rates. For t?he sarae reasonit seeras to rae impossible pr impracticable to apjily specific rates to textile fabrics. The
variety of these goods, the wide range of values, the endless number of
qualities and kinds, make it impossible to secure any fair average of
the duties to be collected on such goods by specific rates. An ad valorem duty in my opinion is the only perfectly fair duty. Of course there
are many ways in which the revenue may be defrauded by dishonest
persons, but such avenue's are open when duties are to be levied either
sxiecific or ad valorem. Under our xiresent tariff'we have all sorts of
classifications to determine rates of duty, and the consequence is all
sorts of opinions. In no way can a tariff be framed to bear equally on
all the articles entering into the manufactured goods of the country as
easily as by an ad valorem tariff*.
17. I do not know.
18. In my opinon it would not be practicable for consular officers in
the districts named to xiersonally examine articles shipped without great
delay to shipments. To make such examinations of any value would
require an amount of technical knowledge on tiie part of consular officers they are uot likely to possess. So far as I know it is not the custom of any consular officers, no matter how small t^aeir distiicts, to so
verify the correctness of iuvoices. The most that can be expected of
consular officers is that they keep theraselves conversant with values .
of raerchandise shipped frora their respective districts, and to keexi
custoras officers posted relative thereto.. On this frontier ray exxierience is that consuls are no xirotection to the revenue. This office has
never to ray knowledge received any inforraation from such officers
relative to values ofmerchandise. The custom of such officers in Canada
is to certify any invoice presented without question. The declarations
are usually made by some one holding power of attorney from the shippers—generally the agents of the railways at the diff'erent stations. I
have one now in mind. There have been issued at St. Thomas some
900 invoices this year, and it is safe to say that the declarations on 875
of them have been signed by the agent of the M. C. Railway at that
place. In many instances these agents have had the certificates signed
in blank b y t h e consuls, and they fill them up as occasion requires.
Therefore these certificates are not in any way depended on as reliable.
If these consular officers ever obtain any information relative to dutiable yalues, it does not reach this office, and customs officers are
obliged to depend entirely upon other avenues of information for such
knowledge.
856
REPORTSOF THE SECRETAiRY OF THE TREASURY.
I have no knowledge of fees exacted by consuls in England.
19. In my opinion it would be both safe and useful.
20. Previous to the act^ of March 3, 1883, tiie duty on wool was as
follows:
, "
'
CLASS l.^-Clothing wools: Yalued at 32 cents or less per pound, 10
cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; over 32 cei:ts per pound.
12 cents per pound aud 10 per cent, ad valorem; if imported unwashed.
If iinported washed, double the above rates ; if imported scoured, three
times the above rates.
CLASS 2.—Combing wools: Yalued at 32 cents or less per pound, 10
cents per pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem; over 32 cents per pound,
12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem, washed or unwashed.
If imported scoured, three times the above rates.
CLASS 3.—-Carpet wools: Yalued at 12 cents or less per pound, 3 cents
perpound; over 12 cents per pound, 6 cents per pound, if iinported
unwashed or washed. If imported scoured, three times the above rates.
The act of March 3, 1883, which is now in fbrce, made the duties ou
wool as follows:
CLASS 1.—Clothing ivools: Yalued at 30 cents or less per pound, 10
cents per pound; valued at over 30 cents per pound, 12 cents xier
pound, if imported unwashed. If iraported washed, double the above
rates; if imported* scoured, three tiraes the above rates.
CLASS 2.—Combing wools: Yalued at 30 cents or less per pound, 10
cents per pound, over 30 cents per xiound, 12 cents per pound iraported
unwashed or washed. If iraported scoured, three tiraes the above rates.
CLASS.3.—Carpet wools: Yalued at 12 cents or less per pound, 2^
cents per xiound; over 12 cents per pound, 5 cents xior pound imported
unwashed or washed. If iraported scoured, three tiraes above rates.
. Therefore, it will be seen that the existing rate of duty on wool is not
a corabiuation of ad valorem and specific rates, but a specific duty, the
rate depending on the value of the wool in the last harbor place whence
imported into the United States excluding charges in such port.
The working of these rates on this frontier has the eff'ect to exclude
all clothing wools from Canada, the duty being prohibitory. Washed
Canada combing-fleece or x^^Hed wools are worth to day from 18 to
20 cents per pound, and pay 10 cents per pound duty, say 50 per cent.
Unwashed wools of the sarae class, worth 10 cents per pound, pay
10 cents per pound duty, 100 per cent. Pickings, sarae class, that
are worth 7 to 8 cents per pound, pay 10 cents per pound duty, 125 per
cent. Unwashed conibing-wools (class 2) are shut out of the United
States because of the high duty. Canada xiickings that could be used
by carpet manufacturers under a reasonable tariff are shut out, while
soft'East India wools, that are worth 20 to 22 cents, come in as carpet
wools at 5 cents x>^r pound duty, aud are used in the manufacture of
blankets, low flannels, stockings, yarns, and rough goods for raen's wear.
Down corabing wools, washed, pay 10 cents per pound duty, while
the sarae wools, clothing, pay 20 cents per pound duty.
Take a large flock of downs. The well-grown best staple fleeces xiay
10 cents per pound duty. The inferior, tender staple fleeces are calssed
as clothing wool, and xiay 20 cents duty.
Greasy Australian wools, costing 20 cents to 24 cents per pound,
shrinking in scouring 50 per cent., pay 10 cents per pound duty. Greasy
Cape wool, costing from 12 cents to 14 cents per pound, shrinking 65 per
cent, to 70 per cent, in scouring, pays the same duty—10 cents per
pound.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
857
The user of best Australian will pay 40 per cent, to 50 per cent duty,
while the hat or felt manufacturer will pay 70 per cent, to 80 per cent,
duty on Cape wool.
The present duty on w^ashed and scoured wools prohibits their importation, and the United States manufacturers are not able to enter foreign markets only for unwashed wools.
The rates on carxiet wools are so much less that great efforts have
. been made to secure the classification of other wools in this class, and
I am informed that at theport of-Philadelphia mohair has been imxiorted
and paid duty as class 3.
Woolsin this class, costing 12 cents per xiound, pay 2J cents xier xioundduty, about 20 per cent.; costing 13 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound,
about 39 xi6r cent.
The working of such a tariff cannot be satisfactory or fair, and must
result in frauds on the revenue. But so long as the xiresent duties are
maintained on textile fabrics, into the manufactures of which w^ool enters
to more or less an extent, I suppose some tariff'on wool, based on classification and value, will be continued.
Therefore I add to what I have said under 16, the only fair duty is
ad valorem, without regard to classification or conditions, and such a
duty will bear more equally on all, and be the least liable to fraud.
21. I know nothing of these matters.
22. I cannot say.
23. I do not know.
24. All violations of law such as indicated have always been xiromptly
reported to the proper officers for prosecution.
Yery respectfully,
BENJAMIN FLAGLER,
Gollector.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
O
Secretary of the Treasm-y.
MISCELLANEOUS.
No. 238.
T. B. SANDERS—Appointed Deputy Commissioner of Navigation June 29, 1865.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION,
Washington, B. C, September 7, 1885.
SIR : The following memoranda, relating to the interrogatories in your
circular upon customs matters, are merely suggestions, made iminediately, without opportunity to obtain the data necessary to more extended replies,, and are only intended to be auxiliary to the treatises
which will doubtless be received from experts and sxiecialists in such
matters. The replies are numbered to correspond with the questions
in the circular.
^
1. Excexit in cases of smuggling or fraud, and of doubt as to the
meaning of the law, the proxier rates of duty have generally been collected.
858.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
2. I do not know of any satisfactory evidence that specific rates of
duties have not been fully collected, except in particular cases of smuggUng, or where the rate depends upon the value ascertained by the appraiser, as in the case of wool.
3. This question should be answered by the appraisers, it being governed by the regulations made and provided for their observance.
4. I do not know of any evidence of collusion generally between
officers and importers. I understand that there have been such violations of law. As an example, I cite the jcase of Dexmty Collector Williams, at New York, some years ago, a record of which is probably in
the appointment room or the special agents' division.
5. The cases on the files of the special agents' division, the '^Aniline
d y e " cases at Boston, &c., will furnish evidence as to false or incomXietent or inadequate weighing or measuring on the wharves in xiarticular instances.
6. As to the nuniber of customs suits now pending at the various
port^t) the proper United States district attorneys and the Solicitor of
the Treasury should inform you. It has been suggested that such cases
could be brought before the Court of Clainis. A full report upon the
matter was made to Congress by the Department, and. printed. Some
action should betaken to relieve the dockets ofthe circuit courts ofthe
United States of such suits by securing more speedy trials. The suits
at New York cover most of the points at issue, and an additional judge
there would xirobably be sufficient fbr their trial.. If his decision on
the point of law^ involved could be made conclusive on apxieal from the
decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the final settlement of the
cases would be expedited. An established precedent at New York in
one case of a class would suffice for aU cases of that class arising in the
whole country.
Thousands of appeals are filed and suits brought covering but one
question, on the decision of which action could be taken by the Secrc;
tary as regards the other cases without further litigation. An instance
in xioint is the class known as the '' Charges cases.'' A great number of
^ apxieals have been made as to charges covering relatively but few points.
" The United States district attorney at New York could easily elaborate
a bill to effect the desired object. For an example he might refer to the
constitution of the United States courts of the District of Columbia.
The number of doubtful questions for the decision of the courts is
comparatively small, and an energetic district attorney and judge could
soon clear the docket, if they could be brought to overcome the app'Brent indisposition of officials to touch such cases.
The voluminous reports of the recent Tariff Commission, and the
debates thereon in Congress, throw light upon the question whether
the existing tariff, (March 3,1883,) which largely follows the preceding
tariff, needs amendment. A list of suggested amendments, prepared
in.the custoins division, was sent to Congress by the Secretary of the
Treasury some time ago. This list might be of use in now considering
the subject.
A special appropriation is required in order to the payment of interest as a part of the damages in these cases, or general authority could
be given'by Congress to pay it from ^^any other moneys not otherwise
apxiropriated." It was the former practice to pay it under existing
legislation. The question as to interest would be a small issue, if cases
could be tried promptly.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
859-
^ 7. The special agents should be able to give information uxion the
question whether full duties have been collected. It is claimed that,
owingto the difficulty in obtaining proof of foreign value, full duties
have not, dn particular cases, been levied on silks, velvets, wool, and
other classes of articles subject to duty at ad valorem rates, or at sxiecific
rates, where such rates depend on the value. The evidence of failure is
not generally of a character to be controverted successfully, for the reason
that the foreign cost or value cannot well be ascertained except by the
manufacturer or producer of the article.
A high duty is levied at an ad valorem rate. The particular class, or
Xiattern, or quality of the article may be manufactured for the American
market exclusively, by one xierson or firm abroad only ; no sales may
be made to any person before the imxiortation. of the goods, and they
may be consigned to an agent here. In such cases there can be no absolute knowledge of the cost or value, excexit such as may be derived from
the owner.
The appraiser may be of one opinion, the special agents of another,
and the general axipraiser of a third, and all be entirely honest, and all
wrong. Market values undergo constant changes ; are not the same in
different countries, and are difficult to discover in the case of goods not
offered in ^ ^ market onvert."
8. I have never heard of any evidence showing a guilty knowledge of
the failure above mentioned, or consxiiracy to. xiromote it, among the
higher class of Treasury or custom-house officials generally. But there
have been collusion and fraud, as the records of the courts of the sxiecial ^
agents' division and of the appointment division will show.
The alleged failure, alluded to above, has not come from any action
or non-action on the part of Treasury officials, so far as known to me.
Any interference by a Treasury official with the valuation of goods, on
appraisement, or with the action of the coilector in assessing duties in
in the first instance, would necessarily be open and patent to all concerned. Such wrongful interference would be exceedingly difficult and
dangerous. Treasury officials are under a heavy fire of criticism from
experts, lawyers, and special agents, so far as their acts, ih regard to
matters xiertaining to customs and navigation are concerned. I believe
it to be very unusual for a Department official to act from any corruxit
ihotive. For instance, having been connected with tens of thousands
of cases in the office of the Secretary during the last twenty years, T
haye never been offered, directly or. indirectly, anything like a bribe,
except in one instance, and that was indirectly and guardedly by letter
from a man on the Pabific coast, with whom I was not acquainted. I
presume the experience of others has been about the same.
9. This question, I think, the sxiecial agents and customs officers can
^best answer, as I have no xiarticular information in regard to it. '
10. It is my understanding that spme doubt exists in the apxiraiser's
department as to the xiroxier apxilication of section 7 of the tariff act of
1883, relating to duties or charges in the case of imxiorted goods. The
place and time of the valuation of goods for apxiraisement purposes are
understood by apxiraisers, but the standard to be axiplied as regards
charges does nbt seem to be so well known. A few authoritative decisions by the courts uxion the subject of charges would remove a great
part of the difficulties encountered in regard to the matter.
11. It would be almost imxiracticable to make a safe average estimate
of the percentage of undervaluations for any year or series of years, or
8G0
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
to identify all the articles undervalued. In certain cases the invoices
could be identified. The estimates I have heard I believe to be mere
guess-work.
12. The finding of the examiners and deputy appraisers, as I understand, usually forms the basis for the action of the appraiser at the large
ports, and for a false return of value to the collector the subordinate
officers, w^ould primarily be resxionsible in ordinary. cases. The appraiser, like other officers in charge of large offices, cannot do all the
work, and in most cases must dexiend on his subordinates, taking up
himself only disputed cases, and keeping general guard over the business. The action of the examiners in each case is watched to a greater
or less extent b y t h e deputy appraiser, the apxiraiser,^the officials ofthe
collector's office and of the naval office, the sxiecial agents, and rival
importers.
13. I do not know of any cases in which a Government official in the
consular department or elsewhere has assisted or consented to, or connived at, the presentation to appraisers of false "evidence of foreign
values. I think, however, charges to that effect have been made incertain cases, and that the special agents' division has a record thereof.
14. I do not know, personally, of any payment to appraisers to get
false returns by them. Questions of valuation do not ordinarily come
before Treasury officials excexit indirectly.
16. Duties ad valorem would be the fairest to all, and if they could
be collected fully they would be preferable by reason of their flexibility.
If labor at $2 has been put on an umbrella abroad, more duty should
be paid thereon than on one on which the work was but $1 in value;
yet under a system of specific duties the duty on both would probably
be the same.
In all such cases the levying of specific duties would tend to reduce
the variety of articles imported. Those kinds of goods would be
brought that could best bear the duty.
'
But, in view of the difficulty of collecting ad valorem duties, specific
duties may be best in nearly all cases, and especially where there is ho
great variety in the class or kind or quality ofthe article enumerated,
or where the^e can be accurately defined. It would be difficult to apply, fairly, specific duties to certain articles, and especially to articles
like paintings, statuary, &c., and textile fabrics depending for value
upon the pattern, the quality, the color, the style, and the additional
work (as embroidery, &c.) thereon, and not so much upon the weight
of the raw material contained therein.
Under the French tariff, however, duties are levied at specific rates
on neaiiy all articles, either by weight or by piece, &c., and.I am not
informed that the system does not work satisfactorily. Risks would
have to be encountered in obtaining approximate equivalents in sxiecific
rates to the existing ad valorem rates.
*
A change from specific to ad valorem rates w'ould be a benefit to the
revenue—i. e., would increase it or not according, to the amount imposed.
It does not seem that any increase is demanded at present, and if the
collections now made were entirely fair—if each importer xiaid the same
amount of duties on the same kind of goods—no change would be neces-.
sary so far as the revenue collected is concerned.
Of course the aniount of revenue xirescribed by Congress should be
collected. Specific rates would diminish the tendency to bribery as
regards values, but would increase the tendency as regards weights.
REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ^
861
measurements, and counts. A reduction in the number of articles taxed
would be a benefit in reducing the cost of collections. The British tariff'
is an examxile.
17. The passage of the anti-moiety act must necessarily have increased
the temx)tation to deiraud the revenue, and I have no doubt has actually
led to violation of the revenue laws. But there were such violations
before its passage. Some of the measures then in force were considered
unduly harsh. The matter was very fully considered by Congress, General B. F. Butler leading in the opxiosition to the xiassage of the act,
and Mr. Dodge in favor. The modification, by said act, of the act of
1863, respecting the seizure of books and papers, the abolition of the
moiety system as regards the distribution of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, the requirement that the court in custonis forfeiture cases shall
subinit to the jury as a distinct and separate xiroxiosition, whether the
alleged iUegal acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the
United States, and require upon such a xiroposition special finding by
by such jury, and the xirovision that in such cases, unless intent to defraud shall be so fbund, no fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall be imposed,
have made the dangers incident to undervaluation less, and have xirobably increased attempts to influence appraising officers to return low
valuations.
.
,
18. Personal examination by consuls of all articles to be shipped to
the United States from the larger foreign ports would be impracticable.
The inspection of samples in certain cases, is a substitute for snch examination. It is probable that foreign governments woul (J make' complaints if there were vexatious delays on the part of consuls inexam ining
values and certifying invoices. The fees for certifying invoices in
England are $2.50 for the invoice in triplicate, and one shilling and'
six pence for each of the triplicate or quadruplicate copies of the invoice if oath be made.
19. If the executive or the judicial powers should have greater juris-'
diction to interfere with the ascertainment of the dutiable value which
is to be the basis on which the collector is to levy ad valorem rates,
this juiisdiction would be exercised to a great extent to reduce valuations, not to increase them.
<
Through the special agents, the executive powder might sometimes
interfere to raise values, but I believe that on the whole such interference would lead to no good general result, and that the greater jurisdiction mentioned would not be very safe, or useful to the revenues.
Questions of value would be difficult to deal with at the Dexiartment
here, on account of lack of expert knowledge and the requisite information. In any clear case, if an appraiser is shown not to have done his
duty, there is an apxiropriate remedy. The matter is analogous to the
appraisement for taxation of real estate, which is usually quite summary.
20. The rates of duty imposed on wool by the vaiious acts since 1860
are as follows •,
CO
co"
Articles enumerated.
>>
o
<
1
1
o
o
o
1
<
9CO
1-5
1
<
CD
U
CO '•-*
30 perct.. 24per ct
W^ool unmanufactured.
.
5 per ct:. 5per ct... 5 perct... Pound 3 cts...
Free
Sheep, unmanufactured, valued 20 cents or
. less per pound; also, hair of alpaca, goat,
and other like animals, (1861, less than 18
cents pfer pound,) 1864,12 cents or less per
pound.
Pound,3 Pound,3 Pound, 3
Value 18 to 24 cents per pound, (1864, 12
to 24 cents.)
cts.
cts.
cts. .
Value above 24 cents per pound, (1864, 24
Pound,9 Pound,9 Pound,9 Pound, 10 cts.
to 32 cents.)
cts.
cts.
and 10 per c.
cts.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 per c.
Pound,9 Pound, 9 Pound,9 Pays highest
Value over 32 centsper pound, mixed, to
reduce value to 18 cents per pound, or
cts.
cts.
duty.
cts.
less, to evade duty.
On sheepskins, washed or unwashed
15 per ct.. 15 per ct.. 15 per ct.. °20 p e r c t
30 per ct
Acts of Mar. 25,26,29,
1867; Feb. 3, 1868;
July 20, 1868; Feb.
19,24,1869.
i
4
Acts of June 30,1864;
Mar. 3, 1865; Mar.
16, 1866; May 16,
1866; Junel, 1866.
Comparative Statement of the Bates of Import Duties under the several Tariff Acts from July 30, 1846, to June 21, 1874, loth inclusive.
1
%.
o
o
<
<
Pound, 10 cts.
and 11 per c.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 per c.
Pound, 10 cts.
and 11 p e r c .
Pound, 12 cts.
and lb p e r c .
Pound, 3 cts...
Class II.—Combing-w^ools value 32 cents or
less per pound. •
Value exceeding 32 cents per pound
Class III.—Carpet-wools, value 12 cents or
less perpound.
Value exceeding 12 cents per pound
Of Class I, washed
„...
Of all classes scoured
;
••••;•
O
H
O
H
CO
Q
H
%
•
Class I, —Clothing-w^ools, unwashed, value 32
cents or less per pound.
Value exceeding 32 cents*per pound
co"
g.
X
30 p e r c t
Pound, 10 cts.
and 11 per c.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 per c.
Pound, 10 cts.
and.11 perc.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 per c.
Pound, 3 cts.;.
Same as other
wool.
Pound, 10 cts.
and 11 per c.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 per c.
Pound, 10 cts.
and 11 per c.
Pound, 12 cts.
and 10 perc.
Pound, 3 cts...
Pound, 6 cts... Pound, 6 cts... Pound 6 cts
Double duty... Double duty... Double duty...
Treble duty.... Treble duty.... Treble duty
o
H
ZP
td
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
863
Schedule K.—Wool and Woollens.
Articles.
All wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals,
shall be divided, for the purj^ose of fixing the duties to be
charged thereon, into the three following classes:
Class one, clothing wools.—That is to say, merino, mestiza,
metz, or metis wools, or other wools of merino blood,
immediate or remote, down clothing wools, and wools
of like character with any of the preceding, including
such as have been heretoiore usually imported into the
United States from Buenos Ayres, New Zealand, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Russia, GreatBritain, Canada,
and elsewhere, and also including all wools not hereinafter described or designated in classes two and three.
Class two, combing wools.—That is to say, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, down combing wools, Canada long
wools, or other like combing wools of English blood, and
usually known by the terms herein used, and also all
hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals.
Class three, carpet wools and other similar wools.—Such
as Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso,
native Smyrna, and including all such wools of like
character as have been heretofore usually imported into
the United States from Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Syria,
and elsewhere.
The duty on wools of the first class which shall be imported
washed shall be twice the amount of the duty to which
they Avould be subjected if imported unwashed; and the
duty on wools of all classes which shall be imported
scoured shall be three times the duty to which they would
be subjected if imported unwashed. The duty upon wool
of the sheep, or hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like
animals, which shall be imported in any other than ordinary condition, as now and heretofore practiced, or
which shall be changed in its character or condition for
the purpose of evading the duty, or which shall be reduced
in value by the admixture of dirt or any other foreign
substance, shall be twice the duty to which it would be
otherwise subject.
Wools of the first class, the value whereof at the last port
or place whence exported to theUnited States, excluding
. charges in such port, shall be thirty cents or less per
pound, ten cents per pound.
Wools ofthe same class, the value whereof at the last port
or place whence exportd to the United States, excluding
charges in such port, shall exceed thirty cents per pound,
twelve cents per pound.
Wools of the second class, and all hair of the alpaca, goat,
and other like animals, the value whereof at the last
port or place whence exjiorted t o the United States, excluding charges in such port, shall be thirty cents or less
per pound, ten cents per pound.
Wools of the same class, the value w^hereof at the last port
or place whence exported to theUnited States, excluding
charges in such port, shall exceed thirty cents per pound,
twelve cents per pound.
Wools ofthe third class, the value whereof at the last port
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding
charges in such port, sliall be twelve cents or less per
pound, two and a half cents per pound.
Wools of the same class, the value whereof £tt the last pprt
or place whence exported to the United States, excluding
charges in such port, shall exceed twelve centsper pound,
five cents per pound.
Wools on the skin, the same rates as other wools, the
quantity and value to be ascertained under such rules as
the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.
Rev. Stats.; acts
Feb. 8,1875; Mar.
3, 1875; J u l y l ,
1879; J u n e 14,
1880; May 6,1882;
Dec. 23,1882.
Act Mar. 3,1883.
10 cents per pound Per p o u n d ,
and 11 per cent.
cents.
Pound, 12 cents Pound, 12 cents.
and 10 per cent.
Pound, 10 cents Pound, 10 cents.
and 11-per cent.
Pound, 12 cents Pound, 12 cents.
and 10 per cent.
Pound, 3 cents..
Pound, 23^ cents.
Pound, 6 cents..
Pound, 5 cents.
It will be seen that under the act of 1846 unmanufactured wool was
dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem, this rate being reduced
to 24 per cent, by the act of 1857. Under these two acts, wool value'd
at not more than 20 cents per pound was free. The act of 1861 im-
864
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
posed duties, as sho"5\^n above, of 5 per cent., and 3 cents and 9 cents
per pound, according to the value, and these rates continued until the
act of June 30, 1864, when duties were raised to 3 cents per pound on
unmanufactured wool valued at 12 cents or less per pound; to 6 cents
per xiound on wool valued from 12 to 24 cents xier xiound; 10 cents xier
pound and 10 per cent, on wool valued from 24 to 32 cents per-xionnd;
and to 12 cents per xiound and 10 per cent, on wool valued at over 32
cents per xiound. The act of March 2, 1867, changed some of these
rates slightly, making wool valued at 32 cents per pound pr less dutiable
at 10 cents and 11 per cent., and imposing tlouble and treble duty
on wools washed or scoured, as the case might be. These rates remiained'unchanged until, by the actof June 6, 1872, the duties were
'' horizontally'' reduced 10 per cent. The act of March 3,1875, rexiealed
this reduction, and the preceding old rates were restored and remained
unchanged until, by the passage ofthe act ofMarch 3, 1883, the duties
were reduced by the removal of the ad valorem rates from wools ofthe
first and second class, and the fixing of the duties on wools of the third
class at the rate of 2i cents and 5 cents per pound, instead of 3 cents
and 6 cents per pound, respectively.
Difficulty in some cases has arisen in administering the law now' in
fbrce, in consequence of the difi'erence in duties dependent on the value
of the.wool imported. • This has been so, especially as regards wools of
the third class, the duty on which, if the value be 12 cents or under per
pound, is 2i cents xier pound, and if the value be over 12 cents, 5 cents
per pound. Twelve cents per pound has happened to be very nearly
the value of certain wools, and tlie decision of the question, whether
duties accrued on the importation at the rate of 2} cents per xiound, or
at double that rate, depended upon evidence which was not always
satisfactory. The difference in the cost of J of a cent or less xier xiound
might suffice to double the duty. It is evident that the distinguishing
value should not be so near the average value.
21. Examination at one place, under the supervision of a responsible
officer, of all baggage arriving at the larger x)orts, would tend to minimize the taking of bribes or gratuities by the ofhcers examining baggage arriving in the United States.
At New York, I am convinced that, in the case of some examining
officers, it has been the practice to accept or even to exact such gratuities. Whether it still continues I am unable to say. I have heard less
complaint in regard to it at other ports. It is a shame to the country,
and should be broken up.
22. I understand that undervaluations have been largely of silk goods,
which are subject to a high rate of duty. Of course the larger the duty
the mpre teinptation there is to evade its pa-yment. It does not appear,
however, that the undervaluations and smuggling dexiend altogether
upon the rate of duty. Diamonds, jewelry, and laces are smuggled
because they can be put in a small compass, and be easily transported.
Silks are undervalued for the reason, that it is imxiracticable for the
Government to ascertain the true dutiable value. . In either of these
classes of cases the law would be evaded at times were the duties much
lighter than at present. Safety is an element considered by smugglers,
as weU as the amount of which the Government can be defrauded, and
revenue laws should be framed with this fact in view.
23. Evasions of the revenue laws occur at other ports than ISTew York,
but at the latter the volume of business done is so much larger, and
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
865
the interests at stake are so much greater than elsewhere, it is reasonable to suppose the frauds there would be more considerable than at
other places.
24. It apxiears to me the reason why every officer who has made false
returns has not been indicted is because bf the difficulty in finding
legal xiroof to convict. If such xiroof exists, xiroceedings should be instituted without delay. It must be remembered that in many cases
there is room for an honest difierence of oxiinion, and that where there
are confiicting interests charges are often made, and are often false.
. Yery respectfully, T. B. SAISTDEES.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
ISTo. 2 3 9 .
H. A. LOCKWOOD—ApiDomted Clerk of First Class, Treasur}^ Department, NoTember 14, 1853; promoted tlirougli aU tlae clerical grades, and appohited CMef Clerk
^ September 1, 1869 ; appointed Deputy Commissioner of Customs July 1, 1875.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
.
O F F I C E OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
Washington City, B. C, October 21, 1885.
SIR : I have read the questions in the printed circular-handed me by
you, and find tliej^ relate xirincixially to the execution of the laws governing the'collection of the customs revenue by the officers stationed at
the various xiorts of the United States, and, from their nature, it is not
Xiossible for a xierson confined to office-work here to give intelligent or
valuable suggestions. I have the honor, however, to submit the following remarks for what they may be worth :
I. Refund of duties to be reduced to a minimum, and no interest to be allowed on judgments for refunds.
'
Taxes being arbitrary exactions, dexiendent on statutes only, it is of
course true that no more should be exacted than the law deniands.
StiU, on equitable grounds, refunds of duty exacted in excess should be
restricted to the minimum, for, excexit in case of short shipment, clerical error, damage, or destruction, it is-believed that when more duty is
exacted than the law requires, the trade, and through it the consumer,
feels the full force of the exaction, as the excess is charged upon the
goods as they are put uxion the market. The only xierson benefited by
the refund is the imxiorter, who, if he has, as it is believed he has,
charged a xirice for his goods that includes the duty, he receives twice
payment of the duty exacted in excess—once through trade, and once
through refund by the Government.
Under these circumstances, it is believed that it would be just to procure such a change in the present laws as would prevent the xiayment
of interest on judgments of court for refund of duties, especially as
from the long time that in some cases elapses between the inception of
the suit and its final decision—in some cases twenty j^ears—it would
appear that if xiarties do not actually delay they do not actively xiress
matters to a good conclusion, looking no doubt on a good case in court
as an investment at 6 per cent, against the Government; and further,
attorneys, having a contingent interest in the suits, do not desire the
55 A
866
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
cases entered for judgment or discontinuance, or a certificate of '^probable cause'' noted until the last practicable moment, so as to secure all
the interest possible.
II. Limitation of free importation of personal effects^
It is suggested that a limitation on the free iniportation of personal
effects would be a step in the direction of equalization of taxes as between rich and poor. It is not thought that the imposition of duty on
personal effects above a certain amount would deter any considerable
number of wealthy persons who are desirous of immigrating to this
country from so doing. At the same time, it is evident that the unlimited free importation of personal effects is suscexitible of great abuse,
not only by wealthy immigrants, but b j tourists and those who for
trade purposes are continually passing back and forth between this
and the old world,
III. Abolition of titles of subordinate customs officers.
The titles or designations of subordinate officers of the custonis having become numerous, would it not be in the interest of efficiency and
economy to have all customs officers other than those which are Presi-**
dential appointments, filled under the one designation of custonis officers, with x)Ower given to the chief officer of the cnstoms in the district
where they are appointed to detail any customs officer under him to
any duty within his district. An arrangement of this kind would enable a collector of customs to handle his fbrce more efficiently by placing
those appointed under him in situations to which they are fitted either
by natural aptitude or acquired knowledge, and do away, with many
questions as to the legality or propriety of employing xiersons axipointed
under one designation to discharge duties in another capacity. - It
would also make the chief officer responsible for the distribution and
efficiency of his force.
To accomplish this would require modification of the laws in relation
to the appointment and compensation of the subordinates, which laws
I think might be merged into one, giving the Secretary of the Treasury
power to limit and fix the compensation. Why should the salary of a
deputy or an inspector be fixed by law, when the salaries of clerks and
many other classes of employes are left to the discretion of the Departmenti?
IY. Fixed annual compensation for principal customs officers.
A fixed annual compensation for collectors of customs, xiayable from
the Treasury, is in many respects xn'Gfei'able to the xiresent system of
paying a xiart salary and commissions from the Treasury, and allowing
a portion to be exacted from the xieople in the way of ofhcial fees. .
I am aware that this question has been discjissed by the Dexiartment,
but it may be that a statement of the case from an accounting point of
view has not been presented.
The payment of fees as comxiensation to United States officials, I
hold, pn general principles, is of itself vicious. When the comxiensation is not limited, or when the usual collections are less than the limit,
the tendency is towards making business for the sake of the fees, or to the
exaction of iUegal fees. Money that does not pass through the Treasury (as when fees are collected and retained for compensation) does
not appear in the receipts and expenditures, except in the emolument
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
867
Statements. The expenses of collecting the revenue from customs is
greater by the amount of fees collected and retained than is shown by
the appropriation ledgers, (since the beginning of the Government, many
millions.)
It gives the people at large an exaggerated idea of the emoluments
oi collectors of customs. It in some cases fails to pay a decent or adequate compensation, and finally it causes great delay in the settlement
of. accounts in the Department.
Section 305, Eevised Statutes, does not allbw credit to be given a
person depositing nioney in the United States Treasury until a covering '
warrant is issued. The compensation of many collectors being partly
dependent on commissions on their collections, it follows that the collection accounts must be adjusted before the expenditure and emolument accounts are taken up.
Usually it is two months, or even more, after money is deposited
before the warrant on the deposit reaches the accounting officers.
Aside from the injp.stice to the depositors, this delay makes a corresxionding one in the adjustment of the accounts. If the issuing of
warrants could be expedited, it would insure more immediate action on
the accounts.
If the collectors are xiaid a fixed salary, the disbursement accounts
could be adjusted without reference to their collection,accounts. The
payment of fixed salaries to collectors has been found to work well in
the large ports where it has been tried.
Y. Abolition of customs fees.
From a consideration of the reasons for payment of customs officers
by a fixed compensation, and, further, that the primary reason for the
collection of fees would be extinguished by that course, and that the
collection of fees is a vexatious manner of raising revenue, and savors '
more of antiquated monarchical xiolicy than that of our day and government, would it not be well to consider, in this connection, the whole
question of the abolition of all fees'?
YI. Substitution of declarations for oaths in customs cases.
A natural repugnance to the indiscriminate use of oaths in the cus• toms service leads me to remind you of the recommendation which has
been before made in the public prints, that custom-house oaths be
abolished, and a declaration on honor be substituted therefor; and as
these declarations are purely monetarj^, their truthfulness to be enforced
by a fine in money in xiroxiortion to the interests affected.
YII. Fayment of .expenses of collecting the revenue from customs by check
from the Bepartment.
In all the collection districts excepting the large ones it is thought
that the payment of the salaries of subordinates and other expenses
by check on vouchers famished could be advantageously substituted
for the present, one, these vouchers to be checked in the Secretary's
office as ''correct as to appointment or authority and rate of pay,"
and by the accounting officers as to ^^oath, clerical computation, and
duplicate payments,'' before payment, ^ o advan ees to collectors would
then be required, and a reduction would be made in the labor of settlement in all the, offices,in the Department conn,ected v^ith fhese ac^f
cpunts,,,,
868
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The theory of the Treasury rules relative to disbursing money is to
throw safeguards around its disbursements additional to those employed
among business men. The fact is, that the business man examines his
bills carefully and has them corrected before payment, while the Treasury xiays its bills first, and weeks and months afterward they reach the
accounting officers for examination, and often inaccuracies in vouchers are found, as shown b y t h e disallowances in disbursing officers'
accounts.
«
This presents another reason for the examination (and checking) and
payment of these bills at the Department.
YIII. Eelating to customs suits in court.
From frequent inquiries which this office is compelled to make at'
the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, and. the information,'or want
of information, obtained, an inference may be drawn that the court
officers of the United States do not, in many cases, act with promptitude and efficiency in cases of fines, xienalties, and forfeitures under
the customs laws coming under their suxiervision.
From the indication thus afforded, it seems to me that a thorough
examination of the records of the vaiious courts of the United States
would lead to the disxiosing of many old suits, and in some cases to
the recovery of money, both from outside parties and from the registry
of the court, into the Treasurj^. I am not conversant with the method
of keeping and accounting for money xiaid into court, but in United
States courts should not the law be so framed as to require all court
moneys to be deposited in a United States depositarj^, and stated accounts made and settled on vouchers for the receipts and disbursements,
such accounts to be adjusted in the Treasury"?
I am, very resxiectfully, your obedient servant,
H. A. LOCKWOOD,
Beputy Commissioner of Customs.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD.
No. I.SEPTEMBER 25,
1885.
: In the inquiries that I am prosecuting into the present
condition of the customs service at New York and the execution of
tariff law, I am xierplexed by the confiicting representations that are
inade to me about the effect of the legislation of 1874 on prosecutions
i n comi for undervaluations, and esxiecially on the instructions given
to the jury by the trial judge prior to 1874, in respect to the intent with
which tlie invoice was made and the burden of proof. Your experience
as a judge on the trial of suits for forfeiture has been so large and varied
that I venture to write to you on the subject.
DEAR SIR
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
869
It is.said, on the one hand, that in prosecutions before 1874 the trial
judge did not submit to the jury the questions of intent and require
the jury to find affirmatively that the invoice was knowingly made to
evade the payment of duty, or return a verdict for the claimant. ' And
it is said, on the other hand, that the law of 1874 worked such a radical
change on the subject of intent and the d n t j of the trial judge and
jury that under that law a verdict for the prosecution is now well-nigh
. im.]iossible, unless by a confession of the claimant. My perplexity in
face of these representations is over the actual practice of the trial judge
in ]few York before and since 1874, or the instruction to the jury on.
th© intent and burden of xiroof, and if you shall feel at liberty to say to
me what was your own practice in that regard, I shall deem it a great
Xiersonal and official favor.
I need not add that any suggestions out of your large and most valuable judicial exxierience in that class of suits which you may be willing
to give me in respect to the comparative working on those points of
the law of March 3, 1863, as well as the law prior to 1874, andthe antinioietj;^ law of the last-named year, will be most welcome.
With great respect, your obdient servant,
DANIEL 'MANNING,
Secretary.
Hon.
SAMUEL BLATCHFORD,
Associate Justice U. S. Supreme Gourt.
No. 2.
N E W YORK, October 6, 1886.
: I have received your letter of September 25 last, making
- inquiry as to the actual xiractice ofthe trial-judge in New York before
and since the act of June 22,1874, chapter 391, in instructing the jury
as to intent and the burden of proof in cases covered by section 16 of
that act, which section is as follows:
^ SEC. 16. That in all actions, suits, and proceedings in any court of
^
the United States, now pending or hereafter commenced or prosecuted,
to enforce or declare the forfeiture of any goods, wares, or merchandise,
or to recover the value thereof, or any other sum alleged to be forfeited
by reason of any violation ofthe provisions ofthe customs-revenue laws,
or of any of such provisions, in which action, suit, or proceeding an
issue or issues of fact shall have been joined, it shall be the duty of the
court, on the trial thereof, to submit to the jury, as a distinct and sep.arate proposition, whether the alleged acts were done with an acitual
intention to defraud the United States, and to require on such proposition a special finding by such jury ,• or, if such issues 'beiried b y t h e
court without a jury, it shall be theduty of the court to pass uponand
decide such proposition as a distinct and separate finding of fact; and
in such cases, unless intent to defraud shall be so found, no fine, penalty,
or forfeiture shall be imposed."
My own practice on the subject before the act of 1874 is set forth in
my charge to the jury in March, 1868, in the Sherry-wine case, (2 Benedict, 249.) That was a case of seizure of wine as forfeited fbr undervaluation. On xiages 290, 291, and 292 you will find my charge on the
burden of proof and of intent. The jury were instructed that while
under section 4 of the act of May 28, 1830, (4 Stats., 409.) it must, in
order to a verdict for the Government, be found that the invoices were
DEAR SIR
8?0
REt>ORT OP T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
made up with an intent, by false valuations, to defraud the Government, and while under section 1 ofthe actof March 3, 1863, (12 Stats.,
737,) it must, in order to a verdict for the Government, be found that
^ the entry by a false invoice or other false paper, or the attempt to
make such entry, was done knowingly, it had been the law by statute
since the act ofMarch 2,1799, (1 Stats., 637,) affirmed by the Supreme
Court as lately as December, 1865, in Cliquot's champagne, (3 Wallace,
114,) that where the court should, on the trial, decide that probable
cause had been shown for the prosecution, the burden of proof was
thrown on the claimant of the goods seized to dispel the suspicion
^and to explain the circumstances which seemed to render it probable
that there had been a knowing undervaluation.
Again, in December, 1869, in the Silk-ribbon case, (3 Benedict, 536,)
a case of seizure of ribbons fbr undervaluation, my charge to the jury
was the same as in the Sherry-wine case. It was summed up in these
words: /'If, upon the whole evidence, the claimants have not proved,
to your satisfaction either that the goods were invoiced at their actual
market value, or that the failure to so invoice them was the result of
an honest mistake or of ah accident, your verdict will be for the United
States; otherwise, for the claimants."
The case of Sinn (14 Blatchford, 550) was tried in the district court
here, before me, before section 16 of theact of June 22, 1874, went into
effect. In the report of that case, (ubi supra,) when it was before ChiefJustice Waite in the circuit court here on writ of error, he says, in his
decision, that the new act ^^made actual intention to defraud an essential question in suits to enforce forfeitures under the customs laws."
He also says, in regard to a case under section 1 of the act of March 3,
- 1863, (12 Stats., 738,) now section 2864 of the Eevised Statutes, which
provides fbr a forfeiture of merchandise where its owner knowingly
makes an entry of it by means of a false invoice, or of an invoice which
does not contain a true statement of all the particulars required by law:
'' Every importer is presumed to know the law under which he makes
his importations. In contemplation of law, therefore, when hemakes
an entry upon an invoice which does not state truly what the law re' quires, he knowingly does it. At the time of this seizure and trial no
question of actual fraudulent intent need be considered. Knowledge,
actual or presumptive, was all that the courts need inquire into."
In Lewey vs. United States, (15 Blatchford, 1,) which arose after the
act of June 22,1874, went into effect, and was a case of seizure of goods
for forfeiture, I submitted it to the jury to determine whether theimporter ^^fraudulently and knowingly, with an actual intention to
defraud the United States did so import and bring these goods into
the United States, as to cause or procure them to be withheld from
entry in the manifest of the vessel." The jury found that he did.
Chief-Justice Waite, (ubi supra,) in the circuit court, on a writ of error,
held the charge to be right.
'You also invite suggestions from me as to the comparative^OTking
on the points above mentioned of the act of March 3, 1863, and other
laws before 1874, and of the act of June 22, 1874. • While I thank you
for the courtesy of your invitation, 1 think I ought not to make suggestions of the kind outside of a judicial proceeding.
Yery truly, yours,
SAM'L BLATCHFOED.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT O^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
871
No. 3 .
.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, B. C.,, October 12, 1885.
; I thank you very much for your lucid and most satisfactory reply to my inquiry in respect to your instructions to juries in
suits for forfeiture under the laws of 1863 and 1874. My original'purpose was to ask your valuable aid only for my own guidance, but the
information you give is so timely and controlling in a public sense that
I wish to ask you if I may have your permission to transmit our corresxiondence to Congress with my annual report.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING.
DEAR SIR
Hon.
SAMUEL BLATCHFORD,
Associate Justice, U. S. Supreme Court.
No. 4.
1432 K STREET, N . W . , WASHINGTON, October 13, 1885.
M Y D E A R S I R : I have your letter of the 12th instant. I have no
objection to the transmission to Congress with your annual report of
the letters to which you refer. I would suggest, for the better understanding of the matter, that the full reports of the cases to which I refer be coxiied from the books and apxiended to the corresxiondence.
I shall be very glad al3 all times to give j o n any informa^tion and
render 3'ou every aid which you may desire, and which may be within
my xirovince, either by letter or by oral communication.
Yery respectfully, yours,
SAM'L BLATCHFOED.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING.
I N D E X TO A P P E N D I X .
A.
A c t of CoMgress—
Pagfe.
Of M a r c b 2, 1799, establi s h i n f; s p e c i a l a g e n t s ' f o r c e .
:
274
Of M a y 12,1870, r e l a t i v e to special a g e n t s . UiscuS'Sion in H o u s e of l l e p r e a e n t a t i v e s pendi n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
:
•
274
AdSa-BMS, C € . , s p e c i a l a g e n t , P h i l a d e l p h i a : A n s w e r t o question? t o c u s t o m s officials
407,414
Afl! vaiot'CDai a n a d . s i n e c i f l c r a t e s o f d u t y : R e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e s of. in t h e collection of
revenue
340, 363, 370, 390, 405, 417, 420, 426. 430. 435, 43", 440, 444, 448, 456. 459, 461, 462, 465. 467, 469,
477, 479, 48t), 492, 498, 501, 508, 5li3. 5L7, 518. 520, 521, 523, 525, 527. 529, 531, 532, 533, 539, 541, 543. 544,
556, 563.-564, 566. 569, 572, 574, 575, 578, 580, 581, 582, 587, 591. 637, 642, 647, 657, 668, 674, 683, 687, 691,
695, 698, 700, 701, 703, 706. 708, 714. 718. 720, 721, 722, 723, 728, 734, 736, 737, 740, 741, 742. 743, 745, 752,
755, 756 757. 758. 760, 763, 767, 770, 774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802, 811, 814, 815, 817, 819, 821,
825, 830, 834, 836, 840, 847, 848,851, 854, 855, 859, 360. (See also " S p e c i f i c " . )
A i S v a n c c m e n t of i n v o i c e v a l u e s . :
54
AjfillcHavBts of e x p o r t e r s , in s h i p m e n t s for d r a w b a c k s , allowed t o b e c h a n g e d
:
•
36
AU>aBay, N . Y . , p o r t of: S t a t e r a e n t of s u r v e y o r a s to r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
129
A f l c x a a i d F i a , V a . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of coilector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t . .
30
A - v n ^ e v a n e , EFraaiik, e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officers
.
788
AfiiliBBais f & r b i r e e d i M g p a a r p o s e s : E v a s i o n s of t b e r e v e n u e l a w u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n
396,425
AMBBapwMs, M i l . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o t h e r-eduction of force t h e r e a t
131
A j B a l a c B a i c w i a , F l a . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of Collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force t h e r e a t
132
A p p r a i s e r s . (See. also, " M e r c h a n t A p p r a i s e r s . " )
lliflerence b e t w e e n t b e d u t i e s of, a t Boston a n d a t N e w T o r k
146
O i s p o s i t i o n of, to shield i m p o r t e r s from c o n s e q u e n c e s of u n d e r v a l u a t i o n
46
E n g a g e d in illicit t r a d e
30
F a i j u r e to a d v a n c e i n v o i c e s to t r u e m a r k e t v a l u e
836 ,
E e s p o n s i b i l i t y of. for c o r r e c t r e t u r n s affecting t h e d u t i a b l e v a l u e of goods — 4 3 4 , 4 4 0 , 4 4 7 , 455,459,
462, 466, 477, 479, 492, 490, 497, 500, 502, 504, 508, 510, 513, 516, 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 529, 539, 544, 555,
563, 566, 569, 571, 574, 578, 586, 587, 634, 642, 656, 657, 691, 694, 698, 700,701, 702, 704, 700, 708, 709, 711,
712, 715, 718, 731, 734, 736, 738, 743, 744, 747, 852, 762, 773, 774, 783, 784, 788, 802, 829, 830, 835, 847, 850,
853, 860.
Tenderness towards importers...
:
46
T h e i r r e l u c t a n c e t o a d v a n c e v a l u e s t o '' p e n a l t y " l i m i t s
46
Siraply certifv t o t h e c o l l e c t o r s ' v a l u e s ' f i x e d b y e x a r a i n e r s a n d a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r s
•. .339, 674,
687, 714. 722, 736, 738, 739, 748, 745, 747, 748, 756, 757, 758, 762, 763, 770, 784, 795, 796, 797, 802,'811,
821, 825, 833, 840.
Oeneral, At New York. T h e d u t i e s of h i s office
v
216
D e p a r t m e n t a t New York. A s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r s a n d e x a m i n e r s i n
287
C l a s s e s of m e r c h a n d i s e e x a m i n e d in v a r i o u s divisions of . .•
287
N u m b e r a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n of a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r s a n d e x a m i n e r s e m p l o y e d . . . ^
287
"Work of, d u r i n g t h e first s i x m o n t h s t o t h e fiscal y e a r 1885
287
N e c e s s i t y for t h o r o u g h r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of
•
.\
46, 773
AppraisiBig oflicers:
H a v e failed t o e x e r c i s e p r o p e r l y , t h e i r p o w e r of a p p r a i s i n g u n d e r v a l u e d goods
44
L a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e p r a c t i c e of u n d e r v a l u a t i o n
337
R e q u e s t e d t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e D e p a r t m e n t for s u p p r e s s i o n of u n d e r v a l u a t i o n s
99
Unacquainted with true values
:
336
Unwilling to impose penal duties
417
Confusion i n r e g a r d to d u t i a b l e v a l u e s . (See " V a l u e s , D u t i a b l e " . )
A p p r a i s e u i e u t s a n d c l a s s i i i c a t i o j n i s . (See " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n " . )
AppraiseimejiBt:
I m m e d i a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of p a s s e n g e r s ' b a g g a g e w i t h o u t
314
Of s i l k s : U n s u c c e s s f u l efforts to s e c u r e p r o p e r a n d u n i f o r m
40
Of wool a t P h i l a d e l p h i a . (See, also, " W o o l " )
339
A s c e r t a i i i m e i s t o f d A s t i a b l e v a l i n e s b y t h e c o l l e c t o r . T h e q u e s t i o n of t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e
of t h e e x e c u t i v e a n d j u d i c i a l d e p a r t m e n t s in. (See " V a l u e s , D u t i a b l e ' " )
A s s e s s n a c a i t s o f d a i t y : Lovver t h a n t h e l a w p r e s c r i b e s . (See " R a t e s of D u t y " . )
A v e r a g e r a t e s of caastoms t a x a t i o n —
I n the Ilnited States
643,644
I n G r e a t B r i t a i n from 1800 t o 1880
643
I n France, Germany, Belgium. Austria, Italy, and Netherlands
:
643
A y e r , flra, j r . , special a g e n t . New Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
381
•
B.
B a g g a g e o f p a s s e n g e r s , i n s p e c t i o n of, a t N e w Y o r k a n d e l s e w h e r e
328, 333, 341, 364, 370, 379,
384, 393, 413,418, 421, 428, 432, 438, 440, 444, 453, 457, 459, 472,486, 488, 494, 497; 502, 505, 508, 511, 519,
520, 521, 526, 535, 538, 541, 545, 560, 564, 570, 577, 588, 592. 605,646, 653, 658, 667, 672, 675, 677, 681, 684,
695. 703, 711, 717, 718, 723, 768, 797, 811, 8i8,"830, 832, 834, 838, 842, 847, 864
O r d e r r e l a t i n g to i m m e d i a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of
.....;
314
Opinion of Solicitor as to s h i p m e n t of, u n d e r i m m e d i a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a c t
313
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n of, a t N e w Y o r k . Cost of
.*
309
I m m e d i a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of, w i t h o u t a p p r a i s e m e n t
314
Bogus p a c k a g e s of, s e n t t o a p p r a i s e r s ' s t o r e s
.•
487 •
S m u g g l i n g i n .,
341
1
673
874
INDEX.
t*ag6.
B a k e r , H a y d n JTS., examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to custom officials
748
I S a k e r , J a n n c s B . , appraiser, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
808
B5aItiMiore,,Md., port of—
,
_
i
Statementof appraiser as to reduction in force possible thereat
. 137
Answers of custoras officials at, to letter of inquiry of the Secretary
434
Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat
134
S a n c r o f t , 'W-t !>., exarain(?r, Philadelpliia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
828
E 2 a n g o r , Wfle., port of :> Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
| 138
I S a r d ^ v e l l , Meiiary .ffj., examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
785
fiSarnard,
i^raaak E . , exarainer. Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
565
B a r s i c s , JaBBics M . , examiner Chicago: Ans.wer to inquiries to custoois officials
565
S i a r n e s , J o s e p i n . M . , deputy collector: Answer to inquiries of custoras officials
476
ISarBBcy, A . M . , vSpecial agent at Galveston, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.
359
Report as to e.xisting rate of duty on Avool.
365
BarBBStaMe, M a s s . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.
139
I l a r r e , WilliaBii, deputy collector. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials...
677
E S a r t r a m , Deputy collector: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers...
78
Statemen ts reflecting upon the officers of the Department concerning the selecbion of mercbant appraisers
,
'.
56
BS a r t r a s n . N. B . , Aveigher, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
678
IB a r g e ©ilice a t N e w Y o r k :
Complaints against system
:
313,315
Contract for transportation of baggage. Secretary's letter to collector concerning the
transfer of
290
-Collector notifies Departraent of transfer of contractfor the transportation of baggage
291
Collector at New York—Transmits report of surveyor as to cost of
306
Directed to continue inquiry as to
300
States reasons why an extended inquiry should not be made
294
Requested to furuish comparative statement of cost of inspecting baggage at
306
Makes further report on
301
Notifies Mr. Starin,of the proposed termination of the contract for transportation
of bajrgage
'
319
Transmits comraunication of J. H. Starin relative to
303
Correspondence with Mr. Starin couceruing the termination of the contract for the transfer of baggage of passengers, referred to "the Solicitor for advice
320
Expenses of
307,309,3107311,312
Inquiry into the management of. directed by the Secretary
^.
293
H. B. James, chief of customs division, states the disputed points in the "transportation
of baggage " coutract
•
292
Letters to steamship companies authorizing them to land their passengers at their own
docks
,
281
Letter of the Secretary of the Treasnry notifying collector that expenses of landing passengers and baggage at, will not be borne by lhe Government
321
Letters of the Secretary of the Treasury directing that permission be granted steamship
companies to laud passengers at their own docks
318, 319
Letter of special deputy coilector concerning the notification to steamship companies of
lhe termination of contract with Starin
"
326
Solicitor of-lho Treasury in regard to the termination of the contract with Starin
326
Opinion of the Solicitor'witb respect to shipment of passengers' baggage
313
Protest of John H. Starin against the alleged violation of his contract for transportation
of baggage
•
321
Report in favor of, by deputy collector Williams at New York
298
Report of naval officer at New York on
299
Report upon the raanagement of, by the surveyor of the port
294
Acting Secretary of the Treasury notifies the collector that steamship companies may land
their passengers at the Barge Office at their own expense
'.
327
Anaount paid John H. Starin for transportation of baggage
^
309
Assistant Secretary French reserves consideration of baggage-transportation contract for"
his successor
'.
292
Assistant Secretary Fairchild advises against allowing the assignment of the transportationof-baggage contract
•
293
The Acting Solicitor of tho Treasury refuses to approve transfer of contract for transportation of baggage...
292
Solieitor of the Treasury advises that the notice of termination of contract has been prop- "
erly given
.320
Starin's protest against termination of contract referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury...
324
Secretary of the Treasury declines to approve the assignment of the baggage-transporta- tion contract
'.
:
293
Transportation of baggage to
, 290
The transfer-of tlie Starin contract for the transfer of baggage to tho
290
K a t c r s B a a l l , J ' e s s i e P . , examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
793
ISatBfi, M e . , port of: Statement of deputy collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.. - 139
K e a t t S e , I I . S., surveyor, New York:
Reply to additional inquiries as to customs matters
661
A M wer to inquiries to customs officials
R
•
655
ISeaaafort, IV. ftj., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of forpe possible t h e r e a t . . .
139
B c a i a f o r t , » . C , port of: Statement of collector as to possible reduction of force thereat...
140
B e c l i , 'H'lioanas, appraiser, San Erancisco: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
834
KeecBicr, M . W., collector. Port Townsend, Wash.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.
831
I S e l J a s t , M e . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
140
ISeaieiflict, J a n a e ' s 0.i., surveyor at N e w Y o r k :
Report upon the raanagement of the Barge Office
294
Report as to comparative cost of inspecting passengers' baggage at Barge Office, NewYork.
307
I S i a i g h a n a , N . IfV., special agent:
Answer to inquiries to cnstoms officials
385
Repor.t on examination of business in the district of Boston and Charlestown
101
HSinglBaaaa a n d M i n d s C o a n m i s s i o a i (1878): Reference to report of
558
B i r d , .Tos,, examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
528
INDEX.
875
Page.
I K i r d s a A l , d e o r g e IV., a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s
officials
,.
"696
B a s s c l l , A , B>, collector, Buffalo: A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
538
I S i t u a n i n o a a s c o a i : R e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n i n g e x p o r t a t i o n of, for benefit of d r a w b a c k , i n a d e q u a t e to p r o t e c t r e v e n u e
'...
56
. B S a t c h f o r d , H o n . S a m u e l : C o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h , tlio S e c r e t a r y of t h e T r e a s u r y a s t o
s u i t s for forfeiture
,
869-872
H o o t h , J ^ a n a e s : Q^estimony c o n c e r n i n g t h e selection of m e r c h a n t a p p r a i s e r s
86
B o s t o n , p o r t of:
^ A n s w e r s of c u s t o m s officials t h e r e a t t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
468
E x a m i n a t i o n of c u s t o m s b u s i n e s s in t h e d i s t r i c t of B o s t o n a n d C h a r l e s t o w n
101
S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
141
C u s t o m s cases, p e n d i n g in I l n i t e d S t a t e s c o u r t s for M a s s a c h u s e t t s d i s t r i c t
472,473,474
S t a t e m e n t of a p p r a i s e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
'..
146
S t a t e m e n t of n a v a l officer c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
152
S t a t e m e n t of s u r v e y o r a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
141
* S t a t e m e n t of r e s u l t of i n q u i r i e s b y special a g e n t s as t o t h e c o n d i t i o n of b u s i n e s s a t
»
101
B o f i f ^ v i c k , Sa. IPea ^jtaTOiner, N e w Y o r k : ' A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
721
B o B i t i v e l l , M O D I , d e o r g e S . , S e c r e t a r y of T r e a s u r y : S t a t e m e n t t o C o n g r e s s c o n c e r n i n g
t h e special a g e n t s ' force
'.
!
274
1 5 o vt'aae, K o H s e r t E . , e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
777
B o w a a e , SaaaBaael, e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
761
B o y c o t a i a a g of m e i c h a n t s w h o g i v e h o n e s t o p i n i o n s t o a p p r a i s e r s a s to u n d e r v a l u a t i o n s . . . . .
43
BracB4Clf,'special agent. N e w Y o r k :
E a i l s to utilize i n f o r m a t i o n as t o v a l u e s c o m i n g i n t o h i s p o s s e s s i o n
22
Charge.'^ a g a i n s t , filed w i t h t h e commission
9
— C h a l k e r case. I n v e s t i g a t i o n o r d e r e d
3
—(Jhalker case. I n v e s t i g a t i o n , a n d r e p o r t on
13
B r i b e r y a Bad v e a i a l i t y : A s to a l l e g a t i o n s of, in t h e c u s t o r a s s e r r i c e . . . 19,20, 347,360,363, 369,374, 381,
388, 405, 412, 424, 425, 426,444, 448, 459,466,469, 477,479, 486, 492, 497, 500, 502, 504, 510, 520, 541, 544,
. 556, 568, 569, 574. 590, 591, 630, 635, 655, 660, 674, 687, 690, 694, 704, 708,716,727, 728, 733, 741,767, 810,
833, 851.
• •
•
B r i d g e p o r t , Coaasa., p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
154
B r i g " g s , Iff. S . , U n i t e d S t a t e s g e n e r a l a p p r a i s e r , B o s t o n : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s
officials
B r o w e r , G e o r g e V . , I J n i t e d S t a t e s g e n e r a l a p p r a i s e r . N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s to
c u s t o m s officials
668
B r i s t o l , M . S , , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force poeeible t h e r e a t
155
B r o w a a s v i H e , T e x . , p o r t of:
S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t . '.
155
A n s w e r of collector to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
536
B a i ^ ' a l o , p o r t of: A n s w e r of collector to i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
538
B air k , F . J . , e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
764
B a s r l i n g t o a a , l o i ^ ' a , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of s u r v e y o r c o n c e r n i n g r e d u c t i o n o f f e r e e p o s s i b l e
thereat
'.
157
B a i r l i a a g t c n , V t . , p o r t of:
S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
L
156
A n s w e r of collector to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o r a s officials
542
B a i r r i l l , C h a r l e s , e x a m i u e r , San F r a n c i s c o : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c n s t o m s officials
846.
B a i r t , k ^ i l a s W . , n a v a l officer, N e w Y o r k :
A n s w e r to-additional i n q u i r y on custoras m a t t e r s
648
A n s w e r t o i n q u i i i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
635
C.
C a i r o , " 5 ! ! . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of s u r v e y o r as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
."...
157
C a l d ' w e l l , " W i l l i a m , s u r v e y o r , C i n c i n n a t i : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
571
C a p e Viaaceaat, N . \ . , p o r t of: S t a t e r a e n t of colleotor a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e
thereat
158
Caa*l>oBBeM,»?. C : P r o p o s a l to t r a n s f e r b a g g a g e a t B a r g e Office, N e w Y o r k
302
C a r i i a r t , L*. K . , e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
771
C a r a i e r , A . 5*., e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
.-...
704
C a r t a g e S y s t c a n a t N e w Y o r k : I r r e g u l a r i t i e s in
606
C a s t i B i e , M c , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force possible t h e r e a t
159
C e d a r . K e y s , I P I a . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector a s to r e d u c t i o n of force possible t h e r e a t :
160
C c r t i J l c a t i o a i o f i a a v o i e e s b y c o n s u l s . (See " C o n s u l a r C e r t i f i c a t i o n . " )
C l a a l k e r , special agent, N e w Y o r k :
.
»
•
.
C h a r g e s a g a i n s t , filed w i t h t h e commission
9
F a i l s t o u t i l i z e inforraation as t o v a l u e s c o m i n g i n t o h i s possession
22
C S a a r l e s t o a a . ^ . C , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force possible t h e r e a t
160
C t a i e a g o , I I I . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
163
CiaBia'cIa, C r e o r g e B . , i n s p e c t o r of c u s t o m s : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o r a s officials
421
C i n c i a a a a a t i , O S a i o , p o r t of:
S t a t e m e n t of s u r v e y o r a.'? to r e d u c t i o n of force possible t h e r e a t
162
A n s w e r of s u r v e y o r to i n q u i r i e s to ctistorhs officials
571
C l a r k , .1!>. C , e x a m i n e r , P h i l a d e l p h i a : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o r a s officials
'
813
C l a r k , F r e d e r i c k M . , Q,xaminer, N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
736
C l a r k , W i l l i s O . , collector. Mobile, A l a . : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o cu>«tora.-i officials
579
C l a r k , W i l l i a a M Iff., e x a m i n e r , N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
724
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f m e r c h a n d i s e f o r a s s e s s n a e n t o f d u t i e s . .32,33,63, 334,429,446,450,469,489,
636,664,814,822,833
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t q u e s t i o n s of, b e d e t e r m i n e d b y a p p r a i s i n g officers i n s t e a d of collectors
489
D i s p u t e s as to, H o w settled
608
Difterences in, a t t h e s e v e r a l p o r t s
126'
Diff'erence in classification of i d e n t i c a l goods w h e n b r o u g h t in b y different i m p o r t e r s
33
Improper
147,148, 334, 336, 340, 344, 395, 396, 408, 409,457,472,473, 474, 600,
601, 664, 682, 700, 711,716, 753, 839
Simplification of t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m r e c o m m e n d e d . . . ' .
439
J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s in r e g a r d t o
,....
459
876
INDEX.
Page.
Clevelaaad, O h i o , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat..
164
CoehcBB, B^'red., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
765
C o l l e c t o r s ' saaits . 201, 267, 377, 387, 469, 419, 423, 434, 436, 438, 443, 446, 454, 466,468, 472,473,474, 475, 477
490, 496, 504,512,516, 525, 533, 540, 543, 547, 548, 552, 5lj7, 573, 578,.581, 584, 586, 589, 601, 602, 610, 629, '
637, 656, 672, 682, 685, 697, 700, 708, 716, 724, 725, 732, 741, 756, 766, 796,798, 800, 802, 803, 809, 833, 842,
845,849,858,868
At Now York, statement of issues in
614
A t New York since 1803, sumraary of
-628
• At Bostou
...,.'.
472,473,474
Special juries needed to try them
437
Reasons for delay in the disposition of
446
Recommendation that the time now allowed to the importer in which to briug suit be reduced
....!...
,
446
Indifference on the part of district attorneys a cause for delay in the disposition of
446
Statement of, at Philadelphia
'
23
Recommendation that the best legal talent be employed in
602
Recornmendation that collectors be required to make report in, to district attorney's office
within twenty days
>----612
•. Recomraendation that followdng a decision in a suit the collector be required to immediately adjust other such suits pending according to that decision
613
Reference of disputed legal questions in, to referee, proposed as remedy for present delays
613
C o l l e c t o r s : Powers and d'uties of, in matters of disagreement betweeu mercbant appraisers
and general appraisers
'
^399,601, 633, 679
COMBBBS, C h s i r l e s J"., examiner, Bo.ston: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials.
530
C ol IBB sioBB betAveen p e r s o n s laaakiaag ©aatries aaaal caa stomas ©ffli c i a l s : As to allegations of
306, 331, 335, 345. 372, 386. 398,403, 419, 423, 438, 443,'445, 448, 468,484, 485, 487, 489, 496, 503, 512,
518, 522, .524. 526, 530, 531, 533, 540, 547, 551, 567, 585, 589, 601, 629, 655, 667, 668, 670, 676, 678,
702.715.719,724,841,858
C o m b s , M.. W h e e l e r , United States general appraiser, New York:
A nswer to inquiries to custoras officials
,
:
663
Report on exaraination of custonis business in the district of Boston
101
Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification of imported ^merchandise at the
several ports
•
'
'...'
•
63
CoBBBDaBassioBaei'of C n s t o m s :
Recommendation that his office be graded equal to that of tho Commissioner ot Internal
Revenue
'
546
Statement as to the incompleteness of his records282, 285
Transmits statement of all payments for. salary and expenses to persons employed as special agents frora 1860 to 1869
285
Conaaaaissioaa t o - i n v e s t i g a t e coBaditioaa o f c u s t o m s s e r v i c e :
Appointed
63
Reports concerning customs affairs at Boston
112,122
Reports concerning the enforcement of regulations governing the delivery of examination
packages at Boston
:.:.
119
Reports concerning "wbarf examinations" at New York
125,126
Reports concerning ^ro/orma invoices at Boston
Ill
Reports investig.ation of the methods and personnel of appraiser's office in New York
122
Reports concerning i.)ersonnel of force at Boston
Ill
Reports concerning uncollected duties at Boston
"... „ 119
Reports exaraination of customs business in the district of Boston and Charlestown
•.
Ill
Statements of, concerning classiffcation of sugar for duty by means of the polariscope
* 126
Recommendations of, as to the treatment of importers who habitually undervalue 1
41
.Statements of, concerning value and classification of foreign wools
126
' Reports in favof of having iuspectors at New.York under supeivision ot collector
31
Calls attention to need of changes in-the customs administration at New York
31
CoBiBfiBiissioBa to i a a v e s t i g a t e eaasttoins baasiaaess a t Ne^v Y o i ' k : Reports uj)on undervaluations
•
89CoBaiiaaission t o iBavestigate oflice of spc,caal ageaats a t N e w Y o r k :
Appointed
3Makes report
13
Inquiry into the charges of Moseman as 1 o bribery of officials
19, 20
Report upon the case of Bahmann & Hoehn
19
Statement concerning offers niadc by parties claiming to have exceptional influence at the
Treasury Departraent for the purpose of obtaining money from importers
21
Reports concerning practice of special agents signing seizure reports when Jiot making the
. seizure in person
•
22
Report concerning thefts frora public stores ?
2L
Finds that the laws of the United States^are not always-invoked for the sole purpose of
subserving the public interest
19
On the practice of subordinates dividing their moieties with their chiefs
22
Reports that Agents Brackett and Chalker omitted their duty, but finds no evidence of
corrupt influence
17
Statements concerning the case of D. H. Lindsay, importer, subjected to expense and annoyance by trumped-up claims
"
21
Reports upon charges made by Wallroth
12
. Reports on the charges of Hesse, Brackett, Chalker, and others
10
. Reports that the force of subordinates assigned Brackett was largely in excess of the needs
of the office..'
22
Reports as to persons carried on the "fraud roll" at New York
25
Views concerning the,duties of special agents
'
23
Recommends reduction of 50 per cent, of the special agency force at New York
'...
23
Reports that the special agents' force at New York should lie consolidated under a common
head
:
26
Reports naraes of persons employed in the office of special agents at New York whose services were unnecessary
,'
.
24,25
Opinion that all permanent empioy6s should be officers known to the customs laws
25
Recommends the consolidation of the special agents' force at New York uuder oue head..
31
Repoits that charges of official misconduct of special agents have been proved
31
Beports upon charges preferred i^gainst William Hussey
2?
INDEX.
877
Page.
C o n i m i s s i o n to i n q u i r e i n t o r e a p p r a i s e n a e n t s a t N e i v Y o r k :
Appointed
-74
Reportof
-.:.
•
75
C O B m i s s i oaa t o i n q u i r e iaato u a a d e r v a l u a t l o n s , d a m a g e a l l o ' e v a n c e s , a n d d r a w BB
hacks :
'
Report of
•
32
Report concerning the basis of values for cotton embroideries and Japanese and oriental
laces
-.
r.
• 70
^ Recomraends immediate correction of errors of practice in regard to pro forma invoices...
69
Conapagaaie Gcaaea'ale T r a a a s a t l a i i t i q a a e : Complaiyt against B9.rge-0ffice system.
315
C o m p a i ' a t t i v c statesiHeaat o f iaaaport d u t i e s on. ivooI from 1846 to 1874
862
CoBiapcMsatioaa, a a a n u a l , instead of fees, recommended for customs offices
866
Coaafaasion in minds of customs officials as to proper method of fixing dutiable values. (See
"Values.")
.
•
ConsigBameaat s y s t e m
,
40, 216, 373, 382, 396,403,491, 496, 527, 532, 562,750, 763
(See also "Consigned (joods.")
Concealment of actual foreign market values, a feature of
40
Its results
:
•
823
Has ruined the importing busine.ss at New York
"... 403, 811
Has practically destroyed direct importation
836
Denounced by American
raerchants
42
Responsible for serious evasions of the revenue laws
'
811
Permits establishment of fictitious values
\..
336
Consigfiaoaaeiats; Excessive consignments'from Europe invited by the facility with which •
undervalued invoices are passed
46
CoBBsigBBed g o o d s . (See also "Consignraeut System.")
All subject to ad valorem duties, undervalued
345
Discriminatory duty on, recoraraended
821
Corapetition between receivers of, determined by their ability to get them most cheaply
through the custom-house
216 \
Nearly always undervalued
330, 685
Undervaluations of
t
347
Necessity for constant supervision of entries of
772
C o a a s i g n c d s i l k s . (See also " Silks.")
Not honestl.y imported
40
Coaasaalar o f l i c e r s ; The question of examinations of shipments by
341, .•)48 •
364, 377, 384, 392, 407, 412, 417, 420. 426,, 431, 435, 440. 444, 449, 456, 459,462, 467, 469,477, 479, 483, 486,
493, 497, 501, 502, 505, 511, 514, 517, 518, 520, 523, .526, 528, 529, ,531, 532, 53.5, 537, 539, 541, 545, 5.59,
564, 5(16, 570, 572, 575. 578, 581, 583, 587, 588, 591, 004, 6?>1, 644, 657, 658, 665, 668, 672, 675, 688, 691,
695, 698, 702, 705, 707, 708,710, 712, 720, 721, 722, 730, 734, 736, 737, 740, 743, 744, 747, 7.57, 759, 760,
767,770. 774, 778, 791, 792, 801, 808, 811, 814, 817, 819, 820, 821, 827, 829, 834, 837, 840, 848, 851, 855, 861.
C o n s n l a r offlicei'S : (See also "Tho question of examiiiation of shipments by," and "Consular fees.")
'
*
"
Share with notarial agents the fees drawn by the latter for oaths to invoice declarations..
354
Their relation to certifications of foreign values
.,
3G2, 303, 369, 375, 391,499, 556,509
Recommendation that they be required to send frequent reports of prices-current...
..
645
. Perform their duties with reference to invoices indifferently
339, 347
Connivance of, in faL«e valuations
492, 527, 629
C o n s a a l a r fees aaad certifficatioBa o f isa v o i c e s
341, 346, 391, 417, 431, 435, 444, 453, 4.56, 459, 467,
470, 477, 481, 483, 501, 502, 514, 518, .526, 528. .535, 539, 541, 559, 566, 570, 575, 581, 604, 629, 631, 633,
645, 657, 658, 665, 672, 675, 083, 691, 717, 728, 735, 736, 737, 740, 741, 747, 760, 767, 771, 796, 801, 803,
814. 817, 820, 821, 829, 830, 837. 861.
Might be abolished witbout danger to the revenue
'
645
Coaastahic, eFaiMj3S M . : Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers
84
C o r h e t t , Mai'sBaall, examiner. New Y'ork: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
744
Coi'DaiBBg, .lohBa W . , examiner. Now York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
713 Corpaas C h r i s t i , T e x . , port of: Statementof coUectors as to reductions of force possible
thereat
•
165
CoaTesponaleaace ivittSa J"ustice Blatcfiaford concerning suits for forfeiture. (See also
' • Suits for forteiturw ")
_
.
869
C o s t o f maaaaafactaai'ed a r t i c l e s : Estiraates of, by experts in country of manufacture not
reliable
."
491
C o s t o f caastoans sea'vice ! Reduction iu. (See also "Customs service")
,
'..
129
C o s t o f s p e c i a l ageaats aaad f r a u d r o l l services. (See also " Special agents," and "Fraud
roll")
1
-.:
274
Cottoaa eMaha'oidci'ies:
'
Undervaluations of. (See "Undervaluations.")
Recommendation that rate of dut.y be assessed upon the number of stitches
493
Cottoaa yarnas: Undervaluations of. (See " Undervaluations.")
* C o v e r i n g s '^ a s a n eleamesat o f c o s t
<
3c«j>, 389, 404, 420, 439, 444. 447,461,466477, 500, 503, 504 .507,
516, 525,427, 534, 555, .586, 603, 641, 693. 697, 704, 7J 2, 713, 716,
721, 726, 734, 737, 738, 742, 762, 788, 791, 810, 835, 843, 8.59
Early decision of the question involved, recoraraended
. 439
C i ' o o k e r , J". T . , examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs' officials... i .•
782
Craaafiatota, Williaaaa. !>., oxaminei', N'ew Yoik: AusAver to inquiries to customs officials...
776
Cfialaarel SteaBaasSa^p C o , : Com plaint against Barge Office s.ystem
'.
31,5 .
Caaa-fl'ier, T . B5., examiner, Bo.*iton: A nswer to inquiries to customs officials
531
Caartis CoBaaDaBassioaa: Reference to the report of
5.57
CaBstoaaas B i ' o k e r s ; AIways alert to secure advantage to tlieir own clients
334
CBBStOBBBS CoBBB't, A ; Rccommended . . :
.'".
548
CaastoBfias B>a^vs: Special tribunal to try questions in. .(See "Tribunal.")
CaastOBaB.'s ©flficea's:
•
. *
Blamed for irregularities in matter of drawback regulations, at New York
39
Fees of: AboUtion of all, recomraended
867
Laxity iu reporting cases of srauggling
32
More zealous in the interest of customs brokers than to protect the Government
^.
39
Not clear or harmonious as to fixed dutiable values. (See "Values.")
878
INDEX. ,
^
Page.
C u s t o m s o r g a a i i z a t i o n : Radical change in, recommended. (See also "Customs Service.")
Customs service;
Allegations of bribery or venality in. (See "Bribery.")
List of districts examined by special agents
273
Li.st of reductions recommtended. by special agents . . . i
:'
273
Reduction in cost of
129
Reductions effected in, since May, 1885
:
270,273
Investigation into general condition of
100
Custoaaas t a i x a t i o n : Average rate higher in the United States than elsewhere ..-.
643
I>amage allowances
32, 33,58, 59, 60,335, 397, 461, 546, 667
Amount of duties remitted on account of, in 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884
58
Claimed upon sound goods
335
Examining officers allow, without evidence of soundness of goods at time of shipment
58, 59
Fraudulent
33
Improper
58, 59, 60, 335, 395
Investigation into, at New York
, 32,33
Oaths ah to daraage sustained, taken by importers without knowledge of the condition of
the goods
60
Recommendation against present system of
-.
546
S>amage aBio^vanccs:
Recommendation that allowances for damage during voyage of iraportation be abolished...
461
Repeal of law permitting, woulcl be viewed favorably by the business coraraunity
61
E&aaBDage b r o k e r s : Endeavor to induce importers to make application for damage allowances bu sound goods
58
UnvBS, C h a r l e s , deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
669
•B>avB.s, \ ¥ . 15., examiner. New York: Answer to'inquiries to customs officials
:...
797
Idecisioaas o f t h e H ^ e p a r t m e a a t :
Irregular and otherwise
824
Eiroheons, contradictory, and confusing . 1
398, 671 .
That selling price of raerchandise for American market is market value
491
•Resiion sible for failure to levy and collect full ratesof duty
522, 636
l>cciaratB©aas t o iaavoiees. (See "Consular Certification.")
l&cc8aratioBBS : Recommended as substitute for oaths in customs matters —
867
S&c F o r e s t , WiBBiaBaa M . : Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers.
83
I&HckeB'Soaa, W i l l i a m 35., exarainer, Philadelphia : Answer toinquiries to custom officials.
810BJeBavery o f Baaca'cfeaaadise : Recortfm on dation that permits for, be scrutinized by surveyor.
487
B>eBay in passiug of importations at New York: Complaint of
*
34
©epaafty coBlcctors a n t l i a a s p e c t o r s at Clevelaud, Ohio: Recommendations as to
164
B>e8roit, port of: /Answer of coUector to inquiries to customs officials
573
*' • p e t e c t i v c aaaetlaods " : Suggestion that they should not be resorted to by special agents..
23
U e t r o i t , MicBa., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
SPiifereaBCCs betweeaa i a n p o r t c r s a n d c o l l e c t o r s . (See "Collectors' Suits.")
9>iaBsoBia.l, ^ i l l i a a a a M . , exarainer, Boston: Answer to questions to custoras officials
511
l i i s p o s i t i o n of appraisers to shield importers from legal consequences of infractions of revenue laws
46
© i s t r i c t B t t o r a a e y s : Indifference on the partof, a cause for delay in the disposition of
snits against collectors
446
JDistrict a t t o r n e y a t N e w Y o r k (see, also, "Dorsheimer"): Reply to Secretary's letter
concerning the inspection of passengers' baggage
330
I&oaaaestic m a a a u f a c t a a r e r s : Complaint that they are not oftener selected as merchant
appraiseis
41
©oi'sBaeianer, M o n . W i l l i a m , United States district attorney. New York:
Answer to inquiries to customs officials
610
Transraits report of cases under customs laws begun and pending at New York
628
E&ow, F r e d . N., collector, Portland, Me.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
828
i > r a w b a c k ea&tries
,33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 54, 55, 56,607
Form of
....:
i
37
Irregularities in the form of
'
37
Difficult^^ of identifying bags for
38
Practice' iu regard tb
•
38
Allowed to be chan;^ed after having been sworn to
1
36
IKraw^baek r e g u l a t i o a a s :
Irregularities in the administration of, at New York
.39
Department modifications of
:
35 E & r a w b a c k oaa b a g s
34, 54
O r a ' t v b a c k oai bitaamiaaoaas c o a l ..'
56
l > r a w b a c k oaa s u g a r :
Greater in certain cases than duty paid on importation
55
Presumption of fraud in exportations for
56
Regulations in regard to, have not been complied with
55
Almost all exported for, iu 1884 was tho sugar paying highest rate of drawback.
56
Present rates not based upon accurate knowledge, of relative proportion of different
grades of sugar produced
'
56
l > r a w b n c k : Irrtegularities in the lading of goods exported for
55, 56, 607
S^aibaaque, I o w a , portof: Statementof custodiau as to the reduction of force possible thereat
172
" JOaaannay p a c k a g e s ^ ' fraud
551
S>aaBa]OBat, .9 anoes "S., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs offic ials
709
l^aBBBhaaaa, T . Iff., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to cnstoms officials
522
' O u a a k i r k , N . Y , : Stateraent of collector concerning the reduction of force.possible thereat.
172
l^aatcber, A . C , examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to costoms officials
" 768
S>uties:
^
Have they been levied and collected as the law provides. (See "Rates of Duty.")
High rates of, a temptation to smugglers. (See "Rates of Duty,")
l>ntftes never paid on returned bags
'.
.;
37,
D u t i e s , s p e c i f i c r a t e s o f t Have they b.een folly collected... (Se^ "R£^tes of Duty.").
J D u t i a b l e V a l u e s . . (Sp,e^"V,a;lii.9.s,."),,
.
'^^
~ '
INDEX.
87^,9
E.
Page.
: ^ a s t p o r t , M e . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
,173
.Bi^deaatoaa, C a l . : S t a t e r a e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
. 173
.I5icBBoltz, Cr. C . ITI., exarainer. P h i l a d e l p h i a : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
821
. E l l s A v o r t h , M c , , i.)ort of: S t a t e m e n t of, a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force possible t h e r e a t
175
M l I ^ a s o , T e x . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
174
IS aaa W o a d e r i e s : M e t h o d of a p p r a i s i n g , f a u l t y . (See also " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s " )
61
K a a a b r o i d e r i e s : U n d e r v a l u a t i o n of (see also " U n d e r v a l u a t i o n s " ) . .
60,336
SHaaBflgi-aBats^ b a g g a g e
'.
.....^
. 661
C u s t o r a s l a w s bear "disproportionately upon
659
IE aa t r i e s ; U n d u e h a s t e w i t h w h i c h the.v a r e p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e c u s t o m - h o u s e
:..
334
l E r i e , EPa., p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector as to r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
176
E a a r e B i a , 4 ' a l . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of c o l l e c t o r a s to r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
177
l £ v a D i s , .B'. W.—
Special a g e n t : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
418
E v a s i o n s of c u s t o m s l a w s . (See " R a t e s of D u t y , " " M o i e t y l a w , " " S m u g g l i n g , " " U n d e r valuations.")
E v i d e a a c e as to v a l u e s f u r n i s h e d b y c o n s u l a r officers, n o t to b e i m p l i c i t l y r e l i e d on
702
A s to v a l u e s : Difficulty of o b t a i n i n g
336
E x a a a i i i a c r s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of, for c o r r e c t r e t u r n s affecting t h e d u t i a b l e v a l u e of goods"
462, 464,
465, 466, 469, 479, 491, 495, 496, 497, 500', 502, 504, 508, 510, 6l3,516, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530,
532, .534, .536, 555, 563, 560, 578, 581, 583, 586, 587, .590, 630, 642,664, 671, 674, 681, 683, 690, 694, 700, 701,
702, 704, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 715, 716, 718, 719, 720, 722, 727, 731, 734, 735, 738, 739, 741, 742, 743,
744, 745, 748, 752. 756. 757, 758, 761, 762, 763, 765, 767, 770, 773, 779,780, 782, 783, 784, 787, 792, 795, 796,
797, 798, 809, 811, 814, 815. 817, 821, 825, 829, 830, 833, 835, 840, 847, 848, 850, 853, 860.
Exnaraiaaers :
•; i:o e m p l o y r a e n t of a sufficient force of, r e s u l t s i n s a v i n g t o t h e r e v e n u e
151
Should b e c h a n g e d periodically from one class of goods t o a n o t h e r
339
1 n ad e q u a t e c o m p e n s a t i o n of, a c a u s e of inefficiency
45,46, 633, 652, 664, 671
Salaries
".
339
(See also " E x a r a i n e r s , R e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f " . )
M xaBBBiaBatioBa o f aaaea'cSaaaadisc: Simplification of t h e w o r k of
151
E x a a f i a i B a a t i o n p a c B s a g e s : T h e d e l i v e r y of, a t B o s t o n . .
,
119
BixaaaaiBaaftioaa o f p a s s c s a g c a ' s ' b a g g a g e a t N e ^ v Y o r k :
Lebter concern ing, to t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y a t N e w Y o r k
.'
328
S c a n d a l s c o n c e r n i n g (see also " B a g g a g e " )
-.
328
E x p e i ' t s , l<'oreigaa :
'
T h e e r a p l o y m e n t of, for c o r r e c t i o n of v a l u e s , r e c o m m e n d e d
.'
'
42
Unrelia,bili"ty of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o v a l u e s
E x p o r S i u t t o a a s f o r b c E s c f i t o f « l r a v » ' b a c k ; H o n e s t y a n d good f a i t h of e x p o r t e r s p r i n c i p a l s e c u r i t y a g a i n s t f r a u d iu (see also " D r a w b a c k s " )
' 55
.
. °
•
F.
F a i i ' c i a i M , Moaa. C . § . , Assistant Secretary :
- A d v i s e s a g a i n s t t h e a s s i g n m e n t of t h e Barge-Office b a g g a g e c o n t r a c t
293
A c t i n g S e c r e t a r y , r e q u e s t s s t a t e m e n t from collector a t N e w Y o r k as to c o m p a r a t i v e
cost of inspecting; p a s s e n g e r s ' b a g g a g e a t B a r g e Office:
.•'
306
F a i l a a r c s t o c x c c a a t e t l a e CBBStoiaas l a w s . (See " R a t e s of d u t y . F a i l u r e s to collect fuU",)
IFaiSBBB'C o f a p p r a i s H B B g o f l i c e r s t o v a l u e g o o d s a t c o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n w h e r e u n d e r valued
44
l.^'aiB.SBrc o f s p e c i a l a g e a a t s —
To r e p o r t invoices upon which duties w e r e recoverable
".
15
T o repoi't v i o l a t i o n s of t h e c u s t o m s l a w s
:
16
F a l l H a v e r , M a s s . , portof—
f,.
S t a t e m e n t of collector as t o r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t
178
F a l s e d B B t i a b l e v a l a a c s , a p p r a i s e r s ' r e p o r t s of, t o t h e collectors
361, 368, 374, 375, 388, 404, 417,419,
424, 455, 462, 405, 469, 496, 501, 504, 509, 510, 516, 534, 538, 554, 568, 573, 603, 604, 629, 635, 650, 656,664,
687, 690, 702, 726, 802, 817, 824, 826, 833, 850, 860.
F a l s e retiBB'BBS o f v a l n a e s , t o t h e c o l l e c t o r s (see also " V a l u e s " ) . .362, 369, 375,444, 445,477, 511, 517, 520,
529, 541, 554, 556, 568, 574, 604, 631, 635, 687, 703, 711, 713, 720, 7-27, 730, 732, 759, 770, 789, 800," 834, 851,
FeBat4>Ba, A . .B>., exarainer, N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r s t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
.731, 759
F e r B a a a n d a B s a , F l a . , p o r t of: S t a t e r a e n t o f collector as to r e d u c t i o n of force p o s s i b l e t h e r e a t . .
179
F c l l a a a a B a , .Bohaa M . , a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r , B a l t i m o r e , M d . : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s .
officials
. . . -:
:..465
F i s B a c r , A , J"., e x a m i n e r , P h i l a d e l p h i a : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials . :
822
F i t c B i , C . <Q-., e x a m i n e r , B o s t o n : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
518
F i t c l B , J'oBgBB A . , d e p u t y collector, C h i c a g o : A n s w e r s t o i n q u i r i e s to c u s t o m s officials
549
F l a g l e r , M c i a j a a n i a a , collector. S u s p e n s i o n B r i d g e , N . Y . : A n s w e r s t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s
officials
854
Foa'BBi o f d r a - » v b a c k e a a t r i e s
37
U n d e r modified r e g u l a t i o n s . . -•
38
" F o r faartSaea* c o B a s i d e r a t i o a a " ;
T h e p r a c t i c e of r e c a l l i n g invoices
.,
^
.51
R a p i d g r o w t h of p r a c t i c e of r e c a l l i n g invoices
51
A biise of t b e p r a c t i c e of r e c a l l i n g invoices
51
' F o r c i g B B e x p e r t s e m p l o y e d for t h e c o r r e c t i o n of v a l u e s
.^ 42
Foi'CBgEB CJoverBBaaaeaals : P o s s i b i l i t y of t h e i r m a k i n g c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d d e l a y s in s h i p m e n t s
r e s u l t from c o n s u l a r e x a m i n a t i o n s
479, 545. 559, 604, 605, 683, 688, 734, 744, 747, 758, 760, 778, 791, 792,
808,814,834,837,861
F o . s k c t , 1I>. M . C , e x a m i n e r . N . Y . : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
764
F r a a a a l s in w p i o h i n g a t N e w Y o r k . (See also " W e i g h i n f f " ) .'
637
F r a a a d s ©BB t b e caastoaias r e v e a a n e chiefly confined t o N e w Y o r k
549
Fratads—
•o
Successfully c a r r i e d on u n d e r p r o f o r m a invoice s y s t e m
66, 67
I n d u c e d b y p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e s in r e g a r d t o d r a w b a c k e n t r i e s on b a g s for e x p o r t
' 38
P r e s u m p t i o n of, i u t h e e x p o r t a t i o n of s u g a r for d r a w b a c k .
,.,..,,.....,.
57
8B0
INDEX.
* Fa-anal r o l l "—
<
Meraorandura concerning
Annual cost of
;..
.:
^.-.
Employes. List of, in service December, 1885
Estimate of cost of present force
Service. Reduction in cost of
Persons carried on it, at New York, who were not qualified
F r e e o f daaty : Examination of raerchandise entered as, on wharf at New York
Fa'CBBcia, Moaa. EI. F . , Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Reserves consideration of
-• baggage contract (Barge Office) for his successor
© a l e n a , 111., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat
€ i a l v e s t o n , 'B?ex., port of:
.Sfatement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
I'ort of: Answer of collector to inqniries to cnstoms officials
".
CSardiaBBcr, C , examiuer. New Yoik: Answer to inquiiies to custoras officials
CJeBBcral a p p r a i s e r s : Aboard of, suggested in connection with disposition of collectors'
suits
.\
.'---•.
Cwcorgeto^vaa, "i}>. C , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force possible thereat
^ t b b , J'olaBa: Testiraon.y coucerning the selection of raerchant appraisers
Cwalfoil, Jaaaacs, examiner, NewYork: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
'.
^111, Mo-waa'd C , examiner. New York: An.'swer to inquiries to customs officials
<GiBbert, .S'aDMes .BS., deputy coUector: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
Cwlasswaa*e: Undervalualion of
© i o v e a ' , W . .^., exarainer, Boston: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
SSloBBcester, M a s s . , portof: Stateraent of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.
CJBovcs : Undervaluation of
...."
<f»oi«lsS)oro8^gBfi, Meaary ! ¥ . , ap-praiser, Baltiraore: Answer to inquiries to special agents .
CJoods: HehTby customs authorities without furnishing reason for their action
'.
GoveraaBBBCBBt e x p c r S s (foreigaa) :
Keports of as to valuations
How the value of their reports raay be increased
Rt'lative iraportance of their statements as to foreign market values
' CJraiBaBaa, CBoarBes I£., naval officer. New York : Report on Barge Office
Sifi'asaBBBated r i c e : The dutiable value of
:
Qii'eeBB, .1 OSBBB S ? . , examiner. New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
CSa'ceea, F . C , deputy coUector, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
( S aaioBB, A . §., exarainer, New "York: Answer to inquiries to customs offi.cials
C
Paga
286
274
286
286
274
25
125
292 •
i78
179
278
740
810
179
83
748
718
548
336
521
180
336
453
18
217
217
217
299
609
723
547
H.
M a l l , E^aBBiel, naval officer. Boston.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
ISaanB, CBaarBes M . , appraiser, Chicago: Answer,to inquiries to cnstoms officials. •
SlartBBaaaa, C b a r l e s F . , examiner, NCAV Y o r k : .Answer to inquiries to customs officials
l i a v . a 8 a a a d , M c s a r y , examiner, N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to inquiries to customs officials
M a y , F r a f l a k , assistant appraiser. N e w Y o r k : Answer to inqniries to custom's officials.....
.ffieda8eBB, . F d ^ v a r d .B^., collector, N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to inquiries to customs officials
ISepbBarBB, . i ' e t e r A . , examiner. N e w X o r k : A n s w e r to inquiries to customs officials.
llessc, ^ s e a r :
•
Cbarges of irregularities on the part of special agents at New York
Exoiieratf'S Brackett, in his testimony
I l e y l , SiC'^vis, naval otficer, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs.officials
IliBbo^raa, ^^aBaaaaefl €i., United States district attorney, San .Francisco: Answer to inquiries
to customs officials
BIiaa«B.s, 15. Hff., special agent—
Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification of embroidered merchandise at the
several ports
'.
Reports on exaraination of custoras business in the district of ]3oston
New York : Answer to inquiries to custoras olficials
-•
.laiflt,- .0oEaBB, special deputy coUector, Chicago, 111.: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials.
MoBSywood, A a i d r e t v , exaininer, San Franeisco: Answer to inquiries to ciistoms officials.
IloaaeyweEi, .F., examiner. New "York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
" IS©BBBe vaSeaaftioaa '^ as a remedy for undervaluation
MotBltoaa', M e . , port of: Statenient of collector as to reduction of force pbssible thereat
EBoyt, N . IS., examiner, San Fraucisco : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
•Bloyt, WaBBiaaBB Q., exarainer, New York: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
MsBckel, IS., deputy coUector, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
M u s s e y , Inspector: His record in the service
I.
ffaaaaaiediate ti'aaasportatioaa o f aiaea^claa'aadise: Suggestions as to
Baaipoa'tci'S—
Complain of passage of grossly undervalued raerchandise notwithstanding proof given customs officei'S
..".
.^
i
E.xduded from business by undervaluatibns
Undervaluations by. (See "Undervaluations.")
iBBBpa'opcr classiflcatioaa of dutiable articles. (See "Classifications.")
B aadiaBaota, T e x . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force possible thereat
SaaforBaaea'S—
Their fees (see, also, " Moiety Act")
Find it more profitable to treat with guilty parties than with the Gpvernment
'I'aaqaairies t o custoaaas officials—
In respect to rates of duty and difference between importers and collectors (see "Rates of
Duty", and "Difi'erences between Importer and Collector")
As to verification! of invoiced measurements of textile fabrics (see "TextileFabrics")
485 •
549
742
744
6S9
584
765
9,11
10
809
842
63
101
371
542
846
722
653
181
849
739
' 802
30
676
33
373
182
341
341
331
331
INDEX.
,
' 8 8 1
SSBaquirics t o icustonas officials—Continued.
As to collusions between persons making entry and the custoras officials ('.' see Collusions").
331
As to failures to enforce revenue law at Atlantic ports outside of New York (see "Rates
of Duty")
;
• 334
As to payment of money by passengers to inspectors of baggage (see "Baggage")
333
As to decisions of appraising departraent respecting dutiable value (see "Values")
333
As to the several rat^s of duty on wOol since 1860 (see '' Wool")
333
As to verification by American consuls of invoiced values of articles shipped from large
American consular districts (see " Consular Officers, Examination of Shipments")
333
As to whether change from ad valorem to specific rates would benefit the revenue (see
'' Specific and ad valorem rates of duty")
-333
As to responsibility for failure to collect full amounts of duties (see "Appraisers and Examiners")..
^
333
A s to foreigh Governments complaining of delays growing out of examination of invoices
by American consuls (see "Eoreign (jovernments")-..
.'
:
333
As to failure to punish customs officials and.others concerned in false returns of dutiable
values (see "Punishment")
L
.•
334
, As to whether high rates of duty are incentives to smuggling and dishonest shipments
(see "Rates of Duty")
.:
334
As to lulse dutiable Values reported by appraisers (see '' Values")
332
- As to collectors' suits pending in NewYork, PhUadelphia, and Baltimore (see "CoUectors'
Suits")
:
.r
332
As to necessity for new tribunal to try taxation questions (see "Tribunal")
332
As to undorvalnations (see '' Undervaluations")
.^
,
332
As to whether existing law in relation to payment of interest on collectors' suits needs
amendment (see " Intere.st")
'. r
332
As to whether there is any confusion or conflict of opinion in appraiser's department
respecting dutiable, values, (see "Values")
332
fflnqniraes ( a d d i t i o n a l ) t o S p e c i a l A g e i a t s M a r t i a a aaad T i a a g l e :
As to fees charged in Great Britain for invoice declarations
343
t As to date and text of conventional agreement as to oaths to invoice declarations
348
As to undervaluations of sUks
'
343
A 8 to difierence between '' price paid " and '' dutiable value "
-343
A s to ascertainment of dutiable value
:
343
As to articles upon which full rate of duty has not been levied
342,343
Whether iDerjury committed in making oath before British officials as to invoices is subject
to prosecution
IT
...
343
a n q u i r a e s t o U n i t e d S t a t e s d i s t r i c t a t t o r a i e y a t INew I T o r k as to collectors' suits
thereat
,..;
.'.
627
fl^iitcaat t o d e f r a u d t l a e ' r e v e n u e : The question of furnishing proof of, in forfeiture
cases
437,545,584,691,603,869,870
i n t e r e s t a s a p a r t o f t h e daajaages a n d c o s t in collectors' suits
446,454,468,476,
^
552, 568, 578, 586, 589, 613, 640, 656, 741, 769, 802, 805, 810, 858
S l a i v e s t i g a t i o n o f s p e c i a l a g e a i t s a t IVc^v STork
3
ffaavcstigatfloaa b y s p e c i a l ageaats into the general condition of thecustoms service...*.. 100-^128
Into reappraisements at New York.
74
Into undervaluation, damaige allowances, and drawbacks at the port of New York
40
Snvoices:
'
•
.
. '
Consular certification of. ^ (See "Consular Officers")
417
Number passing through appraiser's office at New York yearly
- 339
Pro forma. (See " P r o / o r m a invoice").
•Srregularities—
In consular certification of invoices.
C33
In the administration of the drawback regulations at New York
39
In the forra of drawback entries
1
37
In the exportation of sugar for drawback
'.
55
I n tlie examination of goods for damage allowances'.
58, 59
In re.said to pro forma invoices
.'
'
60,67, 68, 69, 111
In the cartage at New York
J.,
66
<,Fack80irD, BS. © . : His connection with the " glass-eye case"
•..-.
19
J l a c o b s , "^Villiaaaa C , examiner, New Yoik : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
7,59
JTanaes, Cfiaarles M . , special agent, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials .
800
J a y CoaaaaaaissioBa : Reference to work of
335, 552, 5»7, 558,560,561, 607
<i0'er©aBac, T . F . , examiner, San Erancisco: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
848
JTervey, TDaeo. !&., coUectior, Charleston, S. C.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
..
542
JJe%veM, "^yilliaaan .F., deputy colhictor, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials...
546
JETewctt, CJeorge W.f examiner. Now York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials...
791
^ffolaaasofla, F . IB'., collector, Savannah, Ga.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
853
.Jfoaaas, IJ. F . , collector, New Oiieans: Answer to inquiries to custoins officials
580
•foaiies, EB. F . , dexjuty collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
668
^foaaes, J". W . , examiner. New York: Answer,to inquiries to customs officials
'
729
JOBDOS, ^yillaaaai A . , deputy collector. New York: Answers to inquiries to customs officials.
669
JTosfliaa, CJeorge C5., assistant appraiser, Boston, Mass.: Answer to inquiries to customs
officials
•
495
^ J u r y : Special, recommended for the trial of coUectors' suits
. . 437,544
M .
•
.
•
•
ISLansas C i t y , M©., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat..
ateaaaaebuaak. M e , , port of: Statement of collec'tor as to reduction of force possible thereat. Meaat, W i l l i a m , assistant appraiser. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials..
liLent, W i l l i a n i - , assistant appraiser: Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraiser
:.,
^
183
184
684
88
882
INDEX.
• K e r n o c b a n , H e n r y P . , naval officer, New Orleans: Apswer to inquiries to customs offi-.
cials
'
^
•
itera*, A . J . , examiner, PhUadelphia: Answer to inquiries'to customs officials
ItettcBaunni, A . I"., ex-appraiser of the pprt of New York : Testimony concerning the selection
, of merchant appraiser
f.'.
.
BLeyes, Cxcorgc, examiner, Boston, Mass.: Answer to inquiiies to customs officials
1
ffi.ey W e s t , F l a . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force possible t h e r e a t . . .
M n o d e , S a o n u e i , examiner, Baltimore: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
585
819'
87
506'
184
465
L a c e s , undervaluation of (see. also, "Undervaluation")
.' 336l ^ a Ca'osse, W i s . , portof: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat-.
185
Ijaaa-Db, W ^ i l l i a m M . , examiner, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
185
J L a p p , 15. flffl., special agent: Report on examination of customs business in the districtof
Boston . 101
A i a p p , C Iff., special agent. New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
30l l a p p , CBB a r i e s HI., special ageut: Ordered to investigate appraisements and classification
of embroidered merchandise at the several iDorts
65 tia^vreaace, effoiana K.,-inspector: His conuection with the payment of money by the Barbour Elax Spinning Company to prevent publicity to a fraudulent eutry of goods
21
SjawrcHftce, .foBaai ES., iospector: Alleged atterapt ou his part to induce other persons to
assist in smuggling precious stones into the United States
" 21
X i e a r y , J . I"., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
51&
• ILeckte, W i l l i a i i a ' I I . , examiner, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
565
Xiee, .©anaicl W . , exarainer. New; York: Answer to inquiries to-custoins officials
705
SiConarna, A . M . , district attorney, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.
584
Xjclaaad, CJeorgc M . , surveyor, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials .'...
808
S.«eseiBr, F . C , examiuer, New York: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
762
B.«cvi, KenJaiBttian J . , examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
787
S^ikthicMMa, JToflan JL,, appraiser, Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs officials
445
liivingsttoaa, WilliaBiB «3"., coUector, Detroit: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
" 573
SiOckwoofll, M . A . , Deputy Commissioner Customs, Washington: Answer to inquiries to
customs officials
'.
865
Kioaaisville, S€.y., port.of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat...
186'
ILaaby, Jolara O., coUector, BrownsvUle, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
536.
m.
M a c h i a s , M e . , p'ort of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
186
UB a l l o y , A. d . , collector, Galveston, Tex.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
578
M a n n i n g , M o n . 1$ a n t e i :
^
Correspondence with Justice Blatchford as to suits for forfeiture
869Directions to customs officials to report as to possible reduction of force
129
Directs an investigation iuto reappraisements at New York
74
Instructions relative to reappraisements
98
Directs the vigUant enforcement of the laws relating to the inspection.of baggage
328
Letter to United States district attorney at New York on the scandals concerning the
examination of passengers' baggage at New York
328
Letter to coUector of customs at New York on the complaints concerning the Barge
Office
263
Directing continuance of iuquiry as to Barge Office
30D
Declines'to approve the assignment of the Barge Office contract
293.
Letter to the collector at New York, declining to approve the transfer of the baggage-transpoitation contract ..'.
295
M a r tolekead, M a s s . , port of; Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
18T
M a r k e t valaae:
Difficulty of establishing value of consigned goods
491
What constitutes. (See also " Values "j
491
M a r t i a l , J J . d . , special agent:
Reply to inquiries to customs officials
334
Statement as to the origin an-d cost of special agent's force
274,282Marfljaaetie, MicSa., port of: Statement of collector a^ to reduction of force possible thereat
ISS'
M a x ^ v c l l , W . M . , examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
A.
757
M c C o a n a s , C t c o r g c M . , deputy coUector at Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to custoins
officials
r.
443
Mc€j u e , M o n . A . , Solicitor of the Treasury: Opinion with respect to shipment of passengers'
baggage . ..
.•
315
MeC)aalloeli, M o n . MugBat
Inquiry as to special agent's office at New York
..:
3,24
Letter'to commission of investigation of special agents at New York
24
Transmits to investigating committee charges against William Hussey
26, 28
^ Directing special agents to inquire into undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances,
drawbacks, and such other irregular practices
1
35
Directs investigation of statements of Deputy CoUector Bartram reflecting upon officers of
the Department
4, 5
M c M u l l e a a , JLevj^is, appraiser. New York:
Answer to inquiries to customs officials
".
62^
Answer to additional inquiries as to' custoras matters
''.
633
M c V i c a r , *0"aBMes ; Testimony concerning the appointment of merchant appraisers
82 .
M e a n p l a i s , Teiaaa., port of: Statem-:nt of surveyor concerning a reduction of force thereat.
18&
Merciaaaat a p p r a i s e r s :
Recommendations as to selection of
450,457
Importers sitting as, who havexthemselves failed to pay fuU amounts of duty on goods similar to those that are the subject of the reappraisement
491'
INDEX.
,
'883-
Page.
M e a ' c h a n t appraisers—Continued.
Recommendation that they be abolished
847
Selection of, limited to domestic manufacturers and receivers of consigned goods
216
Testimony concerning the selection of
^.
78
Members of consignment firms who appear habitually as appellants should be excluded
from selection as
76
Recommendation that the present method of selection of, should be continued
75
Importance of the selection of competent and fair-minded merchants to act on reappraisements
76
Complaint that doniestic manufacturers are usually appointed for reappraisement of imported goods
,
74
Report of siDccial agents concerning appointment of, at port of New York
75
Special agents report that doraestic manufacturers have not usually been appointed merchant appraisers on imported goods
44,75
Statement that merchants acting as such, sufi'er at the hands of commission houses
43 .
Tlie selection of... .•
74
Not unusual for them to be known to appealing parties
45
Known to declare what their decisions would be before a hearing was had
45
Propriety of selecting domestic manufacturers as . . .
76
MercBaaaats who furnish customs officials with statements as to valuation's, boycotted by
commission houses
43
Forbidden by agents of foreign shippers to disclose prices paid for goods
42
Mea'cBaaiadise": Value of, examined in the appraiser's department, New York
28^
Mea'CsSitBa CoaMaa-alssioaa : pTeference to the work of
550
M fldallcto waa, ^-oaaaa., port of: Statement of oollector as to reduction offeree possible thereat.
189
MilwaaBatce, W i s . , portof: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.
19(i
MilcBaeli, .Joflaaa ^g., appraiser, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
MolsiBe, A l a . : Statement of collector.as to reduction of force possible thereat
191
M o b i l e , A l a . : portof: Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials
'579
ModSiicatioaa o f d r a w b a c k r e g u l a t i o a a s by the Department
35 .
** Moiety^^ l a w .
Has the repeal of the, encouraged evasions of the customs laws ?
340, 348, 363, 373,377,383, 388,
390, 391, 406, 410, 420, 430, 435, 437, 449, 456, 477, 493, 504, 523, 527, 535, 54l, 545, 557, 558, 575, 588, 591,
604, 630, 635, 657, 658, 675, 688, 695, 698, 704, 728, 740, 767, 770, 817, 826, 829, 832, 837,847, 853, 861, 869>'
(See, also, "Evasions ofthe Customs Laws".)
The question of the desirability of its re-enactment.
435,437,449,493,525, 653
Its repeal gave rise to the " consignment" systera
340>
M o n a ' o c , IS. A . , deputy collector, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
470>
M o o r e , EUaaaiel «B"., assistant appraiser, NewYork: Answer to inquiries to cu'stoms officials.
688
M o r s e , TBaco. S&., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.:
776
Mortoaa, S . M . , surveyor, San Erancisco : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
.,.
841
MoseanasB, i n s p e c t o r :
His statement that he shared money e^btained from the smuggling Importers with Captain
Brackett
>
.
19
His connection with the "glass-eye case"
1>
9
Commission of investigation finds his statements about sharing money with Brackett to
be true
2G>
His stateraent concerning receipt of money from Barbour Flax-Spinning Company as a
bribe to give no publicity to their attempts to violate revenue laws
2i
n.
N a i l l , Meaary C , surveyor, Baltimore, Md.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
\ 458
IVaBBtaacket, M a s s . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.
192
NasBs vfllSc, Tenaa., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force possible thereat.
193
IVasoBB, J'oflBaa W . , examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
'
501
NatcBflcsB, M a s s . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force possible thereat-...
193
Naval'©fllcea* a t r'i'ew STork:
Repoi ts obstacles to his free communication with the appraiser
• 648
Differences between collector and636
Alleged general tendency to degiade that officer
,.
. 649
Neviaa, H). A . , special agent, New (Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
367
N e v y a r k , M. JT.. port of": Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
193
N e w ESedford, M a s s . , port of: Stateinent of collector as to reduction of force thereat
' 194
Newtofl^ryport, M a s s . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of fbrce thereat
194
N e w Sllaveaa, Coaaaa., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
195,196
N e w Q.^oBadoB2, Conaa., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
197
N e w CPrleaaas, B^a., port of:
Answer of ofiicials to inquiries to customs officials ...'..
58(5
Collector's suits at
584
Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat
,
20O
Stateraent of naval'officer as to reduction of force thereat
200
Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
• 198
Statement of special deputy collector as to reduction of force thereat
'199
N e w p o r t N e w s , V a . , i)ort of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force thereat
201
N e v r p o r t , 15. J . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
201
Ne'w Y o r k , ' N . IT., port of:
Collector's suits at
.•
j.
619
Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials
•.
584
. Stateraent of collector as to reduction of force thereat
203
Statement of the superintendent as to reduction of force thereat
-.
205
Stateraent of deputy collector as to reduction of force thereat
, 204
Stateraent of deputy coUectors as to reduction of force thereat204, 205, 206, 207
Statement of chief liquidating clerk as to reduction of force thereat
206
Sfatement of cashier as to reduction of force thereat
208
St atement of auditor as to reduction of force t h e r e a t ,
,
208
Statement of cashier as to reduction of force thereat
208
884
INDEX.
•
•
.
1
•
'
,
•,
^.
f l
.
•
•
•
.
Page.
. N e w Y o i ' k , N . Y , , port of—(/ontinued.
'
*
Statement of surveyor as to reducliou offeree thereat
Staternent of naval" officer as to reduction offeree thereat.
Statement of general appraiser as to reduction of force thereat
Examiuatiou of passengers'baggage at. (See "Baggage."),
The '.'Barge Office" investigation and results. (See "Barge Office.")
Collectors'"^suits at. (See "Collectors'suits.")
Inspection service at New York
Reduction of agency force at, recoramended.
. (See, also, "Commission of .Investigation at ")
""Norfolk, V a . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force thereat
" Now^ak, .B. A., examiner, Chicago: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
©.
^ OatSas;
209,212
213
215
-.
^
31
21b
363
'
'
"
y
As to values of shipments
,341
Substitution^of declarations for, recommended
./
'
867
" OatDas, caastoBai-BaoBBse; Levity with which they are regarded by the importing public . . . . .
^
631
'^4>atSa8 t o i n v o i c e d e c l a r a t i o n s (see also "Declarations")
341,346,347,348,350,352,353,354,
358,391,604
V
Amounts paid for, exceeds salaries of consuls
358
In Great Britain
,
346
\
Prosecution for perjury in making
347, 350
[
Amounts paid for
:
352,353
'
Inquir.y as to
352
Consular officers sharin.s in fees for (see^ also, '' Consular Officers ")
354
Declarations—to whom fee for, is paid
348, 354
Fee charged for
348
Origin of the custora of taking, in Great Britain
i
348
^ OgdcBistPttBrgla, N . Y . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force thereat
219
® i l p a i a n t i n g aaad s t a t u a r y : Reduction of rates of duty are recommended
821
©Ifcate o f s o d a or, " Alizarine assistant:" Assessment of duty upon
34
^^jaaalaa, I^clba'., portof: Statementof survey or as to reduction thereat
219
^^sw^ego, N . Y . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force thereat
220
® v e r v a l a a a t i o n s at the port of Baltimore
444
.
• •
I » .
T r a c k a g e s . Representative, not sent to the public.stores, as the law provides
607
a ' a s s e a a g e r s ' b a g g a g e , examination of, at" New York (see also "Baggage of Passengers,?
and " Barge Office*^')
^28
Scandals concerning the inspection of
'.
328
"
^
Correspondence of the Secretary of the Treasury with coUector and United States attoruf'y at New York, regarding..
....'.
328-330
B*earsoaa, Adomii'aam «lf., examiner, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
784
ff'enalty l i i n i t : Reluctance of appraisers to advance values to
^.. 46,417
V e a a s a c o l a , F l a . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
224
I P e r h a n a , S i d n e y , assistant appraiser, Portland, Me.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
:
:
'
830
' . P e r j u r y in making oath to invoice declarations. Can it be punished ?
347,350
. l^cra'y, Andre^^v J".':
, T'estimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers . . : . . . ,
84
General appraiser, New York. Statement of, concerning undervaluations, consignments,
,
reappraisements, values, &c..'.
216
IPersoaaal e f f e c t s ; Limitation of the free importation of, recommended
866
IPertIa Aantooy, N . J . , port of: Statement of collector aa to reduction of force possible a t . . . .
225
ff»kilade]lplBia, port of:
.
•
Answer of officials to inquiries to custom officials
•
800
Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
'.
225
Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force thereat
226
Statement of appraiser as to reduction of force thereat
228
IPackBaardt &; SiutttraflT: Complaintof delay in the passing of importations
34
PaaakHaaaaa, C . M . , examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
509
PittstoairgBa, ff*a., port of: Statement of surveyor as to reduction of force thereat
230
a?lattstoBflrg, N . Y., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction pf force thereat
230
P o l a a ' i s c o p e : Classification of sugar for duty by means of
126
I P o l a r i s c o p i c t e s t s for sugar
507
, P o r t Maaroaa, port of:
*
'
^
Answer of collector to inquiries to customs officials
828
Statement of coUector as to reduction of. force possible thereat
234
JJPortlaimel, M e . , port of:
Answer of officials to inquiries to custotns officials
828
Statemeut of coUector as to reduction of force posisible thereat
234
Statement of appraiser as toxeduction of force thereat
238
P o r t l a n d , O r e g . , port of: Statem^at of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat..,
238
l^ortsanoMtBa, N. M . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.
239
P o r t T o w a a s e n d , port of:
Answer of officials to inquiries to customs officials
,
831
Stateraentof collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
240
, P o t 4 e r , W . .E., examiner, l« ew York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
!J
755
P o w e r , aHaanes !>., speciai agent, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
409
P r a t t , M, W . , examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
712
P r o f e s s i o a a a l w a r d r o b e s : Frauds in the passing of, at New York
728
P r o f o r m a invoices
64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 111, 591, 67.5, 824
Abuses resulting therefrom
64
Abuses resulting therefrom have their origin in the opinion of the Attorney-G enerax (October 4, 1878)
i
-..
65
Carelessness in respect to valuations for entry under, at Boston
- 111
Improper and fraudulent use of
.*
68
Importers make entries by, for'the purpose of experimenting with appraisers
675
INDEX.
'
,
885
Page. •
P r o ifornia ina voices—Continued.
^
• ,
Interests ofthe revenue put in jeopardy by
1
'.
-.
69
T'heir advantage to tho shipper who consigns his goods below their market value
6,6
The number of, increased by passa,ge of "Anti-Moiety law "
591
Undervaluations and frauds snccessfully carried on under
"
67
Report of Commis-sioner upou
64
P r i c e p a i d v s . (Dost of—
Difierence between, in deterraining dutiable values
338, 347
P r o t e s t s asad a p p e a l s : Law and regulations iu regard to
602,012, 629, 638, 656, 768,858
Provaaleaace, Jffi. S., port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible
thereat
243
P u M i c c a r t a g e of merchandise: Irregularities' in
'..
606
(See also " Cartage.")
PuBB ask anent ©f persons engaged in violations of the revenue laws: Failure to secure
365, 370,
381, 384, 394, 413, 421, 428, 455,487, 498, 506, 528, 546, 561, 577, 592,"605, 631,705,865
K.
. , ^
K a t e s o f daatty:
Are high rates of duty productive of evasions of tbe revenue laws ?
331, 342, 344, 365, 370,380,
384, 394, 413, 421, 428, 432, 445, 467, 472, 477, 484, 488,494, 498, 503, 506,. 508, 511, 514, 517,' 520, 524, 528,
529, 535, 539, 541, 545, 500, 570, 572, 577, 578, 592, 605, 631, 644, 640, 659, 665, 688, 707, 730, 768, 781, 803,
815,821,826,830,847,848,854,864.
FaUure to collect full
335, 360, 367, 371, 381, 385, 386, 395,402, 407,409,416, 419, 422, 424, 429, 434, 438,
489, 490,495, 507, 508, 522, 527, 540, 543, 547, 549, 553, 567, 589, 600, 601, 603, 029, 635, 636, 655, 663, 679,
684, 703, 709, 710,712, 716, 719, 722, 725. 732, 749, 754, 766,793, 817, 822, 823, 835, 839.
Insufficieut assessment of, often occurs without detection
334
Recommendation of simplification of method of assessing
483
I S e a p p r a a s a a n g Eaoards s Functions of
98
ISeappraaseaaaeaBts
43,44, 45, 53, 74,76,98, 99, 217, 382,388,398,'491, 633, 657,680,823,835
Practical result of present system of
...^
:
45
Originarfinding often modified upon protest and reargument by importer
' 45
Irregularities in
45,337,750
Return to old methods of, recommended
^'
45
Failures of appraisers to sustain action of examiners in advancing invoices
:...
45
Recommendationthatsucceedingnewappraiseraeutsshouldnotbemadetocorrespondwith.
53
Custom-house brokers and attorneys at law not entitled to appear before appraisers on behalf of importers in reappraisements
99
Statement of witnesses should be taken in the presence of official persons only
99
Information as to values obtamed in reappraisements by appraising officers not public
property... .
'
99
No authority for the public examination of witnesses called by appraisers
98
Concerning practice of, at New York
1
98
Thelaw of, explained...
98
Instructions of Secretary to United States general appraiser, relative to
98
No justification for treating such as trials in courts of law
.'
98
Disinclination of reappraising boards to advance values to " penalty limits "
76
Difficult y of arriving at proper conclusions in regard to
76
Want of uniformity in
, 651
Boycotting of merchants who give honest evidence to appraisers as to undervaluation
43
The results of the present system of
217
Tho anomaly presented by the present system of
217
Difficulty in getting known honest persous as merchant appraisers
216
Statement concerning, by General Appraiser Perry, New York .«
216
Investigation into, directed by Secretary of the Treasury
1
74
H e c a l i o f an v o i c e s " for further consideration "
51,52, 53, 54
Danger of the practice as at present carried on
54
Invoices should not be recalled or values reduced upon examination of samples
53
KeaBaactioaa in co3t of customs service
129,270, 273
Directions to custoras officials to report concerning possible
129 .
£Sefund o f daaties; Recomraendation that it be reduced to a minimum ih all cases
' 865
Egemscaa, A . €w., examiner, New York: Answer toinquiries to customs officials
758
K e p o r t s ©f ewaainaissa©BBS. (See "Commissions.")
lSetaai!fiaed b a g s j No duties ever paid thereon
37
JESeiturBis o f examaaaaattioan and lading of exported bags: Irregularities iu
36
ICcveaaaae l a w s : Qfienses against, encouraged by Anti-Moiety act. (See "Moiety act.")
iSBaodcs, @. W . C , exarainer, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
519
^kiciaardsoBa, I S . : Testimony concerning the selection of merchant appraisers .'.
85
ISiclaanoaad, V a . , port of: Statem'ent of collector as to reduction of force thereat
244
K i d e r , McBBry IVI., examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials...,.
734
M a g n e y , ISober't, exarainer, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
778
K o b e r t s o a a , W i l l i a n n M.,, collector of the port of New York:
Testimony concerning the ^selection of merchant appraisers . . . . . .
87
Transmits communication 'from J. H. Starin relative to Barge Office
:
303
Additional report concerning the Barge Office
'.
f 301
States reasons why there should notbe aii extended inquiry into the management of the
Barge Office at New York
294
Letter to .Eon.. Charles J . Folger, Seciretary of the Treasury, in respect to the pro forma
invoice s.vstem as a danger to the revenue
.*....
•.. , • 594
Rokiaasoaa, J". M . , Actiug Solicitor of the Treasury : Refuses to approve the transfer of the
Barge Office bagaage contract
292
ISocBacstcr, N , Y . : Stateraent of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat.'.
244
Kocii^vcifl, Caiaadeao ©,, deputy collector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs
officials
676
SSoot, HJ. S. A t t o r n e y : .His statement to the special agents rcgardin^^ laxity on the part of
. tho customs officers
.:
r
32
Calls- attention of special agents to collusions between customs officers and smugglers.....
32
H o w e , E d w a r d , assistant appraiser. New York: Answer to inquiries to custom's'officials.
699
886
INDEX.
Pago.
@aco. M e . , port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
245
S a g M a r b o r , N . Y., port of: Statement of coUector aa to reduction of force possible thereat.
246
S a l e n a , M a s s . , port of: Statement of coUector as to reduction of force possible thereat
246
Saaiaplc ISaia'eana at Washington: Recommendation of the establishing of a
552
SainpsoBa, JfoBan A., examiner, San Francisco: Answei^to inquiries to customs officials
85S
Saaa I>ieg®, €aD., port of: Statement of collector^as to reduction of,force possible thereat..
247
SaaadaasBsy, ©laio, port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible t h e r e a t . .
248
@an BJi'raBaeisco, C a l . , port of:
.
Answer of coUector to inquiries to customs officials
852
Statement of collector as to reduction of force possible thereat
249
Statement of naval officer as to reduction of force possible thereat
251
S a n g e r , C t c o r g e B . , United States district attornev, Boston: Answer to circular to customs
officials
•".
".
473
Saaaiaders, T . IS., deputy commissioner of navigation, Washington: Answer to inquiries ^
to customs officials
-.
857
Savamnafia, ^ a . , port of: Statement of collector as to reductionof force possible thereat-..
251
Scaanaaa, <Keorge € . T . , examiner, New York: Answers to inquiries to customs officers..
779
Seca'Ctary ®f tflae T r e a s a a i ' y . (See "Manning, Hon. Daniel.")
SeiziBi'es;
'
"
'
,
• Additionalduties accepted in lieu of
41
Waiving of, by collectors
,
41
SBaavr, W^^. S J . , examiner, Baltimore: Answers to inquiries to customs officials
463
SSacrea', ISd^vaa'd, examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
754
SBaerer, J'ofiaBa A , , examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials780
SMpamaaa, .laadge, refi'ectsupon themanagementof theofficeof special agents atNewYork3
ShipBaBeaats o f laaea'cla aaad i s e f o r d r a w b a c k eaatry; Irregularities iu
•..
36
Allowed upon insnection orders in advance of entry
36
Silks;
Canuot be bought for cash in foreign markets for importation into the United States
40
Estimate of ampunt of undervaluation of
338
Failure to collect the duty (see also "Rates of Dutv")- •-,
-490
Merchandise composed iii part of, improperly entered
147
No iraportations except upon consignment
216
Sold iu this country by manufacturers' agents below cost price to American merchants...
549
Undervaluations of.-.
'
330,338,410,497,525,545,568,635,825,864
SiDBBplifflcatioBa of work in the examinatiou of merchandise
:
151
Siaanott, IS., surveyor, New Orleans: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
,
i....
582
S i t k a , A l a s k a , port of: Statement of collector as to the reduction of force possibie thereat.
258'
SaaaalEey, K. IS., coUector, Burlington, Vt.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
"...
540
SnnatBa, A . JL., examiner, 'New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials .!
720
SanatBa, (Daleb A., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
498
SanitDt, flSodaaey, examiner, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to custoras officials
702
SnaaogglSnag : (see also ''Rates of Duty ") 395,397, 538
Of cigars and mescal
538
'Loose definition of wearing apparel for free entry a cafise of
488
Steamship companies assert that their eflbrts to "stop smuggling by their employes are not
supported by custoras officers
30
Solicit©a'®f tflae Trcasaaa^y:
Starin's protest a.gainst the termination of his contract referred to the
324
Opinion in regard'to the termination of the Barge-Office contract —
326
SoDBle, Claaa'les S., examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
494
^©Mtlawoa'tBa, Meaaa'y.C/., exarainer, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials...
^ 743
S p a u M i n g , ® . J.J., special agent, San Francisco:
"
" *
Answer to inquiries to ciistoms officials
:
'..
418
Appointed member of commission to investigate reappraisements at New York . .=.
74
Directed to investigate undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, drawbacks, and
other irregularities practiced at the port of New York
.•
' 33
' Suggests au investigation into undervaluations, damage, allowances, and drawbacks
32
SpaaoldaaBg, 'iracEBeBa®r,aaBd T i n g l e , special agents, appointed a commission to investigate
special agents at New York
".
3
©pecial ageaats:
How the service was established
274
Force established by acf of 1799
274
Highest number of persons employed as, at-one time
. 282
Annual cost of
274
Payments for salary and expenses to persons employed as, from 1860 to 1869
285
Salaries and exponses of, frora 1861 to 1869.'
282
Statements of all payments to persona employed as, from 1869 to 1885
286
Annual expenses of' force for the past five years
"
286*
Nuraber and cost of,in 1870
:
274
Number, corapensation, and expenses frora 1871 to 1885
c273
Names, locations, expenses, and aUowances of, during the fiscal year ending J u n e 30,1885.
280
N"arae, date of payment, station, salary, expenses, &c., of, during fiscal year 1885
....
280
List of, in service December, 1885
'.
.'
286
• Estimated cost of present force
:
286 *
Discrepancies between stateraent of Coraraissioner of Customs as to, and the records of
the appointment division
284
List of, does not include persons appointed temporarily during the war of the rebellion
to serve as coUectors, <fcc., iu the South
284
Additional stateraent concerning the payment, number, compensation, and aUowances of..
282
Heduction in cost of
274
Since 1860 have reported directly to the Department
'
,
279
Department clerks detailed as
284
Paid from various appropriations
282
Employed on the frontier to prevent smuggling
x.
283
Expenses of, sometimes larger than the salaries
283
Appoiuted for short terms
283
INDEX.
^
^
. '
•
.
887
'
Page.
S p e c i a l agents—Continued.
S^rve a s c o t t o n a g e n t s
'..
280
A s d e t e c t i v e s in c u s t o m s cases
593
S e r v e a s c u s t o d i a n s of p u b l i c p r o p e r t y
283
P e r s o n s a p p o i n t e d as, w i t h o u t definite corapensation
'.
284
C h a r g e s t h a t false r e p o r t s a s t o c u s t o m s b u s i n e s s h a v e b e e n m a d e b y . ^
681
C h a r g e t h a t t h e y influence a d v a n c e m e n t of v a l u e s w i t h o u t w a r r a n t of fact
687
C o m p l a i n t of t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h special a g e n t s a n d o t h e r c u s t o m s officers h a v e t r e a t e d
information given thera respecting undervaluations
.'
32, 33
Customs districts examined and reductions recomraended by
273
' • E v i d e n c e f u r n i s h e d by, n o t t o b e i m p l i c i t l y relied on
!
702,726
A t N e w Y o r k , f a i l u r e s t o r e p o r t i n v o i c e s iipon w h i c h d u t i e s w e r e r e c o v e r a b l e
15
. Investigation into undervaluations, damage, allowances, and d r a w b a c k
32
I n v e s t i g a t i o n b y , i n t o g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e c u s t o m s s e r v i c e
1... t
100
I n s t r u c t i o n s to a g e n t s a s t o e x a m i n i n g condition of c u s t o m s s e r v i c e . , ,
100
I m p o r t a n c e of h a v i n g t h e m a c t i h c o n s t a n t s u p p o i t of t h e e x a m i n e r s
766 ^
C h a r g e t h a t t h e y m a k e g r o u n d l e s s claims, a g a i n s t i m p o r t e r s
21
Opinion in c u s t o m s m a t t e r s said t o b e u n r e l i a b l e
'
769
S t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e v e n a l i t y a n d b l a c k m a i l i n g p r o c l i v i t i e s of s p e c i a l a g e n t s m a d e t h e '
" M o i e t y " act u n p o p u l a r . . . .
'.
•
'
657
Should not resort to detective methods
:
,
23
T a k e extreme views as a rule
824
' S p e c i a l A g e n t s , C©BaBBBDissB®ras ©f:
R e p o r t on d a m a g e a l l o w a n c e s
\
57, 59, 60
R e c o m m e n d r e p e a l of l a w p e r m i t t i n g a l l o w a n c e s for d a m a g e
..)..
60
R e p o r t on u n d e r v a l u a t i o n of erabroideries
^
61
R e p o r t u p o n d r a w b a c k on b a g s
'
'.
54
R e c o m n i e n d r e t u r n i n g t o old m e t h o d s - o f r e a p p r a i s e m e n t s
'..
45
R e p o r t u p o n p r a c t i c e of r e c a l l i n g invoices '' for f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n "
51
Recommends t h a t importer should not be permitted to w i t h d r a w invoices pending reapp r a i s e m e n t w i t h o u t c o n s e n t of t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e T r e a s u r y
52
R e p o r t u p o n d r a w b a c k on coal
'
,
56,77
R e p o r t u p o n e x p o r t a t i o n s of s u g a r for d r a w b a c k
'
55, 56
R e p o r t on d r a w b a c k s u p o n e x p o r t e d b o o k s
.-.
.'
....
34
R e p o r t on u n d e r v a l u a t i o n
'
\ .:
40
S p e c i a l A t t o r n e y s : Recommenda,tion for t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of, for d u t y i n t r i a l of coUectors'
suits
490
Speeial Inspectors:
. . L i s t of, in service D e c e m b e r , 1885286*
E s t i m a t e of c o s t of p r e s e n t force
'.
286*
S p e c i a l J t a r i e s ; N e e d e d to t r y s u i t s a g a i n s t collectors. (See also " T r i b u n a l , A N e w . " )
437
S p e c i f i c ancB a d v a l o a ' c a n r a t e s ©f claaty: R e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e s of, in t h e coUection o f t h e
revenne
340, 363, 376, 390, 405, 417, 420, 426,430, 435, 437,440, 444,448,456,459, 461, 462, 465,467,
469,477,479, 486, 492,498, 504, 508, 510, 517, 518, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 531, 532. 533, 539, 541, 543,
544, 556, 563, 564, 566, 509, 572, 574, 575, 578, 580, 581, 582, 587, 591, 637, 642, 647, 657, 668, 674, 683, 687,
691, 695, 698, 700, 701, 703, 706, 708, 714, 718, 720, 721, 722, 723,728, 734, 736, 737, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745,
i
752, 755, 756, 757,758, 760, 763, 767, 770, 774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802,.811, 814, 815, 817, 819,
821, 825, 830, 834, 836, 840, 847, 848, 851, 854, 855, 859, 860
S p e c i f i c B ' a t c s ©f d u t y ;
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s in favor of 42,46,437,440, 444. 448,456,459, 461,462,465,467,469,477, 479, 486,
495, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 508, 510, 514, 517, 518, 522, 550, 520, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 531, 532,
533, 539, 541, 543, 544, 550, 563, 564, 566, 569, 574, 581, 582, 586, 587, 591, 630, 637, 642, 643, 644, 645, 647,
654, 657, 666, 674, 677, 683, 706, 714, 718, 720, 721, 722. 723, 728, 734, 736,737, 740, 745, 755, 756, 758, 760,
. 774, 777, 782, 787, 790, 796, 797, 800, 802, 814, 815, 817, 821, 834, 836, 840, 847, 848, 851
'"
R e c o m r a e n d e d as a p r e v e n t i v e of b r i b e r y
500
S p e c i f i c r a t e s ®f d n t y :
, T h e only successful m e a n s of d e f e a t i n g u n d e r v a l u a t i o n s
821, 836
H o w t h e y c a n be e v a d e d
335
S p e c i f i c i a a v © i c e s : U n d e r v a l u a t i o n of
41
S t a r i n , . 1 . I I . (See B a r g e Office.)
S t e a a a a s f o i p c o a a a p a a a a e s a s s e r t t h a t t h e i r efibrts t o s t o p s m u g g l i n g b y t h e i r e m p l o y e s a r e
n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e c u s t o r a s officials
'.
30
S t e r l a a a g , A . , United States district attorney, B a l t i m o r e : A n s w e r s to inquiries to customs
Officials
",
,430
S t e v e a a s , C A . , a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r . N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials . . .
682
S t o a i i n g t o i a , C o n a a . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force t h e r e a t
259
S t o t t , i J l n a a ' i e s IE,, a s s i s t a n t a p p r a i s e r : A n s w e r t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
70L
S t . I.<OBBas, poi't of^—
, A n s w e r of .surveyor t o i n q u i r i e s t o c u s t o m s officials
.'
832
S t a t e m e n t o f ' s u r v e y o r as t o r e d u c t i o n of force t h e r e a t
253
S t . M a r y ^ s , ( K a . , p o i t of: S t a t e r a e n t of collector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force t h e r e a t
.256
S t . V a a i c e a a t , M i n n . , p o r t of: S t a t e m e n t of collector a s t o r e d u c t i o n of force t h e r e a t
257
S t u r g e s , l > a v i d €;., assistant appraiser, N e w Y o r k : A n s w e r to inquiries t o customs
officials
69:?
Sasgars:,
T)lassification of, b y u s e of p o l a r i s c o p e
126,776
F r a u d s in t h e w e i g h i n g of
670
I r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e t e s t i n g a n d w e i g h i n g of
°.
396, 397
I r r e . a u l a r i t i e s i n t h e w e i g h i n g of
'.. i
674
M e t h o d of sampUn.^, modifications s u g g e s t e d
229
F r a u d in t h e s a m p l i n g of
719
. T h e classificatiohv\)f d u t i e s u p o n
507
Coraplaint of low r a t e s of d u t y on, a t N e w Y o r k
'
.,
507
S a a i t s a g a a a a s t C o l l e c t o r s (see C o l l e c t o r s ' suits) p e n d i n g i n U n i t e d S t a t e s c o u r t s a t PhUa- .
delphia
414
SBBxts foa' f o r f e i t e a a ' e : C o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h J u s t i c e B l a t c h f o r d c o n c e r n i n g
•
869
S B o r v e y o i ' o f C a s s t o n i s : R e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t h e b e a u t h o r i z e d t o s c r u t i n i z e p e r m i t s for
d e l i v e r y of i n e r c h a n d i s e
-.
484
888
INDEX.
S n s p e n s i o n B r i d g e , N . ' y . , Portof:
Answerof CoUector toinquiries to customs officials.... J
Statement of Collector as to reduction offeree thereat.
S w i f t , J o i h n SJ., Deputy Collector, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
•'
. T ,
•
,
Paget
854
259"
482
•
T a g g a r t , F r a n c i s SS., Exarainei', Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials.'
816 '
T a p p a h a n a a o c k , V a . , Port of: Statement of Colle'ctor as to reduction of force' ttereat
261
Taa'ifif: Remedial laws needed for the enforcement of
•
46T e s t s of invoice measurements (see also " TextUe fabrics ")
331
Textile fabrics:
The verification of invoiced measurements of, how managed at the several ports
331, 335, 360,
, 367, 372, 382, 386,402, 408, 417,419, 422,453, 406, 468,477, 479, 485, 489, 495,496, 521, 524, 526, 531, 536,
538, 540,, 543, 550, 563, 565, 567, 571, 573, 578, 580, 581, 583, 58.5, 589, 629, 655, 604, 670, 673, 678, 684, 697,
708.713, 710, 723, 724,731,735, 739,741, 742, 745, 762,768,772, 788, 802, 809,813, 816, 822, 828, 830, 832,
835,840,849,854.
Recommendation of raore thorough system of invoice measurements of
585T&efts,of merchandise from iiublic stores: Persons suspected of, said to have been promoted
in the Appraiser's Dopartment
^
.•
,
-.-'
21
TBa©BHas©Ba, l^VilliaQra off., Examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to cnstoms officers ..'
792
T i c h e n o r , d e o r g e C , Special Agent:
Appointed member of comraission to investigate reappraisements at New York
74
Directed to investigate undeiwaluations, fraudulent damage, aUowances, drawbacks, and
other irregularities practiced at the Port of New York
33
Suggests an investigation into undervaluations, damage allowances, and drawback
32
Report as to participation of consular officers in fee paid for oaths to invoice declaration..
356
Statement as to tho origin and cost of Special A gents' force
:
•.
274,282
T i c l a e n o r , T i n g l e , anfll Spans I d i n g , Special Agents: Appointed a commission to investigate Special Agents at New York . . . .^
:
3
T i n g l e , A . S i . , Special Agent:.
Appointed member of commission to investigate rea,ppraisement at New York
74
Charges against him by Deputy CoUector Bartram
.•
6
Directed to investigate undervaluations, fraudulent damage allowances, drawbacks, and
other irregularities practiced at the Port of New York
33
Reply to inquiriesito customs officials
\...
334
Statement concerning obstacles to j u s t appraisements of silks
5Statements as to an understanding among firms receiving consignments, for mutual protection against advances involving penal duties
5
Statement concerning merchant appraisers
4
Statement regarding undervaluation of silks
4
T o l e d o , ©M©, E*©rt ©f: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
262
T©nnlimsoBa, S. S., Examiner, PhUadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
8lT
T o w n s e n d , Ciaaa*les Sfl., Examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials..
798^
T o w a a s e n d , W . I S . , Examiner, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
783T r a f t © n , JS. W . , Examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
524*
T r a B a s p o r t a t a © n , C©st ©f: As an element of dutiable value
, 50O
T r e l o a r , oSosepia, Chief Clerk, New York:
Answer to inquiries tq custoras officials
589>
Answer to additional inquiries to, on customs matters
600
Memorandum as to necessity for stringent laws in regard to collection of revenue taxes.. " 596
Letter to Hon. William Windom, Secretary of the Treasury, as to disputed questions under the tariff laws
.--..
593;
T r e n t o a a , N . «S., ff*©rt ©f; Statement of Collector as to reduction of force theyeat
263
T r i b u n a l , A ' n e ^ v : To try suits aigainst Collectors; the necessity for
429,434,437,438,439,444,
446,454, 462, 468, 475, 477,496, 512, 522, 544, 548, 552, 568, 573, 581, 584, 603, 614, 639, 656, 685, 697, 716,
725,741, 760, 769,79.8, 810, 833, 838, 840, 850, 858.
T u c k e r t o n , N . J . , ff'ort ®f: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat
26SJ.
Undervaluations
4, 23, 33, 336,337, 347,348,362,368, 369,371, 372,373, 375, 382, 383, 387,388,389,.
390, 395; 403, 409,410, 411,417, 420,424, 425,426,429, 444, 447,448, 461, 477, 490, 496, 499, 500, 513, 523,
534, 538, 540, 554, 555, 556, 562,-568, 574, 587, 590, 604, 629, 630, 633, 634, 649, 657, 666, 685, 687, 694, 697,
706.714, 720, 766, 767, 770, 799, 800, 823, 825, 833, 835, 836, 840, 847, 850, 859, 864
History of the growth of, in the United States
^
375
Estimated loss of revenue by
1
,.
405
Investigations into, at New York
32, 33
Reports on, by Special Agents
80, 89
Statement concerning, by General Appraiser Perry, New York
216
. List of most important articles unde.ivalued
^
,344
Reasons for failure of Appraising officers to act upon evidence of . .
336More extensive at New York than elsewhere
:
342
Legislation needed to suppress
'46
Specific duties recoramended as a remedy for (see also "Specific Duties") .-.'
42,46,50O
s "The prosecution of, in court
860
Eflect of the repeal of the " Moiety Act." on prosecutions for
. 867
Cooperation of appraising officers in suppression of. requested by the Department
Od
Difficulties in the suppression of
89
Habitual by certain iraporters. Suggestions as to the treatment of such
41
Foreign shippevs and New York agents do uot regard as unlawful.
41
General practice of, frankly admitted by^agents of foreign shippers
42
Statement by appraising otficers that 90 per cent, of imported silks are intentionally undervalued on entry
,
'
• 51
y Due to faults of administration
...
'
46Practice of, encouraged by disposition of appraisers to shield unporters from legal conse^
quences of
45
INDEX.
889
Undervaliaations—Continued.
Excessive consignments from Europe, invited by facility with which undervalued invoices
are passed
:
,
Silk goods as a rule undervalued
•
.•
U n d e a ' w o o d , A d i n 18., surveyor, Boston Mass.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials..
•
V.
Page.
46
89
487
.
Valaies':
'
'
Difficulty of obtaining evidence as to,actual market Maine
216,336
Suggestions as to method of obtaining true market values
' 337
Consignees and their business friends virtuaUy fix the market value
.'
45
Falaaes, B>MtiaMe:'
.> '
Confusion in the minds of customs officials as to proper methods of
fixing
338, 347, .
361, 368, 375, 383, 389, 4Q4,424, 439, 444, 455, 462, 469, 477, 486, 491, 497, 504, 509, 516, 520, 525, 529, 530,
534, 536, 538, 544, 554, 563, 569, 571, 587, 603, 629, 640, 664, 671, 687, 693, 701, 704, 700, 716, 720, 723, 720,
730, 734, 738, 739, 743, 745, 746, 762, 767, 769, 772, 777, 788, 791, 796, 800, 810,817, 818, 833, 835, 840, 845,
850,853, 859,
The question of the interference of the executive or judicial department in the ascertainment of, by the coUectors
364, 377, 384, 392,407,412,418,427,431,457, 459, 467,470,477,481, 483,
491, 493, 496, 497, 501, 502, 505, 511, 520, 523, 529, 545, 559, 566, 570, 576, 580, 581, 582, 592, 605, 631, 640,
645, 658, 665, 672, 681, 683, 688, 695, 698, 707, 709, 714, 718, 720, 728, 730, 735, 737, 742, 743, 758, 701, 768,
783, 791, 799, 817," 819, 826, 829, 830, 834, 838, 841, 847, 848, 851, 861
Elements of... .338, 447, 500, 503, 516, 554, 569, 58(J, 589, 600, 603, 605,640, 641, 686, 705, 700, 707, 716, 721, 723,
726, 734, 737, 738, 739, 743, 752, 762, 767,769, 772, 788, 791, 796, 800, 810,817, 818, 824, 829, 833,' 835, 840, '
/
850,853,859. (See, also, "Coverings.")
Distinction between " m a r k e t " values and
..i
.'
493
Difference between "invoice," "entry," " m a r k e t " and
640
Values, m a r k e t :
What constitutes?
'.
,
824
Faluattaoaas:
•
,
.
Concealment of actual foreign market value a feature of the consignment system
40
, Home valuations concealed from appraisingjofficers as far ^s practicable
41
Ascertainment of, on reappraisement, iii.fluenced by the consideration ofa " peualty " . . . . j . .
46
Reports of Government experts iu foreign places as to-.
217
Vmlentiaae, Jf ©fian 5£., United States Attorney, Philadelphia: Answer to inquiries to customs
officials
803
V i c k s b u r g , M i s s . , Port of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
263
W.
W a i n W r i g h t , ,S. SS., examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
747
' W a l d © b o r © ' , M e . , jjort of: Statement of collector as to reduction of force thereat
264
W a l e s , JB5. M,, examiner, Boston-: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
526
WallrotSa. F r e d . :
Charges irregularities iu the importation of tin plates at New York
,
4
Charges against special agenta concerning irregularities in the importation of tin plates and
the nonpayment of income tax
—
12'
W a r d , W i l l i a a a i SS., examiner. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
712
Watson°Crirdw©od linen case:
^
Investigation ordered
;
.,
3
Statements of facts by the commission appointed to investigate it
13
Girdwood's statement that he was told by Brackett that the special agent's office received
a poition of money paid to customs brokers for his services in the matter
17
Wats©BB, €rardw©od & C o . ' s goods held for mouths by the customs authorities without
furnishing reason
;
18
W e a r i a a g a p p a r e l : Loose definition of, a cause of smuggling
.-.---:•488
Weto.^tcr, TJ^cHviia SS., col Irctor at Baltimore: Answer to inquiries to customs officials..--.
• 434
W e l c k , JTaines E . , exarainer, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
708
WelSingtoaa, CiJeoa'ge W., examiner, Boston, Mass.: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
533
Weigiaiaag:
.^ '
Irregularities in, at New York
:
335
/ Collusion between weighers and importers
1
355
Irregularities in, conducive to false invoices
333
Recommendation that it be done under direction of Appraiser rather than of Collector
558
Weiglaiaag W e p a r t a n e m t a t N e w Y © r k : Radical reorganization of, recominended
' 637
Weigfiaers: Illegal fees exacted from importers by
335
WeigBaiaag a n d Baaeasaarimg, The character of, at the several ports i -.. 335,368, 372, 386, 387, 397,403,
409,4l7,418, 419, 439, 443, 458, 468, 485, 488, 489, 507, 512, 521, 536, 543, 547, 548, 550, 551, 567,-580, 581,
585, 589, 601, 637, 649, 655, 673, 713, 802, 818, 828, 829, 835, 840, 841,.845, 858.
W k a r f exaBninattioms ©f k a g g a g c :
No law for
.•
'592
Recommendation concerning system of
-.
120
W l a e e l e r , I S . S., examiner, Chicago: -Answer to inquiries to customs officials
564
W k e e i i a a g , W . V a . , Port of: Statement of Surveyor as to reduction of tbrce thereat
. 265
W k a t c , Kdwaaa ED., Examiner, Bcston: Answer toinquiries to customs officials
503
W k i t e k e a d , C^eorge W . , Special Agent, Suspension Bridge, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to
customs officials
.'.
'
'416
WSaataaeyi Cfiaarles M . , Surveyor, Saint Louis : Answer to inquiries to customs officials . -.
832
WackBaanM, Assistant Appraiser at New York : Charges against
,..
32
WilllaBBas, "Willianaa M . B Special Agent, Cincinnati: Answer to inquiries to customs
officials
'.
•
»
•
^429
^Villiaaaas, N . ^ . , Deputy CoUector, New York: Answer to inquiries to customs, officials -..
673
WalBaaea', WaJRaaae M,, N'aval Officer at Baltimore; Answer to inquiries to custoras officials.
438
Wilsoaa, (ajJeojfg© S3., Examiner, New York : Answer to inquiries to customs officials
738
2
8,90
. INDEX.
Page.
Wiliniaagt©ai, Ca'l., Port of: Stiitement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat
266
%VilaniBBgton, S>el., Port of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat
268
W i l a n i a a g t o n , N . C , Port of: Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat.'.
268
W i a i s l o w , IVoi'ris, Special Employ6, Ogdensburg, N. Y.: Answer to inquiries to "customs
officials
L
»
421
W i s c a s s e t , M e . : Statement of Collector as to reduction of force thereat
269
W i s w a l l , J . C , examiner. United States: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
795
W o o l , the rate of duty on
365,378,392,418,421,427,431,441,451,
457, 470, 471,477, 481,483, 493, 505, 537, 559, 564, 57(», 646, 681,717,730, 743, 785, 801, 830, 851, 856, 861
Effect of present tariff on that industry
'
.431,432, 433
Statement as to the various manufactures of
452
Undervaluations of
396,410
'
False entries of
^.'.
396
Decision that where there is a value for foreign market and another for home market the
lower must be taken as a basis Ibr the assessment of duties
'.
375
Appraisement of, at Philadelphia
s 339 ^
Improper classification of
340
Scoured and Washed
i
126
W o r t l i i n g t o a i , I&©iand, collector, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
468
W r i g k t , F r e e l R . , deputy collector, New York: Answer toinquiries to customs.officials . .
667
W y m a n , ffl». F . , deputy collector. New York: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
668
ITost, S>anacl Z . , assiststot appraiser, San Francisco: Answer to inquiries to customs
officials
.
I T o u n g , JP. A m b r o s e , examiner, Boston: Answer to inquiries to customs officials
839
499
@FedFRASER