The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ANNUAL
REPOET
OJ THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
STATE OF THE FINANCES
THE
YEA^R 1886.
m . T W O VOLUMES.
VOLUME
II:
COLLECTION OF DUTIES,
.
WASHINGTON:
GOVEENMENT P E I N T I N G O F F I C E .
1886.
REPORT
pF THE
'SECRETARY OF TEE TREASURY
ON THE
COLLECTION OF DUTIES.
TREASURY
DEPARTMENT,
Document No, 883, 3d ed.
Secretary.
^
^so
'COISTTENTS,
Page.
Invoices
.'
".
,.
vi
Consular Verifications and Certifications of Invoices......
'
xi
, Consigned Mercliandise
xiii
Appraisernent.....
,
xix
Reappraisements
xxiii
Final Assessment and Collec,tion of Duties
., " x x v
Protests and Appeals
'
;
'
xxvi
Suits against Collectors
xxvn
Bills of Particulars
,
xxxiv
Restriction against Suits
:....;
xxxiv
Appropriations for the Refunding of Duties Illegally Exacted
xxxy
Special Agents of the Treasury
v.. . x x x v
Duties^on Coverings
.^...'.
xxxvii
Duties on Articles sent hither in the Mail-Bags, including Books
XL
Reform in Methods of Customs Administration
XLII
Duties on Passengers' Baggage.
:
'.. X L I I I
New Amendments of the Law of 1883
...."
XLVii
Suits for Value
^.
,
XLVIII
The Recasting of all our Customs Collection Laws
:
\,.. X L V I I I
Report of IVlr. Fairchild, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury....'.... .^
, Li
Appendix—
^
,.
A. —Customs Administration—The Morrison and Randall bills.;
3
B. —Merchandise Requiring Consular Certificates
'.
,
' 54
C—Refund of Duties made in Fiscal Year 1885-'86
•
57
.. D.—Taxes Collected from Imports
'.
OQ ,
E. ^Appeals from Collectors' Decisions and Refunds by the Department;
.
,,
Proposed Amendments to Lav^ of 1883
68
F.—Schedule of Suits begun in 1885-'86 against the Collector of Customs.at
; » '
New York, and Trials thereof by J u r y
,77
G.—Duties on Coverings.......
.....'.
105
H.—Administration of t h e Customs Laws at the four large Seaports in
' • i885r-'86, (Boston, 144; New Yorkj 171; Philadelphia, 228; Balti- • .
more, 246)
'.
146
^ L-^Administration of the Customs Laws at Ports of New York, Boston, (
Philadelphia in 18S5-'86
258
J.—Levy of Duties on Articles Coming in Mail-Bags
276 "^
9^r z-
THE..COLLECTION OF DUTIES.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT^
. ' Becember 13, 1886.
. S I R : My annual report made mention of my purpose to '^prepare
and submit to ^Congress a su]3plementary report on the collectionof
duties.''
' .
In fulfilment of that purpose, I transmit herewith a report by
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fairchild,. to whose intelligence, fidelity, and zeal in this, as in other matters appertaining to
this Department I am under personal as well as official obligation.
He has had, since late in Marchj 1885, immediate supervision. of_
the, Bureau ofthe Commissioner of Customs, th^ Division of Customs,
the Division'of Special Agents, the Division of Mercantile Marine and
Internal Eevenue, and the Division of Revenue Marine, .among which
five separate organizations the collecting of duties on imports is distributed.
•' • / '
I subjoin replies received from those subordinate bureaus and divisipns concerned in the administration of the tariff law, as well as from
the chief officers at the four large ports, in answer,to specific iilquiries. >
In my annual report for 1885, I was able to place before Congress
opinions and suggestions froia alarger number of local officers, but this
year circumstances beyond my control preyented me from beginning
, needed inquiries earlier * than the first days of October las,t, and have
made it impracticable to pursue, as I wished, investigations into the
collection districts along the great rivers and lakes, the Canadian and
Mexican frontiers, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific coast. I have
been able, however, to gather the opinions of the chief officers of the '
four ports of Boston, ¥ew York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore,, at
which, out of a total revenue from customs exceeding 190 millions
during the last fiscal year, there were collected more than 20 J millions
at the first, more than 130,millions at the second, nearly 14J millions
at the third, and more than 2 J millions of dollars at the fourth port.
The doings by customs officers at those ports may, therefore, be fairly,
accepted by Congress as exhibiting the general condition of the customs
service throughput the country.
VI
REPORT
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. V
In many of the suggestions, or opinions respecting the customs serAdce, its present conditiou and needs,, expressed dn these replies,
ahvays excepting the report of Mr. Fairchild, I do not concur, but, in
a matter of so much importance as the levy and collectioii of abo,ut
190 millions as taxes on imported merchandise out of a sum total of 310 f
millions of anhual Federal taxation,: I have deemed it due to Congress
that all the suggestions made to me by Government officers, in response
to my official inquiries, should be laid before the legislative branch of
the Government without suppression, or modification of any. The probl e m pf reforming our existing taxes on consum]3tion, in that most defective branch of the same,—a survival ofthe war,-—which consists ofthe
drag-net collection of multifarious duties on more than 4,000 different
comniodities, imported for consumption here, is so environed with conflicting theories, purposes, passions, interests, or partisan hopes, that I'
ought to fully ahd frankly exhibit to Congress, which has the power and
responsibility of achieving all needed reform, everything in my posses,sion which can illuminate the subject, or tend even remotely to show
which of th^,existing evils can be fairly deemed capable of executive'
remedy, and which will require legislative: treatmenti I am not conscious of any desire to aA^oid such share of responsibility as belongs to
the head of this Department for opinions, commitments, or/acts bearing on the causes of existing evils, or the methods of reform, and if I shall >
to any one seem to unduly assert, or emphasize, my own opinions, I
hope that Congress will kindly believe that my purpose was not contentious, or, tp lay down what is or should be the law, bjit only to clearly
express such opinions as the head of this Department^ charged with
the supervision of both inland and port collection districts, entertains
respecting ^"the improvement and management of the revenue.',' ^
In the communication of my views, and in iny comments on the doc- uments herewith subjoined, I shall follow the order of topics in my annual report for 1885.
.
\
INVOICES.
If any rates of duty are in the future to be ad valorem rates levied upon
the foreign value of the merchandise, an invoice, precisely and absolutely true, is indispensable. ' If the merchandise has been obtained ,by
purchase, there must be truthfulness in regard to description, quantity,
price paid,' the currency used in making piayment, the date and place of
the transaction. Those elements ought not to be, and are not,, difficult
of presentation, for they are only those which a prudent purchasei\usually seeks,, a;nd obtains from the seller when payment is made. Why is not a i
transcript of such abill of sale, which the buyer ordinarily receives, always
REPORT OF THE SECRETAEY OF THE TREASURY,
; • ,
' \
/
,
'
•
•
.
.
,
;
^
i
•
-
^
'
•
VII
•
]
•
.
.
presented to our consulair and customs officers? Why is there the contrivance and annoyance of presenting another ahd different account of
' the transaction^ Because our.tariff law either induces and suggests it,
or is believed to require it! Whether a law making certain coverings
of dutiable, merchandise, exempt from duty should require a niodification of the bill of sale v/hich ordinarily passes between buyer and
seller, I shall consider elsewhere in this report, but, apart from that,
it will, I think, be safe to affirm that it is the desire to evade the
, payment of a portion of the duties known to be payabl^ at our ports, on
a lawful entry of merchandise, that prompts the modification. If^ '
therefore, the presentation of invoices untruthful,in respect to those.essential elements is as general in our country as so many insist, and if
the motive is the evasioh of the payment of a portion of the duty required by law, and known to be required, then the inference is indisputable that our tariff law has not the support of the moral sense of
the entire -community. If a person actually pays one hundred dollars •.
for an article; if he knows, as he.is to be presumed to know, that
the law requires him to present, or cause to be presented, to our consular and appraising officers an invoice declaring that sum as the price
l^aid, but conceals-or withholds the real bill of sale; if he presents,
or causes to be presented, an invoice declaring the sum paid to have
been only seventy-five dollars, and if the duty is by him known to be
fift3^ per centum of the, foreign value of the article, there cannot be
much doubt respecting the actual intention with which the change from
one hundred to seventy-five was made. The seller would not naturally ,
make the change unless specially prompted thereto.
'
'
, When merchandise has not been procured abroad by purchase, but
'has been obtained by gift or fi!nding, or has been manufactured abroad
' by the importer, there will be a different set of considerations. In such
cases our law requires, and has during sixty-three years required, that the
invoice shall contain the ^'actual market value thereof at the time and
.place when and where the same'was procured or manufactured.'' Over
that market value it is possible for two equally intelligent p^nd honest
men to differ.. Hence the impediments in the way of ascertaining the
invoice value, and the dutiable value, of consigned goods on which ad
valorem rates are to be levied. I considered those impediments in my .
annnal report of 1885, and in my subsequent special, communication to
.^Congress.'
.
'
' '
.' ' ' '
. "•.'
The law has during more than half a century clearly described what,
shall be set forth in the invoices of both classes of importations, whether
purchased or consigned. The purchaser must honestly declare the
vm
REPORT .OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY..
.
.
'
•-
] . .
\
-
.
•
;
•
••
•
price pMd; the manufacturer must honestly declare what he honestly
: believes was the market vaiue of his fabric when its manufacture was
completed, (not necessarily when the invoice was made,) ai;id at the place
where (not necessarily the place ofthe invoice or of exportation) it was
manufactured. I have, in my previous communications to Congress,
silfficiently indicated my opinion of the pretension that, in respect" to
staple articles, or articles largely manufactured, the manufacturer cannot form and express an honest opinion of the the marliet value of his
fabric at the time and place when, and where inanufactured. He manufactures the merchandise, and sends it to this country for sale, as a venture on his own account. The transaction is a business transaction by
a business man. The time when the value is to be fixed ;is the time '
when the manufacture was completed, and the place is the placeof
the manufacture. Is it not an arraignment of one's common sense to
be asked to believe that the manufacturer cannot form and express an
honest opinion of that value'? But what shall be said of the manufacturer who makes believe that he cannot form and express an honest opinion of the market value, a t t h e time and place of maiiitfacture, of an
article for the making, sale, and delivery of which he has contracted
with a buyer ?
.
/
"
The two classes of importation are, to be sure, somewhat ^unlike, in
this, that if the United States prosecutes an invoice of purchased goods
for declaring the price ^paid to have been seventy-five when it was one
hundred dollars, the proof of ^^actual intention" to defraud is more
simple than.when the difference is between the importer and our appraising officers over the market value, at a specified time and place,
of an article never actually sold or bought. But simplicity or complexity of proof of ^'actual intention" before a jury cannot vary the "
^iaw, or relieve a shipper or importer of the obligation to obey the law.
prescribing what an invoice of each sort shall contain.
I have been called upon to listen since I became the head of this.
Department, and have, I hope, patiently listened to representafcions
of the difficulties that foreign manufacturers and other importers experience, ' or profess to have experienced, in endeavoring to ascertain the real requirements of our invoica law, but I have never- been
able to sympathize with the pretended difficulties of a shrewd business man who has carefully read the text of that law. I have.been
l^oid that our'law requires, in one sentence in section 2854, ^^the
actual cosV- to be inserted in the invoice, and in another sentence
requires^^the actual market value^\to be inserted'; that |ihe two may be
very unlike on the same day, and at the same place; and so an honest
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
IX
importer - becomes confused. When I have answered that ^-^.actual
cost" ai^plies only to purchased goods, and"^*actual niarket value" to
goods consigned by the maker, the answer-has been received as a novel
suggestion,'although i3laiiily set down in the law. Even some of our own
consular ofiicers have professed to be thus confused. I am constrained
tp believe that, dn the part of foreigii manufacturers who plead the con-,
' fusion, it is only to excuse, or extenuate, the unlawful act of-invoicing
their fabrics at ^'the actual cost" of manufacture, instead ofthe value
believed by them to have been the '^market value" at the'time and
place of manufacture.
- .
.
,
It has also' been repeatedly represented to me that as our ^ appraising \
officersare to ascertain and certify the actual market value, or wholesale
price, at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal
markets of the country from which the merchandise has been imported;
as the collector must levy duty on that value'; as the ^ * actual cost'' paid
by the purchaser may differ from that ^'actual,market value;" as the
time and place of manufacture will generally differ from the date and
place of exportation; as the price of purchase may be unlike the
wholesale value on the day of shipment, and as values may have, advanced or receded between the da^^ of purchase, or manufacture,.and
the. day of shipment, our law is for those, reasons very ^absurd, ais well
as unjust, inasmuch as, no matter what the appraised value, the collector cannot levy duty on less than the invoice or entered value. I
have been told that if one, improvident enough to pay tweiity pounds
in London for^ a hat, presented a true, invoice to the collector at New
York, setting forth that sum, then even if the appraiser rei^orted the
. wholesale London price of the hat to have been only one poiind, the
duty.must, under our law, be levied on twenty pounds, or $96.8p.
That is true under the last clause of section 2900 of the ^Eevised Statutes. I have also been reminded by imxiorters, in extenuation of their
' conduct, that while our law requires an invoice to be presented to consular officers setting forth either the price paid at date of purchase, or
niarket value, at time and place of manufacture, of goods consigned by
.a manufacturer, the Manual of Consular Eegulations requires consular
officers to" declare that the price, or value, in the invoices, ^^at the time
oi.exportation^'' is correct and true. But with.all that, the importer,
. who is bound to obey the law, has nothing to do, however niueh^it
may concern Congress, and it does deeply concern Congress. The law
clearly tells every importer and shipper what facts an iiivoice must,
•contain, and must contain chiefly for the information of our appraising,
officers.
.
'
. ,
.
,
'•
'
X
• REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
If the information be genuine, true, and honest, the'appraiser's work
will be easier; but if false, untriie and dishonest, as.it too often is,
our ajppraising system will be poisoned and perverted' at,its fountain.
The contents of an invoice and its honesty, must be tested by whatthe
law declares that the invoice shall contain, and not by what importers
say or think it ought to contain for their own convenience or purposes.
Possibly importers could improve our invoice law, but until Congressshall adopt those improvements, importers should obey the law as it is,
and not lead b,ur appraising officers to act on the belief that invoices have ^
been made up in one place and on one theory, when, in fact, they have
been niade up in another and very different place, and on another
and very different theor^^ The law declares that all invoices of purchased goods shall declare the price paid therefor; but if the invoice
presents the importer's idea of the fair value, or the price ha ought tohave paid if he had made a good bargain, the appraising officer will be
misled. The law also prescribes that a manufacturer shall declare the
niarket value when and Avherethe making of the fabric was completed,'
, which inay have been in December, 1884, but if he instead declare the
value when and where, exportation began, which may have been in
Dec(3mber, 1886, an intelligent appraising officer who understands his.,
business will be misinformed.. I appreciate the conditipn of the im;
porter if the value in December, 1884, was one thousand francs, and
in December, 1886, was only seven hundred and fifty francs, and tha
hardship, inasmuch as, if the appraising officers should report only
seven hundred and fifty francs as market value at date of exportation,
the collector must, nevertheless, iinder section 2900, > levy duty .on ona.
thousand francs. I appreciate, also, that the practical effect of that
sectfen. is that when the appraising officers find the invoice value large
enough, or even too large, t h e j simply report to the collector '/value
correct," and do not report the real value. I have heretofore in my
communications to Congress emiDhasized that peculiarity of our law.
A careful consideration of the text of our invoice law, our appraising law, the section (2900) which forbids any_ collector to levy duty on
less than th<3 invoice or entered value, and the ordinaiy motives of ])usiness, conduct, >vill, I think, enable each niembei: of Congress to decide
for himself whether or not all, or even a majority, ofthe great number
of invoices annually iiresented at our custom-houses conform to the law.
It will be of no availfor Congress to .modify the invoice' law, either for '
the convenience of our consuls, or of importers, if, when modified, it benot toforced, but is to be again evaded or compromised, because importers think it should be different. The appraising officerswilLbe misled
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XI
then, as novA If those officers could only have before them suchinvoi(^eS' as the law contemplates and demands, their work would be simplified and made less difficult, but so' long as we attempt to levy ad
valorem rate^, and rates in part ad valorem and in part specific, on
such a vast number of articles, and so many classes of articles, I am
^ compelled to doubt the probability of making it certain that each and
ever}^ invoice will be perfectly legal and truthful.
v
^ C0NSUL.4.R VERIFICATIONS AND» CERTIFICATIONS OF INVOICES.
:
The total cost of our conshlar sj^stem during the last fiscal year :
w^as $900,604.90, and of that sum $788,501.75 came through the fees,
levied by consular officers for the verification and certification of-in• voices of merchandise destined for importation into the United States.
During the last twenty-one years the consumers, in this country, of.
imported commodities have paid over 12 millions of dollars as a
tax for consular verification and certification of invoices. That sum.=^
,thus levied by our consular officers was in effect a tariff tax, and,
was ultimately paid by the users or consuniers of the articles cov, ered by the invoices, verified and certified. That sum does not include
an additional one shilling and six pence, or 36 cents, levied in Lqildon and throughout the United Kingdom for administering an oath,.
aniounting in the aggregate, during the last fiscal year, to not less than $30,945.96, which were not ]3aid into our Treasury. That oath, and
that tax which does not come into the Treasury, are in my opinion, use- ,
less, and injurious, and should not be continued, and especially if similar oaths are to be abolished in our custom-houses. In my annual report
for 1885, I exposed the levy in London, and in the United Kingdom,
of $1.12 for oaths, in addition to $2.50 which is permitted by the stat-'
ute. The exposure, then made for the first time, led to a I'efbrm, as
will appear in the subjoined Appendix 1, p. 260.
• ' .'No merchandise coming "froni Europe valued at $50 ean be admitted
to entry without a consular invoice, costing,in London $2.86, which is
equivalent to a tax on the^ merchandise of niore than 5 per cent, ad
' valorem, in addition to the tariff tax. I invite the attention of Congress
to this severe exaction. The tax in Paris is only $2.50, as against $2.86
in London.
'
•
'
If the fees which are received by our consular officers are divided' •
into official fees which must be. covered into the Treasury, and unofficial
fees which those officers may retain, neaiiy all the former are for services in which the Treasury Department is^ more directly concerned
' than any other Department. The chief support of Oxir consular system
XII
REPORTSOF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
being the fees exacted for verifjdng and certifying invoices, I regret
that-the work for which the consumers of imported merchandise pay,
^is so inadequately.dpne. . It is annoying to custom-house officers that a
portion of the work of consular officers, which so directly affects the
integrity of the customs reyenue, is not always performed by the cbnsul '
in person, but often in a mechanical sort of way, by a clerk, and he ah
alien. I dweSlt upon this in my. annual reiDort for 1885, and I again
, dwell upon it because of its vital importance to the customs- revenue '
if our present confused and confusing ad valorem rates are not to be
abandoned. Our consular system should be forthwith reorganized if
tliose rates are to be longer tolerated. I appreciate the difficulty of finding and appointing, under our present scale of salaries, consular officers
whb can, and will, correctly appraise in foreign countries, the,value of
merchandise destined to the. United States; but if such appraisal be not
well done it were better not done at all, so far as the appraising officers
^ at our ports are concerned.
/ How can it be well done in foreign ports by consular officers, it will
naturally be asked, if they do^ not see the nierchandise; and how in
London, Paris, Yienna, Berlin, or Eome can they inspect the" merchandise'? Much, however, could be done if consuls would themselves
do the work, and not trust so much to oaths and clerks; if the consuls
would require the seller or the owner of the merchandise to come before
them in person, and not permit.declarations to be made by one not the
seller or buyer, and who knows nothing of the transaction; if the consuls
woukrexamine, caution, and admonish those presenting invoices, aiid
explain to them our invoice law; if consuls would refuse to certify an
invoice made by the agent of the owner, selected in order to make up
an iiSvoice, and keep the real seller in the background; and if our con;
suls, clearly and correctl3i^ comprehending, Avould clearly and correctly
explain our invoice and appraising laws to foreign shippers and manufacturers. But it will, indeed, first be necessary that our consular
officers, besides being experts in commercial values, alert and conscientious, shall themselves know accurately what the law is which they profess to expound. Ought we to condemn foreigners, or our own citizens,for ignorance of an intricate and chaotic tariff law, on which our own
consular officers could not^all pass a successful examination?
,' ;I fully appreciate the services rendered by our consular officers in
the collection and transmission to Washington of information concerning commercial and industrial affairs, but it must be remembered that
the faculties and exxDerience required for the doing of such work.as
the collating and.digest of commercial or industrial news, may be.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE_ TREASURY.
XIII
and generally are, unlike the special competence, and the practical
experience iii trade, n^eeded to enable one to test the accuracy of inyoice
values,on a particular da;y, upon which test our appraising officers so
largely rely, aiid the integrity of our customs revenue so greatly
depends.
^
/
.
I invite attention to a communication from the Customs Division
(Appendix B, p. 52,) in regard to the admission of articles of sniall value
without a consular invoice.
CONSIGNED MERCHANDISE.
In iny annual report of 1885, my subsequent report to Congress of
February 16, 1886, and my letter to the Senata sub-committee on undervaluations, of February 25, 1886, there is to be found among the
communications to me from the special agents of the DeiDartment, and
customs bfficers at the several x3orts, as well as in my own comments;
thereon, allusions to what is therein described as the ".consignment
system." The same subject was, in Boston, and in March last, brought
' to the attention of the Senate sub-committee on undervaluation, by a
committee of merchants and manufacturers at that port.' (See Appendix
H, pages 149 6^ seg.)
The opinions expressed' by the sxDCcial agents, by customs officers,,
and by Boston merchants and manufacturers, were to the effect that in
^ e w York has been, and is now, the warehouse and chief centre in our
country of the consignment sj^stem, and that its direct influence has
been and is most injurious to our national welfare, and esxiecially to
our customs'revenue.
A consignment system, such as was known in our xiorts three-quarters .
of a century ago, and was described to Congress by Secretary Crawford
^in 1818, (see Ex.-Doc. No. 684, 9th Cong., 1st sessi, p. vii,) whereby
European manufacturers sent hither accumulations of fabrics to be sold
at- auction or otherwise, on their account and risk,, has been, it is
said, largely superseded by a systein whereby enterprising agents.
. of fareign manufacturers, or dealers, come hither, solicit and accexit^
orders on samples to deliver their fabrics to bu37ers in our country,,
at a x^ie.arranged price, the duties and all charges of every sort to
be xiaid by the foreign • seller. From this system results, . say tha
Boston committee, and results especiall^?^ in JSTew York, 'Hhe greater
Xiart of the ,evils of undervaluations, wrong classifications, and^ other
errors oi" customs adniinistration, and for which ^ e comxilain.'' The
systeni having, in the oxiinion of so many, grown to such large, and
such dangerous proportions, and intimations more or less distinct^hav-
<^
. XIV
REPO^.T'OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
ing been made that it had not encountered a vigorous execution of
the customs law at our larger ports, I invited the,views thereon of the'
collector at Boston and the naval officer at ISTew York. (See Axipendix .
H, pages 149-53 and page 193.).
' .
'
' ^
This growth of the consignment system in international trade aiid
in relation to our own Consular officers as verifiers and certifiers'.
of invoices destined for this country, and to our appraising officers
who are to as.certain and rexiort to collectors for.eign dutiable values,—
has recently assumed an important significance b y t h e official action
during ,the present year of the British Foreign Office, at.London.
Early ih Februa,ry last, several British Boards of Trade complained
that, owing to the inefficiency of British diplomatic and consular agents,
and the inadequate as well as dilatory publication by the Government
of information respecting production and trade in foreign countrfeSj
British manufacturers and dealers were supxilanted by rivals.
This complaint by British manufacturers and merchants that the'
functions of British diplomatic and consular agents were too circumscribed in respect to British trade, and that those diplomatic and consular agents were inefficient in doing even the work xirescribed,by t i e
existing regulations of the Foreign Office, was transmitted to those agents
for exxilanation and report, with the natural result that the arraigned
dixilomatic and consular officers told the Foreign Office in rexily
what' they thought of British merchants, and of the reasons why competitors are beating them out of the fi,elds where hitherto British
traders have been suxireme. The controversy resulted in a Parliament-,
ary publication of "corresxiondence resxiecting the question of diplomatic and consular assistance to British trade abroad." In these volumes which contain letters from British ministers and consuls scattered
all over the world, who are some of them men of eminence and large '
experience, as well as in the x^nblished rex3orts of the Trade-Depression
Comniission, is most valuable information, bearing not only on the growth
ofthe "consignment system," but oil what American manufacturers and
merchants must sxieedily do, and must insist that their Congress shall >
speedily do, • if the^^ would share in the trade of foreign niarkets. This
information demonstrates and emxihasizes the fact that in these days of
' railwa3^s, telegraphs, ocean cables, and swift steamships, the foreign
trader is abroad with his samxiles and artful solicitations, and everywhere comes into rivalry with his British competitors, and that if England would recover and preserve on the American continent,,in Asia
and Africa, the trade which Swiss, Germans, Frenchmen, Belgians,^ and
Italians are raxiidly gaining, her manufacturers and merchants must
• x^EPORT OF T H E .SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY..
XV
meekly accept the teaching's of their younger rivals, adapt their wares
to the fancy and habits of foreign customei^'S, oj)en in foreign countries,
warehouses for the exxiosure of their goods for sale, send out competent,
and efficient' ^druinhiers'' who sxieak the languagaof the country to which'
they are sent, give foreign buyers the long credit to whicli they may have
' been accustomed, —in a word, that Engiishmen must give up the idea that .
American trade, or any other trade, will come to them as it did to their
forefathers, inust go abroad and find it, and.when found artfully nurse it.
In other words, trade, becoming more and more international and world- ^
wide, has taught merchants the lesson Avhich merchants are slowly learning, that the consumer is the objective point to which the seller must
adjust himself. , Taxation anywhere interxiosed in the course of trade/
suggests to legislators and'statesmen a similar lesson whi,ch they as
reluctantly learn, that the interests of the consumer are the objective
point to which laws for the iiiland or seaport tax-gatherer must beadjusted. The advice of British consuls to British merchants, most em-'
Xihasized, is this:
. / " Meet the wishes of customers^ and especially hy stating prices in local curr '^^cy, duty-paid, either at the place of delivery of the goods, or at a neighL rzgport.^^
/ '
...
. .
The facts xiresented in these most interesting documents bear at two
lioints on the welfare of the United States; one of which is our present
ad valorem war-tariff* tax system, which requires our consular and appraising officers to ascertain and report foreign values thus made under the
strife of international competition, and the other is the xiromotion of
our own export trade. The facts x^i^ess and push on the question .
whether or not we, in the United States, shalL attenixit, by tariff^
legislation^ to xirevent the axiplication'to our country, by foreigners, bf .
this> "consignment system," which our own manufacturers and merchants must vigorously axiply in other countries if they would there
• successfully compete.
.
.
'
The magnitude and importance of the subject will, I hoxie, justify
me in inviting the attention of Congress to extracts from the rexiorts,
' to which I have referred, of British dix)lomatic and consular officc^rs,
which bear on our own welfare.
"
Sir Edward Thornton^So long known in this country as tiie British
Minister, who, before coming here, had diplomatic experience in Brazil,
, and since leaving Washington has had ox3portunities of observation at
- St. Petersburg and Constantinpxile—wrote to the Earl of Eosebery from
' Constantinople on i\iay 1, 1886':
"Englishmen comxilain that in Turke^^ Germans are getting the ad> vantage of them in point of trade, and attribute it to the want of
. XVI
REPORT OF TiEEE SECRETARJ OF THE TREASURY.^
'
assistaiice froni Her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers. For
iiian3^ years past, during my residences on the Eiver Plate, Brazil, and
the United States, l h a v e been xiainfully imxiressed b y t h e convictioii
that English merchants are indeed being driven out of the field by Germans,' but that the latter attain this superiority^, not by protection from
their authorities, but b^^ Iheir own unaided and independent energy,
by'the greater econoni}^ of their establishments, and by downright hard
work on the part of both chiefs and subalterns."
,.
Consul Bennett, in Brazil, t^lls the British Foreign Office: ^^ '
"The Eio Grande trade is now xiractically in the hands of Germans,
who leave no stone unturned to strengthen the position gradually acquired. .' isTot only are German sample-men more frequently seen here
than-English, but they are a superior class to our own, both commercially and socially.'"
:
' .
Consul Bidwell writes from New Orleans of the chance which the
recent Exxiosition in tliat city gave to British traders, of which Britons
did not, but Belgians did, avail themselves; and adds:
"This is the waj^, in m^^ humble judgment, to make a niarket. It is
the wa3' in which we might have kept ahd, increased that which we
once had in this.district, but our trades do not seem to understand that
tlie.da^^ in which the manufacturer or the wholesale house might wait
ait home to be dealt with has passed. The producer must now go out
^ and meet the retailer more,than half-waj^, or he will be intercexited by
some more enterxirising rival. An American lock gains a gold medal
at the 'inventions," and is sold freely in the city of'Chubb and Bramah I
^Dtiring a recent leave df absence I met a gentlemen who has eight agen-^
ciefe for-the sale of Americaii goods in England, and ha can be met in
Long-acre with orders for-^American carriages and carriage niaterials in
his pocket. The fact that there is nothing about the jSTew Orleans of
V td da}^ to render it imxiervious to foreign goods is xiroved by tha establishment of the Belgian agenc^^, and the success which it has met with;
I therefore venture to rexieat what I wrote in March, 1884, on the sub- '
ject of the World's Cotton Centennial Exposition, and which axiplies, I ,
think, lo the xiresent:
;;
' " ' The intending exhibitor will do well to give iqi xirecpnceived ideas^
as to what will suit the American market. The time in which expense
andgaudiness were the principal qualities" looked for has passed. . For
eveiy one xierson who had the means and taste to buy objects of decora- .
tive art, or Avho appreciated art in the shaxie or coloring of common
things ten ^T^ears ago, they iiow are ioo.'
* ^
"Writing esxiecially of this city and the South generally, "^I recoinmended disxilay of the following articles in the^best designs-and at all
Xirices: China and earthenAvare, table and bed-room services, furniture
of all sorts, table decorations, wall paxiers, hangings, carxiets, rugs, ^
house decorations and ornaments, oleographs, prints, &c., and kitchen
and dairy utensils; all sorts of printed calicoes, cretonnes, chintz; all
sorts of fine cutlery, toilet articles, dressing case and bags (mounted,)'
work-boxes and fancy stands, screens and holders; all sorts of sxiorting
(shooting and fishing), tackle, garden ornaments, window-gardening,,
materials, tents and awnings, stable fittings and utensils, school furni-,
ture and appliances; designs for street pavement, cleaning, .and drain- .
REPORT: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XVII
age, drainage pipes, traps, valves, tanks, &c.; cotton carding, sxiinning,
and AY eaving machinery,, machine-tools, hospital furniture, (surgical
axipliances, notiDStruments,) and steani cranes and winches for loading
and discharging sliixis from the Avliarf."
. Consul Merlin says of the trade of the Piraeus in Greece:
" • F o r one English commercial traveller in the Levant there are
twenty Germans and Frenchmen.' * * .* J^O orders, Mr, Merlin
sa^^s, are too insignificant for the German commission houses; th.e German and Austrian manufacturers give long credits, while English firms
only do so in isolated cases. 'They are also more careful in executing
orders and according credits, and a general s^^stem is established on
the continents of obtaining information respecting the means and standing of sniall tradesmen. In fact, judging from Avhat is taking xilace on
a small scale in Greece, the trade of the LeA^ant axixiears to have passed
from Eiiglishmeil to foreigners. The old Levant houses haA^e disapXieared, and Britisli enterxirise with them. The truth is, the French,
Germans, and Italians adapi themselves more easily to their -foreign
surroundings than Englishmen, who, as a rule, expect foreigners to
submit to them, and be guided by their fixed methods of doing business, without which no transactions are thought xiossible.' -'^ * .^
To sum nil, foreigners have takeii away our Levant trade, says Mr.
Merlin in effect, because we have no comniercial traveller^, no organiization for ascertaining, the credit of our customers, no enterxirise, and
we exxiect, x3eople to buj^ what Ave sell, not what they want, in our way,
not in their OAAQi."
Consul Leats Browne, at Genoa, tells the British Foreign Offi ce:
" I t is notorious that German and Swiss manufacturers take far more
^ trouble than Ave do in these things; that when they take their holidays
they come not to see sights and sxiend their money in buying doubtful
antiquities, as man^^^ of our AA^ealthy manufacturers do, but to emxiloy
Xiart of their time in niaking the personal acquaintance of their correspondents and looking into business Avith their OAVU eyes. * * *
'The xirevailing impression here is,' pursues Mr. Leats Browne, 'that
our xieoxile are too grand for the xiresent times of keen competition, and
have the air of rexitying to an^^^ observations in a "take it or leaA^e i t "
spirit, AA-hich is far removed from the tone of their rivals and is out of
keexiing with the xiresent state of business relations between xiroducers
and their customers.' Again, in warning our merchants of the danger of losing the cloth trade altogether, he writes: ' I am often told
that Ave seem to make just Avhat best suits ourselves and exxiect the
'' foreigners'' to adopt their tastes accordingly. This might do when
we held almost a monopoly of caxiital and of undertakings oh a grand
scale, but is no longer suitable, now that in all countries there are great
° establishments comxieting, hot only for home, but for the foreign trade
also.' We are being suxiplanted in a score of things by the Germans,
for 'in all ways they take far more trouble,than Ave do to acquire a
thorough knowledge of this niarket and to adaxit themselves to its
wants.'" •' '
.'
"
•
^ •
The British consul-general at Shanghai declares:
"German and Ahiericain manufacturers have, it has been noticed,
been far more alive to the necessity of keeping their agents well supplied with musters or models of the articles they are anxious to suxiply,
(2)
,
XVIII
REPORT OF THE SECRIETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and giAdng them the fullest information in regard thereto. In scA^eral
cases at least the foreign article Avhich could be shown has been accexited
in xireference to better and cheaper articles which the British agent AV as
onl}^ able to describe. It would, of course, necessitate a certain expenditure to establish and niaintain these show-rooms,- but they Avould,
in niy oxiinion, rexia^^ the cost; and the establishment of a museum at'
home of articles in common use in China Avould be of equal utility, in
that it would enable manufacturers at home to see for themselves what
they are ealled on to supxily, or in many cases to supersede."
From Eeunidn, in the Southern Ocean, a British consul reminds his
countrymen:
" A s a inatter of fact, formerly the British trader had only to oxien
his mouth for pluDis to drop into it. There is no disguising that HOAV
this hapxiy state of things is at an end, and that it behooA^es us to look
about and see how other nations are comxieting with us. I find that
shopkeepers in these days of competition will not go in search of goods.
Samples must be brought to their doors for them to select and give
their orders, the same as in England."
The British consul at Corunna says that:
" ' Some resistance is still observable on the part of English houses to
quote prices in currency, duty-paid, placed in inland towns on easy
terms of xiayment, all of which tend to transfer business to other hands.'
As Mr. CraAvford, the consul at Oporto, xiuts it, ' English manufacturers
rely on long traditions of success, and often disregard the fact that to
hold their own they must exhibit the same qualities as did those who
built up English trade.'"
It ma}^ be safel^^ assumed by us in the United States that, if Belgians,
Swiss, Italians, Frenchmen, and Germans are thus fiercely competing
with Britons, and with one another, in South America, Mexico, Europe^
Asia, and Africa, they are, all combined, pushing their wares into our
own markets, establishing here warehouses of their own, and availing
themselves of the advantages of our custonis bonded stores. Here are
mau}^ millions of enterxirising and wide-aAA^ake men and women AA^ho are ,
seeking to h u j at the lowest price, the necessities and the luxuries of life,
of such character and quality as they require. Even those AVIIO demand
the maintenance of our war-tariff taxes are among the numbers whose demand for foreign fabrics is the cause of their imxiortation, and of the modern "consignment system," which has intensified the competition that
hammers doAAai xirices. It is from the Eepublic of Switzerland, without
seaxiorts, and almost without custom-houses on her frontiers, that come
to us ribbons, silks, and other fabrics, Avhich, under the "consignment system,'' so pester our consular and axipraising officers. Can the
axiplication of that "consignment system" be prevented, or shall not
Congress the rather recognize, accept, and deal Avith it by a more intelligent tariff law*? I respectfully commend to Congress, in that rela-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XIX
tion, the letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, on June 14, 1886, b^^ the First Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. Fairchild.
The description of d u t j levied, and the values of the merchandise
on which it was levied, during tlie last fiscal 3^ear, were these :
Values on which
collected.
Specific, (simple)
A d v a l o r e m , (simple)
Compound:
Specific
Ad valorem
;
<=
\
J
'.
Total
A m o u n t s of
duty.
S202,733,702
168,176,052
$99,751,638
58,414,549
42,868,301
14,289,208
16,077,77o
413,778,055
188,533,171
^The respective amounts of ad valorem and specific duty collected on
dutiable merchandise were, therefore, asfollows, making due allowance
for immaterial errors of computation:
Specific.
Ad valorem
1114,040,846
74,492,325
. Total.
188,533,171
APPRAISEMENT.
• Whether or not there are UOAV undervaluations of merchandise paying ad valorem rates computed on foreign values, which undervaluation
can be fairly described as general, is a question to which I have given
much inquiry and consideration. It is the question of questions, if our
existing contrivance for levying and collecting our ad valorem rates
on such a multitude of enumerated articles, and vast numbers of other
articles not specifically enumerated but classified under general terms
and xihrases in the law, is to be continued. One hears of the suggestion frequently made to bu^^ers by sellers in the large European cities
of articles destined for our ports, that " o / course an invoice containing
lower prices will be specially prepared for the custom-house; " and one
hears also of commissionaires in those cities who do a thriving business
by making purchases for our citizens, xireparing and swearing to false
invoices Avhich contain prices less than those actually paid, and sending
the articles and invoices to the agents in our ports of those commissionaires, which agents pass false entries through the custom-houses.
One also hears that business-men in our ports systematically cause their
purchases to be sent to an agent of their own at the centre of shipments,
who presents an invoice to the consular officer; What is probable
about the existence of such illegal transactions *?
XX
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
But on the other hand the record shows that of 319,801 invoices certified abroad h j our consular officers during tihe last year 275,234 were
Xiresented at the xiorts of Boston, New York,i Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and by the collectors sent to the xiroxier, appraising officers. Out
of the sum total of these last-named invoices 256,369 were by the appraisers reported '' v(ilue correct,'' which does not imxily that the invoice
or entered A-alue was absolutel^^ correct as dujbiable value, but Avas suffi-^
cient; only 18,865 were advanced by the appraisers, (by what actual
Xiercentage I do not know,) and only 1,740 jrere advanced more than
10 x^er centum.
i
The record for each of these four ports is this:
Boston.
I
|
^
I
New York.
j
Whole number........
-.1
Advanced by an unknown percentage
1
Advanced h j more than 10 per cent
...!
Philadelphia.
j
Whole number
;..
L
Advanced by an unknown percentage;
j
Advanced by more than 10 per cent
.......|
,
Baltimore.
.
Whole number
;....'...:....j...;.
Advanced by an unknown percentage
j
Advanced by more than 10 per. cent
\
AA^hole number...
Advanced by ah unknown percentage
• Advanced more than 10 per cent..
36,371
1, 438
79
220,023
16, 927
1, 587
14,522
346
62
.'
;
4,718
154
12
Out pf the t'otal number at these four xiorts sent to the general axipraiser for reaxix^raisement, the adA^ance was sustained on only 300
iuA^oices.
i "
.
I submit these facts for such inference as Congress, and the business
men of our country, may make.
j
My OAvn inference is, that if the invoice slips unchanged through the
scrutiny of the consular officers, it is too likeily to be xiassed by our axDXiraislng officers as "value correct," and that such a general result is
inherent in ad A^alorem rates based on foreign value.
I do not wish to be understood as condemning our apxiraising officers
for inattention, or anything even more culxialile. It is the design of the
law to levy ad valorem war taxes iixion so many imported articles that is
chiefly to be blamed. The appraiser at tljie port of I^CAV York, Mr.
McMullen, has the deserA^ed X3raise of his colleagues of all grades, but he is
only the chief suxiervising executive, among the local appraisers, and is
not exxiected to xiersonally appraise each Article. Imported articles
of the value of more than 412} million dollars were submitted to
his supervisipn during the last fiscal year, under circumstances of
inadequate rooms, bad light, and altogether insufficient accommoda-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXI
tions, to which I earnestly invited the attention of Congress in my
annual report for 1885. For jthis colossal labor and responsibility
Mr. McMullen's annual salary is only $4,000. Our appraising officers
are not x^i'actical experts in foreign values, who have knowledge
thereof by personal presence and experience in foreign markets.
JSTo matter how selected, or by whatever contrivance of comxietitive exaniination, their knoAvledge of such values must be mere hearsay, if
they haA^a never visited foreign markets, or, having long since visited
those markets, their lives since then have been continually in our own
market. It is foreign values, not home values, they are to ascertain.
The facts on Avhich their rexiorts to collectors must be based are by
appraising officers to be gathered from abroad. How, and by whom •?
iBy our consuls, or by keeping touch of current arriving iuA^oices which
may be false, or by inquiry in our ports of importers of similar articles?
The attention of Congress, and the country, is invited to the significant fact that so very few, if an^^ invoices, have been presented to
district attorneys by collectors at Ii^ew York, or elseAvhere, for prosecution because made with actual intention to defraud the'revenue. What
inferences shall be dra^ii therefrom'?
Section 2902 of the Eevised Statutes is mandatory that apxiraisers
shall "ascertain, estimate, and• axipraise the true and actual market
value and wholesale x^i'i°ce, any invoice or affidavit thereto to the contrary
notioithstanding, of the merchandise at the time of exxiortation, and in
the xirincipal markets ofthe country whence the same has been imported
into theUnited States, and the number of yards, x^arcels, or quantities."
The theory and purxiose of that section, and all the sections of the
laAV, are that the packages sent by the collector to the axipraising
warehouse shall be oxiened, their contents all disxilayed, examined, and
valued as by a prudent purchaser who xiroposed to invest his money in
the purchase thereof. My belief is, that by reason of the great and annual increase of the A/^olume of importations, as well as the inadequacy
of the x^reniises wherein that opening, display, examination, and appraisal must now be'^done, and especially at the x^ort of New York, and
the mode of selection, the salaries, and competence of the examining
and axipraising officers, our axixiraising law is not executed according to
its theory and xiurpose, and cannot be apxilied faithfully to so many
articles as are now submitted to ad A^alorem or specific rates. The
actual situation is, in my opinion, full of serious xieril.
My attention has been called to the report presented in March last
by the committee on legislation, apxiointed by certain merchants and
manufacturers of Boston to the Senate sub-committee on underA^alua-
XXII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
tions, which comments on section 2900 of theiEeAdsed Statutes in these
terms:
t
'
" 1 . It will be seen that the laAv at preserit merely permits the apxiraisement. It says: 'The collector may cause such actual marketA^alue or wholesale xirice to be axixiraised.' \ And your committee are
informed that in practice, unless there is sonie cause for suspicion, the
iiiA^oice is often taken as correct ivithout any investigation. It seems clear
that there should be an axixiraisement sexiarate and distinct from the
iuA^oice in all cases, and that actually axixiraisement fshould not be, as
at xiresent, optional Avith the collector, or the apxiraising officers."
• I am at a loss to understand how one wh(| had examined the sixth
chapter of the thirty-fourth title of the Eevised Statutes, especially
section 2906,^ and the General Treasury Eegulations, could have erected
such a suxieratrueture of criticism and arraighment of public functionaries in this Dexiartment, upon' the use of the word "ma?/" in that
section. I am equally at a loss to understahd wh^^ those who revised
the Federal statutes in 1873 substituted " n i a y " for " s h a l l " as used
in the seventh section of the law of 1865, which section 2900 of the Eevised Statutes purports to.reproduce. A vei*3^ cursory and superficial
glance at article 478 of the General Treasur;^ Eegulations should have
convinced the most captious critics of this iDepartment that the collectors had, and have, no discretion, but are Commanded to require all
merchandise paying ad valorem rates to be ^x^praised by an examination of the requisite nuniber of xiackages. ;
Many of the criticisms made by local custonis officers, and others, on
the practical' efi'ect of the law of June 22, 1^74, (chapter 391,) I look
upon as superficial. The real influence of that legislation is set forth
in the letter addressed to me by Mr. Justice Blatchford, a cop^^^ of
which is giA^en on pages 868-70 of the Appendix to my annual rexiort
of 1885 on the "Collection of Duties." Thalj; law is well enough if cus-.
toms officers will be vigilant in collecting the facts showing an actual
intention, and those facts are sufficient, and seizures are made. An
importer should not be deprived of his nierchandise, unless, in the
opinion of the jury, he intended to defraud the rcA^enue. Under that
part of the customs law which levies an additional tax of 20 per cent.,
if the appraised A-alue shall exceed the invoice or entered A^^alue by 10
per cent, or more, the importer can be. deprived of one-fifth of the
value of his property without any allegation or xiroof of unlawful intention. Is not that sufficient*? The law requires an imxiorter to declare
in his invoice the price paid; to enter his merchandise at not less than
that price ] to add to that xirice if he deems it not up to the dutiable
values; punishes him if he omits to add,- aiid finally forbids the collector to levy duty on less than the entered A-alue, even though the
axipraiser may say that A-alue is excessive.
j
0
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
XXIII
REAPPRAISEMENTS.
The belief is quite general that our lawsfor regulating reaxipraisements
must be modified, and I share in that belief. I dwelt upon the need of
that modification in my annual rexiort for 1885j (x)X3. XXA^ to xxxii,) in my
special rexiort to Congress of February 16, 1886, (xi. xxxix,) and in my
letter of Februar^^ 25, 1886, to the Senate sub-comniittee on underA^aluations, but no action was takeii hy Congress at its last session. In my
sxiecial rexiort to Congress of February 16, 1886, I said :
" T h e tendency of my thoughts in respect to reapx'>rai semen ts at the
X')ort of New York is to advise approxiriate and xiarticular legislation
for that port. The ax)praising system is not now, and ncA^er has. been,
the same in all tha collection districts. In those wherein entries are
few, and little duty is collected, the collector, or naval officer, as the
case may be, is an apxiraising officer.„ EA^en in the larger ports, like
Boston, or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, Avhere the business is very much
less than at New York, the arrangements of the axipraising force are
difi:ereiit from those existing at the last-named port. It Avill be well, I
think, to create a reappraising board at the port of NCAV York to consist of three general appraisers, competent for the imxiortant Avork,
and with sufiicient salaries. The board should consist of three instead
of two, so as to x^rcA^ent probability of disagreement as when the board
consists of only two. The decision of this board should be final, so as
to relieve the collector of the reax^x^raising Avork which is now thtown
upon him. I do not think that abandonment of the x)resent plan of
selecting a merchant to be a member of the reaxipraising board will
work inj ustice to iniporters or consumers, or to theGovernment. It
will be within the discretion of Congress to make the tenure of office
of the members of this board such as may be thought best. They can
be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as are justices of the Suxireme Court, and judges of all the other Federal courts.
Federal judges sitting in admiralty decide mixed questions of law and
fact without the interA^ention of a jury, and I see no reason why executiA^e officers may not, as reaxipraisers,. be intrusted with functions not
more delicate, or important."
I do not deem it necessarj^, or advisable, that the reaxixiraising system now axiplicable at ports, and in collection districts, other than NCAV
York, shall UOAV be changed, and a board of reappraisers consisting of
a large nuniber pf members shall now be created Avith a jurisdiction
covering the whole country. Our reappraising systeni has been the
growth of sixtj^-three years. In 1823 the reappraising board consisted
of rfour members,—two axixiointed by the United States, and two
resxiectable resident merchants, emplo^^ed by the imxiorter " a t his f
OAvn exxiense." There could be a second axixieal to the head of this
Department. In 1842, the reaxixiraising board Avas made to consist of
"two discreet and exxierienced merchants" selected b y t h e Collector.
In 1851, general axixiraisers were created, and a t Avas ordained that one
of them, and "onediscreet and experienced merchant," selected by the
XXIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
collector, should make reaxipraisements, and if they disagreed the collector should make a final decision.
It is to be remembered by Congress that, when all the forms of laAv
have been comxilied with,_and a dutiable A-alue for ad valoremi;ates has
been thus declared, there is not poAver in the GoA^ernment, either in its
executiA^e or its judicial dexiartment, to change that value. The classification of merchandise for the axiplication of the rate'xirescribed by Congress, as well as determination of the r a ^ is the Avork xirimarily ofthe
collector,' (adAdsed in practice by the axipraiser,) with appeal, under a
protest in due form, to the head of this Department, and a judicial trial
of questions, of classification, rate, or amount if the imxiorter shall feel
aggrieved. Hence, the solicituda and aim of Congress, heretofore, to
give to the imxiorter a rexiresentation on the reapxiraising board, Avhich
will, under section 2900 of the EcAdsed Statutes, not onl}?^ frsL the sum on
AA-hich the rates shall be comxiuted, but may, in efi'ect, confiscate in addition a sum equal to one-fifth the whole A^^alue of the nierchandise thus
ascertained.
.
I can but call the attention of the xiresent Congress'to that aim and
solicitude, a,nd to the inquiry whether it Avill not be more xirudent to
begin by tentatively applying a difi'erent systeni only at the x^ort of
New Y'ork, and A^^hether ,any. x^lan shall be generall}^ applied throughout the country Avhich shall tend vto alienate business men,' and the
commercial classes, any more than one, occupying the position which
I now occupy, is constrained to feel they are now alienated from
our tariff rates, and the rules and regulations for their levy and collection. By business men and commercial classes, I do not merelj^ include thpse who actually make entries at our custom-houses, and
are importers in a strict use of that term. My official experience has
convinced me that those AA'ho are^actual importers, who pay the duties
IcAded, Avho reimburse themseh^^es for duties paid by including them in
the xirice xiaid by purchasers, which duties ultimately fall on the users
or consumers of the imxiorted articles, do not, as a rule, importune for a
reduction of rates, unless it be that the, nierchandise has been sold " t o
arriA^e" at a xirice fixed on an estimate of duties which has. been increased on entry. An imxiorter,. xiure'and simple, who is only a middle- 5
man betAveen the producer and consumer for the reception aud sale.of
the nierchandise, may, indeed, be benefited b}^ambiguous rates of duty
in a tarifi" law if he sells on the basis of the higher rate, and the collector infiicts it, and the Federal courts shall decide a lower rate to haA^e
been the legal rate, because in such a case the imxiorter will, as Assistant Secretary Fairchild so pertinently says in his accomxianying rexiort,
not only have reimbursed himself from the buyer, but'he will receive
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXV
the refund which the judicial xDOAver decrees, and he will not pa^^ it
to,the XDurchaser or to the consumer. It is the consumer, and not the
imxiorter, who suff'ers from our mercilessly ambiguous tarifi* rates. I
concur in the opinion exxiressed by Assistant Secretary Fairchild °to
the efi'ect that it is, and hasbeen, the protected manufacturers who,
having the benefit of ambiguous language used by Congress in x^re-.
scribing rates of duty, come to the Treasury Department, and urge the
infiiction of the highest xiossible rate uxion the consumers, thus encouraging custonis officers to exercise the functions of legislators, and thus
Xiromoting suits by importers, Avhich, Avhen those suits reach the courts,
are generally decided by the setting aside of the highest rate as unlawful. But, meanwhile,. the doniestic manufacturer and the imxiorter
are enriched, and the consumer imxioA^erished.
I advise the enactment of the following section:
SECTION —. There shall be axixiointed, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, three axipraisers of merchandise iinxiorted into the
Xiort of New York, A\^ho shall be called general axix:)raisers, and shall
each receiA^e an annual salary of five thousand dollars. It shall be
the duty of such apxiraisers to conduct and make, according to laAv,
all reaxipraisements of merchandise imxiorted at the port of New York,
under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe
for their gOA^ernment. Their decision on such reaxix^raisement, or that
of a majority of them, shall be final and conclusiA^e, and the A-alue thus
determined by them shall be deemed to be the true value, and the duties
shall be levied thereon accordingly: Frovided, however, That the duties
shall not be ICAded on less than the invoice or entered A-alue. .FINAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DUTIES.
> For information in regard to that portioii of the customs service at
our large Atlantic xiorts Avhich has to do Avith the taking xiossession of
arriAdng vessels, the entry ,of the nierchandise conveyed therein, the
discharge of cargoes, the warehousing thereof, or cartage to the axixiraising stores, the sexiaration of free from dutiable goods, the Avork of
weighers, measurers, and gaugers, the liquidation and xiayment of
duties, and final deliA^ery of the merchandise to the owner, I refer the
Houses of Congress, to the subjoined docunients. It is gratifying to
feel assured that during the last year no defalcation ih the receiving^
and dexiositing in the sub-treasuries of nearly 200 millions of dollars
has existed, excexiting. in the item of $6,000 collected as duties on
articles brought hither, in tha mail-bags. The exxiense of collectings
the customs revenue was,, in comxiarison with the.fiscal year ending June
30, 1885, diminished d u r i n g t h e last fiscal year by nearly $570,000.
The nuniber of xiersons emxiloyed at 136 xiorts, or xilaces, has been reduced in the same xieriod fiom 4,527 to 4,347. In the report by the
XXVI
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Division of Sxiecial Agents will be found a comxiarative statement in
detail for 1885 and 1886, of the number of persons emxiloyed, and
the cost of collecting the customs revenue in each collection district. *
PROTESTS AND APPEALS.
In my last annual rexiort for 1885, and in the special communication
to the House of March 23, 1886, I commented on the unsatisfactory
condition of the execution of the law regulating protests, their examination, ahd rexiorts thereon to this Dexiartment. On March 13,
1886, I prexiared and promulgated a new rule, the working of which has
been salutary, but like all reforms in rules of procedure, this new rule requires to be enforced by efficient-and conscientious local officers. One
of its objects was to bring the naval officer under a larger share of labor
and responsibility in' the examining of protests and reporting thereon.
Assistant Secretary Fairchild yet finds " a difficulty in the partial
presentation of customs questions uxion axipeals." That should not be if
local officers are vigilant and Adgorous'in enforcing section 2931 of the
EcAdsed Statutes, and especially if it shall be amended as xiroposed by
bills X3ending in the House. That section declares that the xirotest shall
set forth '^distinctly and specifically^^ the grounds o f t h e importer's objection to the liquidation of the entry. The forms of xirotests given on
pages 181 to 190 of the subjoined documents are, one or two ofi them,
so,absurdly illegal that one is at a loss to understand AA^hy they haA^e
not long ago been suppressed by the proper action of the collector and
naval officer. If a protest be not specific and distinctj it does not conform to the law, and should be treated as a nullity, and the circumstances reported to tliis Department. The real difficulty inheres largely
in the fact that too many collectors and naval officers do not examine
protests, but leaA^e that most important work to subordinates who are
unsuited to such responsibility. No work in our custom-houses is UOAV
. more imxDortant, even if as imxiortant, and it is now A^eiy imperfectly
done. If the collector shall treait as valid none but distinct and specific
protests, if he and the iiaA^al offi.cer Avill thereou' carefully revise the
liquidation comxilained of, and, should the liq^uidation be sustained, if
he will full}^^ present on axipeal all the facts and all the law to this Department, much of the CAdl commented on by Assistant Secretary Fairchild Avill disaxixiear, xirovided the rule be enforced of deciding, in the
interest of the consumer, against the highest rate when Congress has
spoken in ambiguous language, and the real intention of the lawmakers
is fairly in doubt.
'
Although no statute change has been made in rates of duty since
1883, the number of xirotests served on the collector at the xiort of New
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXVII
York between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, against exactions
of money as duties claimed to haA^e been illegal, was 15,123, and between October 1, 1884, and October 1, 1885, Avas 22,441.,
During the first-named period 4,800 axipeals came to this Dexiartment
from the decision of the collector of New York, in which the decision
of the collector was reversed on 200, and sustained on 4,600. The character of those xirotests will be found described in Appendix E, p. 67 et seq.
SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS.
Between October 1, 1884, and October 1, 1885, there were begun by
imxiorters 684 suits against the collector at the port of NCAV York for
duties illegally exacted, wherein A^as claimed $7,048,894.68, of which
it is estimated that only $551,787.52 Avere for excess of duties levied
on coverings; but betAveen October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, there
were begun against the collector of the same port 1,120 suits, whereof
649 were for excess on coverings. The total sum claimed in all the
1,120 at the port of New York is rexiresented to me to be $4,314,735.67,
of which it is conjectured that $1,182,298.15 are for coA^erings. I present in an Apxiendix all the information respecting those suits that I
haAT^e been enabled to obtain.
In a special communicatioii to the House of Eepresentatives dated
March 23, 1886, I gave (xi. 43) .the number of suits then pending in the
southern district of New York against the collector, and virtually against
the Treasury, as 2,220; the total aniount of princixial claimed therein as
over 11^} millions of dollars, and of interest thereon (p. 53) at that date
as nearly 3 millions, making, in all, $14,398,085.86. Since December
31, 1885, there has been an addition to the number of suits of 1,161,
and to the total sum clainied of about%4,263,430.33.
The attention of Congress will, I am' sure, be arrested by the fact
that between October 1,1885, and October 1,1886, only 31 days were by
all the Federal judges, sitting in the southern district of NCAV York, given
to collectors' suits, and only 35 suits disxiosed of. In Axipendix H, pages
225-6, will be found the record as furnished to me by the district
attorney. The last-named officer is quite correct in describing this
augmented, and annually augmenting, list of untried suits as "appalling," and not the least among the causes of disquietude is the fact
that the importer cannot obtain a judicial examinatioii of his claim,
as pledged to him by section 3011 of the EcAdsed Statutes, nor can the
Treasury j^resent its defence, bring the controversy to an end by discontinuance, or any judicial methods, and stoxi the running of interest
at the rate of six per centum at a time when the Treasury could borrow
money at even less than one-half that rate.
XXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The magnitude of these suits gaA^e me great solicitude when I came
to a knowledge of them soon after March, 1885. I caused a thorough
inquiry into their condition and the sums iuA^olved. I endeaA^ored by
every means in my xiower to cause to be made a vigorous beginning of
judicial trials of them, but without results at all satisfactory. The
rexilies received from New York, and from the Dexiartment of Justice,
were that the resources of the Federal judiciary in the second circuit
were inadequate. On March 23, 1886, in reply to a resolution of inquir}^ from the House of EepresentatiA-es, I transmitted a list of the
pending suits, estimated the total amount ofthe xirincipal ofthe claims
and the interest thereon, and urged the immediate creation pf another
circuit judge in the second circuit, who could giA-eallhis time to these
vSuits, and new ones of similar character, in aid of the other judges, who
should also hold, when xiossible, and at the same time, terms of tha
court with a jury for the same xiurpose. On May 6, 1886, the Judiciary
Committee of the House apxiroA-ed my recommendation, and submitted
a bill Avdth an accomxianying report, in Avhich it was said—
" I n a letter of March 23, 1886, to the Sxieaker of the House of EexiresentatiA-es, the Secretary of the Treasury suggested the immediata
enactment of a laA7 authorizing the appointment of an additional circuit
judge in and for the second judicial circuit.
"This recommendation Avas accompanied with statements from officers of the United States which shoAV that the present judicial force in
this circuit is entirely inadequate to disx^ose of the business coming before the courts.
'
" A concise statenient of the facts Avill demonstrate the necessity of
the legislation recommended by the Secretary of. the Treasury in this,
regard.
"Of the 29,308 suits xiending in all the United States' courts on the
1st day of July last in AA-hich tha United States Avas not a xiarty, 12,810,
or about 44 x^er cent., Avere xiending in the second judicial circuit. Of
the 3,805 suits in which the United States was a xiarty, xiending, terminated, and apxiealed in all the United States courts during the same
time, 879, or about 23 per cent., Avere pending, terminated, and apxiealed
in the second judicial circuit.
'' Of the suits against collectors of customs of which the United States.
circuit court only has jurisdiction,' about 2,300 are now pending in the
second judicial circuit which were brought prior to December, 1885,
to recover $11,519,258.69 claimed to have been illegally exacted by tha
collectors of customs as duties, on imxiorted goods, designated by tha
Secretary of the Treasury as.'old suits.'
"Of the 825 suits brought against collectors of- custonis during the
year ending June 30, 1885, in the courts of tha United States, 645, or
about 75 xier cent., A^-ere brought in the second judicial circuit, in which
$5,466,020 was clainied asdllegal exactions of duties on imported goods.
"Of the 768 suits rexiorted by the United States attorneys as brought
against collectors of customs in all United States courts since January
1, 1886, 716 Avere brought in the second judicial circuit.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXIX
"While this large number of collectors' suits are thus, being continually brought in this circuit, a rexiort of the clerk of the circuit court
made NoA-amber 17, 1885, and accomxianying the Secretary's letter, conclusiA-ely shows the inadequacy of the judicial force in this circuit. In
this letter it apxiears that from April, 1882, to Axiril, 1885, the circuit
court could allow for the trial of collectors' suits but 105 days, during
which time it was only X30ssible to try 58.
"The comniittee, recognizing the urgent need of an additional judge
and more frequent terms of the circuit court in the^ second circuit, reXiort the accomxianying bill and recommend its passage."
The xiressure of other business xircA-ented a consideration by the House
of this needed reform. The consequence is exhibited in this rexiort and
i n t h e acconipanying docunients. I again most urgently present the
subject to the early consideration of Congress, with the suggestion that
the bill presented by the Judiciary Committe to the House be amended
by striking out all after the first section, in order to rid the proposition of
every debatable question excepting the single question, whether or
not an additionahcircuit judge shall be created with the same power,
jurisdiction, and salary in the second circuit, as the present circuit
judge has. The collectors' suits now xiending and those annually begun
will for a long time occupy all the resources of the Federal judiciary in
that circuit when a new judge has been added, and, axiart from collectors
suits, a new judge is needed," as I am told, for other business. If a new
judge can be immediately appointed, and immediately begin Avork, the
whole customs service will, for reasons set forth in my annual report
for 1885, feel the resulting beneficial infiuences.
The interest accruing on these untried suits, many of them begun a
quarter of a century ago, and since xiending, is very large. For a xiortion
of the time the rate of interest recoverable by law on a judgnient in favor
of the plaintiff has been seven and is now six per centuni. In the few
suits tried, or in which judgnient has been entered, in 1886, the intimation of tha Supreme Court in the case of Eedfield vs. Ystalyfera Iron Co.,
in respect to interest, has been vigorously urged by the district attorney,
but the facts proven have been sufficient in those suits to deny the allegation by the district attorney that the xilaintiffs had been guilty of laches
in x^rosecuting their suits, and so not entitled to interest. In a judgment
recently recovered by the plaintiffs for an excess of duty IcAded under
the tariff laAV of 1857 on mousseline-dedaine, and xiaid by the Department after the opinion of the district attornej- that fur.Jier resistance on the facts Avould be useless, and of the Attorney-General that
there was-no fault in the laAV as ruled on the trial by the court, the
principal sum was $44,648.35, and interest and costs were $84,390.52.
In that suit the Avhole question of laches^and the defendant's liability
xxx
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
for interest Avas retried after the A-erdict, and before the entry of judgment.
The suggestion made by Assistant Secretary Fairchild that, in collectors' suits, the rate of interest, to be'allowed and recoA-ered as a X3art
of the damages for the unlawful exaction and detention of the money,
be no longer, or in future suits, left to be decided according to the
laAV of the State in\ which the suit shall be begun, but that a national
and smaller rate be fixed by Congress, deserA-es immediate consideraation, if Congress Avill provide adequate judicial force for the x^romxit
and sxieedy trial of the suits. But if an importer cannot bring his suit to
trial because there is no court to try it, it will be unjust to compel him
to receiA-e less damages for the detention of money than is given by the
law of the State within which it was illegally exacted. The critical
question always is this: Was the money illegally exacted'?
The subject of claims, or suits, against collectors for money exacted in
excess for duties on imports is naturally divisible into two parts. There
are the pending suits, and there is the question whether or not new suits
of such a character, shall be permitted. The law can say that in the
future the rate and amount of duty IcAded by a collector, and approA-ed
by the head of this Department, shall not, by anybody or anywhere,
be questioned, any more than dutiable value when fixed by the appraising officers. Congress could, probably, take away from the courts
jurisdiction of pending collectors' suits, could forbid the head of this
Department to pay any final judgments hereafter recovered by plaintiffs.
Congress could repeal all laws authorizing the Secretary ofthe Treasury
to pay the principal of claims, or judgments, under the recent Supreme
Court decision on coverings, and refuse further appropriations to
repay money heretofore exacted illegally from importers. All that,
in regard to the xiast, is possible for Congress, in the sense of mere
power, but is not probable.
The customs service is not exempt from the tendency of power, and
especially- arbitrary xiower, to increase and intensify itself The aA-erage customs officer will, in the course of tim.e, if not closely supervised by his superiors, fall, insensibly to himself, into the habit, in
levjdng taxes, of giA-ing to the Government, and not to the tax-xiayer,
the benefit of doubt, as to classification or rate, where Congress has hot
spoken distinctl3-, and in the end may become ian unreasoning partisan
against the citizen. What is true at the several ports is true at the Treasury Departm.ent, w^here it is imxiracticable for the Secretary-, or the
Assistant Secretary assigned to the supervision of customs officers, to
critically and personally examine the details of every question presented
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XXXI
by the local officers of 136 collection districts. Eeliance must in some
measure be placed on the scrutiny of heads of divisions and their sub- '
ordinates. Hence the iiiA-aluable serA-ice, in the treatment of ambiguous
phrases used by Congress in xirescribing our tariff rates, of the calm and
imxiartial judgment of courts and juries.
I should deem a xiropositiou to make final and conclusive, as against
the judicial XDOwer, executiA-e decisions resxiecting the rate and amount
of dut}- on imxiorts, unjust to imxiorters, and injurious to the Government because tending to make ^such taxation unpoxiular and odious.
One of the reasons Avhy our axixiraising law is so unaccexitable is that the
citizen AA-ho feels himself aggrieved has no remedy by executive or
judicial • appeal. We IIOAV levy, or attempt to IcA-y, duty on 4,200
different articles, even counting all general classes or grouxis, such as
"all other manufactures of iron," or"philosoxihical apparatus and
instruments," as one article; we thereby collect about 190 millions of
dollars annually, and I can see nothing but benefit and protection for
the Government, the people, and the consuniers of those imported
articles, in the laws which subject customs officers, and this Department as Avell, to most alert and even contentious scrutiny by importers
and their attorneys, carried on in the Federal GoA-ernment's own courts,
an essential part of which is a decision of questions of facts by a jury,
and questions of law, on needed occasions, by the Supreme Court.
In the presence of the large arrear of collectors' suits in the southern
district of Naw York, Avhich is rapidly increasing from month to month
and year to year, plans of relief haA-e baen suggested, on some of Avhich
I have taken advice and have carefully considered the same. One plan
Avas formulated by the Tariff Commission, and, with modifications, Avas
presented in the House on Axiril 19, 1886, during the last session, and
published as " H . E. 7982." It constitutes a "court," to be knoA^-n as
the customs court of the United States, to consist of a president judge,
and not less than two or more than four associate judges, (at least one
of AA-hom shall be a customs exxiert, and shall have had at least ten years'
exxierience dn the customs service,) who shall be apxiointed and qualified, and hold their offices in all respects as the otlier judges ofthe courts
of the United States, with a jurisdiction extending over all questions
arising under the laws of the United States imxiosing customs and tonnage duties which have heretofore been the subject of protest and apXieal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and which shall include all ques. tions of classification and rates of duty on imxiorted goods, wares, and
nierchandise, and the mode of determining said rates; and provides that
the decision of said court as to all such matters shall be final and conclusive. It provides also that the said court shall, so far as the same
XXXII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
may be necessaiy to the exercise of its jurisdiction, haA-e the same
power as the circuit courts of the United States to issue writs, processes, and subpoenas, aiid compel the attendance of witnesses; to issue
commissions to take testimony; to impose and administer judicial oaths:
to comxiel the xiroduction of books or Avritings, in the possession of xiarties or others, which contain, evidence as to any matter xiending before
it; to issue attachments and executions to enforce its.judgments and decrees;
to punish by fine and imprisonment for contempts of its authority; and to
makerules and regulations for the transaction of its business; and that
such poAvers shall in all resxiects be subject to the same limitations and
restrictions as in the circuit courts.
I am advised that the foregoing functions, if giA-en by law to such a
customs court, will confer on it "judicial X30wer," and make it one of
the "inferior courts" mentioned inthe first section ofthe third article
of the Constitution, The second section of the xiroposed bill declares
" t h a t whencA-er, in the opinion of the President of the United States,
the accumulation of business existing at the date of the xiassage of this
act shall haA-e been disposed of, and whenever it shall axipear to him
comxiatible with xiublic interest, he shall haA-e X30wer to rcA-oke the axipointment of either one or two of said associate justices, whose term of
office shall thereupon cease.'' I am adA-ised that if the proxiosed cpurt is
to exercise judicial power under the Constitution, then each of its members, duly appointed, must be permitted to hold his office '' during good
behavior," unless there be power to abolish the entire court after it has
been created.
Another section declares:
"That any suit now xiending in any circuit or district court of the
United States for the recoA-ery of duties clainied to haA-e been unlawfully exacted or not to have been fully paid as required by laAv, may
be removed to the court of customs created by this act, on the motion of
the attorney for either party to such suit; and in that CA-ent all xiaxiers and
Xileadings relating to said suit shall be transferred and delivered to the
clerk of the court of customs hereby^created, and the United States
shall be substituted in place of the officer by or against Avhom the suit
shall haA-e been brought.'^'
If that section Avere enacted, then the district attornej- at New l^ork,
or the defendant's attornej-s, could by a motion oust the Federal circuit court of its xiresent jurisdiction of collectors' suits, and transfer
them to the new court. But in 1845, and again in 1873 by sectioii 3011
of thfe Eevised Statutes, every person, having done certain things
therein set down, '' may maintain an action in the nature of an action
at law, which shall he triable by jury, to ascertain the A-alidity of such
deniand and paj-ment of duties;" and I am advised that t h e " action
/ ItEPORT. OP THE .SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.. XXXIII
at law," ever since used in these, suits, makes the cPllectors' suits to
be the "suits at common law'' specified in the seventh article of the
, amendments to the Constitution, wherein, if " t h e value in controversy
shall exceed tAvent^- dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre^served,'^' That right to a jury, being fdr the-.benefit of litigating
. parties, may be waiA-ed by them, as I am advised, but cannot be taken
away iroin them against their Avish and will, nor can Cohgress, or the
Federal courts, compel a peremptory non-suit against the will of the
plaintiff, or a tidal by a referee against the will of either party, and,
furthermore, I amvadvised that it is very doubtful whether or not the
Supfehie Court can 'revicAv a decision made, both parties consenting,
.-» bA-a referee ih. a collector's suit..
, •
•'
If I have been correctly advised, the proposed law Avould, if enacted,
' be'unconstitutional.
./
Among the general considerations suggested in my annual report for
^ 1885 on this subject were the following:
. .^
> ' "If a UCAV tribunal shall be created, Avhere shall it sit? If there be
- more than one, there will be need of a supreme appellate tribunal to
Xiroduce uniformity of decision. The larger x^art of the revenue on
imxiorts is collected at the Port of New Yjork, and, therefore. New York
would naturally be the xilace chosen for'^the sitting of such a tribunal.
But if there ds to be one tribunal, and it sit either in New York or in
Washington, importers who live in distant parts of the country and on
the Pacific coast will be greatly inconvenienced if witnesses must travel
so far. The questions cannot alwa^-s be adequately presented on Avritten
depositions. On all questions of fact in dispute between an importer,
and the Goyernment concerning rates of duty, both parties are entitled
, to a trial bj- jury if desired, and a trial by jury at the place where the
leA-y was made. The present systeni secures that right,, and it also^
secures the right of the importer and the Government to bring'each
and every question of laAv to the Supreme Court at Washington.
''There have "also been suggestions for the creation of an executive
' r board to try and decide the questions concerning commercial designa^ tion, classification, and rates of duty, which are now tried and decided
by the Treasury Dexiartment. Tha result of my OAvn limited observa- tion and exxierience in the Dexiarthient is that if the existing system be
efficiently wprked, Both by importers.and local customs officers, and by
this Department, there is no need of modification. But at several of the
ports the system is not at present adequately worked. If the importer be
dissatisfied, and file a protest against the liquidation, the collector is to
immediately riecpnsider the liquidation in the'light of the protest. In - Xiractice, however, that important work of considering the protest, and
of redecision of the question of rate of duty, iseither assigned b^- the .
collector to a vSubordinate, or is performed by him in a perfunctory
•manner. It is the practice in this Department,^ wh,en an apxieal is re' ceived, to ask a report from.the local' officers where the liquidation was '
made.which is complained of, and if the reply be a thorough and con-.
' scientious One, both in regard to law and facts, this Department will
have before it the contention of the importer, Avho is very sure to state
his case clearly and strongly, and also the contention ofthe local officers.
XXXIV REPORT^ OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS'URY..
Upon such a preparation, of each case, and upon a similar xireparation
of similar cases from the scA-eral ports, the Dexiartment ought to be in
a.conditioh to make a safe decision.
^.
"^
^'Iam also of the opinion that the decision of these questions should be'
. kept'ioi hands where it can be, subject to the suggestion of .the Freside^it, inasmuch . as those questions 'ofte,n involve the consideration of treaties and of the
friendly relations of this Government ivith other governments.^
.
V" It will be obA-ious that the labor and responsibility of. deciding
I questiPns iiiA^olA-ing rates of duty, whicb is now dcA-olved upoh the Secretary of the Treasury, is onerous, and for his own peace and contentment of mind he would wish the respouvSibility placed elsewhere, but it
is. difficult for me to .see hoiw any executive commission', or board, can
be permitted to decide that class of questions without a certain aniount
of responsibility of revision being finally devolved uxion the head 'of
' this Department, in order to secure uniformity at all the ports, and the ^
obedience of each and all of the customs officers.'^
. •
.' < '.
If there is to ba in the fature any appeal of any kind from the executive
to the judicial power in questions of classification, rate, and amount of ,
duty, my opinion is that no better plan can^be devised than that which
distributes j urisdiction thereof o ve,r the country among the Federal circuit
courts, Avherein que'stipns of fact can be decided by a jury of the vicinage.,
Surely if ;the GoA-eri;iment's own cpurt, and a jury of our-countrymen
shall say that a duty was illegal, and ought not to have been forced by
the strong hand of power from an importer, the Treasury should, till
the law'has lieen amended, abstain from a similar enforcement,' and
Congress should promptly refund, Avith immediate xiayment of legal
damages, what has been illegally exacted. . I do not fear Federal juries;
. dr Federal courts, in that execution of our customs laAvs, if our ^district
attorneys are alert, vigilant, and comxietent.
.
. <,
s
BILLS OF PARTICULARS.
In furtherance of the^ suggestion made by Assistant Secretary Fair^
child in his accompanying report, I' adA-ise, that section 3012 of the
Eevised Statutes be amended by adding at the end thereof these words :
" A n d a bill of particulars, having been served as aforesaid, shall not
thereafter be amended by the xilaintiff, or by the court on the xilaintiff's
motion, so as to increase the total sum claiined therein as haying been ,
•.exacted in excesS^."
'
.
, , ^
•
•
RESTRICTION AGAINST SUITS.
1 have been informed by the' District Attorney at New York of a
ruling, within, a few days made in that circuit, to the (etfect that
*: although by section^931 of the EcA-ised Statutes no suit begun.before
a decision has been made by this Department on an appeal from the
collector (excepting under a condition therein described) "shall be^
maintained," yet, if the suit was begun before the decision, and if a '
decision adverse to the importer,has been afterwards made by the De-
REPORT OF THE' SECRETARY ^OF. THE TREASURY.. "XXXV !
partment, and before the suit shall come on for trial, then that suit can
be "maintained" by ;the iniporter. That ruling, if ian opxiortunity.
Xiresents, will be carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court. It,isin confiict with what this Department belicA-es Avas the intention bf the
section, and it makes more necessary a speedy enactment of section 2931
as amended by me in my communication to the House df January 18,
1886, and as xiroxiosed in Mr. Morrison's and Mr. Eandall's bills. " ; ',.
APPROPRIATIONS
;
• •• .
;
THE
REFUNDING
EXACTED.^
/
OF
.
DUTIES
ILLEGALLY
•• \
•• •'
., •
In Ex. Doc. 43 bf the Forty-ninth Congress, first sessioii, is a, communication from me, dated January 18, 1886, proxiosing certain amend-'
^nients to the existing law in relation to protests, axixieals, and suits,
wherein I said:
. ,
,
" F r o m the foundation of the Governinent uxi to the present time,
,either by common law or by statute, the law has xiermitted an imxiorter
who has been compelled to pay duties on iniports; the exaction of which
: he belicA-ed to have been illegal, to begin and niaintain suit to fest the
legality of the rate and amount of duty levied on the importation. The .
Governnient need not have giA-en to the imxiorter that right to sue, but
it did. There are npw OA-er twenty-three hundred such suits xiending
in the southern district of New, York, to say nothing of a large nnniber
pending in other judicial districts. It is my hope that an immediate
arrangement may be made in the southern district of New York, by »
which a court may sit continuously for bringing these suits to judgment
and enabling theTreasury Department to ascertain the magnitude'pf
its liability thereon, I shall do all in my power to make* the defence
of these suits thorough and effective, and, before I acquiesce in any
judgment entered therein, or in the rule prescribed by said judgment,
I shall take care that the law of 1875 is carefully regarded. But, when
that has been done, and the obligation of the Governnient to make refunds has been declared by a tria^l and judgment, and conceded by the
Department of Justice and the Treasury Department, in cases, which
are described by the Attorney-General ih his opinibn of July 18,, 1878,
(p. 70,) as ''Judgment Gases,''^ this Department should be enabled by a
permanent indefinite approxiriation to make immediate payment. To
that end, I also respectfully, submit the accomxianying proposed amendment and'enlargement of Section 30124 of the Eevised Statutes."
In H. E, 7652 (known as the Morrison Bill) and in H, E, 9702
(known^as the Eandall Bill) my recommendations Vj^ere adoxited, and
I respectfully express the hope that Congress also, may adopt them early
ill the preserit session.
•,
, '
•
;
'
^
FOR
,
•
i
•
.
SPECIAL AGENTS OF T H E
TREASURY.
^The excellent chief clerk of the customs at New, York makes the
following allusion'to the presence there of special agents: •
" I can readily understand and appreciate the need which the Head
of the Treasury may have for the services of an agent to look into special
^ xxxvi
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TOE. TREASURY. /
,
matters fijioni time to .tinie at the different ports,; but the c o n s t a t pres' en^ce in the,custom-house of a number of special agents is,, to my,mind,
a' hindrance to the public business. Of course it is natural that they
' will labor "to shoAv a necessity for their existence by exerting themselves
in the discovery of irregularities; and that they Avill make their efforts
in such direction\ by consuming ^the'A-aluable tiriia of. experience'd cusftoms officials whose attention may already have been given to the matter which the special agent may desire to investigate for credit tp hiriiself. There are many excellent men in- the force of special agents, but
the cpllector is responsible for the discharge Of the duties of his office -,
and if special officers are needed to look into the doings of those under
him, they,should be men of experience and training in the service, sub-.
ject to his sole, direction, and capable of sifting a riiatter understand' ingly without taking unnecessarily the time of officials whose'constant
' attention is required to current business." .,
'
; .
I accept the foregoing as a useful suggestion.
In my annual rexiort for 1885, I clearly- indicated my axiprpciation of
'the limitations of such agents:
'
^
:.• " I n thepresentforce of special agents, numbering tAventy-three, (23,)
there are useful servants of the rcA-enue Avhose intelligence, zeal, and
'fidelity cannot be justly, or successfully, called in question. Their work,
is incessant, resxionsible, delicate in character, and at times most vexing.
The best among them are invaluable aids to the head of this Dexiartment, whose services, or tha services oi others like them, it Avould be
an anjdiry to the customs revenue to lose. But yet, Avhile I thus fully
> and cordially recognize the value of the Sxiecial Agents Division, I also
. axipreciate the danger there is that a force of men, so near, the Secretary,
and naturally believed by the local officers to represent his Adews and
purposes, may, if not most judicious and discreet in conduct,^ and not
^' most.Avatchfully suxiervised, become an injury to the local service at the
^ ports Avhich they frequently Adsit as the esxiecial representatiA-es of this
Department, by creating, or encouraging, among the -officers of the
Xiorts, a feeling that the latter are relieved in some sense of the resxionsibility which the statute imposes on them," and especially if assigned to
Xiermanent Avork therein. I fear that such has already,N and in times
: past, been one result, arid that'the Government is now feeling, throughout the country, the unfortunate conse(^uences. The functions of collectors, naval oificers, and sur vey ors,. as Avell as their responsibilities, are
; clearly defined in the law, but yet it is easy for those officers to fall
into the habit of thinking that if the Secretary of the Treasuiy does not,
by the eyes of his sxiecial agents, see irregularities and needed reforms,
then none exist. If such a conditioh of dependence on this Department,'
actually and generally exists, as I fear that it does, fbr supervisibri of
the local work of a port, or of a place on^the frontier, the xirocess pf restoring a condition of effective and resxionsible local administration, '
, such as, the law contemplates, will necessarily be slow. The average
customs officer, Avho has been long in service, cannot be'easily, and
. quickly, shunted upon a new track when reform is needed. The fbrce
of habit is strong with him."
^
'
On.Npvember 24, 1885, the Collector at New York requested me to
apxioint a conimission, cousistingof notless than " five suitable persons,
to inquire into ^the orgahization of the various departments lof this
• offi'ce, and to ascertain and report whether the present methods of trans-
V REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY O F THE. TREASURY. XXXVII
actihg its business are the best, and: if not, what changes and improA-ements ,caii be.made therein AVhich will conduce at the same time to tha
, accommodation of, merchants and the benefit of the service; what
changes'or reductions, if any, should be made in the force emxiloyed ;
what offices, if an^-, should be abPlished; and what salaries should be '
increased or reduced." The Department did not feel at liberty to
, deny such a request, and on December 31, 1885, I appointed Special
Ag:entjS Tingle and Montgomery and Dexiuty Collector Berry,
- •
The expenses of the Special Agents' Bureau, including inspectors and
the fraud-roll, have been diminished by $70,852.30 during the last fiscal ,'
3-ear.' -.
,
'
- '
DUTIES ON COVERINGS.
'
^
'
AYheii I came to this Department, in March, 1885, the seventh section
of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, had receiA-ed an executiA-e interpre-*
tation on the advice of the Attorney-General. Had I been disposed to
reverse, as to future importations, the decision of a predecessor so emi-'
nent in judicial faculties as was Judge Folger, my power A^^^ould have '
been held in check by the law of 1875, which forbids the head of this <
Dex')artment to reverse, or modify, adversely to' the United States, a
ruling or decision riiade by a predecessor, or'by himself, giving construction to a l^w imposing customs duties, "except in concurrence, ,
with an opinipn of the Attorney-General," or a decision of a Federal court. The circuit court at New York, oh August 20, 1885, sustained,
the decision of the Dexiartment. In my annual reportfor 1885,1 made
a bidef review of the controversy, and concluded with these words: " I
cbmniend this question to the immediate attention of Congress, t o t h e
end that, by legislation, it may be settled definitely for tha future, and
so xirevent the continuance of a large number of protests and suits /
Avhibh have been begun, or are ifkely to be' begun, on account of the
decision of the Department, which decision Avill be adhered to by me
in the absence of legislation, unless the question be finally adjudged
adversely to the Department by the Supreme Court of the United.
States." There was no legislation by Congress, and consequently/the
'rulings and decisions made by my predecess^ors were enforced until the
opinion ofthe Supreme Court in Oberteuffer'' se'^^e was announced. Ih
my letter to Mr, Hewitt of March 23, 1886, I said:
; /. .
>. " T h e tendenc}- and drift of the reasoning in the recent opinipn of the
Suxireme Court in Oberteuffer's case are,, it will be incA-itablj- argued by
imxiorters, to prevent appraising officers, and this Department, from
taking into consideration, or account, any sort of a covering, or bandage,.
on an article described in and made dutiable by the tariff."
, '
, . No^ difficulties embarrassed the Department in the axiplication of that
opinion to. facts like those presented in Oberteuffer's case, but very.
XXXVIII REPORT OF-THE SECRETARY OF THE' TREASURY.
serious embarrassment came in the apxilication of the opinion to adifferent
class of facts,, to whi(3h embarrassment, allusion is made by Assistant Sec- ^
retary Fairchild, The questions which haye already arisen under that' >
ojiinion in niaking reliquidation of entries for refunds, a n d t h e questions whichwill present themselves to Congress in' new legislation on,
the subject, if new legi^latioif shall be attempted, are so important and
complicated that I have caused to be xirepared a very full history of
Avhat has been done thereunder in this Department, since the Supreme
Court promulgated its oxiinion,. in order that Congress may clearly see .
the confusion created by the ambiguities of the law of 1883, the bearing
upon that law of the Suxireme Court decision, and also Avhether or not
an attemxit shall be made during the .present session to modify- the law
. of 1883 as interpreted by the judicial poAvar, Whether or not the con. struction'glA-en by the Suxireme Court to the seventh section of the laAV
of 1883; and the interpretation by the Attorney-General of the oxiinion
of the court, express the actual intention of the draughtsman of the,
section, or.of those who advised it, I have no means of ascertaining.
The ox)inioii of the cpurt must, however, be accepted as correctij- expressing the legal effect of the words finally employed in the section,
by Congress, in their application to the circumstances of imxiortation
that Avere before the court. The history of thaf sectiori may be taken
' as a Avarning of the perils for the revenue which environ tariff legislation if hot' carefully considered in its relation to the whole body of the
tariff law.
' '
•
,'
. .
I t will be borne in mind by Congress that a restoration of the laAv as'
it was before the enactment of the seventh section of 1883, and the
making of coverings dutiable at the rates IcA-ied on the contents,^
will greatly increase the sum to be received from duties on impbrts,.
arid the cost to consumers of the imported articles. Such increased
revenue is not now needed by the Government, and the enhanced cost
of articles of food, clothing, and shelter would therefpre be noAv unjust
to consumers, and especially to the wage-earning classes of the country.
This Department is unable to'make a satisfactory estimate of how large
will be the refunds at all of the x)orts called for by the oxiinion of the.Su- \
preme Court and the Attorney - General's axiptlication of it to xiast imxiorta- ,
tions on which protests and appeals were made, but it is to be remembered that the refunds will not be a correct measure of the additional duties levied by a return to the taxatioh of coverings inflicted before March,
1883, and for thareason that it is not to be assumed that on all. or riearly
all, of the entries were protests and appeals made, or suits begun, to eiiti^tle the importer to a refund. ,1 commend to Congress a consideration of
the suggestions made by Assistant Secretary Fairchild,.Naval.Officer
EEPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XXXIX
Burt, and Special Agents Tingle and Tichenor on this iinportant subject.
', There are, no doubt, serious difficulties, iii applying the law as itis,;
whether or not they can be overcome by the appraising oificers, time and
. exxierience alone can disclose. A new law has been prox)Osed by the Naval Officer at New York and tha special agents, which will befound on
page 142 of Axipendix G, an exaniination of which will make axiparent the intrinsic difficulty of the situation. Will each and CA-ery member
of Congress agree one with another as tothe meaning arid legal effect of
the Avords therein used, and if not then may not the former difficulties,—
the xirotests, axipeals, and suits,—return to us if the proxiosal be adopted 1
, J n the body of the new rule the dutiable value is to include the A-alue"in
the packed condition in which it is actually put up for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident thereto," but the hr^tproviso
^excludes the value of an outside covering, and of a specified 'Hndividudl
lining OL xiacking, " i f specifically declared in the invoice, and a second •
proviso requires inquiry by the appraising officers into the, intention
and good faith of-the shipper.
/
i t is obvious that, if the proxiosed xilan be adoxited, a buyer of an
article abroad may be unable to present to our consular officers, and to
our axixiraising officers, a bill of sale, or iuA-oice, siich as he received
from the seller, or a transcript of it, for if after the x^nrchase the buyer
makes anywhere else, expenditures to xirepare the artible for shiximent,
he must, to xirotect himself, insert those iri^the iuA-oice. The proxiosed ,
plan naturally suggests the inquiry whether or not a requirement of our
' law Avhich conipels a x^nrdiaser to "make u p " an.invoice ih trial way,
and not xiresent to consular officers' a transcrixit of what he gets from
the seller, will not open the way for, and CA-en excuse, new falsifications
of iuA-oices.. But it is said, rind truly said, that under that scA-enth
section our ad valorem system, based on the foreign value of the article
at the time and place of importation to this country, cannot be easily
worked in its axiplication to a liniited class of articles which are
^enumerated in the subjoined documents.
>
•
•.
\ In my letter to Mr. Hewitt, of March 16, 1886, I endeaA-ored to give
^the result of the most careful examination that I could then make of
the origin of the seventh section of the law of 1883, its presentation by
the Tariff Conimission, and its .effect. To that letter, which will be
found in Appendix A, xip. 16 et seq.:, I resxiectfully refer the two Houses
. b f Congress.
.
.
^ .
. ,
,
Wh3- shall Ave hot alleviate the difficulty by a general and prudent
substitution of sxiecific rates not requiring in the IcA-y by customs offi,cers any ascertainment by them of foreigii values 1 I frankly- confess
.that I distrust the ^xiractical working of any vSection of a tariff law so
XL
^ REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE. TREASURY;
. elaborate, and comxilicated, as are the requirements of thb-on^ proposed,
wherein so much will depend o n t h e ascertainmerit by axipraisers of in'' tentions and good faith-on the part of the shipxiers. My own suggestion
of a, safe way,out of the cul-de-saa in.which we are, is tb SAveexi aAvay
existihg rates of duty on many finndreds^ of the 4,200 and more articles
noA^ dutiable, and enlarge the applicatiori of sxiecific rates, in applying
which our customs officer^ need not take thought of foreign values'.
. DUTIES' oisr ARTICLES SENT H I T H E R
'
'
'
IN THE MAIL-BAGS, INCLUDING-
BOOKS.
',
-
'
'^
: s
My attention^ was called in- March last, by a rexiort from, Sxiecial
Agent Montgomery, (see Apjpendix. J, xi. 275,) tb the sum.of money.
receiA-ed- and exxiended at the port of New York iri collecting duties on '
^ books coming in the mails, and quite' recentlj- was again called to the .
same subject by the discovery, in New York, of a misaxixiropriation of
public money collected as dut^- on mail-matter.'. Eeplies to my iiiqui.ries, recently made, .will be found in Appendix J, together Avith a
schedule of articles coming in the mail-bags and seized as forfeited
during the last fiscal year. That schedule will be found instructive by
its exhibition of the character and valueof the articles seized, either
because forbidden to be in the mail-bags, or because dutiable and not
regularly^ entered at the custonirhouse. .The relation of receipts to
expenditurasdn watching the mail-bags for dutiable matter, and collecting the duty thereon, will also be found in the same Appendix.
So long as the effort of our tariff' law shall be to sweexi into its net so
riiany things if coming from abroad^ and levy duties thereon, we are
constrained to forbid the entry of man^- articles in the mail-bags. The,
' law bf March 3, 1879, making axixiropriation for ^the postal service^
declared that "printed matter, other than books, received in the mails from
foreign countries un<der the provisions of postal treaties, or conventions^.
; shall be free of customs duty, and books which are a)clmitted to the interna-'
tional mails exchanged under the proA-isions of the Universal PostalUnion- Convention may, when subject to customs duty,, be delivered to
addresses ioi the United States .under such regulatioiis for the collections
of duties as may be agreed^pon by the Secretary of the Treasury and
the "Postmaster-General." One effect of this law hasbeen to permit
dutiable books, to be in the mail-bags. Thereby all printed inatter^
other than books, placed in the inail-bags abroad under treaty stixiulations^ is exempted froih dut^-, and books thus placed in ,the riiail-bags
are to be delivered to the xiersons to ^whom they may be addressed
subject, of course, to payment of duty.
' B y t h e tariff law of March 3, 1883, enacted four years afterwards,
thare Avas IcA-ied 25 per cent, ad valorem on "books, pamphlets, bound
,
^
RIEPORT OF T H E ^SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
XLI
' or unbound, and all xirinted matter not specially enumerated or proYided fov in this act; ehgravings, bound or unbpund; etchings,'illustrated
books,'maxis, and.charts." ;
, .
In the volume of United States Treasury Eegulations issued by my
predecessor, Judge^Folger, on July 1, 1884, more than one year after
the enactment of the tariff laAv of 1883, the laAA-* of 1879 to which I
^ haA-e referred Avas treated as unrepealed b y t h e law of 1883. Article
310 bf those Eegulations says t h a t ' ' books admitted to the International '
Mail Exchange, and. imported through the mail under the act of March
3, 1879, are dutiable if bound in stiff covers, or if they consist bf such
as are usually sp bound.^ * ^ * Other printed matter so iniported
is free of duties." Iniportations having been made in the mails, free,,
of duty, of chromo-lithographs in large quantities,/07^ sale,as rfierchandise, the opinion of,the Attorney-General was by the Department takeii
on the question of the repeal of. the section of the law. of 1879 by the
law of 1883. He advised that such, "printed matter" was duti- ' able if coming in the mails for sale as merchandise. I concurred in that
yiew, and issued a circular, dated April 15, 1885, a copy of which, with
the Attorney-General's opinion, will be found in. Axipendix J, p. 274,
wherein it is said that the "rule will not axiply to''xirinted matter' im- '
Xiorted in the riiails fbr personal use, or in quantities which suggest
that the articles are for personal use, or not for sale as merchandise."
• Thus all "printed matter" coming in the mails for personal use, and .
not for sale as merchandise, is exernpt from duty, unless it be a. bound
book, or a book usually bound.
The growth within comparatively a fcAv years bf the UniA-ersal Postal
Union, and the stipulations of postal treaties into which the Government
has.entered, have a bearing on the universality of our xiresent tariffs taxation in its application to. so many articles. Of course it was not intended
•by this Government, when it entered into those postal treaties', that
they should restrain the exercise of its power to IcA-y duty on any or
every article coming to our shores, or crossing our frontiers. The Universal Postal-Union Convention prohibits the, sending by mail of xiackets
'' containing articles liable to customs duty;'' but those in foreign countries whb are not informed of the minuteness of our tariff taxation, and
who live in x)laces abroad where the mail-bags are. more generally used
for sending parcels than they are with n s , do most naturally send to'the
mails, anil the fbreign post office receives, books, Und printed matter, addressed to those Avho are.in the United. States, ..The parcel arrives, and
when it has arrived, it is too late to exclude it from being sent by the mails. '
The ties of family, or pf friendship, now so closely- unite many in tha
United States with those who dwell in other lands, that the sending
XLII , REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. .
in trie^ mail-bags of books and printed publications, used and read,, or,
unused and unread,'and other printed publications of little, pecuniary
value, must naturally be A-ery frequent. The law of 1879, and the Gen.eral Treasury,Eegulations of 1884 Avere obAdously intended tb provide
for such_use of the mails by those not importers or dealers'. Complaint
having been hiade to me that in New York, and other large cities,, books
were not delivered b}- the letter-carriers as usual Avith mail matter, be-,
cause detained h j custbms officers for duties trifiing dn amount, and
. that the persons to Avhoni the. xiarcels Avere addressed were comxielled, . by notice sent in the mail, to go a. long distance, and at'great loss of
time, to the'custom-house in order to receive the parcel, and pay even
so small a'sum asfiA-ecents as duty, I instituted inquiries.
The GoA-ernment cannot xierriiit thamail-bags to be used bj-importers
and dealers, br anyone else, to evade the payment of duties,—certainly
not if the sum of the duties CA-aded be serious in amount. But, on the
other hand, if an nnbound book of sinall value, on AA-hich the duty may
be five or ten cents, or even more, is sent from abroad in the mail-bag •
. to any one in our large cities, it does, seem to be unnecessary to refuse
to deliver the book by letter-carrier, the dut}- to be collected b}- him,
• and to require the. xierson to whom it has been addressed to be
put to the inconvenience, and loss of time of going to the customhouse, or xiost office, making an entry, and paying duty as for aVlarge invoice of' valuable merchandise. When dutiable articles-of
other descriptions, large in value, are sent by mail with a clear intent
to evade the paymen^ of dut}-, the case will be different, and the treatment should be different.
,.
- .
Arrangements have been, made in New York, as Appendix j will
disclose, by AA-hich a staff of customs officers, necessary for the appraisement bf values, the estimating and collection of .duties on books,
\ has been placed inthe post-office building, and I commend to Congress
the inquiry whether, if at this point the free list is not to be enlarged,
legislation cannot be safely had by which, the duty having been ascertained and indicated on the parcel containing the dutiable book by a
stamxi, as is unx::>aid postage, the x)arcel may be committed to the letter' carrier for collection of the nioney as for postage due"? Such an arrange> • ment would, I hoxie, tend to remoA-e the feeling Avhich now exists against
, the customs serA-ice for detaiiiing books of such trifling value, and oh
which the duty to be xiaid is so petty.
.
•' REFORM IN METHODS OF CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION.
During more than four 3-ears Mr. HcAvitt has dcA-oted himself with
intelligent assiduity to accomplish certain greatly iie,eded amendments in the laws to enable this Dexiartment to enforce the quick,'
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
XLIII
certain, • uniform, and economical collection of duties on. iinports.
''The aim has been not to change,the rates, or enlarge the free-list, but
tp assist the cufstoms officers in the application of the rates as they
'stand. Nearly three years agp the project was commended aiid pro-,
moted by my predecessor. Judge Folger, in an elaborate communication addressed to Mr. Morrison, the chairman of the Committee on •
',^ays and Means, and on June 25, 1884, Mr. HcAvitt, from that comihittee, presented a bill to tha House (H. E. 7429) Avhich embodied
the suggestions of this Dexiartment Avith others, and accompanied it >
by a full and untoimous report from the committee urging its enact; nient. No definite action on this much needed reform was, howcA-er,
taken by the House, and two years afterAvards, February 1, 1886, (H.
E. 5010,) Mr. Hewitt presented the bill for a second time .with modifications which further inquiries commended. The bill Avas sent
to this Dexiartment by a sub-committee of the Wa^-s - aiid. Means ,
.for its views thereon, and, on March- 16, 1886, I communicated to'
the sub-committee the result of riiy examination. There was subsequent comparison of A-iews, from time to time, betAveen the sub,. committee and this Department, which resulted in a comxiletion by the
sub-committee, of Avhich Mr. Hewitt was chairman, of a measure of reform of certain parts of the customs laws, Avhich reform was embodied
' in House bill 7652, presented by Mr. Morrison in behalf of a majority
-ofthe Ways and Means Committee on Axiril 20, 1886. A great xiart '
,pf the measures of administrative reform' contained in Mr. Morrison's
bill was adopted by Mr. Eandall in the bill presented to the House
by him (H. E. 9702) on June 28, 1886.. In order that it may be clearly^
seen how xiatiently Mr. HcAvitt has toiled in this project of reform, how
step by stexi this Department has been consulted, and on what points
the Conimittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Eandall
are agreed, I herewith present in Apxiendix A, coxiies of the official<3orrespoiidence which has passed between the Conimittee of Ways and
Means and this-Department. In so much of that correspondence as
took place after March 23, 1^86, I was unable to particix3ate. My gen- ,
aral A-iews bn the subject wei*e, howcA-er, exxiresse^d in my letter of
^ March 16, 1886.
^
, '
. DUTIES ON PASSENGERS' B2VGG:AGE.
Ill my annual report for 1885, I dwelt upon the examination of x^as
-sengers' baggage, the scandal connected therewith growing out of the
N paymerit of monej- by arriving xiassengers to customs inspectors, and
' ;Said:
'
^^^
•
•; '
/ •_
' 'From these reports, and from iriformation received from other sources,
' I am couA-inced that the practice still exists, although so caidied on,- dn
XLIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
part^ under such circumstances of solicitation by trie insxiector after the
passenger has left the wharf, as to make x^revention difficult l^y any
agency at present within my control. The large sums that are .often paid, as I am told, by arriA-ing passengers to the inspector who exam- "
ines their luggage, oi^ afterAvards to some one who rexiresents him, make
itdmpossible to believe that the irioney, is paid merely as a recognition ^
of xiroper civility, or courtesy, or patience, on the part ofthe examinirig\
bfficel".^ '
^
'
\-,- - -' ^^ •
'^The practice of asking aind making such xiayments is one of long,
growth, arid therefore well established ;.butthe sums paid are represented
to me as yearly increasing in size. ^ How can it be prevented 1. No Bank'
would permit its dexiositors, or those in the habit of receiving loans
therefrom, to make large " t i p s " toits Cashier, or its Eeceiving Tellers,
orr its Paj-ing Tellers, or its Discount Clerks, for services rendered in.
;>the business of thq Bank. Nor Avould.a Avholesale or retail dealer permit custbmers tb make gifts of money to his clerks fpr courtesies ex. tended in tha making of sales, or the fixing bf xDrices. ^
'
v
K . '> My fear is that nothing less than sweexiing and scA-ere new criminal,
eriactnients Will thoroughly exterminate these practices. I respectfully,
' commend the subject to the attention of Congress with the suggestion
that the good effect of new legislatipn Avill' dexiend upon the decision by
-Congress of the^question Avhether or not it is wise, in. a xiublic, sense, topunish criminally the giving or taking of a gift made to one in the cits- :
toms service without proof that such giA-ing, or taking, Avas accompaiiifed
by an illegal intent; or in. other'wor.ds, Avhether or not the receiving by
, one in the customs service of any money, or thing of value, not author, ized by law, can well and safely be defined and punished as a crime, if ^
dorie in connection with the importation, storage,- examination or delivery of imported merchandise, Avithout the allegation, or proof, pf an
actual intent to A-iolate the law, or injure the revenue."
Section 20 of H. E. 7652 seeks to effect a suxixiression of the scandal
referred to. It may, however, deserve consideration Avhether or not ^
the xihrase, '-'shall be regarded asj?nma facie CA-idence," is sufficiently-^
explicit. ''' Evidence'' of Avhat % And may not the reference to sections:
15 and 16 be misleading'? The new section is a penal section, deprlA-ing
one of his liberty, and should be strictly construed by the courts.
^Mj--thought in 188.5 Avas that no arriving xiassengers, no importer of
agents, should be permitted to have any pecuniary transaction with a
customs officer, in connection with, any official business, excexiting to
pay the duties or fees levied by laAA-, but the proposed section defines tha
forbidden receiving of "any money or thing of value" tp be " i n consideration of or for any act or omission, contrary to law, in connection
with or pertaiining to,'' &c. Will it be- easy, in all cases, for the Government to establish that the receiving was for such 'ah."act, or omission, ''. unless the section shall more clearly put' upon the receiA-er tha
burden of proving the circunistances under which the money, orthing
of A-alue, shoAA-n to haA-e been received, was receiA-ed, and that the purpose was an innocent one? I also A-enture to suggest that section 19'
REPORT OF <rHE. SE'qRETARY OF TfiE TREASURY,
XLV
^should deaLniore severely ;aiid exxDlicitly Avith'the giA-er in resxiect to *
burden of proof
> - ..
. . .
..
The habit o f " t i p p i n g " or bribing, in the seA-eral;custom-houses- and
elsewhere, has become so x^revalent and has been so denlpraliziiig that I
am couA-inced no law AA-HI crush out the xiractice, unless it is extremely
stringent and sweexiiug. May not the proposed enactments be in this
form?^
,.
\
' .
SEC. ,19. That any person who shall ^give, or' offer tp giA-e, ,or.
promise to give, excepting for such duties,^or fees, as haye been levied^
or required, according to, the forms of laAv, any money or thing of'
yalue, directly or indirectly, to any officer or servant of the customs, \
or of dhe United States, in connection Avith, or pertaining tb, the importation, or appraisement, or entry, or examination,.or inspection of ;
goods, wares, or merchandise, including herein any baggage, or ofthe
liquida^tioh pf the entry thereof^ shall, on conviction thereof, be fined
not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars,
or be imprisoned at hard labor not more than two years, or both, at the
discretion of the court. And CA-idence of such giA-ing, pr offeririg, of'
promising to giA-e, satisfactory to the court in which such trial is had,
shall be regarded as _2)Hma/aae evidence that such giving, or offering,
or promising was contrary to. laAv,^ and shall x^nt uxion the, accused the
brirden of xiroying that such act was innocent and not done with an
unlawful intention. , .
, .
,
'
SEC, 20. That any officer or servant of the.customs, or of the United
States, who shall,- excepting for such duties or fees as haA-e been levied
or required accorliing to the forms of law, deniand, exact, or receiA-e
from any person, directly or indirectly, any money or thing of value
in connection with or pertaining to the importation, or apxiraise- ,
ment, or entry, or examination, of insxiection of goods, Avares, of merchandise, including herein any baggage, or liquidation of the entry
thereof, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less thaif one hundred .
, dollars,' nor more than fiA-e thousand dollars, or be imprisoned at hard
labor not more than tAvo years, or both, at trie discretion of the court.
An evidence bf such demanding, exacting, or receiving satisfactory to
the court in which such trial is riad, shall be regarded as prima facie
evidence that such demanding, exacting, or receiA-ing Avas contrary tp .
law, ahd shall put uxion the accused the burden of xiroving that such act-was innocent and not Avith an unlawdul intention.
The xiroxiosed vSection of Mr. Morrison's Bill H, E. 765'2 which deals
.with,the baggage of an arriving passenger is in these words :
" Wearing-axiparel, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, oa-.
cupation, or emploj-ment, xirofessional books, and other personal efiects
not merchandise of persons arriving,in the United States, not exceed- •
ing in value five hundred dollars, and not intended for the use of any
other person or xiersons, nor for sale; but this exemptioUxShrdl nPt be
construed to includamachinery or other articles imported for ase in any
manufacturing establishment or for sale: Frovided, however, That/the
limitation in value aboA-e specified shhll not apply to wearing-axiparel
and other xiersonal effects Avhich may haA-e been taken from the United
States to foreigri countries by the persons returning therefrom; and
such last-named articles shall, upon production of evidence satisfactory
. to the collector and to the naval oificer^(if, any) that they have been
. preyiously exported from the United States by such persons, and have
XLVI
REPORT OF THE' SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.^ <
not been adA-anced in valii^-or dmxiroved ih conditipn by any process
of manufacture or labor thereon since so expprted, be exemxit ft^oni the
payment of duty: And provided further, That all articles of foreign pro-,
duction or manufacture which may have beeh once imported into" the
Uiiited States and subjected to the payment, of duty shall, upon,reimportation, if nPt imxiroA-ed in condition excexit by repairs, by any
means, since their exxiortation from the Unitecl States, be entitled to
exemxition from duty^ux^on their identity being established, under such
rules and .regulations as may be prescribed by. the Secretary of the
• Treasury. "__ • i •' ' •
\ ; • ' ..,\ ,
•' , •
" Theatidbal scenery and actors' and actresses' wardrobes brought by
theatrical managers and xirpfessional actors and a'ctresses arriving from
abroad', for their temporarj- use in the United States-,'wprks of art,
drawings, engravings, xihotographic pictures, and philosophical ^ and
scientific axiparatus brought by professional, artists, lecturers, or scien, tists arriA-ing frpm abroad, for use by them temporarily fpr exhibition
' and in illustration,/ promotion, and encouragement of art, science, of
industry in the UnitedStates; and wearing-apxiarel and otrier'personal
effects of tourists from abroad visiting the United States, shall be adadmitted to free entr^-, under such regulations as the Secretary of the
Treasury may prescribe; and bonds shall be given, whenever required
;by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the payment to the United States
, of such duties as may be imposed by laAV uxion an^- and all such articles
as shall not be exported Avithin six months after such importation,:
Frovided, hotvever, That the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend such period for a further term of six months in cases
Avhere application therefor shall be madel" ^^^ ,
.' /
. The X3ertinent section of the law of 1883 reads thus: '
. .
"Wearing-apparel in actual use, and othef personal effects, (not
merchandise.) professional books, imxilements, instruments, and tools of
trade, occuxiation, or employment of persons arriA-ing in the United
States. But this exemxitiPn shall not be considered to include machinery or,other articles employed for use in any manufacturing establish-ment, or for'sale,"
. . ^
The law of' 1799, enacted 87 years ago, declared:
'
, "
' " T h e wearing-apparel, and other xiersonal baggage, and the tools or
imxilements of a. mechanical trade only, of persons Avho arrivis in the
Uni tee States^ shall be free and, exemxited from duty;"
It will be obserA-ed that the proxiosed section omits the liuiitation
' " i n actual use," as made in the law of 1883, the meaning of which;
phrase was defined by the Suxireme Court in 1884, and substitutes the
' limit and test of $500. It says: " Wearing-apparel, ' * ^ . - ^ ' of persoois arriA-ing in the United States, not exceedihg five hundred dollars."
But,of how many '• persons,",arriving as one family and including
children! .Shalleach adult and each infant be entitled 'to the $500'
limit *? Clothing when it has been taken from our ports by returning xiersons is, under the xiroposed sectibn, to be exempt, in any quantity-, and
of any value, if not "imxiroved in condition by any * * * labor
since so ' e x p o r t e d ' " which may include mending, dyeing, or .repairing^
A .second proviso, applying expressly to foreign-made articles owned by
REPORT' OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. XLVII
' the arriving persons j but once imported hither a n d d u t y paid thereoh,
declares^ that the articles, " their ^identity being established,"' shall be
free as baggage " if not improA-ed in condition, except by repairs, by
. any means.'' The proposed section also declares that the, weaidngaxix3arel of '-tourists from abroad" visiting the United/States "shall be.
entitled to a free entry, on giving a bWd to pay duty on such articles
as shall ijiot be exported withiii a specified time,'' but what will happen
if the articles' shall be^vorn-out, or lost,, or destroyed by fire?
I am aware that this section Avas. prepared in, or apxiroyed by, this
Dexiartment, and has been adopted by the Ways and Means Committee*.
Therefore, it is Avith great reluctance that I criticise it. / I can, liowever,but think there is no customs machinery at the- port of New York
now adequate to a correct ascertainment ofthe $500/limit, the xireparation of the proposed bond, and the execution, on the wharf, of such a
section. My opinion is that it will be better to allow the law of 1883,
althPugh the phrase '' in' actual use'' has been so generously interpreted
by the Supreme Court, to stand until the time shall come for a thorough
overhauling of the list of dutiable articles and the rates of duty therfepn,
and esxiecially if the scandal of " tipxiing" and bribing, on the Avharves,
'. can be staniped out.^
'
. '.
NEW AMENDMENTS OF THE LAAV OF 1 8 8 3 .
In both the bills now under consideration, presented by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eandall, are sections intended to stop as to the future the
holes in the law of 1883 disclosed by protests, apjpeals, and suits. < The
failure to enact those sections to be law has kept alive the protests as
well as suits. What those sections proposed was to legalize, in t h e '
.future. Department interpretations of the ambiguous lawrif 1883. I
wish that a permanent law made it obligatory on this Dexiartment to
exhibit to Congress in December of each year, or oftaner, similar defects
discovered in our tariff law, and that ^ Congress would be urged to
straightway deal with them.. In that way a great quantity of protests,
V apxieals, and suits, could be stopped. New ambiguities in the law of
. 1883 have come to light in 1886. They are exhibited in.the subjoined
Appendix E, and there has been added a sketch of legislation to'
remedy them for the future, on, the theory that the decisions of the
Dexiartinent express the Avish of Congress in that regard. If these
^ amendments shall be approved, I respectfully suggest that they be inserted in an approxmate place in the bill pending in'the House, which
contains the results of Mr. Hewitt's and the Dexiartment's conference
•on administratiA-e customs reform, and the decision of the Ways and'
. Means Committee" thereon.
,
XLVIII
,
'
.
.
•'''
,
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE
,
•"
1
.
' ' •.•~y---/
'
.
" .
*
.
.
.
'
•
TREASURY/
'
••STILTS F O R V A L U E .
'
.
•
'-
'
.
^
•
•
\
,
.'••
"^
- '
In my* annual report for 1885, I alluded to a'decisiohof the Feder,al,
district, and circuit courts in the southern district of New York re- .
specting suits for; the A-alue of merchandise charged with fraudulent
importation, and said: ' ,
.^ • .
-.
'^
" The district court for the southern district of New Y.oi;k decided in .
March, 1884, (19' Federal'Eexiorter, p. 893,) which decision was affirmed'
on appeal by the circuit court, on May 5, 1884, that-the legislation of
Junev22, 1874, covered the whole ground of frauds o n t h e revenue by
the entry of imported goods at the custom-house embracing punishment
of importers cririiinally, as well asdndemnity to the Government,, and,
therefore, superseded by implication sectibns 2839 and 2864 ofthe EcAdsed Statutes on the same subject, so that there is at present no law
authorizing a suit foi: the value of the merchandise Avhich has been
withdraAvn from the custody of the Government, although tfiemerchan- ^
disc has beeh tainted by a fraud in its inixiortation, and would haye
been liable to condemnation if the prosecution, had been ioi rem. 1 respectfully suggest to Congress the immediate enactment of legislation
to remedy such an interpretation of the law of 1874, which cpuld-not, I
assume, have been intended by Congress."
The Committee of Ways and Means prepared a needed amendment
to cure the blunder in the law of 1874. I resxiectfully suggest its early
enactnient.
^
,.
_ THE RECASTING OF ALL OUR CUSTOMS COLLECTION LAWS.
. Our statutes regulating the collection of duties, Avh ich have their
basis.in thedaAv of 1799, need all'tp be recast in order to adapt them to
the growth, and changes in commercial niethods. The law of 1799
. is, ncA-ertheless, at the ripe age of nearly ninety years, a marvel of
clearness, conciseness, and accuracy, (our warehousing and appraising S3-stem has been devised since its enactment,) but many of the
amendments thereto seem to be absolutely harmful. The recast should
a n d e a n , if administratiA-e reforms now pending. in'.the House are
,adPxitedVbe xiostxioned, howcA-ar, till the country comes to a decided
coriclusion in resxiect to the future sum and method pf taxation. Duties;
on imx)orts will,, as I am firmly convinced, continue to be a chief source
of oui? FederarreA-enue, so long as our Federal Constitution continues in
its present form. , Whether duties shall be laid on as many articles as
now, or pn a few, Avhether the crude materials needed by our manufactures shall pay seaport or frontier taxes, whether the rates shall be chiefiy
ad valorem or chiefiy specific, remains to be decided. Until the country has settled down upon the rates and objects of tariff taxation, the
perfection of a comxilete code of laws and, regulations, tp enforce and"
secure the collection of those rates, can be deferred. The administrative
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
XLIX
measures presented in Mr. Morrison's and Mr. Eandall's bills will, if
adopted with few amendments, tide us over present difficulties. Our exist ing tariff laws and regulations are not for the promotion and convenience
of any foreign trade, certainly not for the xiromotion of our export trade,
but any system of taxes on imports, which will secure an annual revenue of 150 millions, will need to be enforced in our country, Avith its 136
ports or collection districts, by strict, unvarying, and uniform rules of
procedure at each port. There cannot be indulgence and relaxation,
of rules,—what is called " t h e convenience of merchants,"—at one port
and not at another, or for one importer and not for all. A customs
organization, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and along^ the
coasts of both oce'ans, guarded by a fieet of 28 arrned and 10 unarmed
revenue cutters, which are manned by more than 995 officers, cadets, and
seamen, and enforcing the collection of more than 4 millions of dollars
at Chicago, nearly l i millions at New Orleans, over 51 millions at San
Francisco, and 130 millions at New York, is very unlike in magnitude
the British organization which, in the United Kingdom, is only for the
ports of relatively small islands within easy reach of London. To be
sure Great Britain at those few island ports collects nearly half as much
money as we by duties on imports, but she IcA-ies duties on less than a
score of articles. Her collection laws were modified after 1846, when
her system of tariff taxation was radically changed. We can easily
recast all our laws for the collection of duties when we have definitely
settled upon the sum and method of a new and better system of taxation.
Eespectfully yours,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the To^easury.
The Honorable
T H E SPEAKER OF T H E H O U S E OF EEPRESENTATIVES.
(4)
•9
REPORT OF ASSISTANT' SECRETARY FAIRCHILD.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, B. C , November 27, 1886.
SIR : In compliance with your request, I herewith transmit a report
upon certain matters connected with the business of the Treasury Department.
You call especial attention to the laws concerning the collection of the
revenue from customs and to the administration of the same. Your
various rexiorts and letters upon this subject are so full and exhaustive
that there remains but little to be added, either of fact or argument.
There are, however, a few details to which it may not be amiss to call
attention.- During the last fiscal year, the most imxiortant event affecting the administration of the customs laws was the oxiinion ofthe United
States Supreme Court, of January 25, 1886, interpreting section 7 of the
tariff act of 1883.
That opinion entirely changed the rule which the Dexiartment, under
the opinion of Attorney-General Brewster, had theretofore followed, viz:
That the "goods" (the market A-alue of which at the time and place of
exportation was to be found for the purpose of IcA-ying duty thereon)
were such "goods" in a marketable condition. In lieu thereof it
became the duty of the appraising officers at more than one hundred
and thirty ports to learn the A-alue of the "goods per se"—that is,
stripped of all coA-erings and charges whatsocA-er, no matter whether
in such condition thie goods had or had not a market value anyAvhere;
and that not only as to current importations, but also as to thousands
of entries upon which duties had been collected under the old rule,
that the same might be reliquidated and the duties erroneously collected refunded, the goods and their coverings having long before gone
into consumption.
The opinion of the Supreme Court still left many questions for the
Treasury Dexiartment to consider, which are the subjects of over forty
printed decisions. The chief difficulties were caused by questions as
to whether invoices or entries so showed charges and cost of coverings
as to permit deductions of the same, as to Avhat charges Avere incurred
" i n finishing the goods to their present condition," and as to what
coverings were liable to 100 per cent, duty under the proviso of the
seventh section of the tariff act of 1883. The Department held that
if it could be learned either from the invoice or entry Avhat the nondutiable costs or charges Avere. that they should be deducted from the
A-alue of the goods.
The questions arising under the proA-iso were more difficult. What
coverings ^ve ''designed foo'-'use otherwise thaoi in the booia-fide to^ansportation of goods to the United States V
The'cans in which pease are preserved, and in which they would be
hermetically sealed as part of the process of xireservation, whether the
pease Avere designed to be exported tb the United States or to be finally
LII
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
cooked and eaten in the kitchen or room where they had been canned
or preserA-ed'?
The leather cases in which oxiera-glasses are carried, lasting the lifetimeof the owner*? ^
The leather cases for pipes, the ornamental boxes for violins, and
other musical instruments remaining forever with their contents, protecting them from dust, but too frail, delicate, and costly to be used for
the purposes of transxiortation, (except in the hands of the owner,) to
theUnited States or anywhere else *?
.
The box Avhich contains blacking, andls the convenient and necessary
instrument to enable the contents to be used at alH
Are any of these, coA-erings "designed for use otherwise than in the
hona-fide transxiortation of goods to the United States'?" I Avas at first
inclined to think that they Avere so designed for use otherwise, and decided accordingly; but that rule seemed so hard and unjust that I finally
laid the whole matter before the Attorney-General in a series of letters,
and had scA-eral xiersonal conferences with the Solicitor-General, then
acting Attorney-General, the result of which Avas a decision by him to
the effect that no coverings were dutiable which at the time of exxiortation were designed for no other use than that of coverings, Avithout
reference to the question of transportation to the United States. This
general decision was followed by others, which sxiecifically held all ofthe
above enumerated coverings to be free. The chief reason which led to this
result seems to haye been that in doubtful cases the benefit of the doubt
is tb be given to the tax-payer. It is doubtful if the laAv-maker intended
such coA-eidngs to .be free, still more doubtful if he intended them to be
subject to 100 x^er cent, duty; and he had expressly said that the value
of no.coverings Avhatever should be included in estimating the A-alue of
the contents, hence the decision that such coA-erings are free. The At- .
torney-General has, however, giA-en Avithin a few days to the Department an oxiinion that the boxes which cover both safety and other
matches, and which have on the outside a surface prepared to scratch
the matches upon, are dutiable at 100 per cent.
The Department now holds, under the opinion of the Attorney-Gen-^
aral, that all coverings, Avith but few exceptions, are free, and that no
charges incurred "after the goods have been finished are to be estimated
in ascertaining the dutiable value ofthe same.
The questions arising under said section 7 of the tariff act of 1883
seem, therefore, to be finally settled, so far as they can be by the Treasury Department, but the laAv requiring, as it now does, the appraising
officers to find the market value of articles at the time and place of
exportation, and, at the same time, directing them to find such value
in a conditioii in which the articles are not sold at that time and place,
or at any tinie or place, presents difficulties which call for an amendment of the law. At present, every advantage is offered to the unscrupulous and every disadvantage to the conscientious iniporter.
It will be some years before all of the entries in this class of cases can
be reliquidated, and the monej- collected under the decision of the
Department refunded. No one knows the sum of these duties, and the
total cost to the Government will be increased by the interest upon it
b3- the costs of suits, and the salaries of clerks emploj-ed upon the reliquidation,
.
.
Ofthe questions now before the Dexiartment, I regard that of "hattrimmings," under paragraph 448 of the tariff act of 1883, as one of the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
LIII
most important, TheDepartment holds that the goods must be generally used for the trimming of hats, and commercially known as hattrimmings, to be dutiable at 20 per cent, ad A-alorem, and in this it is
sustained by the Attorney--General in a recent opinion; but iniporters
constaiitly protest and appeal on the ground that they intend such a
piece of silk or of velvet to be used for the trimming of hats; that it
can be and is sometimes so used, although generally used for gowns or
other purposes. If the views of these importers were adopted, all
goods, of whatever material composed, which could possibly be used to
trim a hat, might never be subject to a rate of duty greater than 20 xier
cent, ad valorem. Whether or not the duty should be greater, would,
in every instance, depend uxion the good faith of the importer. And
this leads me to call attention to the unwisdom of laws which fix the
rate of duty according to the use to Avhich it is intended to xiut the
article imxiorted. The intention of the imxiorter at the time of importation is known bnly to himself; there is no law to comxiel him to carry
out that intention or to compel the final consumer to put the article to
the use,for Avhich the imxiorter shall have declared that it was imported.
As an example, take paragraph 641 of the tariff act, "Animals
specially imxiorted for breeding purxioses shall be admitted free upon
proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury," What proof can
he have other than the declaration of the importer'? Under this decision thousands of rams and CAves have been brought from Mexico free,..
sheared on this side of the line, and sent back again. All sheexi are
sheared, all rams and ewes breed. The Secretary of the Treasury must
not say that a man shall 011I3- import such and such breeds for breeding
purposes, or in such and such numbers. No law forbids, or ought to
forbid, the exportation of iniported animals. In practice it is necessary
to leaA-e the execution of this law to the arbitrary will of each collector,
thus leaA-ing a door open for partiality.
Non-uniformity of adininistration also arises from such laAvs, For
example, the collector at one „ port believes'that a certain ribbon is a
hat-trimming, and IcA-ies a duty of 20 per cent, upon it. At another
Xiort the collector belicA-es the same ribbon to be an iniportation of silk,
and levies a duty of 50 per cent.
The same difficulties constantly occur upon the importatioil of horses
and cattle. The same criticism applies to other proA-isions of the tariff
act. notably paragraph 699, "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption,"
free,'while paragraph 280 imxioses a duty of fifty cents a hundred xiounds
on fresh fish.
Paragraph 712, "grease, for use as soaxi-stock only, not specially enumerated or provided for," free, Avhile various ratesof duty are imxiosed
upon substances which may be used for soap-stock, and yet a court has
declared them to be free because entered as soap-stock.
Paragraph 130, "paving-tile,",tAventy x^er centum ad valorem, while
another paragraph imxioses a duty as high as fifty-five per cent,, which
would be the rate of duty of certain kinds of tile that, upon importation,
are declared to be intended for paving-tile.
I mention the foregoing because, in my experience, they have, among
very many others, xiresented difficulties. Constant irritation, exists at
the princixial xiorts because of difficulties growing out of apxiraisement
and reapxiraisement. There are charges of the incapacity of officers,
and counter-charges of the bad faith of imxiorters, a wrangle at the most
important stage of the process of collecting the customs reyenue, Avhen
LIV
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '
there should be the most orderly administration of laAV- The number of
reappraisements is much increased by a late decision, at New York, by
Judge Brown, that the collection of the money to pay the fee (five dollars
day) of the merchant appraiser Avas an illegal exaction of a fee, and a
subjected the collector receiving, the same to a fine of two hundred dollars, under section 2636, Eevised States. The Department has directed
an appeal upon this question, but pending the same has suspended the
collection of such moneys from importers.
Yalues and classifications are not so uniform at the various ports as.
they should be, and this difficulty is likely to increase as the numberof ports and the use of'the xirivileges of the immediate-transxiortation
act increases with .the country's growth. Amendments to existing lawsmight perhaps be devised to ameliorate some of the difficulties attending axixiraisement and reappraisement, but, at the best, I apprehend
that there will be unending trouble, dissatisfaction, and.demoralization
in this dexiartment of the Government business so long as we have a.
comxilicated high ad valorem tariff.
The Department has arranged for periodical meetings of the appraisers of the princixial ports, in the hoxie that by conferring together
they may make classification and apxiraisement more uniform throughout the country. As a further aid to this, I adA-ise that one of the
general apx')raisers be located near the centre of the country.
I find a difficulty in the partial presentation of customs questions upon
appeals before the Dexiartment. Often but one A-iew is given, either
that of the domestic manufacturer Avho wishes a higher rate of duty
exacted, that his business may be further protected, or that of the
imxiorter, who Avishes the loAver rate. It Avould seem, too, that the
latter sometimes presents his case feebly before the Dexiartment, especially when he believes that he has a good case, reserving his strength
for a trial in court. Ancl he acts wisely, for the more duties the
Government exacts erroneously from an importer, the better for the
importer. In most instances, he sells ohis goods plus the erroneousduties. By and by, generally years after xiayment, he gets a judgment, which entitles him to the repayment of all tha duties, together
Avith interest from the date of xiayment, at the rate laAvful in the State
where he resides, besides the costs of suit; all a clear gain to him,
while the general public, which has* really- paid the duties, is taxed
to x^ay them a second time, together with interest. This maj- helxi toexplain the fact that.the Government is defeated in a large majority
of its customs cases Avhen they once come before a court and jury. I
belicA-e that much of this difficulty would be cured if the rate of interest in such cases were made very low and uniform throughout tha
countrj-, or bettef if it were done away with altogether. Then
importers AA-OUM have more motive to strongly xiresent their cases;
before the Dexiartment and to hasten their trial in court. The courtsAvould be relicA-ed of a vast mass of business, the peoxile saved a larga
amount of money, and, on the whole, more substantial justice done
than under the law as it UOAV stands,
A practice has grown up in the courts of permitting the amendment
of the bill of xiarticulars prescribed by section 3012, Eevised Statutes,
This practice has gone to such an extent as to amount to a repeal of
that proA-ision of law, or at least to throw down all the safeguardswhich Congress must have had in vicAv when it enacted the law, A
recent order of court allows amendment of the bills of particulars in
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
LV
771 suits, so that the amounts therein stated shall be changed to the
amounts Avhich may be found due by the liquidating officers at the
custom-house when they have finished their work. In accordant?e with
a protest of the present collector at New York, made in consequence
of this order ancl in pursuance of the opinion of the Attorney-General
and the -Solicitor of the Treasury, an apxieal will be takeii to test the
jurisdiction of the court to grant such amendments.
The Secretary of the Treasury acts in a xiurely judicial caxiacity ih
the determination of customs appeals, but many of the citizens who
come before him in such cases forget this and are too apt to base their
arguments upon all sorts of considerations of policy and general fairness. A favorite argument of the domestic producers is, that the case
should be decided against the importer, as then only can it get into
court and be decided by judges. I fear that this argument has often
had too much weight with the Dexiartment, with ultimate loss to Government and damage to. a domestic business built up in reliance upon
unlawful protection. The only proxier rule for the Secretary to follow
is entirely to disregard the fact that the question goes to a court after his
decision, neither leaning the one Avay, because he knows how apt a jury
is to find the facts against the Government, nor the other, because he
wishes to shirk the responsibility of a final decision and to put it upon
a court.
I think it may be said that upon the whole the customs business was
well administered during the last fiscal year, when all the difficulties
which surround it are taken into consideration. The officers as a rule
were alert and attentive to their duties; of this the fact that it cost
$490,608 less to collect $194,189,356 of duties during the fiscal year
1886 than it did to collect $183,116,808 duidng that of 1885, is gratifying evidence.
Eespectfully yours,
CHAELES S. FAIECHILD,
Assistant Secretary.
The Hon. SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
APPENDIX.
H . E x . 2—VOL II
1
A P P E N D I X AO
CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION, AND A-COMPARISON OF SECTIONS IN H. R.
7652; INTRODUCED APRIL 12, 1886, KNOWN AS THE ^^MORRISON BILL,"
AND H. R. 9702, INTRODUCED JUNE 28, 1886, KNOWN AS THE "RANDALL
B I L L , " W H I C H PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AND IMPROVEMENTOF LAWS
RELATING TO CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION.
No. 1.
A comparison of,House bills 7652 and 9702, known respectively as
the Morrison and Eandall tariff bills, for the purpose of ascertaining
in what particulars the two bills correspond or differ so far as they relate
to the administration of the customs laws, discloses—
(1) Section 3 of the Morrison bill, p. IO, lines 23 to 29, reads, after
the word '' materials," line 23: •'^ The duty shall be assessed at th<p. rate
at which the (dutiable) component material of chief value may be
chargeable; and the words ^component material of chief A-alue^ wherever used in this title, shall be held to mean that (dutiable) component
material which shall exceed in \^alue any other component material
found in the article."
In the Eandall bill, p. 19, lines 25 to 31, the language is as follows:
" T h e duty shall be assessed at the highest rate at which the same
would be chargeable if composed wholly of the component material
thereof of chief value; and the Avords ^component material of chief
value' wherever used in this title, shall be held to mean that component
material which shall exceed in value any other single component material found in the article."
(2) The provision in section 3 of the Morrison bill (Schedule G, pp.
13 and 14), relating to rice-flour, &c. (lines 106 to 121), is incorporated
in section' 2 of the Eandall bill (p. 7, lines 118 to 123), and the rate of
duty fixed at 20 per cent, ad valorem, no rate being provided in the
Morrison bill.
On page 16 of the Morrison bill (lines 172 and 173) occur the words:
'^ Without having been advanced in A-alue by any process of manufacture or by labor thereon." In the Eandall bill (pp. 24 and 25, lines 157
and 158) the corresponding provisionals asfollows: ^^ Without having
been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of
manufacture or other means."
(4) On page 18 of the Morrison bill (line 212) tha provision is made
applicable to all articles of foreign production, whereas in the Eandall
bill (p. 26, line 197) the word ^^such" limits the application to the articles previously described.
(5) In the same clause of the Morrison bill (line 216) the, words ^^ except by rep^aiy'§"p{?^ur5 which are omitted from the Eandall bill (line
20lj p. 26)/ ^^'
'
•
"
s5
4
R E P O R T O P T H E SECRETARY O F T H E
TREASURY.
(6) That part of the Morrison bill providing for the free admission
of ">' theatrical scenery and actors, and actresses, wardrobes,'' &c. (lines
221-224, p. 18), is omitted from the Eandall bill.
(7) The words ^^declarations herein provided for" ih section 6 of the
Morrison bill (p. 26, lines 2 and 3) are changed in the Eandall bill (p.
34, lines 2 and 3) to read, ^^ declarations provided for in the preceding
sectiouo"
(8) Section 7 of the Morrison bill, p. 27, providing for the extension
of the bonded period for imported merchandise, &Cc, is omitted from
the Eandall bill.
(9) Section 7 of the Eandall bill (pp. 35,36) provides for the withdrawal from bonded warehouse, free of internal-revenue tax, of domestic alcohol or distilled spirits for use in industrial pursuits. ~ The Morrison bill contains no such proA-ision.
(10) Section 11 is the same in both bills, except that in the Eandall
bill (pp. 38 and 39, lines 13 to 21) there is inserted a proviso between
the word ^^ cents" and the word "and," occurring in line 13, p. 31 ofthe
Morrison bill, in regard to the ascertainment of the drawback on sugar
and molasseSo
(11) The words "section fifteen and sixteen of this act" in section 20
of the Morrison bill (p. 39, line 11) are changed in the Eandall bill (p.
47., line 11) to read, "this and the preceding section."
(12) Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Eandall bill (pp. 49 to 51) provide for the repeal of internal-revenue tax on tobacco, snuff, cigars,
cigarettes, &Co, and upon fruit distillations. No such provisions are contained in the Morrison bill.
There are other diff'erences in the text of the administrative sections
of the two bills, but they are not essential, as they relate only to the
phraseology of the introductory parts of certain clauses and provisions.
The following parts of the administrative sections of the two bills are
identical:
Morrison Mil.
Bandall hill.
Lines 39 to 44, p . 11.
Lines 49 to 62 and 66 to 78, pp. 11 and 12.
Lines 79 to 105, pp, 12 and 13,
Lines 122 to 164, pp. 14, 15, and 16.
Lines 187 to 190, p. 17.
'
•
Line 224 (beginning with the words
*'works of a r t " ) to line 240, pp. 18 and 19.
Lines 242 to 247, p, 19.
Sections 4 and 5, pp. 19 to 26.
Sections 8, 9, and 10, pp. 28 to 30.
Sections 12 to 19, pp. 31 to 38.
Sections 21 and 22, pp. 39 and 40.
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
Lines
41 to 46, p. 20.
51 to 64 and 68 to 80, pp. 20 and 21.
81 to 107, pp, 21 and 22.
108 to 149, pp. 23 and 24.
172 to 175, p. 25.
205 to 221, pp. 26 and 37.
Lines 222 to 227, p, 27.
Sections 4 and 5, pp. 27 to 34.
Sections 8, 9, and 10, pp. 36 to 38.
Sections 12 to 19, pp. 39 to 47.
Sections 21 and 22, pp. 47 to 49.
Th'e other administrative sections, including schedule admendments,
beginning with section 3 of each bill, are substantially alike.
N0o2o
The following sections of House bill 7652, known as the Morrison
tariff bill which embodied the administrative measures known as the
Hewitt bill, were prepared in the Department, upon the dates noted
below:
(1) That part of section 3 '(pp. 10,11) substituted fo? seotioi^ ^499,
Bo S. (preparea M^?ell g2j 1886),
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•5
(2) The clause in the same section relating to " metals unwrought,"
&c., included in lines 92 to 97 (p. 13) (prepared March 31, 1886).
(3) The clause under Schedule G (hues 106 to 121,pp. 13,14) relating
to "riceflour," &c. (prepared March 29, 1886).
(4) The clause relating to "wearing apparel, personal effects," &c.
(lines 191 to 247, pp. 17-19) (prepared March 31 and April 5, 1886).
(5) Section 4, relating to coverings, &c, (pp. 19-21) (prepared March
27,1886).
(6) That part of section 5 relating to declarations, which provides for
the authentication of such declarations by notaries (lines 11-19, p. 22)
(piepared March 25, 1886).
(7) Section 6, prescribing punishment for false declarations (pp. 26-27)
(prepare^l March 25, 1886).
(8) Section 10, that part following the word "abolished," in line 6, p.
29, to the word "section," in line 12, p. 30 (prepared March 26,1886).
(9) Section 12, amending section 2900, E. S. (pp. 31, 32) (prepared
April 3, 1886).
.
(10) Sections 13, 14, 15, and 16, amending sections 2931, 3012, and
3012^', E. S. (px). 32-37). These sections Avere taken from the draft of a
bill accompanying the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed
to the Speaker of .the House, January 18, 1886 (Ex. Doc, 43, H. E.).
The Department, under date of April 17, proposed certain modifications
of section 13 so as to harmonize this section with the act of July 15,
1884.
(11) Section 18, relating to the unlading of cargoes in bulk in certain
cases (p. 38) (prepared March 27, 1886). (12) Sections 19 and 20, prescribing penalties for receiving or giving
bribes in certain cases (pp. 38, 39) (prepared March 27, 1886).
(13) Section 21, amending section 12 of the act of June 22, 1874 (pp.
39, 40) (prepared April 9, 1886).
The following changes in the amendments proposed by the Department to the so-called Hewitt bill appear to have been made by the Committee on Ways and Means:
(1) In section 3, page 10, the word "dutiable," in parenthesis, was
inserted in lines 24 and 27.
(2) In the same section, under Schedule G, relating to " rice flour,"
&c., the gauge of the brass-wire seive suggested was changed from No.
12 to No, 10 (p. 14).
(3) In the same section, in the clause relating to articles of the
growth, produce, or ni an ufacture of the United States returned (p. 16),
the words " or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or
by any other means," which the Department suggested shoij-d be inserted between the word "value," in line 172, and the word "casks," in
line 173, were omitted by the committee.
(4) In the same section, relating to "wearing apparel," &c. (p. 17),
the words " if the same shall have been in the actual use of the x3crson
for a period of not less than one month," were, in the draft, prepared
in the Department between the word "dollars" and the word "and,"
in line 198, but were omitted by the committee.
(5) Lines 210 and 211, page 18, as prepared in the Department, were
changed by the committee by the insertion of the words " by any process of manufacture or labor thereon." On the same page (line 215),
after the word "not," the words "advanced in value or" were stricken
out of the Department draft, and in line 216 the words "except by rexiairs" were inserted by the committee.
6
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
(6) Section 10, as prepared in the Department, contained after the
word " a c t " (line 15, page 30) the following: "A sum equal to the
amount which he would have been otherwise entitled to collect as fees
for serA-ices in relation to such entries to be alloAved to him upon rendition of proper accounts therefor." This provision was not adoxited by
the committee.
(7) In section 20, as prepared in the Department, there was a provision for the dismissal of an officer guilty of bribery, which was omitted
by the committee.
No. 3.
Hon.
W. R. MORRISON,
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , Fehruary 7, 1
'^
Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives :
SIR : I am in receipt of a letter fiom the clerk of your committee, dated the 5th instant, inclosing a copy of a resolution adopted by the .committee, requesting me to
make such suggestions as I may deem necessary in order tq improve the administration of the customs department, and to furnish such facts in regard thereto as the
committee ought to have, in order to perfect suitable amendments to existing laws
looking to their better administration.
I understand the resolution to refer more particularly to the tariff than to the machinery of administration of the customs laws. I shall therefore confine the remarks
which I have to offer to the practical operation of the tariff act of March 3,1883, and
endeavor to point out some of the difficulties of administration connected therewith.
Two prominent points have, arisen which involve- matters of administration. First
as t o the order in which the various provisions of sectipn 2499, Revised Statutes, as
amended by t h a t act shall be applied. It has been decided to apply them iu the order
in which they stand in the statute, as will be seen by the inclosed copy of letter to
the collector of customs at New York dated the 12th ultimo. It is contended, however, by some of the customs officers t h a t if an article made of a material which is
named in one o f t h e residuary clauses, as, for instance, a manufacture of iron, and is
not specified in the tariff by its trade name, it is an enumerated article, and hence the
first clause in said section 2499 cannot be applied to subject it to any other rate of
duty t h a n t h a t appropriate to the materials of which it is made. The rule adopted
is believed to be a proper construction of the law, but it may lead to litigation ; and
it would be well, if occasion should arise, for Congress to declare the order in which
the various parts of said section 2499 shall be applied. The second point of controversy has been the correct meaning of section 7 of said act. For ready reference I insert the section here:
*^SEC. 7. That sections twenty-nine hundred and seven and twenty-nine hundred
and eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and section fourteen of the
act entitled 'An act to amend the customs revenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen hundred and. seventy-four, be, and the same
are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections or
any other provisions of existing law shall be estimated in ascertaining the value uf
goods to -be imported, nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates,
boxes, or covering of any kind be estimated as part of their value in determining
t h e amount of duties for which they are liable: Provided, That if any packages,
sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material or form designed
to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of one
hundred x'>er centum ad valorem upon the actual value of the same."
A vast number of appeals from the assessments of duty made by collectors of customs have been filed in this Department, growing out of disputes as to the meaning
of said section. I t is contended by importers, and by some of the cnstoms officers,
that by virtue of said section duties were chargeable only on the value of the naked
merchandise itself, wifchour reference to any items of expense for placing the merchandise in a marketable condition. Thus, for instance, tliat shoe-blacking which is
held for sale in small tin boxes, matches which are commonly p u t up for sale in small
wooden or paper boxes,-are dutiable only on the value o f t h e contents of such boxes.
Many instances of t h e same character might be cited. The inclosed copies of circulars of this Department, reports o f a commission of customs officers appoiuted to consider the matter, the members of which it will be seen did not agree, and an opinion of
the Attorney-General ofthe l l t h ultimo, will show the various stages ofthe discussion.
The Attorney-General's opinion takes the ground t h a t the value of goods subject to a
duty ad valorem is to be taken in the usual merchantable condition of the article as
exposed for sale in the foreign country, and t h a t the intent of said section 7 was to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
7
remove only the duties on the items of expense or value, which are incident to the
putting up, packing, transportation for shipment, and any other charges which by
section 2907, Revised Statutes, were added to t h e foreign market value of t h e goods
to make dutiable value. This opinion has been concurred in by this Department, b u t
sits enforcement is likely to increase rather t h a n diminish the number of protests from
importers who will seek to enforce in the courts their own view of the law.
Other matters more directly affecting rates of duty, b u t not seriously affecting
the revenue, deserve attention. I will refer to the various provisions of law, as they
are fonnd in the numbered paragraphs of the Treasury edition of the tariff. 94.
TMs paragraph is in Schedule A, which is headed *'.chemical products." A scrutiny
of the list will show t h a t many articles named therein have, or may have, no relation
to chemical products. This provision is for articles which have been advanced in
value or condition by a process of manufacture. A corresponding provision for similar
articles not manufactured is found in the free list, paragraph 636, which, however,
begins with*" drugs." But it is held t h a t the word drugs does not qualify the paragraph, as some have contended, and t h a t the articles following the word drugs are to be
admitted free without reference to the question whether they are drugs or chemical
products. Thus, for instance, palm leaves for the manufacture of hats are admitted
free tnder the term *' leaves" in said paragraph.
Another provision difficult to administer is x)aragraph 790, in the free list, for soapstocks. Many articles are claimed to be soap-stocks which, b u t for this provision,
would fall into other clauses of the tariff, such as paragraph 92, for rendered or expressed oil, &c. The rule adopted is, t h a t only such articles as are fit exclusively
for soap-stocks shall be admitted as such. But articles fit for other purposes are
largely used in the manufacture of soaps. The rate of duty, or exemption from duty,
however, must be decided while the merchandise is in the hands of t h e customs officers,
and the ultimate use of the article cannot control its classification. I t is suggested t h a t Congress define clearly the class of articles which shall be admitted under the provision for soap-stocks.
Paragraph 101 provides for distilled spirits containing 50 per cent, of anhydrous
alcohol at $1 -per gallon, and paragraph 102 provides for alcohol containing 94 per
cent, of anhydrous alcohol at $2 per gallon. Distilled spirits containing 50 per cent.
of anhydrous alcohol are simply proof spirits which, under paragraph 311, are subject
to duty at $2 per gallon, w i t h a corresponding advance in duty for each degree above
proof. It is suggested t h a t paragraphs 101 and 102 be stricken out.
Paragraph 32^ places a duty of 35 per cent, on cotton s^oockings, and other articles
of cotton therein narned, made on knitting machines or frames, while paragraph 323
fixes a d u t y of 40 per cent, on the same class of articles when fashioned, narrowed,
or shaped, wholly or in part, by knitting machines or frames. Thus there appears to
be two rates of duty for the same goods, as articles made on frames are understopd to
be fashioned by t h e machine on which they are made.
334. This fixes a duty of 35 per cent, on non-enumeratedmanufacturesof flax, jute,
or hemx3, and 336 puts 40 per cent, on non-enumerated manufactures of flax. The
Department places the duty of 35 per cent, on textile fabrics, as 334 embraces generally fabrics of t h a t class, leaving articles of flax, not textile fabrics, subject to duty
under 336.
133. This clause imposes a duty of one cent per pound on certain descriptions of
glass bottles, b u t when filled, and not otherwise provided for, such articles are subject to 30 per cent, duty in addition to the duty on t h e contents. I t is not clear
whether the words ''' not otherwise provided for" refer to the bottles or to tho articles forming their contents. The construction adopted is, however, t h a t the words
refer to the bottles, so t h a t bottles not subject to_a separate duty eo nomine when
filled, pay the duty of 30 per cent. See paragraph 310 for one class of filled bottles
provid'ed for. This rule creates difficulty of administration, as some classes of merchandise, such as toilet preparations, which, under paragraph 99, are liable to a duty
of 50 per cent., are always imported in bottles, and the rule would require a division
of the value, first, of the bottles dutiable as 30 per cent, ad valorem, and then t h e
contents dutiable at 50 per cent., and thus two appraisements become necessary.
The law on this point should bo reformed, and it would seem better t h a t in such cases
the articles should be appraised and classified as an entirety, and that the bottles
should be free from a separate duty. See, also, paragraph 136.
At first a difficulty was experienced in construing some of t h e provisions of Schedule C relating to metals. Paragraph 150 imposes on round iron in coils or rods less
t h a n ^ ^ of an inch in diameter, l-i%of one cent per pound. Paragraph 180 imposes on
the same class of metals, when valued at 3^ cents or less per pound, -ft- of one cent
per pound, when within the denomination of rivet, screw, nail, or fence-wire rods
in coils or loops. The class of iron mentioned in 150 is generally available for the
purposes mentioned 180, and the Department has held t h a t when of the size and value
specified in 180, it is to be classified for duty thereunder, without reference to the
uses to which t h e merchandise is ultimately applied. This is not stated as a diffi-
8
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
cully ill administration, but only to explain the position taken by the Dexiartment on
the subject.
182. This clause regulates the duty on iron and steel ware of certain dimensions,
but makes no provision for wire larger than No. 5, wire gauge. Wire of that size is
therefore remanded to t h e classification of articles of iron or steel not enumerated
dutiable a t 45 per cent., which rate is not in harmony wiih the duty on the specified
sizes of wire.
246. This relates to leaf tobacco, and imposes a duty of 75 cents a pound on leaf
tobacco, of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and of the necessary fineness of
texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more t h a n one hundred leaves are
required to weigh a pound. At once the question arose, to w h a t unit of quantity
does t h e 85 per cent, relate? The choice seerded to be the quantity stated in the invoice, or the quantity in the package. The Dejiartment decided in favor of the latter
standard, but this has resulted in an evasion of the law, as it has been found that
packages containing tobacco belonging to the class k7aown as wrapper tdbacco, produced in Sumatra, are shipped to Amsterdam, where t h e packages are opened aad a
quantity o f t h e wrapper tobacco is taken out a u d i t s place supplied by an equal quan
tity of tiller tobacco, so t h a t the whole package, as thus manipulated, does not contain 85 per cent, of tobacco fit for wrappers, and then claim is made t h a t tbe ^rhole
package is dutiable under 247 at 35 cents a pound. To remedy this difficulty it is
suggested that Congress define more clearly the meaning of said paragraph 246.
The last proviso to paragraph 318 declares t h a t there shall be no allowance for
breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits. So far
as concerns leakage or breakage, the Department holds t h a t it extends only to the
arbitrary allowances which the prior law provided in lieu of the actual loss sustained,
but as there was not established any arbitrary allowance in lieu of damage, the pro
hibition is regarded as absolute so far as concerns damage. No reason, however, is
]Derceived why the class of merchandise named should not receive, equally with other
classes of merchandise, an abatement of duties on accouiit of damage sustained on
the voyage of importation.
400. This is in Schedule M, and provides for bonnets, hats, and hoods for men,
w^omen, and children, composed of certain substances therein named or other material not specially enumerated or provided for, a t a duty of 30 percent, ad valorem.
448 provides for materials for hats, naming certain articles composed of certain designated materials, and adding *^or any other substance or material not specially
enumerated or provided for," at a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. I t is not clear
whether the term ' ' n o t specially enumerated or provided f o r " in these x)aragraphs
refer to the substance or materials or back to t h e articles named in said paragraphs.
For instance, claim is made t h a t silk hats and silk bonnets are dutiable under paragraph 400, because silk hats and silk bonnets are not specially named in the act.
Claim is also made t h a t materials for hats, such as are named in paragraph 448, when
made of silk are dutiable at 20 per cent., because articles of the character thereiu
named, were made of silk, are not specially enumerated otherwise in the act. The
Department has held t h a t Schedule L is exhaustive of all classes of silk goods, and
hence t h a t neither of said claims are w^ell founded. Still, this decision will provoke
litigation, and it would be well for Congress to state in more precise terms the
proper construction ot said provisions.
429 provides for feathers and artificial flowers for millinery use at a duty of 50 per
cent., but does not cover these articles when for other uses. I t is suggested t h a t the
terms " f o r millinery ornaments" and " f o r millinery u s e " in said paragraph be
stricken out, so as to make the clause exhaustive o f t h e articles without regard to use.
A very annoying question has arisen under paragraphs 465 and 760 and 286, which
provide for vegetables. Take, for instance, the articles of peas and beans. If imported as vegetables for consumption they are subject to duty a t 10 percent., under ~
286. If imported for use as seieds, the question comes whether they are garden seeds
dutiable a t 20 per cent, under 465, because if not, they are free under 760, as seeds not
otherwise provided for. Congress should impose fixed rates of duty on vegetable products, such as barley, beets, peas, beans, and other like articles, and p u t one rate of duty
on seeds, not edible, whether for garden or agricultural purposes. To show the
present position of the Department on t h e question of garden seeds, I inclose a copv
of decision 6046, dated No vember 27 1883.
.
186 imposes a duty of 35 percent, on all manufactures of copper or of which copper
shall be a component material of chief value, while 216 puts a duty of 45 per cent,
on manufactures, articles or wares not specially enumerated or provided for, composed wholly or in p a r t of x copper. The ruling of the Department in an endeavor
to give force to both of these provisions will be found in decision 5899.
Paragraph 366 provides for " clothing, ready-made, and wearing apparel of every
description, and not specially enumerated or provided for," while paragraph 367 provides at a different rate of duty for " cloaks, dolmans," &c., " o r other outside garments for ladies' and children's apparel and goods of similar description, or used
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
9
or like purposes." The question arose as to which.of these paragraphs should control the description of ladies' shawls. They are wearing apparel, and they are, in
a certain sense, outside garments, and so the law was not easy of interpretation. It
was finally decided, however, t h a t they were not garments of t h e character named
in paragraph 367, which were made of cloth which had been woven and afterwards
made up by a seamstress or manufacturer, and t h a t therefore they fell into paragrajDh
36().
Paragraph 366 provides for "women's and children's dress'goods, coat linings,
Italian cloths, and goods of like description, composed in p a r t of wool," &c. The
words "goods of like description" are very vague. The question came up whether
lastings for the manufacture of shoes were "goods of like description" to Italian
cloths, which are generally used for coat linings. TheDepartment decided t h a t they
were not " goods of like description" to Italian cloths, and against the claim of the
American manufacturers, who desired to place them in paragraph 365.
The law in both o f t h e respects mentioned should be made clear.
I transmit copies of t h e more important decisions made by the Department under
t h e new tariff*, from which you will see more in detail the questions of administration
which have arisen.
Very respectfully,
CHAS. J . FOLGER,
Secretary.
No. 4.
House Eeport No. 1971, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.!
MODIFYING EXISTING LAWS RELATING TO DUTIES ON IMPORTS AND THE COLLECTION
OF THE REVENUE.
JUNE 25, 1884.—Coinmitted to the Committee of the Whole Honse on the state of the Union and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. A. S. H E W I T T , from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the followi n g report, to accompany bill H. R. 7429:
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom ivas referred hill JS. B. 7429, heg leave tosuhmit the following'report:
On the 5th of February, 1884, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted a resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to make such suggestions as he might
deem necessary in order to improve the administration of the Customs Department,
and to furnish such facts in regard thereto as the committee ought to have in order
to perfect suitable amendments to existing laws, looking to their better administration. On the 7th of February the Secretary of t h e Treasury addressed to t h e chairman of the committee a letter, a coj^y of which is hereto appended, marked A. I t
will be observed t h a t the Secretary understood the resolution to refer more particularly to the tariff t h a n to the macliinery of the administration of the customs laws.
He therefore confined his statements to the practical operation of the tariff act of
March 3, 1883, and pointed out some of the conflicting provisions thereof.
Based upon this information in part, and in part upon complaints which have been
brought to the notice of the committee by officers of the customs and by merchants
and others engaged in the importation of foreign goods, t h e bill herewith submitted
and recommended for favorable action has been framed. For convenience of reference
the paragraphs have been numbered from 1 to 34, and will be explained in this report
in the order of their numbers. For convenience of comparison, at the close ofeach
paragrax)h has been placed the nuinber of the corresponding provision in the official
copy, published by the Treasury Department, of t h e tariff of March 3, 1883.
No. 1 changes section 2491 of the Revised Statutes in one respect only. As the law
now stands the whole invoice is forfeited provided it contains any article of an immoral nature. By t h e xiroposed change the forfeiture is limited to such immoral articles, provided it be shown, to the satisfaction of the officers of the customs, t h a t the
prohibited articles were put into the x->ackages by accident or innocent design. This
change meets with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
No. 2 relates to w h a t is known as the "similitude" clause of the existing tariff,
which has been found to produce confusion and has led to many controversies in regard to the proper rate of duty. The proposed change simplifies the rule, and, it is
believed by the officers of the customs, will be easy of application both by themselves
and by the importer.
No. 3 relates to the duty upon distilled spirits aud upon alcohol, which were also
Xirovided for under paragraph 311 of the existing tariff. The Secretary therefore recomnaends t h a t sections 101 and 102 be stricken out, to avoid duplication.
10
R E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
No. 4 is intended to correct the'difficulty which arises from the different rates of =
duty upon glass bottles, and t h e contents for such bottles ; and, under t h e advice of
tho Secretary of the Treasury, the duty is made to follow t h e contents, so far as practicable.
No. 5 is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury because t h e law, as it now
stands, causes an apparent conflict between t h e duty of 35 per cent, upon manufactures of copper, or of which copper shall be a component material of chief value;
whereas paragraph 216 imposes a duty of 45 per cent, on articles or wares composed
wholly or in part of copper. The proposed clause removes this conflict, and carries
out the ruling of the Department made in decision 5890.
No. 6 relates to paragraph 246 ofthe existing tariff, which imposes a duty of 75 cents
a pound ou leaf tobacco, of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and o f t h e necessary fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, of which more than one hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound. Difficulties having arisen in t h e construction of this paragraph, the Secretary of the Treasury recommends the removal of the
restriction of 85 per cent., so t h a t the higher duty shail attach only to the quantity
of tobacco in any invoice which is suitable for wrappers.
No. 7 relates to the duty on vegetables, in regard to which the Secretary of the
Treasury makes t h e following remarks:
,
" A very annoying question has arisen under paragraphs 465, 760, and 286, which
provide for vegetables. Take, for instance, the articles of peas and beans. If imported as vegetables for consumption, they are subject to a duty of 10 per cent, under
286. If imported for use as seeds, the question arises whether they are garden seeds,
dutiable at 20 per cent, under 465; because, if not, they are free under 760, as seeds
not otherwise provided for."
The bill as reported classifies the seeds so as to have but one duty, t h a t of 10 per
cent., upon vegetables and garden seeds, leaving agricultural seeds to come in free,
as now provided by law.
No. 8 relates to textile fabrics of flax, jute, and hemp. This is intended to correct
a conflict in the existing tariff duties of 35 per cent, and 40 per cent, upon textile
fabrics which cannot well be distinguished from each other. In accordance with the
recommendations of t h e Dexiartment, one rate of duty is placed upon these articles.
No. 9 relates to paragraph 365, which it corrects by omitting the words "goods of
like description," in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of the
Treasury.
No. 10 is intended to correct a conflict between 366 and 367, and make the law conform to the present ruling of the Department.
No. 11 relates to paragraph 448, and limits t h a t paragraph to vegetable materials
in order to correct a conflict between paragraphs 400 and 448, and conforms the law
to the decision of t h e Department.
The same remark apphes to paragraph No. 12.
No.. 13 is rendered necessary by t h e change made in No. 7 in regard to vegetables
and seeds.
No. 14 allows a drawback upon t h e exportation of oil-cake manufactured from linseed or flax-seed. This was formerly t h e law, and no good reason exists why a drawback should not be paid upon this article as well as'upon other articles made from
imported materials when re-exported. This provision has the approval of t h e Secretary of t h e Treasur3^
No. 15 simplifies the law in regard to the materials for watches, and classifies them
under one general head and makes them subject to one general rate of duty, thus
avoiding the claim which is made t h a t they are subject to different rates of duty imposed by law upon materials of which they are composed.
No. 16 conforms the duty on webbing to that imposed by law upon other manufactures of cotton or flax.
No. 17 is intended to correct a complaint made by business men t h a t the language
of the existing law requires articles which are t h e growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States to be returned in precisely the condition in which they were
exported, in order to be relieved from duty. As a rule, such articles are usually impaired in value by having been thus exported. Technically, therefore, they are no't
in the same condition as w^hen exported. The proposed change will make such articles free, unless they have been advanced in value by some process of manufacture
or by labor, in which case only will they be subjected to duty.
No. 18 is a mere change of pliraseology defining the substances which may be properly classeci as "soap-stocks," which in paragraph 790 of the existing tariff are not
properly defined.
No. 19 is perhaps the most important feature in the proposed law. The effect of
the change in the tariff" in regard to the duty upon packages has been to produce
the greatest confusion in business, and has filled the Department with appeals from
the assessments of duty under this secti^on. I t is said t h a t 18,000 protests are now
on file in the Department. A commissibn of the most experienced officers of t h e
REPORf OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
11
customs has been sitting, the opinion of the Attorney-Gen eral has been taken, and
the courts have been encumbered with suits for the recovery of duties alleged to
have been unlawfully assessed. The clause recommended by the conimittee meets
with the approval of the Department, and is believed to be so clear and explicit t h a t
disputes will hereafter be impossible. I t is claimed t h a t a deduction of 1 per cent,
from the dutiable value which is provided for in this section is.not sufficient to com- '
pensate for the increase of duty w^hich will arise from t h e ' a d d i t i o n of inner packages to the cost of the goods. The Treasury Department are opposed to any deduction whatever, because of the clerical labor which the computations will involve ;
but your committee are of opinion t h a t a reasonable allowance shpuld be made in
order to avoid the possibility of any increase of duty not intended by the law of
1883.
No. 20 substitutes "declarations" for " s w o r n invoices." In this respect it conforms to the practice of all civilized nations, who have long since abandoned the annoyance caused by custom-house oaths.
No. 21 -applies the same penalties, however, to false declarations which are now
applicable to false invoices made under oath. The business interests of t h e country
will welcome this change with great satisfaction.
No. 22 relieves goods placed in bonded warehouses from the additional duty of 10
per cent, which by section 2970 is imposed upon them if they remain more than one
year in the warehouse. No gOod reason can be urged why this penalty should be exacted. I t is a relic of a false principle which regards the deposit of merchandise in
bonded warehouses as an injury and not a benefit to commerce; whereas, in fact, consumers are greatly benefited by the presence of a large stock of goods, and the producers of the domestic article are thus protected against any serious fluctuations in
the market price. Bonded warehouses operate as a safety-valve to commerce, and
relieve merchants from the necessity of paying the duties before the goods enter upon
consumption. In the present state of the Treasury this is a w4se concession to the
demands of business...
No. 23 changes existing law by assessing duty upon the goods withdrawn from
bonded warehouses^ thus giving to t h e merchant the benefit of deduction for loss or
damage. The principle of imposing duties upon merchandise which has no existence
cannot be defended.
No. 24 allows the collector of customs to permit cargoes in bulk to be discharged
at any point in his collection district. This will save lighterage and other unnecessary expenses now incurred by reason of the requirement of lavr t h a t goods shall be
landed only upon certain-wharves. There are many factories which now import
whole cargoes, and in w^hose behalf this relief is invoked, and to which it will be a
great benefit.
Nos. 25, 26, and 27 conform the law to the present practice in regard to the entries
of wearing apparel and personal baggage of persons arriving in the United States.
I t ^vas recommended by the tariff commission, and has the approval of the officers of
the cUvStoms.
In addition to these provisions a new clause is framed to meet the case of charitable donations of w^earing apparel. I t is found t h a t immigrants to this country often
receiA-e contributions from their friends abroad of old clothes which are very valuable to them, especially in their first stages of residence in this country, upon which
the law now requires the full duty on new clothing to be imposed. This provision
is also recommended by the officers of the customs, who are very much embarrassed .
by the law as it now stands.
No. 28 is intended to permit all baggage and persor al effects which come to this
country in transitu to any foreign country to be forwarded to the collector of the
port from which they are to be finally exported to the place of destination. Much
inconvenience will be thus avoided.
No. 29 is intended to provide for the entry of go^ds by persons holding indorsed
bills of lading, and by the underwriters in case of the abandonment of goods which
they may have insured. Great embarrassment is found to exist from the present limitations of the law t h a t entries shall be made only by the consignee named in the
bill of lading.
No. 30 allows the Secretary of the Treasury to dispense with triplicate invoices and
consular certificates in any case where they are not required for the determination
of the dutiable value of goods. Triplicate invoices and consular certificates in cases
where the value o f t h e merchandise does not exceed $100 are abolished. Authority
is given to the^ Secretary o f t h e Treasury to regulate such invoices and certificates in
such manner as the public interest may require.
No. 31 abolishes what are known as custom-house oaths, and all fees which are
exacted for the transaction of custom-house business. These have long been the subject of complaint. There is no reason why they should be preserved as a source of
revenue, and their abolition will be a great saving of time and comfort to the business interests of the country. This reform is demanded b y t h e leading commercial
12
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
organizations, and will be welcomed with great satisfaction by all who have to deal
with t h e Government.
No. 32 extends the drawback now allowed by law on articles wholly manufactured
of imported materials, so as to cover t h e whole amount of d u t y p a i d . As t h e law
now stands, m some cases, 90 per cent, is returned, and in other cases 99 per cent.
There is a general demand, however, for relief from these duties, and as w^e.desire to
encourage the exportation of goods manufactured in this country, and as t h e cost of
refunding t h e duties is slight, t h e committee have finally concluded'to recommend
repayment in full, by way,of drawback, of all such duties.
^
No. .33 is intended to provide against j u s t complaints under existing law in regard
to t h e final liquidation and payment of duties. As t h e law now stands, cases may be
reopened a t any time within one year, and the merchant finds himself compelled to
make payments to t h e Government long after t h e goods have been sold and gone
into consumption. The proposed legislation limits the reopenijig to cases of fraud
and of error pointed out at the timie of t h e final liquidation of the entry.
No. 34 deals with the allowance for damage to imported merchandise in t h e course
of transportation. The Department recommends the abolition of all damage allowances. The merchants have called for t h e same legislation. There are difficulties,
however, in framing a section which will meet all cases. T h e committee propose a
compromise which will relieve t h e difficulties arising out of damages to perishable
wares and merchandise, by t h e total abolition of such allowances, giving, however,
to t h e importer t h e right to abandon to t h e Governmient all, or any portion, exceeding 10 per cent., of such goods, wares, and merchandise. The effect of this provision will be to prevent great annoyance and entirely to bring to an end t h e frauds
which i t is alleged are perpetrated, even with the most rigid oversight, by unjust allowances in t h e nature of damage to imported goods.
The committee have, by no means exhausted the catalogue of difficulties arising out
o f t h e operations o f t h e tariff act ofMarch 3, 1883; but.the measure now proposed, if
promptlv enacted, will relieve much o f t h e embarrassment of administration, and d i minish t h e litigation which is now impending and promises to encumber t h e courts
of law for many years to come.
.
The committee therefore recommend the passage of t h e bill herewith submitted.
(Enclosure No. 1.)
[H. E. 7429, Forty-eighth Congress, first sessional
I N T H E H O U S E OF REPRKSENTATIVES, J U N E 25, 1884.—Read twice, committed to the
Committee ofthe Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
•
" ^
•
•
Mr. ABRAM S . H E W I T T , from t h e Committee on Ways and Means, reported the followiug bill:
A BILL to modify existing la^ws relating to duties on iraports and the collection of the revenne.
Be it enacted hy the Senate a'^^d'Houseof Bepresentatives of the Uiiited Slates of America
m Congress assemhled, That on and after the passage and approval of this act the following amendments, to and provisions for existing laws shall take effect as follows :
Section six of t h e act of March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled
"An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation, and other purposes," providing a substitute for title thirty-three of t h e Revised Statutes of t h e United States, is hereby
amended as to certain ofthe sections and parts of sections or schedules iu substituted
title so t h a t they shall be as follows, respectfully :
(1.) " S E C . 2491. All persons are prohibited from importing into t h e Uni'ed States
from any foreign country any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, adverLisement,
circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure or image on or of
paper or other material, or auy cast, instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, forthe prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion. No invoice or package whatever, or auy p a r t
of one, in which any such articles are contained, shall be admitted to entry ; and all
invoices and packages whereof any such articles shallcompose a part are liable to be
proceeded against, seized, and forfeited by due course of law. All such prohibited
articles in t h e course of importation shall be detained b y the officer of customs, and
proceedings taken against t h e same as prescribed in the foUowing section : Provided,
That the drugs hereinbefore mentioned, when imported in bulk and uot p u t up for
any of the purposes hereinbefore specified, are excepted fromthe operation of this
sectiou : And provided further, That i f i t be shown to t h e satisfaction of t h e collector
of customs and the naval officer (if there be one) t h a t such prohibited articles were
put intp such packages by accident or innocent design, t h e remaining portion of t h o
goods covered by t h e invoice shall be admitted to entry."
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
13
(2.) " SEC. 2499. On all articles manufactured from two or more materials, not
otherwise enumerated or provided for in the schedules of duties in this title, the duty
shall be assessed at the hiefhest rate at AA-hich t h e component material of chief value
may be chargeable; and t h e words 'component material of chief v a l u e ' shall mean
the component of principal cost in t h e article ; and if any nourenumerated articles
resemble those ou t h e 'free-list,' and in the manufacture of such articles no dutiable
materials are used, they shall be free of duty."
(3.) SEC. 2502. SCHEDULE A—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS.—Strike out from this schedule
the words "distilled spirits containing fifty per centum of anhydrous alcohol, one
dollar per gallon;" also strike out t h e words "alcohol containing ninety-four per
centum anhydrous alcohol, two dollars per gallon."—[Tariff, paragraphs 101,102,103.]
SCHEDULE B—EARTHENWARE AND GLASSWARE.—The t e n t h clause of this schedule,
relating to " green and colored glass bottles," and so forth, is hereby amended so t h a t
it shall be as follows :•
(4.) "Green and colored glass bottles, vials, demijohns, and carboys (covered or
uncovered), pickle or preserve jars, and other plain, molded, or pressed green and
colored bottle glass, not cut, engraved, or painted, and not especially enumerated or
provided for in this act, one cent per p o u n d ; if tilled, and not otherwise in this act
provided for, and the contents are subject to an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty
based on their value, t h e value of such bottles, vials, or other vessels shall be added
to the value of the contents for t h e ascertainment of t h e dutiable value of t h e latter;
but if filled, and not otherwise provided for, and t h e contents are not subject to an
ad valorem duty or to a rate of duty based on their value, they shall pay a duty of
one cent perpound in addition to the duty, if any, on their contents."—[Tariff, paragraph 133. ]
The eleventh clause of this schedule, relating to "flint and lime glass bottles," and
so forth, is hereby amended so t h a t i t shall be as follows:—[Tariff', paragraph 134.]
" F l i n t and lime glass bottles and vials, and other plain, molded, or pressed flint
or lime glassware, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, forty per
centum ad valorem; if filled, and not otherwise in this act providedfor, a n d t h e contents are subject to an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty based on their value, the
value of such flint or lime glass bottles or vials, or other vessels of like material above
provided for, shall be added to t h e value o f t h e contents for the ascertainment of the
dutiable value of t h e l a t t e r ; b u t if filled, and not otherwise provided for, and t h e
contents are not subject t o an ad valorem duty, or to a rate of duty based on their
value, they shall pay a duty of forty per centum ad valorem in addition to t h e duty,
if any, on their contents."
SCHEDULE C—METALS.—Strike out the last clause of this schedule, relating to
"manufactures, articles, or wares not specially enumerated or provided for," and insert in lieu thereof t h e following:
(5.) ''Manufactures, articles, or wares not specially enumerated or provided for in
this act, composed wholly or in p a r t of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin,
zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other inetal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem: Provided, That nothing in this clause
shall afiect the rate of duty hereinbefore provided for manufactures of copper, or of
which copper shall be the component of chief value."—[Tariff, paragraphs 186,216.]
SCHEDULE F—TOBACCO.—Strike out from this schedule the second clause, relating
to " leaf-tobacco," and in lieu thereof insert the following:
{6.) " Leaf-tobacco, of t h e requisite size and of the necessary fineness of texture to
be suitable for wrappers, and of which more than one hundred leaves are required to
weigh a pound, if not stemmed, seventy-five cents per pound; if stemmed, one dollar
per p o u n d : Provided, That so much of any package of such tobacco as may be so
broken as not to be suitable for wrappers shall pay a duty of thirty-five cents per ^
pound."—[Tariff, paragraph 246.]
SCHEDULE G — P R O V I S I O N S . — s t r i k e out t h e clause in this schedule relating t o
" vegetables in their n a t u r a l state or in salt or brine," and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
(7.) " Vegetables, such as beets, peas, beans, and t h e like, in their natural state, *
whether green or dried or in salt or brine, not specially enumerated or provided for
in this act, and garden seeds, not edible, except seed of t h e sugar-beet, t e n per
"^ centum ad valorem.'?—[Tariff, paragraphs 286, 465, 760.]
SCHEDULE J — H E M P , J U T E , AND F L A X GOODS.—Strike out t h e eighth clause in
this schedule, commencing with the words "brown-and bleached linens," and insert
in lieu thereof t h e following :
(8.) " Textile fabrics of flax, j u t e , or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp shall be
t h e component material of chief value, not specially enumerated or provided for in
this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraph 334.]
SCHEDULE K.—Strike out t h e fourteenth clause of this schedule, relating to
"women's and children's dress goods," and in lieu thereof insert t h e following :
(9.)" Women's and children's dress goods, coat linings, and Italian cloths, composed
iu part of wQpij woystocl, tk^ Wn' ol tb^ alpg-ca^ goat^ pf otjioy animals^ valii^ft ^t
14
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
not exceeding twenty cents per square yard, ^ve cents per square yard, a n d i n addition
thereto thirty-five per centum ad valorem; valued at above twenty cents per square
yard, seven cents per square yard, and forty per centum ad valorem; if composed
wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of a mixture
of them, niue cents per square yard and forty per centum ad valorem; but all such goods
with selvedges, made wholly or in part of other materials, or with threads of other
materials introduced for the purpose of changing the classification, shall be dutiable
at nine cents per square yard and forty per centum ad valorem: Provided, That all
such goods weighing over four ounces per square yard shall pay a duty of thirty-five
cents per pound and forty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraphs 365a to 365f. ]
(10.) Strike out from tliis schedule the sixteenth clause, relating to "cloaks, dolmans,
jackets, talmas, ulsters," and so forth, whicn clause is hereby repealed.—[Tariff, paragraphs 366, 367.]
SCHEDULE N.—Strike out the seventh clause of this schedule, relating to " bonnets,
h a t s , and hoods," and so forth, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(11.) "Bonnets, hats, and hoods for men, women, and children, composed of hair,
whalebone, or any vegetable material, and not specially enumerated or provided for in
this act, thirty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff, paragraph 406.]
Strike out the clause of this schedule, commencing with the words " h a t s , and so
forth, materials for," and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(12.) " H a t s , materials for: Braids, plaits, flats, willow sheets and squares, for use
in making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed of straw, chip, grass,
palm leaf, willow, hair, whalebone, or any vegetable material, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty per centum ad valorem."—[Tariff", paragraph
448.]
(13.) Strike out the clause of this schedule commencing with the words " g a r d e n
seeds," which clause is hereby repealed.—[Tarifi", paragraph 465.]
Strike out the clause of this scbedule relating to " linseed or flaxseed," and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
(14.) " Linseed or flaxseed, twentj^ cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds; and a drawback on linseed-cake mauufactured wholly from imported seed shall be allowed, uuder
such regulations as shall be prescribed b}^ the Secretary of the Treasury."—[Tariff",
paragraph 466.]
(15.) Strike oht the last clause b u t one of this schedule, relating to " watches," and
so forth, and insert in lieu thereof the following:—[Tariff, paragraph 494.]
" W a t c h e s , watch-cases, watch-movements, parts of watches, watch-glasses, and
watch-keys, whether separately packed or otherwise, and watch materials not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem."
(lb.) Strike out the last clause in this schedule, relating to "webbing,", and insert
in lieu .thereof the following:
" W e b b i n g composed of cotton or flax, or of a mixture of these materials, and not
specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem."—
[Tariff, paragraph 495.]
THE FREE LIST.
(17.) SEC. 2503. [Substituted for sec. 2505, R. S.] Strike out the clause in this section commencing with t h e words "articles the growth, produce, and manufacture of
t h e United States," and insert in lieu thereof, the following:
"Articles t h e growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States, when returned after having been exported. Without having been advanced in value by any
process of manufacture or by labor thereon. Casks, barrels, carboys, bags, and other
vessels of American manufacture exported filled with American products, or exported
empty and returned filled with foreign products, including shooks when returned as
barrels or boxes; b u t proof of the identity of such articles shall be made, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and if any of such articles
are subject to internal t a x at t h e time of exportation, such t a x shall be proved to
havebeen paid before exportation, aud not refunded: Provided, T h a t this clause shall
* not include any article upon which an allowance of drawback has been made."—
[Tarifi", paragraphs 649a to 649d.]
(18.) Add to t h e clause in this section relating to "soap-stocks" so t h a t the clause
as amended will read as follows:
"Soap-stocks, fit only for use as such."—[Tariff, paragraph 790.]
(19.) SEC. 2. Thatsection seven o f t h e act approved March third, eighteen hundred
and eighty-three, entitled "An act to reduce jnternal-revenue taxation, and for other
purposes/' is hereby amended so t h a t it shall be as follows:
" S E C . 7. That sections twenty-nine huudred and seven and twenty-nine hundred
and eight of the Revised Statutes ofthe United States, and section fourteen of the
act eni!itled 'An act to amend the customs-rovenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, be, and the same are
thereby, repealed; and hereafter none of xih^ charges imposed by said sections shall
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
15
be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported, but the dutiable value
of imported goods shall be their actual market value or wholesale price, in t h e condition i n which they are ready to be packed for shipment to the United States in the
principal markets of the country whose markets determine the dutiable value ; a n d
from the dutiable value thus determined there shallbe a deduction of one per centum
to cover the cost of transportation and p a c k i n g : " Provided, however, That if there be
used for covering or holding imported merchandise any material or article which, if
imported separately would be subject t o a higher rate of duty t h a n the merchandise
contained therein, the whole invoice shall be subject to t h e higher rate of duty, unless
the dutiable value of t h e merchandise, and of the article or inaterial wherein i t is
contained, shall b e separately stated, i n which case the duties shall be assessed and
collected on each separately a t t h e rates prescribed by l a w ; and in order to determine the comparative rates of duty specific duties shaU, whenever necessary, be converted into the corresponding ad valorem rates by calculation: And provided further,
That nothing in this act, except as provided in section eleven of this act, shall impair
or affect existing provisions of law in regard to allowances for damage on merchandise on t h e voyage of importation, and that, subject t o t h e restrictive provisions of
this section and of section eleven, duties shall n o t be assessed upon an amount less
t h a n the invoice or entered value of the merchandise."
(20.)' SEC. 3. T h a t section eight of the act of March third, eighteen hundred and
eighty-three, entitled " A n act to reduce internal-revenue taxation, and for other purp o ^ s , " amending section twenty-eight hundred and forty-one o f t h e Revised Statutes
of t h e United States, is hereby further amended so t h a t said section of t h e Revised
Statutes shall be as follows:
" SEC. 2841. Whenever merchandise imported into the United States is entered by
invoice, one of thefollowing declarations, according to the nature of the case, shall
be filed with t h e collector of the port, a t the time of entry, by the owner, importer,
consignee, or agent: Provided, T h a t if any of the invoices or bills of lading of any
merchandise imported in any one vessel, which should otherwise be embraced in said
entry,, have not been received a t the date of the entry, the declaration may state the
fact, and thereupon such merchandise of which the invoices or bills of lading are not
produced shall not be included in such entry, b u t may be entered subsequently:
" D E C L A R A T I O N O F C O N S I G N E E , IMPORTER, OR AGENT.
u j^
-_—^ ^Q solemnly and truly declare t h a t the invoice and bill of lading
now presented b y me to t h e collector of
are the true and only invoice and bill
of lading by me received of all the goods, wares, and merchandise imported in t h e
—
, whereof
-.—
is master, from
, for account of any person whomsoever for whom I am authorized t o enter t h e same; t h a t the said invoice and bill of
lading are in the state in which they were actually received by me, and t h a t I do not
know nor believe in the existence of any other invoice or bill of lading of the said
goods, wares, and merchandise; t h a t the entry now delivered to the collector contaihs
a j u s t and true account of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, according to t h e
said invoice and bill of lading; t h a t nothing has been, on my part, nor, to my knowledge, on the p a r t of any other person, concealed or suppressed, wherel)y the United
States may be defrauded of any part of the duty lawfully due on t h e said goods,
wares, and merchandise; t h a t t h e said invoice and the declaration therein are in all
respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purportsfcohave been
made, .and t h a t if a t any time hereafter I discover any error in t h e said invoice, or in
the account now rendered of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive a n y
other invoice of t h e same, I will immediately make the same known to the collector
of this district. And I do further solemnly and truly declare t h a t t o the best of my
knowledge and belief [insert the name and residence of the owner or owners] is [or
are] the owner [or owners] of t h e goods, wares, and merchandise mentioned i n the
annexed e n t r y ; t h a t the invoice now produced by me exhibits t h e actual cost [if
purchased] or fair market value [if otherwise obtained], a t t h e time or times a n d
place or places when or where procured [as the case may be], of t h e said goods, wares,
anB merchandise, including all cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise
to their present condition, and no other or different discount, bounty, or drawback
b u t such as has been actually allowed on t h e same.
"DECLARATION
OP OWNER
I N CASES
W H E R E MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY
PURCHASED.
" I,
, do solemnly and truly declare t h a t t h e entry now delivered by
me to t h e collector of
contains a just and t r u e account of all t h e goods, wares,
and merchandise imported by or consigned to me, in t h e
;, whereof
is master, fron^
j t h a t the invoice wJ4ch I now produce contains a just and f aittj.-
16
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ful account of the actual cost of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, including
aU cost of finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition,
and no other discount, drawback, or bounty but such as has been actually allowedon the same ; t h a t I do not know or believe in t h e existence of any invoice or bill of
lading other t h a n those now produced by me, and t h a t they are in the state in which
I actually received them. And I further solemnly and truly declare t h a t I have not
in t h e said entry or invoice concealed or suppressed anything whereby the United
States may be defrauded'of any part of t h e duty lawfully due on the said goods,
wares, and merchandise; that the said invoice and the declaration thereon are in all
respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purports to have been
made, and t h a t if at any time hereafter I discover any error in the said invoice or in
t h e account now produced of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive any
other invoice of the same, I will immediately inake t h e same known to t h e collector
of this district.
" D E C L A R A T I O N O F M A N U F A C T U R E R O R O W N E R I N CASES WHERE MERCHANDISE HAS
NOT BEEN ACTUALLY PURCHASED.
" I, —
,
, do solemnly and truly declare t h a t the entry now delivered by
me to the collector of
contains a just and true account of all the goods, wares,
and merchandise imported by or consigned to me in the
, whereof
^
is master, from
; t h a t the said goods, wares, and merchandise were not actually
bought by me, or by my agent, in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, but t h a t
nevertheless the invoice which I now produce contains a j u s t and faithful valuation of
the same, at their fair market-value, at the time or times and place or places when
and where procured for my accouut [or for account of myself or partners] ; t h a t the
said invoice contains also a just and faithful account of all the cost for finishing said
goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition, and no other discount, drawback, or bounty but such as has been actually allowed on the said goods, wares, and
merchandise; t h a t the said invoice and the declaration thereon are in all respects
true, and were made by the person by whom the same purports to have been made ;
t h a t I do not know nor believe in the existence of any invoice or bill of lading other
t h a n those now produced by me, and t h a t they are in the state in which I actually
received them. And I do further solemnly and truly declare t h a t I have not in the
said entry or invoice concealed or suppressed anything whereby the United States
may be defrauded of any part ofthe duty lawfully due on the said goods, wares, and
merchandise, and t h a t if at any time hereafter I discover any error in the said invoice, or in the account now produced of t h e said goods, wares, and merchandise, or
receive any other invoice of the same, I will immediately make t h e same knowii to t h e
collector of this district,"
^ .
(21.) SEC. 4. That any person who shall knowingly make any false or untrue statement in the declarations herein provided for, or shall a i d e r procure the making of any
such false statement as to any matter material thereto, shall be deemed guilty of
felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be xjonished by a fine of not less than two
thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more t h a n fiveyears.
SEC. 5. That sections twenty-nine hundred and seventy and twenty-nine hundred
and eighty-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby amended so
t h a t the same shall be, respectively, as follows:
(22.) " S E C . 2970. Any merchandise deposited in bond in any public or private
bonded warehouse may be withdrawn for consumption within three years from the
date of original importation, on payment of the duties and charges to which it may
be subject by law a t the time of such withdrawal: Provided, That nothing herein
shall affect or impair existing provisions of law in regard to the disposal of perishable
or explosive articles."
"
/ '
(23.) " SEC. 2983. I n no case shall there be any abatement of the duties or allowance
made for any injury, damage, or deterioration sustained by any merchandise while
deposited in a n j public or private bonded warehouse: Provided, That the duty assessed on merchandise withdrawn from any such warehouse shall be assessed oii the
quantity withdrawn therefrom at t h e time of such w i t h d r a w a l ; b u t no greater allowance for leakage or evaporation of wines, liquors, and distilled spirits shall be made
t h a n is or may be allowed by law on doniestic spirits or wines iia b o n d : And provided
further, T h a t nothing in this section as amended shall restrict or in any way affect the
liability of the proprietors of bonded warehouses on their bonds : And provided further.
That nothing herein shall restrain or limit the exercise of t h e authority conferred on
the Secretary of the Treasury by section twenty-nine hundred and eighty-four of the
Revised Statutes."
SEC. 6. That sections twenty-seven hundred and seventy, twenty-seven hundred
^ud ninety-^ine^ twe^ty-'^ight I;i;n(^4^9d^ tiW^nty-eight hundred an4 one, twenty-eight
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
17
hundred and three, and three thousand and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes be
amended to read as follows:
(24.) " S E C . 2770. I t shall n o t b e lawful to make entry of any vessel which shall
arrive within the United States from any foreign port, or of the cargo on board! such
vessel, elsewhere t h a n at one of the ports of entry designated in chapter one of this
title, nor to unlade the cargo, or any part thereof, elsewhere than at one ofthe ports
of delivery therein designated, except t h a t in cases of cargoes in bulk tbe collector
may, by special permit, allows the same to be unladed at any point in his collection
district, to be designated, under the supervision of an inspector of customs, on payment by the importer ofthe necessary expenses of such inspector, and the United States
appraiser and gauger or measurer, as the case may b e : Provided, That every port of
entry shall be also a port of delivery. This section shall not prevent the master or
commander of any vessel from making entry with the collector of any district in
which such vessel may be owned, or from which she may have sailed on the voyage
from which she shall then have returned.
^
(25.) " SEC. 2799. In order to ascertain what ariicles ought to be exempted as the
wearing apparel, personal and household efiects, libraries and parts of libraries in
use, professional books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or
employment, and other personal baggage of persons who arrive in the United States,
due entry or declaration thereof as of merchandise, but separate and distinct from
t h a t of any other merchandise imported from a foreign port, shall be made with the
collector of the district in which the articles are intended to be landed, b y t h e owner
thereof or his agent, specifying the persons by whom or for whom such entry is made,
and particularizing the several packages and their contents, with their marks and
numbers; and the person who shall make t h e entry or declaration shall take and subscribe an oath before the collector, declaring t h a t the entry subscribed by him, and
to which t h e oath is annexed, contains, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a
just and true account of the contents of the several packages mentioned in the entry,
specifying the name of the vessel, of her master, and of the port from which she has
arrived, and that such packages contain no merchandise whatever other than the
articles.which are free from duty as specified above; that they are all the property
of a person named, who has arrived or is expected to arrive in the United States
within one year, and are not directly or indirectly imported for any other or intended
for sale.
(26.) " SEC. 2800. Whenever the person making entry of any a,rticles free from duty,.
as specified in the preceding section, is not t h e owner of them, he shall give bond,
with one or more sureties, to t h e satisfaction of the collector, in a sum equal to the
duties on like articles imported subject to duty, upon t h e condition t h a t t h e owner of
the articles shall, within one year (but within three months of his arrival in the
TJnited States), personally made an oath such as is prescribed in the preceding sec
tion.
(27.) " S E C . 2801. On compliance with the two preceding sections, and not otherwise, a permit shall be granted for landing such articles. But whenever the collectoi
thinks proper he may direct the bagga.ge of any person arriving within the United
States to be examined by the surveyor o f t h e port, or by au inspector of the^customs,
who shall make a return o f t h e same, and if any articles are contained therein which
in the opinion o f t h e collector ought not to be exempted from duty, due entry of them
shall be made, and the duties thereon paid : Provided, That charitable donations ol
wearing apparel shall be exempt from duty on production of.evidence satisfactory to
the collector and to the nayal officer (if any) t h a t the same are in good faith imported
for the relief or aid of indigent or needy persons Who are residents o f t h e United
States, and not for sale ;~but this exemption shall apply only when such donated wearing apparel is old and worn, and the value thereof in any one importation does not,
in the judgment of the United States appraiser, exceed''one hundred dollars.
(28.) " SEC. 2803. Any baggage or personal effects arriving in the United States in
transit to any foreign country may be delivered by the parties having it in charge to
the collector of the proper district, to be by him retained, without the payment or
exaction of any import duty, or to be forwarded by such collector to the collector of
the port of departure, and to be delivered to such parties on their departure for their
foreign destination, under such rules, regulations, and fees as t h e Secretary of the
Treasury may prescribe.
(29.) " S E C . 3058. All merchandise imported into the United States shall, for the
purpose of this title, be deemed and held to be the property of the person to whom the
merchandise may be consigned; but the holder of any bill of lading consigned to order and propej^ly indorsed sball be deemed the consignee thereof; and in case of the
abandonment of any merchandise to the underwriters, the latter shall be held to be
the consignee."
'
(30.) SEC. 7. That authority is hereby given to the Secretary of the Treasury,
in his discretion, to dispense whenever expedient with the triplicate invoices and
consular certificates now required by sections tw^enty-eight hundred and fifty-three,
H . E x . 2—VOL 11
2
18
R E P O R T OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
twenty-eight hundred and fifty-four, and twenty-eight hundred and fifty-five of the
Revised Statutes of the United States; and triplicate invoices and consular certificates shall in no case be required wh' n the value of the merchandise included in the invoice does not exceed one hundred dollars; and the Secretary of the Treasury is
hereby authorized and reqt^ested to make- such regulations in-regard to invoices and
consular certificates as in his judgm;^nt the public interest may require.
(.31.) SEC. 8. That all fees exacted and oaths administered by officers of the customs, under or by virtue of existing laws of the United States, upon the entry of
imported goods and the passing thereof through the customs, and also upon all entries of domestic goods, wares, and merchandise for exporta.tion, be, and the same
are hereby, abolished: Provided, T h a t where such fees, under existing laws, constitute, in wliole or in part, the Compensation of any officer, such officer shall receive,
from and" after the passage of this act, a fixed sum for each year equal to the amount
of such compensation received by him for the fiscal year ended J u n e thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, or a proportionate amount for any part of a year.
SEC. 9. That section three tho'Usand and nineteen of the Revised Statutes be
amended so that it will read :
(32.) " S E C . 3019. There shall be allowed on all articles wholly manufactured of
materials imported, on which duties have been paid, when exported, a drawback
equal in amourit to the duty paid on such inaterials, and no more, to be ascertained
under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
all provisions of law inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed."
(33.) SEC. 10. That after entries of goods shall be finally passed the decision of a
collector of customs fixing the rate and amount of duty on any given importation of
merchandise shall be final and conclusive upon the (Government, except in case of
fraud, and upon all others beneficially interested therein, unless protest and appeal
are taken and suit is commenced in t h e manner and under the conditions prescribed
by section twenty-nine hundred and thirty-one o f t h e Revised Statutes ofthe United
States: Provided, however, That the final ascertainment and statement of duties on
t h e import entry, and not the payment thereof, shall be regarded as the liquidation,
and t h a t after protest or appeal in any case the entry may be reliquidated by the collectdr for error; and all protests lodged before liquidation shall be void.
(34.) SEC. 11. That section twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven of the Revised
Statutes is hereby amended by the addition o f t h e following words thereto :
" N o allowances for damage to fruits or other perishable goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the-United States shall hereafter be allowed in the estimation
of duties thereon, except as to seeds, and such other commodities as in the judgment
of the Secretary of the Treasury do not admit of convenient separation by package
or piece ; but the imx3orter thereof may abandon to the Government all or any portion of goods, wares, and merchandise of the character last mentioned included in any
invoice, and be-relieved from the paymentof the duties on the portion so abandoned:
Provided, That the portion so abandoned shall amount to ten per centum or over of
. the total value of the invoice."
No. 5.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , March 16,1886.
S I R : The iucessant pressure of the current business of this Department, as well as antecedent applications from committees of one or the
other of the two Houses of Congress, have prevented an earlier reply to
your communication of February 13,1886, covering House bill No. 5010.
There has also been delay growing out of a more or less complete examination of the statutes which bill Ko'. 5010 proposes to modify or repeal.
That bill is similar to H. E. 7429, reported by you to the House on
June 25,1884, and accompanied by a letter of suggestions from my predecessor, Mr. Folger, dated February 7,1884, in respect to the proposed
legislation. Your own clear and concise report then made has left little
to be said in explanation of the legislative policy embodied ih the measure. Since, however, you have asked my views thereon, I will frankly
express them. If they shall differ from those presented to you by my
learned predecessor on February 7, 1884, the difference will be referable to changed conditions of administration and fresh difficulties encountered by this Department.
-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURYO
19
I will with your permission refer to the bill (5010) in the order of the
aiiK^ndments proposed therein, designating them by sections, and then
offer the additional suggestions in regard t o t h e immediate need of a
thorough tariff revision to which you do me the honor to invite me.
SECTION
2491.
0
The purpose of the amendment to section 2491 seems to be the addition of the proviso contained in the last five lines of the section.
All of the previous portion of the section is a transcript of the existing
law, aud will it not prevent an encumbering of the statute-book to
simply declare that the new matter shall be an amendment of section
24911 I have no ineans of measuring any apparent necessity which
exists for this amendment. I am not informed of any injustice inflicted
by the existing law. Is it intended that ^^ such prohibited articles^^ shall
refer to all the articles now prohibited by section 2491, or only to the
'-' drugs" described in the proviso of the existing section % Will it not
prevent misinterpretation of the new proviso to say ^"-any of such prohibited articles" instead of ^^ such prohibited articles^''? As the articles
must be imported articles, ahd must have been put into packages in a
foreign country, and presumably with the intention of sending them
hither, it is difficult to imagine circumstances'under which the prohibited articles could be putinpackages *'by accident or innocent desi^n,'^
unless it shall be that the prohibited articles were put in packages with
the intention of sending them elsewhere than to the IJnited States. If
the prohibited articles are exhibited on an invoice, neither the invoice
nor the package can, by the body of the section, be admitted to entry,
and if not contained on the invoice, a fair inference would be that the
oniission must have been intentional and guilty. If serious injustice
and injury to legitimate trade have been the result of section 2491 as it
now stands, it should of course be amended, even though the amendment shall put upon the collector and naval officer the inconvenient and
embarrassing work of deciding questions of intention.
SECTION
2499.
The effect of the amendment of section 2499 will be to repeal
what is known as the ^^ Similitude section,^^ first enacted in the protective tariff of 1842, and substitute therefor the section contained
in the proposed bill. I see no reason why Congress may not limit the
plan of 1842 as is suggested by the obvious purpose of the amendment.
Does the phrase ^'not otherwise enumerated or provided,^^ in the first
two lines of the amen<lment, refer to the first substantive, which is^^ materials," or to the substantive next removed, which is ^^ articles^^% Why
shall the law say, in the fourth line of the amendment, ^^ the highest rate,"
instead of '^the rate"? Is it intended that a distinction shall be made
by the customs officers between ^^ chief values^^ and ^^ principal cbst^^^ in
line 41?^ There.has been embarrassment in ascertaining the meaning
of '^similar." (See Schmeider vs. Barney, Yol. 113, U. S. Eeports, 645.)
I fear a like embarrassment in applying the word '^ resemble," in line
42. Eesemblance in wliati The existing section 2499 declares ^^ a similitude either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be
applied." Unless a positive and material advantage is to be thereby
gained by the Government, sections like the original 2491 ard inexpedient, inasmuch as they largely increase the l^bor of appraising officers
^nd proniote extremely vexipg questionSo
20
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
SECTION 2502,
The opinions expressed by this Department and yourself two years
ago in respect to section 2503 hold good now. I do, however, think
it most imjjortant, if Congress shall not, during the present session,
enact a law creating new schedules covering the ambiguities in the existing law suggested in my communication to the House of Eepresentatives of February 10, 1886, then that ainendatory legislation shall so
deal with those ambiguities as to put a stop to protests, appeals, and
suits.
SECTION 2503, AND DUTIES ON COVERINGS.
No criticism of amendments proposed in lines 194 to 219, inclusive,
occurs to me. In respect to the perplexities created by the unfortunate
seventh section of the law of 1883, I desire tq say that I am more and
more impressed every day with the importance of simplifying the things
to be done by customs officers, and diminishing as far as possible the estimates and calculations to be made by them in ascertaining market value
or dutiable value. The chief object of the G-overnment in arranging and
framing the tariff* schedules is, or should be, as I take it, to. obtaiii a
certain amount of revenue therefrom. To levy duties upon the foreign
value of the coverings of imported merchandise, as coverings, is to increase the duty upon the articles covered. Of course the Government
^ must take care that, under the pretext of " coverings," merchandise is
not, as salable merchandise^ brought in free of duty, or at a less rate of
duty than that to which it would be liable if invoiced and imported as
merchandise. To prevent such evasion of the law is one of the chief
difficulties in the way of dealing satisfactorily with ''coverings."
Disorder and confusion have come in executing the seventh section
of- the law of 1883, because the draughtsman of that section, either nOt
being familiar with the statute history and language of the subject, or
else intending a radical change, went beyond the mere reduction of
duties, and interfered with the pre-existing system for ascertaining
dutiable Value. The opinion in Oberteuffer^s case is a pertinent illustration ofthe tendency ofthe courts, when interpreting an ambiguous section of a tariff' law, to examine previous laws in pari materia in order
to^^'ascertain the intention of Congress when enacting the section on
which the controversy turns. This endeavor to treat laws for the collection of duties as a continuous system, makes apparent the importance of accurate knowledge of that system when making modifications
of it. I refer now to the recent opinion in Oberteuff'er's case, because
it throws light on framing a new law to meet the difficulties created by
the legislation of 1883. We may also be aided, I think, by a brief review of previous legislation to increase the rate and sum oi' duty on an
article by declaring that other items besides the foreign value of the
article per se shall be dutiable. The fourth section of the law of Aoril
20, 1818, declared:
That the ad valorem rates of duty upon goods, wares, and merchandise shall be
estimated by adding 20 per cent, to the actual cost thereof if imported from the Cape
of Good Hope or from any island, port, or place beyond t h e same, and 10 per cent, on
the actual cost thereof if imported from any other place or country, including all
charges except commissions, outside paclcages, and insurance.
The fifth section of the law of March 1, 1823, declared that—
The ad valorem rates of duty upon goods, wares, and merchandise shall be estimated in the manner following: To the actual cost, if the same shall have been actually purcnased, or the actual value, if the same shall have been procured otherwise
than by purchase, at the time and place when an^ where purchased or otherwise procured, or to the appraised value, if appraised, shall be added all charges except insurance. * * * And t h e s^id »ates of duty shall b^ estinbated oii such aggregate
airiount.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
21
The fifteenth section of the law of July 14, 1832, repeated literally
the x)revious section, and it will be observed that the two last-named
laws omitted the items "commissions, outside packages," sfjecified in
thelaw of 1818.
The law of 1832 levied "on salt 10 cents per 56 pounds"; and the
question was presented to Chief-Justice Taney (Karthaus vs. Frick
Taney's C. C. Decisions, p. 94) whether or not the sacks in which
salt was imported were subject to an additional ad valorem duty. It
waS/ in evidence that salt was sometimes imported in bulk and some
times in sacks. At first, the Treasury Department decided that the
bags were merely used as receptacles, like bags containing coffee, or
barrels containing liquors, and were not dutiable; but subsequently an
ad valorem duty was levied on the bags as manufactures of hemp, in
addition to the specific duty charged upon the salt. Chief-Justice
Taney ndecided that the sacks were not dutiable, and said that—
The material in which merchandise is usually packed for the purpose of secure and
convenient transportion has not in general been the subject of a separate impost.
When the vessel containing the article is also a subject of commerce the specific duty
has been made higher upon the merchandise thus imported in consideration of the
valiie of the vessel t h a t contains i t ; but we are not aware of any instance in which
a separate ad valorem duty has been levied upon the vessel or receptacle in which it
is contained when a specific duty is laid upon the merchandise.
i(-
•
If
•»
*
*
*
**
If there was any reason for supposing t h a t the salt was packed in bags in order to
introduce them as an article of commerce duty free, it would present a very different
question. But nothing of t h a t sort is suggested, nor is there t h e least evidence to
create a suspicion t h a t anything unfair is intended in this mode of importation.
The protective tariff of 1842 declared in the sixteenth section that
there—
Shall be added all costs and charges Except insurance, and including, in every case,
a charge for commissions at the usual rates, as the true value at the port where the
same may be entered upon which duties shall be assessed.
This law, it will be observed, required "all costs and charges" to
be added to the market value excepting the one item of insurance. In
this statute the word " costs," as an element of dutiable value, first
appears in our tariff' legislation.
The eighth section of the revenue tariff law of 1846 enabled the
owner to make such additions in the entry to the cost or vaiue given
in the invoice as will raise the same to the true market value of such
imports in the principal markets of the country whence imported or
where produced, which value the appraisers are to ascertain. I t also
declared that the person making entry may add " a l l costs and charges
which, under existing laws, would form part of the true value at the
port where the same may be entered, upon which the duties^shall be
assessed," thereby emphasizing the distinction between the market value,
which appraising officers are to ascertain, and dutiable value, which the
collector is to ascertain by the addition of items to the appraised value
which the importer has failed to add on making entry.
On November 25, 1846, my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Walker,
in a circular letter to customs officers, enumerated and described the
costs and charges to be added to market value in order to make dutiable
value. It is to be borne in mind that, under the law of 1846, the value
of the merchandise at the time of procureonentw2is to be ascertained by
the appraisers, and not the value at the time of exportation, as now.
The law of March 3, 1851, declared that all merchandise liable to
any ad valorem rate of duty shall be appraised at the period of the
exportation to the United States, " and to such value, or price, shall be
22
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
added all costs and charges except insurance, and including in every
case a charge for commissions at the usual rate." This law gave birth
to many most vexing questions, and to so much scandal in administration, that Congress has repeatedly declared, in recent laws appropriating money for the refund of duties illegally exacted, that no payments
shall be made in cases known as "charges'and commission cases," unless there be a specific appropriation therefor.
.
No material change was madeby Congress in respect to additions of
items of costs, or charges, to market value, in order to make dutiable
value, until the protective tariff* law of 1864, wherein it is declared in
the twenty-fourth section—
In determining the valuation of goods imported into the United States from foreign
countries, except as hereinbefore provided, upon which duties imposed by any existing
laws are to be assessed, the actual value of such goods on shiphoard at the last place
Of shipment to the United States shall be deemed dutiable value, and such value
shall be ascertained by adding to the value of such goods at the place of growth, production, or manufacture (1) thecost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment,
with all t h e expenses included from the place of growth, production, or manufacture,
whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the Unitecl
States, (2) the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods
are contained, (3) commission at the usual rate, in no case less than 2^ per centum,
(4) brokerage, and (5) all export duties, together with (6) all costs and charges, paid
or incurred for placing said goods on shipboard, and (7) all other proper charges
specified by law.
In this section first appears the phrase "sack, box, or covering of
any kind." This section levies the rate fixed for the, article, whether
^ 0 or 75 or 100 per cent., on the package on inland freight, as, for example, from Basle to Havre, and on all the other items specified in that
iaw.
By the tariff law of March 3, 1865, all of these items mentioned in
the previous law of 1864 as eleoaents of dutiable value were swept
away, and Congress declared that ad valorem rates shall be levied only
on " the actual market value or wholesale price of the merchandise at
the period of the exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported."
That law of 1865 distinctly declares that " the appraised value shall be
considered the value upon which duty shall be assessed."
On July 28, 1866, Congress returned to the rule of 1864, when it declared—
That in determining the dutiable value of merchandise hereafter imported, there
shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value
a t the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country from whence the
same shall have been imported into the United States (1) the cost of transportation,
shipment, and transshipment, wath all the expenses included from the place of growth,
production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the place in which shipment
is made to the United States, (2) the value of the sack, bags, or covering of any kind
in which such goods are contained, (3) commission at t h e usual rates, but in no case
less than two and a half per centum, (4) brokerage, (5) export duty, (6) and all other
actual or unusual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation
or shipment.
That law of 1866, making the before-mentioned items a part of the
dutiable value, was carried into the Eevised Statntes as sections 2907
and 2908.
In the legislation of 1874 known as " t h e anti-moiety law," the fourteenth section dealt with a proviso in this law of 1866 which declared—
That all additions made to the entered value of merchandise for charges, shall be
regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such addition shall
exceed by ten per centum the value so declared in the entry, in addition to the duties
imposed b y l a w there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of twenty per centum
on such value.
\
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
23
I infer that previous to 1874, if an importer had failed to make an addition to his entry in order to cover certain items of dutiable value not
set forth in the invoice, proceedings had been taken to forfeit the entry,
upon the allegation, under the law of 1863, that the omission to add the
items w^asvwith intent to defraud the revenue. Therefore the law of
1874 declared that such omission, unless intentional, shall not be a
cause of forfeiture, " b u t in all cases w^here the same, or any part
thereof, are omitted it shall be the duty of the collector or appraiser
to add the same for the purpose of duty to such invoice or entry, either
in items or in gross, at such price or amount as he shall deem just and
reasonable, which price or amount shall, in the absence of protest, be
conclusive, and to impose and add thereto the further sum of one hundred per centum of the price or amount added, which addition shall
constitute a part of the dutiable value of such goods, wares, and merchandise as sball be collectible as provided by law in respect to duties
on imports."
In other words, if the importer failed to make the addition to his
entry the collector or appraiser could add a sum equal to double the
amount. Thus the law stood till 1883^ which repealed the laws of 1866^
and 1874, which I have collated, and declared that—
^
Hereafter none of the charges imposed by said sections, or any other provisions of
existing law, shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods t o b e imported,
nor shall the value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering of any
kind be estimated as part of their value in determining the amount of duties for
which they are liable.
What is the history of this seventh section of the law of 1883, and
why was it enacted ^ Its origin can be found in the doings of the Tariff*
Commission of 1882. The Commissioners interrogated assistant appraisers and examiners at the port of New York in respect to the practical working of sections 2907 and 2908 of the Eevised Statutes. Mr.
McMullen, who is now the appraiser at New York, testified:
I would like to say something in regard to charges and commissions. That is a
very annoying thing in regard to t h e invoice. I.think it would be better to abandon
the items altogether, or add a charge for them to the duty. I think 3 per cent, would
about cover the present charges and commissions as they average.
Assistant Appraiser Headley testified:
I would strike out all charges and commissions. Duties are assessed upon merchandise, and the charges and commissions are claimed to be necessary expenses. So
a man's trip to Europe to purchase the goods is a necessary expense, and a great many
other things are iiecessary expenses in connection with t h a t purchase which would
affect the value of the merchandise. I t strikes me t h a t t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f duty
would be collected, and t h e revenue protected just as well, by adding a little more to
th6 rate of duty and leave out the commissions and charges.
Assistant Appraiser Hoyt testified:
The amount of charges is subject to our appraisement as well as the intrinsic value
of the articles themselves. Some of the goods in my line (worsted dress-goods) are
purchased in paper boxes, and t h e appraisers of these difi'erent classes of merchandise
know when they are included in the price of the goods themselves. If you buy a
dozen pairs of stockings here in a carton, you pay for the carton when you pay for
t h e stockings, and take i t with you. Throughout Europe t h a t is t h e usual way of
buying these goods. I n England they usually make an additional charge for t h e
carton. Parties may put F . 0. B. on their invoices ivhen the facts donH warrant it, and
that is another point ive cannot always determine. I would recommend an additional 5
per cent, to be p u t on to cover all charges and commissions.
Assistant Appraiser Auerbach testified:
We experience great difficulty in t h e niatter of determining the charges to be added
in making up the dutiable value of goods. I remember one case where an invoice of
Japanese goods could not be ^liquidated for some months, because it was impossible
to determine the question in regard to an insurance item on the invoice, whether i t
meant marine insurance or fire insurance.
24
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Mr. Marshall Field, an importer residing in Chicago, testified :
I am of the opinion t h a t the duty should be entirely abolished on all packing
charges, shipping charges, brokerages, and commissions. In other words, I believe
that the dutiable value should be the wholesale price of the goods at the actual
market in which they are purchased. The compulsory addition of these petty charges
yields no cousiderable revenue and entails incessant annoyance on the importers.
Mr. Hall, collector at Milwaukee, testified:
The revenue derived from the duty on these charges is very slight, but it costs
more to collect it t h a n it is worth. I should be in favor of abolishing the whole
thing. Let the man pay on what his goods cost him, and do away with all fictitious
costs and charges.
A careful examination of the rejjort made to the House by the Tariff
Commission on December 4, 1882, will throw additional light on this
subject. On page 9 the Commissioners said:
Perhaps t h e most important and radical change recommended is the repeal of the
sections of the existing law requiring the addition of inland transportation, costs,
and charges to the basis of an ad valorem duty. Although the repeal of these sections will efi'ect a large reduction in duties, especially on bulky goods, such repeal
was strongly recommended both by custom-house experts and importers as a measure,
of relief from the greatest source of annoyance in the liquidation of duties on imported
merchandise.
On page 13 the subject is again referred to in especial relation to the
rate of duty on earthenware, and the Commission say that it has not
advised any change of the rate on earthenware and common stoneware,
because^—
Notwithstanding the proposed abolition of the duties on packages,, charges and
commissions, it is believed t h a t the old rates will afi'ord a reasonable 'protection to the
manufacture here.
On more expensive earthenware, and on porcelain, the Commission
did, however, recommend an increase of duty, but extenuated the increase by saying that it would be—
^
' Largely more apparent t h a n real, as it will be observed that the proposed abolition
of duties upon packages, inland freights, charges and commissions, afi'ects this species
of earthenware in general use perhaps more seriously than any other article embraced
in the tariff* schedules.
In allusion (page 41) to its proposed repeal of sections 2907 and 2908,
of the Eevised Statutes, the Tariff Commission say:
The result of the repeal of these sections would be a reduction, especially on t h e
coarser and more bulky fabrics, of a considerable portion of the present duties,
amounting, as we believe, in some instances, to nearly if not quite one-fourth; while
on the finer and more highly priced goods the reduction will be much less.
In the projet of a law submitted to Congress by the Commission, it
will be seen (page 91) that the Commission contented itself with a simple
recommendation that sections 2907 and 2908 ofthe Eevised Statutes be
repealed. No allusion was there made to section 14 of the law of 1874.
Perhaps it was a perception of this omission of a repeal of the lastnamed section which inspired the declaration by Congress in 1883 not
only that ''none of the charges imposed by said sections, or auy other
provisions of existing law, shall be estimated in ascertaining the value
of goods to be imported," but that " t h e value of the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind" shall not be considered by the appraisers in determining the amount of duties for which
the goods contained therein shall be liable.
I do not now express an opinion whether or not the legal effect of the
language finally used in 1883 has been different from the policy intended by the advice given to the Tariff Commission by the apprais-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
25
ing officers at New^'York, qr frjom the advice which the Tariff Commission gave to Congress. I t is, however, plain to see that it will be
extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for appraising officers
to ascertain, as a fact, the foreign market value of an article in a
condition in which, as a fact it is seldom, or never sold, or bought
in the market. If the final controlling purpose in 1883, in dealing
with coverings, was to adjust the tariff to the one industry in New
Jersey of earthenware, the lesson has been a severe and should be
a healthy one. It was most natural that my learned x^i'edecessor,
Mr. Folger, when called on to execute that law, should have felt that
Oongress having, as the Supreme Court concedes, left section 2706
of the Eevised Statutes standing and untouched, did not intend to
require appraising officers in ascertaining the market value of a paper
of pins to separate the value of the pins from the value of the labor of
sticking the pins into paper, and of the value of the paper* But, as
1 have already said, the severe lesson will not have been in vain if we
shall be thereby taught that we cannot safely, in legislating on the tariff*,
and in framing a section touching every industry as does this seventli
section, fix our eyes too intently on one industry. If the consumers,
for whom prices have been enhanced by the duties unlawfully levied
on coverings, could have the refunds paid to them, the evil would be
more tolerable, but the protected industry got the benefit of the duties
levied, the importer was reimbursed by the consumer, and now the
refund will entirely go to the importer, or foreign manufacturer, and
their custom-house brokers and attorneys at law, in this country, to say
nothing of the labor and expense thrown on this Government. And
yet I am far from advising, or wishing, that the revising hand of the
courts shall be removed from decisions' of customs officers and this
Department in respect, to commercial designations and rates.
The law of 1883 makes no specific allusion to 'appraisements, except
in the ninth section, whereby it is clearly implied: "That the true and
actual market value and wholesale price shall be ascertainedjby appraising officers as provided by previous laws."
Indeed in that section it is distinctly said that in ascertaining the
value of merchandise whereof there do not appear to have been sales
in open market, "it sliall then be lawful to appraise the same by ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise
at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of
maniifacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise / o r shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and mercha,ndise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained.^''
It may be said that this clause contains a provision for an exceptional
case, which is where market value cannot be otherwise ascertained„but
it cannot be denied that, in such a case, all the expense of preparing
the merchandise "for shipment" is to be included iai order to make
dutiable value. It will be observed .that the Supreme Court in its
opinion in Oberteuff'er^s case distinctly declared that section 2906 of
the Eevjsed Statutes stands unrepealed and untouched by the law of
1883. This section declared that when an ad valorem rate of duty is
imposed the collector shall cause the actual market value or wholesale
. price thereof at the period of the exportation to be appraised, and such
appraised value shall be considered the value upon which duty shall
be assessed.
•^
When I came to the Department the effect of the seventh section
of the law of 1883 on all this antecedent legislation to which I have
referred had been decided by my predecessors. The common law
26
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
of departmental administration, and the law of March 3, 1875, saying
" that no ruling or decision once made by the Secretary of the
Treasury giving construction to any law imposing customs duties shall
be reversed or modified adversely to the United States by the same
or a succeeding Secretary, excepting in concurrence with an opinion
ofthe Attorney-General recommending the same, or a judicial decision
of a circuit or district court of the United States conflicting with such
ruling or decision and from which the Attorney-General shall certify
that no appeal will be taken by the United States," had placed a restraint on the free exercise of my discretion in giving an interpretation
to the law of 1883 diff'ering from that which had been given. A different
decision by me even in regard to current importations would necessarily have had a bearing on questions which had gone into litigation.
We have been warned by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court
that a reference to these laws to which I have called attention is necessary in the preparation of a substitute for the seventh section of the
law of 1883, if the substitute is not to plunge importers, this Department, the courts, and Congress into still greater perplexity. Under
all the laws previous to 1864 the market value was first ascertained by
the appraisers, and then an addition to the market value was made
either h j the appraising officer, or by the collector, of the specified,
items. And if by the appraiser, then the inclusion of the items was
made not in the ascertainment of market value, but as an arithmetical
addition of certain specified items to the market value.
Does not the, law of March 3, 1865, yield light for guidance now if
Congress shall decide that none of ihe items for commissions, brokerage, cost of transportation, coverings, or other charges specified in the
laws of 1864 and 1866 shall hereafter be dutiable^ That law of 1865
was cou^prehensive in sweeping away all such additions to market
value. That law of 1865 was carefully considered by Mr, Justice
Clifford (1868) in Cobb vs. Hamlin (Internal Eevenue Eecord, vol. 8,
I). 128). The question in that case was whether or not oranges and
lemons having been purchased in the foreign market in bulk, but
subsequently put into boxes for preservation and convenience in shipping, the actual market value thereof, within the meaning of the law
of 1865, included the cost of the boxes, or only the cost of the merchandise in bulk. Mr. Justice Clifford declared that he entertained
no doubt that the words "actual market value" included the cost of
the box, package, or covering in all cases where the merchandise in
question was actually purchased and was usually purchased in the
box and sold for shipment in the foreign market, and where the price
included the box, package, or covering, as well as the goods mentioned
therein. But he decided that, as in the case in question, the oranges
had been purchased in bulk, the boxes were not dutiable. I commend
the language used in the act of 1865 and the decision of Mr. Justice
Clifford to your consideration -as one way out of our present difficulty.
If Congress shall decide to adopt the policy there outlined, then administration will be for the appraising officers much easier, inasmuch
as market value will be ascertained by them as an article in the condition, as to.covering, in which it is usually purchased and sold in the
foreign market, inclucling such covering as well as the article therein
contained.
One illustration of the difficulty of ascertaining market value of an
article per se and in bulk will be sufficient. Blacking for boots and
shoes is ordinarily bougnt and sold either in boxes if paste blacking,
or in bottlesvor jugs if liquid blacking. The tin box for paste black
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
27
ing may be a large element in the market value of a box of blacking, and yet the appraiser may find it difficult to ascertain the market value of the blacking in bulk and without the box, if not bought
and sold in that condition.
A glimpse of auother difficulty in the way of ascertaining the foreign
market value and executing an ad valorem law can be had by considering the diff'ering habits of trade in Germany, on the one hand, and
England and France on the other hand, in gloves and hosiery like
those in controversy int he Oberteuffer case, wherein it was testified that
our countrymen are the only buyers in Germany of those articles in
cartons. In Germany, if a German, or a Frenchman, or an Englishman be a buyer of gloves or hosiery, the price named does not include
any form of packing. A price named in Germany to an American
dealer includes the carton, but if named to a German, Frenchman, or
Englishman, does not include the carton. In Bngiand or France on
the other hand, the price named is for those articles unpacked, or in
the loose condition, and an extra charge is made for the carton or
bandage. One witness testified in the trial court that if he had contracted in Germany for gloves, or hosiery, at a fixed price, he would
not consider the articles if delivered in bundles, and not in cartons, as
a good delivery. Another witness testified that in Germany gloves
and hosiery are as a rule put in cartons, not 'for the purpose oftransportatioHj but because the purchasers for our (American) markets prefer them to be put up in that form." This diff'erence in the habits of
trade in gloves and hosiery as between Germany, on the one side, and
England and France, on the other side, is of course embarrassing for
our appraising officers, inasmuch as the selling price in Germany may
include cartons, but in France or England many not include them.
The pecuUarities of our ad valorem system become even more apparent by a more critical examination of the opinion of the Supreme Court
in the Oberteicffer case. There were in the suit three invoices covered by
one entry. One invoice was of gloves, and two invoices were of cotton
hosiery. The gloves and one invoice of hosiery were actnaily purchased,
but the other invoice of hosiery was consigned to the plaintiff's for sale
in NewYork. The invoice of purchased hosiery declared the price
thereof by the dozen, from which price there was a 3 per cent, cash discount, and then there were added items for " boxes," " packing,"
"case?," and "packing charges," and thjen another cash discount of
3 per cent, from those items. But on the invoice of consigned
hosiery the prices therefor were first given in the invoice by the dozen,
and then, instead of adding items, as in the previous invoice, there
were deducted items for "case," "freight from Hohenstein to Bremen,"
"freight to New York," "consul fees," "insurance," a total sum of
137 marks for those items. In o^^her words, on an invoice of purchased
hosiery a price was first given, less a discount for cash, and then an
addition for items of charges, but on the consigned invoice the price was
first given, with a deduction for cash discount, and then a deduction for
items of charges.
^
It is to be observed that up to June 30, 1864, the additions to be
made to the market value, in order to make dutiable value, were additions which could as a rule be correctly ascertained and applied by
the collector; but when in that year and in the year 1866 the law required that " t h e value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in
which^such goods are contained" be added, and especially when in the
last-named year the law required "all other actual or usual charges
for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment,"
28
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP' THE TREASURY.
those items could not all of them be well ascertained by the collector,
inasmuch as he has no facilities for ascertaining the "'yaZ^y-e" of anything, as ascertaining value is the work of appraising officers.
Warned by what has happened to the seventh section of the law of
1883, I now come to deal specifically with the substitute therefor contained in bill 5010,
Of course the substitute is only intended to cover ad valorem rates
or duties in some way based on value. But how would "coverings"
be dealt with by you, if those rates, or duties, were transformed into
purely specific rates'?
Lines 5 to 13, including the word " imported" on the last-named line,
are a transcript of the language used in the existing seventh section of
the law of 1883, excepting that the phrase "or any other provisions
of existing laws" is omitted. May it not be argued that the phrase
retained in your substitute, "hereafter none of the charges imposed
by said sections shall be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods
to be imported," is in conflict with the isubsequent requirement that
the dutiable value shall be their market value "in the condition in
which they are ready for shipment to the United States," inasmuch as
a condition of readiness for shipment may include charges which it
has previously been said shall not be estimated'? Will it not be better
to omit the word "dutiable" in lines 13 and 17, and also to omit the
phrase "to cover the cost of transportation and packing" on page 19'?
Congress may make, of course, a deduction of 1, or 5, or 10 per
cent, from the market value in the condition of readiness for shipment,
and it is not necessary to declare ,the reason. Also, will it not be
better to omit the first proviso, in lines 20 tp 23, on page 11, inasmuch as that declaration by law of what shall be held to be a true
invoice may interfere with a prosecution for forfeiture for intentionally
presenting a false invoice % And may not the second proviso on page
11 be liable to misinterpretation'? Where and by whom shall " t h e
dutiable value of the merchandise, and of the article or material
wherein it is contained," be "separately stated'?" Does not the second proviso imply that under certain circumstances duty shall be
assessed on items which have been excluded by the body of the section "? I t may be, as in case of an article bought in a naked condition
and the covering applied by some one not the seller, that the true invoice from the seller could not declare the value of the article in a condition of readiness for shipment. The person making entry could declare on entry the additional items necessary to make dutiable value of
"the article or material wherein it is contained." The second proviso appears to be drawn with an eye to merchandise sent hither by a
manufacturer for sale at his account and risk, rather than to merchandise bought by one not a regular dealer, who carries the merchandise
elsewhere to be covered and packed for shipment. I t is important, I
think, to bear in mind that our tariff system implies an ioivoice value
to be ascertained and declared by the maker of the invoice, a market
^ value to be ascertained and declared by the appraising officers, and a
' dutiable value to be declared by the collector. As the dutiable value is
to be ascertained after arrival, will it not be better to erase the words in
line 15, page 10, "are ready for shipment" and insert " were shipped"*?
In any new legislation it will be well to keep in mind the last clause
of section 2900 of the Eevised Statutes, and clearly declare whether or
not the invoice value shall, under all ciccumstances, be a minimum
value, no matter what it contains.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
29
I fear that my comments on your substitute may be deemed too
elaborate and critical, but they have been made with a purpose to assist your committee in devising a method of dealing with this difficult
subject which shall be as simple and clear for our appraising officers
as possible.
SECTION
2841.
The purpose of the amendment of section 2841 is, I take it, to make
unnecessary the administration of an oath at the time of making an entry, and to substitute therefor a declaration. I heartily approve ofthe
change. Is it not, however, expedient to require that the declaration
shall be signed by the proper person, and also signed in the presence of
a witness'? I assume that your committee has considered the propriety^
of inflicting the forfeiture of the merchandise, or any part thereof, in addition to a criminal punishment if thefalse declarations shall be proved,
on proper judicial proceedings for forfeiture, tohave been made with an
intention to evade or defraud the revenue.
SECTION
2970.
I can see no objection to section 2970 as it stands in the proposed bill.
SECTION
2983,
AND DUTIES ON WAREHOUSED GOODS.
Section 2983 as it now is ih the Eevised Statutes, reads:
,
In no case shall there be an abatement of the duties or allowance made for the injury, damage, deterioration, lessor leakage, sustained by any merchandise while deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse.
This requirement was not contained, I think, in the original warehouse law of 1846, or its amendment of 1852, but was first apijlied in
the fourth section of the. law of March 28, 1854, and has been in force
ever since. The amendment proposed by bill 5010, omits the words
"loss or leakage^^^ and adds thereto immediately after, this proviso:
That the duty assessed on merchandise withtlrawn from auy such warehouse shall
be assessed o n t h e quantity withdrawn therefrom a t t h e time of such withdrawal;
but no greater allowance for leakage or evaporation of wines, liqu,ors, and'distilled
spirits shall be made t h a n is dr may be allowed by law on domestic spirits or wines in
bond.
The declaration contained in the foregoing proviso will be novel in
our tariff legislation if adopted. If a new rule shall be adopted that an
allowance is to be made for diminution of the quantity of imported
merchandise while in warehouse, no sound reason in principle occurs
to me why the same rule shall not be applied to imported spirits or
wine in bond as the law applies to doonestic spirits or wines in bond.
But the proviso will in practical application cover a very much larger
class of articles than spirits or wines. It will embrace every description of bonded merchandise.
The tirst warehouse enactment, as I do not need to inform you,
was adopted in 1846. Its object was to do away with a credit for
duties in the form in which credit existed up to that date, and to
require all duties to be paid in cash, but, at the same time, to facilitate and encourage commerce by exempting the importer from the payment of duties until, within a limited specified period, ready to bring
his merchandise into market. Customs warehouses existed before 1846,
' but imported merchandise could be deposited therein only when an
entry at the custom-house was imperfedt for want of proper documents,
30
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'v.
or where the goods were damaged in the voyage and the duties could
not be immediately ascertaiued, or the cash duties were not paid after
the forms of entry had been complied with. Under such circumstances
the collector was directed by laws existing before 1846 to take possession of such merchandise and place it in public stores, and retain
it until the duties were paid. The warehouse act of 1846, so far as
the landing and storing of goods are concerned, places goods entered
for warehousing upon the same footing with goods upon which duties
had not been paid. Up to 1886 the general theory of our warehouse
law has been, subject only to a few special exceptions, that the duties
accrued wben the merchandise arrived within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined by law as a port of entry, with indent to unload the same5 and that when goods have been placed in
warehouse the rate and amount of duty to be paid thereon shall be
fixed and determined by the law in force, and by the condition of the
merchandise, a t t h e time of such importation. The general theory ofthe
law has always been to levy duty on the quantity which actually arrived
as ascertained by the proper customs officers at the time of arrival.
The law of 1846 declares that the proper duties and expenses on warehoused merchandise " be ascertained on due entry thereof for warehousing, and be secured by a bond of the owner, importer, or consignee,
with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the collector in double the
amaiint of said duties and in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury
shall prescribe,"
By the law of 1846 the merchandise could remain in Avarehouse one
year. In 1852 the time was extended to two years. In 1854 the time
was again extended to three years. But in 1866 the period of withdrawal was limited so that unless the merchandise was withdrawn fpr
consumption within one year from the date of the original importation an additional duty "of ten per cent, of the amount of such duties
and charges" must be levied, and none could remain in warehouse
longer than three years.
I certainly have no reason or wish to interfere with or attempt to control, even if I could, any disposition that may ^xist on the part of the Committee of Ways and Means or of the House to change^he rule in this matter, which has existed from 1846 to the present day. I only deem it my
duty, in response to your invitation, to lay before you any suggestions
that may occur to me regarding the practical application of the law if it
shall be amended in the terms proposed by bill 5010. As at present the
" q u a n t i t y " on which duty must be paid is fixed by the final liquidation of tiie original warehouse entry, so under the proposed bill the
"quantity" must be again ascertained on each withdrawal for consumption, how many soever there may be. That, will of course catt for
additional labor and for reliquidation, which need not be decisive as
regards the propriety of the proposed change.
^ I t must be remembered that the Governmeut by its warehouse system
gives in effect to an importer not only the protection of Government
custody of the merchandise, but also gives to the importer in effect a
credit for duties: The amount of duty chargeable on the importation
is, under the existing system, liquidated and fixed on impottation, and
for the payraent of that sum the bond of the importer with sufficient
sureties is given. If the merchandise naturally shrinks by evaporation,
or any other cause, while in the warehouse, that has been considered
to be no more a loss of the Governm<Bnt than if the merchandise were
duty paid, and in the warehouse of the importer. The proposed legislo-tion, if adopted, will assess duty upon the quantity withdrawn instead
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
31
of the quantity ionported. It certainly does in one sense seem unreasonable that an importer should be required to pay duty upon a quantity
larger than that which actually and finally comes into his possession,
but all duties levied upon imports are in one sense unreasonable. It
may be that the value of the merchandise will be very much less at the
end of three years than it was at the time of the importation, and if
the rate be an ad valorem rate it may not seem to be likewise unreasonable that the importer should be required to pay an ad valorem rate
upon a valuation greater than the real valuation when the importation
is withdrawn.
^
,
My attention has been called to a report contained in the New York
Journal of Commerce, of February 24, 1886, of a public ^meeting in
the city of New York, called to consider this proposed measure,
wherein it was said that our existing warehousing law is unjust and
unreasonable; and that Congress should imitate the present English
law in order to increase the w^elfare of the United States, and the better to encounter British competition. One speaker seemed t o desire
it to.be inferred that in England there is no limit to the time during
which imported merchandise can remain in bonded warehouse without
payment of duty, and that under similar circumstances the British Government is more considerate of commerce than the United States are.
The tariff system of the government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland is for relatively small islands, while ours is for a^
continent. The former is for 36,000,000 of people, while the latter is
for nearly 60,000,000. The customs administration of the former concerns but a few ports near to one another and within easy reach of the
minister, while the head of this Department must deal with one hundred and sixteen ports, or collection districts, some of them separated
from one another by thousands of miles.^ The former levies only specific
duties upon articles so fe^ that all the legislative specifications therefor can easily be xirinted on less than a page of our Eevised Statutes,
while our specifications include some four thousand articles, covering
a great number of printed pages in our Eevised Statutes. During the
last year there was collected in Great Britain and Ireland, from imports, the equivalent of about a hundred millions of dollars, while we
collected nearly twice that sum. Before we adoiJt the Britisli warehousing system it may be well to realize what are the chief articles on
which the United Kingdom levied duties during the last year. The
following are the principal sums collected, stated in pounds sterling:
Tobacco and snuff*
Rum
Brandy
Wine...
Geneva
Tea
Currants
Coffee
Raisins..-.
Cocoa
Chicory . .
I
Figs
,.:
'.
,
-•-..
.--:
...-•
--,
-..
^
£9,376,093
2,084,256
1,520,971
1,235,200
708,610
4,795,843
341,463
209,952
155,587
67,955
66,342
49,916
You and I may be permitted, perhaps, to think with envy of those in
official positions in London, relatively similar to ours, who have such
a simple and comf^act tariff' system as that to deal with and administer.
I have examined '"-An act to consolidate the customs laio''^ of the
United Kingdom, dated July 24, 1876, and the subsequent amendments dowu to and iucluding 1883, and believe theni to set forth tbe
32
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
latest British legislation on the subject. Therein I find that by British
law warehoused goods, if not cleared for home use or exportation
within hv^e years, must be rewarehoused, and if rewarehoused "the
duties due upon any deficiency or difference between the quantity
ascertained on landing and the quantity found to exist on such examination, together with the necessary expense attendant thereon, shall,
subject to such allowances as are by law permitted in respect thereof^
be paid down. The quantity so found shall be rewarehoused in the
name of the then owner or proprietor thereof, in the same manner as
on the first importation." If goods in warehouse be not cleared, or
rewarehoused, or duties paid on such deficiencies, after five years, the
goods are to be sold, and, after deduction of the duties, the proceeds
placed to the Crown's account, to abide the claim of the owner or proprietor. The present British law does, however, provide that on the
entry of any goods to be cleared from the warehouse for home use, there
shall be paid " to the proper officer of the customs the full duties payable thereouj not being less in amount than according to the account of the
quantity taken by the proper officer on the first entry and la.nding tliereof
except as to the following goods, viz, tobacco, wine, spirits, figs, currants, and raisins." The duties when the goods are cleared from the
warehouse for home use are chargeable upon the quantity of those
enumerated articles ascertained, by weight,.measure, or strength, at the
time of actual delivery thereof, unless there is reasonable ground to suppose that any portion of the deficiency or diff'erence between the weight,
measure, or strength ascertained on landing and first examination of
any such last-mentioned goods, and that ascertained at thetime of actual
delivery, has been caused by illegal or improper means, in which case
the proper officer of customs shall make such allowance only for losses
he may consider fairly to have arisen from natural evaporation or other
legitimate cause.
Thus it will be eeen that in England the general rule is the same as
now in this country, and duty must be paid upon the quantity entered
by the importer into the warehouse, excepting as to six articles, which
are tobacco, wine, spirits, figs, currants, and raisins. I t is to be observed that in England no duty is levied on sugars, and it is also to be
observed that the English rates of duty on tobacco depend upon the
moisture contained therein. Unmanufactured tobacco, containing ten
pounds or more of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof,
pays'three shillings a j)ound; and ifit contains less than ten pounds of
moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof, the rate of duty is
three shillings and six pence a pound; bul no tobacco packed and
prized shall on the importation thereof be examined as to quantity and
measure contained therein except by special order of the commissioner
of customs; and manufactured tobacco shall, on the entry thereof, be
distinguished as stemmed or unstemmed, as the case may be. But on
warehoused tobacco withdrawn for home consumption there is chargeable two and six pence per hundred pounds, in addition to the duties on
the original consumption entry.
SECTION
2770. '
The proposed change in section 2770, as it stands in the existing law,
is to insert these words : "Except that in cases of cargoes in bulk the
collector may by special permit allow the same to be unladed at any
point in his collection district to be designated, under the supervision
of an inspector of customs, on payment by an importer of the necessary
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
33
expenses of such inspe,ctor, appraiser and gauger, or measurer, as the
case may be."
No objection to that amendment occurs to me if the supervision of
this Department be retained.
SECTION
2799.
The general purpose of the amendment to existing section 2799 appears to be to do away with an oath, and also to place upon the free
list the articles included in the following specification:
Personal and household effects, libraries and parts of libraries in use, professional
books, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or eniployment.
At the end of the section the word " shortly," referring to an owner
"expected to arrive in the United States," is stricken out, and the
phrase " within one year" inserted instead. I do not desire to be
understood as interposing any objection to this enlargement of the freelist. My only suggestion relates to administration and execution. The
amendment does not declare how long the " personal and household
effects, libraries and parts of libraries " must have been in use in order
to entitle them to free entry. Ought there not to be a limitation and
a plain definition of the limitation "^
SECTION
2800.
I can see no objection to this amendment.
SECTION
2801.
This amendment of section 2801 of the Eevised Statutes appears to
contemplate the omission of the naval officer. The present law requires him and the collector to unite in directing the baggage of an
arriving passenger to be examined by the surveyor or an inspector. I
see no objection to this amendment; and yet it will be observed that
the section as amended does require the co-operation of the naval
officer with the collector in deciding whether any article in the baggage of an arriving passenger ought or ought not to be exempt from
duty.
To the last proviso of the amendment of this section there does not
appear to me to be objection; nor to the next amendment to section
2^03 of the Eevised Statutes.
May 1 here be permitted to suggest to the committee the need
of new legislation making more certain the punishment of any arriving passenger, or his agents, who shall give, or offer to give, or
promise to give, any money, or thing of value, to any customs officer
in connection with, or for any act growing out of, the inspection of
baggage'? I wish that scandal could be prevented. The present law
is inadequate, as I have said in my annual report on the collection o
duties. I would respectfully suggest that in case of any such payment
or offer, or promise, the person making the same shall be liable to in
dictment, and adequate criminal punishment; and that the factof such
payment, or off'er, or promise, being established, the burden of jjroof
shall be upon the person so paying, or off'ering,. or promising, to show
that the act was innocent and proper. And also that the customs officer
receiving any such payment, or gift of money, or thing of value, shall
be liable to indictment, and adequate criminal punishment, and that
proof of the reception as aforesaid shall throw upon him the burden
of satisfying the court and jury that such reception was innocent and
lawful.
HoEx. 2—VOLII^
3
34
REPORT O F TPIE SECRETARY OF T H E
SECTION
TREASURY,
3058.
I cannot see any objection to the proposed amendment of section 3058
of the Eevised Statutes, provided adequate limitations are, or shall be
interposed, so that the existing provisions of law punishing a false invoice, or a false certificate of a consul, or a false entry, shall not be
evaded.'
SECTION 7.
The seventh section of the proposed bill, page 22, appears to be an
amendment of sections 2853, 2854, and 2855 of the Eevised Statutes.
I can see no objection to the exercise by the Secretary of the Treasury
of the discretion confided to him by the first part of the section; nor
to the forbidding of the requirement of triplicate invoices and consular certificates when the value of the merchandise does not exceed
one hundred dollars. The last part of the section, however, which
authorizes and requests the Secretary of the Treasury to make such
regulations in regard to invoices and consular certificates, as in his
judgment the public interest may require, may, if taken in its broadest
sense, interfere with the authority in regard to such matters that is
now vested in the Secretary of State. Although it is true that the
money which at present maintains Our consular service is chiefly obtained by a tax levied by consular officers for the verification or au, thentication of invoices of imported merchandise, and that such authentication and verification chiefly concern the Treasury Department, I
am nevertheless doubtful whether it would, in practical administration,
be well to take the supervision of such consular services out of the
hands of the Department of State.
SECTION 8.
The fees and oaths abolished by the seventh section of the proposed
bill, as prescribed by existing laws, are very numerous; but I assume
that the committee have carefully examined the subject and are satisfied that the proposed arrangement is preferable.
SECTION 9.
The ninth section of the proposed bill will amend sections 3019,3020,
3021 of the Eevised Statutes, and the tenth section of the existing law
of February 8, 1875. I can see no objection to the proposed amendment provided adequate security is taken that the articles are actually
shipped, and actually leave the country and are actually landed abroad.
SECTION lOo
Section 10 of the proposed bill is an amendment of the 21st section
of the law of June 22, 1874. To this amendment you particularly
call my attention and wish to be informed whether in my judgment
its provisions will meet the difficulties referred to in my special report to Congress of January 18, 1886, on the subject of protests, appeals, and suits. The proposed amendment will not adequately meet
the difficulties of administration w^hich the bill that accompanies my
special report was intended to deal with, I have, in a note to Mr.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
35
Morrison, called his attention to one or two verbal amendments in the
first section as proposed by me. I consider that proposed legislation
of great and immediate 1/nportance. New evidence of its immediate
need has been presented to me since the date of my special report,
which I shall be glad to lay before you in an informal way, but which
it would be inconvenient perha[)S to make public. I shall be gratified
if the measure proposed by me can be reported by your committee, and
subuiitted to the House, unaccompanied by any other proposed legislation, and in that form sent to the Senate. One object of the legislation
proposed by me is to perfect section 2931 of the Eevised Statutes, to
which your proposed tenth section refers. And if my proposed measure shall be adopted, it will tend, I think, to increase the efficiency of
your proposed tenth section if it shall be adopted.
That proposed tenth section is, however, as I think, open to the criticism that " the decision of a collector of customs fixing the rate and
amount of duties" «^ * ^ «'as ascertained by the liquidation of the
entry," is to be after the entry ^'shall be finally adjusted," which caunot well be, inasmuch as the final liquidation is the final adjustment.
The amendment also leaves open to dispute what shall be considered
the "final" adjustment or liquidation which is to be conclusive upon
the Government and the importer. There may have been an arithmetical error in the first adjustment to the disadvantage of the Government,
or the collector may have erred in thQ. rate levied, or in classification,
to the injury of the Government. If the error has been to the injury of
the importer, he will protest, appeal, and bring suit. But the Go vernment,may be remediless to collect the full amount of duty if the first
liquidation and adjustment, which would have been final if it had been
correct, cannot be revised by direction of the Secretary ofthe Treasury,
or by the' collector upon his own motion, "except in case of fraud." I
think a time should be fixed beyond which a reliquidation should notbe
made even in the interest of the Government, Perhaps a limitation of
time should exist within which a reliquidation cannot be made in the
interest of the Government even " i n case of fraud." The proviso to
the second section declares " t h a t the final ascertainment and statement
of duties on the import entry shall be regarded as a liquidation," but
does not define the meaning and limitation of the word "final." The
proviso also authorizes reliquidation "for clerical error," but does not
appear to provide for reliquidation when there has been ah error in
the rate of duty, or in the classification which might involve the rate
of duty.
I have touched these questions in my special report to Congress on the
subject of protests, appeals, and suits, and probably do not need to refer
to them again, except to suggest that one or two of the local Federal
judges (see Uc S. -^5. Leng, 18 Fed. Eep., 15) have intimated that liquidation of entries has by law been placed in the sole control of collectors of
customs, so that even the head of this Department, under the large
power given to him by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, has
not authority to direct and control a reliquidation unless the importer
shall, under section 2931 of the Eevised Statutes, protest and appeal
in his own interest. Or, in other words, the intimation is that the head
of this Department can only by the protest and appeal of an importer
acquire jurisdiction over classifications, and the rate and amount of
ducy levied by the one hundred and sixteen collectors of customs, and
thereby make rates of duty uniform. I need not say that I do not assent^
to tbe correctness of the proposition involved in such an intimation.
36
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY,
^SECTIONS 12 AND 13.
These sections are entirely new legislation, in respect to the practical working of which I do not feiel competent to the expression of an
opinion.
I regret extremely that there has not been time to ask opinions of bill
5010 from the more experienced and intelligent of the appraising or
other local officers at the large ports. It is upon them that the work
and responsibility of initiating the execution of new tariff'laws really
fall. They stand daily and hourly in the midst of the business of importation, and have a clearer perception of what importers, their brokers
and lawyers, are likely to say and do about new legislation. I distrust
my own appreciation, as well as that of the excellent expert in this
Departmeut, of the effect of an amendment of the tariff law, even
when the Department has participated in its preparation, so true is
it that the draughtsman of a law is the less capable of interpreting his
own work by reason of his tendency to think of his own ioitention rather
than the possible legal eff'ect of his language when studied by others. .
GENERAL SUGGESTIONS.
Has your attention been especially called to the opinion recently announced by the Supreme Court in Boyd vs. The Uoiited States? Is not
the drift of it menacing to the right and power of Congress to enable
the Executive to enforce a penalty as a punishment for an act done, or
omitted, by an importer in making an entry of rnerchandise paying ad
yalorem rates'? If it be that, under the Constitution, the Executive
cannot be authorized to exact money from an importer, as penalty or
punishment, and if Congress cannot empower executive officers, in collecting the revenue, to demand the production of truthful documents
(as by section 2923 of the Eevised Statutes) which are in the possession
of importers and withheld, or the making of truthful entries (as by
section 2900), or inflict penalty, or punishment, or the forfeiture of
a right, and if all penalties must be recovered, or enforced, by suits in
court, it will deserve consideration whether or not the working of our
existing system of ad valorem rates has not received a serious blow.
If I shall seem in my annual report, or in my recent special report
to Congress, or in my replies to inquiries addressed to rne by committeeij of either House respecting the tariff, to have dwelt on the executive
aspect of the subject, such pressure and urgency on my part have been
because my observation and experience in this Department convince me
that, since the war period, the natural limitations ofthe Executive in
collecting duties on imports have too much dropped out of legislative
consideration. While the w^ar raged a great necessity existed w^hich
now fortunately does not exist, but the theories and methods of the
half dozen war tariff's from and including that of August 5, 1861, up to
and including that of March 3,1865, have not been essentially changed.
I do not mention the law of March 2, 1801, as a " war tariff" because
its schedules were arranged and adopted by the House during the sessions of 1859 and 1860, before war came, and were partly to make good
a deficit, although not adopted by the Senate till the next session. It
was affirmed by those most intimately and directly concerned in that
legislation that their intention was to return to the rates of 1846, Avhich
had beeu reduced in 1857, and substitute, where feasible, specific i'or
ad valorem rates. As often happens, the substitution was availed of as
an opportunity to increase the round sum of duties, which opportunity,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
37
always present, has done so much to create the belief that there is a real
tie between protective aud specific rates which does not exist between
protective and ad valorem rates. But the law of March 2, 1861, did
no dciubt openly and largely increase duties before the firing on Fort
Sumter. Then came the abnormal and unprecedented legislation of
1862 and 1864, under the perplexing influence of which, preserved in
1883, this .Department is now working.
I do not need to remind you of the unsuccessful efforts made in Congress, in 1867, with the warm approval and co operation of my predecessor, Mr. McCulloch, to modify the war rates. The Senate and
this Department were in substantial accord, as is indicated by the
adoption in the Senate of the Treasury measure by a vote of 27 to 10.
And so likewise, it would seem was the House in sympathy with the
Treasury project, but the artificial requirement, at the moment, of a
two-thirds vote in that body defeated even the partial reform attempted
in 1857. When 1870 caine another eff'ort was made to reduce customs
taxation which was more successful than was the eff'ort three years
before, but the diminution of rates then accomplished did not interfere with, or alleviate for consumers, the protective rates of the war
period on a large class of articles, inasmuch as the rates on such purely
revenue articles as coffee, molasses, sugar, spices, and tea were reduced,
nor did the modification made in 1870 give relief to this Department in
executive administration, which is the aspect in w^hich I am now looking upon the subject. Nor did any help come, in an executive sense,
for the ten per cent, horizontal reduction in 1872, which was repealed
in 1875. To be sure the duties on tea and coffee were taken off'in the
year 1872, but the removal of that tax levied "for revenue only" tended
to promote the continuance of the cunningly-devised, confusing, and
perplexing protective rates, whereby, and so often, a combineid specific
and ad valorem rate is prescribed for one article. By the tariff legislation of 1883 the situation, either as regards the protective system or
the collectiug system, was left unchanged for the better. In many most
essential particulars, as in the matter of packages and coverings, the
difficulties in administration by the local customs officers and of this
Department were increased by the law of 1883, which actually increased the rates of duty on many articles. In many instances lower
figures and percentages were placed on the statute-book, but in actual
administration it has been found that the figures and percentages^ when
taken in connection with other elements of the law, worked an increase
of the sum of duty to be paid on the article and an increase of perjdexity for appraising officers, already perplexed too much.
It is, as I have already said, this perplexity with which I am now
concerned. There is a limit to appraising work. There is a line beyond which the correct and honest ascertainment of dutiable values by
customs officers, under an ad valorem system, cannot be carried. I t is
with great deference that I venture to suggest the inquiry by your
committee whether or not the executive department, and the primal
purpose of a tariff' law, have not been lost sight of in solicitude to frame
tariff schedules which shall satisfy or harmonize manufacturing industries in our country which clamor for State aid. It was not long ago
that tb a most intelligent representative of an industry greatly protected
by the tariff of 1883, who urged an interpretation of that law which
would still further benefit tbat industry, it was said by-one of the officers of this Department that the arguments and considerations he urged
in favor of a contention for the highest rates were for Congress to co i
38
liEPORT OF TiiE SECRETARY O F THE TREAStJRY.
sider, but not for the Treasury Department.
protected industry replied:
The representative of the
That may once have heen the true rule, hut not in recent years. The effect and intention
of much of the modern ambiguous legislation on the tariff has heen to send us to the Treasury
Department to arrange a workable schedule of rates.
It is important to remember that the tariff laws of 1862 and 1864 were
not advocated and defended by their authors as a remedy for the alleged
evil of defective home production, or to equalize conditions of foreign
and domestic labor, or to allure capital into neglected industries, or to
diversify the industrial function in the several States ofthe Union, but
in order to compensate domestic manufacturers for the increased cost
of production created by internal taxation which the civil war compelled. Mr. Morrill, in presenting to the House the tariff bill of 1862,
said (Cong. Globe, 1861-^62, p. 1196):
I t will be in dispensable for us to revise the tariff' on foreign imports so far as it may
be seriously disturbed by any internal duties and to make proper reparation.
Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said (p. 2979):
We intend to impose an additional duty on imports equal to the t a x which had been
put on the domestic articles.
In 1863 there culminated the most widespreading and penetrating
system of internal taxation that this nation or perhaps any nation ever
felt. Under that system every finished industrial product of the country paid a tax varying from eight to twenty per cent. In 1866 the internal taxes reached the prodigious sum of $309,226,813.42, and customs
taxation was not less than $179,046,651.58. In 1868 the sum of internal
taxes had, by repealing laws, been reduced to $191,087,589.41, and in
1885 to $116,000,000, levied chiefly on tobacco and spirits. In 1870 Mr.
Morrill remarked (Cong. Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295):
For revenue purposes, and not solely for protection, 50 per cent., in mauy instanceshas been added to the tariff' to enable our home trade to bear t h e new but indispensable burdens of internal taxation. Already we have relinquished most of such taxes.
Whatever percentage of duties was imposed on foreign goods to cover internal taxa,
tion on home manufactures should not now be claimed as the lawful prise of protection
when such taxes have been repealed. There is no longer an equivalent.
^
But those war duties have, nevertheless, been insisted upon and maintained as the "laivful prize of protection.^^ In 1869 the total sum of
duties on imports was $180,048„426, In 1885 it was $181,471,939.
The failure since the end of the civil war to reduce the sum total of
taxation levied at the custom-houses is, from the point of view of this
Department, by no means the worst of the evil. The disorderly, vexing, and demoralizing system^ or rather want of system, has not been
changed. The tariff* laws of 1846 and 1857 were at least orderly and
logical. In a recent communication to,Congress I have endeavored to
set forth my reasons for believing that the ad valorem rates cannot now be
satisfactorily workecl. The war rates of the last quarter of a century have
inspired and encouraged here and there dishonest foreign consignors to
the invention of devices to evade the revenue, which are in effect, w^hen
in violation of an unambiguous law, thefts practiced on the Government, the community, and importers who do not practice them. In
the scramble for revenue between 1861 and 1865 there was no time for
the patient elaboration of tariff laws by this Department and Cohgress,
Each new tariff law was in eff'ect an amendment of its predecessor, in
order to collect more duties. The successive tariff' laws from 1861 to
1883 have been so interlaced that the true interpretation of the latest
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
39
depends on the language of its predecessors if one would ascertain the
intention of the law-makers. A striking instance of that is to be seen in
the opinions delivered by the Supreme Court on tariff questions within
the last ten years, and under the law of 1864, which is so generally
the key of the law of 1883. Especially is th?t notable in the recent
opinion against the decision of my predecessor on the question
of coverings and cartons. One reason why the disorderly, illogical,
arid confusing character of this jumble of tariff' legislation since 1861
has not been more apparent has grown out of the fact that either because
of inadequate judicial force in New York or inefficiency in the district
attorney's office and the collector's office, or of some unexplained reason, suits that have arisen during the last quarter of a century have
not been brought to trial and now encumber the docket of the circuit
court in New York, to the scandal of the Government and the injury of
private suitors. When these suits shall be tried I look for other demands upon the Treasury as startling, it may be, as the recent carton
decision. These claims and suits should be tried, or disposed of, for
if allowed to linger they will become as stale as " T h e French spoliation
claims!" The pressure for the highest rate, brought to bear on the
Department by interested domestic producers when Congress has not
spoken decisively, could not fair to result in lawsuits of the class that
now crowd the calendar of the district attorney at New York.
It has not been my purpose in this communication to consider the
object of tariff schedules—whether, on the one hand, they shall be for
the single object of obtaining a sum of money needed for the maintenance of the Federal Government, or, on the other hand, shall be
framed' in order to diversify industries, or adjust domestic production
to domestic demand, or equalize the unequal conditions of domestic and
foreign labor. What I have sought to enforce is the need of a tariff
law which, no matter what theories of political economy may underlie
it, shall be so clear, definite, and precise that it can be easily and srrely,
administered, and that the excuse for executive or judicial discretion in
administering it shall be unnecessary and unlawful.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary o
Hon. A. S. H E W I T T ,
Gommittee of Ways and Means,
No. 6o
COMMITTEE ON W A Y S AND, MEANS,
H O U S E OF E E P R E S E N T A T I V E S ,
Washington, B. C, March 18,1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your printed
letter of the 16th instant, in reply to my letter asking for your views
in regard to H. E, 5010. I have submitted your communication to
the subcommittee in charge of the bill, and am instructed to request
that you will direct the proper officer of the Department to formulate
the views submitted in the form of distinct amendments to the bill, or
of new sections to be added thereto.
40
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
I am also instructed to say that the subcommittee will at once proceed to the consideration of the draft of the bill attached to your letter
of January 18th, in reference to protests and appeals.
The Committee of Ways and Means see no objection whatever to the
publication of the letter in regard to H, E. ,5010.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ABEAM S. HEWITT,
Chairman Subcommittee.
No, 7.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washioigton, B. C, March 23, 1886,
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your letter of
the 18th instant, wherein you express the desire of the subcommittee
of the Committee of Ways and Means that this Department will formulate as distinct amendments to H. E. 5010, or as new sections to be
added thereto, the views submitted in my communication of the 16th
instant.
I assume that the request refers especially to the seventh section of
tbe law of 1883 and the recent interpretation thereof by the Supreme
Court. My suggestions in regard to protests, appeals, suits, aud payments of refundSoWere distinctly formulated in my communication of
January 18,1886, In regard to the other sections of H. E. 5010, I have
no suggestions to formulate more explicitly than was done in my letter
ofthe 16th instant, excepting, perhaps, what is referred to in my communication to the House of February 10,1886. But in regard to tbe last
named, and to the seventh section of 1883, this Department cannot proceed intelligently in formulating a law until told by the Committee on
Ways and Means, or by the House, what rates of duty, if any, it proposes
to levy on the articles referred to. When the rates, whether ad valorem
or specific, and the size of the rates, and whether or not to be Applied
to " coverings of any kind," or bandages of any kind, have been given
to the Department, I will immediately see to it that the view^s of tbe
committee or ofthe House are formulated in statute phraseology.
The tendency and drift of the reasoning in the recent opinion of the
Supreme Court in Oberteuff'er's case are, it w^ill be inevitably argued by
importers, to prevent appraising officers, and this Department, from
taking into consideration or account any sort of a covering, or bandage,
on an article described in and made dutiable by the tariff. Do the
Committee of Ways and Means or the House wish to change the law as
thus interpreted by tbe court, or allow it to standi If, to be changed,
then which covering or costs or charges shall be dutiable, and at what
rates? Those are questions in respect to wbich my opinion cpuld not
be intelligently expressed in the absence of definite information in regard to the proposed general plan of tariff revision.
Eespectfully yours,
•
• D. MANNING,
Secretary.
Hon.
ABRAM S . HEW^ITT,
Souse of Bepresentatives, Washington, B. 0,
.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•
•
^
41
N o . 8.
H O U S E OF E E P R E S E N T A T I V E S , U .
S.,
Washioigton, B . C, March i^4, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
S I R : I am directed by the subcommittee of tbe Committee of Ways
and Means, having in charge H. E. 5010, to acknowledge the receipt of
your lette^^ of the 23d instant, informing them tbat you are not prepared
to comply with the request contained in my letter df the 18th instant
until you are advised as to the wishes of tbe committee in regard to the
duties to be imposed on coverings and tbe various items of charges
aff'ected by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court iu Oberteuff'er's
case. There is evidently a misapprehension in your mind as to the
object which the subcommittee had in view in submitting for your consideration H. E. 5010. It is the duty of the Treasury Department to
administer the customs laws. In the course of this administration difficulties arise, and complicated questions are presented which your predecessor informed the committee caused great embarrassment, and in
view of which I had the honor to report to the House in the Fortyeighth Congress a bill which is the basis on which H. E. 5010 has been
framed. In your annual report, and in a subsequent commpnication to
the House, additional difficulties were pointed out, and the action of
Congress was invoked to provide adequate legislation to meet these
difficulties. The committee have honestly tried to arrive at your views
in reference to these questious, and not finding a sufficient explanation
in your letter of the 16th instant, the committee ask for a definite sub
mission of your opinions in the form either of amendments to the bill or
of new sections to be incorporated therein.
The committee supposed that the Department had arrived at certain
conclusions in these matters which it would be proper for them to consider. You were not asked to make a law, but to submit to the com
mittee the kind of legislation which you thought would rneet the difficulties of the situation. So far as I am advised, it has been usual for
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Committee of Ways and Means,
to co-operate with each other whenever it was felt tbat the law should
be amended, and it' is more convenient certainly, that the committee
should proceed to consider your views, when formulated into a bill,
than to endeavor to put in shape general statements pointing out the
difficulties to be overcome. 1 therefore respectfully renew the request
that you will put the subcommittee in possession of such definite suggestions in due legal form as, in your opinion, will conduce to the easy
conduct of business, and relieve tbe embarrassments caused by the
recent decision, and the other doubtful or conflicting provisions of law
of which you have knowledge,
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ABEAM S. HEWITT,
Chairman Subcommittee.
42
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
J.G.M.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C,^March 2^, 1886.
Hon. A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman of Sub-Committee of Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives :
SIR : In response to your letter of the 18th instant, I have the honor to suggest the
following modifications of and amendments to House bill No. 5010 :
Strike from the bill t h e proposed substitute for section 2499, Revised Statutes, and
in lieu thereof insert the following :
^' SEC. 2499. Each and every imported article not enumerated or provided for in
any schedule in this title which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the
use to which it may be applied, TO any article enumerated in this title as^chargeable
with duty, shall pay the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article
which it most resembles in any o f t h e particulars before mentioned ; andif any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied on such non-enumerated
article the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it resembles, paying the highest rate of duty ; and on articles, not otherwise provided tor, manufactured from two or rbOxe inaterials the duty shall be assessed at the rate at which the
component material of chief value may be chargeable; a n d ' t h e words 'component
raaterial^of chief value,' whenever used in this title, shall be held to mean t h a t component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material
found in the article ; and the value of each component material shall be determined
by the ascertained value of such material in its last forni and condition before it became a component material of such article. If two or more rates of duty shall be
applicable to auy imported article, it shall pay duty at the highest of such rates.
Provided, That auy non-enumerated article similar in material and quality and texture, and the use to which it may be applied to any article on the free list, and in
, the manufacture of which no dutiable materials are used, shall be free of duty.''
SECTION 2502, R E V I S E D STATUTES.
Schedule C—Metals.—Insevt in next to the last clause of this schedule (Tariff, paragraph 215), after the word ' ' m i n e r a l s " and before the word " substances," the word
'' metallic," so t h a t the clause shall read as follows :
'^Mineral metallic substances in a crude state, and metals unwrought, not specially
enumerated or provided for in this act, 20 per centuni ad valorem."
Schedule D—Wood arid wooden wares.—Strike out of the clause relating to *^ sawed
boards, plank," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 219), the word ^^ articles," and insert in lieu
thereof the word *' varieties," so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows:
'' Sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of hemlock, white wood, sycamore,
and bass wood, one dollar per one thousand feet, board measure; all other varieties
of sawed lumber, two dollars per one thousand feet, board measure."
ScheduleG-^-Provisions.—Amend the clause relating to *'rice flour," &c. (Tariff,
paragraph 172), by adding, after the word "rice meal," the words " and broken rice
which will pass through a sieve known commercially as number 12 brass wire sieve,
twelve meshes to the running inch, or one hundred and forty-four meshes to the square
inch ; the space within the wires shall not exceed in length or width 0.0654 inch; " so
t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows: ''Rice flour, rice meal, and broken r i c e ;
which will pass through a sieve known commercially as No. 12 brass wire sieve,
twelve meshes to the ruuning inch, or one hundred and forty-four meshes to the square
inch; the space within the wires shall not exceed in length or width 0.0654 inch."
Schedule J—Juie and flax goods.—Amend the clause concerning ''seines and seine
and gilling t w i n e " (Tariff, paragraph 347) by inserting, after the word " seine," the
words " salmon n e t ; " so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows:
" Seines and seine and salmon uet and gilling twine, 20 per cent, ad valorem."
Schedule K.—Amend the proposed amendment in the bill concerning women's and
children's dress goods, &c., by striking out, in the proviso, the word " such," and inserting, after the word ''goods," the words " o f t h e character specified in this paragraph ; " so t h a t the proviso shall read as follows:
^^ Provided, That all goods of the character specified in this paragraph, weighingover 4 ounces per square yard, shall pay a duty of 35 cents per pound an'd ^0 per
centum ad valorem."
Schedule N.—In lieu o f t h e amendment proposed by the bill concerning linseed and
flaxseed (Tariff, paragraph 466), amend by striking out the last sentence ; so t h a t the
paragraph shall read as follows :
"Linseed or flaxseed, 20 cents x>er bushel of 56 pounds."
EEPORT OlF THE SECRETARY OF T S E TIIEASURY.
43
Schedule N.—Amend the clause concerning " hair cloth," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 445),
by inserting, after the word " other," and before the word " manufactures," the word
'' like; " so t h a t the paragraph shall read as follows:
" H a i r cloth, known as * crinoline cloth,' and all other like manufactures of hair
not specifically enumerated or provided for in this act, 30 per centum ad valorem."
SECTION 2503, R E V I S E D STATUTES.
Insert, after the word " value," in line 200 of the bill, the words " or improved in
condition by any xirocess of manufacture or by any other means."
Amend.th# clause relating to " wearing apparel," &c. (Tariff, paragraph 815), so t h a t
it shall read as follows:
" Wearing apparel not exceeding |1,000 in value, implements, instruments, and
tools of trade, occupation, or employment, not exceeding |500 in value, professional books and other personal effects, not merchandise, of persons arriving in t h e
United States, if the same shall have been in the actual use of such persons for a
period of not less than one month, and not intended for the use of any other person
or persons, nor for sale. But this exemption shall not be construed to include machinery or other articles imported for use in any manufacturing establishment."
Insert a new paragraph as follows:
" Wearing apparel, old and worn, not exceeding one hundred dollars in value ; upon
production of evidence satisfactory to the collector aud naval officer (if any) t h a t
t h e same has been donated and imported in good faith for t h e relief or aid of indigent
or needy persons residing in the United States, and not for sale."
SEC. 2. Amend section 2 o f t h e bill by striking out all after the word " follows," in
t h e fourth line, and insert in lieu thereof the following : " In all cases where imported
merchandise is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a duty based upon or
regulated in any manner by the value thereof, the duty shall be assessed upon the
actual market value or wholesale price of such merchandise at the time of exportation
to the United States in the principal markets of the country from whence imported,
and in the finished condition in which such merchandise is there bought and sold for
exportation to the United States, and in which it is prepared and put up for shipment
when so bought and sold, or when consigned to the United States for sale, including
all costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the same in such condition : Provided, however, Thsit in determining the. dutiable value of imported merchandise no
estimate shall be made of the cost or value of such outside sacks, crates, cases, or
other outer coverings as are used, and as are designed to be used, only in the bona
fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, nor of t h e actual and
necessary expenses incident to the transportation of the merchandise from the place
of purchase or consignment to the vessel or other vehicle in which exported t o t h e
United States, nor of commissions, marine insurance, export duties, or fees for authentication by consular ofi&cers of the Uuited States: Provided, The same shall be severally
stated in the invoice, and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoicevalue
shall be allowed: And provided further, That> if there be used for covering or holding
imported merchandise which shall be free of duty auy material or article designed
for use other t h a n in the bona fide transportation of such nierchandise to the United
States, duty shall be assessed thereon at the rate to which such material or article
would be subject if imported separately; and if these be used for covering or holding
imported merchandise which shall be subject to duty any material or article designed
for use other t h a n in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United
States, and which if imported separately would be subject to a higher rate of duty
than the merchandise contained therein, the whole invoice shall be subject to such
higher rate of duty, unless the value ofthe merchandise and of the article or material
covering or holding the same shall be separately stated in the invoice, in which case
the duties shall be assessed and collected on each separately at t h e rates prescribed
by l a w : And provided further. That except as provided in tliis section and in section
l i of this act, duties shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice value
of the merchandise."
SEC. 3. Amend this section of the bill by inserting after the word " agent," and before the word "provided," in line 11, the following: " W h i c h declaration so filed
shall be duly signed by the owner, importer, consignee, or agent, before the collector,
or before a notary public or other officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths
and take acknowledgments, who may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury
to receive such declarations,.and to certify to the identity of the persons making
t h e m ; and every officer so designated shall file with the collector of the port a copy
bf his official signature and seal."
S E C 4. Amend this section of the bill by striking out all after the word," thereto,"
in the fourth line, and inserting*the following: "ShaU,on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of hot less than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at h a r d
44
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E
TREASURY.
labor not more thau five years; and the merchandise to which such false statement
relates sliall be forfeited."
SEC. 6. Amend this section by striking out all in relation to section 2770, and insert
in lieu thereof the following: " Section 29 of the act entitled ' Au act to remove certain burdens on the AmeYican merchant marine, and encourage the American foreign
carrying trade, aud for other purposes,' approved J u n e 26, 1884, is hereby amended
by striking out, in the first line thereof, the word "seventy-six" and inserting in lieu
thereof the \Vord " s e v e n t y ; " so that t h a t part of said section preceding the word
"provided " shall read: ' Section 2770 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended by
adding thereto the following :
Also amend this sectipn (6) by striking out the words " ought to be exempted," in
lines 25 and 26, and inserting instead the words " are entitled to exemption from duty
uuder any provision of law ; " and strike out, in line 46, the words " are free," and in
lieu thereof insert the words " m a y be entitled to exemj^tion." Also insert, after the
word " o t h e r , " i n line 49, the word " p e r s o n ; " and add, after the word " s a l e , " in
line 50, the words ^'Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed as exempting any of the articles herein named 5 o m duty, except as elsewhere provided by
law." Also amend section 6 by striking out the words "from line 61 to 79, inclusive,"
relating to section 2801 of the Revised Statutes; the proposed amendment to tbis
section as to the naval officer not being deemed advisable, aud the purpose of the proviso relating to donated wearing apparel being covered by an amendment hereinbefore suggested to section 2503, Revised Statues.
SEC. 8. Insert, after the word "abolished," in line 6 of this section, the folloAving:
" and in case of entry ofmerchandise for exportation a declaration, in lieu ol'auoath,
shall be filed in such form aud under such regulations as may be prescribed by the
Secretary o f t h e Treasury, and the penalties for false statements in such declaration
provided in the fourth sectiou of this act shall be applicable to declarations made under
this sectiou."
Also strike out all after the word " act," in line 9 of this section, and insert' as follows: " a sum equal to t h e a m o u u t which be would have been otherwise entitled to
collect as fees for services in relation to such entries, to be allowed to him upon rendition of XDroper accounts therefor."
Amend the bill by adding thereto the following sections :
" SEC. 15. Any person who shall give, or offer to give, or promise to give, any money
or thing of value,directly or indirectly, to auy customs ofBcer, iu consideration of or for
auy act or omission contrary to law in connection with or pertaining to the importation, appraisement, entry, examination, or inspection of goods, wares, or merchandise,
includiug herein any baggage, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than $100
nor more than $5,000, or be imprisoned at hard labor uot more than two years, or both."
. " S E C . 16. Auy officer of the customs who shall demand, exact, or receive from any
person, directly or indirectly, auy money or thing of value in consideration of, or for
au3" act or omission contrary to law in connection with or pertaining to the importation, appraisement, entry, examination, or inspection of goods, wares, or merchandise, including herein any baggage, shallbe dismissed from office, aud on conviction
thereof thall be fined not less than $100 nor more t h a n $5,000, or be imx3risoned at hard
labor not more than two years, or both ; and for the xiurpose of constituting an oifense
under sections 15 and 16 of this act,, the giving or offering to give, and the receiving
of any money or thing of value, shall be regarded as prima facie evidence."
Respectfully, vours,
,
^
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretarg.
J . G. M.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , March 31, 1886.
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman of sub commit lee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives :
SIR : In accordauce with the suggestions, made by you at our interview this morning
concerning the amendments to House bill 5010, advised iu my letter to you o f t h e 29th
instant, I submit the following further amendments for tiie consideration of your
committee:
SECTION 2502, R E V I S E D STATUTES.
Schedule C—Metals.—In lieu of the amendment suggested to this schedule, on pag;?
3 of my letter, strike out, in nest to the last clause of this schedule (Tariff, paragraph
215), the words " mineral substances in a crude state," so that the clause, sliall read as
follows: "Metals unwrought, uot speciaUy enumerated or x^i'ovidied for i n t h i s act,
twenty (20) per centum ad valorem."
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
45
SECTION 2503, R E V I S E D STATUTES.
Substitute for the last paragraph on page 7 of said letter the following:
" Amend t h e clause relating to wearing apparel, &c. (Tariff', paragraph '815), so
t h a t it shall read as follows:
" W e a r i n g apparel, implements, instruments, and tools of trade, occupation, or einployment, professional books, and other xiersonal effects (not merchandise) of persons
arriving in the United States, not exceeding in value $500, if the same shall have been iu
the actual use ofthe person for a period of not less than one month and not intendedfor
the use of any other person or xiersons, nor for sale; but this exemption shall notbe construed to include machinery or other articles imported for use iu any manufacturing
establishment or for sale : Provided, hoivever, That the limitation in value above specified shall not apply to wearing apparel aud other personal effects which may have
been taken from the United States to foreign couutries by the persous returning therefrom, and such last-named articles shall, upon productionof evidence satisfactory to the
collector and to the naval officer (if any) that they have been previously exported from
the United States by such persons, and have not been advanced in value or improved
in condition siuce so exported, be exempt from the payment of d u t y : And provided
further^ That all articles of foreign production or manufacture which may have
been once imported into the United States and subjected to the paymentof duty shall,
upon reimportation, if not advanced in value or improved in condition by any means
since their exportation from the United States, be entitled to exemption from duty
upon their identity being established, under such rules and regulations as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury."
' "
Insert a new paragraph as follows :
"Theatrical scenery, and actors and actresses' wardrobes brought by theatrical
managers and professional actors a n d actresses arriving in t h e United States, for
temporary use, shall be admitted to free entry under such regulations as the Secretary
of the Treasury may prescribe, and a bond shall be given for t h e payment to t h e
United States of such duties as may be imposed by law upon any, or all, of such articles as shall not be re-exported within six (6) months after such importation."
In case the committee should think best to adopt sieve " N o . 10" for fixing the standard of "broken rice," as suggested on page 5 of my letter, i t should be described in
the bill as follows:
'* No. 10 brass wire sieve, with space between the wires not exceeding in length or
width 0.0887 inch."
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
J . G. M.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , April 3, 1886.
Hon. A. S. H E W I T T ,
.
Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means,
House of Bepresentatives :
S I R : The proposed amendments to House bill 5010, which you on yesterday submitted to the Department, have been duly considered, and I now have the honor to
make the following suggestions in relation thereto:
SEC. 4. I n lieu of t h e amendment reading " a n d the merchandise to which such
false statement relates shall be forfeited," suggested in my letter of t h e 29th ultimo,
insert the following: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve imported merchandise from forfeiture for any cause elsewhere provided by law."
SECTION 2900, R E V I S E D STATUTES.
Amend this section so t h a t it shall read as follows :
" T h e owner, consignee, or agent of imported merchandise which has been obtained
by actual purchase only, may a t the time, and not afterward, when h e shall produce
his original invoice to the collector and make and verify his written entry of his merchandise, make such addition in the entry to the cost or value given in the invoice,
as in his opinion may raise the same to the actual market value or wholesale price of
such merchandise a t the period of exportation to the United States in the principal
markets of the country from which the same has been imported. The collector within
whose district any merchandise, whether obtained by actual purchase or procured
otherwise than by purchase, may be imported or entered shalLcause t h e actual
market value' or wholesale xirice thereof to be appraised, acd if such appraised value
shall exceed by 10 per centum the entered value thereof, then in addition t o t h e
46
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
duties imposed by law on the same there shall be levied and collected a duty of 20
per centum ad valorem ou such appraised value. The duty shall not, however, be
assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value."
W i t h regard to your suggestion that the law be so modified as to authorize the
Secretary o f t h e Treasurj^ to remit the additional duty imposed by the above section
in certain cases, I feel constrained to say thafc I seriously doubt the expediency of
such legislation. I fear it would cause importers to be less guarded, perhaps less
scrupulous, than now with respect to their invoices and entries, and also tend to
make appraising officers less diligent and careful in making appraisals.
To ascertain correctly whether the additional duty has been wrongfully imposed
would necessitate a revision o f t h e appraisement proceedings, in each case where remission was claimed, and a decisiou o f t h e case would involve a determination o f t h e
question of the market value of the merchandise, in fact would amount to a reappraisement of the merchaudise b.y this Departmeut. This would involve radical
changes in t h e existing laws respecting axipraisement and would materially increase
the ^labors and responsibilities o f t h e Secretary o f t h e Treasury. Even if practicable
for this Department to "examine, estimate, aud appraise" the merchaudise a t all
the ports of t h e country, in cases where the additioual duty was imposed and its remission asked, the work would involve increased delay and expense.
While I do not doubt there have been instances where the additional duty has been
wrongfully imposed, I am satisfied these instances have been infrequent as compared
with those where it ought to have been imposed and was not. I n either case a wronghas been done which should have been corrected. I think there should be such active
and competent supervision of appraisements at all the ports of the country as would
prevent and correct such administrative wrongs in t h e future. I am not now prepared,
however, to suggest any definite legislation in t h a t direction.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Seci-etary.
J.R.L.]
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY,
Washi7igton, JD. C , April 3, 1886.
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means,
House of Bepresentatives: .
S I R : I omitted to mention i n t h e letter I had the honor to transmit to you this
morning that I. entertain grave doubt whether the proposed amendment to section
2900, Revised Statutes, will effectually accomplish its purpose. I am inforraed t h a t
certain rexircsentatives in this country of foreign houses not infrequently claim how
t h a t their importations have been actually purchased from or through their houses
abroad.
•
Will not t h e American agents or representatives, generally, of foreign consigning
houses, in order to avail themselves o f t h e xirivilege of "advancing their invoice values
on entry, claim that thegoods have been actually purchased by them from or through
their houses abroad ?
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
J. G. M.]
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E O F THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , April 5, 1886.
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman Subcommittee Ways and Means,
Rouse of Bepresentatives:
S I R : Referring to the suggestions made by you at our interview this morning, respecti'ng House bill No. 5010, I have to submit the following:
I t is thought t h a t the followiug substitute for the x)«'ira/graph embraced in pages 5
and 6 of my letter^of the 31st ultimo, concerning "theatrical scenery," &c., wMlmeet
your suggestion with regard to articles for temporary exhibition by lecturers on the
arts, &c., and also xiersonal effects of tourists visiting the United States.
" Theatrical'scenery and actors and actresses wardrobes brought by theatrical
managers and professional actors aud actresses, arriving from abroad, for their tempprary use in the United States; works of art, drawings, engraviugs, photographic
pictures, and philosophical a-nd scientLfic apparatus, brought by professional artists,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
47
lecturers, or scientists arriving from abroad, for use by them temx3orarily for exhibition and iu illustration, promotion, and encouragement of art, science, or industry, in
the United States; and wearing apparel and other xiersonal effects of tourists from
abroad visiting the United States, shall be admitted to free entry under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and bonds shall be given for
the payment to the United Sfcates of such duties as may be imposed by law upon any
and all such articles as shall not be exported within six months after such importation : Provided, however. T h a t the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion,
extend such period for a further term of six months, in cases where application therefor shall be made."
SEC. 2499. The word " dutiable," in parentheses, in lines 26 and '29 of this section of
the bill, as last printed, should be stricken out.
SEC. 2. Should not the comma on line 20 of this section follow the word " o n l y "
instead of the word " u s e d " ? ,
Would n o t ' t h e meaning be more clearly expressed if the words "Provided, That,"
in line 27 of this section, were stricken out, and the words " in case " inserted in lieu
thereof; also, if commas were inserted, instead of the present x^uuctuatiou marks,
after the word " States," on line 27, and after the word-"invoice," on line28, and the
comma after the word "stated," on line 28, was stricken out?
I am of the opinion t h a t the words " o r entered" should be inserted between t h e
words '' invoice and value," on line 48 of this section.
If the last x^roviso of this sectiou (liues 49 to 54, inclusive) teas so amended as to
make the additional duty of 20 per cent. ax3plicable to the merchandise whether entered ux3on a certified invoice apro formainvoice, or astatementinformof an invoice,
it would still include only such merchandise as had been procured otherwise than by
actual purchase, and we should have the same difficulty as now with regard to purchased goods entered uxion other than a certified or " original" invoice, unless section
2900, Revised Statutes, were so amended as to harmonize with this proviso. Would it
not, therefore, be better to strike this proviso from the bill, and amend section 2900 to
read as follows:
" T h e owner, consignee, or agent of any imported merchandise which has been actually purchased may, at the time, and not afterward, wheu he shall make and verify
his written entry of his merchandise, make such addition in the entry to the cost or
value given in the invoice, or x^ro forma invoice, or statement in form of an invoice
which he shall produce with his entry, as iu his. opinion inay raise the same to the
actual market value or wholesale price Of such merchandise, at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the
same has been imported; and the collector within whose district any merchandise,
whether the same has been actually purchased or procured otherwise than by purchase, may be imported, or entered shall cause such actual market value or wholesale
price thereof to be ax^XDraised, and if such appraised value shall exceed by ten per
centum or more the entered value, then, in addition to the duties imposed by law on
the same, there shall be levied and collected a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem
on such appraised value. Tbo duty shall not, however, be assessed upon an amount
less t h a n the invoice or entered value, except as elsewhere specially provided in this
act."
Should you not be inclined to adopt this suggestion, and prefer to retain the proviso in t h e bill, then it is suggested t h a t the proviso be amended to read as follows:
" And proviUed further, That in all cases where the appraised value shall exceed by
ten per centum or more the value stated in the invoice, or pro forma invoice, or statement in form, of an invoice upon which entry m a y b e made of any imported merchandise which shall have been x>rocured otherwise than by actual xiurchase, then,
in addition to the duties imposed by law ou the same, there shall be levied and collected a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem on such appraised value."
SEC. 10. The x)rovisions of this seciion making the decision of the collector as to
the rate and amount of duties ascertained upon liqu;idation final and conclusive upon
the Government, do not appear to be in harmony with the eleventh section (lines 50
to 61) of the bill, wherein the validity of amended liquidations or reliquidations are
recognized, subject to the limitation fixed by the twenty-first section of the act of
June 22, 1874, which section provides t h a t the liquidation shall be final and conclusive upon all parties after the expiration of one year from the time of entry, in the
abseuce of fraud and in the absence of protest by the owner, imx:)orter, agent, or consignee.
In vicAv of the inconsistency of these two sections, and for the reasons set forth in
t h e letter of Secretary Manning addressed to you ou the 16th ultimo, I suggest t h a t
this (tenth) section be stricken from the bill.
SECS. 11 to 14. In a letter addressed to the Hon. William R. Morrison on the 29th
of January last the Secretary suggested certain verbal corrections in the bill xiroposed 'h'^r him, which corrections do not all appear in these sections. The following
changes are therefore suggested: In section 11, line 41, strike out the words " trans-
48
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
c r i p t " aud " r e c o r d " and insert the word "notice,"so t h a t it will read " a noticeof
such ascertainment," &c., and in line 48 of same section strikeout the words " s u c h "
and " t h e transcript of the record," and insert " t h e " and " such notice," so that the
line will read " the posting of such notice shall be." &c.
As stated in the letter of Secretary Manning addressed to the Speaker of the House un
the 18th of January last, there has been a conflict of opinion between Federal judges on
the question whether or not, in case the Government sues an importer for duties after the
merchandise has allbeen withdrawn from thecustody of thb collector, a n d t h e defendant
hasnotx^rotestedand appealed according to section 2931, Revised Statutes he can set up
as a defense illegality in the liquidation. A xirotest and apxieal should be required to
enable an importer to test.judicially thelegality of a liquidation in t h a t case, as well as
in'tJie case when the suit has been begun by himself. A provision to t h a t effect is contained in the bill as xiroposed by the Secretary, but is omitted from bill 5010. It is
therefore suggested tliat this provision be addecl to section 11, so t h a t it will read, affcer
the word " s u i t , " iu line 61, as follows,: "And when a suit shall be brought by the
UAited States to recover the additional duties found due ou any ascertainment and
liquidation thereof, and not paid, the defendant or defendants shall not be permitted
to set up any plea or matter in defense excexiting such as shall have been set lorth in
a protest and appeal made as herein prescribed."
Respectfully, yours,
' C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
J. G. M.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, H. C , April 9,1SS6.
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives:
S I R : In accordance with your suggestion at our interview this morning t h a t I
recommend such specific legislatiou as would, in my opinion, remedy the interpretation of the law of 1874 with respect to merchandise fraudulently imported which has
gone from the possession o f t h e Government, and to which sxiecial reference was made
on page 14 of the Secretary's annual report, I respectfully suggest the following :
That section 12 of the. act entitled " A n a c t to amend the customs-revenue laws and
to repeal moieties," approved June 22, 1874, be amended so t h a t it shall read as follows :
" S E C . 12. That any owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other xierson who shall,
with intent to defraud the revenue, make, or attempfc to make, any entry of imported
merchandise, by meansof auy fraudulent or false invoice, affidavit/letter, or paper,
or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or Avho shall be guilty of any
willful act or omission by means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the
lawful duties,,or auy portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise, or any portion
thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement,
or affected by such act or mission, shall for each offense be fined in any sum not exceediug $5,000 nor less than $50, or be imprisoned for a^y time uot exceeding two
years, or b o t h ; and, in addition to such fiue, such merc'CTandise, or the value thereof.
shall be forfeited, which forfeiture shall only apply to the whole of the merchandise
i n t h e case or xiackage containing the particular article or articles of merchaudise to
which such fraud or alleged fraud relates; and anything contained in any act which
provides for the forfeiture or confiscation of an entire invoice, in consequence of any
item or items contained in the same being undervalued, be, and the same is hereby,
repealed."
You will observe t h a t the amendment consists only of the addition of the underlined words " o r the value thereof" on next to the last line of the preceding sheet.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S ,
Washington, D. C , April 15, 1886.
Hon.
C H A R L E S S. FAIRCHILD.,
Acting Secretary of the Treasury :
SIR: iim not quite sure whether in re-enacting section 2931 ofthe Revised Statutes,
in section 13 of the tariff" bill just reported, we do not come in conflict with the provisions of the act of July 5, 1^'^4, entitled "An act to constitute a Bureau of Navioption in the Treasury Departmenfc." By that act it is xirovided that the decision of the
Commissioner of Navigation on all questious. growing out o f t h e execution o f t h e nav-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
49
igation laws, and relating to the collection of the tonnage act, and to the refunding
of such t a x when collected erroneously or illegally, shall be final. I think it will be
well to examine this matter, and, if necessary, to make such amendment in section 13
as will save the provisions of the act above referred to.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ABRAM S. HEWITT,
Chairman Sub-Committee.
H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S ,
Washington, D. C , April \6, 1886.
/Hon.
C H A R L E S S: F A I R C H I L D ,
Acting Secretary of the Treasury :
•
SIR : I am instructed by t h e Committee of Ways aud Means to request you, at your
early convenience, to make an approximative estimate of the effect o f t h e administrative provisions of t h e new tariff bill (H. R. 7652) upon the revenue. These provisions begin with section 3, on page 9, of the bill. The committee are aware that this
estimate must be of a very general character, but as the House will expect to be iuformed uxion this xioint, the committee will be obliged to you for such information as
you may be able to give, after making a careful examination of the eff'ect of the
chauges proposed by the various sections of the bill following the first, and sections
which deal directly with rates of duty. .
• I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ABRAM S. H E W I T T ,
Chairmccn Sub-Committee.
J . G. M.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , April 17, 1886,
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives:
S I R : In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, I have to inform you t h a t certain
of the amendments of section 2931, Rev. Stat., proposed by House bill 7652, are in
conflict with the xirovisions of the act of July 5, 1884, which make the decisiou of
the Commissioner of Navigation final as regards the t a x on tonnage.
' Being satisfied t h a t this fact escaped the attention of Secretary Manning wheu he
drafted the proposed amendments to section 2931, and t h a t it was not his purxiose to
modify the provisions of the act of July 5, 1884, I respectfully suggest t h a t section
13 of the bill be amended by striking therefrom the words foliowing : In lines 6 aud
7, page 32, the words " o n the tonnage'*of any A^essel"; in line.9, same page, tbe
words "vessel o r " ; in. lines 10 and 11, same page, tbe words " t h e owner, master,
commander, or consignee of such vessel in the case of duties levied on t o n n a g e " ; in
line 29, page 33, the words "vessel-or"; and in lines 33 and 34, same page, the words
" on such vessel or.'^
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
J.G.M,]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , April 22, 1886,
Hon:
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman Sub-Committee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives :
. SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter bf the 16th instant,
requesting me to make au axiproximativo estimate of the effect uxion the revenue of
the administrajiive provisions of House bill 7652.
I have examined the several provisions referred to, and beg leave to reply as foln ows:
SEC. 3, page 9. This section is a reproduction, in substance, o f t h e so-called "similitude section" of the present law, with the addition of a clause explaining the mean
ing ofthe phrase " component material of chief value," and xirescribing a rule whereby
the same is to be determined. The absence of such a rule heretofore has been fruitful
of difficulties in administration and has led to litigation. Tho effect of this amendment upon the revenue cannot be foreseen, but it is thought that its tendency AV ill
be to prevent loss of duties>
H . E x , 2—VOL 11-^—-1
50
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Schedule A—Chemical products.—^The provisions proposed t o be stricken from this
schedule are inconsistent with Schedule H ofthe tariff (paragraph 311), which makes
all distilled spirits dutiable at $2 per proof gallon. The amendment is in the line of
simplification and would affect the revenue but slightly. The duties collected on
distilled spirits containing 50 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol amounted to only
|257 in 1884, and none was apparently imported in 1885, while on the same article
containiug 94 per cent, of anhydrous alcohol there was collected in 1884 $12,115, and
in 1885 only $1,185. There would therefore be but a small increase of revenue under
this amendment.
' Schedule B—Earthenware and glassware.—The changes proposed in this schedule
would simplify the work of administra,tion. The duties collected on bottles intended
to be affected by these amendments ardounted in 1885 to $124,005. I t is thought t h a t
the change making such bottles subject to duty at the same rates as their contents,
when dutiable ad valorem, will not make any appreciable difference in the revenue
from this source.
I t may be worthy of consideration whether the words " i n this act," in lines 53, 54,
68, and 69, might not be construed as referring to the new act rather thanfcothe original
law, and the new provisions be thus made applicable to bottles containing sparkling
wines, which, under paragraph 310 of Schedule H, are dutiable at 3 cents each.
Schedule C—Metals.—The effect of the first amendment to this schedule would be
to give the rate of duty on all manufactures of coxiper, or of which copper is a component of chief value, at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as provided in tariff paragraph 186.
Heretofore the rate imposed has been 45 per cent., in accordance with the rule prescribed by section 2499, Rev. Stat., t h a t " w h e r e two or more rates of duty are applicable to any imported articles it shall be classified for duty at the highest of such
rates. The average value of manufactures of copper, not otherwise specified, imported
during the years 1884 and 1885, upon which duties were collected at 45 per cent, ad
valorem, was $58,148. Upon this basis the reduction of revenue resulting from the
proposed change would be $5,814.80 per annum.
The second amendment to this schedule would have the effect to remit all mineral
substances in a crude state not elsewhere specitied to paragraph 638 of the free list,
which xirovides for crude minerals not advanced in value or condition by refiuing or
grinding or by other process of manufacture. The Department has held t h a t the provision in Schedule C for mineral substances in a crude state applied to such substances
of a metallic nature, and t h a t other crude minerals were included under the provision in the tree list above mentioned. The duties collected at 20 per cent, ad valorem
upon crude minerals during the years 1884 and 1885 amounted to $9,686, an average
of $4,843, which approximates the amount of the reduction under the proposed amendment.
Schedule P—Tohacco.—If this amendment should accomplish its understood purpose,
viz, the prevention of evasions of the higher rate of duty levied on tobacco suitable
for wrappers, and the importations of the class of tobacco intended to be effected
should equal those of 1885, it is estimated t h a t the annual revenue from this source
would be increased about $700,000,
Judging from the enormous increase of the importations since the act of 1883 went
iuto etfect, and resort was had to the methods intended to be prevented, the effectual
suppression of such methods and the enforcement of the collection of the higher rate
would tend to reduce the volume df importations, so t h a t it is doubtful whether there
would be any actual increase of revenue. '
Schedule G—Provisions.—The purpose of the first amendment to this schedule is to
prevent the introduction at twenty per centum ad valorem of so-called " granulated"
or " broken" rice, not considered entitled to classification as " r i c e flour" or " r i c e
meal," but dutiable as cleaned rice. During the lasfc fiscal year the quantity entered
at 20 per cent, ad valorem was 38,246,302 pounds, valued at $672,092, upon which
the dufcies amounted to $134,418. A large proportion of this was doubtless dutiable
as cleaned rice and would be so classified under the proposed amendment, which conforms to the late rulings of this Department. The effect, therefore, would be to secure
an increase of revenue on this article of, say, $400,000 to $500,000 per annum, provided the importations should continue in the same quantities as heretofore.
The effect of the second amendment to this schedule, and of the amendment to
Schedule N, relating to "gardeu seeds" (page 15), making all vegetable aud garden
seeds not specially provided for dutiable at the uniform rate of 10 per cent, ad valorem, would be to reduce the revenue therefrom about $40,000 per annum, taking D
the importations of the last fiscal year as a basis. It is probable, however, t h a t increased importations would make up this loss.
Schedule N.—It is estimated that the two amendments to this schedule relating to
bonnets, hats, hat materials, &c., would produce an increase of revenue of fully
$600,000 per anuum, possibly much more. The effect would be to prevent the admission of large and consfcanth^ increasing quantities of silk goods of various kinds,
including ribbons, piece silks, plushes, Spe, properly dutiable und^r Schedule L, ^t
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
51
50 per cent, ad valorem, but which, because susceptible of use as h a t trimmings, &c.,
are claimed to be dutiable as such at 20 per cent, ad valorem.
The amendment to the same schedule relatiug to watches, &c., makes the duty on
watch glasses (or crystals) and watch keys uniform with t h a t imposed upou watches,
watch movements, parts of watches, and watch materials, whereas watch glasses (or.
crystals) when imported separately have been held to be dutiable at 45 per cent, ad
valorem, as manufactures of glass, and watch keys have been classified according to '
the niaterial of which composed. The eff'ect of the amendment, therefore, will be a
slight but not material reduction of the revenue.
The amendment relating to webbing,will not appreciably affect the revenue.
The free list.—It is not perceived t h a t the amendment to section 2503 regarding
articles the growth, produce, and manufacture of the United Sfcates returned after
having been exported will atfect the re'venue to any considerable extent. I t is suggested, however, t h a t the word " g e n e r a l , " in line 178, page 16, be stricken out, as
it may be found desirable and necessary to issue sxiecial regulations from time to
time to meet particular cases.
The provision limiting the free importation of "soap stock" to such as is fit only
for t h a t use would prevent evasions, which have been practical to some extent, and
would therefore tend to a slight increase of revenue.
The provisions relating to wearing apparel, personal effects, implements, tools of
trade, theatrical scenery, &c., would tend greatly to simplify administration and to
increase the revenue upon articles imported by persons of wealth, who on returning
from abroad, may, under the present law aud decisions ofthe courts, bring in unlimited quantities of wearing apparel and personal eff'ects. There is no basis for estimating the amount of such increase. It is thought, however, t h a t it would not fall
short of $500,000 per annum.
I t is suggested t h a t the words "except by repairs" in line 216 (page 18) be stricken
out. Otherwise the provision would exempt from duty upon reimportation articles,
such, for example, as watches and machinery which had been repaired abroad to such
an extent as to be practically useful as new merchandise.
SEC. 4. This section I regard as the most important of the administrative features
of the bill so far as relates to the revenue, and as essential to the fair and orderly administration of the tariff'. Its purpose is to secure the assessment of duties upon substantially the same bases as it is believed was intended to be established by the section
t h a t it repeals, and upon which the Government had levied duties prior to'the decision of the Supreme Court in the Obertauffer case. I believe that if it "shall become
a law it will accomplish this result, and will afford a just, safe, aud uniform rule for
the assessment of duties on all " p a c k e d " merchandise, save vast trouble to all concerned, prevent litigation, and secure the revenue from immense loss consequent upon
the decision mentioned.
The effect of this decision is to reduce materially, but in an irregular and uncertain manner, the duties upon all mer9hand!ise subject to ad avlorem rates and to
afford advantage to those importers who are least scrupulous. I t is impossible to
make other than an approximate estimate of such reduct>ion of revenue. The estimates of experienced customs officers of the amount of refunds to be paid under the
decision are between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000. This amount would be much greater
had all importers protested and appealed against the imposition of duties on cartons, &c.
I t is estimated by those most competent to judge t h a t the reduction o f t h e revenue
in the future under the operation of the decision will be from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000
per annum. This estimate is based upon the valuation for the last fiscal year.
How far this depletion might be repaired by increased importations resulting from
lower taxation, and the ability thereby of foreign manufacturers to more successfully
compete with domestic productions, it is difficult to forecast.
SECS. 5 and 6. These sections are calculated to promote orderly administration and
the convenience of imxiorters, but it is not thought t h a t they will produce any positive effect upon the revenue.
SEC. 7. The effect of the amendment to section 2970 would be to abolish the additional duty of ten per centum accruing on merchandise remaining in bond more than
one year. The ajnount of these duties collected during the last fiscal year was about
$36,000. The amendment to section 2983, in so far as it provides for the assessment of
duties on the quantity of merchandise withdrawn from warehouse, is a radical departure from the ]iresent law, which requires t h a t the duties shall be assessed upon t h e
ascertained quantity as originally imported. The necessary eff'ect of the proposed
change would be to reduce the revenue. The amount of such reduction cannot be
approximately estimated. I t would certainly be considerable, nnd raight be very
large. The tendency of both provisions would be to incn-iuse the volume of goods
held in bond and t h e liability of loss of duties thereon.
3|]CS, 8 and 9. I t is not seen tbfVt tliese.septio^s woul4 a^ect tjie veve^ue,
52
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
SEC. 10. The fees proposed to be abolished by this sectiou are those now collectible
upon entry of merchandise upon importation or exportation. The total amount of all
fees collected by customs officers throughout the United States during the last fiscal
year was $495,612.77. Of this amount $301,375.20 was collected in districts where the
cusfcoms officers are paid fixed salaries, and the fees are paid into the Treasury. The
remainder, $194,237.57, was collected in districts where' the fees form part of the
collectors' emoluments. There is no means at hand for determining the xirecise proxiortion of t h e fees derived from entries of merchandise. I t is assumed, however, t h a t
they will amount to three-fourths of the whole, which would represent a reduction of
revenue of, say $375,000 per annum.
SEC. 11. The amount retained from drawbacks on all classes of merchandise during
the last fiscal year w a s $270,857.20; which indicates the eff'ect this amendment would
have upon the revenue. The theory upon which a percentage of drawbacks is
retained under existing law is t h a t the Governmeut may be reimbursed for the expense
incurred in the ascertainment, payment, &c., of the drawback, which expense sometimes exceeds the drawback paid.
SEC. 12. The etfect of this, amendment would be to increase the revenue, but to
what extent cannot be approximated. One result would be to reduce the number of
entries h j pro forma invoices, since the additional duty of twenty per centum would
apply to entries so made as well as to those made ou certified or " o r i g i n a l " invoices,
w^here t h e entered value is advanced ten per cent, by the appraiser.
SECS. 13 to 16, inclusive. I t is thought that the general effect of these sections
would be to secure uniformity and certainty in proceedings to recover duties illegally
exacted, or duties improperly withheld, and thereby protect the revenue from loss.
SEC. 17. There being doubt as to the interpretation which might be placed upon
this amendment, I am not prepared to estimate its effect npon the revenue. If ifc is
desired to exclude certain articles from the benefit of allowance, for damage, it is
suggested that they should be specifically named or their character definitely indicated.
The principal articles upon which dama.ge allowance is made are fire-crackers, nuts,
green, dried, and preserved fruits, sugar and molasses, rice, chicory, glass and glassware, earthenware, leaf tobacco, Chinese.^matting, and tin plates. I t is estim^ifced
t h a t the total amount of duties remitted on account of damage will approximate
$500,000 per annum, a large proportion of which is allowed uxion fruits and other
perishable articles.
SECS. 19, 20, and 21. The tendency of these sections would be to give increased
protection t o the revenue and therefore to augment the amount of duties collected.
It is suggested t h a t the words " sections 15 and 16 of this a c t " be stricken out of
line 11, section 20, a n d t h e words " t h i s a n d t h e preceding section" be substituted
therefor.
.
•
N
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COMMITTEE O F W A Y S AND M E A N S , H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S ,
Washington, D. C , April 29, 1886.
S I R : I inclose a letter from Mr. Charles Curie, Avhich raises a question which appears to be worthy of consideration. Take a cask of crockery for example—the mer''chandise is always purchased uupacked and the packages are charged separately,
and yet the crockery is always shipped in casks. Are they dutiable or not under the
proposed section? In my original draft I used the words " ready for shipment," which
woukVclearly have made the packages dutiable. Is this the effect of the language
recommended by you and adopted by the committee? I confess I am in doubt.
Please consider the matter and let me have your views.
Truly, yours,
ABRAM S. HEWITT.
Hon.
C. S. F A I R C H I L D ,
Acting Secretary, ^ c .
o
COMMITTEE OF W A Y S AND MEANS, H O U S E OF R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S ,
-
Washington, D. C, April 29, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to inclose herewith H. R. 7860, referred to this committee,
I beg leave to ask fche opinion of t h e Department as to the provisions of the bill, and
whether the legislation proxiosed is desirable in the public interest.
I am, very respectfullv. your obedient servant,
ABRAM S. HEWITT,
Chairman Subcommittee.
Hon.
C. S. F A I R C H I L D ,
Acting Secretary of the Treasury.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
^ 53
TREASURY DEPARTMICNT, O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , May 1, 1886.
Hon.
A. S. H E W I T T ,
Chairman subcommittee Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives:
S I R : I-have duly received and considered your letter of the 29th ultimo, with inclosure from Mr. Charles Curie, relating to section 4 of House bill 7652, and have the
honor to reply as follows:
The section mentioned expressly exempts from duty such sacks, crates, cases, or
other outside coverings as are used and as are designed to be used only in the hona
Me transportation of the merchandise to the United States in case the cost or value
thereof is sexiarately stated in the invoice. These are the only coverings exempted,
or t h a t are intended to be exempted, and it raakes no diff'erence whether they are or
are not the only coverings about the merchandise, or whether they were put about it
before or after purchase, provided theyowere put about it for the purpose solely aud
only of its transportation to the United States, were designed only for that use, and
were purchased and invoiced separately from the merchandise in its finished condition as bought and sold in the foreign market for exportation to the United States.
If the coverings are such as form part of the merchandise as it is bought and sold
in the foreign market for exportation to the United States, and in which it is prepared and p u t up for shipment when so bought and sold, or are designed for any use
other than in the hona fide transportation of the merchaudise to the United States,
they would not be exempt from duty even though in the form of sacks, crates, casks,
barrels, or boxes, and were the outer and only coverings of the merchaudise.
Mr. Curie's letter is herewith returned.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , May 1, 1886.
Hon.
ABRAM S . H E W I T T ,
Chairman Subcommittee of Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives:
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the
29th ultimo, inclosing House bill 7860, to extend the privileges of the immediate
transportation act, and asking the opinion of this Department as to the provisions
of said bill, and whether or not the legislation proposed is desirable in the public
interest.
The bill providesthat merchandise liable to specific duties only may be transported
to any of tlie ports mentioned in t h e seventh section of the immediate transportation
act, although such merchandise may not appear by the invoice, bill of lading, or
manifest of t h e importing vessel, to be consigned to or destined for either of said
ports.
As the provisions of this bill relate to goods paying specific duties ouly, it is uot
perceived t h a t its passage would operate to t h e detriment of the revenue.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
APPENDIX B .
MERCHANDISE REQUIRING CONSULAR CERTIFICATES.
^
Ko.L
'
TREASURY.DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y ,
Washington, B . C, Noveonber 16, 1886.
S I R : I desire to be informed whether, in your opinion, it would be
safe now to revive the regulation, changed by me, which fixed $100 as
the limit of value of merchandise which could be imported without a
consular certificate.
Eespectfully, yours^
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary^
C H I E F OF T H E CUSTOMS DIVISION.
No. 2.
J . E. L.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 17,1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
I have the honor to acknowledege the receipt of your
letter of the 16th instant, in which you desire to be informed whether,
in my opinion, it would be safe now to revive the regulation which fixed
$100 as the limit of value of merchandise which could be imported without a consular certificate.
The regulation referred to by you is as follows:
DEAR SIR:
Article 328 bf the General Regulations of 1884.]
When t h e value of an importation does not exceed $100, t h e collector may, in his
discretion, admit the same to entry by appraisement, without an invoice or t h e giving
of bond therefor, if satisfied t h a t the importation and t h e neglect to produce invoice
are free from t h e intention of fraud.
The regulation is based upon section 2859 of the Eevised Statutes,
which is almost in the same words.
In reply I would inform you that, in my opinion, it would be unwise to
take from collectors of customs the discretionary power, vested in them
54
Mt>ORt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAStJRY.
55
by the said law and regulations, of determining whether importations
of merchaudise of less than $100 in value are made in good faith or
not, it having been ascertained that many shippers of merchandise,
especially in contiguous foreign countries, are in the habit of purposely
breaking up their importations in order to evade the requirement of law
concerning the* production of duly authenticated consular invoices.
As an instance of this last-mentioned practice, it may be mentioned
that the United States consul at London, Ontario, in a late dispatch to
the Secretary of State, complains of numerous evasions and infractions
in his consular district of the law requiring production of consular certificates, it being represented that certain shippers habitually break up
consignments, say of ten car-loads of goods valued at $500, into ten different memorandum invoices, with a view of evading the payment of
the consular fee for an invoice, and enabling them to obtain entry at
the custom-house in the United States without the production of such
consular invoicfe.
So far, however, as my observation goes, I can see no objection whatever to allowing all entries of merchandise valued at $100 and less (or
even to the extent of $200) to be made without the production of a certified invoice, but, in my opinion, the existing law ought to be amended
so as to clearly permit of such practice.
I think that, as a rule, and more particularly^ with regard to such importations of small value from the Dominion of Canada and Mexico,
consular certificates to such invoices are of little or no value to officers
of customs who receive the entries. In most cases along the frontier
officers of customs are better informed as to dutiable value than consular officers.
This is owing to the well-known facts that consular officers make no
actual inspection whatever of small (or any) shipments of merchandise,
and merely affix their certificates to invoices as matters of form, and
for the purpose of the exaction of the consular fees.
It may be stated, in connection with this subject, that, in accordance
with a communication received from the Secretary of State dated the
4th of February last, which is as follows:
For a long period no uniformity has existed in the authentication of invoices of
small value. Consuls have been uncertain as to their proper course, when the authentication was declined by the shipper, which frequently happens.
The principal cause of complaint on the part of shipxiers is the payment of the
consular fee, which on minor shipments is excessive.
In your letter of the 15th ultimo it was held t h a t ** the question of admitting goods
valued at less than one nundred dollars to entry without the production of a consular
invoice is to be determined by the collector of customs at the time of entry, who
- alone has discretionary power in the premises under the provisions of^section 2859 of
the Revised Statutes."
I have the honor, therefore, to suggest as a means of settling this question definitely, t h a t collectors of customs be instructed as follows :
Shipments of goods valued at less than $50 may be admitted without consular invoices.
Shipments of more than $50 and less t h a n $100 in value, shall require a consular
invoice, the fee for authenticating which shall be 50 cents.
Shipments of $100 and upwards in value shall be treated as heretofore.
If these suggestions accord with your views, I will undertake to have an executive
order issued changing the consular fee accordingly.
The Department issued a circular, No. 14, dated February 8,1886, the
text of which is as follows:
Referring to xirevious correspondence with regard to entries of imported merchandise of less than flOO in value, you are informed t h a t the Department is in receix)t of
a communication from the Secretary of State, in which he suggests that hereafter
shipments of goods valued at less than $50 may be admitted to entry at the customhouse without the production of consular invoices. The Secretary also states t h a t an
56
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURV.
executive order will shortly be issued changing the consular fee for authenticating
invoices of goods valued at over $50 and less t h a n $100, so t n a t such fee shall be 50
cents.
You are requested, subject to the provisions of section 2859 o f t h e Revised St£:fiutes,
to carry out the suggestion of the Secretary of State, in which I concur, Avith regard
to entries of goods valued at less than $50, in all cases where you are satisfied t h a t t h e
importer acted in good faith, and where impcntations are not. pnr})()sely broken up
with a view to evade the requirements of the statute.
The practice under this circular is now to admit to entry, without the
production of a consular invoice, all shipments of goods valued at less
than $50, where the collector of customs at the time of importation is
satisfied that the importer acted in good faith and that the importations
were not purposely broken ux;) with a view to evade the requirement of
the statute.
The circular also proposed to reduce the consular fee for authenticating invoices of goods valued at over $50 and less than $100 to the sum
of 50 cents, but the Secretary of State has informed this Departraent
that, owing to the existing statutes, it had no authority to reduce such
fee without further legislation authorizing him to do so.
I understand that there is a bill i3euding before the present Congress
Avhich is intended to give the Secretary of State the requisite power to
carry out the said suggestion.
Eespectfully submitted.
JOHN G. MACCEEGOE,
i
CMef of Customs Bivision,
APPENDIX 0.
REFUND OF DUTIES MADE IN FISCAL YEAR 1885-'86.
No. 1.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washingtooi, B. C, October 21, 1886.
S I R : Please prepare and submit to me, at your earliest convenience
and before November 1, a full list of all refunds made under the carton
decision, classifying them by ports, and giving {a) names of importers;
(b) names of attorneys; (c) chief articles; (5) principal sum, and {e)
interest and costs.
Eespectfully, yours,
^ DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
The COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
Treasury Bepartonent.
No.2.
H. A. L.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
Washington, B. C, October 27, 1886.
S I R : I have the honor to submit a statement, arranged by ports, of
the sums paid to the several importers on account of duties collected
in excess on charges and coverings, that appear from the accounts to
fall under your circular of February 2,1886.
This statement has been carefully collated from the accounts settled
in favor of the various parties and is believed to be correct.
The papers with the accounts fail in many cases to show the kind of
goods on which the refund was made andin cases of suit, who were the
plaintiffs attorneys. Whenever they were shown they have been in^
sorted.
I t is possible that the data wherein this is defective might be procured from the files in the customs division of your office. If not, there
does not seem to be any office in the Department from which the information could be obtained. The only resort to complete it would be
to the custom-houses in which the accounts were prepared.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN S. McCALMONT,
^
Commissioner of Customs.
The S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y .
57
68
REPORT OP tHE SECRETARY Oi' THE TREASURE.
[Inclosure No. 1.1
.
Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Februai-y 2,1886.
Importer.
"^ Attomey.
Articles.
Interest
Principal. and
costs.
Total.
BALTIMORE.
n . fl.Wolff& Co. (limited) No s u i t .
Baetzer & Meyerstein
...do...
Dix & Wilkins
,..:do...
Cement.
...do...
Fruit . . .
TotaL,
$14 67
39 80
2,229 04
$14 67
39 80
2,229 04
2,283 51
2,283 51
BOSTON.
R. G. 2Torris & Co
Young,Walton & Co .
Waldo Bros
Do
Do
S. S. Pierce & Co . . . . .
Coleman, Mead & Co.
Brine & Norcross .
Linder & Meyer
Howard Pleming
Do
Brown, Durell & Co..
Estabrook & Eaton . .
W. W. & C. K. Noyes .
C. E. Perkins
Conant & Bean
Estabrook & Eaton . .
S. S. Pierce & Co
W.a.Nash
Simons, Hatcb &Whitten
Hyneman Bros
D.lr.TuUy&Co..Hawley, Folsom & Martin.
Raymond & Fox.
Laily & Collins
0. B. Perkins
Seavey, Foster & Bowman.
Lally, Lynch & Collins,.
Simons, Hatch & Whitten.
A.H.Hardy & Co
Do
Do
Hawley, Folsom & Martin.
March Bros., Pierce &
Co.
W.W. & C . R. Noyes . . .
Estabrook & Eaton
Claflin, Larabee & Co . . .
Bradford, Thomas & Co.
Charles B. Perkins
Bradford, Thomas & Co.
Henry W. Peabody & Co
S. S. Pierce & Co
Nathan Samuel
Coleman, Mead & Co.
Brown, Durell & Co . .
No suit -
No suit ...do...
No suit ,...do...
No s u i t .
No s u i t .
Grrease..
Bark extract.
Cement
...do
...do
Cigars
Hosiery
Hosiery, & c . .
Ammonia
Cement
..
...do
Gloves, &c i..
Cigars
Fruit
Cigars
....
Grasses
Cigars
...do
Plaster
Various
Cigars
Fruit
Gloves, &o —
9
29
65
230
83
30
23
36
51 59
94 03
64 63
90 98
2 17
168
52
151
11
34
54
02
62
1,102 97
85 29
37 00
148 83
204 50
416 23
1, 798 91
. 87 75
3 20
34 00
426 79
695 88
40 25
748 63
35 25
146 20
600 98
14 92
176 20
2,446 14
294 79
2, 395 62
126 92
33
746
248
296
75
15
75
40
51 00
52 05
33 75
809 43
299 75
. 348 45
Gloves
Undressed goods .
Oranges
Fmit
...do
Hosiery &c .
74 10
344 20
26 04
68 95
100 14
403 15
67
193
63
22
22
36
21
17
89
229
84
39
Gloves, &c..
Total.
$80 47
8 29
Cigars
Hosiery, &c ..
Cigars
Linen thread .
Fruit . . . :
J . P . Tucker.
Cigars
C.G. C h i c k . .
Hosiery and gloves
Dress goods
Charles G. Chick . . . Cigars
Dress goods
Cement, &c
Cigars
Lewis D. Brandeis.. ...do
Hosiery
do
Woodbury & Chick
The Hamburger Garrity No s u i t .
Company.
William Cochrane
.do.
Grommes & Ullrich
.do.
E.Hofi&nan
.do.
George Luerssen & Co...
-do .
A. Shire
-do.
Thorwart & Roehling . . .
-do.
Best & Russell
..do .
Chapin & Gore
.do .
Kantzler & Harges
.do .
Sprague, Warner & Co..
.do.
Marshall, Field & C o . . . .
..do.
1,022 50
77 00
37 00
" 139 00
175 20
351 00
1, 568 55
87 75
3 20
34 00
375 20
601 85
40 25
684 00
35 25
146 20
510 00
12 75
176 20
2,277 80
242 25
2, 244 60
115 30
Cigar-boxes
Musical tnstmments
Cigars
....do
...do
....do.'........--.
....do
Cigar-boxes
do
...:do
....do
00
20
60
20
66 05
617 00
2, 226 25
7, 258 48
622 20
1,133 50
1,142 45
86 45
1, 276 75
186 25
7,453 35
5; 118 30
63 28
13
54
22
56
23 42
48 08
226 64
730 58
121 59
130 41
94 64
7 44
156 56
43 40
888 96
634 14
13
74
82
76
79 47
665 08
2,452 89
7,989 06
743 79
1, 263 91
1, 237 09
93 89
1, 433 31
229 65
8, 341 91
5, 752 44
40,223 23
4, 564 63 44, 787 i
8 50
8 50
8 75
278 00
24 75
23 50
109 00
15 25
290 25
94 75
164 25
468 25
591 30
8 75
278 00
24 75
23 50
109 00
15 25
290 25
94 75
164 25
468 25
591 30
REPORt OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
59
Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1866—Continued.
Importer.
Attomey.
Articles.
Interest
PrincipaL and
costs.
Total.
t CEICAGO—continued.
John V. Farwell & C o . . . No suit.
....do...
A. S. Gage & Co
...do...
Cutter & Crosette
....do...
G. H. Foster & Co
Farwell, Ruling & C o . . . . . . . d o . . .
....do...
Julius Bauer & Co
...do...
Edson, Keith & Co
Carson, Pirie Scott &Co. . . . . d o . . .
...do...
Burley & Tyrrell
John'W. (ioetz & Co . . . . ...do . . .
...do...
Lyon & Healey
...do...
William Cochrane
...do...
Mandel Bros
Newman, Sulzbacher & ...do . . .
W.
..do.
Schweitzer & Beer
.do .
Storm &Hill
.do.
Verge, Ruhling & Co
James H. Walker & Co.. -do .
.do .
Wilson Bros
.do .
Bestf. Kussell & Co
-do Burley & Tyrrell
-doBurley & Co
.do.
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co.
-do .
Chapin & Gore
..do .
William Cochrane
.do.
Grommes «fc Ullrich
.do .
Gibson, Parish & Co
.do A. S. Gage & Co
.doKantzler &, H a r g i s . . . . . .
.do .
J. BL Lesher & Co
.do .
Locke, Hulcatt & Co
.doLowenthal, Kaufman &
Co.
.
do.
George Luerssen
.do.
E. N. Hurlbut & Co
.do.
Hamburger Garrity Com-I
pany.
...do.
E.Hoffman
...do.
Lord, Owen & Co
...do.
Mandel Bros
...do.
G. W. Sheldon & Co
A. Shire
, ...do.
W. H. Schimpferman & . . d o .
, Son.
...do
Schweitzer & Beer
Sprague, Warner & Co . ...do
Thorwart & Roehling... ...do
Vergho, Ruhling & Co . . . . d o
...do
Wilson Bros
J. H. Walker & Co . . . . . ..-do
Marshall Field & Co . . . . ...do
Percy L. Shuman . .
•Best & Russell
Chapin & Gore
. ...do
...do
Do
...do
:
Do
Kantzler & Hargis
. ..-do
...do
Adolph Shire
...do
-.
Do
W. H. Schimpferman & Shumam &Defrees.
Son.
Sprague, Warner & Co . Percy L. Shuman..
Locke, Hulcatt & Co - . . No suit
o
Merriam, Collins & Co.. ...do
Marshall Field & C o . . . . . . d o . . .
o,.
Cutler & Crosette
. ...do
Lyon & Healy
. ...do
Root & Sons Music Com- ....do
pany.
.do.
Schlesinger & Mayer
do.
J . H . Willets
.do.
Best, Russell & Co
.
.do.
Chapin &. Gore —
.do.
William Cochrane.
.do.
Grommes & Ullrich
.do.
E.Hoffman
-do.
Kantzler & Hargis — ,
.do.
George Luerssen & Co ..
.do.
A,SoWr©.....,
Cigars.
Earthenware . . .
China
Hosiery, &c
Cigars
...do
...do
Silks
Handkerchiefs.
Cigars
Italian cloth —
Handkerchiefs.
Cigars
...do
Italian cloth.
Cigars
.do .
Hosiery.
Burlaps.
Cigars ...
...do . . .
Toys and dolls.
Cigars
...do
Toys.
Hosiery, &c
Velvets, & c . . . .
Hosiery, &c
Cigars
•
... d o \
...do
...do
...do.
...do..-.
...do
...do
...do
Handkerchiefs...
Anchovies
Hosiery
Handkerchiefs...
Musical instruments!
...do
Hosiery .
...do —
Cigars ...
—do
...do ....
...do....
....do-...
...do....
....do....
....do....
$523 75
23 60
51 10
40 40
8 40
5 00
12 25
69 15
15 30
62 55
46 00
19 00
70 30
53 20
$523 75
• 23 60
51 10
40 40
8 40
5 00
12 25
69 15
15 30
62 55
46 00
19 00
70 30
53 20
15 45
11 65
106 70
46 90
388 45
335 50
41 95
11 40
83 95
197 25
21 75
486 25
15 00
5 60
206 75
4 40
14 00
26 75
15 45
11 65
106 70
46 90
388 45
335 50
41 95
11 40
83 95
197 25
21 75
486 25
15 00
5 60
206 75
4 40
14 00
26 75
17 50
2 70
8 25
17 50
2 70
8 25
45
16
95
22
83
29
75
40
10
40
25
25
45
16
95
22
83
29
75
40
10
40
25
25
47
698
14
50
107
16
708
718
217
588
43
142
171
59
176
40
00
25
45
95
80
80
75
50
25
75
00
50
50
50
47
698
14
50
107
16
708
842
271
669
73
181
217
90
218
40
00
25
45
95
80
80
9499
13
45
03
54
94
88
75 25
21 70
1 60
23 20
8 40
69 25
3 75
3 60
11 60
197 25
75 00
20 25
367 50
33 25
176 25
65 00
80 25
$124
54
80
29
39
46
31
42
19
49
88
70
03
04
44
38
35 43
110 68
21 70
1 60
23 20
8 40
A 69 25
3 75
3 60
11 60
197 25
75 00
29 25
367 50
33 25
176 25
65 00
80 25
60
REFORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Coutinued.
Importer.
Attomey.
Articles.
Interest
Principal. and
costs.
CHICAGO—continued.
W. H. Schimpferman &,
Son.
G. H. Foster & Co
Gerts. Lumbard & Co ...
• E. N. Hurlbut & Co
Kahn, Nussbaum & Co..
Edson, Keith & Co
Locke, Hulcatt & Co .. .
Lyon & Healy
Jacob Meyer & Bros . . .
Schweitzer & Beer
,
Storra & Hill
Vergho, Ruhling & Co ..
J.B.'Walkcr<feCo . . . . .
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co.
John V. Farwell & C o . - .
Marshall Field & C o . . .
Edson, Keith & Co
Mandel Bros
G.W. Sheldon & Co
J . H . Walker & Co
Wilson Bros
Marshall Field & Co . . . .
No s u i t .
Cigars.
$33 75
8 40
Linen thread
10 20
Brushes
4 50
Dress goods
2 80
Hosiery
5 20
Embroideries
49 20
....do
51 50
Musical instruments
120 00
Hosiery
10 15
Toys
20 30'
Worsted goods...
8 75
do
Toys
53 60
do
Erabroideries
302 45
Hosiery
do
98 80
do
....do
537 50
...do
....do
12 95
...do
.--.do
58 80
Embroideries —
...do
49 60
....do
Burlaps
247 20
....do
Hcsieiy
226 95
.-..do
do .-N. W. Bliss & F . P . Dress goods
1, 266 90 $213 13
Leffingwell.
Do.
921 75
No suit
Hosiery and gloves
Lilienfield Bros. & Mayer ....do
13 75
Cigars
Sprauue, Warner & Co
481 50
...do
—do
Do
123 26
Shuman & Defrees. ...do
1, 741 50
Do
1, 445 75
156 84
.-'l.do
.-- d o - . . .
Do'
116 00
Percy L. Shuman .. Cigars and olive oil
38 48
Best, Russell & Co
-- do
113 75
37 88
Cigars
A. S. Gage & Co
Shuman & Defrees. Hosiery and hand42 92
164 80
kerchiefs.
P. L. Shuman .
Grommes & Ullrich
12^5 00
38 55
Cigars
'
102 75
E.N.Hurlbut
36 12
...do
Dress goods
Kantzler & Hargis
932 00
413 38
...do
Cigars
Lindauer Bros. &> Co
...do
50 64
193 60
Hosiery, & o . . . -.
William H. Schimpfer- ...do
107 00
39 94
Cigars
man & Son.
Stephen Paddon & Co. .- No suit
43 80
Salt cake .
1, 602 25
175 89
Grommes & Ullrich
Shuman & Defrees. Cigars
Chapin & Gore
...do
391
00
47 72
do . . . . .
Adolph Shire
...do
•.
280 00
41 06
...do
.
.
.
d
o
.
.
.
.
Hamburger Bros. & Co. 199 00
44 28
...do
W. H. Shimpferman & ...do
...do
117 75
32 14
Son.
Stephen Paddon & Co . . . . . . d o .
107 60
33 74
Salt cake
Lindauer .Eros. & Co
...do
90 95
Hosiery, &c
...
31 75
William Cochrane
...do
61 60
Cigars
28 90
Charles Gossage & Co... ...do
: . . . . . . Thread, &c
63 15
34 67
Mandel Bros
P. L. Shuman
36 80
Hosiery, &c
29 41
Wilson Bros
Shuman & Defrees. Woolen goods, &c
1, 834 30
141 23
Root & Sons' Music Com- P. L. Shuman
55 50
Musical instruments
33 00
pany.
Do
Shuman & Defrees. ---do
.-...
53 75
30 52
James H. Walker & Co.. . . . d o . . . . "
706 75
Hosiery, &c
68 67
Kantzler & iiargis
...do
707 75
61 42
Cigars
Lehman & Kinsman
...do
194 25
Musical
instru42 65
ments, &c.
Do.
P. L. Shuman
34 40
30 11
.-..do
Best, Russell & Co
Shuman & Defrees. Cigars
1, 038 00
130 50
A. Shire. 1
...do
447 75
—do
69 31
Lindauer Bros. & Co
... d o .
67 20
Hosiery.'
,
30 67
Marshall Field & Co . . . . Bliss & Lefl&ngwell. Dress goods, &c
7, 694 60 1,167 78
John Girmscheed
Shuman & Defrees. Clay pipes
294 35
40 73
Mandel Bros
. . do
382 15
65 76
Handkerchiefs, &c..
Po
...do
437 15
...do
88 48
Jacob Meyer & Bros
434 35
...do
62 54
Hosiery
Wilson Bros
...do
987 90
Gloves, &c
166 06
Vergho, Enhling & Co .. ...do
277 20
Dolls, &c
53 43
Marshall Field & Co . . . . N. W. Bliss
16, 453 80 1, 353 28
Merchandise
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. Shuman & Defrees. Dress goods
1, 248 60
153 10
Do
• , 657 10 66 44
...do
...do
706 05
Burley & Tyrrell
Toys
72 14
William Cochrane
26 40
Shuman & Defrees. Cigars, ink, chalk . . .
27 77
38 60
Do
P. L. Shuman
Brushes and toys . . .
30 36
Burke, Walker & Co . . . . ...do
40 80
Dress goods
31 27
A.S. Gage «fc Co
...do
197 20
Gloves and hosiery..
52 43
Hosiery,.....,.,.,,,
72
15
i)o
30 19
...40
..,
..do .
.do .
-do .
.do .
. do .
-do.do .
.do .
. do .
-do .
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
61
Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Continued
Importer.
Attoiney.
Articles.
Principal.
Interest
and costs.
Total.
CHICAGO—continued.
John W. Goetz & Co . . . .
Lyon & Healy
Do
C. W. & E. Pardridge
&Co.
Vergho, Ruhling & Co ..
Wilson Bros
Baughart Bros
John V. Farwell & Co.Best, Russell & Co
Edson, Keith & Co
Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co
Vergho, Ruhling & Co-.
P. L. ShumanP. L. Shuman.
...do
...do
No suit .. -•
P. L. Shuraan
Shuman &JJefrees.
. . . d o -.-P. L. Shuman
...do
P. L. Shuman
Grommes & Ullrich
Shuman & Defrees.
Wilson Brothers
No suit
J. B. Taylor <fe Co
G.H.Foster & Co
Burke, Walker & Co . . . . P. L. Shuman
Shuman &. Defrees.
J. H. Walker & Co
John V. Farwell & Co... . . . d o
P. L. Shuman
Do
Hewman, Sulzbaker & Shuman & Defrees.
Wedeler.
....do
Kantzler & Hargis .
John V. Farwell & Co. - . . . . d o
Franklin McVeagh & Co No suit
Best, Russell & Co . . . . . . . . . . d o
Lilienfield Bros. & Mayeri . . . d o
..-.do
•.-...
Chas. H. Slack
....do
A.Shire
....'.Sprague, Warner & C o -...do
-...do
F. H. Clarke & Co
..-.do
Boughart Bros
Lilienfield Bros. & Mayei . . . d o
.
..do
.--.
Fuller & Fuller Co
Shuman & Defrees.
Burke, Walker «fe Co
i*.
L.
Shuman
Gromraes & Ullrich
Root & Sons Music Co.. . Shuman & DefreesMarshall, Field & Co . . . . No suit
do
L; H. Flusheim
.do .
• Kantzler &• Hargis
.do .
Metzler, Rothschild .&
Co.
.do .
C. D. Peacock
.do.
G. W. Sheldon & Co
.do .
Schweitzer & Beer . . . . . .
Vergho, Ruhling & C o . . . ..do-do.
J. H. Walker & Co
.-do Fuller & Fuller Co
Lord, Owen & Co
Louis Manasse
Lyon &. Healy
G. W. Sheldon & Co .
..do .
..do.
-do.
-do.
Gloves and hosiery
Musical instruments
...do
Hosierj^
Brushes, &c
Hosiery, &c.
Ci.iiars
Hosiery, &c
Cigars
Hosiery
Dry goods
Musical instruments,
<fcc.
Cigars
Hosiery, &c
Handkerchiefs
$397
269
481
98
25
75
30
00
119,75
117 40
2 50
1, 054 65
1,055 50
452 25
1,155 80
196 30
$61 69
40 57
72.25
38 51
$458
310
553
136
94
32
55
51
30 94
39 01
150
156
2
1,222
1,146
517
1,343
250
69
41
50
18
00
12
77
56
167'53
90 .50
64 87
187 97
54-26
139 61
258 10
Gloves
General merchandise
Dress goods
Hosiery
...do .'
817 25
2, 088 20
4 65
9 60
506 95
402 65
1, 553 80
77 15
471 95
Cigars
•.
Dress goods
Piepared vegetables
Cigars ..•
...do
do.
.do .
.do .
do .
..do .
.do.
Medicinal water.
Dl ess goods
Cigars
Musical instruments
Earthenware, &c . . .
Trial glasses
Cigars
Smokers' articles ..
1, 304 50
1,248 75
98 40
16 75
15 00
2 25
5 75
1 25
4 75
•1 50
1 25
17 75
365 80
1, 280 25
24 75
814 60
10 00
6 00
48 00
150 69
160 84
Opera glasses....
Glass eyes
...
Musical instruments
Violins and t o y s . . .
Toothpowder, &c .. .
Boxes
contaiuing
meat extract.
..-.do
Opera glasses,
Musical instruments
Burlaps
95
59
132
34
56
65
37
43
01
49
69 20
98 59
26 31
956 86
2, 346 30
4 65
9 60
602 60
462 02
1, 686 23
111 16
528 44
1.455 19
1, 409 59
98 40
10 75
15 00
2 25
5 75
1 25
4 75
1 50
1 25
17 75
435 00
1, 378 84
51 06
814 60
10 00
6 00
48 00
20 00
6 00
91 00
59 00
62 00
15,40
20
6
91
59
62
15
18 00
69 65
7 00
.17 10
18 00
69 65
7 00
17 10
00
00
00
00
00
40
75, 098 0;" 8, 403 51 83, 501 56
CINCINNATI.
Alms & Doepke
Bohn Bros. & Co
Knost Bros. & Co
Do
LoAvman's Sons & Co
The John Shillito Co . . . .
Do
Do
Knost Bros. & Co
The John Shillito Co . . . .
Do
Do
:
Kleine, Detmer & Co
Strobel & Wilken
Kno«t Bros
Stiobel & Wilken
Do
The .John Shillito C o . . . .
H. & S . Pogue
]Bart <fe Hickox
No snit.
...do...
...do...
...do...
...do...
...do...
...do...
...do . . .
...do . . .
...do ...
...do-..
No s u i t .
No s u i t .
Handkerchiefs..
Hosiery
,
Toys.."
,
...do
Hosiery
Toys
Gloves
I
Cotton apparel .
Embroideries, & c .
Buttons.
Suitings .
Buttons
Hosiery and j;loves
Gloves, &c...
15 05
72 20
12 10
24 65
23 20
26 10
38 65
69 65
446 75
31 25
9 50
63 60
80
83 90
28 25
134 50
1*7 40
17 70
351 40
29 35
14 79
18 43
15 05
72 20
12 10
24 65
23 20
26 10
38 65
69 65
540 90
31 25
9 50
100 01
80
98 69
46 68
73 22
225 12
17 70
351 40
29 35
62
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Statement of amounts refunded to importers -under circular, Fehruary 2, 1886—Continued
Importer.
Attorney.
Articles.
Principal.
Interest
and costs.
Handkerchiefs, &c.Mu.sical i n s t r u m e n t s
do
$50
589
520
• 13
418
7
1
546
$21
91
75
16
77
Total.
CINCINNATI—continued.
Haas & Weiss
Strobel & Wilken
K n o s t B r o s & Co
Haas & Weiss
Alms & Doepke
No suit
L o w m a n ' s S o n s & Co
T h e J o h n Shillito C o . . . . . . d o
Do
Total
..
Cotton goods
Corsets
40
40
70
80
40
70
4080
3, 644 60
.
00
85
65
04
46
129 42
$71
681
596
29
495
7
1
676
40
25
35
84
86
70
40
22
648 42
4, 293 02
CLEVELAND.
Root & McBride Bros
Hosiery and gloves .
No suit
105 20
105 20
DETROIT.
Hosiery
Brushes
....do
Beans
E d s o n , M o o r e St Co
No suit
do
J a m e s E . D a v i s & Co
T . H . H i n c h m a n & Sons . . . . . d o
....do
W e l t o n & Allison
-
57
4
4
26
40
80
20
40
.
........
92 80
Total
57
4
4
26
40
80
20
40
92 80
DENVER.
S. M. Siinpson .'.
No suit
'.. C i g a r s
136 13
-!..
136 13
MILWAUKEE.
Leo Roth
C l a v ninea
66 15
66 15
Meat jars
104 50
104 50
MIDDLETOWN, CONN.
No suit
T a l c o t t F r i s b i e & Co
NEW
YORK.
Howard Fleming
A . C. B a b s o n
. . .
J a m e s Brand
Howard Fleming
Do .. .
Sinclair & Babson . . .
A . C. B a b s o n
C. V o n P u s t a n
Gabriel & Schall
Do Gustav Grawitz.
A . C. B a b s o n
J a m e s Brand
H o w a r d Flerain"'
Do
G a b r i e l & Schall
H. Herraan Sternbach
Co.
M a r c i a l & Co
Sinclair & Babson
H. Herraan Sternbach
Co.
F . Gottschalk
Gustav Grawitz
A . C. B a b s o n
J a m e s B rand
..
H. Herman Sternbach
Co.
Do
Do
Do..
H e a l e y & Co
H. Herraan Sternbach
Co.
C. J . S t e v e n s
David Wylie
Charles J. Stevens
H . R . K e l l y & Co
H. Herman Sternbach
Co,
&
&
.
&
&
&
Dudley & Phelps ...
. . . do
do
. .do
....do
...do
;
....do
Araoux, Ritch &
Woodford.
Dudley & P h e l p s . .
. . do
H a r t l e y & Coleman
do .
. ..
Dudley & Phelps ...
do
. do
. . . . do
Stanlev, Clarke &
Smith.
Dudley & P h e l p s ..
do
Stanley, Clarke &
Smith.
H a r t l e y ds C o l e m a n .
- do
Dudley & Phelps ...
do
Stanley, C l a r k e &
Smith,
do
. . do
.. . . . .
do
Charles Currie
Stanlev, Clarke &
Smitii.
Charles Currie
...-.do
Stanley, Clarke
Swith,
Cement barrels
....do
....do
..do
......
...:do
....do
....do
Firecrackers
242
222
5, 428
1,974
1, 787
1, 855
3, 528
106
60
60
60
20
60
40
20
00
Cement barrels
....do
. . do
....do
...do
.do
....do
....do
Woolens
538
411
1,120
130
722
986
283
198
46
70
98
55
82
87
89
10
43
293
266
5, 950
2 151
1,996
2, 040
3, 868
171
30
r>8
15
02
47
29
30
43
40
35
60
00
80
20
60
60
25
71 41
49 72
• 135 89
24 60
49 03
78 09
27 20
30 88
12 55
609
461
1, 256
154
771
1, 064
310
229
58
81
07
49
60
83
29
80
48
80
Cement barrels
. . . do
.•
Woolens
359 80
1, 522 60
365 50
35 04
112 46
34 22
394 84
1, 635 06
399 72
Cement barrels
....do . .. .
.-..do
...do
•48
314
1, 789
1, 606
280
60
00
20
80
45
13
30
135
123
38
33
06
94
02
18
61
344
1, 925
1, 729
318
9.i
06
14
?2
63
152
206
719
37
170
85
75
45
60
48
22 11
26 75
106 25
• 7 96
24.05
174
233
825
45
194
96
50
70
56
53
1, 867
191
786
2, 909
1,167
42
20
00
71
80
2,120
225
854
3, 247
1, 352
40
28
28
09
74
Cement barrels
....do
. . . do
Cigars
. .
' - .
& W o r s t e d goods
50
43
521
176
208
184
340
65
2.52
34
68
337
184
98
08
28
38
94
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
63
Statement of amounts refunded to importers under circular, Fehruary 2, 1888—Continued.
Importer.
Attomey.
Articles.
Principal.
Interest
and costs.
Total.
NEW YORK—continued.
Binney & Smith
W.H.'Tailer&Co
Howard Ives
Purdy & Nichols
Do
E. Thiele
Do
Do
Lesher, Whitman <fe Co..
T. R.Keator & Co
Do
Do
Otto Heinze & Co
Lesher, Whitman & Co..
Do.:
L. Strauss & Co
Healy «fe Co
Do
H . R . Kelly & Co
R. H.Wolff&Co
John Lowitz
U. C. Hawthorne
C. Haussman Waentig...
Hazens, Todds & Co
Oberteuffer, Abegg &
Daeniker.
Gutwilleg & Schiff
A. Steinhardt & Bro
J S.Johnson...
Do
Do
Thomas Deeming & Co..
Do
Michaelis & Lindermann
S. L. Prager& Co
Thomas Leeming & Co..
Lozano, Pendas & C o —
Belloni & Co
Howard Fleming
G abriell & Schall
Hall &Ruckel
Gutman Bros
James Brand
Cement barrels
Hosiery and gloves.
Cigars
...do
--.do
Cement barrels
...do
...do
Dress goods
Cement barrels
—do ..^
...do
...do
Dress goods
-..do
Barrels
Cotton, lace, &c
Cotton
,
Cigars
Barrels
'
Trimmings .
Handkerchiefs
.,.
Linens
Dress goods, &c"
Hosiery, &c
Tin cans
....do
...do
....do
.--.do:
Cigars
Artificial flowers.
Tin cans
Cigars
Cement barrels ..
.-. do
Dry-goods
Cement barrels .
$398 70
$63 23
$461 93
1, 899 45
339 81 2,239 26
1,728 50
241 88 1, 970 38
12,607 70 1, 593 98 14,201 68
1, 625 25
110 27 1,735 52
133 60
18 70
152 3o
1,792 40
154 60 1, 947 00
3, 886 00
514 32 4,400 32
392 90
36 05
428 95
372 20
29 68
401 88
794 80
70 46
865 26
956 40
149 25 1,105 66
11,787 85 1,815 39 13, 603 24
1,145 15
183 13
1,328 28
1,382 15
137 20 1, 519 35
835 71
88 59
924 30
- 570 50
114 49
684 99
10 80
8 88
19 68
911 00
166 05
1, 077 05
280 40
35 26
315 66
115 00
31 37
146 37
49 40
14 72
64 12
23 40
12 84
36 24
• 182 40
32 92
215 32
140 80
151 60
292 40
3, 547 85
125 65
2,793 15
823 80
4. 700 10
i; 115 20
3, 925 70
1, 048 00
362 25
461 60
28 50
873 60
175 80
121 20
234 15
6, 514 45
213 80
538 97
33 11
461 44
57 34
417 12
72 05
498 68
174 68
79 62
43 94
7 47
107 53
33 04
20 95
39 96
972 54
56 54
4, 086 82
158 76'
3, 254 59
881 14
5,117 22
1,187 25
4,424 38
1,222 68
441 87
505 54
35 97
981 13
208 84
142 15
274 11
7, 486 99
270 34
105,166 47 13,388 39
N E W ORLEANS.
Bradley, Kurtz & Co . . .
Do!"!!!!!]!!!!!!!
U. Keen & Co
Do
Do
Do
Do
Edmond Dubois
Bassetti & Xiques
Bradley, Kurtz & Co . . .
U. Keen & Co
Do
Do
No suit
...do
...do
...do
....do
....do
...do
....do
.--.do
.--do
.--.do
Rouse & Grant.
No s-ait
Jute bags
do
1
....do
Cigar boxes
....do
.--.do
....do
...do
Brandied cherries .
....do
Jute bags
Cigars
Cigar boxes.
31 60
292 00
146 00
9 25
23 75
22 50
19 25
5 50
244 15
102 55
72 80
1, 999 75
4 75
67 90
349 99
"303
3, 041 75
31 60
292 00
146 00
9 25
23 75
22 50
19 25
5 50
244 15
• 102 55
72 80
2, 349 74
4 75
70 93
3,394 77
PHILADELPHIA.
E. Thiehle
Belloni & Co
Camm <fe Thomas
Morris Ebert
Howard Fleming
George V. Morey
Mercial & Co
Max Von Angem
T. R. Keator & Co
Churchman & Co
Geo. B. Woodman & Co.
Alb^rge^, Stoer & Qo . . .
Pyle & Kingston .
Edw. L. Perkins ..
.do
.do .
.do .
.do.
.do .
.do .
.do .
No suit .
...40...
Cement barrels.
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
-. do
Salt cake
Olive oil
Press goods
826 00
177 00
167 00
17 20
506 60
126 60
292 00
65 40
45 40
181 40
9 00
62 15
56 52
21 03
23 86
13 21
49 92
20 53
26 45
18 48
14 90
24 30
882 52
198 03
190 86
30 41
556 52
147 13
318 45
83 88
60 30
205 70
9 00
62 15
64
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
0
Siaiement of amounts refunded io importers under circular, February 2, 1886—Con tin ued
Importer.
Attorney.
Articles.
Principal.
No suit
...do...
...do
Pyle & Kingston .
. . . do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
. ..do
...g
...do
H e n r v C. D e w y . . .
...do
•.-..
...do
Pyle & Kingston .
-.'.do
A. M. Beveridge ..
do
...do
....do
Pyle & Kingston .
do . . '
..•..do
'.
....do
....do
...do
J. A. Brown
Pyle & Kingston..
D r e s s goods, & c . . . .
T o y s , &c
L i n e n s , &c
,
Cigars
do
Gloves..:
Dress goods
Cigars
Hosiery
H o s i e r y , &c
Cigars
...do
Cutlery
do
....do
Gloves
....do
,.Clears
....
...:do
.-..do
....do
D r e s s goods
do
H o s i e r y a n d gloves
G l o v e s , &c
H o s i e r y , &c
do
Cigars
Gloves, &c
$101
75
46
595
59
198
210
593
772
146
74
14
322
182
38
87
302
167
126
256
48
622
289
537
551
397
813
25
935
70
60
80
75
50
45
10
50
25
05
00
00
35
15
25
40
35
50
25
75
00
94.
75
65
45
95
40
50
86
B u t t o n s , &c
Woolen goods...
Cla.y p i p e s
H o s i e r y , &c
do .'.
Silk goods
Hosiery
R i b b o n s , &c . . . .
Hosiery
...do
402
228
81
41
115
72
44
381
31
39
35
19
90
70
65
00
40
15
20
40
Ribbons
L a c e s a n d embroideries.
B u t t o n s , &c
D r e s s goods
T o y s , &.C
H o s i e r y a n d gloves
F a n c y articles
Meat* c a n s
Hosiery
Buttons
44 20
779 95
Interest
a n d costs.
PHILADELPHIA—cont'd.
Joel J. Baily & C o .
Harrin.iiton <fe G o o d m a n .
H o m e r L e B o u t i l l i e r & Co.
S. F a q u e t & Sons
A . F I ohraann &. Co
Wil.son & B r a d b u r y
R . W i l l i a m s o n & Co
S. F u q u e t & Sons
J o e l J-. Baily & C o
C o o p e r & Con a r d
T. & W . C o c h r a n e . .
Do
Alexander Cappel
Do.
Do
,
Langfield, L i c h t e n & Co .
Do
M. E . M c D o w e l l & Co . . .
Do
Do
John Wagner
A l b u r g e r , S t o e r & Co . . .
H a r r i n g t o n <fe G o o d m a n .
Strawbridge & Clothier .
Do.:...
Cooper & C o n a r d
John Wanamaker
E . B r a d f o r d C l a r k e &-Co.
W m . H. H o r s t m a n n &
Son.s.
J o h n T h o r n t o n & Co . . . .
E . T. Steel & Co
Geo. Z o r n &. Co
11 F . D e w e e s
Do
Brown, De T u r c k & C o . .
Cook & Bro's
M. S. S h a p l e i g h & Co .
O. G. H e m p s t e a d & S o n . .
Stewart, Wallace Atkinson & Co.
H e n r y Tilge<fe C o . . . . . . . .
P e t e r W r i g h t & Sons . . .
..do
. A. B r o w n .
..do
.do.
.do.
.do .
.do .
.do.
,Jno. A. B r o w n
Harrington & Goodman Pyle & Kingston .
F o i well B r o s . & Co
Meyer & Schoenemann.
Yoiing, S m y t h , F i e l d & Co
C. F . K u m p p
G othen s & R e x a m e r .
A. A. McCown & C o .
Oetheimer B r o t h e r s . .
203
51
161
1, 984
43
53
53
3, 305
05
20
45
25
10
45
90
50
19,186 94
. ROCHESTER.
Sibley, L i n d s a y & C u r r .
Do
No s u i t .
C o t t o n a n d wool .
Hosiery
11 65
5 20
Olive o i l .
...do ....
Buttons..
10 50
89 25
16 00
SAN FRANCISCO.
Pascal, Dubedat & C o . . .
J a m e s de F r e m e r y & Co.
Sweitzer, S a c h s & Co . . .
SAINT JOSEPH.
W i l l i a m H . F l o y d & Son
No s u i t .
Tea baskets .
$56 96
23 39
46 13
48 70
109 70
70 21
37 67
25 91
10 08
65.75
34 38
18 67
2b 67
63 72
37 77
33 23
44 32
21 50
108 38
48 38
93 97
60 63
47 48
1.50 17
16 66
162 21
33
50
22
18
33
25
20
83
18
19
23
37
66
02
21
90
38
76
26
73
20 14
165 03
28
21
37
324
20
22
24
577
35
50
49
63
10
28
57
78
3, 305 29
"•R13P0ET OF t H E
SteCRBTAEY O F THE
65
TREASUKY.
Statement of amou'nts'p^efunded to importers under circular, February 2j 18S6—Continned,
• \
•'
' ^
'RECAPITULATION;
_
"
PrincipaL
N a m e of port." <
Baltimore
•.'
:•.
Bo.ston . ^
Ohica<^o
.
. '
Cincinnati...'..-...'
'.
•....i
Cleveland . . . '
.•. i . . ^
Detroit
•.
Denver
.\
'
MilWaukeie'
.f
.'. .•
Middletown
.
^
NewYork
..
... .
N e w Orleans 1
•..- ..•
-Philadelphia
.'.
' San F r a n c i s c o
S a i n t Jo.senh j . . - . .
$2,283 51
40,223.23,
75,098 05
3j 644 60
L-.
i
305 20
92-80
;.....
136 13
.•
66 15
• 104 50
...
105,166 47,
3, 041 75
.:..-... ...1
19,186 94
..
16 85
115.75
53'90
. . . . .
."
'.:
:
. . . . ' .
Total
249, 335 83
-•
Interest
and costs.
,
' Total.
. $2j'283 51
44,787-86
,83, 501 ^56
4, 293 02
105 20,
- 92 80'
136 13"
y_ _ _'
' 66 15
104 30
118,554 86
i3,388'39
353 02
3,394 77
3,305 29 ' 22, 492 23/
16 85
i l 5 75
53 90
$4,564 63
8,403 51
648 42
30, 663 26
279, 999 09-
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T J ^' ,.
O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
-
,
.
Washington, B . C, October 16, 1886^^
The COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS:
S I R : . You will please prepare i'or me, as speedily as possible, a statement showing—\
'
(1) What is the total sum of money refuu ded to importers by tlie ^
Treasury between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, under protests
and appeals, or suits, and what portion thereof was for interest a;nd
'costs. ' '
,
'
" •
' .
(2) What sum has been refunded under the Oberteuffer decision, and
what is the total amount of claims thereunder now pending aud unpaid
which have been certified and ascertained.
^
, '
.Eespectfully, yours,'
'•.''•
• . ;^
' '
'
DANIEL MANMISTG,
,•
:
Secretary^
- ./
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
O F F I C E OF T H E COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
V
,
. '
,
'
-
, Washioigton Citij, B . C, October 20,18S6.\
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY.
^
T o t a l anjount of refunds passed from October 1,' 1885, to October 1, 1886.
Protests, appeals, and suits. . . . ^
,...617,634 48
Cierical errors, damages, &c. (no p r o t e s t ) . . - - . .
12,263 09
Miscellaneous—special acts, fees, & c . .
.'..•.
15,512 80
^ J
_
Interest and costs paid . . . . . o, -.
.
135,259 66
Attorneys'^and marshals^ fees (fees, costs,&c.)
.y.....
3,447 97
Pri ncipal on (iases over two years old
'
20,851 14
. > L--_ :
.Amount refunded under Oberteuffer decision
Amount pending under Oberteuffer decision
Very respectfully,
. ; .
• ^
^'
^ / H, E:s:. 2 - ^ V O L n — 5
' ,
^
$645,410 37
_ .
.^ '
645,410 37
,
159,558 77
239,871 96
15,335 89
v
' "
MAIJEICE F. HOLAHAK,
Office Comiuissioner of Ciistomso
'
.
• , .. ^
.
.
APPEI^DIX D .
W.]
TAXES COLLECTED FROM IMPORTS.
Values oJ thepi'incipal and all other articles of dutiable imported merchandise entered for
' consumption, including withdrawals from warehouses in ihe United States, during the
year ending June W, iSS6.
" '
^ ' •
Articles dutiable.
Values.
Sugar, molasses,', sugar-candy, and confectionery .
Wool and manufactures of:
Wool,.raw ..'
Manufactures of
'"
Total .
Iron and steel, and manufactures of:
Iron ore
Pig-iron
.'
Manufactures of iron and steel...
Total .
Flax, hemp, jute, &c., and manufactures of:
UnmanufacturedFlax
i...
Hemp, jute, sisal-grass, and otlier vegetable substances
Manufactures of
.,
Total .
Cotton, manufactures of
,
Silk, manufactures of
Fruits, including nuts .'.
Chemicals, drugs, dyes, and medicines .
Leather, and manufactures of...:
Tobacco, and manufactures of,
.
11
Liquors, spirituous and malt, and wines:
Malt liquors
,.
Spirits; distilled
Wines
^.....,
Total.
Jewelry and precious stones
.'-.
Wood, and manufactures of
.•
Breadstuifs
G-lass and glassware
^
'Fancj' articles
1
Eartlien, stone, and china ware
Hats, bonnets, and boods, and materials for
c
Furs, and manufactures of
Buttons and button materials
,.'.
Animals
."
........1
.:....
Coal and coke -'
'
Books, maps, engravings, etchings, &c.
^.
Vegetables
'.
.;,..•'...
...^...
Metals, metal compositions, and manufactures of.'
Fish
Provisions, comprising meat and dairy products
. Seeds
'.
.'
66
Ordinary
duties.
Aver- ,
age ad
valorem
rate of
dutyL
$76, 746,461 25 $51, 778, 948 34
13, 794, 212 97
40, 536, 509 38
5,126,108 35
27,278,527 54
54,330,722 35
32,404,635 89
1, 312, 322 37 .
532,956 26
4, 041, 366 62 1, 737, 658 19
33, 278, 088 35 12, 3C1, 261 30
38, 631, 777 34
Per ct.
67.47
37.16
67.29
59.62
40. 61
43. 00'
37.16
14, 631, 875 75
1, 548, 800 00
113,138 88.
,7. 30
8, 693, 317 66
21,370,523 02
1,728, 587 36
7, 406, 089 86
19. 88
34.66
31,612,640 68
9, 247, 816 10
11, 752, 206 89
29,236,071 18
.28, 055, 854 94 13, 938, 096 -61
3, 498, 569 39
12, 973, 307 98
12,796,387 52 , 4, 347, 626 05
3, 262,232 87
11, 466, 414 29
8, 311,114 45
lb, 315, 311 00
1, 206, 257 11
1, 826,.059 27
6, 753,471 97
585,102 26
2, 834, 696 25
3, 774, 348 93
9,785,788 35
8, 367,838 14 . • 900,
474 36
7, 772,442 49.
1, 423,301 44
7,164, 361 56
1, 042,404 08
6,341, 057 62
3, 694,923 69
5, 934,379 61
2,456, 398 59
4, 992,214 81
2, 829,539 75
4, 866,345 32
1, 028,091.86
4,193, 576 04
855, 729 99
3, 843,549 78
889, 005 80
3, 613,472 69
722, 694 56
2, 624,990 70
610, 375.32
2, 516,773 48
' 629,191 87
2, 340,998 04
637, 545 ,67
2, 34,0,639 49
771, 886 42
2,266, 304 09.
502, 287 54
2,050, 914 53
478, 969 67
1,805, 298 4 0
404, 757 87
29. 25
40: 20 ,
49. 68
26. 97
33. 97
28.45
80.57
48. 52
1.55. 56
55.91
73. 58
10.76
18. 31
14.55
' 55.40
41.40
56. 68
21.18
20.43
23.11
20.03
23.20
25. 00
27.23
32.98
22.16
23.3,6
22.42 ,
.
^
REPORT
OF THE' SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ' ! 67
• Values ofthe pr.in.cipal and all other articles of dutiable imported merchandise, ^c—Cont'd.
Articles dutiable;
Values.
Ordinary
duties.
. a^
Paper, and manufactures of
Sait^^^"]-"X?""'*''"!]"!!!!^!!"!!"
Musical instruments
Clocks and watches, and parts of.... —
Paints and colors
.. -.
'. Oils,animal,'mineral, and vegetable
Hay
Bristles
:
Corsets and corset cloth
Art works, paintings and statuary
Marble and stone, and manufactures of .
Cement, Roman, Portland, and all other .
Gold and silver, manufactures of
1..
Copper and raanufactures of:
Unmanufactured
Maiiufactures of
Total.
Average ad
valorem
rate of
.duty.
Per. ct.
$1, 802,482 .82
1, 611,524 71
1, 493,397 17
1, 432,375 56
1, 362,540 81
1,270, 223 72
1, 079,979 91
i; 035,408 75
1, 029,975 00
957, 256 00
916, 777'21
• 898,194 47
'734, 394 60
612, 787 62
$392, 469 7721.77
1,184, 138'24
73. 53
706, 324 34
51. m 6
358, 093 87
25.00
356, 504 72 < 26. 16
419, 962 66
33.12,
• • 278,
643 41 • 2.5.' 84'
184, 350 72
.17.80 .
149, 981 -63
14.56
335. 039 60
35.00
275, 033 16 , 30. 00 ^
368, 957 70
41: 08
146, 878 91
20. 00'
167, 575' 86 • 27.85
430,885 00.
100, 409 46
110,867 87
9, 055 22
25.70
41.47
531,294 46
119, 923 09
26. 49
Brushes of all kinds ..'.
Matting and mats for floors.....
Hops '.
Soap......
G-lue..
'...
Brass, and manufactures df
..........
Grunpowder and all explosive substances.
Grease
.'...'
^
Carriages,) and parts of
522, 209 54
462, 627 08
540, 216 82
436, 728 54
433,718 71
394,101 30
356, 301 79
336, 67z 80
256, 367 00
Hair, and manufactures of:
Manufackired
Un manufactures of . . . .
111,726 75
128, 875 51
. 27,646 14
40,447 87
240, 602 26
234, 207 00
231,876 88
. 170,491 45
150, 712 24
147, 693 28
127, 539 92
3, 081, 481 53
68; 094 01
71,986^93
67, 356 79
88, 899 97
17,299 35
29, 538 66
50, 848 05
1, 030, 268 32
Total
Clay or earths . . . .
.
India-rubber and gutta-percha, manufactures of .•
Zinc, and manufactures of
Cocoa, prepared, and cocoa butter
Ginger ale or ginger beer
:
Umbrellas, parasols, shades, and parts of
All other dutiable articles
Total dutiable . .
Additional duty.
'Total duty collected.
413,778,054 63
156,662 88
• 30. 00
92, .525 41 • 20: 00
, 217, 517 68^ 49. 50 ..
116,451 33
' 26. 66' •
86, 743 75
,20.00
42 22'
166, 402 43
81. 61
290, 774 26
14.60
49, 272 88
35.00
89, 728 45
18,8,379,397 09
1, 031, 051 08
24.74
31.39
28. 03
30. 73
29. 05 •
52.14
11:48
20. 00
39. 85
33.'43 * 45,55
189,410,448 17
WM. F. SWITZLER,
Chief of Buo'-eau.
'AppE:SDix^
A P P E A L S FBOM COLLECTOBS' DECISIONS A N D B E F U N D S B T T H E DEP A B T M E N T ; ALSO PBOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO T H E LAW OF 1&83.FOB
,
T H E COBBECTION O F A M B I G U I T I E S T H E B E I N
<. ; ' \
STATEMENT
IN
'• '
NOo 1. .•.. ,
• ,
.
•
.
RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES ADDRESSED TO CUSTOMS
DIVISION, OCTOBER 18, 1886.
'
/
(1) .How many appeals from'decision pf collector at New York, levying customs^duties, were presented at the Treasury between October 1,
1885, and October 1, 1886, exclusive of carton protests'? In how maiiy
. ,was the decision of the collector sustained, and in how many reversed?
. • ' • • • .
'
^"
,. ' •
• ANSWERo
'
'
.
•
^
'
'
Erom O'ctober 1,1885, to October 1,1886, the Department has affirmed
the, decision of the collector of customs at New York on 4,600 appeals
. (in round.numbers), and reversed his decision.on 200 appeals submitted
by him 5 also affirmed in part and reversed in part 100 appeals, none
of which appeals embrac'e the question of charges under section 7 of
the act of March 3, 1883. .
*
(2) Make a statement of each judgment or statement certified by a
collector of customs as due and payable, aud which has not been paid,
giving (a) the name or title, (b) the collector certifying, (c) the date of
certificate, (^) the Treasury office in whose present possession the claim
is^ held, (6). the reasons in full for non-payment other than want of appro-'
priation, and (/) the total amount of such unpaid claims. .
. ' • ' . _
•'
'
.
ANS-WER.
* ,
•
'
Certified statements for refund of duties, wlien received in this office'
frbm collectors, are only examined with the view of. ascertaining whether
I there is any appropriation available from which they may he paid, and
whei/her the requirements of law as to filing protest and appeal a'nd
commencing suit have been complied with. Such items as.appear to
be defective in any of these respects are either stricken out or the state-'-' ments are returned to the collector for correction; after which they are
referred to the First Auditor for examination and settlement under section 3012J, R. S.
. ' Barring the few statements which have been returned to collectors
for correction in some minor particulars, no certified statements for^eJ'und of duty are pending in this office.
,
'
'
"• . .
" .'
J, Go MACG-EEGOE,' .•
Chief of Customs Bivision.
•
C U S T O M S D.IVISION, Qc;^o&6r 2 0 , 1 8 8 6 .
' , .
No, 2.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
November 29, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING-,
^^
- .
.
. Secretary of the Treasury:
\ ,
-^ ,
S I R : In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, requesting that th©
information contained in a memoranda submitted by me on the 20tb .
6 8
• .
'
'
•
'
•
"
•
s
,'
',
"
V.
^ -
.; ''^^ \. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
\^ 69
' ultimo be brought down^o^tlate, I have the,honor to submit the foliow• i " g • ^ .
•
•'
'
r
-,
^-
. '
- ^ :
•"-'
•''/•
';,••.•
••'.,.-.
From Oetober 1, 1886, tp. November 23, 1886, the Department has
•affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at Ne\Y York on 625^
; appeals and reversed his decision on 12 appeals,*and thei:e remain's un- - .
decided in this bffice (Novembei; 23) 141 appeals.
..
' .
None of the foregoing embrace the question bf charges under section
V 7, act of March 3, 1883. These, added to the numbers given in' my for- .
mer'report, show 5,225 affirmances from October,1, 1885, to November
23,, 1886, and 212 reversals during the same period,
,
In reply to your further request fora scatement covering the point
laid down in the first inquiry respecting the period betweeh O^ctober I,,
1884, and October 1, 1885, I have to state that during that period the .
Department affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at New
jYork on 5,672'Bppeals, and reversed his decision on 761, none of which
embrace the question of charges under seetion 7, act of March 3, 1883.
Xoii also ask for a specification of the questions presented by tlfe protests in 1886, in which the decision of the collector of customs'.(New,
^ York) has been affirmed. .. ,
In reply I' submit the following list of questions on which five opmore
-appeals have been affirmed during the current calendar year: ' ,
H a t materials
'......
~
631 ' "Cottons, manufactures of
,
. ^ . . . . 490 '
Breakage,liquors, uon-allowance for
-. .. ..J...
2Si
'Stiir wine, in c a s k s . . . i . . '..1
--..--: -.--• -- 241 .
Linen, manufactures of
•-.^. . . . . . . . ' .
..
..' 169.
Sugar, duty on (favored-nation clause)
:
'
16L .Silk and cotton goods
'
.. ....1
,".........
........> '139
• Tiies, paving,
1
- . ^ . . . . ..\ 86
Tomatoes (fruits_or vegetables)
.. 84
India-rubber fabrics
:
J
76
Linen embroideries
.'
. . . . . . .'
,
.' .^1.: .•. 75 ^
Metal buttons . . :
....:..
.
.'
65
Imitation jewelry
•
57
Worsted'and cotton cloth
'
..-•
. 55
Pins
.. ,„
. . . J..
55
> Gilling twine
...'......
.^.-L,
: 53
Linen handkerchiefs,, embroidered
51
Philosophical instruments
50
' Albums, (manufacturers of paper, cotton, sllkj leather, &c.)
.... . 48
Penal duty (section 2900, Revised Statutes)
...:....
45
' Paper,-'manufactures of
i . . . - 42
Silk seals (silk, cotton, and worsted)
\
42 •
Burlaps, baggiug or not, &c.
. . . . . . . : .37.
Worsted and cotton, dress goods..
'.
'
..:....
,36
Opera glasses, manufactures metal, glass, pearl, shell, &c
30
Matelass6 cFoth...".
23
Paper, photographic
.'
22
Rosalic'acid, coal-tar preparation or chemical c o m p o u n d ' . . . . . . . . . .
/ . . 22
-^ Liuen braid
. 21 *
.- Periodicals (what constitutes).,
,..
.'
.....21
India-rubber balloons (toys under T. I. 425, or articles of india-rubber 454)
20
Hair.curlers, k i d : . .
. . . . . - , . . . 19 <^
. Church statuary
i
."
18
Ginger-ale bottles ...'.
•'.
^ . . . . . . . . lb
Cotton-caps....
.'.
,
.^.'~ 17
. Cotton nets
;
'
1 46
, Silk arid cotton plush
:
15
-Bichromate soda
^
15
Lentils
,..'.:..!.
,
15
L:pn nails
.' .^
1^,.. 15
Wool, siik,\and cotton plusli (v^ot for ha.rs^)
:'
'.
14
Wool lace . . . . . .
:
'.
.c . . . . . . : . : . . . : . . . • . . . : 1.3
Qleate of soda . . . . ' . .
......:
'..,
13 .
Paintings on pQrcelain (decorated earthenware)..
. . : . ...o 13 .
Sjboneware,glazed
. , , , . , , , , , .\,,.,-, . „ , , . .
\
^ , . . . . . . » - ..,,/o- =. . . , . , o . 1 3
70-
, ^ ,REPORT O F . ' T H E
SECREa^ARY OF THE TEEASURY.
K
1 \ • Linen t a p e s . . . . . . : . ' . - . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . .
-.i..:..'....'.^.. ^ . . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . 12
I
India rubber, in. sheets . . . - ' - . . . . . .
......^
-i......
. . . . . . . . . . . 12
, Rosaries, beads, or regalia
.....•._.'.....
.. 1^.
..........I.......'.
12^
' Toys............................:.C
*
.:..:...........\...........-.:.
12
Cot,ton and metal webbing . . . : . . .
':.
.....
........
...
. . . . 11
/
Ivory piano keys ...<...
'
:...
.>... i
11
'' ^ 'I. S e ^ d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ - . . / . . . ! - .
............-....:....
,11^
. Hair-pins "(pir'S or manufact'ures of metal),
' . . . ; . . . . ^ . . . ' : . . . . . . • . . . . IV ^
American grain bags
^
f..... 10
Beans, edible,vegetables ..•
.
i
.......,''.)
Feather trimmings
.'
. . . . .v.^... .
9
Irou ore (moisture in)
^...""
...'
........-....',.
9
Jute, upholstery goods
.,
,9
A n t i - p y r i n e . . . . . . .•
:
,.
-r--- -'-•' ,8,
' India-rubber pouches
'.
'S
?,Medicinal preparations
L
............
8
. Turkey-red, goods
, 8,
Scrap-books.
'..
7
Cotton rob^s.....
...........'
,.
,...'..:
.; 7
Ea.rthen ware
J
-. 1 ' 7
' Glass be'ads. .^... . ^
1..
:
.,:
.'..'• 7
J u t e and metal thread c u r t a i n s . .
-'
'7
Linen and cottou l a c e . . . . . , . ' .
^
..'........
7.
Manufactures of leather
...'..
-.,.
1
7
Mklt extract
..........^
^. . . . i
7
Pipe-stems..-.' i
^.
i
7
Silk and cotton (taffeta) gloves
..•
, 7
Anchovy p a s t e . . ,
. i j . ...1
..'..: J . . . . . .
6
Glassware
'...-..:.............
^
6'
Plated ware
,.
.'..'...:.
6
Wool b o n n e t s . . .
..,,............,..•
6
Aniline colors..' .
i
..^^..
5
Dye-wood e x t r a c t s . . . . . .
'..
...-..-'.'.
5
Bone, manufactures of
;
.. 1
5
Downs
i:
,
5
,' Chbcolate
5
Pickled
fish
.:..
:....
, 5
Goat's hair
...i..
...'
5
J u t e , manufactures o f . . . .
5
Metal laces
'........
,..
5,
Picric acid.-.
'.
.,
1...
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
Silk and worsted goods
....
.'
.
5
, Skins, tanned
'.
:...
5'
Shells, manufactures of
.1
^
1
5
Si'eel, manufactures of
...: ..\.......
5
Tricotine '.
1
./.
5
, Toy tea-sets
^
.•-...'
..
5
Of these appeals by far the greater number concern textile fabrics
Among these are the-questious concerning hat raaterials (631 appeals)
and num erous questions under the silk, worsted, and cotton schedules
•
••
.
•
*
•
T H E COTTON SCHEDULE.
.
0
,
,
/ Under the cotton schedule appeals have been received and affirmed
under various^names in the foregoing list, to wit:
' ;
,
.Cotton c l o t h s . .
,.
Silk a n d cotton goods
.
i
-.:
1
AVorsted and cotton cloths
Worsted and cotton dress goods
' Cotton caps.
..".'
.i
Cotton nets.
......
Silk and cotton plushes
Wool, silk,and cotton plushes
Turkey-redgoods
Cotton robes
Linen and cotton laces ,
,.,
"
..'
Silk £ind cotton gloves (taffeta?)
Down pillow^s with cottou cases . . . . . ^ . . . .•
.^
^
.'.v....
Appeals'.
: \ 490»
^ . . . . . . . ' . 1 . . . , . ' . . 1)39
^
^
:.....-... ^
v
. . . . . ' . . . . . . 1...
........
.
'
,
^
I..
'.. :
'
55
36
17
16'
15
14^
8 ^^
.' 7,
....
6
7
o.
5
J
,
REPORT OF T H E ' SECRETARY OF THE TREAOTRY.
' . "^ . / - • • -
.;, ; •'• ' ' •;, •
.WOOL SCHEDULE. .•
^ 71' \
'-- .'. .
. ' '/. ^\ •
Under the wool schedule will be found decisions pri-—' '
^
'
. Worsted and cotton cloths . . . . ! . . . . . ' , ' . : ' . . . • . . . . . . r . . ...•.:.. . : . . . : . —
y 55 - .
Silk seals (worsted and silk) ......,-.,...*".
c
. • . . . . , . . . ' . . . " i . . . . - . . : . . ,,42 i
\ Worsted and cotton dress'gpods :
.........'..
. ' . . . . . . . . . . t....,, 36 ;
\Matela,ss6 cloth .'. . /:
,..:.,..-.
•.
.'
. ' . . / . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ,'23
Wool, silk, 'and cotton plushes
.'..:
'
,
'.-... ' 14
Wool laces.-,..:
,
./..
..
...'.
'.'.
.
. 13.
Wool bonnefs.1
...........'
........:
.\..
.,..i... ' 6 •
Goat^s hair
.......... j
1
^
;
...............
5' '
Silk and woolen goods
.:.
'..
'....'.. ' 5 , •
Wool tenuis balls . . . . . . . . . ^ . 1 . .^
.
..
„ 5
Worsted braids . . . . ..!..,..;
i.
.:..
5 .
LINENS, ETC.
' ^
^
. . -• '•
The hemp, jute, and flax schedule embrace questions on—
Linen,,inanufactures of
.; = ->..Linen, embroidered
Gilling twine' . . . .
,
Linen handkerchiefs, embroidered
B,urlaps....
Linen braids
....../.
Linen t a p e s . . . i . . . . . —
J u t e upholstery goods
Linen and cotton laces
:
.......:
,..'.... ..\.
i..
...i
.
:
'.
....'
.
'..
.....
1
...•
..-..,
,......' . ^ . . . . 1...
".....
—
•-.-.'.
j
^..
The metal schedule shows decisions on—
Metal buttonsImitation j e w e l r y . . . ,
Pins
Philosophical i n s t r u m e n t s . . . . ^
Opera-glasses
, Hair-curlers... i
' Iron n a i l s . - - - . .
Hair-pins ..'.
,.
Iron o r e < . - . . .
,
J u t e and metal c u r t a i n s . .
• Plated ware*,.'..
'
Metal laces . ^
i
Steel manufactures
• Tricotine..'..... l..-.
.....
•
'
165/ ,
.57 i
.'
-...' 55
50
........:...
30,
^.....
^ . . . 19 ,
15
. . . . . . . ' . . . . . 11
...!._'
9 -j
.....I...
7 .
...„.. ..-.'..' .6
.!.....
- -j.
,5 ;
.\....
-......,.
5
..^
.,--...• 5
'...-.
---....,
.'
_.
Appeals on so-Called paving tiles . . .
On so-called church statuary ...^
On ginger ale in. bottles
,
", Paintings on porcelain .'
On glazed stoneware'
.'Glassware ...•.
' Ahd on so-called toy tea sets
,. "
..i..'.
...
•.
.":
..^...
P A P E R , BOOKS, ETC.
• 86
. . . . . . . . ,18 '
—.
. . . . 18
:
• . J . . . . . . 13 .
v.
......'.-•--.. ,13
.
'-'-.....'.......
6
........'.
„.,/..:.,
5 •
^
The paper schedule shows:'
App.eals on albums
On manufactures of paper
On photog.rai)hic pai^er
On periodicals
^ Arid scrap-bqoks
1.,
169 '
75
53
51
-37
21' ,
12
'9
7•
........:
The earthenware and glassware schedule shows—
>
. ';
,
i
"..........
^,
'.
/
1
'.
.'
J
48
42
22
21
7
The remainder of the appeals embraced in the foregoing list are"
^.scattered through'the several schedules.'
; A large number of appeals are ofa strictly legal aspect and present
no question of faqt.
The question as to whether the act of March 3, 1883, is restricted in
itsi provisions to a mere substitute for title 33 of the Eevised Statutes;,
, and is without effect as to legislation after date of said revision, is ^ersented in 281 cases involving the non-allowance tor damage or break- >
,
age of liquors, and in 241 cases, on the assessment of duty on still wine ,
72i
,
REPORT OF THE- SE€RETARY OF THE TREASURY. ^ v
-
in casks, both of,which are provided for.in the act of February 8, 1875,V
in manner different to that found in the act of March' 3,' 1883. (See
Opinion Attorney-General,,S. 5974.) /
:
, ; , • !.
^
• The application of the most-favored-nation clause in foi'eign treaties,
is miade the subject of 161 appeals, involving theassessmentof duty oii
sugars from oth^r countries, which would be free under the Hawaiian
' treaty if imported from the Sandwich Islands (see S. 62^2). , The asj ses.sment of duty under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, forms the subject of 45 appeals.
' As requested in the last paragraph of your letter, I inclose herewith
sucli "pertinent sections of new laws to be proposed to Gbngress'^ as
would, in my opinion, if passed, definitely settle the points pi^sented
in the more numerous classes of appeals above mentioned. ^ " ' .
/ Eespectfully submitted. '
.
; . - • /
^
Jo G. MACGEEGOE,
'' •
/ . •
'•
. '
Chief Gustoms Bivision.
[Enclosure.!
Amend "section 2500 of the Eevised Statutes aS'contained in the act,
of March 3,1883, by adding thereto the following, " and imported merchandise subject to duty under this section shall be subject to the privileges
, and requirements of the warehousing laws^ of the United States.^'
;
Ameridrnents to section 2502, Eevised Statutes.
;,
SCHEDULE A.—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS.
Amend the clause (paragraph 49) for '^ bichromate'of potash," by adding the words,;" and bichromate of soda,^^ so that the clause shall read .•
[ ^'Bichromate of potash, and bichromate of soda, three cents per pound."
, Amend paragraph Ko. 81, commencing '^ CoaL tar, products of," by inserting, after the word "pitch;," the following: ^^ including toluidine, xyii- '
dine, and mixed crude and fuel or gas oil;^^ so that the paragraph will read
as follows:
'
, '
." Coal-tar, products of, such as naphtha, benzine, benzole, dead oil,'
and pitch, including^ toluidine, xylidine, dnd rmxed crude aoid fuel or gas^
oiJZ, twenty per centum ad valoi:em."
'
*
Amend paragraph ]Sro.-92, commencing "All' preparations kno\yn as
essentia!.l oils," by inserting,after the words, "not specially enumerated
-or provided for in this act," the words ''including^alizarine assistant or
S0M6Z6 o^?;" so that the paragraph shaH read as follows: '
•
'"All preparations known as essential oils, expressed oils, distilled oils,
rendered oils, alkalis, alkaloids, and all combinations of any of the fore
going, and; all chemical compounds and salts, by whatever name known,
and not specially enumerated or provided for ^n this act, including dli- ^
zdrihe assistant or soluble oil, twenty-five per centuni ad yalorem."
Amend paragraph ISTo. 120, commencing " Opium,, crude," by adding^
'at the end of the paragraph, the words '^aoid aoiy opium which has been
once imported and cooideonned shall, upon reimportation, be subject to forfeiture and destruction ; " so that the paragraph shall read as follows:
' ' " Opium, crude,'containing nine per cent, and over of morphia, one dollar per pound., The impprtation of opium contamiug less than nine per
cent, morphia is hereby prohibited 5 dnd aoiy opiuon which Jias been once
imported and condemned shall, upon reimportation, be subject to forfeiture
jand destruction.^^
V
;
REPORT
OF 'THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' ,73
,".'•. • S C H E D U L E B.--EARTHENWARE-AND "GLASSAYARE; .' ' '•
^ '.
\ Amend paragraph i^To. 125, comm^encing " China,, porcelain, pariaiv
and bi^s(ine, enVthen, stoiie, and crockery ware," byjii ser ting, after the ,
word " ornaments," the words " tiles.; " so that the paragraph shall read .
as follows :^
:
.
' .
.
.
. ,
0 '^Cbinn, porcelain,-parian, and bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery • .
ware,*including'plaqnes, ornaments, tiles, charms, vases, and statuettes,
painted, X) lin ted, or gilded, or otherwise decorated or ornamented in
any manner, sixty per centam ad valorem." ^ ^
• /\ '
Amend ]>ara.graph Bo. 127, commencing''All other earthen, stone,
and crorkeryware," by inserting, after the w^ords "not specially enu-, "
merated or provided for in this act," the W'Ords 'H'ncliidioig tilesj^^ s o . ;
that the paragraph shall read as lollows:
^
- • - •
"All other earthern, stone,and crockery ware, white, glazed, or edged
composed of earthy or n)ineral substances, not specially enumerated.or
provided for iu this act, including tiles, fifty-five per centum ad valorem."
i Amend paragraph No. 143, commencing "Porcelain and Bohemian
glas.s," by adding, after the words "stained glass," the words •'^ sonall
glass mirrors, includioig those, frcm ed as icell as those uoifraoned f so that
the paragraph shall read as follows :
• ' ' .
, "Porcelain and Bohemian glass, chemical glasswaiv, painted glassware, stained glass, sonall glass onvr rors, ioicluding those framed as^wellas,'
those, unfraoned, and all Other mannfactures of glass or of which glass ,
shall be the (Component material of chief value, not spiecially enumerated'
or j)rovided for in this act, Ibrty-five per centum ad valorem."
SCHEDULE C.—METALS.
\ '
['
.'
Amend paragraph ITo. 144, commencing "Iron ore,"by adding, at;the
end. of the paragraph, the words ^^And provided, also. That the dutiable "
iveight of iron ore shall be asceo^taioied by suhjecti7ig the ore td a temper ature
of 212 degrees Fahrenheit;^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows: ;
' " Iron ore, including^ inanganiferons iron ore, also the dross .or r e s i - /
duum from burnt pyrites, 75 cents per ton. Sulphur ore, as pyrites,'
or sulphuret'of iron in its natural state, OOJItaining not more than 3J "
per centum of copper, 75 pents per ton : Provided, That ore'containing
more th ari 2 per centum of copper sliall pay,-in addition thereto,'2^
^ cents per pound for the copi)er contained ther em i.Aoidpo^ovided also, :
Thatthe dutiable iveight of iron ore shall he ascertained hy subjecting the :
ore to a teonperature of 212 dego'ees^Fahreoiheit.'^'^' . '
.
Amend paragraph No. 209, commencing with the word "Pins,'.M:)y
adding theieto, after the word " other," the w^ords "-including hair-pins^
safety pins, and hat, bonnet, shaivl, and belt-pins ;" so that the paragraph
shall read as lollows:
' v
" P i n s , solid head or othei', includioig hair piiis, safety pins, and hat,
bonoxet, shawl, aoidhelt-piois, thirty per eentum ad. valorem."
*
• Amend pariigraph No. 210, commencing ''Britannia ware," by inserting, afrer the word "gilt," the words " and bronzed;'^'''^otXva>t the paragraph shall read as. folio ws :, \
:
' '
".Britannia ware, and plated and gilt and hronz'^d articles, and Wares
of all kinds, thirty-five per centnm ad valorem."
^
,
. •'
. •' ;
,
'
SCHEDULE .E.^-SUG-AR,
'
' <
, Amend paragraph No. 243, by adding, after the word "adulterated," '
the y^'or(k^,'-''includioig chocolate^ confectioneo'^y;^^ so that the paragraplL
^•Bhll read as follows:
^'Xll other gonf^Gtionerj^'ioiclipding chocolate confectionery, jiot sp§?
74 ^ ' REPORT O F TIlE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '
cially ehumerated or provide^d for in^this act, made wholly or in part of
'sugar, and on sugars after being refined, when tinctured', colored, or in
any way adulterated, valued at thirty cents per pound or less; ten cents^
per pound."
•
,
Amend paragraph (No. 244) commencing with the word "confe'ctionery," by adding after 'that word tlae words '^inchiding chocolate confec-^
tionery,^'' so t h a t t h e paragraph shall read as follows: '
>
,
".Confectionery, including chocolate confectiooiery, valued above thirty
cents per pound,.or when sold by the box, package, or otherwise than
,'by the poundj fifty per centuin ad valorem."
'
SCHEDULE G.—PROYISIONS.
Amend paragraph (No.269) commencing "potato or corn starch,"by
adding, after the words "other starch," the words ''including alt substances f)roduced from the root of the Jatropha onaoiihut, coonononly hioivoi
as Chinese starch,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows:
"Potato or corn starch, two cents per pound; rice starch, two and
a half cents per pound; other starch, including all substaoicesproduced
\fo\mi ihe root of the Jatropha onanihut, commonly Icnoion as Chioiese starch,
tivo and one-half cents per pound.V
^
'
.'Amend the clause in paragraph, 291 for "chocolate," by inserting
therein the words, ''other thaoi, chocolate cooifectionery,^^ so that the clause
'^shall read as follows: •
"Chocolate other thaoi chocolate confectionery, two cents per pound."
Amend paragraph No. 301, relatingto "fruits, preserved in their ow^n
juices and fruit juice," by inserting therein afters the words "fruit juice"
the words ^'Provided, hoivever, that any fo^uit juice ionported; omto the
TJnited States, which shall contain more than fifteen per cent, of alcohol,
shall be subj ect., in addition to the rate herein prescribed, to a duty of two
- dollars -per proof gallon for the quantity of alcohol contained thereih,^^
so; ^that the paragraph shall read as follows:
''Fruits/preservedintheirpwn juices, and fruit juice^ twenty per centuni
MlNolorem: ^Provided, hoivever, that any fruit juice ionported ioito theTJo%ited\
States, which shall contaioi onore than fifteen per cent, of alcohol, shall be
subject,'pt addition, to the rate hereioi presco-ihed, to a duty of two dollars'
per proof gallon for the quaoitity of alcohol contained therein)^
' S C H E D U L E H . — L I Q U O R S . ('"..
V Amend pa-ragraph No. 308 commencing "Still wines in casks," by
inserting in the second proviso, between the word "no'? and the w^ord
" allowance,", the word "constructive;^^ and by adding afurther proviso, as follows: .
"Aoid provided further, that the iprovisions of the act of February 8,
1875, as to still wioies, whjch are in effect superseded by the act of March 3,
i8,S3, are herehy repealed,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows:
"Still wines, in casks, fifty cents per gallon; in bottles, one dollar
and sixty cents per case of one dozen bottles containing each npt more
than one quart and more than one pint, or twenty-four bottles containing each not more than one pint; and any excess beyond these quanti, ties found in such bottles shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint
or fractional part thereof; but no separate or additional duty shall be
^collected on the bottles: Provided, Thatany wines imported containing
/more than twenty-four per centum of alcohol shall be forfeitedii>to the
^i\it^.()i^t?^ie^: Provided foirther^. That .there shall b e n o constructive
allowance for breakage, leakage, or dan;iage on wines, liquors, cordials,
^ REPORT GiF THE SECRETARY OF TJIE TREASURY.
,
d5
, or distilled spirits, d7id provided further that the provisions ofthe act of.
February 8, 1875, as to still wines, which are in effect superseded by.thc_
act of Jlarch 3, 1SS3, are heo^eby repealed.^^
;
.
Amend paragraph No. 317, commencing " Ginger-ale or giiiger-beer;"
by inserting at the end of the paragraph the words"'buti the rate of duty
^hereioi p'rescribed sHall be assessed^ upon the value of the comonodity in its
bottled coouliiion,^'' so that the paragraph shall read as follow-s:
"Ginger-ale or ginger-beer, tw^euty per centum ad valorem, but no
'separate or additional duty shall be collected on bottles or jugs containing the same: hut the rate of duty herein prescribed shatl be assessed upon
the value of the commodity in its bottled condition.'''^
\
•
\
'
"
."
^
"
-,
•
'
.
'
•
SCHEDULE M . — B O O K S , P A P E R S , ETC.
. Amend paragraph No. 384, commencing "Books, pamphlets," by in;
serting after the word "charts"' the words "•ioicluding albums of all,
Mnds,^^ so that the paragraph .shall read as follows:
. '
"Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, not
specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound or
un]bound, etchings, illustrated books, maps,'and eh2irt^, including albums
o/'a^ZM?i(^s, twenty fiye per centum ad valorem."
' /
^ Amend paragraph No. 392, commencing with the words " paperhangings," by inserting after the word "note," and before the words ,
" a n d all other paper," the words "photographic^ letter-press copyioig,^^<
so that the paragraph will read:
^
.
, " Paper-hangings and paper for screens or fire-boarils, paper antiquarian, demy, drawing, elephant, foolscap, imperial, lettei;, note, photographic, letter-press copying, and all other paper not specially enumerated
or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem." :
. ^
'
- • '
'^
^
Sci-IEDULE N . — S U N D R I E S .
^
-^ .
Amend paragraph Np. 396, commencing with the word "beads," by
inserting after the word " kinds," and before the word "except,'- the
Wyords "strung or not strung,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follows:
?•'Beads and bead ornaments of all kinds, strung or not strung, except amber, fifty per centum ad valorem."
.
; /
Amend xiaragraph No. 400, commencing " Buttons and button-molds,",
by inserting between the word "including" and " b r a s s " the words
"those comonercially hioicn as," so that the paragraph" shall read as
'follows:
.
' ^
,
" B u t t o n s and ^button-molds, not specially enumerated or provided
for in this act, not including those comonercially Unown as brass,, gilt, or
silk buttons, twenty-five per centum ad valorem "
' Amend the clause (paragraph 425) for '^ dolls and toys," by adding
thereto the following words: "Provided that the word 'toys^ shall noi be
considered as applyingtochiria,porcelain, parian aoid bisque,earthen,stooie,
andcroclceo'-y ivare of aoiy Moid herein otherwise eoiuoyierated or provided for .'^^,
Amend paragraph No. 445,"commencing with the words " H a i r
cloth," by inserting after the word " other," and before the word " man-.
ufactures,'/ the word ^' sim^kr,"'s6 that the paragraph will read as, foLlows;
,,
.'
!., .
^
,,
•'
••
: ^ " Hair cloth, known as ' crinoline cloth,' and all other sionilar manufactures of hair not specially enumerated or provided forin this act,
thirty X3er centum ad valorem."
.
• ' ^
Strike out the clause (paragraph .475) for "Philosophical apparatus,
.^and instruments, thirty-five per ceutum ad valorem,?' aud the tsaiue is
hereby repealed,
,
•
.
. 76
REPORT OF 'THE^ SECRETARY OF 'THE
TREASURY.
•
Amend -paragraph NO./476, commencing with the'words "Pipes,
pip'e-'bovvls," by adding, after the words "'or provided for'in this act," '
•; the words " includioig cigarette hooks; cigarette-booh covers,~and cigarettepaper in all forms'^."^^ so th^it the ^^rtigr'<h\}\ishdi\\i^^^^
^''Pipes, pipe-bowls, and all smokers' articles .whatsoever, not spe-*
'cially enumerated or provided for in tliis act, including cigarette-hoohs,
cigaretteboqk covers, and cigarette-paper in allfooins., seventy per centum
ad valorem; all common pipes of clay, thirty-five per centum ad valorem.'!
\
* ^
'
'
•'
/
•
•'
• THE F R E E L I S J . ' . •
Amend paragrajjh NOo 642, comniencing with the words "Animals
spjecially imported for breeding purposes," by inserting, after the word
. "'Animals," in the first lin^e, the words " blooded, designed to ionjjrqve the
stock in the IJ oiited States and,^^ so that the paragraph shall read as follow-s: .
• . ^
' . '
I
, . '
,• • • •
," Animals, of superior race and blood, designed to ionprove the stock ioi' ^
the United States, and specially imported for breeding purposes, shall
be admitted free upon proof thereof satisfactory to' the Secretary of the
Treasury, and under such regulations as'he may prescribe;. and teams
of animals, including their harness and tackle and the vehicles or wag'• ons actually owned by persons emigrating from foreign countries to the'
tlnited States with their families, and in actual use for the purpose of '
such emigration, shall also be admitted free of duty, under such regu, lations a s the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe."
'< ./ ^
Annrnd paragraph (No. 743) relating to " models of invention," so that
it shall read as follows:
Patterns for machioiery aoid' models of ioiventions and, of other ionprom' ments ioi the arts; b,ut no article or ariiples shall be deemed a,pattern or
onodel which can be fitted for use otherwise. ,
Amend clause in paragraph 772 for '^root-flour," by adding thereto
the words "provided that nothing shall be passed"free of ditty under this
clause which is fit for use as starch,^^ so that tiie paragra[)h shall read as
follows: "Eoot-flour, provided, that nothing shall he passed free of duty ,
\under this claoise which is fit for use as starch.^^
Amend clause in paragraph 774 for " Sago, sago crude, and sago
-four," by addiug.thereto tlie words, "provided that nothing shall be passed,
free of duty under this clause which is fit for use as starch.^^\
Amend clause in paragraph 800 for " Fapioca, cassava, or cassada,"
by adding thereto the words, "provided that nothing shall he_passedfree
of duty under this clause ivhich is fit for use as starch.'''^
Amend paragraph 819, commencing with the worcis " works of art,'^ ,
by striking out the following: " B u t tbe fact of such profluction must
be verified by the certificate of a consul or minister of the IJnited S t a t e s / /
indorsed upon the written declaration of the' artist," so that the paragraph shall read as follows: " W o r k s of art, i>ainting, statuary, fount- '
ains, and other works of art,^the«production of American artists, paintings, statuary-, fountains, and other works of art, imported expressly"
' for the presentation to national institutions, or to any State, or to any"^ ,
jiiunicipal corporation, or religious corporation or society."
^
,
APPENDIX '¥.-
SCHEDULE OF SUITS* BEGUN IN 1885-'86 AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF'
CUSTOMS AT NEV7 YORK.
•'
•
• ,^
N
O
.
• " . •
L
Suits legun at Neio York letiveen Octoher 1,1885, and Oetober 1,1886, for causes on account ^
of ivhich similar suits had not heen hegun prior to October 1,1HS^.
•
Subject of action,
Series
number.
(New series.) '
1. Antipyrenej
.2. Carmine Extract of Persian
berries.
4. Polisliing p o w d e r . . . . . .
5. Curry-combs
^.,.«.
- $1,285 20
*3, 4.53 57
10990 Walter F. Svkes vs. .E. L. Hedden . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, 11044 Chas. F. Zentgraf vs. E. L. Hedden
A....
11055 Zucker and Leavitt Cbemical Company vs. E. L.
201 m
424 40.
168 65
10978
3. Extract of dyewood . . .
• Amount
involved: ^
Title of suit.
Louis Lutz vs. E. L. Hedden
Aug. Klipstein vs, E. L. Hedden
Hedden.
,
,
'
10216 J. F. McCoy et al. vs. W. H. Eobertson
10974 J". E. McCoy et al. vs. E. L. Hedden
tlOlOl AV. Peckhardt et.aL vs. E. L. Hedden
tl0102
do
110103
.do.
110104
.do
110105
.do.
tlOlOl)
.do .
.'
<j. Oleate of soda
tlOlOT
10111
110142
110143
110144
110278
110279
110280
1109^2
110933
11105
111D6
10109
v7i Clay pipes'..
8. Mobairs....
10328
10329
10806
10092
10177
.10196
10212
10213
10217
10265
10848
10972
10975
10985
10986
10988
•9. Paving tiles
:
......
-do.
W. Peckbardt et al. vs. W. H. Robertson..
W. Peckhardt et al. vs. E. L. Hedden,
do.
do
.:
....do,.
....do.
....do.
....do.
....do.
....do.
..-..do.
Harriet A. Batzer' and another vs. W.t H. Robertson.
^
.
Joseph M. Goddard vs. E. L. Hedden
do
.;
..
.. - - d o
1
George C. Miller vs. W. H. Robertson
George AV. Sheldon et al. vs. W. H. Robertson ..
Alfred Boote vs. W. H. Robertson
Adolph Rossman vs. W. H.Robertson . / . . . .
R. F. Downing and another vs. W. H. Robertson
Henry C. Aspenwall vs. W. H. R o b e r t s o n . . . . . . .
James S. Conover et al. vs. W. H. Robertson
William W. Jackson et al. vs..W. H. Robertson..
Alfred Boote vs. E. L. Hedden
..'.
Adolf Rossman vs. E. L. Heddenv
Henry C. Aspinwall vs. E. L. Hedden...T
James S. Conover and others vs. E. L. Hedden ..
George C. Miller vs.. E. L. Hedden
1......
• 23 00
. r72 75
. 155 35
• 656 3'5
845 55
842 80
573 18 ~
154 40
681 00
5,939 05
681 00
705 85
272 20
241 90
336 30
' , 339 40
i;537 50
61 65
830 85
682 40
239 60
*9 30
*100 48
*520 10780 80
186 00
447 50
118 65
148'85
' 222-30
' 160 79
992.80
^ 1, 502 90
3,120 00
^ 1, 306 70
333 10
2, 043 70
Totalnumber of suits, 42.
^
x
'
\
'
* As this'case contains other questions, the exact amount involved i n this issue is uncertain,
t Consolidated with 10101.
'
•
7 7
;
V
•
-^
•
•
• .
•-
^ -
:
'
/
•-•. • '.
.
"
.
•
'l^To. 2 ; . _:
'
.
'
.
' • _ ^ ....
V.
-
;,
-
,
•00
Schedule shoiving tlie nuniber of .suifs against tlie collector of theport of N6xv Yorh, begun between Octoher 1,.1885, and Octoher 1^ 1SS6, and the amounts and
.
,'-issues involved thereb\.'
-"
' • ' • . .
^No. .of
suit.-
Name of plaintiff.
10088
F. J. C. Ferris et al.
10089
L. W. Levy et a l . . .
10090 O. Oelschlager et al
10091 L. Sussfeld et al
10092- G.C. Miller.^..
10093 B. Levy et al
10094 A. S t(vi n hardfcet al.. ..-..
10095 A. Klipstein
~
10096 H. H. Schwietering et al .
10097 L. Fl iedbergcr:
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
' 10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10110
10117
10118
10119
10120
^10121
10122
10123
FRASER
10124
B. Rubens
A. H. Frederick.'...
H HOT r 111 an et al . .
W. Pickhardt e t a l .
Description ofmerchandise.
Charges, manufactures rubber, manufactures cotton;
hair-pins,
.
••
Optical and philosophical instruments
T...
Philosophical instruments....
Optical and philosophical instruments
Glazed earthenware (claimed as tiles) . . . .
Citron, soap, chicory, lemon peel, &c
Buttons, pins, ,je,welry
Bichromate ol soda."
.'.
..
Woolen, silk, aud worsted goods ..'.
Cotton embroidery (reapj)raisement case).
Damages (in law and equity court) .
This suit has been discontinued
Charges
Oleate of soda
.....'..
. d o .'•.
do
..-...do ...do . do .
.. do
.do :
...do .
.do .
.:.do .
. do .
.do .
H. G. McFadden ot al..
Glass globes and lamp-chimneys
..
H. A. Bat jer e t a l
Charges
Zacl-ier and L. Chemical Co (jxide of irou, polishing powder
AV. Pickhardt et al . . . . .
Oleate of soda
.AV. E. Remy e t a l
<
Table covers and linen embroidery ....
H. Nordlinger et al
Millet-seed
H. B. Claflin e t a l . . : . . . .
Cotton-lace net, doilies, -&c
H. Herrman et,al
...
Cbarses . . . .
R.-Acosta.
Sugar fiom St. Domingo^
K. G. Glendinning et al.
Linen erabroideries
7..
A. Gnmpert
do
...._:
H. Matier et al
Linen embroideries aud charges
Joseph Morgan . . . . .
J. B. Locke et al ,'
LuKM). embroideries
A. D. Napier et al
Handkerchiefs (claimed to be embroideries) .
S-t). Pullman
Linen ern broideries .-.
-.
M. C. Warron ; . . . . . . . —
Digitized for
Rate of duty
claimed.
Amount
claimed.
$117 50
Various.
-35 and 25.
475 72
2, 036 60
780 80
•*3,360 91
.279 10
694 30
1,969 59
2, 745 40
None ,
25.....
25.
25
25..........
25
25
25
40-.
None . . . . . .
20
25....
30...
None
Various
None-.
...do
338 90
155 35
656 35
845 55
842 80
- 573 10
154 40
. 681 00
305 10
337 60
• 210 70
5, 939 05,
193 85
-. 117 60
669 85
52 80
3, 606 90
G03 85
30 %
2, 360 25
1,-570 30
- 785 60
' 201 50
747 10
' 3,-354 80
Under what s'ection of the^tariff .
claimed.
- O.
Various.'
Schedule N, act Mar. 3,1885; T. L Rev.,
475.
:, .
Do.
Do.
T . L 130.
T. L 704, or T. 1.301.
Various.
T. L 92,
T. L 383, 363; ss. 6134.
'' .
Claimed illegal appraisement; sectioii
,2930, Revised Statutes.
934 55
35
35
20
Free' or 20
Various
'25..-.:..-....
Various
30
...^
3u and free.
do
30.-":.
30.
30
30...
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
Refunded.
'
T. I. 92.
. • Do.'
Do.
.^
Do.
Do.
Do.
. .
Do.
^
T. 1.134.
337 60 Section 7' act March 3, 1883.
T. L 479 or 215, or section 2513, ^R. S.
T. I. 92.
T. I. 337.
Sec. 2503, R. S.
Various. '
.
.. Sec. 7 act March-3,1883.
Treaty stipulation."
T.L 337.
."^ ~ , Do. .
1, 341 90 T. IT and sec. 7 act March 3,1883. ' ^
852 85 , , Do.
i '. '
T.L 3.37.
'
- .
Do.^
- ^
. Do. - Do.^ ^
-
Q
W
O
338 90
K3
O
'a
• a2->
a' ,
. » •
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
' 10130
10131.
10132
10133
. .10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
1014810149
10l50
10151
10152
10153
101.54
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
-10165
10166
10167
3 0168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173.
10174
E. Goldberg
>Herman-Wolff et a l - . . . . . . .
A,M.Bull
lv. A c o s t a
N . A r n o l d e t al
J . B e r n h e i m e r e t al
A. S. R o b b i n s
:.--.-..
A. AVeinberg
.'..'.'..
William Dick et al
;.....do.
:..:
F . O. M a t t h i e s e n e t a l . . . . .
S. R o t h f e l d e t ' a l
W . Schroeder et al
M. G u g g e n h e i m e t al
OttoAn"dre?e
D . W . M c L e o d e t al
G. F . V i c t o r c t al
W . P i c k h a r d t et al . . . . . : .
do
-.
.-.-.doC. A . A u f f m o r d t e t al
R. S. R o b e r t s e t a l . . . . . . . . .
L. RothschiM et a l . -.
.'
L . T o p l i t z ' e t al
C. J . T a g l i a b u e Jobn Thompson
S. E . B l o c h e t al
AVH. Do Forest
H. Fleitmann et al.
...
W. S . Graef e t a l
W.E.Iselin etal
L. M e g r o z e t al
W . O p e n h e y m e t al
R. S. . R o b e r t s e t al
. . . -.
B. F . W e n d t e t al
L. W i n d m u l l e r e t al
T. O'Donoghue
J . G. C u r t i s . ^
E . Dieckerhoff'et a l
W , G p e n h y m e t al •:
W . H . Schieffelin e t al . - -.
C O . Abel e t a l
B. L e v v e t a l . -•... ^
J o h n AVakeman e t al
.
B. H e c h t e t al H. Passavant et al'
Otto A n d r e a e .
. . :*E . L u c k e m e y e r e t al
M a r x Held et al . . . . . . . . . .
E . Dieckerhoff'et a l . - ^ . . : . .
J e w e l r y , u n s e t stones,. &c - - . . . . : . . . . . . .
C h a r g e s , h a i r - p i n s , b u t t o n s , &c
.'...
Beans.-.^.'.^...... ^ S u g a r from' St. D o m i n g o
Charges
...'.-...,
Charges and worsted-back cloths.. - -\.
Charges, linen braids, buttons, pins, &c.
C h a r g e s , h a t t r i m i n i n g s , m e t a l lace, &c..
S u g a r from D a n z i g
S u g a r from v a r i o u s p o r t s
do . ;
-
330.65
Various
455 50
.:..do .-:....
12, 636 09
Free
18, 828 53
....do
583 55
...do
3, 055 79
Free'&35c.40rg|
-4,068 45
Various
5, .572 45
....do
. 17, 084 70
Free
49, 243 93
....do
69, 391 38
....do . . . . . . .
S n k and cotton goods..-.
C h a r g e s , c o t t o n e m b r o i d e r i e s , &c
Silk a n d c o t t o n v e l v e t s ( r e a p p r a i s e m e n t ) .
Burlaps
"......
:
P l u s h e s , laces, c h a r g e s , &c
O l e a t e of s o d a
do
30 or 40
Various
50
30.Various
.
25
25
--..
25...,.
-Various
20
F r e e and 25.
30
35.
•
Various
F r e e a n d 20.
20
20
-....
20
Various......
...do
. . - do
...do
...do
. . . do
20..
Free.
35
50
20....
Free
Various
Free :
do .
F r e e a n d 20 .
Vaiious - ...
50
None
45....
:ao.
W o r s t e d s , c o t t o n s , c h a r g e s , &c
Hat trimmings
Charges and buttons
°.. B o n n e t s for m e n
:
Philosophical instruments
H a t b a n d s , m e t a l lace, c h a r g e s , &p
Charges and h a t materials
.'
H a t materials
......do
.:.....
.'
:...."....
'.
:....
H a t i n a t e r i a l s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e s of silk, &c
do
do.
/:
...;
H a t m a t e r i a l s , m a n u f a c t u r e s of silk, &c., a n d c h a r g e s ,
do .
.do..
H a t materials
Charges and damage allowance.
L i n e n b r a i d s , t a p e s , &c
Silk i n t h e p i e c e . . .
Dog soap
-..
Seeds.
C h a r g e s , b e a n s , c i t r o n , &o
Seeds
-:.
Charges
—
Charges and h a t materials
H a t materials, silk a n d cotton velvets .
Silk a n d c o t t o n v e l v e t s a n d p l i i s h e s . . i
Charges .
Hair-pins . . . . . . : . . . - - .
'.
209
*190
1,036
173
2, 230
681
. 705
272
7,022
5, 323
2,957
583
1,184
,2,717
645
55
8680
75
2,113 85
953
560
.*1,329
*498
3, 438
8,611
3,669
28, 785
1,292
740
*6, 825
*76, 385
90
4,133
*729
106
1, 208
.
509
1,100
*1, 300
420
- 157
33,123
• 884
362
2,229
^ 560
"^ C h a r g e s claimed, b u t n p t .specified a s t o a m o u n t .
157 35
4,120 20
2^229 84
Various.
Do.
'
•
T . L , 636.
Treaty stipulation.S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Section 7 a c t Mar'. 3,1883, a n d T . I., 363
Various.
'
. ~
Do.
-•
;
T r e a t y stipulation. '
V
Do.
.
.
Do.
<.
N o b i l l of p a r t i c u l a r s s e r v e d .
Illegal reappraisement.
.Various.
.
Hlegal reappraisement.
T . L , 338,339.
Various.
. '
T . L , 92.
• '•
Do.
. - ' . . .
Do.
^ Various.
.,
T . L , 448.
"^ . '
Section 7 a c t M a r . .3,1883, a n d T. I . , 407.
T . L 400.
~
'
,
T. L 475.'
Various.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.^
T. L 4 4 8 / ;
"
,
Do.
..
; Do.
Vaiious.
Do.
Do.
Do.
'
.
Do.
'
Do.
T . L 448.
Section.7 a c t M a r c h 3.1883.
T . L 336. ,
. . .
' .
Illegal reappraisement. Refunded.
. ,
.
v
T . L 760.
"
'
Various.
'
T . L 760.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Sectioii 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 448.
Various.
.
.
.
Illegal reappraisement.
\
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883-. •
.
T . L 216.
'
~ .
-^
-o
m
\^
o
•
•
> <
o
{>.-
ct
•CTJ
Schedule shoiving the iiumber of ^uits against the collector of the port of New Yorlc, begun hetween October 1, 188^,: and Octoher 1, 1886, '^^c—Continued.
Ko.of
suit.
N a m e of plaintiff. ^ -
Description,of merchandise.
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
Amount
claimed.
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
10175 I . L e v i e t al
10176 E . ' P . M a s o n e t a l
..10177 G. W . S h e l d o n e t a k
10178 G. W . F a b e r e t al
10180 H . B a c h a r a c h e t al
...
10179 E . M a t e r n e e t a l
10181 G e o r g e L'egg
10182 A . K l i p s t e i n
10183 AA'^illiam D e m u t h
10184 J . B e c k e l
10185 N . Bloom
10186 J . H . B r o w n
10187 A . K o h n e t a l
10188 J . P . B a r n e t t . . .
10189 AVilliam C l a r k . . :
10190 D. M . D e m o r e a t e t a l '
,. 10191 E . H e r e
10192 B . V e i t o t a l
-..
10193. W . O p e n h y m e t al
10194 E . L u c k e n i e y e r e t a l
10195 G. A . B e a r d s l e y e t a l
,
10196 A . B o o t e
10197 W . K i n g e t a l . . . . 10198 A . H o f f s t a d t e t a l
10199 H . H . R o t h e e t a l
10200 W . J . M a t h e s o n e t a l
1.
10201 A . S. R o b b i n s ©t a l
10202 P . S c h u l z e - B e r g e e t al
10203 A . R . T i t u s e t - a l
10204 J . S . W h i t e
10205 J . M e y e r e t a l
:...
10206 P . B a r n a r d e t a l
10207 H . L e w i s e t a l
,
10208 J . L o e b e t a l
10209 E . A . M o r r i s o n ^-.
10210 J . W . B r o w n e t al
10211 A . E . B e n a r y e t a l . . '
10212 A . R o s s n i a n
10213 R. F . D P w n i n g e t a l . . - . • . . . .
10214 W ^ C . B a n n i n g e t a l
10215 O t t o B a e r l i n :
'.
10216 J . F . M c C o y e t a l
....
FRASER
Digitized for
Buttons
..-:...
B i c h r o m a t e of s o d a
'.
Glazed e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles) .
Charges
.....do
do...-:
. . . do
:....
B i c h r o m a t e of soda, p i c r i c acid, &c
Charges
.~.
.do.
.do.
Charges and hat materials
Rosolio acid
L..
.'...-...
Gilling twino
1-.:
......do
Rosolic aoid
Jewelry and metal laces
-.
R e a p p r a i s e m e n t of s i l k s
M a n u f a c t u r e s of s i l k
^.,
Charges
.....
G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e ( c l a i m e d a s tiles) .
Rosolic acid
Charges
E g g yolks
Rosalic acid
Jewelry
R o s o l i c acid a n d a n i l i n e oil
-.
Charges
'...
Gilling twine
'.
W o o l e n s , h o s i e r y , s i l k s , &c
..
Charges
Charsres a n d h a t m a t e r i a l s , silks, &c
do.--'-...t
.....do.-...--..:..,.C h a r g e s a n d h o s i e r y , &o
...
'Glazed e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed as tiles) .
Rosolio a c i d - - . . . - .•
J
Rosolic acid a n d picric a c i d . ;
Charges and curry-combs.;
25
.'...
25.--.
20....:
Free
.-.do
...do ...-.'-.
...do
.Various
Free.
...
...do
...do
...do
F r e e a n d 20.
Free
25.',
25Frce
25 a n d 2 5 . .
50
50
Free:
20
Free
....do.....
...do
...do
25Free
...do
25....:
Various...:.
Free:
Various
...do
F r e e and 20.
Various
Free
20
:
35 a n d 25 . . .
F r e e : . . . . . :.
...do
F r e e and 30.
$26 80
364 27
186 00
494 62
1, 000 ;00
9b "80
1, 460 00
1,699 72
84 00
2,142 10
1,229 72
212 53
*47, 817 45
1,046 15
520 10
205 75
,373 45
394 40
954 85
2, 384 87
71 00
447 60
303 80
437 95
581 80
1,351 00
86 20
1, 261 35
398 30
343 70
796 35
6,. 926 20
*65, 646 55
*26, 350 80
*634 20
*202 85
1, 039 71
148 85
118 65
55 65
.222 60
*28 00
o
00
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
clairaed.
> -
•
$494
1, 000
- 96
1,460
62
00
80
00
84
2,142
1, 229
212
00
10
72
53
71 00
437 95
398 30
1, 039 71
T . L 407.
' . ^
T . L 92.
T . 1.130.
•
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
;
Dor
.
Do.
'
.
DQ.
^
Various.
^
Section 7 a c t M a r c l i 3, 1883.
Do.
. ';
Do.'
*
Do.
.
_
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.
T. I . 594.
.
T. 1.347.- Do.
T . I . 59f.
^'
T. 1.427 a n d 459.
,
/"
I l l e g a l r e a p p r a i s e m e n t . :-^
Do.
, '
.
'^'
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.. ^ . '
- T . L 130.
T . L 594.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
' :' ^
Refunded.'
"
T . 1.594.
•
^
,T.L459.
T. T. 594 a n d 559.'
-'
„ ^
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
T . L 347.
Various.
. - Section 7 a c t M a r e h 3,1883.
Vaiious. ~
'
Do.
,
^
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d ' T . I i , 448.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I .
Do.
-
. ' •
V
T . L 130.
'"
.
:
T. 1.129 a n d 124:
-' ' . "
, .
- T . L 594.
. '
.
/
Do.
,
,
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. L 419.
O
^
•
H:.
-O>^- ^ ;
•tn-
a
^.
^. >.
> , .'
• w
•
or =
>-9--
•
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
102i:6
fco 10^7"
10ii28
10229
102.30
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10£48
10249
10250
10252
10251
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
102ij8
10259
102G0
10261
10262
10263
10364
H . C. A s p i n w a l l
L. H . M a c e e t al
E. A n t h o n y e t al
L Beyer- e t al
J o h n Glendinning et al
11. Dou.gliis e t al
E . I )iec k e r b off" c t al
R. F . D o w n i n g e t a l
do
..^
F. J . C. F e r r i s e t al
R G. G l e n d i n n i n g e t al
H. Hot"heimer e t a l
J. B. Heard et al
J . A. J u d g e
I). K n o w l t o n e t al
W . K n i s e l y e t al
P . K leeburg
A . Manlove et al
G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles)
India-rubber balloons
.'
Paper
Charges
- ;.
L i n e n h a n d k e r c h i e f s (claimed e m b r o i d e r i e s ) .
Linen embroideries and charges
H a t m a t e r i a l s , b r a i d s , b u c k l e s , <fec
Charges
.'
.. . . ^do
Charges and wearing apparel, &c
Charges
do . - . -do .
.do .
-do .
do .
do
C h a r g e s , c o t t o n l a c e s , m e t a l lace, & c
20 a n d 35 . .
25
20
Free
30
30 a n d f r e e .
Vaiious
Free
--.do
Various
Free
-..do
...do
..do
...do
...do
...do --.-..
Various
222 30
13 00
1,615 10
40 50
80.80
226 54
2, 071 50
237 98
1,101 03
541 00
2,351 31
454 30
55 17
374 94
2, 409 15
354 90
319 25
978 35
J o h n Mills
Samuel M a r x
J o h u M c C a n n e t al
G. A . M o r r i s o n e t a l
W.M.Newman
J a m e s O ' C o n n o r e t ai
E. Regensberg
AV. E . " R e m y e t a l
J. W, Rosenstein et al —
G. S i d e n b e r e e t a l
G e o r g e D. S w e e t s e r e t a l . J o s e p h S t r a u s s e t al
R. S t r u t h e r s
H. Sonntig
T h e Scoville M a n u f a c t u r ing Company.
William Taylor
C. H . T e n u e y e t al
M. T h o m p k m s
B. I J l m a n e t a l
E . Dieckerhoff" e t al
...
J.H.Duke etal
J . S. J o h n s o n
G. W . T. L o r d e t al
G t . W e s t . Dis. Co
H. Irwin
T . L i n i n g t o n e t al
E. Dieckerhoff et al
R. D. J a c k s o n e t al
J . G. J o h n s o n
E. La Montague
C h a r g e s , l i n e n e m b r o i d e r i e s , c o t t o n n e t s , &o .
Charges
:
. . . do - - . . . . .
C h a r g e s , c o t t o n n e t s , e m b r o i d e r i e s , &c
Charges
--.do
Free
- . do
Various
Free
. . . do
...do
...do
^ cent ner lb .
Various
..
Free
F r e e and 50-.
79
491
214
145
92
485
1, 567
1, 374
36
1,155
706
1, 956
2, 743
4, 773
762
85
35
20
75
20
72
25
85
82
58
73
95
45
48
00
T. L 129,130.T. I . 454.
T. I . 386 o r 388
40 50 Sectiou 7 a c t M a t c h 3, 1883.
T. L 337:
113 20 T . I. 337 a n d s e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Vaiious.
237 98 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
1,101 03
Do.
146 10 V a r i o u s .
2,351 31 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1S83.
454 30
Do.
55 17
Do.
374 94
Do.
2,409 15
Do.
354 90
Do.
319 25
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . I .
324,427, 448.
21 60 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3.1883,and v a r i o u s .
491 35 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
214 20
Do.
125 30 V a r i o u s .
92 20 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
485 72 1
Do.
1, 567 25 1
Do.
1,121 20
Do.
T . L 278.
.
. .
Various.
766 73 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
1, 576 10 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d 883.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.
""4,"773'48" Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
T . L 386 o r 388.
112
4,624
277
1,185
9,432
2, 750
4,615
1,221
1,180
10,463
457
344
810
196
3,106
60
68
05
84
37
00
80
80
40
79
40
10
85
90
20
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 337.
T . I . 400.
Do.
93714 V a r i o u s .
Do.
"2,'756" 66' Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
4, 615 80 R e f u n d e d .
1, 221 80 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
1,180 40
Do.
10,463 79
Do.
457 40
Do.
T . L 334.
Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 756.
i96 90
Do.
Do.
3,106 20. 1
.'.'.'.'..do . ! ] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! - ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ] ! ! ! ! ! " ! • ! ! ! - !
.. do
P r e p a r e d fish
M a n u f a c t u r e s cotton, h a t m a t e r i a l s , &c
Charges
C h a r g e s and silk p l u s h e s
Charges and h a t materials
Charges
Paper
Charges and embroidered linens
,
B o n n e t s for m e n
Charges and linen embroideries
—
ChargiBS a n d c o t t o n c a n v a s a n d e m b r o i d e r i e s , &o.
Braids, buttons, webbing, &c
Charges
.'
do
.do .
.do.
.do.
.do .
B r a i d s a n d c o r d s (linen)
C h a r g e s a n d m o t h e r of p e a r l .
Charges
Free.
20....
Free and 30....
30
Free
Various
.--do
Free
. . . do
,
....do.-.:
....do
....do
....do
35
Free
...do
...do
,* C h a r g e s claimed, b u t n o t specified a s t o a m o u n t .
(*)
PS'.
^\
o
PS
Hi
o
m
.cc^
•
o
W
H.
o
W'
Ul-
00-
Schedule showing" the number of suits against the collector of the port of New Yorlc, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued.
N o . of
suit.
N a m e of plaintiff.
10265 J . S. C o n o v e r e t al
10266 S. R o t h f e l d e t al
10267 H . C . S y l v e s t e r e t al
10268 D . ' D . A c k e r e t a l
10269 W i l l i a m O p e n h y m e t a l . . .
10270 J . P a r k e t al
10271 J . A . S i e v e r s
;.
10272 E . D i e c k e r h o f f e t a l
10273 C. B e n z i g e r e t a l
10274 J . R u s z i t z
10275 C. P . S t i r n e t a l
10276 C. J . A ; K a s k e l e t a l
10277 J o h n T h o r n t o n e t a l
10278 W . W . P i c k h a r d t e t a l . . .
10279
do
10280 . - . . , . d o
:
10281 M . ' A r o n s t e n e t al
10282 F . R . A r n o l d e t el
10283 W . H . A r n s t a e d t e t al
10284 N . A l b e r t e t al
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
20
Free..
,...do .
...do
,
F r e e a n d 35.
Free
...do
,
...do
Various
Free
...do . . . . . . .
.--.do
45
25
25
.--.
25
Free
,
.-..do
...do
F r e e a n d 35.
G l a z e d e a r t h e n w a r e (claimed a s tiles)
Charges
" " " d o "!-!!• ! ! ! ! ! " ! ^ ! ! ! ; i ! ! " " " " !
Charges and embroideries
Charges
do
do
Beads and statuary
Charges
do
......do
Hair-pins
O l e a t e of s o d a
;
do
do
Charges
do
do
Charges and cotton embroideries
,
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
R. F . A u s t i n e t al .,
N . A r n o l d e t al
L. N . A s i e l e t al
do
J . Berbecker et a l .
Charges
do
:
do
Charges apd hat trimmings
C h a r g e s a n d n a i l s ( b r a s s head)..
10290
10201
10292
10293
10294
J . B i s t e r e t al
B. D . B r i g g e t a l .
•" B l a c k .
Thoraas Black
J . Bernheimer et al.
Silk a n d w o r s t e d
:
Charges
do
do
Charges and cotton-back worsted
10295
10296
10297
10298
S. A .
J. H.
M. J .
I. D.
C h a r g e s a u d fabrics i n p a r t r u b b e r
Charges and fabrics p a r t r u b b e r and b u t t o n s .
Charges and fabrics in p a r t r u b b e r
Charges, cotton-nets and various —
10299
F. J. 0. Ferris
Castle-etal....
D u n h a m e t al Drucker
Einstein et al .
10300 A . F r i e d l a u d e r e t
10301 A . F i e d l e r e t a l .
al .
Charges and fabrics in p a r t r u b b e r
Seal p l u s h e s
Buttons
-.
Free
--.do
do
F r e e a n d 20. - .
F r e e a n d various.
50
Free
.--.do
.--.
....do
F r e e a n d 40,35,
a n d 7.
F r e e a n d 30 - - Various
F r e e a n d 30 . - F r e e a n d various.
F r e e a n d 30 . - 50
25 a n d 35
Amount
claimed.
$160
227
445
108
6,425
5,134
170
210
.350
10. 086
1,156
143
74
241
336
339
3,130
1, 344
282
3,746
70
25
30
00
00
60
50
00
40
52
30
10
45
90
30
40
61
56
52
90.
4, 309
312
252
5, 891
2,193
Claimed
on c a r t o o n s ,
packing,
&c.
$227 25
445 30
108 00
(*)
5,134 60
170 50
210 00
10, 086 52
1,156 30
243 10
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
claimed.
T . L 130.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883. .
Do.
.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
Various.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
Do.
Do.
T . I . 209
T . L 92.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, T . I . 324,
a n d ob.ject t o a d d i t i o n of 10 p e r c e n t ,
m a n u f a c t u r e r s ' profit.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.
T . L 168,210,186. •
3,130
1, 3^4
282
709
61
56
52
80
45
55
40
28
68
4, 309
312
252
4, 505
45
55
40
08
96
65
462
287
2,467
39
00
92
05
24
65
462
287
700
00
92
05
80
T . I . 383.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 363.
157
260
123
4, 917
85
05
45
36
126
171
7
2, 733
00
05
00
65
Section
Section
Section
Section
177 25
427 25
58 20
(*)
122 00
00
IN3
7 act Mar.
7 act Mar.
7 act Mar.
7 actMar.
3,1883, a n d
3,1883, a n d
3,1883, a n d
3,1883, a n d
T . 1.453.
various.
T. 1,453.
various. •
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. I . 453.
T . L 383.
T . I . 407, 210.
o
•H
w
fei
w
o
O
;^
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
H Fleitmann et al.
H . M. Giles e t a l . . .
O. G e r d a n
E..Hardt e t a l . . . . . .
P. Jeselsohn
10307 M . J o n a s s e n e t a l
10308 C o p e l a n d K e l l
10309 A . K l i p s t e i n
10310 J . K o n i g s b e r g e r c t a l .
1031L A . L i e b e u r o t h . e t al...
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10.326
10327
10328
10329
10330
1^331
10332
10333
10-334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
• 10345
10346
10347
.10348
10349
F . W . Muser e t a l .
do
H . M e v e r e t al
da.
D. M c L e o d et al
H . P a s s a v a n t e t al
B . Salomon e t al
Robert Shaw
B . Salomon e t a l
do
,
G. M . T h u r n a u e r
C. M . Vom B a u r
G.F. Victoretal..
L. A¥eddigeii e t al
M. W a s s e r m a n :
A. W a l t e r c t a l
J . W. Goddard et al
do
J. W . A i t k e n
:.-.
J . L. R i k e r e t al
F . Carapiglia
W . H . F o r b e s e t al
P . S g o b e l e t al
R. L a m b e t al
E. Neuss e t a l
J . G. S m i t h e t a l
..
do
L. K. Wilmerding et al.
do
do
- do
D . D . A c k e r e t al
J o s . P a r k e t al
do
S.W. Thomas e t a l
D. D. Acker et al.
S. W . T h o m a s e t a l
D . D . A c k e r e t al
Charges
Ch.irges and hair pins . I v o r y c u t for p i a n o k e y s
Matelass6 cloth
Albums and charges
Charges and plushes.
do
Charges
Matelijss6 c l o t h
Albums and charges.
C h a r g e s , c o t t o n n e t s , &c
-----do
Char.ges a n d s i l k p l u s h e s
do
M a n u f o c t u r e s of flax (claimed b u r l a p s )
Charges, metal-laces, and b u t t o n s
C h a r g e s , w e b b i n g s , m a n u f a c t u r e s of l e a t h e r , & c .
Seal p l u s h e s
W o r s t e d and silk
:
do
L a v a tips
:
C h a r g e s a n d b u t t o n s , b u c k l e s , &c
Matelass.6 c l o t h
Charges, buttons, and buckles
Charges
O p e r a g l a s s e s (claim P h i l a d e l p h i a i n s t i t u t i o n s ) . .
Charges
do
Charges and h a t materials
Charges
Beans
:
R e a p p r a i s e m e n t of fire-crackers.
Charges
C a n v a s p a d d i n g s (claim b u r l a p s )
Cotton damasks and pins
Cotton d a m a s k s and paddings
do
M a n u f a c t u r e s of flax (claimed a s b u r l a p s )
do
......do
do
,.
Charges
.do .
-do.
.do .
.do.
.do.
Free-F r e e a n d 45
25
50.
15 or 20 o r 25
a n d free.
F r e e and 50.--do
Free
,
50
15 or 20 o r 25
and free.
Various
...do
F r e e a n d 50 —
...do
30
Free and 2 5 . . . .
Free & various
50
50.
50....
20
Various
50
Free & various
Free
35 a n d 25
Free
.-..do
,
Free and 2 0 . . .
Free
.--.do
Free
30
35 a n d 30 .
35 a n d 30-.
35 a n d 3 0 . .
30
30
30
-...
30
Free
...do
...do
-..do
:..do
-..do
. . . d o .----
^ C l a i m c h a r g e s , b u t do n o t specify a m o u n t .
15, 468" 80
2, 563 80
90 60
139 00
135 00
176
161
286
486
552
98
55
50
82
55
4,493 56
1, 073 44
2, 308 85
962 65
359 15
110, 040 55
159 40
87 70
160 05
93 00
377 94
3, 036 36
784 95
881 45
201 70
68 10
9 80
100 48
2, 603 05
3, 730 60
25 85
1,391 00
88 00
34 00
232 20
241 15
433 70
141 70
96 60
176 60
109 90
1, 085 50
818 25
'59 75
13, 970 25
Section 7 act March 3. ISai.
2, 544 90 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I. 209.
T. I. 469.
T. I. 383.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I .
388, 385, 384.
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . 383.
135 15
Do.
286 50 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
T I 383.
O
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I .
388, 385, 384.
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s .
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. I . 383.
Do.
T . L 338.
H
108,437 65 Sec. 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T. 1.448-407.
Sec.7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . 1.461-453.
T . L 383.
Do.
Do.
Refunded.
2, 613 46 V a r i o u s .
td .
T . I . 383.
611 85 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s .
201 70
Do.
T. L 475-486.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do.
S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1886, a n d T. 1.448.
Do.
T. L 760.
O
Claim on dama.ge.
S e c t i o u 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
T. L 338.
T. L 324 a n d 209.
T . I. 324 a n d 328.
Do.
T. L 338.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
u>
Do.
Do.
Do.
Kt
Do.
Do
Do
00
o
w
o
^ Schedule showing the number of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between Octoher 1,1885, and October 1,1886, ^"O.—Continued.
N o . of
suit.
N a m e of plaintiff.
10350 S. W . T h o m a s e t a l
10351 J o s . P a r k e t al
10352 P . A . F r a s s e e t a l
10353 J . W'. M o n t g o m e r y e t a l . . .
10354 F . A . B o k e r
10355 E . F . B u r k e e t al
....
10356 W . C. B u r k i n s h a w
10359 A . W e i l l e r e t al
f
10358 J . W . B i n n e y e t a l
10359 G. W . F a b e r e t al
10360 E . I . H o r a m a n
10361 F . P a t u r e l
10i562 C. L. Tiffany
10363 R . A r n o l d e t a l
10364 H . B a c h a r a c h e t a l
10365 G e o r g e L e g g e t al
10366 E B e h r e n s
10367 . . . do
10368 W . C. B o w e r s e t a l
10369 B . B l u m e n t h a l e t a l
10370
do
10371 . . . : . do
10372
do
. .
10373 W . C. B o w e r s e t al
10374 E . B l u m e n t h a l e t a l . . . . . . . .
10375
do
J0376 W . Ballin e t a l
:
10677
do
10378 L . M B a t e s e t a l
10379
dc
10380 F B i a n c h i e t a l
10381
do
. . .
10382 R. K . D a v i e s e t al
10383
do
10384
10385
do
103S7 D . G o l d s c h m i d t e t a l
10386
do
10388 A . G u t w i l l i g e t al
10389 C E H e r l t e i n e t a l
10390
FRASER
10391 E . S. J a f f r a y e t a L
Digitized for
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
Charges
do Steel rods
do
Charges
. d.0
'.
do
Buttons,braids,paper, toys, &c
Charges
do
India-rubber balloons
do
S t a t u a r y (bronze)
Charges
d o . .:
do
do
do
do
Charges and buttons
Charges
:
do
do
do
do
do
;
do
-.-..
do
do
do
,
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
.do
do
do
do....
Free
..do
Free
do
do
Various
Free
25
25
. .
30
Free
do
..do
do
do
..do
Free and 20....
."
:
. ..do
do
. . do
....do
....do
-^... ....do
...do
....do
do . . . .
. do
....do
....do
. do
....do
...do
..do
....do
....do
..do
....do
....do
Amount
claimed.
$6,152
16,134
"287
490
2,724
2,432
3, 725
746
1,660
1, 304
29
185
213
67,100
584
1,174
52
71
108
1, 020
1, 065
144
5, 018
77
58
1, 359
1, 234
131
'10, 278
57
464
102
312
1, 811
358
2, 463
7, 821
78
614
1,497
37
11,121
25
00
18
64
97'
60
00
20
53
75
60
60
00
00
70
47
65
50
80
54
50
30
96
30
85
60
21
70
13
20
00
50
60
50
70
70
60
95
76
28
45
57
Claimed
on c a r t o o n s ,
packing,
&c.
$67,100 00
408 75
144-30
5, 018 96
77 30'
58 85
1, 359 60
1, 234 2 1
131 70
10,278 13
57 20
464 00
102 50
312 60
1,811 50
358 70
2,463 70
• 7, 821 60
78 95
614 76
1,497 28
37 45
11,121 57
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
claimed.
CO
pi
w.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3 1883
Do.
Refunded.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do
Do.
Various.
Refunded.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
T . 1.454.
Do.
T. 1.470.
, Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . L 407.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
. Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
&d
o
1-3
«
o
tei
>Kj;
a
^^:
m
u>
K|
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
J 0397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10102
10403
10404
10405
10400
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
-do .
S. Kauffman et al
.do .
do
-do .
E. Keller e t a l
.do .
J. Lehman et al
Linen handkerchiefs (cla;imed embroideries) J. B. Locke et al
do
Charges
--P. L. Mills et al
do
.do.
......do
.do .
R. W . N e s b i t t e t a l . . . . . . .
do .
E: A. Price
.do .
Wiiliara Demuth
.dodo
Vel vets for hat trimmings
W. E. Iselin et al
G. Borgfeldt et al
Charges •
:
A. D. Napier et al
do
A. E. Person ct al
do
do:
H. Ro.gers
do
L. Stcincr
:
do
A, Steinhardt et al
H. H. Schwietering et a l .
do
H. Schiff e t a l
...do
J. G. Smith et al
do
:
G. Borgfeldt et al
....:.do
do
:
R; Foulds
do
John Nix et al
do
H. Nordlinger et al
A. D. Napier et al
do
C. Von Bernuth et al
do - . - :
A. E. Person
do
H. Rogers
'.
do
L. Steiner et al
do
A. Steinhardt et al
do
H. H. Schwietering et a l . ....--do
:....
M. Seckel et al
i
......do
H. Schiff e t a l
-•-.6^0
M. L. Sfcieglita et al
do
J. G. Smith et al
.
do
do
do
G.Ballinetal
Cotton doilies and damasks
J. Claflin et al
Cotton lace,, damask, jewelry, &o.
M. 0. Warren
Charges
R. AVater house.
.do .
W. VVesendonck et al
-do .
G. F. Vietor e t a l
-doW. H. Tailer et al
-do .
B. F. W c n d t e t a l
-do .
W.H. Tailer e t a l
.do:
G. F. Vietor e t a l
.do .
W. Wesendonck et al
.do.
W. Walke
-do.
R. Waterhouse et al
.do .
B. F. Wendt et al
.do.
.--.do
....do
... do . . . . . .
...do
30.per cent.
Free
,
...do
do
do -'
do
do
do
20 percent..
Free
...do
....do
....do
....do
....do
..-.do
.....do
...do.
...do
....do
....do
...do
....do ..
....do
....do
....do
....do . . . . . . .
...do
....do
....do . . . . . .
.-..do ..
...do
....do
....do
35 per cent..
Various
Free
....do
...do
...do . . . . . . .
...do
...do.......
...do
...do
...do
Free
...do
...do .:
193 41
193 41
Do.
478 25
478 25
Do.
454 58
454 58
Do.
239 67
1, 239 67
Do.
226 60
T. L 337.
519 18
1,519 18 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
576 00
6, 576 00
Do.
211 02
58, 211 02
Do.
912 45
912 45
Do.
23, 263 72
23, 263 72
Do.
74 20
74 20
Do.
203 35
203 35
Do.
157 10
T. L 448.
376 09
1,376 09 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
215 05
215 05
Do.
853 34
25, 853 34
Do.
121 00
121 00
Do.
208 50
208 .50
Do.
990 00
990 00
Do.
528 10
1, 528 10.
Do.
503 08
503 08'
Do.
642 80
642 80
Do.
377 48
33, 377 48
Do.
197 30
1,197 30
• Do.
141 40
1,141 40
Do.
305 52
3, 305 52
Do.
343 00
343 00
Do.
969 07
969 07.
Do.
449 53 ] 10, 449 53
Do.
616 75
2, 616 75
Do.
158 00
4,158 00 1
Do.
254 80
5, 254 80
Do.
287 85
8, 287 85
Do.
456 75
456 75
Do.
895 86
895 86
Do.
475 54
475 54
Do.
115 75
115 75
Do.
288 15
1, 288 15
Do.
14 30
T.L, 324.
604 35
Various.
58 70
58 70 Section 7 act Maroh 3, 1883.
36 05
36 05
Do.
553 20
1,553 20
Do.
986 00
1, 986 00
Do.
408 05
408 05
Do.
936 07
3, 936 07
Do.
830 45
10,830 45
Do.
735 93 , 52, 735 93
Do.
677 50
1, 677 50
Do.
865 50
865 50
Do.
643 35
4,643 35
Do.
252 86
11,252 86 1
Do.
P^
H
h3
O
W
H
O
^
S
H
^
H
t>
W
Kj
o
^
>-2
w
td
H
fd
fcd
P
>
Ul
aw
•^
00
Ol
Schedule showing the numher of suits against the coUector of the port of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c—Continued.
N o . of
suit.
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
20451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10156
10457
10458
10460
10461
10162
10463
10464
10406
10467
10468
10169
10470
10459
10465
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10176
10477
10478
14079
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
N a m e of plaintiff.
C M . Becker e t a l
J . S. J o h n s o n . - . . . . . . - - .
Thomas Leeming
do .
J . Z i m m e r m a n e t al
J.AVittuer .. M . W e r t h e i m e r e t al —
A.AVood...
A . W i n pf h e i m e r
T. Wilson
J . G. W i t t e
A. Wiedman
P. Wiederer
P . AVMrlbacher e t a l . . . . .
J. J. Wysong.:
T. P . Wallace
A .sline W a r d
R. Vora C l c f f e t a l
C. M. V o m B a u r
C. Voii B a r m u t h e t a l . . .
:Max T o k l a r
AV^ W . T h o m a s et a l . . . . .
AV. T o n k , j r . , c t a l
C. G. I ' a y l o r e t a l
E . T. Toift e t al :
A. J . AVoodruff
S.S. T a l l m a n e t a l
H S i e g m a n e t al
D. S c h e i t l i n c t al
W . F . Sykes e t a l
E. S t e m
C J. Stevens
:...
H.B. Sham etal
F. A. 0. Schwarz
J . S t e t t h e i m e r . j r . , e t al .
I. S t e m c t a l ^
A. Straus et al
G. S t e l l w a g
:
L S t r a u s s e t al
C. S a c k r e u t e r
J . Strau.s e t al
FRASER R. S t r u t h e r s
Digitized for
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
Charges
do
•..
do
do
do
:do
do
..---Qdo - . - . - . .
......do
..:...do
......do --.....
do
......do
do
,
do
.....do
do -----do
Hat materials.
Charges . . . . . .
do
do . :
do
do
do . . . . . .
do
do
-do .
.do .
.do .
-do .
.do .
-do .
.do .
do .
do .
.do .
.do .
do .
.do .
do .
.do .
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
F r e e -.
....do .
..-.do .
....do .
....do .
...do .
..-.do .
...do .
....do .
...do .
....do .
....do .
....do .
.-.:do .
....do .
....do .
....do .
. . . do .
...do .
...do ...do .
...do ...do .
. . . do ...do ...do .
. . do .
... d o :
...do .
...do .
...do ....do .
...do .-..do . . . do .
. . . do .
...do .
...do.
. - do ...do .
...do ...do .
Amount
claimed.
$13 00
3,332 90
461 60
1,115 20
848 94
650 35
4,404 38
665 49
433 95
264 70
128 80
536 12
5, 935 80
87 86
122 44
150 30
1,120 80
141 65
7,145 29
141 05
185 38
133 30
212 65
85 55
4,838 98
144 91
1, 697 25
380 70
4, 384 51
160 97
4, 508 22
1,205 80
453 15
1, 573 80
103 40
363 40
483 20
526 90
1,407 65
U 6 10
627 00
1,030 95
Claimed
on c a r t o o n s ,
packing.
&c.
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
claimed.
$13 00 S e c t i o n 7 a c t
3, 332 90 R e f u n d e d .
461 60
Do.
1,115 20.
Do.
848 94 S e c t i o n 7 a c t
650 35
Do.
4, 464 38
Do.
665 44
Do.
433 95
Do.
264 70
Do.
128 80
Do.
536 12
Do.
5, 935 80
Do.
87 86
Do.
122 44
Do.
150 30
Do.
1, 120 80
Do.
141 65
Do.
T . L 448.
141 05. Section 7 a c t
185 38
Do.
133 3,0x
Do.
212 65
Do.
85 55
Do..
4, 838 98
Do.
144 91
Do.
1,697 25
Do.
380 70
Do.
4,384 51
Do.
163 97
Do.
4, £08 22
Do.
1, 205 80 R e f u n d e d .
453 15 Section 7 a c t
Do.
1,573 80
103 40
Do.
303 40
Do.
483 20
Do.
526 90
Do.
1,407 65
Do.
176 10
Do.
627 00
Do.
1, 030 95
Do.
M a r c h 3,1883.
M a r c h 3, 1883.
OO
Pi
td
•n
o
>^
o
Ul
td
o
td
M a r c h 3, 1888.
td
Kl
w
td
M a r c h 3,1883.
td
GO
d
K)
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
. 10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
16518
105.19
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
.10528
i0529
10530
10531
10582
10533
10534
10535
10536
S. R o t h k o p f
J . R o s e n t h a l e t al
W . A . M. R a y m o l d e t a l - .
H . R i c e e t al
S. C P u l l m a n
F. S. P i n k u s
W.C.Peet etal
J. H. P r a t t et al
:....
A. Pollman
J . Oberndorf et al
....
E. Oelbermann et al
E. Oppe
S. Otttenheim-et a l
R. M . Oberteuffer e t a l . . .
H. Neustadter et al
J . !Nagel
H. Newman
do
E . M o m m e r et al
J; E. McCrae et al
P . L. Mills e t a l . :
John Mathew
Otto Meyer
M . Mansell et al
L. H. Mace e t a l
E . N a u m b e r g et al
S. M e y e i h e i n i e t a l
E . M u e l l e r e t al
Max Marx
B. Mostyn
D. A . L i n d s a y
E . S. L e v i
G. L a s k e r e t a l
J . L e h m a n e t al
C. L o c k w o o d
W . H. Lyons et al
C. W . L a u t e r b a c h e t a l . . .
Leon L e v y et al.
P . R. L e t s o n e t a l
Charles Koch
A. K o h n et al —
W . K e r o p n e r e t al
A. K l i n g e a b e r g
H . R. K e l l y e t a l
P . J . K e a i ' y e t al
•lohn J o h n s t o n e t a l
E. 1. H o r s m a n
E. H a r d t e t a l
J a m e s A . H e a r n e t al
B. llecht, e t a l
H . C. H o w e l l s e t al
.do.
.do.
.do.
.do.
.do.
Cotton doilers a n d d a m a s k s .
Charges
.do.
.do .
.do.
.do.
.do .
C h a r g e s a n d h a t m a t e r i a l s , &o .
.do.
.do.do.
-do.
Cotton laces and nets Charges
do
do
do
do
Charges
C o t t o n e m b r o i d e r i e s -.
Charges
-do .
Cotton laces and n e t s .
Charges
do
.do .
.do.
.do.
-do.
.do.
.do .
.do.
Charges and hat materials
C h a r g e s a n d laces, t r i m m i n g s , &o .
Charges
.do.
.do .
.do .
-do.
.do.
.do .
.do .
....do
....do
:
. . do
. . . do
.--.do
35 p e r c e n t
Free
....do
..-.do
. . . do
....do
,
....do
.-..do
F r e e & various
Free
...-do
....do
....do
....do
35 p e r c e n t
Free
....do
....do
....do
...do
Free
35
Free
...do,
...do
35..
Free
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
,
...do
...do
--.do
F r e e a n d 20.
--.do
Free
do
.do.
.do .
.do.
do .
.do.
.do.
.do .
190 65
4, 672 22
136 55
278 70
1,181 95
188 52
288 24
324 80
372 20
932 45
11, 489 40
885 10
5, 000 72
27, 523 83
576 15
58 45
422 40
184 00
5,377 70
74 50
589 55
75 50
2, 000 00
55 00
841 65
100 80
76 06
14^ 40
420 25
140 40
31 60
323 10
72 80
811 37
221 80
523 60
335 65
5, 628 05
297 84
27,5 00
24,033 15
301 36
391 50
578 75
1, 335 50
114 10
919 60
1,651 15
319 59
507 74
264 85
190 65
4, 672 22
136 55
278 70
1,181 95
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
T . I . 324, a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
288 24 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
124 30
Do.
372 20
Do.
932 45
' Do.
11, 489 40
Do.
•885 10
Do.
5, 000 72
Do.
10, 603 36 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d r a r i o u s .
576 :L5 {
Do.
58 45
Do.
422 40
Do.
184 )0
Do.
5, 377 70
Do.
T . I . 324.
589 55 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3; 1883.
75 50
Do.
2, 000 00
Do.
Do.
55 00
841 35
Do.
100 80 1S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
T . L 324.
i42 40 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
420 25
Do.
140 40
Do.
T . I . 324.
323 io S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
72 50
Do.
811 37
Do.
221 80
Do.
523 60
Do.
335 65
Do.
5, 628 05
Do.
Do,
Do.
275 66 1
4, 091 35 S e e t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.448,
91 50 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.324.
391 50 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
578 75
Do.
1, 335 50
Do.
Do.
114 :i.o
919 60
Do.
1, 651 15
Do.
319 59
Do.
507 74
.Do.
264 85 1
Do.
td
O
H
I
O
W
td
m
•H
O
Pi
td
Pi
KJ
o
a
1-5
Pi
td
>
Ul
d
Kl
oo
Schedule shoiving ihe numher of suits against the collector of theport of Neiu York, begun betioeen October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, 4'C.—Continued.
00
oo
N o . of
«uit.
N a m e of plaintiff.
10537 Simon H a a s
10538
10539 G. H o u s t o n
10540 E H i l l
10541
10542 H H a h l o e t a l
10543
10544
30545 A . G o h r i n g
10547
10546 W G r i b b o n
S0548 G R G i b s o n
W549 E (xropff ot al
10.550 L G o l d m a n e t al
10551
10552 T h o m a s G a r d n o r e t al
10553
10554 M a x G e r s t e n d o r f e r e t a l , .
10555 W H G r a e f o t al
10556
105.57 P Gold-^tcin e t al
10558 M A F r a n k
10559 P h i l i p F r a n k e t al
-..
10.500 A Flpsli e t al
10501 W A H a l l e t al
J 0562
10503 L . F r i e d b e r g e r
10564 R. L. F e r g u s o n e t a l .
10565
10566 N E l i a n •'•er
10567
10508 M Erlan<*"or e t al
10569 S B D o w n e s e t al . . .
10570 A . l3in""elstedt e t al . .
10571 A . I Dc'nnv e t a l
10572 H . D n d en e t al
10573 C. H , M e y e r e t a l
10574 H E D r e s s e r e t a l
10576 S. H . C o h e n e t al
10577 R o b e r t C r o w l e y
10579 W . Call e n d e r e t a l
10575 W . H . D e F o r e s t
FRASER
Digitized for
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
Cotton damasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
do
Charfires
....
,
......
...
...
do
..:...do
. . . do
do
do
..
. . . . do
do
. . . . do
do
do
...
do
do
. .
do
do
do
. . . . do
do
do
do
^
do
.
do
do - - .
do
. . .
do
. . . . do
...:..
do
do
......do
do
.
do
do
do
.
. . . do
do
. ...do
. . . . . . no . .
...................................
do
do
do
R a t e of d u t y
claimed. ^
35
35
Free
....do
....do
....do
....do
. ..do
....do
....do
^...do
....do
. do
....do
....do
. . . do •....do
. .do
....do
....do
....do
do
..do
da
....do
do
. . . d o --'.
:
....do .-:
....do
do
:
....do
. do
do
....do
do
r
..do
...do
do
......
..do
....do
. do
...do
Amount
claimed.
$29
14
546
343
290
72
33
59
1, 073
6, 576
672
2, 047
601
18
367
1, 560
72
2,103
7, 682
549
246
172
771
99
295
193
1, 762
110
. 271
590
60
233
38
1, 209
86
1, 273
313
310
13
698
1, 334
3, 009
70
45
45
04
80
50
40
80
90
49
20
55
80
35
90
65
70
03
81
94
79
75
25
35
10
40
95
;0
50
80
28
05
50
22
70
71
77
00
20
75
40
40
Claimed
on c a r t o n s ,
packing,
&c.
$546
343
290
72
33
59
1,073
6, 576
672
2, 047
601
18
367
1, 560
72
2,103
7, 082
549
246
172
771
99
295
- 193
1, 762
119
271
590
• 60
233
38
1, 209
86
1, 273
313
310
13
658
1, :'34
3, 009
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
claimed.
T . I 324
Do.
45 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3 1883
04
Do.
80
Do.
50
Do
40
Do
80
Do
'
90
Do
49
Do.
20
Do
55
Do
80
Do
35
Do
90
Do.
65
Do
70
Do
03
Do
Do'
81
94
Do
79
Do
75
Do
25
Do
35
Do
10
Do
40
Do
95
Do
Do.
30
50
Do.
80
Do
28
Do,
05
Po
50
Do.
22
Do
70.
Do
71
Do
77
Do.
00
Do
20
Do.
75.
Do.
40
Do.
40
- Do.
td
O.
Pi
H
o
w
td
QC
td
o
Pi
td
H
^
Pi
Kj
o
^.
H
W
-
td
H
fed
fej
Ul
10578
10580
10581
10582
10583
R. T.Cook
-do .
John Campbell et a l . . .
.do.
C.E Cochrane
Cotton embroideries
W. H. Clendinning et a l . . - Charges
E. Bredt e t a l
Charges and alizarine oil.
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10601
10605
106UO
106u7
C. Bergenstein
J. J. Baily et al
B. Bernhard et al
C.Beck
G.Ballinetal
S. Baum et al
I. V. Brokaw et al
J. T. Burns et al
A. Benjamin et al
S. Bierman et a l . . . . . . .
M. Arnold et al
Geo. F.Arnold
P. A l a r t e t a l -.
B. Altman et al
C. Weisker
John AVy gaud
J. G. Witte et al
Paul AVeilbacher
A. Weidman
Thomas Wilson
M. Wertheimer et a l . .
L. Weddisen et al
A. Winipheimer et a l .
C. M. Vom Baur
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10G26
16627
10628
B. IJlmann, et al
M. Tompkins et al .
S. S. Tallman et a l , .
E. T. Tefft et al . . . L. Stras et al
H. Seigmann e t a l . .
E. Scheitlin e t a l . . .
W . F . Sykes
H. B. Shacn, et a l . . .
J.K.StiefeletaL...
G. D. Sweetser et al.
F. A. O. Schwarz . . .
G. Sidenberg et al . .
E. Stern
,
A. S. Robbins et al..,
W. E. Remy et al c..
L. Rothschild et al.'.
J.B.Ryeretal
S. Rosenberg et al ...
L. Rheims
S.C.Pullman
Charges
.'.'.'.'..do.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'..
do
do
do
do
do
. . . . . . d o -...--.
do
Worsted coatings..
Hat materials
Charges
do
do.
do
.\
do
do
......do
Cotton laces
Charges
......do
do
Charges, laces, rubber, &cCharges
Charges and linen handkerchiefs .
Charges
Charges and metal buttons
Charges
'.'.'.'.'.'.do . . [ \ ' . ' . ' . l " . . [ V . . ' . [ [ \ [ ' . [ [ [ ] l
do
Charges and linen handkerchiefs .
Charges and hat materials
Charges
do
.do
do
do
Cotton damasks and linens
Charges and metal buttons
Cotton lace curtains and charges .
Charges
Charges and hat materials
Charges
...do
...do
35
Free
,
Free and 25.
Do.
Do.
T. I. 324.
33 25 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
24 90 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I. 92,
or section 2513 Revised Statutes.
130 20
130 20
Do.
Free
1, 204 14
1, 204 14
-...do . . . . . . .
Do.
Do.
....do
59 85
59 J5
63 LO
63 10
...do
Do.
'
156 00
156 00
Do.
_
....do
410 80
410 80
Do.
:...do . . . . . . .
105 90
105 90
Do.
..-.do
665 40
665 40
Do.
....do
17 75
17 75
. . . d o ..'
Do.
244 36
244 36
Do.
...do
951 31
T . L 363.
^ ^
35 perct. and 34 c I
1,
374
80
T.L
448.
20
49 10
49 io Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Free
152 20
152 20
Do. ....do
85 00
85 00
Do.
....do
185
05
185 05
Do.
....do
70 35
70 35
Do.
...do
44 30
44 30
Do.
...do..
. 104 LO
104 10
Do.
...do
213 70
T . L 324.
35
34i 15 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
341 15
Free
690 15
690 15
Do.
...do
86 00
86 00
Do.
....do
1, 023 75 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. I .
I r e e and various! 5, 822 90
324-453.
556 20
556 20
Do.
Free
270 69 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. L 337.
731 65
irree and 30 .
524 25
524 25
Do.
Free
1, 245 80 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.407.
1,268 80
Free and 2 5 .
293 95
293 95
Do.
Free
432 25
432 25
Do.
...do
411 50
411 50
Do.
...do
23 35
23 35
Do.
. . do
253 L5 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.837.
295 40
Free and 30.
352 65
137 65 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
Free and 20.
467 20
467 20
Do.
Free
156 70
156 70
Do.
...do
422 )0
932 50
Do.
...do
808 50
808 50 .
Do.
...do
900 00
900 M)
Do.
...do
444 40
T. I 324-337.
2, iii 50 Section 7, act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.407.
3, 223 30
Free and 25.
61 55 T. 1.324, and section 7 act Mar. 3.1883.
85.
90 70 1
266 45 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
266 45
Free
157
60 Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
11,978
48
Free and 20.
1,115 30 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
1,115 30
Free.816
754
116
33
1,103
00 1
50
60
25
70
816 00
754 50
o
pi
H
O
w
td
Ul
td
o
W
td
H
\>
Pi
Kj
o
fej
W
td
I
Ul
d
00
Schedule showing the numher of suits against the collector ofthejyort of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and Ocfober .1, 1886, 4^c.—Continued.
Ko.of
suit.
N a m e of plaintiff'.
10629 H. Passavant et al...
10630 S. Ottenheimer etal..
10631 E . O p p e
10632 R . Oberteuffer e t a l . .
10633 E . O e l b e r m a n n e t a l . 10634 H . Neuinan._
10635 M . N e u b e r g e r e t a l . .
10636 G. A . M o r r i s o n e t a l . .
10637 J o h n M i l l s .
10638 A. M a n l o v e
10639 J o s e p b M o r g a n e t a l .
10640 L. H . M a c e e t a l
10641 S . M a r x
10642 H . M a t i e r e t a l
10643 H . W . T. M a l i c t al . .
20644 R . L a w s o u
10045 L. L e h m a i e r e t al
10646 E . S . L e v i e t a l
10047 P . R. L e t s o n e t a l
10648 A . L i e b e n r o t h e t a l . . .
10649 A . K o h n e t al
106.50 C o p e l a n d K e l l
10651 H . R. K e l l y e t al
I00.>2 A . K l i p s t e i n
30653 A . K l i n g e n b e r g
10654 P . J . K e a i y e t al
10055 B . H e c h t e t a l
10656 G. H o u s t o n . - - 10657 E . H i l l
10658 E . I . H o r s m a n
10659 AV. A . H a r a t e t a l
106G0 S. H e i l n e r e t a l
10661 W . G r i b b o n
10662 S. G i n t e r m a n e t al
10663 A . G o h r i n g
10664 -E. G r e e t e t a l
10665 S. G o l d e n b e r g e t al
10666 E . G r a d l e r . . - .
30667 G . R . G i b s o n
10668
M . A . F r a n k .10669 H . F l e i t m a n e t al
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
40670 P . F r a n k
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
Charges and hat materials
Charges
do
Charges and hat materials
Charges
^
do..
do
Charges and cotton lace and linens
"do
Charges and hat materials
C h a r g e s a n d linen h a n d k e r c h i e f s
C h a r g e s a n d r u b b e r balls, &c
Charges
Charges and linen handkerchiefs
Charges
Charges and cotton nets and embroideries.
Charges
do
do
Charges and various
do
Charges
do
do .
.do .
.do do.
.do.
.do .
.do.
-do .
:do .
.do.do .
.do .
.do .
Charges and cotton and metal laces.
Charges
.....do
do
do
do
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
Amount
claimed.
$62, 207 23
F r e e a n d 20
473 20
Free
'
678 10
.--.do
9, 895 85
F r e e and 2 0 . . . .
2,486 30
Free
350 20
...do
178 35
...do
955 60
F r e e & 30 & 35
385 00
do
825 70
F r e e a n d 20
659 00
F r e e and 30..-.
352 45
F r e e a n d 25
250 35
Free
693 48
F r e e a h d 30
98 45
Free
884 25
F r e e a n d 30 . . . .
124 10
Free
269 75
--.do
50 30
-..do
1,001 40
F r e e and various
49,485 70
-- do
1, 220 62
Free
477 20
--.do
89 60
709 45
...do
229 55
--.do 393 50
.:..do
. 39 00
. - do
100 22
--.do
206 85
-..do
419
70
--.do
-..do
87 90
149 10
--.do
440 25
--.do
154 20
--.do
257 00
- . do
923 06
F r e e and 25158 00
Free
237 80
--.do
30 00
. . do
7, 888 35
--.do
. - do
223 25
Claimed
on c a r t o o n s ,
packing,
&c.
U n d e r w h a t s e c t i o n of t h e tariff
c l a i m d.
$12, 452 78 Seetion 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.448.
473 20 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
678 10
Do.
3. 900 25 S e c t i o n ? a c t M a r c h 3,1883,and T . 1.448.
2, 486 30 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
350 20
Do.
.178 35
Do.
810 85 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, a n d T. I . 337-324.
107 75
Do.
12 30 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 448.
365 45 Sectiou 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.337.
321 85 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 454.
250 35
Do.
329 65 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . 1.337.
98 45
Do.
884 25 •Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d T . L 324.
• 124 10
Do.
269 75
Do.
50 30
Do.
91 40 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883, a n d v a r i o u s .
2, 373 50
Do.
1, 220 62 Sec. 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
477 20
Do.
89 60
Do.
709 45
Do.
229 55
Do.
393 50
Do.
39 00
Do.
100 22
Do.
206 85
Do.
419 70
Do.
87 90
Do.
149 10
Do.
440 25
Do.
154 20
Do.
257 00
Do.
474 51 Section 7 a c t M a r . 3,1883, a n d T . I . , 40L
158 00 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
237 80
Do.
30 00
Do.
Do.
7. 888 35
Do.
'223 25
O
Pi
td
O
Pi
H
O
fej
w.
td
Ul
fej
o
pi
td
H
>• ^
O
fej
H
w
td
td
f>
cc
C
Pi
Kl
.10671
10072
10673
10674
10676
10086
10677
a0678
10679
10680
10681
10682
1(;683
10684
L0685
10086
10687
30688
10689
10690
10691
10092
10693
10601
10695
1U690
1009,
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10701
10705
20706
10707
10708
10709
10710
. 10711
.10712
10713
10715
10716
10717
10718
10714
10719
I. S. Erdmann et a l . .
I. D. Einstein et a l . N. Erlauirer
A. J. Denny et a l . ..
E. DieckerhoffetalW. H. De Forest -. H. Douglas et al
J. H. Dunham et alJ. Berbecker et al . .
S. Biermau e t a l
J . H. Brown et a l . . .
I. V Brokaw et al. N. Bloom.
T. Block et al
G. T. Arnold et a l . .
R. T. Austin et al ..
C. AUhofetal
M. Arnold et al
M. Aronstein et al -.
AV. A. Thorn . . . . . . .
L. Lehman .
S. Harris et al
I J . L. Sraith e t a l . - . .
! T. R. Keator e t a l ..
1 E. Thiele
A. Whvte ..H. AVolff
J. L.Riker et al.
H. Fleming
E. F. Burke et al
J . D . Cutter
J. M. Mencke et aL-.
Jos. Park ct al
,
A. B. Purdy et al
S. R. Lesher et al
E. La Monta.gue
Thomas Ta.ylor
A. Schoverling et al.
G. G. Mooroetal
H. E. Frankenberg..
O.K.Krause
James Brand
E. Thiele
.,
Joseph Wild...
R H. Wolff ebal . . . .
S. Harris
C. T. Raynolds et al.
Ignatz Fisher
L.Frank e t a l
,
do
do -.
do
do
,
Cotton braids
Charges
Charges and linens.
Charges
do . . :
do -do -do .
-do .
-do-do .
do.
.do.
Charges and cotton and worsted .
Charges
do
.do.
-do .
.do .
do .
.do .
• do .
Charges and buttons and pins .
Charges and bichrom. soda .
.do .
.do.
-do -do .
-do .
-do .
.do .
.do .
.do .
.do .
.do .
.do .
.do .
.do.
-do .
.do .
.do.
-do .
..do .
.do .
--.do
.--do
--.do ----.....
--.do
--.do
--.do
Free and 30 ..
Free and 30 .. --.do
--.do
-. do
--.do
--.do
-..do
.-.do
--.do
Free
--.do
-..do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
Free & 25 & 30
70
393
384
147
2,814
1, 9J3
482
2,163
2,178
515
41
99
135
57
278
522
678
749
120
67
88
119
28
484
133
79
439
58
15
23
70
25
90.
65
00
13
80
09
65
38
50
00
75
10
69
70
00
60
00
26
60
58
45
90
3, 275 42
00
00
50
00
00
25
60
00
00
70
70
50
25
00
54
80
98
40
00
40
75 1
Free. 448
;.-.do .
1, 895
.-..do .
523
....do .
483
.---.do 1, 643
.--.do .
1, 552
.-..do.
423
..-.do.
841
. . . do .
944
....do .
734
....do .
282
..-.do .
572
.-..do .
647
...do .
728
..-.do .
1,797
.--.do .
112
.-..do .
288
.-..do .
463
.-..do .
25
.--.do .
301
....do .
582
• Charges claimed, but not specified as to amounts.
70
393
- 384
147
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
T . I . 324.
i , 923 90
Do.
104 50 T . L 324 a n d T . I . 337.
1, 584 00
Do.
2,178 13
Do.
Do.
515 80
Do.
41 09
Do.
99 65
Do.
135 38
57 50
Do.
Do.
278 00
Do.
522 75
678 10
Do.
Do.
56 05
Do.
120 70
Do.
67 00
88 60
Do.
119 00
Do.
28 2 3
Do.
484 60 R e f u n d e d .
133 58
Do.
79 45 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
Seciion 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, a n d T . I .
407-201.
Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883, & T . 1.92.
(*)
448 00 R e f u n d e d .
1, 895 60 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
523 50
Do.
483 0 0 ,
Do.
Do.
1,643 0)
1, 552 25 R e f u n d e d .
423 60
Do.
841 00 Section 7, a c t M a r c h 3,1883.
944 00
Do.
734 70
Do.
282 70
Do.
572 5)
Do.
647 25
Do.
728 00 R e f u n d e d .
1, 797 54
Do.
112 80 Section 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
288 98 R e f u n d e d .
463 40 S e c t i o n 7 a c t M a r c h 3, 1883.
25 00
Do.
301 40
Do.
582 75
Do.
n
58 1
15
23
7) 1
Pi
td
O
n
^
i
Ul
•fel
O
fej
fel
H
>-
1
fel
Kj
o^,
H
HI
fel
Ha
W
fej
'
>
Ul
d
td
Kl
c<:
Schedule showing the numher of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, 4'C.—Continued.
Ko. of
suit.
Name of plaintiff.
Description of merchandise.
10720 A.Wh.yte
Charges and various
10721 E. M. Benjamin et al
:i0722 J . L . S m i t h
"*'"'do!!""l"!Ili!!l!!!!]!"l!!I"'i;!!!!!
10723 L, Johnson et al
do
...:
10724 T. R. Keater et al
do
10725 J. E. S. Hadden et al
do
10726 A. AVallach et al
.do
10727 G. Grawitz
do
10728 A. Frank et al
do
20729 A. Imhorst
do
10730 W. H. Thorne et al
do
10731 L. Lehman
do
10732 H. Sch ores tene et al
Hat materials
10733 P. L. Mills et al
do
10735 E . L . Graef
Charges
10736 I. A. Lahey et al
Charges
and hat materials
10734 W. Ohenhym et al
Charges
10737 R. Arnold e t a l
do
10738 W. Stens et al
Charges and hat materials
10739
10740 F. O. do
Charges
Horstmann et al
10741 J.
C. Conroy
10742
!!"! do!!!!!!]!!!;!!!"]!!!'""!!I*!!!]I''!!]
do
10743 George
Campbell
do
,.
10744 B. Silberberg
Cotton embroideries
10745 H. Brenker etetalal
Charges
10746 D. Klauber et al
Cotton embroideries and hat materials
10747 A. Weiller et al
jewelry, laces, &c
10748 C. A, Aufimordt et al . . . Buttons,
Charges and various
10749 A. Weiller et al
Buttons,
jewelry, embroideries, &c
10750
Metal buttons
10751 E. Stahel.
E.
D.
Compte
do
107G2
Buttons, laces, and linen handkerchiefs, & c .
10753 A. Weiller et al
Charges........".
10754 J. Pollack
do
a0755 R. Blankenberg et al
do.
w
S
.
Ullman
a0756
do.
t0757 H. AVolff
do.
10758 S. Ullman
do.
10759 AV. Clark
F.
Gottschalk
.
.
:
.
do.
10760
Seeds -..
10761 R. F . Downing et al
Lentils..J.
W.
Rosenstein
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Rate of duty
claimed.
Free & various
...do...
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
20
Free
Free and 2 0 . . .
Free
...do:
Free and 2 0 . . .
....do
Free
...do....
...do
...do
35.-..:
Free
35 and 20
Various
Free & various
25 and 30
25
,
25
,
25,30,35, (fee...
Free
do
.do.
.do.
do .
.do.
.do .
•do.
.do.
Amount
claimed.
$156 50
1, 703 50
90 33
160 00.
1,017 42
239 20
73 30
314 65
52 45
93 00
49 00
107 70
410 00
2,723 70
374 00
1,463 00
5,175 40
5,161 03
4,131 00
3, 058 00
1,484 20
52 70
473 72
880 07
473 72
408 03
150 40
1, 257 60
4, 042 45
1, 958 45
172 60
104 80
766 60
60 00
2, 045 30
28 75
138 00
136 95
7, 662 87
48 60
143 40
853 93
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
(*)
CO
IN5
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
Section 7 actMarch 3,1883, and various.
Do.
$1, 703 50
Do.
90 33
Do.
160 00
1,017 42 Refunded.
239 20 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
73 30
314 55 Refunded.
52 45 ^Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Do.
93 00
Do.
49 00
107 70
Do.
T. I. 448.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Section
7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. L, 448.
(
*) 40
374
00 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
5,175
Do.
5,161 03
Section7 actMar. 3,1883, and T. I., 448.
(*)
Do.
(*) 20 Section
1,484
7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
52 70
473 72
Do.
880 07
Do.
T . L 324.
408 03 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
T. I. 324,448.
T. I. 407,210, and various.
Section 7 act March 3,1883, & various.
(*)
T. I. 407, 210,337, &C.
T. I. 407, 210.
Do.
T. I. 407, 210,324,337, &c.
56"66* Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
2, 045 30
Do.
28 75
Do.
138 00
Do.
136 95
Do.
7, 662 87
Do.
48 60 Refunded.
T. L 760.
Do.
td
fej
O
H
O
fej
wfej
Ul
td
o
Pi
td
H
Pi
Kj
O
•^
H
w
td
H
td^
>
Ul
a
Kj
10762
10763
10764
10765
107C6
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
108C8
10809
J . F. Brigg e f c a l . . . . . . . . H. H. Schwietering fet alA. Strauss ©t al
Seal plush
Matelassi cloth
Charges, pins, cottons.
Rosolic acid
L. Lutz et al
Charges
L. Schreiber
do
G. Schmobe
do
J- Wygand
do
P. Weilbacher
Metal, lace, and hat materials .
A. Veith
Hat materials
B.Veit
Charges
L. Schreiber
do
:
S. Rosenberg . . . . . . .
Charges and pins, braids, &c ..
PA. S. Robbins et al
do
J. B. Ryer et al
do
V. Loewi
—
do
M. Isaacs et al
do
S. Isaacs ot al
do
I. Heasty
do
T. A. Hartion
do
C. Haussman et al
do
H. Gottschalk
do
E. Gradler
Charges
W. J . E hrick e t a l
do
D. Duncan et al
do
:
J. Adler ct al
Hat materials
L. Metzger et al
H. H. Schwietering et al .. Hat materials and braids
T.H.Wood e t a l . . .
Charges
B. Ill felder e t a l
,
do
B. lllfelder et al
, Charges
J. Freund et al
do
.-...do
F. Booss do
John Claflin et al
Charges and hat materials
S.M.Cohen e t a l . .
do
W . H . De Forest
do
F. Hoeninghaus et al
do
A. E. Person et al
M. E. Warren
do
Charges, buttons, &c
S. Rothfeld e t a l
M. Wimpfheimer et al
L. S. Friedberger et al
H. C. Sylvester et al
S. M. Cohen et al
H. Nordlinger et al
J. W. Goddard et a l . . . . . . .
S. Wormser et al
T.O'Donohue
E. S. Jaffray et el
Charges and hat materials.
(Charges
.
do
Charges and hat materials.
Charges
do
do
50
,
50
Free & 45 & 35.
1,914 30
3,137 45
53 25
Free
....do
...do
...do.....
..-do
25 and 20.,.
20
Free
.-..do
F i e e & various.
Free
...do
....do
....do
....do
....do
....do
...do
...do
Free
Charges
.-- do
20
20 and 35
Free
...do
Free
...do
...do
--.do
Free and 2 0 . . . .
...do
...do
...do
...do
Free, 25, &c
262 50
471 55
893 08
191 00
39 40
1, 894 45
2, 895 39
1, 287 15
619 35
115 70
72 50
150 80
18 20
48 00
15 75
52 05
41 50
87 50
30 90
, 30 95
223 35
27 70
57 80
3, 773 95
1,389 20
3, 325 65
3, 325 65
50 55
1, 462 00
16, 627 60
407 00
20, 907 20
31, 796 00
22, 525 00
203 10
210 86
Free and 20.
Free
,
...do
Free and 20.
Free
. . do
...do
29, 007 85
4. 586 07
1, 576 60
120 00
916 40
520 10
842 62
T.L 383.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I.
209,324.
T. I. 594.
471 55 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
893 08
Do.
191 00
Do.
39 40
Do.
T. I. 401, 448.
T. L 448."
i, 287 15 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
619 35
Do.
107 65 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and various.
72 50 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
150 80
Do.
18 20
Do.
48 00 1
Do.
15 75
Do.
52 05
Do.
41 50
Do.
Do.
87 50 1
30 90
Do.
30 95
Do.
223 35
Do.
27 70
Do.
T. L 448.
T. I. 448 and 324.
1,389 20 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
3,325 65
Do.
3, 325 65
Do.
50 55
Do.
1,462 00
Do.
16, 627 60
Do.
Section 7 actMarch3,1883, andT. 1.448.
(*)
Do.
(*)
Do.
(
*)
Do.
C)
Do.
(*)
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I.
407-210,, &c.
Section 7 act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
4, 586 07 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
1,576 60
Do.
Act March 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
9i6 46
Do.
520.10
Do.
842 62
Do.
No bill of particulars served.
Pi'
fei
O
Pi
^•.
o
fejfej
Ul
otdPi
td
>
Pi
Kj
O
fej
Hi
td
Hi
pi
fei
n
Pi
K;
325 40
* Charges claimed, but not speciflc as to amount.
CD
00
Schedule showing ihe number of suits against the collector of the port of New York, begun between October 1, 1885, and Octoher 1,*1886, cfc.—Continued.
N o . of
• suit.
D e s c r i p t i o n of m e r c h a n d i s e .
N a m e of plaintiff.
R a t e of d u t y
claimed.
Amount
claimed.
Claimed
on cartoons.
packing.
&c.
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
CO
Pi
fej
^
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
1082il
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
H. H e r r m a n e t al
do .
H . C. S y l v e s t e r e t a l . .
R. A c o s t a
H . C. d e R i v e r a
A. Lucdor
do
M. N e u b e r g e r e t a l —
A. T. Suilivau.
R. S t r u t h e r s
E. A . P ) i c e c t al
J o h n Hills et al
do
:..-,
H. Fleming
M. G a b r i e l e t a l
H . A . Bat.jer c t a l
d o .'.
P. Schulze Berce et al .
A. Klipstein
G.F. A.Hiurichs . - . . .
J . M. T o u n g e t a l
R.S. Roberts e t a l
M . G u g g e n h e i m e t a l ..
Seal p l u s h e s , m a n u f a c t u r e s w o r s t e d , c o t t o n .
do
Charges
Sugar
i
do
:
do
.
do
Charges —
Dress goods,linings, &c
^
Charges
do
do
-..- do
do . . - .
do
do
.-.--do
C r u d e a n i l i n e oil
do-.
Charges
do
do
Charges a n d cotton embroideries
10833
B.
Printing paper.
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840*
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
Lawrence Stationery
Company.
H . C. S j i v e s t e r e t a l
E.Greeff'etal
oJ- M a m r a e l s d o r f et. a l
E.Levy
H . F l e i t m a n n e t al
W . H . Graef e t a l
F. Hoeninahaus et al
W . E . I s e l i n e t al
M. Luckerac.\ e r e t a l
Oito Meyer
L. M e g r o z e t a l
B . F . W e n d t e t al
L. W i n d m u l l e r e t a l
H. F l e i t m a n n e t al
10848 W . H . J a c k s o n
et al
Various.
. . . d o .-Free
...do ...
...do ...
...do . . .
...do . . .
do .
Various
Free
....do
...do
.--.do . . . . . . .
....do
...do
....do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
--.do
Free and 35.
$6, 240 63
962 35
4, 651 ] 5
30, 856 68
78, 451 87
20, 024 10
31,793 02
61 80
746 28
1,935 15
3,172 35
684 25
1, 600 55
307 00
244 80
125 30
105 70
8! 00
390 20
1, 309 85
1,445 25
1,422 30
3,134 50
$4,651 15
1, 935 15
3,172 35
684 25
1,600 55
307 00
244 80
125 30
105 70
81 00
390 20
1, 309 85
1, 445 25
1,422 30
(*) .
1,076 80
Charges
H a t materials
H a t materials a n d metal lace .
Hat materials
H a t materials and charges . . .
do
do .
-do .
.do .
.do .
-do .
.do .
-do .
Free
20.-:
20 a n d 2 5 . . .
20
20 a n d f r e e .
....do
...do ....'..
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
...do
P a v i n g tiles
20.
665 20
200 90,
852 63
38 40
36,188 90
13, 0 4 1 0 0
109 50
39,145 00
8, 989 60
3, 033 40
1,593 50
1, 084 00
392 40200 OQ,
952 80
665 20
(*)
r)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*) '
(*)
(*)
;
Various
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Treaty stipulation.
Do.
Do
Do.
Sectiou 7 act March 3, 1883.
VariouiS.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Refunded.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
- Do.
T. I. 559. .
Do.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1880, and T. I.
324.
T. I. 392-388-386.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
T. 1.448.T . L 448-427.
Do.
T. I., and section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Penalty for exaction of $10 reappraisement fee.
T. L, 130.
O
Pi
Hi
o
fej
w
td
m
td
o
fej
f>
Pi
Kl
•O
fej
•W
td
H
td.
Ul'
d
td
K}
10849
10850
•10851
10852
10853
16854
10855
10856
108.57
108.58
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10806
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10870
10^^77
10878
10879
10880
10881
' 10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
Charges
do
do
:
do
do
.
......
do
do
..
Charges and silk a n d cotton -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Charo'es
...
...............
do
I
do
--do . :
do
Sugar '
. .
do
do
do
Charges
'.
...
do
do
do
do
Gillingtwine
:.........
...--.
Charges
do
.
do
J . N . B a l c h e t al
do
do
J. J. Kittel et al.;
S. E B l o c h e t al
do
. '.
A . D o u g a n e t al
do
do
H . D r e y f u s e t al
W . J . E h r i c k e t al
do
:
E, N e u s s e t al
..do
do
E. Robei t P e t e r s
C. S p i e l m a n n e t al
do
.. ..do
do
W . D i c k e t al
Sugar
do
:..
Brooklvn Sugar Refining .
Company.
B H . H o w e l l e t al
do
H u g h Kelly
do
F 0 Matthieson et al
do
'
. . . .
J M o l l e r e t al
.do
'...
E. Dieckerhoff et al
C h a r g e s a n d b u t t o n s , b r a i d s , &o
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10806
J. Palme
J . G. B a i n b r i d g e
J C. Colwell
H . F l e i t m a n n e t al
J. Einstein
S. J a c o b s o n
C Bruns ir
J . Daniell et al
J . A . Tudge
P L MilU e t al
G. J . M u l l e r
Georae Scbmolze
..
J Straus.s et al
Tv. L a m e t a l
C. B e c k n a g e l e t a l
do - . . '
H. Zimmern .
Thomas Wilson.T. W . Bartrq,m e t al
do
do
do .
W. Irvin"-Clark
J. J. K i t t e l et al -.
C. Spielraann e t a l
do .
P. W o l t e t al
;
J . S. W h i t e
Charges
do . . . . do
do
do
...
do
'
Free
do
. . . do
....do
. . do
. . . do
....do
F r e e a n d 50
Free....do
....do
....do
. . . do
. . do
. . . . do
....do
. . . do
. . . do
....do
. . . do
....do
. . . do
25
Free
. do
....do
. . . do . - . :
. . . do
....do
. . . . do
....do
...do
....do
. . . do
....do
....do
....do
...
124
143
189
680
2, 344
1.35
510
1,016
135
275
64
60
85
8 792
2, 940
7,446
5,373
400
1, 429
4, 479
4, 641
319
312
3, 957
7, 544
104
2, 587
422
1, 261
628
157
1. 993
430
3, 738
3,117
17, 749
39, 379
80
75
90
02
63
50
41
05
70
60
10
00
69
20
69
75
87
50
75
88
50
80
05
03
10
60
90
20
45
75
65
35
20
90
55.
97
99
....do
....do
....do
....do
IFree a n d 25-35.
20,616
315
97,331
14,168
38, 572
78
16
97
19
11
53
2,123
• 10
350
• 69
69
90
90
50
00
75
70
Free
-...do
....do
....do
.--.do
do
...
:-..
'' Charges claimed, but not specified as to araount.
124
143
ISa
680
2, 344
135
510
460
135
275
64
60
85
80 Seetion 7 act March 3, 1883.
75
Do.
90
Do.
02
Doo
03
Do.
Do.
50
Do.
41
95
70 1
Do.
60 1
Do.
.
10
Do.
00
Do.
60
Do.
Treaty stipulation.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section
7 act March 4, 1883.
466 56
1,429 75
Do.
Do.
4, 479 88
Do.
4, 641 50
Do.
319 80
T. I, 347.
3, 957 63 Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
7,544 10
Do.
104 60
2, 587 90
Do.
Do.
422 20
1, 261 45
Do.
Do.
628 75
157 65
Do.
1,993 35
Do.
Do.
430 20
3, 738 90
Do.
Do.
3,117 55
Treaty stipulation.
Do.
' •
{*)
53
2,123
10
350
69
69
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I.
407-324, &c.
Do.
90
Do.
90 1
Do.
50
Do.
00
Do.
75
Do. .
70 1
td
^
O
fej
H.
o
fej
t-3
td
Ul
td
o
Pi
td
Hi
^>
Pi
Kj
O
fej
Hi
w
td
•-i
Pi
td
>
Ul
.fej
Kj
Schedule shoiving the number of suits against the collecior of theport of New York, begun hetween October 1, 1885, and Octoher 1, 1886,^c.—Continued.
No. of
suit.
Description of merchandise.
Name of plaintiff.
Rate of duty
claimed.
10897
C. F.Rumpff.
Charges .
Free
10898
10899
10900
E. Rejall et. al
R. F. Downing et al .
do
-do .
-do .
Charges, albums, &o .
F. J . C . F e r r i s
P. AViederer
W. H. Graef et al
M. Gerstendorfer et a l . .
E. Mommer et al
F . B . Thurber e t a l
William Demult
T.P.Conway
W.H.Chipman
J. M. Young
C. F. A. Hinrichs. - G.W.Faber
J. F. Decker
Isaac Cooper et al
I. Einstein et al
M.Eisner
Great Westem Dis. Co .
I. Fellheimer
A. Forbes
J . Freedman
A. Forster et al
A. Fiedler et al
E.Ludwig
J . Meyer et al
A. Flesh let al
M.Steiglitz
W. E. Iselin et al
W.Figgis
W . B . Fox etal
M. Guffgenheim et a l . . .
H.G. McFadden
AV. Pickhardt et al
do
C. Spielmann et al
John Claflin et al
W. E. Iselin e t a l . . . . . . .
Charges and various
Charges
do
do
Charges, buttons, and cotton..
Charges
do
.do .
.do .
-do.do.
.do-do.
-do .
.do .
.do .
.do.
..do.
.do .
.do .
.do .
-do .
.do .
.do ,
.do .
Charges and hat materials
do
Charges
..-.do
.-..do
Free and 15-2025.
Free and various
Free
...do
...do
Free and various
Free
...do
....do
....do
. . . do
....do
....do
....do
. . . do
....do . . . . . . . . .
...do
...do
...do.....
....do
....do . . :
....do
...do
....do
....do
....do
Free and 20 . . .
....do.........
Free
... d o . .
Free and 35 . . .
Free
25
25....
25.
35,30
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
FRASER
Digitized for
Charges and cotton embroideries
Charges
Oleate of soda
do
do
Cotton damasks, linen handkerchiefs, <fec.
Amount
claimed.
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
$618 50
$18 50
997 10
434 96
446 65
997 10
434 96
195 70
1,004 71
752 00
1,752 30
1, 863 00
5, 503 66
531 85
253 42
736 30
25 90
952 90
669 60
2, 962 50
525 00
241 88
509 00
44 00
123 00
24 10
45 90
51 20
8 70
71 00
918 30
93 25
998 05
158 40
350 00
137 42
50 60
4, 563 05
15 60
1, 537 50
61 55
3, 501 25
337 55
200 00
752 00
1, 7§2 30
1, 863 00
5, 449 01
531 85
253 42
736 30
25 90
952 90
669 60
2, 962 50
*241
)
•(
88
509 00
44 90
133 00
24 10
45 90
51 20
8 70
71 00
918 30
93 25
998 05
C)
(
*)
137 42
50 60
(*16
) 60
1, 537 50
3, 501 25
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
fer
Section 7 act of March 3, 1883, and T.
L 407-r324, &c.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I.
388-385-384.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Act March 3,1883, and various.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
,
Do.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and rarioas.
T. I. 92.
Do.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
T. L 324-387.
Penalty for exacting reappraisement
fee.
fej
Id
o
fej
Hi
o
fej
H.
w
td
Ul
fet
o
fej
fel
Hi.
Pi
o
^.
H
W
td.
H^
fet
fej
t>
m
nfej-
^
ta
t^3
O
3
^
3
Cotton damasks, linen handkerchiefs, &c. . . ^ - . . .
i0937 E. Hardt et al
do
:
10938 C. Spielmann et al
Hat materials
10939 L. Weddigen ot a.l
Manui'actures of paper
10940 E Anthony et al
Silk and cotton goods, s. c. v
10941 John Bester et al
Charges and rubber fabrics
10942 M. J. Drucker
10943 R. G. Glendinning et a l . . Charges and linens
Opera glasses (claim philosophical instruments)10944 L. Hammond et al
10945 A. Kohn et al
Charges and hat materials, &c
10946 J. Konigsberger et al -. - - Silk and cotton goods, s. c. v
Opera glasses, &c
10947 L. W. Levy et al
do
do . . 1
10948 :
Fabrics
in part india-rubber
F.
Livingston
10949
, Albums
10950 A. Liebenroth et al
-. i
D.
W.
McLeod
et
al
10953
Duck, canvas, padding, &c
._.
10952 F. W. Muser et al
Charges, cotton net, &c
10951 J. Meyer et al
Seal plushes
10^)55 O. Oelschlager et al
Telescopes, barometers, &c
10954 R. M. Oberteuffer et a l . . . Charges and hat materials
10956 L. Rheims
Hat materials
10957 S. W. Richardson
Linen handkerchiefs.. -10958 J . W. Rosenstein et al — Preserved fish
Opera glasses, &c
10959 L. Sussfeld et al
do
10960
do
Charges and silk, raetal braid
10961 S. B. Solomon et al
10962 B. J . Salomon et al
Webbings, shoe-vamps, and charges
10963 Scoville . Manufacturing Paper
18964
10965
-10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
- 10982
Com any,
G. F. Vietor et al
do...~
A. Walter et al
H. Fleitmann et al
W. Demuth
G.Ballinetal
N. Bloom
B. Blumenthal et al
A. Boote
W. Clark et al
J. F. McCoy et al
A. Roseman
F. Robe.
A. Dougan
L. Lutz et al
R. S. Roberts et al
C. S. Bates et al
do
J. Bronheimer et al
Seal plushes and charges
do
Opera glasses
Hat materials and charges
Charges
Cottons and jute, cotton and metal...
M etal manufactures, books, &c - . . . . Brass buttons
,
Decorated earthenware
Linen thread
Currycombs, cottons, charges, &c
DecoVated earthenware (claim tiles) .
Paintings on porcelain
Linen thread
Antipyrene
-Hat materials
do
:
do
Charges and worsteds
35,30..
35,30
20
20
50
,
Free and 30 ..
...do
35
Free, 20, &c . .
50
35 and 25
35
30
15 or 20 or 2530
50.
Free and 2 0 . . . .
20
:..-.
30
1 c. per lb
35
35
Free & various.
Various &free.
20
*3,608 51
736 30
2, 328 10
3, 930 50
558 72
482 60
1, 227 40
644 28
73, 906 35
402 95
1,304 78
172 45
19 95
290 65
264 67
3, 097 04
817 00
262 20
12, 481 43
9, 634 09
92 75
589 00
4,050 00
163 65
608 60
532 35
1, 336 90
50 and free
4,29155
60
943 20
35 or 25
175 50
20
1,222 50
Free
74 03
30 and 35
1,398 66
35 and 15
146 78
25
159 50
20
1,502 90
25
388 65
Various & free.
72 75
20
3120
30
75 60
25
3,324 20
20....
1,285 20
20..
16,447 00
20..
8,16100
20
3,506 60
Free and 18 c.
and 35 p. c , or
24 c. and 35 p.c.
* Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount.
Do.
Do.
T. I. 448.
T. I. 386.
T. L 383.
14 80 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.453.
397 03 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. I. 337.
T.L 475.
4, 067 90 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
T. 1.383.
T. L 475-486.
Do.
T. L 453.
T. I. 388-385-384.
T. L 338.
Section 7, act Mar. 3,1883, and T. I. 324.
T.L 383.
T. 1.475.
4, 642 53 Section 7actMar. 3,1883, and T.I.448.
T. I. 448.
T. L 337.
T. I: 278.
T. I. 478.
Do.
Section 7actMar. 3,1883, and T. I.
Various and section act Mar. 3,1883;
T. I. 386 or 388.
T. I. 383 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
T. L 383.
T. I. 475-486.
T. L 448.
74 03 Section 7, act March 3,1883.
T. I. 324-334.
T. L 210-388.
T. L 407-210.
T. L 130.
T. L 347.
Various, and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
T. L 130.
T. 1.470.
T. L 347.
T. 1.92-93 or 83.
T. L 448.
Do.
Do.
35 45 T. 1.363 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
fej
^Cd
fej
O
fej
H
O
fej
H
w
td
Ul
td
o
fel
fej
Hi
\>
Pi
K!
o
fej
H3
m
td
H
Ul
d
fej
Kj
CO
Schedule showing the number of suits against the collector of the port of New'York, begun between October 1, 1885, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued.
CO
00
No. of
suit.
Name of plaintiff.
Description of merchandise.
Bate of duty
oladmed.
Amount
claimed.
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
10983
W. H. Forbes et a l .
Fire-crackers -
Damage .
10984
10985
10986
10987
do
H. C. Aspinwall
J. S. Conover et al .
A. Klipstein
-do .
Decorated earthenware (tiles ?)
......do
Charges and various,
do....
20
20
Free and various
George E. MUler
M. Stern
W. F . Sykes
B. Lawrence Stationery
Company.
W . B . Bird e t a l
L. Lehmann
F. Paturel
H. H. Schwietering et al ,
Decorated earthenware (tiles ?).
Charges
:
Carmine of Persian berries
..
Paper
20....
Free.
10....
15....
2,043 70
58 75
201 60
383 10
$58 75
Bichromate of soda.
Charges
1
Rubber balloons
Matelassi cloths
25
Free
25
18 cents and 35
per cent.
-do
60 or 7 cents and
40 per cent.
Free and 30-20.
...do
Free and 40
20
25
.--.
20 and free
20.....
20 and 25
20
25
30
:....
35
20 and free
20 and 25
30
35
Free and 20
30
25
Free
2,499 49
149 75
761 90
1, 516 51
149 75
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
.do.,
-do.
10998 J. M. Constable et al
10999
do
--11000 W. Haasker Company . -.
11001 John Claflin et al
11002 B.Veit
:.
11003 A. Friedman
11004 E. Greetf et al . - - -,
11005 J. Mamraelsdorf et al
11006
do
11007 L. Metzger et al
11008 S. C. Pullman et al
11009 B. Silberberg et al
11010 L. Toplitz et al
11011
11012 L. K. AVilmeffding
11013 M. C. Warren
11014 E. S. Jaffray et al
11015 A. D. Napier et al
11016 J. S. White
11017 American Lens ManufactFRASER
Digitized for
uring Company.
do.
Wool or worsted and silk and cotton.
Charges and linens, hat materials, &c .
Charges and sardines
Hat materials
Jewelry
.'
Hat trimmings and charges
Hat materials
Hat materials and metal lace
do..-.
Manufactures metal, silk, and cotton.
Embroideries (linen handkerchiefs)..
Cotton collars, trimmings, &CHat materials and charges
do
--Canvas, &c. claimed burlaps
Linen handkerchiefs
Charges and hat materials
Linen handkerchiefs
Linen thread
Unpolished cylinder glass apd chalk -
Section 2929 R. S., art. 45&-471 Treas.
-Reg.'84, S. 3774.
$328 00
650
1,306
333
*3,453
00
70
10
57
2, 919 35
2, 636 48
*7,154 00
*7, 468 75
*1,101 80
3, 323 55
1, 535 00
198 30
133 20
1, 009 00
' 506 73
136 75
659 95
46 85
195 91
67 25
646 10
622 05
10, 503 32
188 95
958.25
527 03
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
T. L 130!
Do.
Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883, and T. I.
694-92-84-94, &c.
T. 1.130.
Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883.
T. L 84.
T. L 387.
T. L 92.
Section 7 act Mar. 3, 1883.
T. 1.464.
T. L 383, S. S. 6134, T. 1.363.
fej
fej
fej
otd
6
fej
w
td
CQ
td
o
w
td
H
Do.
T. L 383, S. S. 6134, T. L 365.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and various.
Do.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. L 281.
T. L 448.
T. I. 459.
T. L 459 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1883.
T. I. 459.
T. L 459 and 427.
T. L 459.
T. I. 427.
T. I. 337
T. I. 324.
T. I. 448 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1883.
T. I . 448 or 427;
T. L 338.
T. 1.337.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
T. L 337.
T. L 347.
T.L 708^611 (?}.
O
fej
•H
W
td
fe)
td
CO
Kj
11018
M. Arnold et al
Charges and cotton-back worsteds.
11019 C. Bergenstein
11020 J. Freund e t a l
11021 Otto Gerdan
11022 S. Haas
11023 M. Jonasson et a l . .
11024 Copeland Kell
11025 P . Kleebnrg
11026 George Legg 11027 J. E. McCrea et al .
11028 Hugo Meyer
11029 O. Oelschlager
11030 H. Passavant
11031 Robert Shaw
11032 C. J. Tagliabue . . . 11033 B.Veit
11034 A. Veith et al
11035 R. F. Downing et al
11036 W. H. Graef et al
11037
do
11038 E. Mommer et al
11039 H. Schorestene et al
11040 . . . . . . d o
11041 J . Reshower et al
11042 B. Hecht e t a l
11043 J . McCreery et al
11044 C. F. Zeutgiaf
11045 H. Herrman et al
11046
do
11047
do
11048 S. Wormser
11049 A. Stein et al
11050 E. L Horsman
,.....-:.
11051 E. Dieckerhoff et al.
11052 E. Jaautet
11053 J . Loewenthal et al
11054 J. L. Riker et al
11065 Zucker & L. Chem. Co
Cotton collars and embroideries
Cotton doiliei; and damasks
Ivory for piano keys
Cotton damasks
Seal plushes
do
Charges and hat materials
Feather trimmings
Cotton-lace curtains
.Manufactures silk and cotton, s. c. v .
Opera glasses, &c
Hat materials and buttons
Manufactures silk and cotton, s. c. v .
Spy-glasses, &c . - Hat trimmings, metal lace, &c
...
,
do --.
,
Hat trimmings
'...
do
do
do
Hat trimmings and charges
.----.do
^
Hat trimmings
Jewelry
.'
Hat materials
Colors (lakes)
Cotton velvets
Seal plushes
Worsted coatings
.,
Charges
Tanned skins
LaWn-tennis balls
Linen tapes and braids Iron-wire hair-pins
Metal buttons
Chemicals and charges
Charges and bi-carbonate of soda
11056 H. F. Barnett, executor . . 11057 E. Goldberg
11058 W. Pickhardt et al
11059 A. Steinhardt et al
11060 E. Neuss ©t al
11061 J . G. Smith et al
11062 E. Dieckerhoff et al
11063 . . . - - d o
11064 W. P. WiUett et al
Rosalic acid .
Hat materials and various
Bromofluorescic acid and charges . -.
Buttons and pins
Cotton damasks and pins
Cotton damasks and manufactures of j u t e .
Hair-pins
.
Sugar
--. .r
Free and 24 c.
and 35 p. o.
35.
35
,
25
35
60
60
Free and 20
Various
35
50
35
20 and 25
60
35
20,25
20,25
20
20
20
20
20 and free
-..do
20
25
20
10
35
50
24 c.and 35p.c.
Free
10
25..
35
30
25
Free and 25
Free and 20
324 21
61 85
397 95
610 98
442 50
5, 598 95
194 50
579 2711,159 60
41 80
1, 622 65
- 768 55
76, 871 10
2, 060 80
732 20
2, 846 65
6,325 58
436 45
3, 459 95
.103 50
2, 030 75
*31 00
*91 40
30 75
132 10
3, 449 91
424 40
309 80
3, 080 .92
917 96
9,109 87
191 80
258 65
53 60
31 05
609 20
3,201 37
168 66
2, 881 20
Free
1, 648 79
20 and various"^
Free
*1,138 90
25-35-30
267 55
35 and 30
205 10
30 and 35
1,052 85
30..
348 15
30.
44 85
1 | and 2 and 25
1,703 11
-r
-• per cent.
* Charges claimed but not specified as to amount.
Section 7 act M a r . 3,1883, and T. L 363.
T.L 324.
Do.
T. L 469.
T. L 324.
T. L 383.
Do.
Section 7 actMar. 3,1883, arid T.L 448. Various ; claim under several sections.
T. L 324.
T. I. 383.
T. I. 475.
T. I. 448-407.
T. L 383.
T. L 475.
T. L 448-427.
Do.
T. L 448.
Do.
Do.
Do.
T. L 448 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
„ Do.
T. L 448.
T. L 459.
T. 1.448.
T. L 84.
T. 1.324.
T. 1.383.
T I. 363.
9,109 87 Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
T. L 462.
T.L 454.
T;L 324.
T.L .809.
T. 1.407.
T. 1.92 and section 7, act Mar. 3,1888.
T. 1.479-215 and section 7, act Mar. 3,
1883.
T. L'594.
T. L 448 and various.
T. 1.694 and section 7, act Mar. 3, 1883.
T. L 407-210-209.
T. L 324-209.
T.L 338-324.
T.L 209.
Do.
Against use of polariscope.
fej
td
Hd
O
Pi
Hi
o
fel
g
c©
td
o
Pi
td
Hi
>
•
Pi
><.
o
fej
Hi
w
td:.
Hi
pi
td
>
m
d
CO
Schedule showing the number of suits against the collecior of the pori of New York, begun between Octoher 1, 1885, ccnd October i, 1886, ^c.—Continned,
No. of
suit.
Name of plaintiff.
Rate of duty
claimed.
Description of merchandise.
Amount
claimed.
Claimed
on cartoons,
packing,
&c.
o
o
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
fe)
td
11065 W . E . L^ftlin fit al
11066
do..-.
11067 H. Dreyfus et al
, ,.
Silks, &c
do
s>
Perfumery, &c., and charges
11068
B. Levy et al
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
J. Loeb et al
Cotton embroideries
do
do.A. Flesh et al
Metal buttons and jewelry
E. Stahel
1
do
H. H. Schwietering et a l . . Charges and mohair braids
$2 and 50 per
cent, and free.
20 or free
Lemon peel, &c., and charges
^
^
11074 Henry Lewis et al
Charges
11075 E. Oelbermann et al
:. Hat materials
11076 John Turgis
Beads
11077 C. Benziger et al
Plaster casts and beads
11078 Brooklyn Sugar Refining Sugar
•
Company.
11079 W. Dick et al
do
11080 B ; H. Howell et al
do
11081 F. 0. Matthiessen et al.. -. . . . . . . d o
11082 L. Hartwig et al
Lentils
11083 R. Acosta
Sugar
11084 C. H. Dunham et al
Buttons, pins, <fec
. ,
11085 E. Dieckerhoff et al
Hat materials and various
11086 H. Eggers et al
Lentils
11087 H. Juuge et al
Articles composed of rubber
11088 A. Liebenroth et al .. Albums
11089 P. L. Mills et al
Cotton nets and curtains..
11090 A. S. Robbins et al
Linen handkerchiefs, &c
11091 J . B . R y e r e t a l
| Manufactures of jute, &c
11092 ! W. Robertson
j Manufactures of cotton and metal and various
11093 L. Toplitz
Bonnets for men
11094 E. T. Tefft et al
Metal buttons
11095 G.F. Vietor e t a l .
-. Seal plushes
11096 L. J. Simons
Beans
11097 B. Levy et al
Beans and preserved fruits
11098 J. F. Brigg et al
Seal plusher
11099 C. Spielmann et al
Charges
'. .^
.'.
11100 W. W. Thoraas et al
Soluble oil (castor-oil)
11102 G.W.Faber
Charges
11103 1S. Rothfeld et al
..-..|
do
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$302 25
1,426 10
685 75
4, 525 70
35
270 16
""35 . .
104 04
25
620 25
459 00
25
882 25
Free, and 40 c.
and 35 p. c.
1,490 60
Free
7, 721 10
20
773 94
30,35,45
697 90
30 and various.
166,407 14
Free .
. do
...do
....do..
...do
Free.
25,30,35
20 and various .
Free
20
15, 20,25..."
35
30
30
;..
35,25
30
25
50 Free
Free and 2 0 . . . .
50
Free
25 and 20
Free
'..* - - . . d o . . .
105, 851 11
1,744 92
192, 377 59
176 10
8, 899 40
352 50
3,471 67
102 30
166 74
847 20
1, 438 45
1,135 70
556 10
752 37
6, 896 06
47 20
33 20
2,484 50
1, 305 15
514 75
' 2,334 40
. 351 71
559 25
621 29
Against reappraisement. y
Do.
T. L100 and section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
o
T. I. 301-704 and section 7, act Mar. 3,
1883.
T. I. 324.
Do.
T. 1.407-210-459.
T. 1.407-210.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.366.
O
fej
Pi
»^
w
td
Ul
$1,490 50
2,334 40
559 26
521 29
Do.
T. 1.448.
T.I. 233-399-143-216.
T. 1.470 and various.
Treaty stipulation.
Do.
Do.
Do.
T. X. 730.
Treaty stipulation.
T. I. 407-210-453-209-337.
T. 1.448 and various.
T. 1.730.
Section 2613 or 2499 R. S.
T. 1.338-385-384.
T. I. 324.
T. 1.337.
T. 1.338.
T. 1.320-321-324-401, and other.
T. 1.400.
T 1.407-210
T. 1.383.'
T. 1.760.
T 1.760 and 636-704-301.
T. I. 383.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
T. 1.82, section 2513 R. S.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
Do.
td
o
Pi
td
H^
Pi
O
•^
H^
w
td
fe)
td
;>
Ul
d
PO
H<J
G.W.Faber
W. Pickhardt et al
do -.:
H. Herrman et al
».do
J. McCann
H. C. de Rivera
,
F. F . Sargent, assignee.
do
Oleate of soda
,
do
Silks, plushes, &c .
Charges
--.do .
25
25
50
Free..
407 00
830 85
682 40
1, 802 35
1, 852 56
Sugar-..
.
do .
Free..
...do.
995 48
995 48
11112
11113
11114
11115
C. W. Lord
E. Pouquet et a l . .
Otto Baerlin
John Claflin et a l .
Seeds-.
Woolens
Rosolic acid
Charges and silks, &c
.do.
3, 743 70
731 20
945 20
5, 785 70
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
W. J . Matheson
C. L. Tiffany
H. Fleitmann et al
H. Albert e t a l
E. Anthony et al
J. Clendinning
S. Cohen et al
F. J. C. Ferris et al
P. Jeselsohn
A. E:ohn G. A. Morrison
W. E. Remy et al
S. W. Richardson
G. Sidenberg et al., -..
M. Tompkins
C. Vom Baur
C. A. Auffmordt et a l .
E. S. Jaffray et al
C. A. Auffmordt et al.
Rosolic acid
Statuary
Hat materials, and silk and cotton
Charges
.-.
Paper
Linens (handkerchiefs)
Cotton lace and damask
Pins and fabrics in part rubber
Albums
Hat materials and metal lace
Linen handkerchiefs and cotton laces, &c.
do
Linen handkerchiefs
Charges
Linen handkerchiefs
Hat materials and various
Hat materials and charges
Hat materials and linens
Exaction of reappraisement fee
11135
11135
11137
11138
11139
11140
11101
11141
E. Oelbermann et al
,
H. Fleitmann et al
do
O. K. Krause et al
W . B . Bird e t a l
W. H. Walmsley
H. E. Frankenburg et a l .
W. E. Iselin et al
do
do
do
Charges
Bichrom. soda
Philosophical instruments
Charges
Exaction of reappraisement fee.
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
H. Herman et al
,
do
do
H. B. Shaen et al
A. Dougom et al
F. Hoeninghaus et al.
Charges
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
• Illll
Charges and hat materials '..•
Linen thread
do
Exaction of reappraisement fee..
Free
Free and various. '
Free^
,
30
20,50...
Free
,
15,20,25
30
35
-..
30...
15,20,25
20,25
,
30,35
30,35
30
Free
30...
20 and various.
20 and free
20 and 30
Free..
25
35
...do.
2,781 80
1, 078 05
48,141 27
889 06
2, 816 20
389 70
171 00
273 45
544 30
53,137 54
186 15
366 06
440 00
731 54
1, 018 00
7, 696 66
3, 859 20'
6, 329 70
22,200 00
8, 000 00
4, 600 00
4, 600 00
25,964 65
688 25
672 54
3, 371 25
2,400 00
Free
...do
Free, and 20 -..
25
25
* Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount.
241 85
206 30
4,937 05*
303 25
773 85
1. 800 00
1,852 56
731 64
25, 964 65
241 85
206 30
Do.
T.L 92.
Do.
T. 1.383.
Section 7 act March 3,1883.
No bill of particulars served.
Treaty stipulation.
Treaty stipulation (this suit embraces
^ the same cause as 11110).
T.I. 636-760.
Illegal reappraisement.
T.L 694.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and various.
T. L 594..
T. L 470.
T. 1.448-383.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
T.L.388-386.
T . L 337.
T. I. 324.
T. I. 209,463.
T. I. 388, 386,384; section 2499 R. S.
T. I. 448,427.
T. I. 337, 324.
Do.
T. I. 337.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
T. I. 337.
T. 1.448 and various.
T. 1.448 and section 7, act March 3,1883.
T. 1.448 and T. 1.337.
Penalty for exaction of reappraisement
fee.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
T. L 92.
T. L 475.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
Penalty for exaction of reappraisement
fee.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883.
Do.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, and T. 1.448.
T. L 347.
Do.
Penalty for exaction of reappraisement
fee.
•fei
td
*ii
O
fe)
H
O
fel
w
fel
Ul
td^
o
fel
td
H
>
fe)
Kl
o
fel
@
fel
H^
Pi
td
>
CQ
pi
Kj
Schedule shoioing the number of suits against the collector of theport of New York, begun between Octoher 1, 18S5, and October 1, 1886, ^c.—Continued.
No. of
suit.
Name of plaintiff
Description of merchandise.
Rate of duty,
claimed.
Amount
claimed
Claimed
|0n cartoons,
packing,
&c.
O
Under what section of the tariff
claimed.
•fe)
;td I. E. Dreyfus et al .
Penalty for exaction of reappraisement
fee.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
T. I. 337.
T.L 336.
Treaty stipulation.
Do.
Do.
Exaction of reappraisement fee.
$14,400 00
11149 G. W. Sutton et al
11150 E. Luckemeyer et al
11151 R. M. Oberteuffer et al —
11152 ....do
:..
11163 M. C. W^arren
11164 E. Dieckerhoff et al
11155 F. C. Havemeyer et al. -...
11156 W.Dick e t a l
11157 Brooklyn Sugar Refining
30
40
Free - ....do.
.-..do-
2, 000
000
000
000
200
71
667
282
53,
230, 940
11158
Company.
J. Berbecker et al
-do .
.do .
.do .
.do.
Linen handkerchiefs
Linen braids, tapes, &c Sugar
.:
do
do .-...Gilt nails .
Various-
4, 786 61
11159
J. Bernheimer et a l .
Cotton-back worsteds .
1, 771 63
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
J. Bi.sler et al - - - -.
E. Dieckerhoff e t a l
H. Douglas
Otto Gerdan
R. G. Glendinning et al .
B. Hecht et al
Copeland Kell
- -...
Manufactures of silk.
Hat materials.
LinensIvory for piano ke^ys
Manufactures of linen embroideries .
Willow-ware, purses, &o
Cotton-back worsteds
18 c. or 24 c. and
40 per cent.
50
20
Various (manufactures copper, plated
ware, &c.).
T. L 363.
302
323
830
214
190
55
1,144
T.L 383.
T.L 448.
T.L 337.
T.L 469.
T. L 337.
Various.
T. L 363.
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
Sugar
Linens, handkerchiefs
Manufactures, silk and cotton .
do
--...
Cotton nets, embroideries, &o .
Cotton doilies and damasks
Manufactures, cotton, &c
Paper
11175
11176
11177
A. Lueder
H. Matier et al
H. Meyer
,
J . Meyer
F. W. Muser et al
F.Pinkus
,
S. B. Solomon et al
Seovill M a n u f a c t u r i n g
Company.
G. F. Vietor et al
S.H. Wilson
M. Wimpheimer et al
Hat materials
Linens
Charges and hat materials.
20
30.
Free and 20 . . .
8,612
925
849
11178
11179
M. L. Stieglitz et al.
Henry Lewis et al ..
Hat inaterials
Hat materials and charges
Manufactures silk and cotton and various .
Hat materials
.....do
20
20 and free.
50 and various
1,208
9,529
11148
11180 H. Lewis e t a l . . . .
11181 H. Fleitman et a l .
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
11182 L. Megroz et a l . . .
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
30
Various
18 or 24 c., and
35 per cent.
Free
20.
20
00
.00
00
00
00
40
62
36
86
72
00
10
65
85
10
80
32, 662 50
1,458 45
416 40
298,25
1,336 25
723 85
261 85
901 20
1,1.32
15, 229
503
Treaty stipulation.
T. 1.337.
T. L 383.
Do.
T . I . 324.
Do.
Do.
Schedule M.
T. L 448..
T. L 337.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I .
448.
T.L 448.
Section 7 act March 3, 1883, and T. I.
448.
T. I. 383, and various.
T. L 448.
Do.
^
O
Pi .
H
O
fel
H
wfel
Ul
td
o
fe)
td
>
.fel
O
fel
w
td
Ul
d
11183
.11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
W. B. Iselin et al
W. H. Graef et al
F. C. Havemeyer e t a l .
J. B. Locke et al
J . H. Duke et al
L. Toplitz
G. W. Sutton et al
......do
do
Sugar
Linen handkerchiefs.
Charges
Hat materials
Silk and cotton
A. Origet
H. Herrman et a l . -.
T.O.Hague
H. Hohenstein
W. F. Sykes
A. Strauss et al
George C. Miller
B.Veit.-:
W.H.Fletcher
G.Ballinetal
W. H. Jackson et al.
F. Rosaler
A. Dingelstedt et al.
H. Herrman et al —
O. K. Krause et a l —
W. Openhym et a l . .
J . P a r k et al
P. Sgobel et al
Woolens
Worsted coatings, cotton-velvets, &c., various .
J u t e matting
Paper lamp- shades
Carmine of Persian berries
Charges and hairpins
Decorated earthenware (tiles ?)
:
Jewelry
20.-..
20 ...
Free.
30-...
Free.
20....
12, 713 20
\19, 251 70
23, 386 36
1, 0.53 85
3,300 00
946 80
1, 306 70
4,065 14
9,446 61
117 82
217 25
274 65
254 92
740 35
1, 687 04
Various
30...
15
10
Free and 30.
20
25
Cotton damasks
Decorated earthenware (tiles ?).
Crude aniline oil
Necklaces
35
20
Free..
25
50
Free..
...do.
...do.
...do.
Manufactures of silk (mohair)..
Charges
r
!"!!!do!!l'"l!.!]!!!!"^'*'!!!i!l
do
193 50
676 90
116 20
200 00
250 25
18, 762 30
730 90
275 00
789 80
t)o.
Do.
Treaty stipulation.
T. L 337.
$3,300 00 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
T. L 448.
Claim reappraisement to have been
illegal.
Illegal appraisement (?).
Various.
T. L 338.
Schedule M.
T. 1.84.
Section 7 act Mar. 3,1883, andlT, 1.209,.
T. L 130, 129.
T.L 459.
No bill of particulars served.
T. 1.324.
T. L 130,129.
T. I. 559.
T.L459(?).
T. I. 383.
18, 762 30 Section 7 act March 3, 1883.
730 90
Do.
275.00
Do.
789 80
Do.
fel
td
o
fel
Q-
fel
H
GQ
td
o
fej
td
* Charges claimed, but not specified as to amount.
Total number of suits
Number including claim on cartons, &c
Amount claimed in all the suits
Amount claimed on cartons (so far as ascertainable)
*-
,
'-
.*......
-
---
*
1,120
649
$4,314,735 67
1,182,298 15
ofel
w
td
H
fed
Ul
O
09
104
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Trials by jury between Octoher 1, 1885, and Octoher 1, 1886.
Title of suit.
Series No.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.s:
N.S.
N:s.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
O.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
O.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.'S.
N.,S.
O.S.
N.S.
O.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
August Giese vs. William H. Robertson
Franklin Roefe vs. same
Henry R. Bradbury vs. same
Fred. S. Pinkus vs. same
,
John T. Sherman et al. vs. same
Gustav Falk and another vs. same
J . H. Mapleson vs. same
W. R. Woodward and another vs. same
L. Toplitz and other vs. same
R. G. Glendinning et al. vs. same
Donald McLeod and another vs. same
L. Kaufmann et al. vs. same
0. Oelchlaeger vs. same
Louis Lutz and another ve. same
P. Schultze, Berge, and another vs. same
J. Rosenthal and another vs. same
The New Haven Clock Company vs. same
P. A. Frasse and another vs. same
Otto Gerdan vs. same
George S. Atterberg vs. same
Henry Herman et al. vs. same
L. Weddegen et al. vs. same.
J. O. Carleton and another vs. same
E. Luckemeyer and another vs. same
Otto W. Pollitze t al. vs. Schell
^
Jacob Bosch et al. vs. Robertson
Frederick Beck and another vs. same
.".
William Baumgarten and another vs. same
E. P; Gleason Manufacttu^ing (IJompany vs. same.
E. A. Oelricks and another vs. Barney
H. Passavant et al. vs. Merritt
"
6872 G. Collamore and another vs. same
9252
8723
8809
9571
9133
9431
9564
9441
9558
9610
9444
9382
9677
9577
9563
9610
9735
9657
9623
8092
8570
8580
9959
9960
458
8650
8611
7982
9422
7304
5971
7519
7128
9449
,7606
9431
9613
6935
1585
9985
8676
7837
6807
9965
317
10092
1804
9063
10038
2824
10064
Verdict for-
Plaintiffs
:.
Split verdict
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff
,
Defendant
Plaintiffs (first trial)..
Plaintiff
do
Defendant
Plaintiff
Defendant
do-.-Split verdict
Plaintiffs
,
do
do.
,
do
,
do
do
Split verdict
Plaintiffs
do
Defendan t
......do
Plaintiffs
Defendant
Plaintiffs
do . - - - .
do
,
do
do
Plaintiffs by direction
of the court.
Defendant
Edward Hill and another vs. same
J . Kurtz et *al. vs. same
Plaintiffs
,
do
Charles L. Tiffany vs. same
J . Kurtz et al. vs. same
,
do
L. A. Solomon et al. vs. Robertson
do
Defendant
Dwight & Co., late Waterman, vs. Merritt
Defendant, 2d trial
Gustav Falk and another vs. Robertson
W. H. Perego and another vs. same
Split verdict
D. Cameron and another vs. Merritt
Plaintiffs
C. Meletta vs. Schell
Defendant
,
C. von Pustan vs. Robertson
Plaintiff
,
do
,
L. Fleischmann vs. same
Abi Wallach and another vs. same
Split verdict
John F . Brigg et al. vs. MeiTitt
Plaintiffs
William H. Schieffelin et al. vs. Robertson
do
Fewster Wilkinson et al. vs. J. E. Parsons & Co- . . . . . d o
do
George C. Miller vs. Robertson
Defendant
—
J . W. Smith & Co. vs. Robert ScheU & Co
Charles A. Edelhoff et al. vs. Robertson .'
Split verdict
do
Philo L. Mills and another vs. same
Plaintiff
,
Philip Nettre vs. C. A. Arthur
Defendant
.'
Thomas K. Cummings vs. Robertson
Joseph Netherclift et al. vs. same
do
Total number of suits
Total number of days occupied by trials.
j u d g e before
whom tried.
Wheeler.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do..
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Shipman.
Do.
*Do.
Wheeler.
Shipman.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Wheeler.
Do.
Shipman..
Do.
Do.
Do.
iDo.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Coxe.
Do..
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
505&<
* Between January 13 and 18 Judge Wheeler aud Judge Shipman held separate terms at the same
time for the trial of collectors' cases.
APPENDIX G.
T H E SEVENTH SECTION OF THE LAW OF MARCH 3, 1883, AND DUTIES
ON COVERINGS. '
No. 1.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
O F F I C E OP T H E SECRETARY,
Washington^ D. C, October 18, 1886.
Mr. J. C.
MACGREGOR,
Chief of Customs Division :
S I R : Please prepare, and present to me, as speedily as possible, a
clear, concise, and full exhibition of all that has been done under the
Oberteuffer decision, including the questions thereunder that have perplexed the Department; the decisions thereon that have been made^
the questions now indicated, and the difficulties thereof.
Eespectfully,
• DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
No. 2.
J. E. L.]
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C, October 19', 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treas.ury :
S I R : In reply to your request of the 18th instant, for '' a clear, concise, and full e2&hibition of all that has been done under the Oberteuffer
decision, including the questions thereunder that h£ive perplexed the
Department, the decisions thereon that have been made, the questions
now indicated, and the difficulties thereof," I have the honor to state
that on February 1, 1886, the following telegram was sent to the chief
customs officer at 38 ports:
Advance proofs of Supreme Court decision in Oberteuffer case received; court decides t h a t cost of cartons and all inside coverings and packing does not constitute
element of dutiable value under existing law. Instruct appraiser accordingly. ' Instructions by mail shortly.
D. MANNING,
Secretary.
And on the next day (February 2) a circular promulgating said decisioB
was published and copies sent to all ports (S. 7387).
105
106
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
' INSTRUCTIONS TO COLLECTORS.
Authority was therein given to collectors to apply,the rule laid down
in said decision " to all future importations and iinliquidated entries,
and also to all entries where the requirements of Taw as to protest, appeal, institution of suit, &c., have been fully complied with.''
(7387.)
Cartons and other inside coverings.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , February 2, 1886.
Appenderl hereto will be found a copy o f t h e decision o f t h e United States Supreme \
Court in the suit of Oberteuffer et. al. vs. Robertson, which involved t h e question
as to t h e liability to duty of cartons and .other inside coverings of imported merchandise, and the cost of p o k i n g the same in t h e outside packages.
The merchandise which was tbe subject of the suit consisted of gloves and hosiery
p u t u p in cartons or paper hoxes bf one-half dozen and one dozen pairs each. Tbe
importers (plaintiffs) on making entry at the custom-bouse excluded t h e cost of such
cartons and packing charges, while t h e appraiser in returning t h e dutiable value of
the goods added to such entered value t h e cost of t h e cartons and packing, whereupon duty was assessed hy t h e collector on the addition thus made.
It will be seen t h a t the Supreme Court now decides t h a t such action on the part of
the appraiser and collector was erroneous, and t h a t under t h e provisions of section 7
of the act of March 3, 1883, neither the cost of the cartons, and other inside coverings,
nor the charges incident to the packing of goods for shipment are elements of dutiable
value.
The rule thus laid down in this decision will he applied to all future importations
.find unliquidated entries, and also to all entries where t h e requirements of law as t o
protest, appeal, institution of suit, &c., have been fully complied with.
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
To COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS.
I Suprerae Court of the IJnited Statea. No. 1192.—October term, 1885. Eeece M. Oberteuffer et al.
plaintiffs in error, vs. William H. Eobertson, collector of the port of New York. In error to the
circuit court of the Dnited States for the southern district of New York. January 25, 1886.]
Mr. J U S T I C E BLATCHFORD delivered t h e opinion of t h e court.
TMs is an action brought in a State court in New York, b y Reece M. Oherteuffer,
Henry Abegg, and Henry H . Daeniker, composing the mei^cantile firm of Oberteuffer,
Abegg &, Daeniker, against William H. Robertson, collector o f t h e port of New York,
to recover $140.80 as an excess of duties, paid on coverings and putting up charges on
hosiery and gloves, on which ad valorem duties were imposed b y law. I t was removed into t h e circuit court of the United States b y t h e defendant. At the trial t b e
jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, by direction of t h e court, and there was a
judgment for him, for costs, to review which the plaintiff's have brought a writ of error.
In July, 1883, the plaintiffs imported from Bremen 2 cases of wool gloves, Nos. 4836,
4837; 21 cases ofj cotton hosiery, Nos. 4852 to 4872; and one other case of cotton
hosiery, No. 168. Tbere were three invoices covered by one entry.
The invoice ofthe two cases of gloves was dated a t Leipzig and Chemnitz, in Saxony, J u n e 29, 1883, and was of goods purchased by t h e plaintiffs. I t covered 500
dozen of gloves, in 5 items, t h e prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted
to 2,415 marks. There was a deduction of 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 72 marks,
45 pfennigs, leaving 2,342 marks, 55 pfennigs. There was then added, under the item
of " p a c k i n g charges," 25marks ^^for cases," 220 marks " b o x e s , " and 5 marks " p a c k ing," being a total of 250 marks, less 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 7 marks, 50
pfennigs, leaving 242 marks, 50 pfennigs, which added made 2,585 marks, 05 pfennigs.
In t h e entry, the value was stated a t 2,34.2 marks, 55 pfennigs.
The invoice of the 21 cases of hosiery was dated a t Leipzig and Chemnitz, in Saxony,
J u l y 5, 1883, and was of goods purchased hy the plaintiffs. I t covered 2,949 dozen
of hose, in 21 items, the prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted to 13,530
marks, 70 pfennigs. There was a deduction of 3 per cent, discount for cash, or 405
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
107
marks, 95 pfennigs, leaving 13,124 marks, 75 pfennigs. There was then added, under
the item of " packing charges^" 420 marks "for cases," 1,204 marks, 50 pfennigs "boxes,'^
and 42 marks "v packing," being a total of 1,666 marks, 50 pfennigs, less 3 per cent.
disi30unt for cash, or 50 marks, leaving 1,616 marks, 50 pfennigs, which added made
14,741 marks, 25 pfennigs. In the entry the value was stated at 13,124 marks, 75
pfennigs.
The invoice ofthe one case of hosiery was dated at Hohenstein, Ernsthal, in Saxony,^ ^
J u l y 4, 18S3, and was of goods consigned to the plaintiffs for sale. It covered 178'
dozen of hose, in 6 items, the prices of which per dozen were given, and amounted to
1,629 marks, 20 pfennigs. There was a deduction of 4 per cent, discount for cash, or
•65 marks, 20 pfennigs, leaving 1,564 marks. There was then deducted, for "case,"
10.marks; "freight from Hohenstein to Bremen," 15 marks; " a n d to New York," 29
•marks; " consul fees," 10 marks, 75 pfennigs; and "insurance," 10 marks, 25 pfennigs;
'being a total of 75 marks, less 4 per cent, discount for cash, or 3 marks, leaviag 72
'marks, which deducted left 1,492 marks; which was the A-alue stated in the entry.
On the invoice ofthe 2 cases of gloves the report of the appraiser was that 225 mai'ks
i(being the 220 marks for " b o x e s " and the 5 marks for " p a c k i n g " ) , less importer's
•discount, should be added " t o make market value in marketable condition." This
was done, and the duty paid on t h e added amount was $20.80.
On the invoice of the 21 cases of hosiery the report of the appraiser was t h a t 1,246
marks, 50 pfennigs (being the 1,204 marks, 50 pfennigs, for "boxes," and the 42 marks
for " p a c k i n g " ) , less importer's*discount, should be added " t o make market value in
marketable condition." ' This was done, and the d u t y p a i d on the added amount was
$114.80.
On the invoice of the one case of hosiery the report of the appraiser was t h a t 30
pfennigs per dozen should be adde'd " t o make market value in marketable condition."
This was done, and the duty paid on the added amount was |5.20.
The importers filed a protest with the collector in due time, and duly appealed to
tbe Secretary of the Treasury and brought suit in due time. The protest covered
the entry in this case and was as follows:
" We protest against the liquidation as made by you of our entries of merchandise
below referred to, and against the payment of the duties exacted thereon, and exacted
on the charges, of whatever nature, thereon, on the following grounds, and upon each
and every one of them :
** First. That under the act of March 3, 1883, the cost or market value of said
merchandise is alone dutiable, whereas in ascertaining the dutiable value thereof
there has been illegally estimated and included, as a p a r t of such value, cbarges
expressly declared by section 7 of said act to be non-dutiable.
"Second. That under the act of March 3, 1883, only the value of said cotton hose
. or other merchandise is dutiable, whereas the value o f t h e usual and necessary sacks,
'<jrates, boxes, and other coverings have been estimated as part of the value of said
^oods in determining the amount of duties for which they should be liable, contrary
to the provisions of section 7, act March 3,1883.
" T h i r d . By the act ofMarch 3, 1883, all duties heretofore exacted upon charges incurred in the importation of merchandise are repealed, b u t there has been included,
in estimating t h e dutiable value of said goods, actual,'usual, and necessary charges
for p u t t i n g up, preparing, and packing said merchandise, and we hereby separately
and distinctly protest against all duties assessed by reason of such additions to the
actual cost or market value of the actual merchandise imported.
" F o u r t h . That under the act of March 3, 1883, said cotton hose or other merchandise are only dutiable at their first cost or net market value in principal markets of
countries whence exported, whereas the appraiser, in fixing the dutiable value of said
merchandise, has illegally estimated and included as a part of such value the charges
for finishing and putting up said merchandise, or oue or more of said charges.
" Fifth. That the dutiable value of said merchandise is its cost or true market value,
at the date of its exportation, in the principal markets ofthe country whence it was
exported, free of charges, but you have assessed a duty thereon upon a valuation in
excess of such net cost or value.
" Sixth. We further protest against the duty assessed hereon, claiming that, for reasons heretofore set forth, t h e net invoice or entered value is the true legal value upon
which the duties should have been assessed, and t h a t t h e additions made to such
value are made contrary to the statutes of the United States, in t h a t non-dutiable
charges have been reckoned as a part of the dutiable yalue of said goods.
" A n d we give notice t h a t we x)ay all higher duties or rates than is claimed above as
t h e legal duty under compulsion, and to obtain and keep quiet possession of our
goods; and we also give notice t h a t we do not intend by this protest to relinquish or
waive any right we may have to a refund of the difference between the duty exacted
of us and any less duty which may hereafter be adjudged the legal duty upon said
goods, intending this protest to be made against the present duty charged upon said
, goods, claiming t h a t said duty is not the legal duty to which said goods are charge-
108
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
able, holding you and t h e Govemment responsible for all excess of duty exacted by
yoii upon said goods above the legal: duty, ahd protesting" against all illegal exactions
of duty thereon, and hereby give notice t h a t we intend this protest to apply to all
future similar importations by us, and also intend the duplicate protest'here with submitted for transmission by you to the Secretary of the Treasury, under the rules of
your office, to l>e an appeal to him from your decision, and to likewise apply to all
future similar importations by us."
The main question involved in the case is as to whether it was lawful to impose
duties on the items for " boxes" and " j)^cking " in t h e invoices of the two cases and
the twenty-one cases, and on the item added to the invoice of t h e one case, which item^
was one for like boxes and packing. There was no duty charged on the outside packing
calse. The " b o x e s " in question were paper boxes or cartons, which contained the
goods, and were themselves packed in the outside case,,and the item'for " packing "^
was for packing t h e goods in t h e cartons and lining the outside case and packing t h e
cartons in it. The cartons contained some of them a dozen and some a half dozen
pairs of the articles. The outside case had a lining of heavy paper or oil-cloth, to
protect t h e goods from sea-water. Some of the cartons had a partition runningthrough the middle, with half a dozen pairs of the articles on each side of t h e p a r t i t i o n ; some had a dozen pairs in each carton ; and sorpe had half a dozen pairs in
each carton. The prices affixed to the gloves and hosiery bought, in the invoices of
them, represent the prices of t h e goods, without case or cartons or packing. The
plaintiffs paid not,only for the goods, but for the cases, the cartons, and the packing,
paying a price per dozen of thegoods, which covered the cases, the cartons, and t h e
packing, which price was 50 pfennigs higher per dozen of the goods than if there had
been no cartons. In the invoice of t h e one case the prices affixed are the prices for
the goods, including, in fact, the items deducted on the invoice, and also the charge
for cartons, which charge was not deducted on the invoice, although there is
nothing on the invoicr to show t h a t t h a t charge was part of the price. The cartons
are for the convenience of the trade in transporting the goods, and preserving them,
and handling them, and counting t h e m ; and the cartons go with the goods in them,
u n t i l they become empty through the sale of their contents in the United States
to consumers who buy at retail, for use. The cartons have labels on, showingthe article, and the style, and the size, and the quantity.
The contention of the plaintiffs is that, by virtue of. section 7 of the act of Marcb
3, 1883 (22 Stat.,, 523), referred to in the protest, it was unlawful to exact duty on
the value of the cartons and the packing ; that, in respect to the invoice of the one
case, the addition made was lor cartons already included in the entered value; and
t h a t it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant.
Before examining the provisions o f t h e act of 1883, it willserve to make a determination of their meaning more easy if it is distinctly seen what were the enactments
in force on the subject at the time t h a t act was passed.
By section 7 o f t h e act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stats., 493), it was provided as follows:
" T h a t in all cases where there is or shall be imposed any ad valorem rate of duty on
any goods, wares, or merchandise imported into the United States, and,iu all cases
where the duty imposed by law shall be regulated by, or directed to be estimated or
based upon, the value of t h e square yard, or of any specitied quantity or parcel of
such goods, wares, or merchandise, it shall be the duty of the collector within whose
district the same shall be imported or entered to cause the actual maiket value or
wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the
principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported into
the United States, to be appraised, and such appraised value shall be considered the
value upon which duty shall be assessed." The same section then provided for an
.addition, on entry, by the importer, to the invoice value, to make such actual market
value or wholesale price, and for a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the appraised
value, in addition to other lawful duties, if. the appraised value should exceed by 10 .
per cent, or more the value so declared in the entry. It also provided that the duty
should " n o t be assessed ou an amount less than the invoice or entered v a l u e " ; and
then repealed sections 23 ahd 24 ofthe act of J u n e 30, 1864 (13 Stats., 216, 217), ' ' a n d
all acts and parts of acts requiring duties to be assessed upon commissions, brokerage,
costs of transportation, shipment, transshipment, and other like costs and charges
incurred in placing any goods, wares, or raerchandise on shipboard, and all acts or
parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act." Section 24 of the act of
1864, thus repealed, was in these words: " T h a t in determining the valuation of goods
imported into the United States from foreign countries, except as hereinbefore provided, upon which duties imposed by any existing laws are to be assessed, the actual
value of such goods oh shipboard at the last place of shipment to the United States
shall be deemed the dutiable value. And such value shall be ascertained by adding
to t h e value of such goods at the place of growth, production, or manufacture t h e
cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the expenses included,
from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
109
the vessel in which such shipment is made to the-United States; the value of the sack,
box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained; commission at the
usual rate, in no case less than 2-^ per cent.; brokerage, and all export duties^ together
with all costs and charges paid or incurred ior placing said goods on shipboard, and
all other proper charges specitied by law."
The effect of the legislation thus embodied in section 7 of the act of 1865, as applicable to goods subject to ad valorem duty, was to fix as their dutiable value their
actual market value or wholesale price, at the period of their exportation to the
Uiuted States, in the principal markets of the country from which they were imported
into the United States, instead of their actual value on shipboard at their last place
of shipment to the United States. The provision in the act of 1864 for adding, as
part of the dutiable value, to the value of the goods themselves, the value of any sack,
box, or covering containing the goods, was repealed, and under the act of 1865 the
dutiable value was such actual market value or wholesale price abroad of the goods
themselves, without sack, box, or covering, and the value of the sack, box, or coveriug was not to be added and was not dutiable.
So much of section 7 o f t h e act of 1865 as related to additions by the importer on
entry, and to the duty not being assessed on an amount less than the invoice or entered
value, was re-enacted as section 2900 of the Revised Statutes. So much of the same
section as related to the rule for appraisement was re-enacted as section 2906, in these
word's: " When an ad valorem rate of duty is imposed on any imported merchandise,
or when the duty imposed shall be regulated by, or be directed to be estimated or
based upon, the value of the square yard, or of any specified quantity or parcel of
such merchandise, the collector within whose district the same shall be imported
or entered shall cause the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the
period of the exportation to tbe United States, in the principal markets of the country ^
from which the same has been imported, to be appraised, and such appraised value
shall be considered the ^alue upon which duty shall be assessed."
After the act of 1865 followed the act of July 8, 1866, the ninth section of which
(14 Stat., 330) provided as follows: " T h a t in determining the dutiable value of
merchandise hereafter imported there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual
wholesale price or general market value, at the time of exportation, in the principal
markets of the country from whence the same shall have been imported into the
United States, the cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the
expenses included, from the place of production, growth, or manufacture, whether
by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United S t a t e ; the
value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained;
, commission at the usual rates, but in no case less than 2-^ per cent.; brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment. And all charges o f a general character incurred
in the purchase of a general invoice shall be distributed pro rata among all parts of
such invoice; and every part thereof charged with duties based on value shall be
advanced accordng to its proportion ; and all wines or other articles paying specific
duty by grades shall be graded an4 pay duty according to the actual value so, determined': frovided. That all additions made to the entered value of merchandise for
charges shall be regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such
addition shall exceed by 10 per cent, the value so declared in the entry, in addition to
the duties imposed by law, there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of 20 per
cent, on such value."
These provisions of section 9 of the act of 1866 were re-enacted as sections 2097 and
2908 o f t h e Revised Statutes in these words: "Sec 2907. In.determining the dutiable
v^alue of merchandise, there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale
price or general market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of
the country from whence the same has been imported into the United States, the cost
of transportation, shipment and transshipment, with all the expenses included, from
the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the
vessel in which shipment is made to the United States; the value of the sack, box, or
covering of any krud in which such merchandise is contained; commission at the
usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half per centum; and brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing
for transportation or shipment. All charges of a general character incurred in the
purchase of a general invoice shall be distributed pro rata among all parts of such
invoice; and every part thereof charged with duties based on value shall be advanced
according to its proportion, and all wines or other articles paying specific duties by
grades shall be graded and pay duty according to. the actual value- so determined.
Sec. 2908. All additions made to the entered value of merchandise for charges shall be
regarded as part of the actual value of such merchandise, and if such addition shall
exceed by ten per centum the value declared in the entry, in addition to the duties
imposed bylaw, there shall be cbllected a duty of twenty per centum on such value."
Then followed section 14 of the act of June 22d, 1874 (18 Stat., 188), which pro-
110
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
vides as follows: " That wherever any statute requires t h a t to the cost or market
value of any goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States there
shall be added to t h e invoice thereof, or, upon the entry of such goods, wares, aud
merchandise, charges for inland transportation, commissions, port duties, expenses of
shipping, export duties, cost of packages, boxes, or other articles containing sucb
goods, wares, and merchaudise, or any other incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation thereof from the country or place where purchased or
manufactured, the omission, without intent thereby to defraud the revenue, to add
and state the same on such invoice or entry shall not be a cause of a forfeiture of
such goods, wares, and merchandise, or of the value thereof; b u t iu all cases where
t h e same, or any part thereof, are omitted it shall be the duty of the collector or
appraiser to add the same, for the purposes of dRty, to Such invoice or entry, either
in items or in gross, at such price or amount as he shall deem just and' reasonable
(which price or amount shall, in the absence of protest, be conclusive), and to impose'
and add thereto the further sum of one hundred per centum of the price or amount
so added; which addition shall constitute a part of the dutiable value of such goodSy
wares, and merchandise, and shall be collectible as provided b y l a w in respect to
duties on imports." Section 26 of the same act repealed all prior inconsistent provisions.
Such were the enactments in force when the act of 1883 was passed. When the
duty was ad valorem, or based on the value of a given quantity or parcel of goods^
there was, by section 2906 of the Revised Statutes, to be an appraisement here of t h e
actual market value or wholesale price of the goods, at the period of exportation, in
the principal markets of the country from which they were imported, and such a p praised value was to be the dutiable value of the goods, as merchandise, without reference to any of the items required by section 2907 to be added as charges to such actual
market value or wholesale price of the goods. All those items so required to be added
• were charges, and not part of the appraised value of the goods. By section 2908, if
the items added for charges, after entry, exceeded by 10 per cent, the entered value
of the goods,* a duty of 20 per cent., in addition to t h e duties imposed by law, was required to be collected " on such value." This additional duty did not depend on an
intent to defraud, but was imposed for the mere omission of the charges from t h e
entry. By section 14 of the act of 1874, the omission to add the charges, without intent to defraud, was declared not to be a cause of forfeiture, but when they were
omitted, it was made the duty of the public officers to add them for the purposes of
duty, and to add the further sum of 100 per cent, of the amount so added, such additions to be a part of the dutiable value.
Then followed the 7th section of the act of 1883, in these words: " T h a t sections
twenty-nine hundred and seven and twenty-nine hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and section fourteen of the act entitled 'An act to amend t h e
customs revenue-laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved J u n e twenty-second, eighteen
hundred and seventy-four, be, artd the same are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none
ofthe charges imposed by said sections, or any other provisions of existing law, shall
be estimated in ascertaining the value of goods to be imported, nor shall the value of
the usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, be estimated
as p a r t of their value in determining the amount of duties for which they are liable:
Frovided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings, of any kind, shall
be of any material or form designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall
be subject to a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the actual value of
the same."
By this section 7 of the act of 1883, in the first place, sections 2907 and 2908 of tile
Revised Statutes, and section 14 of the act of 1874, are repealed. This repeals tbe
provision of section 2907, that, in determining t h e dutiable value of the merchandise,
there shall be added to its appraised market value (to be ascertained under section
2906, which is left unrepealed) the expenses and charges mention'ed Jn section 2907,
among which are " t h e value of the sack, box, or covering, of any kind, in which
such merchandise is contained," " a n d all other actual or usual charges for putting
up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment." I t also repeals the provision of section 2908 for t h e additional duty of 20 per cent, when the addition for
the charges mentioned in section 2907 exceeds by 10 per cent, the entered value. It
also repeals the provisions of section 14 o f t h e act of 1874, for the addition of double
the charges omitted, among which charges are specified "cost of packages, boxes,,
or other articles containing such goods, Wares, and merchandise, and any other incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation thereof from thecountry or place where purchased or manufactured."
The items thus specified in section 2907 of the Revised Statutes, and in section 14.
o f t h e act of 1874, being charges, and being eliminated as part of the dutiable value
of goods, and section 2906 remaining for the appraisement of the goods ^er se, without^
E E P O R T OP T H E SECRETARY OP T H E
TEEASUEY.
Ill
the addition of any of t h e charges so abolished, i t would seem t h a t the ineaning of
section 7 of the act of 1883 was plain.
.
.
.
But t h a t section goes on to say : " A n d hereafter none of the charges imposed by
said sections or any other provisions of existing law shall be estimated in ascertaining
the value of goods to be imported." Nothing is imposed by, section 2907 of the Revised Statutes but the addition to the appraised market value, provided for by section 2906, of the items specified in section 2907, all of which are thus declared by
section 7 of the act of 1883 to have been " c h a r g e s . " Those charges are no longer tobe added or estimated, as before, in determining the dutiable value of the goods. So,..
the repealed section 14 of the act of 1867 imposed nothing except in 'respect of the
items it specified, which were items to be added to appraised market value, and are,,
therefore, declared by section 7 of the act of 1883 to have been "charges."
But t h a t section goes on still further to s a y : " Nor shall the value of the usual and
necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, be estimated as part of theirvalue in determining t h e amount of duties for which they are liable." This means
t h a t not only, as the section had declared, shall none of the charges provided for in
the repealed sections be added or estimated in ascertaining dutiable value, b u t the
value of the sacks, crates, boxes, or covering, of any kind, shall not be estimated aspart o f t h e value, or included in the value, of the goods, but shall be omitted, leaving,,
the value of the goods to be appraised per se, under section 2906, without estimating,,
or including the value of the sack, crate,.box, or covering, of any*kind, and, therefore, requiring such latter value to be deducted, if the entry or invoice includes it,,
either separately, or as part of a price or value affixed to the goods, if it is capableof separation and deduction, unless the effect is to reduce the dutiable value below the
inyoice or entered value. For, by section 2907'of the Revised Statutes, " the value of
the sack, box, or covering, of any kind, in which^such merchandise is contained," was
required to be added, t h a t is, estimated, " i n determining the dutiable value of merc h a n d i s e ; " and the items required by section 14 o f t h e act of 1874 to be added to the
market value of goods, for the purposes of duty, cover the "cost of packages, boxes,
or other articles containing" the goods, and the expenses of packing.
The last clause of section 7 of the act of 1883 adds force to the foregoing views. It.
is t h i s : ^^Frovided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings, of any
kind, shall be of any material or form designed* to evade duties thereon, or designed,
for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States,
the same shall be subject to a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the
actual value of t h e same." This implies t h a t if the boxes or coverings of any kind
are not of a material or form designed to evade duties thereon, and are designed tobe used in the bona fide transportation o f t h e goods t o t h e United States, they are not
subject to duty. If either of these things occurs they are subject to 100 per cent,
duty. There is not, in the present case, any suggestion t h a t the cartons were of a.
form or material designed to evade duties thereon. They were of the usual kind"
known to the trade before the law was passed, as customarily used for the same purpose.
T h e y w^ere designed to be used in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the.
United States, not only because they were and had been a customary article iu thetrade for covering and transporting these goods, but because they were intended to
accouipany t h e goods and remain with them in t h e hands of t h e retail dealer, until;
the goods should be sold to the consumer.
The change made by section 8 of the act of 1883 in the oaths required on entry, is
in consonance with the above interpretation of the effect of section 7. Section 8'
amends section 2841 of the Revised Statutes, as to the forms of the three several
oaths, in the following manner, the particular parts referred to of the old forms and
the new ones being placed side by side, and the parts in each which differ from theother being in italic:
,
Oath of consignee, imxiorter, or agent.
OLD
OATH.
" t h a t the invoice now produced by me
exhibits the actual cost) if purchased), or
fair market value (if otherwise obtained),
at the time or times, and place or places,
when or where procured (as the case may
be), of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, all the charges thereon, and no
other or different discount," &c.
NEW OATH.
" t h a t the invoice now produced by me
exhibits the actual cost (if purchased), or
fair market value (if otherwise obtained),
at the time or times, and place or places,
when or where procured (as the case may
be), of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, including all costs for finishing'
said goods, wares, and merchandise- io theirpresent condition, and no other or different >
discount," &c.
112
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Oath of owner in cases where merchandise has heen actuaUy purchased.
OLD O A T H .
N E W OATH.
" t h a t the invoice which I now produce
contains a just and faithful account ofthe
actual cost of the said goods, wares, and
merchandise, of all charges thereon, includ
ing charges of j^'^^rchasing, carriages, bleaching, dyeing, dressing, finishing, putting up,
and packing, and no other discount," &c.
" t h a t the invoice which I now produce
contains a j u s t and faithful account of the
actual cost of the said goods,-^ wares, and
merchandise, including all cost of finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise io
their present condition, and no other discount," &o.
"
Oath of manufacturer or owner in cases where merchandise has^not heen actually purchased.
OLD O A T H .
N E W OATH.
" t h e invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful valuation of the
same, at their fair market value, including
charges of purchasing, carriages, bleaching,
dyeing, dressing, finishing, xintting up, and
packing, at the time," &c.'
" t h a t the said invoice contains also a just
and faithful account of all charges actually
paid, and no other discount," &c.
" t h e invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful valuation of the
same at their fair market value, at the
time," &c.
" t h a t the said invoice contains also a just
and faithful account of all the cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to
their xiresent condiiion, and no other discount," &c.
It is apparent that these new forms of oath leave out " c h a r g e s " entirely, because
t h e statute leaves them out as dutiable items. The "cost of finishing the goods to
tlieir present condition" is part of the value o f t h e goods abroad outside of the abolished " c h a r g e s . " Goods may be boyght abroad unfinished, and then caused to be
finished; b u t in no case can the cost of finishing be left out of their value, however
they have been obtained. So, the new oaths embrace only the value of the goods
joer se, and there is no oath as to any item before called "charges." The item of "finishing'f is broad enough to include bleaching, dyeing, and dressing, but does not include any of the other charges specifically named in the old oaths.
The contention on the part of the Government is that section 7 of t h e act of 1883
repeals only so much of the prior statutes as added to t h e market value abroad t h e
charges which were incident to the shipment of the goods, after they were p u t in a
condition for the market abroad, as usually scild; that the expense of t h e cartons was
necessary to p u t them into t h a t conditipn; t h a t the value of the cartons was part of
t h e market value o f t h e goods abroad'; and that, therefore, it must enter iuto the dutiable value. I t is urged that the carton is not incident to the transportation of the
goods, b u t is part of their preparation for sale abroad; t h a t it is au integral p a r t of
the value o f t h e whole, carton and goods, as a u n i t ; that, in valuing such unit, nothing more is done than valuing the goods, ready for sale; and that, although, in one
sense, the carton is a charge, it is a charge incurred in putting t h e merchandise iuto
the condition in which it is sold abroad, and it becomes p a r t of the goods, and its
value is merged in the value o f t h e filled carton. The sufficient answer to these suggestions is, t h a t they allow no weight to the declaration of the statute t h a t the value
of t h e usual and necessar^^ box or covering, of any kind, shall not be estimated as part
of the value of t h e goods, in determining the amount of duties for which the goods
are liable. The carton is a usual box or covering. I t is a necessary box or covering,
within the meaning of the law, on the facts shown in the bill of exceptions. I t was
a box or covering in which the goods were contained, and so was a cliarge specifically imposed by section 2907 of the Revised Statutes; and section 7 of the act of 1883
says t h a t no charge imposed by section 2907 shall be estimated iu ascertaining the
value of the goods.
The bill of exceptions shows, that, after the enactment of section 14 of the act of
1874, and prior to March 3, 1883, it was the practice of t h e custom-house at New
York, where there were cartons with the goods, and the cartons were not set forth
in the invoice, to treat the value of the cartons as a charge, under t h a t section, and
add such value, aud 100 per cent, thereon, to make dutiable value. No statute is referred to which ever recognized tho value of cartons as other t h a n a charge, and no
such practice appears to have obtained before March 3, 1883.
As the action of the collector in this case appears to have been founded on a circular issued by the.Treasury Department on May 15, 1883, and was sanctioned by the
opinion of the Attorney-General, Mr. Brewster, given to the Secretary of the Treasury
on J a n u a r y l l , 1884, and as there have been decisions of circuit courts in accordance
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
113
with those views (although there have been some to the contrary), the question involved has been carefully considered by this court, and the judges are unanimously
of opinion t h a t the true view of the statute' in force at the time the goods in this
case were entered is that announced in this opinion.
I t appears that, after verdict and before judgment, there was a motion made for a
new trial in this case, in deciding which (Oberteuffer vs. Robertson,24 Fed. Rep., 852)
the court stated that the verdict for the defendant was directed on the ground t h a t
the plaintiff's protest " w a s insufficient to present the objections relied upon by them
to the exaction ofthe duties in controversy," but t h a t the motion for a new trial was
denied on the ground t h a t the duties were not iUegally exacted.
I t is contended for the Government t h a t a reappraisement should have been applied
for by the plaintiffs, under section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, and t h a t they mistook their remedy. We are of opinion that this is not a sound view. They wore not
dissatisfied with the appraisement of the value of the goods per se. That value \Nas
left at the value stated in the invoice. The addition of the items for cartons and
packing was no part o f t h e duty or function of the appraiser, acting uuder section
2906, to appraise the foreign market value of the goods. Although, in form, the appraiser added the items for cartons and packing, the action of the custom-house was
only a decision of the collector, under section 2931, t h a t the cartons and packing were
dutiable c®sts and charges. Those items appeared distinctly, as to two of the invoices, on them and on the entry, as charges for boxes and packing, and being deducted as such on t h e face of the entry, were again added as such by the appraiser.
As to the third invoice, the .value of the cartons and packing, being included in the
invoice value, was left in in the entered value, and a sum was added which in fact
represented a second time the value o f t h e cartons and packing as a dutiable charge.
We are of opinion t h a t the first, second, and third paragraphs of the protest in this
case are sufficient to raise the points relied ou by the plaintiffs, and t h a t to protest
was the proper way to raise those points.
The exaction of duty'on the packing, whether packing the goods in the cartons, or
the cartons in the outer case, or lining the outer case, was not warranted by law.
These were " c h a r g e s " under the former statutes and were abolished as charges by
the act of 1883.
As to the one case of hosiery, the addition to the entered value of 30 pfennigs per
dozen for the cartons and packing was unauthorized, and the goods were dutiable at
only the entered value of 1,492 marks. As, under section 2900 of the Revised Statutes, duty cannot, as t o t h e goods, " b e assessed upon an amount lens than the invoice
or entered value," whatever is i)ut down in the invoice and-entry as the value of the
goods jper se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included in
such value the cost of cartons and packing, unless t h e invoice or entry, shows distinctly what such cost was and t h a t it was included. In fact the cartons and packing
were included twice, as to the one case of hosiery, in exacting duties, but only t h a t
which the appraiser added for them can be deducted, although their cost would not
properly have been p a r t of the dutiable value if the invoice and entrj^ had not stated
the value o f t h e goods at a price which in fact included the cost of the cartons and
packing.
I t results, from these views, t h a t the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the case be remanded to that court, with a direction to grant a new trial.
INSTRUCTIONS TO UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, NEW YORK.
Instructions to United States district attorney at Kew York, bearing
on suits of a similar character, were issued April 9, 1886, in which he
was directed to move the consolidation of all such suits as had not been
in effect disposed of by the Oberteuffer case. (S. 7456.)
(7456.)
Suits involving questions of charges.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 9,
1886.
S I R : The Department assumes t h a t there are pending in your district suits the
issues in which have been decided adversely to tlie defendant by the recent judgment
of the Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, and t h a t the plaintiffs desire a speedy
refund of the money claimed. The Department has not in its possession the facts to
enable it to decide which of the suits to recover money levied on wbat is claimed to
be an erroneous interpretation of the seventh section of the law of 1883 have been
in eftect disposed of by that judgment, aud in which there are no other issues of law
or fact. If the plaintiffs shall preseut to you an application ih writing, eitber for t h e
H. Ex, 2 ^ Y 0 L I I - — 8
114
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
taking of verdicts by consent; subject to an adjustment o f t h e amount at the customhouse, or for a discontinuance of the suits by the plaintiffs, on the undertaking by
tbis Department t h a t the entries covered thereby shall be reliquidated according to
law, and the sum found due refunded out of any available appropriation therefor,
and the application shall give t h e titles of the suits and all other required particulars, you are requested to carefully examine the same and transmit it to this Department, with your report thereon. ' It Avill, of course, be understood t h a t no refund
will be made in any suit unless the law regulating protests and appeals aud the bringiug of the suit, as^iow interpreted by the Department, has been complied with. I t
i s t o be,assumed t h a t the plaintiffs will correctly declare in their apijlicatious the
cbaracter of the commodities, and give a true description of the sort of coverings or
charges on which duty was levied in excess, and whether or not such last-named
items were exhibited iu the invoice or entry, and if on examination you shall be in
doubt whether such items have been covered by tbe judgment in the Oberteuffer case,
you will fully report the facts to the Department for its decision.
All suits of the above-mentioned character the issues in which have not been in
effect disposed of by the Oberteuffer case must be judicially examined by trial in
court, and you are requesjbed to move the consolidation of such suits as are within
t h e statute regulating consolidations.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
Hon.
S. A. W A L K E R ,
United Staies Attorney, New York City.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSULAR OFFICERS.
On the 3d of June (S. 7557) the honorable Secretary of State was requested to instruct United States consular officers to require makers of
invoices to declare explicitly whether charges inscribed on such invoices
were included in the prices of the merchandise.
(7557.)
Charges in invoice—Eow (hey should be stated.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , June 3,
1886.
S I R : I am in receipt of information to the effect t h a t serious and vexatious embarrassments to the cbief customs officers exist by reasou of the piactice indulged iu by
shippers ofmerchandise in specifying items of charges in their invoices, but without
a distinct statemeut as to whether such items of charges are or are not included in the
price of the goods as set ibrth in the invoice.
An instance of this character may be mentioned where the invoice value of the
goods pe?" se was given at £69 7s. 'Sd., with a statement of charges underneath amounting to £ 3 7s. 4d. In this instance the importers claimed t h a t the charges were included in the invoice price of the goods, and their claim miglit have been allowed but
for the fiict that the consular certificate attached to the invoice specified the gross sum
to be £72 14s. 7d., whioh was the aggregate of both t h e value of the goods and the
items of charges.
To prevent a continuance of this practice on the part of shippers, I have the honor
to request that the United States consular officers be instructed to require every exporter, shipper, or maker of an invoice of merchandise subject to ad valorem duties,
or to duties based upon the value of the square yard or other amouut, to make au explicit declaration on each invoice whether or not the charges inscribed thereon are
included in the fjrices of tbe merchandise.
If such instructions are carried out, the face ofthe invoice would clearly show the
treatment to be ado^jted on the entry, appraisement, and liquidation of the merchandise, aud the invoice would thereby Ibe liable to but one interpretation in the appraising and Uquidating departments of the customs.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretai'y.
The Hon.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPRAISERS.
Appraisers were informed ou the 10th of April (S. 7458) (the Solicitor
concurring in the view) that their action in returning the dutiable value
of the merchaudise need have no reference to the cost of non-dutiable
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
115
coverings, but should simply include the value 8f the merchandise
per se, and these instructions were repeated June 3, 1886 (S. 7558),
when appraisers wer6 directed to separately return the values of the
merchandise jper se and the amount of alleged charges, leaving the collector to decide as to the dutiable or non-dutiable character of the
latter,
(7458).
Additional duty accrues on undervaluation of mercliandise per se in invoice or entry.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 10, 1886.
S I R : Referring to your letter ofthe Sth ultirao, asking instructious as to the assessment of duty on sixty cases mushrooms iraported byMessrs. Gabain & Co. a t your
port, concerning which i t appears t h a t a difference existed between the value of certain coverings as stated in the entry and t h e value as returned by the appraiser,
it appears t h a t t h e value of .said coverings, as stated iu t h e entry, was 600 francs
greater than t h e value thereof as returned by the appraiser, and t h a t the value of
the merchandise per se was reduced in the entry to t h a t extent, the sum total of the
values o f t h e coverings and merchandise as returned by the appraiser and as stated
in the entry being the same.
The matter has been referred to t h e Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion,.and
his reply, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, confirms the views of the Department
t h a t t h e action of the appraiser in returning the dutiable value of the mercliandise
need have no reference to t h e cost of non-dutiable coverings, b u t simply applies to
the value of the merchandise per se. The Solicitor being of the opinion that;, as t h e
appraised value of the dutiable goods exceeded by more than 10 per cent, the value
declared in t h e entry, the 20 per cent, additional duty imposed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, duly accrues and should be assessed.
You will be governed accordingly.
^
*
*
*
-Sf
*
«
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Chicago, III.
(7558.)
Coverings which are dutiable—Additional duty under section 2900, Bevised Statutes, not
applicable.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , June 3, 1886.
SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo (received on the 1st instant)
concerning Department's ruling of t h e 21st ultimo in t h e case of Messrs. Lutz &
Movius, wherein it was held t h a t if t h e additions made by the appraiser to the entered values of certain merchandise imported, per " L e s s i n g " aud " E m s , " in March
last were for charges specified in the invoices, the additional (penal) duty of 20 per
cent, ad valorem prescribed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, did not accrue on the
merchandise. The papers in the case showed that the additions consisted o f t h e precise amounts which appeared on the invoices, and were deducted b y t h e importers on
the entries as/^charges," and i t was inferred, by reason of such coincidence, t h a t the
additions were for " charges," and not to make dutiable value o f t h e goods j^er se. '
If you have any doubt on t h e question, you should call upon the appraiser for explanatorj^ reports; and in case it then appear that t h e additions were for charges
which are non-dutiable under section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, and the decision
in the Oberteuffer case, the duties should be remitted on the additions, aud the entries should be liquidated upon t h e basis o^ the market value of t h e goods per se.
Should, however, the additions be for coverings which are liable to duty und^^r the
said provision ot law and decision, you should then assess duty thereon.
As estimated in the Department's letter o f t h e 21st ultimo, the appraiser should be
directed, in cases where he is of opinion t h a t items of charges deducted on entry are
dutiable, to return the dutiable value of the goods ^.^er se a;nd the value of the items
of charges separately, whereupon i t can then be determined by you whether such
items of charges are dutiable or not. My opinion is that, under the said deci.don iu
the Oberteuffer case, all cartons, coverings, &c., are exempt from duty except such
116
REPORT OF T H E SECRLTARY
OF T H L TRExiSURY.
as are " o f auy material or lorm designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use
other t h a n in the hona fide transportation of goods to the United States/'
The instructions of March 13 last, to which you refer, and which were intended as
a temporary measure, will be considered as modified iu the jjarticulars mentioned.
Respectfully yours,
' C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
STATEMENTS F O R REFUND.
Oa the 7th of May a circular was issued relative to the preparation
of statements for refund, which though not specifically referring to the
Oberteuffer decision, had reference to the refunds which were occasioned thereby (S. 7505).
(7505.)
Eefunds of duties erroneously exacted.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 7, 1886.
Section 3012 of tbe Revised Statutes provides t h a t the plaintiff' in a suit to recover
duties alleged to have been erroneously or illegally exacted shall serve on the defendant or his attorney a bill of particulars, giving, among other things, t h e precise
amount of d u t y claimed t o have been exacted in excess.
I t has come to the knowledge of the Department that, in making up statements for
refunds of duties illegally exacted, allowances have been made in excess of t h e
amounts claimed in the bills of particulars.
In t h e adjustment of duties to be refunded in cases where suit has been commenced, the bills of particulars and protests relating t o such suits will be carefully
examined by the clerks and officers in the collector's office and naval office making
such adjustments, and no allowance will be made in excess of the original claim of
the importer as set forth in the bill of particulars, nor upon any item not fully covered
by protest, appeal, and suit.
Refunds by means of certified statements will be confined a t ports where naval officers are stationed to cases where suits have been commenced. I n other cases where
refunds are authorized by t h e Department, and in which i t has been the practice t o
prepare certified statements a t ports where there are naval officers, the entries will
be reliquidated, and the excess of duties found due refunded as in ordinary liquidation upon items fully covered by protests: Frovided, All t h e provisions of section 2931
o f t h e Revised Statutes have been complied with.
Collectors a t such ports will render t o t h e Department a monthly report, countersigned by the naval officer, of refunds upon reliquidation under these instructious.
At ports where no naval officers are stationed, refunds, when authorized by the Department,will be continued to be made by means of certified statements, as prescribed
by article 616 of the Customs Regulations of 1884.
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
To COLLECTORS AND OTHER O F F I C E R S O F T H E CUSTOMS.
CHARGES STATED IN INVOICE OR ENTRY.
The question of reliquidating entries iu cases where the invoices and
entries differed, in the respect that one showed the cost of the coverings
while the other did not, was early raised, and was decided in favor of
the claimant in either case on the 6th of February (S. 7354). and subsequently repeatedly affirmed (S. S. 7391, 7422, 7453, 7507).
(7354.)
Reliquidation by Collector—When to be Made.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , February 6, 1886.
SIR : The Department- is in receipt of a letter, dated the 3d instant, from Messrs.
Arnold, Constable & Co., in which they ask that certain entries at your port, where,
as alleged, they were " compelled" by you to add t h e cost of cartons, tillots, &c.,
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,,
ll?
may be liquidated by the exclusion of such cost of cartons, &c., in accordance with
the late decision of t h e United States Supreme Court iu the case of Oberteuffer et al.
vs. Robertson.
By reference to said decision,'which is embraced in the Department's circular o f t h e
2d instant (No. 12), you will find, in the next to t h e last paragraph of such decision,
t h a t i t is held t h a t " whatever is p u t down in t h e invoice and entry as t h e value of
the goods ^er se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included
in such value t h e cost of cartons and packing, unless the invoice or entry shows distinctly what such cost was and t h a t i t was included."
In cases, therefore, where i t is found t h a t t h e invoices or entries in question show
t h e cost of such cartons, &c., separate and distinct from t h e market value of t h e
goods, t h e applicants are entitled to t h e relief requested. If, however, t h e invoices
and entries simply state the value of the goods, without any specification of cost of
cartons, &c., no relief can be granted.
Of course this letter will be construed as applying only to unliquidated entries or
liquidated entries where t h e requirements of law as to protests, &c., have been complied with.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Assistant Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
(7391.)
Cost of cartons, ^ c , when not appearing in invoice, may be specified on entry.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 3,1866.
SIR : The Department is in receiiJt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, in which you ask
whether you are authorized to separate t h e value of boxes containing imported cigars
"v^hen the invoice does not specify the values of the cigars and of the boxes separately,
but where the entry lodged by t h e importer specifies the cost of the boxes, and claims
a deduction thereof from the invoice price of the cigars.
In cases where the invoice specifies t h e value of t h e goods free on board,, or where
it gives t h e gross value of the goods, iucluding t h e cost of boxes, &c., you are authorized, until further instructions, to allow importers a t their option to specify in
their entries the value of t h e merchandise per se, and the cost of the boxes, cartons,
&c., separately, subject, of course, to t h e requirement of law concerning appraisements.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Milwaukee, Wis.
(7422.)
Cartons or coverings—not dutiable when specified in either invoice or entry.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
March 19, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 12th instant, transmitting
the appeal (4454 o) of Frederick Malleson from your decision assessing duty on the
cost of boxes containing fish-hooks imported, per " Baltic," in December, 1885 (entry
No. 164,501).
I t appears from your report t h a t the cost o f t h e said boxes is specified as a separate
item on the invoice of the goods, and t h a t such boxes are of a character t o entitle
them to exemption from duty under Department's circular of the 2d ultimo (No. 12).
The language of the decision of the court appended to such circular indicates t h a t
where either t h e invoice or entry specifies t h e vaiue of the cartons or coverings
separately from the value of the goods jper se, the cartons or coverings are not liable
to duty.
The Department, therefore, decides that the appeal is well taken, and that t h e entry is entitled to reliquidation under t h e said circular.
You will take action accordingly.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Assistant Seeretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
118
REPORT OF THE S E C I ^ E T A R Y OP T H E TREASURY.
(7453.)
Non-dutiable charges, appearing on invoice, hut not included in invoice value, and ignored
by importers on making entry, should not he deducted in assessing duty.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, AjMl 7, 1886.
S I R : The Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, reporting^on
the communication of Messrs. Megroz, Portier, Grose & Co., dated t h e 17th ultimo,
concerning t h e liquidation of their entry of two cases plush imported by them into
your port, per "Belgenland," Jauuary 14 last, entry No. 13,215.
I t appears t h a t t h e value of the goods was specified in t h e invoice at R. M. 2,.892.95,
w i t h a statement a t the foot t h a t such value included non-dutiable charges amounting to R. M. .57.10; t h a t t h e importers on entry disregarded and waived such charges
(it being presumed t h a t they were of opinion t h a t t h e charges were not included in
the invoice price), and entered t h e goods a t the full invoice value; t h a t t h e appraiser
advanced t h e viilue of the goods, whereupon a reappraisement was had, b y which
such advance was sustained to t h e extent of les^ t h a n 10 per cent, oyer t h e entered
value, and t h a t you propose to liquidate t h e entry*by deducting t h e said charges (R.
M. 57.10) from t h e entered value, which will have the effect of making the reappraised
value appear more t h a n 10 per cent, above such entered value, and thus subjecc the
merchandise to the payment o f t h e additional (penal) duty prescribed by section
2900, Revised Statutes.
The appraiser in his report substantiates t h e representations of the importers, and
states t h a t " i t was discovered t h a t t h e amount of t h e charges stated on invoice to
be iucluded in the price of t h e merchandise was not included in fact, and that, not
having been deducted by them on making their entry, it was assumed t h a t said sum
was waived."
After due consideration, the Department is satisfied t h a t t h e importers did, in fact,
ignore the said charges in making their entry, and t h a t such item should not be considered as a factor in any sense in t h e liquidation of t h e entry. In otlier words, the
invoice and entered value in this case is R. M. 2,892.95, and if the reappraisement
advance is not 10 per cent, or more greater t h a n such sum, the entry should be liquidated without t h e assessment of t h e said additional (i^enal) duty.
You will be governed accordingly.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
(7507.)
Non-dutiable charges, when included in invoice value, must he separately sipecified, either on
invoice or entry, in order to be deducted, under the Oherteuffer decision.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 7; 1886.
GENTLEMEN : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 5th instant, concerning t h e decision of t h e 4th instant on your appeal (2076 o), whereby i t was
held t h a t t h e invoice and entered value of certain goods imported by you into Philadelphia, per " L o r d Clive," on the 14th of January last, could not be reduced by t h e
deduction of certain items of charges which did not appear either in the invoice or
in t h e entry.
Such ruling of t h e Department conforms to the decision of t h e United States Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, wherein i t w a s enunciated t h a t " w h a t e v e r is
p u t down in the invoice and entry as t h e value of the goods per se cannot be diminished, although in fact there may have been included in such value the cost of cartons aud packing, unless t h e invoice or entry shows distinctly what such cost was,
and t h a t it was included."
The claim you make t h a t the failure of the shipper to deduct the cost of such charges
on t h e invoice was a clerical error cannot be admitted, and no reason is perceived for
taking further action in the case.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary,
Messrs. STEPHENSON & C O . ,
214 Chestnut Street, Fhiladelphia, Fa.
felat^ORt OP I H E Sl^Ct^EtARY OF THE TREASUllY.
Il9
FINISHING YS. MAKING U P .
The distinction betvTcen charges, so called, accruing prior to and including the finishing of the goods and those accruing afterwards, as
laid down in the Oberteuffer decision, has been applied in the following
published decisions:
April 12 (S. 7460). Cost of carding buttons, not dutiable.
April 12 (Sl 7461). Cost of making up gloves, not dutiable.
A p r i r i 2 (S. 7464). Cost of labels and blocks on hat-bands, not dutiable.
April 12 (S. 7465). Cost of corks, caps, and labels on olive oil, not
dutiable.
May 19 (S. 7528). Cost of boards on which dress goods are rolled, not
dutiable.
* May 20 (S. 7529) Spools for thread, dutiable.
May 21 (S. 7533). "Skeining" yarn, dutiable.
July 2 (S. 7615). Cutting and jjutting together cotton robes^ imported
in that condition without further manufacture, dutiable.
July 10 (7625). "Making u p " certain textiles, not dutiable.
(7460.)
Dutiable value, cost of ^^carding buttons'^ not to be included.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 12, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the IOth ultimo, submitting t h e
appeal (4293o) of t h e John Shillito Company from your assessment of duty on t h e
cost of carding certain buttons imported by them at your port, entry No. 269, February 19, 1886.
The Department is. of opinion that, under the decision of t h e United States Supreme Court in the case of Oberteuffer et al. vs. Robertson, t h e charge for carding
buttons is not an element of their dutiable value.
You are, therefore, authorized to readjust t h e entry and to take measures for refunding the diJty levied on t h e value of such charge, which it appears is separately
specified in the invoice.
>
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD, '
Acting Secretary.
SURVEYOR O F CUSTOMS, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(7461.)
Dutiable valued-Cost of making up not to be included.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 12,1886.
SIR : Referring to your letters pf February 16 and March 2 last, iu regard to a refund
to Messrs. Lowman's Sons & Co. of duty levied ou charges for cartons aud making up
on certain gloves imported by them, entry No. 122, January 26,1886,1 have to inform
you that,upon investigation,it is ascertained t h a t the term " m a k i n g up," as applied
to co.tton gloves, covers the assorting in colors and sizes, x)lacing one-half to one dozen
pairs on a card, banding and ticketing with size and numbers, and tying at each end
with a ribbon, in Which condition they are ready for sale or casing for transportation
or shipment.
This charge is incurred after the gloves are finished, aud t h e Department holds t h a t
it is not an element of their dutiable value under the Oberteuffer decision.
The certified statement in favor of Messrs. Lowman's Sons' & Co. has been referred
to t h e First Auditor for examination and settlement.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secreiary.
SURVEYOR OF CVSTOMS, Cinciimati, Ohio.
* Subsequently reversed (see Supra Decision, November 1 (II6O0), page — ) .
120
REiPORT OF T H E ^ E C t l E T A t l t
Oi" TflE
tREASURt.
(7464.)
Non-dutiable charges—Labels and blocks on hat-bands.
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, April 14, 1886.
S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 6th ultimo, submitting the
appeal (4105o) of Messrs. Henry Tilge & Co. from your assessment of duty on charges
for putting up labels and blocks on certain hat-bands imported by them, per "Geueral
Werder," February 16, 1886.
The cbarges, i t appears, are incurred'after the completion and finishing of the hatbands, and consist of the cost of cylindrical wooden blocks upon which the hat-bands,
with paper ribbons, are rolled, with a gilt label a t each end inclosing the bands and
blocks, and showing the quantity and style of the goods. These bolts are then placed
in cartons for shiiiment, and t h e charges therefore are similar to t h e charges for
packing t h e goods in t h e cartons, which were held by the Supreme Court to be not
dutiable under tbe law.
You are tberefore authorized to readj ust the entry and t o forward a certified statemen t for a refuud of the excess of duty.
You are also authorized to pursue tlie same course with respect to all similar entries
not in suit in which t h e requirements of section 2931, Revised Statutes, have been
complied with.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a .
(7465.)
Non-dutiable charges—Cost of corks, caps, and labels on olive oil in bottles.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 15, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, submitting the
appeal (4624o) of Messrs. Geo. B. Woodman & Co. from your assessment of duty on
the value of caps, corks, and labels on certain olive oil in bottles imported by them,
per " B r i t i s h King," J a n u a r y 3, 1883.
These charges are incurred in putting up and preparing the oil for transportation
or shipment (as specified in section 2907, Revised Statutes), after its complete manufacture. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in t h e Oberteuffer case, the Department decides t h a t they do not properly form an element of the dutiable value of
the goods.
You are therefore authorized to readjust the entry and to forward a certified statement for a relund of the excess of duty.
You are also authorized to pursue tbe same course in other like cases in which the
requirements of section 2931, Revised Statutes, have been complied w^ith.
Respectfully yours,
C, S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a .
(7528.)
Charges incurred after ''finishing'^ dress-goods—Not dutiable.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 19, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e l 7 t h instant, in which you
request instructions as to whether or not the cost of boards upon which woolen dress
goods are rolled should be included i n estimating the dutiable value of such goods.
In reply, I have to state that, as the cost of such boards is incurred after thegoods
are finished in putting them up for shipment, t h e Department is of opinion t h a t
their cost doe^ not properly form an element of the dutiable value of the goods.
Your attention is invited to the Department's decision of April 14, 1886 (Synopsis,
7464), as to wooden blocks upon whicii hat-bands are rolled.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD.
Acting Secretary^
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Baltimore, Md.
J^EPOt^T OF THE SECRETARY OF TtiE TKEAStJRt.
121
r7529.)
^"^
Charges, spools wound with thread—Dutiable.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 20, 1886.
SIR : The Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, in which you
request to be informed concerning the dutiable value of linen thread on spools, which
you'state, as imported at your port, is invoiced at separate prices for the thread per
se and the spools.
Under sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes, which were in force prior to
March 3 , 1883, the cost of spools for thread was not one of the " a c t u a l or usual
charges for putting up, xireparing, aud packing for transportation or s h i p m e n t "
therein mentioned.
Neither cau spools be conside'red in any sense of the term as coverings for the thread.
It is also a fact that thread is not tinished until it is wound on t h e spool, and t h a t
the spools go to the consumer, and more particularly, in the case of machine-thread,
that the thread is useless without the spools. , g
The Department is of opinion t h a t the cost of the spools forms an element of dutiable value of spool-thread.
3
.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secreiary.
Mr. C H A S . H . H A M ,
United States Appraiser, Chicago, HI.
(7533.)
Charges, cost of skeining yarn—Dutiable.
. T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , May 21, 1886.
S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 19th instant, in which you
submit the appeal (5442o) of Messrs. B,rown, Durrell & Co. from your assessment of
duty on charges for skeining on certain worsted yarns imported by them, per " D u r ham City," J a n u a r y 26, 1886.
The appraiser reports that the yarn is invoiced at stated prices per kilo., with
additions for commissions, cases, and hooping ; t h a t the following statement appears
at t h e foot o f t h e invoice, viz : " I n t h e above prices are included, for putting up of
kilos. 495,600, for skeining, 30 pfennigs; for packing and wrapping in paper, 20
pfennigs—together 50 pfennigs, or a t o t a l sum of marks 247,80"; t h a t t h e importers deducted this amount upon entry, and t h a t he restored the amount deducted for
skeining, only 30 pfennigs per kilo., in fixing the dutiable value.
The appraiser reports further t h a t t h e yarn is divided into skeins, each of which
weighs a certain iDart of an ounce; t h a t i t is sold by the retailer by the skein, and
that, in his opinion,'the skeining o f t h e yarn is p a r t o f t h e finishing process.
In this opinion the Department concurs, and your assessment of duty on such
charges is hereby affirmed.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.
(7615.)
Charges—Cost of cutting and putting togetlier embroidered cotton robes-^Dutiable.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 2, 1886.
S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 1st ultimo, submitting the
appeal (5657o) of Messrs. Shoninger, Moses & Co. from your assessment of duty on
charges for " m a k i n g up, box, and figurine" on certain embroidered cotton robes imported by them, pe;r "Cephalonia," April 24, 1886.
The appellants state, and it is conceded by the appraiser, t h a t the cost of " m a k i n g
up, box, and figurine" is specitied iu the invoice at M. 1.20, and that the appraiser
made an addition to the value of the robes per se, on the ground t h a t the value of such
charges as expressed in the invoice is too high, and sbould be M. 0.90 only.
122
REPOM O F THE SEfiRl^TAliY OF T H E TREASUI^i^
The appraiser reports t h a t the robes in question consist of three separate pieces, to
wit, teu or twelve yards of plain material aud four and one-half yards each of narrow
and wide embroiderT, which are folded in such a manner as to show each material,
and to nicely fit the cartons into wbich they are placed; t h a t the invoice price is
fixed per robe, including carton for each, and t h a t a t t h e foot of the invoice is a statement of the cost of " making up, box, and figurine," the latter being a figure on paper
designed to show t h e style of the dress when completed. He further states that the
combined value of the separate pieces, taken at a price per yard in t h e piece as woven
aud embroidered, is not the value o f t h e robe,> but that whatever expense is incurred
by the manufacturer in cutting and putting together the pieces which form the robe
constitutes an expense for finishing the goods, and is an element of the dutiable value.
In this opinion, which is sustained by the decision in the Oberteuffer case, the Department concurs, .inasmuch as the robes are not finished as robes until the materials
are cut and combined, ready to be placed in the cartons, and your assessment of duty
on their value in that condition is hereby affirmed.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD, ,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. Boston, Mass.
1
(7625.)
Charges—Cost of making up—Not dutiable.
•
'
'
o
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , July 10, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 23d ultimo, submitting t h e
appeals (6303o, 6304o, and 6305oj of Messrs. Mackintire, Lawrie & Co. from your
assessment of du^y on charges for " making u p " on certain elastic duck imported by
them, per Calatonia, April 19, Pavonia, March29, and Kansas, April 23,1886.
The appraiser reports t h a t the " m a k i n g u p " consists in folding and pressing the
goods into compact form for the market, stitching and tying the ends to retain the
shape, and stamping upon the outer fold the quality, number, trademark, number of
yards, or other design to give beauty to the completed piece, and states that in his
opinion the goods are not tinished for the market uutil this has been done.
Referring to the Department's decisions of April 12,1886 (Synopsis, 7460 and 74.61),
April 14, 1886 (Synopsis, 7464), April 15,1886 (Synopsis, 7465), and May 19, 1886 (Synopsis, 7528), 1 have to state that the charges for " m a k i n g u p " the goods in question
do not constitute an element of their dutiable value, aud you are therefore authorized
to readjust the entry in accordance with said decisions, and to take measures for refunding the excess of duty.
KesiDcctfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
' COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS,
.
Boston, Mass.
(11600, «fec.)
Non-dutiable cliarges.—Cost of spool blocks for linen thread.
O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C , November 1, 1886.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS,
Fhiladelphia, F a . :
SIR : In reply to your letter ofthe 22d ultimo, asking whether the recent decisions
of the Department on non-dutiable charges and coverings included the cost of spiool
blocks on which linen thread is wound, and which by Department's decision of May
20, 1886 (S., 7529), were held to be included in t h e "finishing" of said thread and accordingly dutiable, I inclose herewith copy of an opinion dated the 29th ultimo, received from the Attorney-General of the United States, in which he expresses the opinion t h a t the spools on which the linen thread is wound seem to be the usual manner
of packing the thread for transportation or shipment, and that under the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer case, they are non-dutiable.
REPORT OF Tfl^ SECRETARY Of' THE i^RtiASURt.
12S
. t n pursuance of this opinion t h e decision above referred to (S.,7529) is modified so
as to harmonize with t h e more recent rulings of t h e 21st and 29th of September last,
aud t h e 2d ultimo (S.S., 7766,7779, and circular October 2, No. 138), and you are instructed to take action accordingly.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Assistant Secreiary.
Opinion of Attorney-General.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, October 29,1886^.
The SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY :
SIR : Your communication of the 26th instant submits the question whether t h e
spools on which linen thread is wound are subject to taxation separately as spools,
or whether they are free from taxation under t h e provisions of t h e seventh section
of t h e act of March 3, 1883. That section repeals, among others, all t h e charges imposed by section 2907 of the Revised Statutes. Among those charges thus repealed
are included " all t h e actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, or packing
for transportation or shipment.'^
In the case of Oberteuffer v. Robertson (116 U. S. 499), the Supreme Court of
the United States, in considering the seventh section of t h e act of March 3, 1883, declares, " The exaction of duty on the packing, whether packing goods in a carton or
the cartons in the outer case, or lining t h e outer case, was not warranted by law,"
The spools on which t h e linen thread is wound seems to be t h e usual manner of
packing the thread referred to in yours for trausportation or shipment. The t a x as
to such spools as packing or preparation for shipment is, under t h e ruling in Oberteuffer V. Robertson, therefore, repealed, and in accordance with the view expressed
in the opinion rendered on September 17, 188.6, it should not be levied on the spools.
The Department rulings referred to in your letter should be modified to harmonize
them with t h e opinion referred to, and the views now expressed.
I am, sir, verv respectfully,
A. H. GARLAND,.
^
Attorney-General.
ADDITIONAL DUTY UNDER SECTION 2900, REVISED STATUTES.
By a decision of the 21st of May (S., 7534), wherein these instructions
to appraisers were repeated, the Department held that an addition for
charges does not carry with it additional duty under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, such addition not being an advance on appraisement of
the value of merchandise jper se.
(7534.)
Additional duty—Does not apply io undervaluation of charges.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 21, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 23d ultimo, reporting on t h e
application of Lutz & Movius, per C. R. French, attorney, for relief from the payment of additional (penal) duty on certain merchandise imported into your port,
per Lessing aud Ems, in March last (entries Nos. 31667 and 38088).
It is understood t h a t on entering the merchandise t h e importers deducted from t h e
invoice values certain items of charges, and that on appraisement the dutiable values
were returned by the appraiser at sums greater than t h e entered values to t h e extent exactly of t h e items deducted by the importers on the entries, which advance,
being, more than 10 per cent., subjected the merchandise, in your opinion, to the 20per ceiit. additional duty prescribed by section 2900, Revised Statutes.
If this understanding 'is correct, it would seem t h a t the additions made by the appraiser were not to make market value of the goods per se, b u t for items of charges
which he considered to be liable to duty..
In the opinion of the Department, t h e addition for charges does not carry with it
the imposition of such additional duty, inasmuch as section 2900, in view of section
7 o f t h e act of. March 3, 1883, must be considered as ouly prescribing such duty when
the value of the merchandise x^er se is advanced on appraisement to the extent of 10
per cent, or more.
124
REPORT OF THE SECRRTARY OF THE TREASURY.
You will be governed accordingly in this instance, and also with regard to the similar cases of C. C. Abel & Co., B. lllfelder & Co., T. B. Gurney, Charles and Felix
Fournier, and George F . Noe, which were the subject of Department's communications
to you of the 13th, 15th, and 16th ultimo, respectively.
The appraiser should be directed in cases of this character, when he is of opinion
t h a t charges deducted on entry are dutiable, to return the dutiable value o f t h e goods
per se and of such charges separately, so as to leave t h e question as to whether the
charges are liable to duty or not to be determined by t h e collector on the liquidation
of t h e entry.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.
This subject of additional duty on charges was also incidentally considered in S., 7458 and S,, 7558. {Vide ante, pages —.)
The first difficulty encountered under the Oberteuffer decision is indicated in Department's circular of March 13, 1866 (S., 7408), wherein
collectors were instructed that said decisiou applied to cartons and like
envelopes generally containing goods in plurality, such as hosiery,
gloves, laces, &c., and papers or other envelopes of single packages,
such as tillots, &c., which coverings do not pass into the handsof the consumer, and simply serve as temporary protection of the goods, and
, which clearly come within the purview of said decision.
In other cases, such as boxes of blacking, matches, preserved meats,
fruits, &c., cases containing meerschaum pipes, opera-glasses, and musical instruments, they were instructed to assess duty in the manner in
vogue prior to the Oberteuffer decision. (This last instruction was
modified June 3 (S. 7558 ante, page—), when appraisers were directed to
return the value of all merchandise' and charges separately, leaving the
collector to determine the character of the charges.)
(7408.)
Application of Circular of February 2, 1886.
,
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 13,1886.
S I R : Until otherwise instructed, you are directed to apply t h e circular of t h e 2d
ultimo, in the Oberteuffer case, only to cartons and like envelopes generally containing goods in plurality, such as hosiery, gloves, laces, &c., and to paper or other envelopes of single packages, such as tillots, &c., which coverings do not pass into the
hands of consumers, b u t simply serve as temporary protection for goods, and which
clearly come within the purview of said decision.
In other cases, such as boxes of blacking, matches, preserved meats, fruits, &c.,
cases containing meerschaum pipes, opera-glasses, musical instruments, <fec., you
should assess d u t y as heretofore, leaving importers t h e privilege of raising the question by protest and appeal.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Assistant Secretary.
COLLECTOR O P CUSTOMS, New York.
On the 10th of April, 1886 (S. 7457), the Department decided that
Japanned tin boxes containing water-colors were dutiable at the rate of
100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso in section 7, as coverings
designed for use otherwise than iu the bona fide transportation of the
merchandise they contained to the United States, and on the 3d of
June, 1886 (S. S. 7553, 7555,7556), similar rulings were made as to boxes
containing zithers, piccolos, and other musical instruments ] boxes containing pins, and jars containing extracts of meato
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY .OF THE TREASURY.
125
(7457. J
Japanned tin boxes containing water-colors—dutiable at 100 per cent, as coverings designed
for use otherwise tha^i in the bona fide transx) or tation of goods.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , April 10, 1886.
S I R : The Department duly received your letter of.the 9th ultimo, transmitting the
appeal (4304o) of Messrs. Thayer & Chandler from your assessment of duty at the rate
of 100 per cent, ad valorem on certain metal boxes containing water-colors impoited
per Germain, a difference existed between the value of certain coverings as stated in
the entry and tbe value as returned by the appraiser.
I t appears t h a t the value of said coverings, as stated in the entry, was 600 francs
greater than the value thereof as returned by t h e appraiser, and t h a t the value ofthe
merchaudise per se was reduced iu the entry to t h a t extent, the sum total of the values
of the coverings and merchandise as returned by the appraiser and as stated in t h e
eutry being the same.
The matter has been referred to the Solicitor of t h e Treasury for his opinion, and
his reply, a copy of wbich is herewith inclosed, confirms the views of the Dei.)artment
t h a t the actiou of the appraiser in returning t h e dutiable value of the merchaudise
need have no reference to tbe cost of non-dutiable coverings, b u t simply applies to
the value o f t h e merchaudise x^er se. The Solicitor being o f t h e opinion that, as the
appraised value of the dutiable g09ds exceeded by more t h a n 10 per cent, the value
declared in the entry, the 20 per ce'ut. additional duty imposed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, duly accrues and should be assessed.
You will be governed accordingly.
#
-f
,f
**
<*
*•
*
#
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Chicago, III.
(7553.)
Coverings, certain hoxes for zilJie^-s, trial-glasses, x^^^^^^^^t ^^^ cornets—dutiable at 100
per cent.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 3, 1886.
SIR : The Departrnent is iu receipt of your letter of t h e 28th ultimo, submitting a
further report from the appraiser on the following appeals from your assessment of
duty a t the rate of lUO per cent, ad valorem on certain cases containing zithers, trialglasses, piccolos, and cornets, embraced therein:
#
i¥
*
*
.
.
*
Jf
*
Th eappraiser reports, that tbe boxes containing the zithers were composed of wood
and lined with cotton plush ; those containiug the piccolos and cornets were composed
of wood, covered with leather and lined with cotton j)lush, and those containing the
trial-glasses were composed of wood, covered with leather, with a glass top, and
lined with silk plush ; and t h a t the boxes are intended for use as permanent receptacles for the instruraents.
These cases, being intended " f o r use otherwise than i n t h e bona fide transportation
of goods to the United States,"are dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem,
under the proviso of section 7. act of March 3, 1883, as construed by the Department
iu its decisions of April 10, 1886 (Synopsis, 7457), ou boxes containing water-color
paints, and of April 30, 1886 (uot published), on cartons containing toy tea-sets.
Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Chicago, III.
(7555.)
Coverings—hooks containing pins, dutiable at 100 per cent.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , June 3, 1886.
SIR : Tbo Department is iu receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, submitting the
followiug appeals from your assessraent of dnty at the rate of 30 per ceut. ad valorem
126
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ou certain books containing pins embraced therein and claimed to be exempt from
duty, under sectiou 7, act of March 3, 1883.
#
*
¥
*
Vf
#
*
Froni an inspection of the sample submitted, it is ascertained that t h e books in.
question are composed of paper folded aud sewed together in such a manuer as lo
hold a number of rows of pins of assorted sizes, which are inclosed in a paper wrapper
tirmly attached to the paper m which the pins are inserted, t h e whole constituting
Avhat is known as a pin-book, or book of pins, Avhich are bought and sold as entireties,
and used as receptacles for the pins until they are emptied.
This form of covering is similar in cbaracter and use to the papers used for needles,
Avhich were held by the Departmeut, undei- date of April 30 last (not published), to
be dutiable a t tbe rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso to section 7, act
of March 3, 1883.
You are therefore directed to readjust the entries at that rate, and to collect t h e
balance of duties due.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a .
(7556.)
Coverings^ Jars containing extract of meai. dutiable at IQO per cent.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 3, 1886.
S I R : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, submitting the
appeal (5638o) of Messrs. Eisner & Meudelson from your assessment of duty at t h e
rate of 20 per cent, ad valorera on cbarges for jars containing extract of meat imported
by them, per Zeeland, Marcb 20, 1886, and also for corks, capsules, and labels.
The jars iu question are sraall earthenware jars, which are used as receptacles for
the extract of meat until their^contents are consuraed, and under the proviso to s'ection 7, act ofMarch 3,1883, as construed by the Department's decision of April 10,.1886
(Synopsis, 74r)7), aud April 30,1886 (uot published), they are dutiable at the rate of 100
per cent, ad valorem.
Under the Department's decision of April 15, 1886 (Synopsis, 7465), the charges for
corks, capsules, and labels are not dutiable.
You are herel)y directed to readjust the eutry in accordance with their decision, and
to collect the balance of duty, if auy, found to be due.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, Fa.
Oth er decisions followed of the same character, the Department being of the opinion that these coverings were for use beyond the period
of the transportation to the United States, in many cases remaining
with the goods while in the hands of the consumer. See section 7468
on lacquered boxes containing handkerchiefs; 7576, opera-glasses; section 7690, leather cases containing xiipes; section 7692, brass boxes containing pins, and section 7716, razor-cases.
(7468.)
Lacquered handkerchief-hoxes—Unusual coveri\igp, 100 per cent.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , April 20, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, transmitting
the appeal (4904o) of A. Schilling & Co. from your decision assessing duty a t t h e
rate of 100 p«r cent, ad valorem ou sixteen lacquered handkerchief-boxes, valued, at 24
Mexicau dollars, imported into your port per steamer City of Sidney on the l l t h ultirao, which the appellants claim to be either exempt from duty or to be dutiable at
the rate of 35 per ceut ad valorera only.
You report that t h e appellants raade eutry of 1,507 packages of tea, and added
thereto V W o packages of samples without value," which latter were found upon ex.-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
127
amination t o contain the said lacquered boxes, a portion of which covered silk handkerchiefs.
You also state t h a t these boxes are designed for use otherwise thau t h e bona fide
transportation of the goods, and that the value of t h e boxes and handkerchiefs was
not deciared eithe-v ou tbe entry or invoice.
In the opinion of the Department, such boxes were properly subjected to duty a t
the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under section 7 of the act of March 3,1883, which
prescribes *' t h a t if any packages, * ** * boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be
of any material or form designed ^^ * •^ for use otherwise than in the bona fide
transportation of goods to t h e United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of
100 per cent, ad valorem," &c.
Your decision is therefore affirmed.
. Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal.
(7576.)
Coverings—Leather and wooden cases for opera-glasses, marine-glasses, and telescoxjes, dutiable at 100 per cent.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 11,1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, submitting the
appeal (5698o) of Messrs. S. Thaxter & Soil from your assessment of duty a t t h e rate of
100 per cent, ad valorem on certain leather and wooden cases containing operaglasses, marine-glasses, and telescopes imported by them per Pavonia, May 10,
1886, and claimed to be exempt from dutv, under t h e provisious of sections 7 and 10,
act of March 3, 1883. v
The cases in question, i t appears, are such as are ordinarily used t o hold operaglasses, field-glasses, a n d telescopes, and are sold with t h e instruments and permanently used as receptacles therefor.
Under the Department's decision of t h e 3d instant (Circular No. 6ii, paragraphs 2
and 6), these cases, being designed for use otherwise than in t h e bona tide transportation of goods to t h e United States, are properly dutiable at t h e rate assessied, and
your decision is hereby affirmed.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.
(7690.)
Coverings, 100x:)er cent.—Leather cases for pipes.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 10, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your l e t t e r of March 29 last, submitting t h e
appeal (4733o) of Messrs. George Zorn & C)o. from your assessment of duty on the value
of certain leather cases containing pipes imported by them per Gen. Werder, February 15,1886.
In view of your statement t h a t t h e value o f t h e cases was included in t h e entered
value o f t h e pipes and returned by the appraiser as dutiable, t h e Department infers
t h a t the same rate of duty was assessed on the cases aud the pipes.
Under its rulings of J u n e 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553), and Julie 11, 1866 (Synopsis,
7.576), on boxes and cases for zithers, piccolos, cornets, trial-glasses, opera-glasses,
marine-glasses, and telescopes, t h e leather cases in question are dutiable in this instance a t t h e rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, and you are therefore directed to adjust t h e entry a t t h a t rate, and t o take measures for collecting t h e balance of duties
fouud to be due, .
,
\
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary,
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Fhiladelphia, F a ,
128
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF T H E TREASURY.
(7692.)
Coverings, 100 per cent.—Brass boxes containing pins.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , August 10, 1886.
SIR : The Department duly received your letter of March 23 last, submitting the
appeal (4637o) of Messrs. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr from your assessment of duty on
certain small boxes and papers containing pins imported by them per Moravia, February 22, 1886.
The boxes, i t appears, are composed of brass, with sliding covers, each containing
sixty mourning-pins, and t h e papers are t h e ordinary papers into which pins are
stuck in rows and rolled so as to form what is usually linown as '^ as a paper of pins."
Under the Department's decisio]i of June 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7555), i t was held t h a t
books containing X)ins were dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, and this
decision is applicable to the boxes and papers covered by the present case.
You are tberefore directed to adjust t h e entry a t t h a t rate, and t o take measures
for collecting the balance of duty found to be due.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Rochester, N . Y.
(7716.)
Coverings—Bazor-cases dutiable.
•
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 24, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo, submitting
t h e appeal (6976o) of Messrs. Dame, Stoddard &> Co. from your assessment of duty at
the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on certain cases containing razors imported by
them per Venetian, J u n e 19, 1886.
The appraiser reports t h a t the cases in question, which pass into the hands of the
consumers, are used otherwise than for the bona fide transportation of t h e goods.
Your assessment of duty thereon, being in harmony with the Department's decision
of J u n e 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553), on cases containing zithers, piccolos, cornets, and
trial-glasses, is hereby affirmed.
»
•»
#
-ff
#
»
*
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.
As samples of free coverings, under these rulings, see S., 7353, on
cigar-boxes; S., 7463, tin cases containing tagger's iron ; S., 7626,
pasteboard boxes containing mouth harmonicas; and S., 7715, wooden
boxes containing gelatine.
(7353.)
Boxes containing cigars—Free of duty.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Fehruary 6, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated t h e 4tli instant^ from Messrs.
Bendheim Bros. &, Co., in which they report t h a t a difference of opinion exists between the officers of the customs at your port as to whether boxes containing imported
cigars are liable to duty or not.
These boxes are inside coverings, in the nature of cartons, and they seem to be covered by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Oberteufier t^t
al. vs. Robertson, which is appended to Department circular of the 2d instant (No. 12.)
Under such decisiou, the cigars should be returned for duty a t their value^e?- se, without the addition of any charge for cost of boxes or otherwise.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Assistant Secretary..
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Baltimore, Md.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
129
(7463
Coverings, tin cases containing blaik tagger^s iron—Non-dutiable.
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, April 13, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of t h e 5th instant, reporting on
the appeal (2735 o) of Messrs. Phelps. Dodge & Co. from your assessment of duty on
the valueof tin cases containing black tagger's iron imported by them, per Warwick,
November 2 0 ; Egypt, November 10; City of Berlin, November 2 1 ; Brooklyn City,
November 10, and Republic, November 16, 1885.
The cases in question being outside coverings of the goods, and their cost being
specified in the invoices, you are authorized to readjust the entries in accordance with
the Department's decisions of February 2, 1886 (circular No. 12), and March 13 and
March 29,1886 (not published), and t o forward a certified statement for t h e refund of
the excess of duty.
Respectfullv, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
(7620.)
Coverings—Fasteboard Cartons f o r Harmonicas not Dutiable.
. .
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , July 8, 1886.
S I R : The Department duly received your letter of t h e 30th ultimo, transmitting
t h e protest and appeal (6494o) of Oliver Ditson & Co., from your assessment of duty
at the rate of 100 per cent ad valorem on certain harmonica covers imported per
Borderer, May 29, 1886.
It appears t h a t duty was assessed a t this rate under t h e provisions of section 7, act
of March 3, 1883, for covers designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to t h e United States, and in pursuance of the rule laid down in Department's decisions of April 20, 1886 (Synopsis, 7468), and J u n e 3, 1886 (imprinted)
see weekly circular No. 66, paragraph 6.
By Department's decision of April 13 last, i t was held t h a t pasteboard boxes or cartons which go as coverings with these mouth-harmonicas, or are intended rather for
t h e protection of t h e goods in their bona fide transportation than for subsequent use
in connection with t h e instruments, should be excluded in ascertaining the dutiable
valu'e of t h e goods. '
,
They would, therefore, not be dutiable as coverings " for use otherwise than in the
bona fide transportation of t h e goods," and your assessment of such duty on similar
goods iu t h e present case cannot, accordingly, be sustained.
"
You are authorized to reliquidate the entry and to t a k e the necessary steps for refunding the duty exacted on these coverings.
Respectfuily, yours,
,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secreiary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.
(7715.)
Coverings—Boxes containing gelatine not dutiable.
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, August 23,1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of July 17 last, transmitting the
appeals (6726o and 6727o) of Messrs. James A. Hayes & Co. from your assessment of
duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem on tbe boxes containing gelatine imported
by them per Scythia, May 14, 1886, and April 12, 1886, and claimed to be non-dutiable.
It appears that the boxes iu question are small, of thin wood, and covered with paper and printed labels, and; iu the opinion of t h e Department, are too frail to be of
use otherwise t h a n as a protection to t h e gelatine in t h e bona fide transportation
thereof.
Tbey appear, also, to be the usual aud necessary coverings of such goQ4''5,
130
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY
OF T H E TREASURY.
These coverings fall withiu the principle laid down iu Department's decision of
July 8, 1886 (Synopsis, 7620).
The claim of the appellants is sustained, and you are authorized to reliquidate t h e
entries and to take measures for a refund of the duty exacted on said coverings.
Rspeectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, .Mass.
Collectors were accordingly instructed that in all cases where the
appraisers should so return the coverings as intended for use otherwise than iu the bona fide transportation of the goods to the United
States the 100 per cent, duty should be collected unless importers should
elect to treat such coverings as in4ependent commodities aside from their
contents, and dutiable at the respective rates provided therefor under
the tariff, as manufactures of wood, metal, fancy boxes, &c., in which
case duty might be assessed at the rates applicable. In Department's
decision of June 21, 1886 (S., 7592), and August 3,1886 (S., 7675).
(7592.)
Coverings— When dutiable at 100 per cent.
T R E A S U R Y DEPARTMENT, June 21, 1886.
SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of t h e 17th instant, further concerning t h e
assessment of duties on coverings (earthen jars) designed for use otherwise than in
tbe bona fide transportation of merchandise.
As intimated in my letter o f t h e 16th instant, where such coverings of merchandise
are imported as independent commodities aside from their contents, they may be classified under the appropriate provision in the tariff act relating thereto, as, for instance,
decorated earthenware, vases, aud jars should be classified as such, under Schedule B.
The rule in such instances should be,, as suggested by you, to treat all such coverings as independent commodities whenever t h e importer at tbe time of entry shall
expressly declare t h a t they are intended as independent commodities, and are not
imported as coverings of or charges incidejit to the goods they contain.
This rule corresponds with t h a t set forth in Department's previous decisions (Synopses, 5770, 7264, <fec.), to which you refer.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, New York.
(7675.)
.^
Extraordinary coverings.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , August 3, 1886.
SIR : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, in which you
state t h a t an impbrter a t Chicago desires to be informed as to whether he can import
extraordinary coverings, such as violin boxes and other boxes for use in transporting
and preserving musical instruments, and have them classified according to the materials of which they are composed, as independent importations aside from their contents.
This question was, t o some extent, the subject of Department's ruling of June 21
last (Synopsis, 7592), wherein i t was held t h a t coverings might be considered as independent commodities wbenever the importer at the time of entry shall expressly
declare t b a t they are imported as such, and are not intended merely as coverings of
or charges incident to the goods they contain. I n the case of the boxes mentioned
by you, i t is understoo.d t h a t such articles are frequently imported as such commodities without containing the articles for which they may be intended, and no objection
is perceived, when an importer shall declare at the tirae of entry that boxes of tbis
chai'a-cter are imported as such and not as coverings intended for bona |i?de trfinspoi.'-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
131
tation ofthe goods to tbe United States or otherwise, to their being classified according to the materials of which they are constituted, it beiug understood, however, that
the appraiser sball report t b a t such declaration is true.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
*
Acting Secretai'y.
CHAS. H . H A M , Esq.,
-^
United States Axixiraiser, Chicago, III.
Many importers availed themselves of this privilege and entered their
goods and the coyerings therefor separatelj^, and duty was assessed on
each at the rates respectively applicable.
This practice, however, gave rise to the question in the mind of the
Acting Secretary as to whether such coverings had ever lost their dutiable character as independent commodities in view of the peculiar
wording of section 7, which merely prohibits theadditionof their costto the
dutiable value of their contents, hut does not exempt them from the duty
which would have been applicable had they been imported separately
and in the absence of any other provision of law exonerating them from
duty.
In the mean time the appraisers at the several ports found great difiiculty iu reconciling their practice to the interpretation placed by the
Department on the proviso in section 7, as to the use of the coverings
beyond the mere trausportation to the IJnited States, and their returns
were accordingly made in such an ambiguous form as to involve collectors ill doubt, and to necessitate the decision ofthe Department in numerous cases, such as tin boxes containing peas, mushrooms, fish, and all
the other varieties of canned goods, all of which the appraisers returned
as the usual and necessary coverings for the merchandise they contained, but which passing into the hands of the consumer were for use
(in accordance with the Departmt^nt's rulings) otherwise than in the
bona fide transportation of goods to the United States.
It was also found about this time that the collector at New York, acting under the general instructions contained in Department's circular
of February 2, 1886, promulgating the Oberteuffer decision (see S.,
7387,1.). —), was passing free of duty, without reference to the Department, coverings, which, on protest and appeal from other ports, the De
liartment had held to be dutiable at 100 per cent.
This naturally gave rise to complaints of unjust disci'i min ation from
importers from otber ports, and the Department, realizing that the assessment of duty at 100 per cent, on all coverings similar to those which
had been already held to be dutiable at that rate would involve the
publication of multitudinous decisions, decided, before going further, to
obtain from the. Attorney-General a statement of his views as to the
interpretation of said proviso, and at the sarae time to submit the othen
questions which had arisen as above indicated. Copies of the Department's letter to the Attorney-General and his reply thereto are herewith inclosed.
(777M.)
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T . O F F I C E OP THE S E RETARY,
Washington, D. C , Sex:)temher2, 1886.
The
Hon.
tbe U. S.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
S I R : I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of circular issued by this Department, under date of February 2, 1886, embodying tho decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States iu the case of Oberteuffer?;. Robertson as to the proper coustruction of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, and to ask your opinion OQ the
questions hereinafter presented,
132
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Sections 2907 and 2908 of tbe Revised Statutes of the United States and section 14
of the act of J u n e 22, 1874, established rules' for tbe ascertainment of the duiiable
value of imported merchandise, by which certain additions to the cost of the actual
wholesale price of the merchandise in th«i foreign country should be made. Tbese
additions represented, among other things, the value ofthe boxes, sacks, or coverings
in which such mercbandise was contained.
Section 7 of tbe act of March 3, 1883, repealed sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised
Statutes and section 14 of t h a act of J u n e 22, 1874, and provided that thereafter the
value of t h e usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind should
not be estimated as part of the value of the imported merchaudise.
As sacks, boxes, and other receptacles which are ordinarily used in the importation
of merchandise would, if iraported separately, be dutiable uuder the respective provisions o f t h e tariff applicable thereto, the question presents itself whether they lose
their dutiable cbaracter by being filled with or used for the transportation of such
goods.
This question does not appear to have been presented to the court in the Oberteufier
case, but from a statement fouud on page 6 of the inclosed circular it appears t h a t
the court indulged in some reraarks t h a t might be considered as applicable. I t is
tbere stated, referring to a further provision of section 7 authorizing tbe assessment
of 100 i)er cent, duty in certain cases on the value of the coverings if designed to
evade duties or for use otherwise than in a bona fide transportation of the goods to
tbe United States, t h a t ^'this implied t h a t if boxes or coverings of any kind are not
of a material or form designed to evade duties thereon, aud are designed to be used
in tbe bona fide transportation ofthe goods to the United States', they are not subject to
duty.''
Bottles if filled, except those containing ginger ale (paragraph 317) are dutiable at
30 or 40 per cent, ad valorera (see paragraphs 133 and 134). " F a n c y boxes" and manufactures of wood, manufactures of pai^er, manufactures of leather, and manufactures
of other materials from which receptacles or coverings for mercbandise afe usually
made, are provided for in the tariff under their respective provisions.
In view of the apparent absence of any legislation exempting boxes, sacks, and
otber receptacles (except ginger-ale bottles as above) wben filled from the duty which
would be applicable uuder the various provisions of the tariffs if empty, I will thank
you for an expression of your opinion as to whether the stateraent of the Supreme
Court aforesaid, t h a t such coverings are uot subject to duty, should be considered as
mere dictum used in the process of argument e r a s an authoritive expression of the
views ofthe court.
The furtber provision in said section 7, by which a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem
is authorized in certain cases, as above referred to, is also submitted for your consideration, and in connection therewith I transmit copies of same of the Department's
decisions rendered thereon since the decision in the Oberteuffer case. ,
An attempt has been made to confine the exemptions in the Oberteuffer decision to
such coverings as do not pass into the hands of the consumers, but siraply serve for
the temporary protection o f t h e goods, and thus clearly come within the purview of
said decisiou, such as cartons for hosiery, gloves, laces, &c. In other cases, such as
boxes of blacking, raatcbes, preserved meats, fruits, &c., cases containing meerschaum
pipes, opera-glasses, musical instruments, &c., collectors were instructed to assess
duty as heretofore. (See decision March 13 last, S., 7408.)
Tbe question in each case was left imder the rule tbus established to be decided by
the appraiser at t h e port of importation, the collector being authorized to assess duty
at 100 per cent, ad valorem in all cases where the appraiser should report t h a t the
boxes or other coverings were for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation
of the goods to the Uuited States.
Considerable confusion has resulted from the conflicting views of the appraising
officers at the several ports, and their inability to harinooize their views as to the
uses of coverings in given cases with those expressed by the Department in similar
cases through its printed decisions. Thus, the .Department baving decided that earthenware jars contaiuing meat (S., 7556) and books containing pins (S., 7555) were dutiable ab coverings for use otherwise than in the bona tide transportation of goods to
the United States, the appraisers at Boston and elsewbere have extended the assessment of duty under the said provisious to tin cans containing mackerel and other
tish, papers contaiuing polishing powder, and numerous otber coverings concerning
which tbere is good ground for doubting the validity of such assessment.
The question, therefore, of the proper interpretation of said proviso in section 7 is
also submitted for your consideration.
Under a recent case tried in the United States district court for the southern district
of New York, and found iu volunie 28, No. 1 (United States v. Thurber) Federal Reporter, it was held tbat the transportation referred to in such proviso extended lo
the purchaser; or, in the language of tbe court; to the vest pocket ofthe consuraerp
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
133
This is apparently in conflict with t h e limitation in the proviso, which reads,
"transportation of goods to the United States."
Recently importers have been permitted to state the value or cost of coverings separately iu their entry, for t h e purpose of haviug duty assessed thereon under t h e
respective provisions in the tariff applicable t o their componeut materials.
This, of course, is upon the theory that the coverings have never lost their dutiable
character, and that the exemptions of said section 7 only prohibited the inclusion of
their cost, in the dutiable value of the merchandise wbich they contain.
Should this view be finally adopted, consistent action on t h e part of t h e Department would require t h a t noue of tlie coverings should be ivholly exempted from duty,
but should be assessed either at the rate applicable under the tariff'to their component
materials, or at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorera if the failure to state t h e cost
thereof separately in the entry should indicate an atterapt to evade the duty thereon.
Reports from the appraiser at Boston and from the general appraiser at Baltimore
are submitted, which I will thank you to return with your reply.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Seci-etary.
(7766.)
. Dutiable value of imported merchandise and. classification of coverings.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , September 21, 1886.
The subjoined opinion of the Hon. G. A. Jenks, Acting United States AttorneyGeneral, dated t h e 17th instant, concerning t h e "dutiable v a l u e " of imported merchandise and the classification of coverings containing imported merchandise, under
the existing statutes, in which the Department concurs, is published for the inforraation and guidance of officers of the customs and others interested.
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
T o COLLECTORS AND OTHER O F F I C E R S O F T H E CUSTOMS.
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E , Septemher 17, 1886.
S I R : Your communication of t h e 2d instant submits for consideration four subjects :
First. "As sacks, boxes, and other receptacles, which are ordinarily used in t h e
importation ofmerchandise would, if imported separately, be dutiable under the respective provisions of t h e tariff applicable thereto, the question presents itself
whether tbey lose their dutiable character by being filled with or used for the transportation of such goods."
Second. I n the case of Oberteuffer vs. Robertson, No. 1192 of October term, 1885, in
tbe Supreme Court, iu considering the seventh section of t h e a c t ofthe 3d of March,
1883, the following lauguage is used: " This implied t h a t if boxes or coverings of any
kind are not of material or form designed to evade the duties thereon, and are designed to be used in the bona fide transportatioii of the goods to t h e United States,
they are not subject to duty;'' with reference to .which you state, " I will thank you for
an expression of your opinion as to whether tlie statement o f t h e Supreme Court t h a t
such coverings are not subject to duty should be considered as mere dictum used
in t h e process of argument, or as an authoritative expression of the views of t h e
court."
Third. " The further provision iu said section 7, by which a duty of 100 per cent, ad
valorem is authorized in certain cases, as above referred to, is also for your consideration."
Fourth. " T h e question of the proper interpretation of t h e proviso in section-7 is
also subniitted for your consideration."
Tbe solution ofthe questions submitted depends upon the true interpretation of the
seventh section of the act of the 3d of March, 1883. That section provides ^' t h a t sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes ofthe United States, and section 14 of tbe act
entitled 'An act to amend the customs-revenue laws, and to repeal moieties,' approved
June 22,1874, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and hereafter none of the cbarges
imposed by said sections, or auy other provisions of existing laws, shall be estirnared
in ascertaining the value of go»jds to be imported, nor sball the value of tho usual and
necessary sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of auy kind be estimated as part of their
value in deterrniniug the amount of duties for which they are liable : Frovided^ T h a t
134
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material
or form designated to evade duties thereou, or designed for use otherwise than in
the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same sball be subject to
a duty of one hundred per centum ad valorem upon the actnal value of the same."
By tbis sectiou, whatever,in sections 2907 and 2908 of the Revised Statutes and the
fourteenth sectiou of the act of June 22, 1874, was included as charges, is excluded
from the estimate ill fixing the dutiable value o f t h e goods to be'iraported. The
three sections repealed by tbe section quoted erabrace ascharges—" The cost of trans^
portation, shipment, and transsbipraeut, with all expenses included from the place
of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to tbe vessel in
which shipraent is made to the United States, the value ofthe sack, box, or covering
of any kind in which merchandise is contained, commission at the usual rate, but in
no case less than two and one-half per centum, and brokerage, export duties, and all
bther a c t u a t o r usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment." When these cbarges are excluded, the goods to be imported are
left to be' valued " a t the actual market value or wholesale price tbereof at the period
o f t h e exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from
which the same has been exported." Takeu in connection with the iprovisions of sectiou 2906, Revised Statutes, which reraain unrepealed, the effect of sectiou 7 of the
act o f t h e 3d of March, 1883, is to make the dutiable value the same as " the actual
and raarket value or wholesale price" in the principal inarkets of the country frora
which the goods were exported at the tirae ofthe exportation.
Hence the market value of tbe goods to be irax>orted as above stated, as the law now
stands, is identical with the dutiable value. Nor cau any of the charges above stated
be added to that value for the purpose of charging duties thereon. Sacks, boxes, and
coverings of any kind in which raerchandise is contained are erabraced araong the
charges which are not to be iucluded with the value of the gO(|ds. As the statute in
the broadest terras excludes all these, it is not perraissible to add to its terms either
the words " i n s i d e " or "outside." Th'e exemption extends alike,and with equal force
to both inside and outside sacks, boxes, or coverings of the merchandise. But the
sarae sacks, boxes, or coverings, if imported sexiarately, would be subject to duty.
The inquiry arises whether each is not to be cbarged v^'ith a duty wben used as the
covering to other dutiable merchandise as though separately imported? Did the leg-/
islative power so intend it?
The revenue act of 1883, of which section 7 is a part, was intended to reduce the
revenue of the Government, which had become excessive^. To reduce taxation on imports was the means adopted.
The increased dutiable value ofthe importations occasioned by adding the value of
coverings, &c., under section 2907, if stricken off" entirely, would be a large reduction,
b u t if the coveriugs were only to be separated for purposes of duty frora the value of
the goods, and then taxed at separate rates, whether such a raeasure would increase
or diminish the actual t a x would be very uncertain. It is nn likely Congress would
intend a reduction and pass an act which was subject to sucb uncertain ty as to results.
Simplicity in administration is an important element of a judicious tax bill.
The collection of duties under section 2907, which was repealed, would be more
easily administered than uuder the act of 1883, if the duties on the coverings were
only intended to be changed as to rates and be levied.
The coverings were ndt by former laws subject to taxation, except as charges on
the goods, imported. Yet under the former law they Avould have been liable to taxation if separately imx)orted.
The raere repeal of t h e charge cannot be considered as an enactment of a duty on
t h a t which before the repeal w^ould not have been subject to duty.
The proviso to the section uuder consideration suggests beyond mistake that a separate levy of the duty repealed was not contemplated by Congress. That proviso is,
" T b a t if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of auy kind shall be of auy
material or forra designed to evade duties thereou, or designed for use otherwise than
in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject
10 a duty of one hundred per centum ad volorem upon tbe actual value o f t h e same."
If the same tax was intended to be irajiosed upou a given article, whether it was
used as a covering for other goods or imported separately, it is not possible t h a t Con<::ress would have iraposed a penalty for an evasion which under such an interpretation ofthe law could not occur; but if when used as a covering it came in free frora
duty, and wheu separately imported i t w a s subject to duty, there would be a temptation for a colorable and fraudulent use as a covering, in order to evade duty. The
proviso was intended to prevent such an evasion.
That the charges repealed by this section are not subject to a separate t a x is distinctly ruled in the case of Oberteuffer vs. Robertson, in the followiug language, as
quoted in your letter:
" This implies t h a t if the boxes or coverings of any kind are not of a raaterial or
form designed to evade duties thereon, and are designed to be nsed in the bona fide
transpoi'tation ofthe goods t o t h e United States, tbey are not subject to duty,"
RtiPORT OF ll-lE S E C R M A R Y
OF T H E TREASURY.
135
Tbat this is not dictum is well established by the fact tbat it is a distinct answer to
wbat the court in the opening of the opinion says is the main point in the case, as follows:
" The main question left iu the case is, whether it was lawful io impose duties on the
items for boxes and packing in the invoices on the two cases and the twenty-one cases,
and o n t h e items added to the invoices of the one case,, which item was one for like
boxes aud packing."
The brief submitted in the case by Solicitor-General Goode, on the part of t h e Government, declares:
" It will be seen that the plaintiff's protest stated substantially but a single ground '
of obiectiouto the collector's liquidation, which was that the cartons were not liable to
diity."
,
.
The court again, after a discussion of au objection raised by the Solicitor-Geueral
that, the plaintiffs in the case had mistaken their remedy, in that they had not demanded a reappraisement under section 2930, rules the objection not well founded,
aud concludes the discussion of t h a t branch of the subject by saying:
" The exaction of the duty on the packing, whetber packing goods in a carton, or
the cartons in the outer case, or lining the outer case, was not warranted by law.''
Hence it would seem the very subject was distinctly before the court, considered
by it as esseutial to a proper decision of the case, was formally ruled upon, aud thus
became an authoritative interpretation of the section under consideration. But,
while section 7 does not permit a separate assessment of t h e boxes, coverings, &c.,
uor an assessment as p a r t of the valiie of the goods, in order t h a t this freedom from
duty raay not be fraudulent!j'^ or wrongfully used to imx:)ort dutiable goods free the
proviso to the section was added by Avhich a penalty of 100 per Centura ad valorem
is iraposed whenever such an invasion is attempted. Tbis penalty is only incurred,
Iirst, when the coverJcUgs, &c., " s h a l l be of any material or form designed to evade
duties t h e r e o n ; " second, " w h e n designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide
transportation of the goods to the United Sta.tes."
The first cause for the imposition of the penalty commits to the officer cbarged
with, t h e administration of the law the duty of determining from tbe character,
value, form, and material whether the purpose and design of the covering Avas an
evasion of duty or a good-faith covering. If the covering in either material or form
is unusual and dutiable under other x>rovisions of law, he is allowed to infer, when
its character is tbns extraordinary, t h a t evasion is designed.
The second ground lor the imposition of the penalty requires the officer to determine whether the covering was designed at the time of its applicaiion to t h a t use to
be used again for the same or sorae other use. of substantial commercial value, for
which, if separately imported,.it would be subject to duty, or whether its utility wiil
be substantially exhausted as soon as it shall have subserved the use to whicli as a
covering it is then devoted. In the former event, the penalty of 100 per centum
sbould be collected; in the latter, it should not. Tbe mere fact t h a t it is continned
after importation as a covering for the same raerchandise calls for uo xienalty. Tbe
law does not contenix:)late t h a t as soon as the merchandise reaches the x>ort and x^^ys
t h e duty it shall then be denuded and new covering, either inside or outside, be
Xirovided to protect it either in handling or sale ; neither is there any time or xilace
after the imxiortation t h a t tbe same coveriug, used for tbe same merchandise as covering from which or in which to make sale of tbe merchandise, would show t h a t it
was designed for use for importation, so as to subject the covering to a duty at the
rate iraposed as a penalty in the proviso, nor would t h e fact tbat a box raight xiossibly afterwards be used for fuel or the covering for some other use subject the box
or covering to a x^eff^lty, unless there is reason to believe such use was designed and
contemxilated at or before the time of inixiortation.
. From this general consideration o f t h e subject, the conclusions follow:
1. That the sacks, boxes, and coverings of any kind the duty on which was repealed
as charges by the seveuth section o f t h e act ofthe 3d of March, 1883, are not subject
to duty, neither as a p a r t o f t h e value ofthe goods nor separately, except when they
come under the proviso to t h a t section or some special provision of law.
2. That the xiortion o f t h e oxiinion in t h e case of Oberteuffer^. Robertson quoted iu
your letter is not dictum, but an authoritative interpretation of the law on the subject referred to therein.
3. Tbat the 100 per centum ad valorem can be imposed upon coveriugs only when
tbeir material or form justifies the conclusion that they were used as such to evade
duties, or when they were designed or cqntemxjlated to be ax:)X)lied to sorae use other than
to t h a t of coverings for transportation to the United States of the mercbandise they
then inclose, even though that use as a covering only should continue after the goods
had xiassed beyond the custom-bouse to the market or consumer.
4. The mere fact t h a t tbe boxes, sacks, crates, or coverings of any kiud might possibly be used after iniportation for other uses, if such uses were not designed at or before the time of iraportation, and there was not at t h e t i m e a design to evade duty by
136
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
their use as coverings, will uot subject such coverings to tbe 100 per centum ad
valorem duty prescribed as a penalty.
Tbe 100 per centum duty in the proviso, although not in terms a penalty, is an unusually high duty.
The section uuder consideration clearly excludes the coverings from valuation as a
part of the goods.
The second element in the proviso to the section implies no turpitude ou the x^art
of the importer.
In balanced cases iu a customs act the doubt is to be resolvied in favor of the iraporter. Hence, although the coverings after the port is reached might by a literal
interpretation be construed, if intended for use thereafter as a cover to the-same
goods, to be designed " for use otherwise thau in the liona fide transportation of goods
to the United States," yet such an interpretation, while within the letter, would be a
violation of the spirit of the act.
The inclosures transmitted with yours are herewith returned.
. I am, sir, respectfully,
G. A. JENKS,
Acting Attorney-General.
The
SECRETARY OF THE T R E A S U R Y .
I t will be seen that the Attorney-Gen eral is of the opinion that while
the independent dutiable character of the coveriii,£>s is not specifically
abrogated by any xirovision of law, the proviso to section 7 and the
general intent of the revenue act of 1883 accomplish this efi'ect by implication; also, that in liis oi)inion the transportation to the United
States, referred to in the proTifeo, extended beyond the precincts of the
custom-bouse to the liands of the consumer, and that unless the material and form of such coverings justify the conclusion that they were
designed or contemplated to be applied to some use other than to.tbat of
coverings, they were not dutiable.
In order that the Department might not err in its application of the
views of the Attorney-General, with which it was deemed expedient to
acquiesce, he was specifically interrogated in subsequent letters as to
the dutiable character of boxes containing musical instruments, tin
cases containing canned goods, earthenware jars containing extracts of
meat, &c., aud similar coverings which had been the subject of decision
by the Department, and as his rephes (S. S. 7781 and 7791) specifically
stated that in his opinion these coverings were to be exempted from
duty under the Oberteuffer decision, the practice has been changed accordingly.
(7781.)
Coverings non-dutiable^—Opinion of Attorney-General.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , September 29,
1886.
S I R : I inclose herewith a coxiy of an opinion, dated the 27th iu'^taut, frora Hou. G.
A. Jenks, Acting Attorney-General, relative to the assessment of duty on tin cans
containiug French peas, prepared meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, and milk food, from
which you will see t h a t tbe officer advises t h a t such tin cans are not liable to tlie
duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem under section 7 of the actof March 3, 1883, inasmuch
as they are neither designed to evade duties nor for use otherwise than in tiie hona
fide transportation of the contents, ahd t h a t tbis opinion is in harmony with the
principles enunciated in his communication o f t h e 17th instant, ou coveriugs, which
is the subject of Department's circular o f t h e 21st instant (No. 130).
The Department accordingly modifies its decisions of April 30, 1886 (uuprinted),
on papers contaiuing needles and cartons containing chiua tea-sets ; June 3, 18~6
(synopses 7555 and 7556), on books containing pins and earthenware jurs containing
meats; June 25, 1886 (uuprinted), on tin cans containing French peas, and all
otber decisions whicb may conflict with the views expressed in the accompanying
opinion, and directs t h a t coverings similar to those in question be hereafter x:)assed
free of duty.
The appeals hereinafter described, which were received with your letters of various dates, covering assessments of duty at 100 x'ler cent, on tin boxes containing .fish,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
137
truffles, peas, mushrooms, and meats; wooden boxes containing pills, and face and
tooth powders; jars coutaining ointments, cold cream, extract of meat, and x^otted
m e a t s ; metal tubes containing shaving-soap ; pasteboard boxes coutaining corn and
bunion plasters ; papers containing needles and polisbing-powder ; and cartons containing toy tea-sets, are accordingly sustained, and the entries may be reliquidated
and duties refunded in the usual manner.
The same course may be followed with regard to previous importations of such
goods where duty has been exacted on the coverings, and the requiremeuts of the
law as to protest, appeal, and suit have been duly complied with. (See section
2931, Revised Statutes, and Dexiartment's instructions of May 7, 1886, synopsis
7505.)
Respectfully, yours,
.
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.
D E P A R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E ,
Washington, Sex^ttmbtr 27, 1886.
SIR : I received yours of the 23d of September instant, in which you s t a t e :
" I have to inform you t h a t uuder date of June 25, 1886, tbe Department decided
t h a t tin cans coutaining French peas were subject to duty at the rate of 100 per cent,
ad valorem, under the x^toviso of section 7, act March 3, 1883. ^ * * In view of
the xirovisions of section 2, act ofMarch 3, 1875 (U. S. Statutes, vol xviii, page 469), I
will t h a n k you to inform t h e D e p a r t m e n t whether such tin cans, and similar tin cans
containing prepared meats, fish, fruit, and vegetables and milk food, are properly
dutiable at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem."
Tbe cans referred to in yours are neither of material nor forra designed to evade the
duties thereon ; nor are they designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the IJnited States, except as a covering to the very goods im-.
ported, after wbich they are not adapted to any further or additional use. In accordance with the views expressed in a letter transmitted to your Department on the 17th
instant, tbe cans would not be subject to the 100 per cent, ad valorem duty prescribed
by tbe proviso to tbe seventh section of t b e act of the 3d of March, 1883.
The inclosure referred to, with yours, is herewith returned.
Very, respectfullv,
G. A. JENKS,
Acting Attorney-General.
The SECRETARY OF T H E T R E A S U R Y .
(7791.)
Coverings, non-dutiable—Boxes containing musical instruments—Opinion of AttorneyGeneral.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , Octoher 2, 1886.
SIR : The Department duly received your letter of August 7 last, reporting on t h e '
appeal (6396 o) of Messrs. Kohler & Chase from your actiou in assessing duty on certain cases containing flutes imxiorted by them, per rail from New York, under inward
foreign entry No. 4875, on the 13th of May last.
I t appears t h a t the value of the flutes on which duty was assessed in this case included the cost of certain boxes or cases coutaining the same, and described by the
' axipraiser at your x^ort as being handsomely made of wood and leatber, and divided
into several compartments, to receive the different xiarts of the flute when taken
apart. He furtber reports that in his opiuion they were designed for use otherwise
than in the bona fide trausportation of the goods to the United States.
The question of the dutiable cliaracter of boxes and cases containing musical instruraents was subraitted to the United States Attorney-General, and I herewith inclose a coxiy of his opinion thereou.
You Avill perceive t h a t boxes of tbis character, and also leather and wooden cases
for opera and marine glasses and telescopes, leather cases for pipes, razOr-cases. violinboxes, aud cases for clarionets, zithers, cornets, and trial-glasses, are, in his opinion,
(jlearly not intended to evade duty, as they are the usual and ordinary coverings for
138
R E P O R T OF T i l E SEClJEtARY
OF, T l l E
TREASURY.
such instruments, and that, although tbey may be intended for coverings for tbe same
after they shall have been imported, yet there is no reason to believe t h a t they were
designed for auy further use or for sale separately as commodities.
Under this view, in which the Dexiartment concurs, these boxes, as coverings, are
eutitled to free entry, u n d e r t h e decision ofthe Supreme Court in Oberteuffer vs. Robertson (Synopsis, 7387), and tbe recent opinion, of the Acting Attorney-General thereou
(see Circular 21st ultim^, No. 130), in all cases Avbere the invoice or entry specified the
value thereof separately from the value o f t h e goods (Synopsis, 7422).
Department's decision of June 3, 1886 (Synopsis, 7553) is modified accordingly, and
you are authorized to reliquidate the entries and take the necessary stexis for refunding the duties which have been exacted on coverings, either in the manner followed
in this case, as part of the value of their contents, or at the rate of 100 xier cent., under
section 7, act of March 3,\1883, in all cases where the xirovisions of section 2931, Revised Statntes, as to protest, appeal, and suit, bave been complied with, and the invoice or entry shows distinctly what the cost of such coverings was, aud t h a t it was
included in the value ofthe goods.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal.
[Opinion of the Attorney-General.]
DEPARTMP:NT OF J U S T I C E ,
Washington, Septemher 27, 1886.
S I R : In your communication of the 24th of September instant you state :
" Referringto tbe letter ofthe Acting Attorney-General, dated the 17th instant, in
relation to the construction of section 7, act of March 3,1883, I have the honor to inform
you t h a t under date of June 3, 1886, (Synopsis, 7553, hereininclosed), the Department
decided t b a t certain boxes or cases containing zitliers, piccolos, cornets, and trialglasses were subject to duty at the rate of 100 per cent, ad valorem, under the proviso
to said sectiou.
" The boxes containing the zithers were described as wooden boxes lined with cotton
plush, those containing the x>iccolos and cornets as wooden boxes covered with leather
and lined with cotton x:>lush, and those containing the trial-glasses as wooden boxes
covered with leather, witb a glass top, and lined with silk plush.
^'These boxes conform in shape to, and are specially made-as xJernianent receptacles
for, t h e various instruments iraported in tbem, and in some cases are held for sale as
separate commodities, both the instruments and the boxes being iinported stqiarately
or together.
" The Department held t h a t the boxes were dutiable at the rate aforesaid, because
they were 'desiged for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods
to the United States.'
"Similar decisions have been made in relation to leather and wooden cases for
opera and marine glasses and telescoxies, leather cases for pixies, razor-cases, and
violin-boxes, which are similar in character and uses to those above described, as are
also the cases containing flutes, clarionets, and a great variety of other instruments
and articles.
" In view ofthe provisions of section 2, act ofMarch 3,1875 (U. S. Stat., vol. xviii,
page 469), I will t h a n k you for an expression of your views as to tbe correctness of
such assessment of duty."
The several coverings referred to in yours were clearly not intended to evade duty,
as they are the usual and ordinary coverings for such instruments. Although t;hey
may be intended for coverings for the same after tbey shall havebeen imported, there
is no reason to believe they were designed for any further use or for sale separately
as coramodities. Hence, for the reasons set forth in tbe opinion transmitted to your
Department on the 17th instant, the boxes and coveriugs referred to in yours are not
subject to t h e 100 per cent, duty ad valorem prescribed in t h e proviso to the seventh
section o f t h e act of March.3, 1883.
Very respectfully,
G. A. JENKS,
Acting Attorney-General.
The SECRETARY OF T H E T R E A S U R Y .
The question involving the application of this decision to boxes containing Swedish matches w^hich light on tbe box, aud also other boxes
coutaining matches, which is involved in cases now pending before the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
139
tJnited States Supreme Oourt, is now awaiting further report from the
Attorney-General. Beyond this there do not seem to be any difficult
questions pending nnder the Oberteufier decision.
Eecently (S. 7786) certain casks which are dutiable at 30 per cent, ad
valorem when imported empty (T. I., new, 231), \vere held to be dutiable a t t h e rate of 100 x^er cent, under section 7 wlaen imported filled with
canary seed, a non-dutiable article for w^hich casks are not the usual
and necessary coverings.
(7786.)
Coverings—Unusual, casks filled with canary-seed—dutiable at 100 x^er cent.
TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T , Ociober 1, 1886.
S I R : The Dexiartment is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo., transraitting
the appeal (7923 o) of Messrs. Eugene Thonias & Co. frora your assessment of duty at
the rate of 100 per ceut. a d valorem on certain wine-casks iraported filled wath canaryseed, per " P a o l i n a Zino," August 16 last.
I t appears t h a t the casks were neither invoiced uor entered sexiarately, b u t t b a t
their value was ascertained by t h e axipraiser.
Such casks when iraported separately are subject to duty at the rate of 30 per cent,
ad valorem, under T. I., "new, 231, which is the rate clainied by the appellants to be
apxilicable to this case, and which would have been properly assessable thereon, provided the casks had been duly invoiced and entered.
The facts, however, t h a t they were imxiorted filled with canary-seed, which is entitled to free eutry, and t h a t no statement of their value was made on the invoice aud
entry, would indicate t h a t they were imported in this'manner in order to evade the
payraent of duty thereon, and t h a t they thus clearly fall withiu the xirovision of section 7, act ofMarch 3, 1883.
Your assessraent of duty is accordingly affirmed.
Respectfully yours,
C. S. FAIRCHILD,
^
Acting Secretary.
COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal.
As in this case the report of the collector indicated that these casks
were intended to be used in this country as receptacles for wine, the
iustice of this decision can hardly be questioned.
Eespectfully submitted.
J. G. MAOGEEGOE,
Chief Customs Division.
No. 3.
O F F I C E OF S P E C I A L A G E N T T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T ,
New Yorh, Novemher 4,' 1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
SIR : In accordance with your instructions of the 27th ultimo, we have
obtained the opinions of the best examiners, appraisers, and other customs officers at the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and ISTew
York upon the following points:
(1) Whether customs administration is feasible in respect to the
coverings of imported goods under the law as expounded b y t h e Attorney-General (S. S. 7760, 7781).
(2) Whether administration would be more feasible under the section
proposed by the Department and adopted in the Hewitt bill than under
the law interpreted by the Attorney General, as above stated.
140
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF
THll TREASURY.
Upon the first proposition the officers consulted substantially concurred in the opinion that it is not feasible to administer the law as construed by the Attorney-Gen eral—that is to say, to appraise and classify
merchandise in accordance with the ruling which requires appraisers
to ascertain and api)raise the actual market value of the merchandise
I)er se, divested of all coverings and of all costs for folding, packing*,
ticketing, papering, cartons, boxes, &Co, all of which are incident to and
part of the cost of putting the merchandise into the condition in which
it is bought and sold. In most cases merchandise is never bought and
sold in its naked condition. Its market value ^er se, as now construed,
cannot therefore be ascertained, because at has no market value in that
condition. The best the appraiser can do is to seek to ascertain the
cost of the various processes and items necessary to place the goods ^^r
se in marketable condition and deduct such cost from the value of the
goods as bought and sold. To do this is practically impossible in most
cases, and therefore recourse is had to arbitrary methods and estimates,
adopted by each examiner or appraiser, which are naturally difierent
at difi'erent ports. To obtain uniform bases for such estimates is imX)racticable, because the cost of putting goods into marketable condition varies in every locality and with every manufacturer. The result
is that two imi)orters will often pay a difierent amount of duty npon
goods of precisely the same character and value, imported at the same
time from the saaie place. The method and cost of preparing and putting up may be and often is different as to the same goods sold to difierent buyers. They also A^ary at difierent seasons for the same buyers.
Goods, such as gloves, handkerchiefs, hosiery, and various other articles,
are frequently put np in expensive ornamental cartons or boxes, costingmore than the merchandise they contain. The covering is intended to
make the article attractive and salable, and the gross price for the whole
constitutes the value of the thing bought and sold. At the same time
goods of the same character and value may be put up in cartons costing
a mere trifle, and yet the merchandise pays the same duty as in the
previous case, although costing but half as much.
The law, as interpreted by the Attorney-General and the courts, has
added infinitely to the. difficulties of the appraising officers, and has
multiplied the inconsistencies and inequalities of the tarifi* to such an
extent that regularity and nniformity in administration are impossible.
It reduces the duties collected upon almost all imported merchandise
subject to rates based upon value, but in.irregular, varia^ble, and eccentric ways, the largest reductions being often upon goods dutiable at the
lower rates. For instance, upon dress silks, dutiable at 50 per cent., the
reduction in value for coverings would be not more than 1 per cent.,
while upon blacking, dutiable at 25 per cent., the reductions allowed for
coverings would be from 50 to 75 per cent, of the total A-alue. In the
one case 49J per cent, duty is collected, and in the other from 6J to 12^
per cent, duty is collected upon the value ofthe article as actually purchased.
^
The reduction is not uniform throughout the tarifi* schedules, nor is
it uniform as to the same goods included in the same schedule. I t may
be said that owing to the unknow^n and uncertain conditions attaching to
every invoice no two importers pay the same duty upon the^same article.
An appraiser passing regularly the same goods may endeavor to make
his own action uniform in this regard, but there can be no uniformity
among all the appraisers at the several ports.
When the appraising officer is deprived of the fundamental guide in
appraisements, viz, the value of the goods in the condition in which
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
141
they are bought and sold, he is at sea without charter compass. Under
present instructions, in order to determine the value of what are called
the good^per se, heis required to find the value of non-dutiable items
which have no market value apart from the goods to which they belong
and of which they are a part, which value cannot therefore be ascertained by any satisfactory method.
The following examples present some of the difficulties in the administration of the law under existing rulings and instructions:
Olive oil in earthenware bottles costs, say 450 francs per kilogram,
the bottles being valued at 50 francs.
The same article in glass bottles costs 420 francs, the bottles being
valued at 20 francs.
In the first case the bottles are non-dutiable; in the second they are
dutiable at 40 per cent, under the special provisions for glass bottles
filled. The value of the merchandise j?er se is the same in both cases,
dutiable at 25 per cent. In one case the importer pays upon the merchandise as bought at the rate of 22.2 per cent., and in the other at the
rate of 25.7 per cent.—the higher duty being exacted upon the article of
lower value.
Ink is imported in both earthen and glass bottles. In one case the
bottles are free-and in the other they are dutiable.
The same inequality is found as to numerous articles prepared and
jjut up in bottles of earthenware or glass, such as sweetmeats, fruits,
comfits, pickles, &c. A noticeable illustration is furnished in the case
of jams or pre^serves of trifling value _2^er se, and dutiable at'35 percent.,
but put up in decorated porcelain or china vessels, fit for other uses,
which if imported separately would be subject to duty at 60 per cent.
While it is manifest that' the real valueof the importation is in the covering rather than its contents, yet i t i s non-dutiable if it is a usual covering for that class of merchandise, while a cheap glass bottle inclosing
the same article is dutiable at a higher rate than is exacted upon its
contents.
Small sets of decorated chinaware, called ''toy sets," when put up in
cartons, are held to be dutiable as toys at 35 per cent., the value of the
cartons, from 20 to 50 per cent., being deducted as non-dutiable, the duty
collected being from 17J to 28 per cent, upon the value of the merchandise as bought. The same articles w^hen imported in crates or other
packages, and not in cartons, are classified as decorated china, at 60 per
cent. duty. About 7^ per cent, is deducted from this value for nondutiable charges, so that the rate upon the merchandise as bought is
55^ per cent. A discrimination is thus made in favor of the article as
put up in the more expensive manner.
Candies are imported in fancy boxes, the value of which is three times
that of the candy itself. These boxes cannot, however, be said to be an
unusual covering, because certain shippers put up candies regularly iu/
that way.
Certain cotton yarn or thread pays a specific duty according to its
value per pound. The expense of putting up is greater or less according to the size of the skein. Allowances are made for charges in putting
up, papering, &c. It is found that the same quality of thread is dutiable in one case at 36 cents per pound and in another at 48 cents per
pound, uot on account of any real difierence in value, but because of
charges deducted in one case and not in the other.
Paints and water-colors are imported in boxes of mahogany or metal,
of elaborate and expensive workmanship, containing, besides the colors,
pencils, palettes, spatchels, &c., all adjuncts necessary for tbe conveu-'
142
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
o
ience of the artist. The value'of the colors themselves is but a small
part of the value of the merchandise as an entirety. The cost ofthe
case largely exceeds the value of the paints, and yet itis held to be non.dutiable, being the usual covering.
Clay tobacco pipes are a common article of import and are dutiable
at 35 per cent. They are uniformly bought and sold packed in boxes.
The deductions from the value claimed for packing and coverings range
from 30 to 50 per cent, of the value of the merchandise, so that the duty
collected on this article is really only from 17J per cent, to 24J per cent.
Safety matches are imported in boxes made especially with an outside surface upon which alone the match can be ignited. Deduction is
claimed for boxes and putting up amounting to 50 per cent, of the value, •
thus reducing the duty from 35 to 17^ per cent. This claim has been
sustained upon suit, but the Department has not acquiesced in the decision.
Large quantities of matches are imported from Sweden. They cost,
per case of 2,500 gross, £142 Is. Sd. The following deductions are claimed
and allowed for non-dutiable charges:
Inside coverings and packing
Paper labels and putting up in dozens 1
Outside case aud label zinc-lined
Inland transx:)ortation
Total deductions..
Leaving as dutiable
£
54
7
15
4
s. d.
11 8
12 1
2 1
13
81 7 1
60 14 1
the duty collected upon the real value of thegoods in their marketable condition being only about 15 per cent, instead of 35 per cent.
Blacking is dutiable at 25 per cent. In an invoice of 11,000 francs
the charges claimed and deducted amounted to 7,000 francs, leaving
but 4,000 fraucs as dutiable. This reduced the duty upon the value of
merchaudise as purchased to less than 10 per cent.
Malaga grapes are packed iu kegs with cork dust and are shipped
by the producers to Liverpool, where they are sold t o t h e markets of the
world. The kegs and conteiyts are uniformly sold as an entirety, and
there is no market value either at Liverpool or in the country of xiroduction for the grapes per se. Neither buyer nor seller in Liverpool,
nor the appraiser in'New York, can separate the difi'erent elements of
value in a keg of grapes, except by arbitrary methods of calculation.
The exemptions claimed for chargesand coverings, and generally allowed
on this article, amount to more than half the valueof the merchandise,
then reducing the duty from 20 per cent, to less than 10 per cent, upon
the value of the goods bought.
Harmonicas are imported in leather-covered boxes valued at 1.10
marks, while the contents are valued at .90 pfennings, reducing the duty
from 25 per cent, to less than 12 per cent, on the merchandise as bought
and sold.
French violins, w^orth 5 francs, are imported in boxes worth 7 francs,
the latter being exempt from duty.
Certain glass beads are uniformly imported upon strings and are sold
in that condition only. Claims are now made for deductions on account
of stringing and putting up, amountingto from 1 percent, to 5 per cent.
It is iai possible for the ax)praiser to ascertain the value of the goods
2^er se.
Imitation meerschaum x')ipes, valued, at2 florins xier dozen, areimported
in leather boxes valued at 3 florins per dozen, the latter being exempt
from duty,
.
'
REPORT OF THE SECREIARY OF THE TREASURY.
143
On mock jewelry the deduction allowed for coverings is sometimes
as high as 25 per cent.
•
On bonnet pins the reductions reach 15 per cent.
Instances of this kind might be multiplied to embrace ajmost every
article in the tarifi* schedules subject to ad valorem rates, each of them
varying in the x)erceutage of reductions for coverings, &c., such reductions difi'eiing widely in invoices of the same article both as to items
and amounts.
•
.
The general tendency is to an increase of the deductions claimed and
to overstate the value of non-dutiable items, especiallj^ in invoices of
consigned goods and among the less scrupulous importers, all tending
to the disadvantage of the lionest trader. For instance, cartons covering Crefeld velvets, formerly stated in the invoice at 5 marks, are now
charged at 40 marks. In one invoice of purchased velvets from Lyons
the cartons were charged at 1.25 francs, while in another invoice from
the same shipper of consigned velvets received at the same time the
valueof the same kind of cartons was stated at 2.50 francs.
In an invoice of consigned ribbons the value of the whole invoice was
stated at 8,957 francs, from which the following deductions were claimed:
Praucs.
Blocking charges
Rolls, xiaper, and tickets
Boxes and wrax)pers
Cases aud packing
Carriage to shipxiing port
Freight to Philadelxihia
Insurance
~
...»
122.10
304. 80
170. 80
85.40
97. 60
158.60
40.85
980.15
The above represents generally claims made upon invoices of consigned
goods, although they may vary as to items and amounts with difi'erent
importers, and are largely fictitious. In invoicesof goods actually purrchased in the same markets the charges usually stated are for such
legitimate items as pacjking cases, &c. Thus'the regular purchaser invoicing his goods honestly as the transaction occurred, makes no claim
for other items contributing to the value of the goods as bought, and
deductions therefor cannot be allowed him, as in the case of his sharp
competitor who makes such claims.
Upon the second inquiry in 3^our letter, there was substantial agreement in the oxunions expressed by all the officers consulted, that administration would be more feasible under the section proposed by the •
Department and adopted in House bill 7652, known as the Morrison
tarifi* bill, than under the present law as interpreted by the AttorneyGeneral.
Some criticisms w ere made, however, upon the phraseology ofthe section and changes w^ere suggested which it was thought would make the
meaning more easilj^ understood and prevent possible litigatipn.
' These suggestions, so far as they are deemed important, are as follows:
(1) To strike out after the word ^'commissions" in line 25 the words
"marine insurance, export duties or fees for authentication by consular officers of the United States," and to insert in lieu thereof the
words, '' brokerage export duty, nor any other actual or usual charge
incidental to the exportation thereof."
(2) The insertion after the word ^'all" in line 15 the words 'Mnside
boxes, coverings," so that tlie claqse willread, ^'including all inside
144
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
boxes, coverings, costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the
same in such condition."
(3) To strike out the w^ords ^^bona fide" in lines 20, 32, and 37.
(4) To strike out the words ''marine insurance" in line 25, and the
words, '' or fees for authentication by consular officers of the United
States" ill lines 26 and 27.
(5) To strike out all after the word ' ' a n d " in line 11 down to and including the word '' allowed " in line 29, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
^
In the condition in which such merchandise is there bought and sold for exportation to the United Stales, or consigned to the United States for sale, and in which it
is prepared and x^ut uxi for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident to xilacing the same iu such condition : Froi^ided, however, that in determining the
dutiable value ot imxiorted merchandise no estiraate shall be made of tbe cost or
value o f t h e outer case, crate, sack, or other outer covering, in which such merchandise may be packed or inclosed for trausportation to the United States, and which is
designed to be used solely for sucb transportation, in case tbe same shall be specifically stated in the invoice, and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoice
value shall be allowed.
(6) Another suggestion was to substitute the inclosed draft for the
entire section.
All of the officers concurred in the view that, while the adoption of
the section proposed in the Hewitt bill would afford substantial relief
from present difiiculties, the best plan to simplify administration and to
do justice to all concerned would be to assess duty upon the value of
merchandise in the precise condition in which it is i)ut on board the
vessel for exportation to the United States, including all costs and expenses of placing it in that condition.
Thelaw in respect to coverings is not exceptional as a fruitful source
of trouble iu administration, although at the present time it is the
cause of the greatest embarrassment to customs officers.
In the revision ofthe statutes in 1874, the various provisions of law
relating to the entry and appraisement of merchandise and the liquidation of duties w^ere arranged in an illogical and disconnected manner.
Some of these provisions are defective, and some are inoperative. In
our judgment all the laws relating to the subjects mentioned should be
carefully rearranged and revised.
Eespectfully, yours,
A. K. TINGLE,
GEO. C. TICHENOE,
Special Agents.
[Enclosure No. 1.]
I n all cases where imported mercbandise is subject to a specific rate of duty based
upon or regulated, in any manner, by the value thereof, or to an ad valorem rate of
duty, such value shall be the actual market value or wholesale xirice of such merchandise in the xirincipal markets of the country from whence imported, at the time
of exportation to the IJnited States, and in the X)acked condition in which it is actually p u t up for shipment, including all costs, charges, and expenses incident thereto,
whether t h e same has been actually purchased or procured otherwise than by xiurchase, or whether consigned to the United States for sale : Frovided, however. T h a t
in determining the dutiable values of such merchandise no estimate shall be made
of t h e cost or value of such outside shixDping sack, crate, case, or other similar outside covering used and aesigned to be used only in the bona fifle transportation of
such merchandise to the United States, together with its individual lining or packing
of zinc, paper, or other material, nor of tlie actual or necessary expenses incident to
t h e transportation of the merchandise from the place of purchase or consignment,
to the yes^ej or other vehicle in which exported to the United States, nor of com-
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
145
missions, marine or fire insurance, export duties, or fees for authentication by consular officers o f t h e United States, in case the same shall be severally and specifically
stated in amounts in the invoice and to he includedin the cost or value of the invoice,
and if not so stated no deduction therefor from the invoice value shall be allowed,
either on the invoice or the e n t r y : And provided further, That if there be used for
covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be provided for in the free
list, any article or material designed for use other than the bona fide transportation
of such merchandise to the United States, duty shall be assessed on such article or
material at the rate to which it would be subject if imported separately; and if there
be used for covering or holding imported merchandise which shall be subject to duty,
any article or material designed for use other than in the bona fide transportation of
such merchandise to the United States, and which article or material if imported
separately would be subject to a higher rate of duty tha,u the merchandise contained
therein, the whole invoice value of such merchandise shall be subject to such higher
rate of duty, unless the value of the merchandise and of the article or material
covering or holding the same shall be separately stated in the invoice, in which case
t h e duties shall be assessed and collected on each separately, at the rates prescribed
by l a w : And provided further. That,, excexit as provided in this section and in section
17 of this act, duties shall hot be assessed upon an amount less t h a n the invoice
value, or t h e invoice value with such addition as the owner, consignee, or agent may
make, as provided in section 2900, Revised Statutes.
No. 4.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
November 29, 1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
S I R : In accordance with your desire of this date, I have the honor
to state that it is utterly impossible at this time, in the absence of any
reliable data, to give anything like a correct, or even an approximately
correct, estimate of the amount of money needed to refund duties, interest, and costs, under the decisiou of the United States Supreme Court
in the Oberteuffer case, as interpreted by the United States AttorneyGeneral.
Shortly after the decision of the court was rendered, I made a rough
estimate of $1,500,000, and I have no reason since to change my opinion. I t may be more than that amount, but will not exceed $2,000,000.
The late opinions of the United States Attorney-General have had
but little eff'ect, and they will not increase the amount, say, mbre than
$25,000.
Eespectfully yours,
• .
J O H N G. MACGEEGOE,
Chief of Customs Division.
H. Bx. 2—voLn
10
APPENDIX H ,
A D M I N I S T R A T I O N O F THE CUSTOMS LAWS AT THE FOUR LARGE SEAPORTS (BOSTON, NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA, AND BALTIMORE), IN '
1885-'86.
No. 1.
[Copies of the appended letter of the Secretary were, on October 15, addressed to
the collectors, naval officers, surveyors, general appraisers, and appraisers at the ports
of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 1
TREASURY
DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
^
Washington^ J>. C, October 15, 1886.
SIR I You are hereby requested to prepare and send to me at your
very earliest convenience, and before the 1st proximo, a full and detailed exhibition of whatever reforms in the administration of your
office have been made by you this year, or have beeri made at your
port, together with the consequences of such reforms as far as they
have to you become apparent. You are also requested at the same
time to acquaint me with any other reforms in your office which you
have in contemplation, or which you advise, at your port, and especially
such as are, within your knowledge, called for by those among importers
who transact considerable>business with the custom-house, and which
will require a change either in the law or its administration.
Will you also, in the same communication to me, set forth the chief
complaints, if any (including causes of such complaints), which are now
made to you by importers, in regard to the present execution of the
customs laws at your port, and declare in what particulars the execution of those laws, in your opinion, has been improved during the present year.
Eespectfully, yours,
DANIEL MANNING.
Collector of Customs,
POET OF BOSTONo
No.2.
L E V E R E T T SALTONSTALL—Appointed collector of customs for the district of Boston
and Charlestown, Massachusetts, November 10th, 1885.
CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, Octoher 25, 1886.
SIR : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th
instant, wherein I am requested to prepare and send at my earliest convenience, and before the ist proximo, a full and detailed exhibition of
146
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
147
whatever reforms in the administration of this office have been made by
me this year, or have been made at this port, together with the consequences of such reforms as far as they have to me become apparent.
In reply, I have the honor to state that upon my accession to office I
found that the cbanges suggested by the special commission created by
you, and who visited tbis port in September, 1885, and which changes
mainly had reference to the internal administration, so to speak, of this
office, had been substantially carried out and are now in operation.
The commission, I am informed, made a very careful and thorough
examination into the methods and practices prevailing at this port in
the collection ofthe revenue, and submitted an exhaustive reportof its
doings and recommendations. To the report of that commission, in
this connection, I beg leave respectfully to refer.
The reforms instituted as above were in the direction of a better administration of the customs at this port, and are, so far as my experience
extends, satisfactory in their operation.
During my term of office there has been, by direction ofthe Department, in letters of August 3, August 9, and October 4, 1886, the abrogation of what is known as the "48-houT privilege", under article 1016
of the Eegulations, which, under Department letter of authority of June
28,1877, was extended to the importer, but which now is confined to the
" master, agent, or owner of the vessel" (vide Department circular of
May 5,1877). The change of the practice in this regard has created
more or less friction, but it is hoped that the various steamship lines
through their agents will conform to the requirements of said circular,
and thus relieve all parties in interest in the various importations by
said steamers from the embarrassment they allege they are undergoing.
The question as to when protests and appeals, under section 2931,
Eevised Statutes, must be presented by the aggrieved party, which in
the past has been a mooted one (vide S. S., 2389, 3730, 4079), has been
at length definitely determined (vide S. S., 7886, 7409), and the instructions therein set forth are strictly enforced at this port. The reform in
this direction I regard as a substantial and practical one, and is satisfactory in its operation.
The practice prevailed here to issue a general order,to discharge
steam vessels in advance of entry. This practice has been discontinued.
As regards the inquiry " W h a t are the chief complaints, if any, * * * ^
which are now made to you by importers in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port," I would state that there is, at
this port, considerable trade, by sea, with the adjacent British Provinces. The articles usually impoited are the products thereof. There
has been in the past, and there is now, frequent complaint made by importers regarding the enforcement of the regulations concerning consular invoices.
^
Their complaints have, from time to time, been laid before the Department, and various circulars on the subject have been promulgated.
I beg leave to cite that of May 9, 1866, S. S. 3775, 4380, 4622,7099, and
circulars of July 24, 1880, February 19, 1884, and Februaiy 8,1886.
I t is respectfully suggested, with a due regard for the interests of
the revenue, that a modification of section 2859, Eevised Statutes, by
legislative action, would relieve importers from the annoyance and embarrassment to which they are now subject.
In this connection I beg leave to refer to Department letter (H.B.J.)
of April 25,1884, and reply thereto of May 6 following.
Section 2971, E. S., as construed by the Attorney-General (vide S. S.
6170), requires the sale of goods which remain in bonded warehouse be
148
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
yond three years from the date of importation, and even though the
duties, have been paid thereon in full. The enforcement of this requirement has caused much inconvenience and expense to importers who,
prior to the promulgation of said decision, enjoyed the privilege which
prevailed, as I understand, at all the principal ports, of removing their
goods at any time to suit their convenience.
Under the regulation issued in pursuance of the act of June 30,1880
(vide S. S. 4582, and Article 775, Eegulations of 1884), entry is not allowed until the arrival of all the merchandise embraced in the invoice
and bill of lading. It frequently happens that a portion only of the
shipment is received by the transporting vessel or vehicle. I beg
leave to suggest whether the Eegulations may not properly be amended
in this regard, so that on receipt of the I. T. entry and bill of lading,
and arrival ofa portion of the goods, entry may be received of the entire importation specified in the invoice and bill of lading. I think this
would be a measure of relief, and the Government sufi'er no detriment.
As regards the boud of importer for delivery of unexamined packages (Form 86, General Eegulations, Art. 335), it has seemed to me that
it contains a condition not warranted by the law. I t will be perceived
that section 2899, on which the bond is based, imposes forfeiture in case
the packages delivered " shall be opened without the consent of the
collector," * * * or "if the package is not delivered to the order
of the collector according to the condition of the bond." The bond,
however, contains the provision for the payment of " whatever excess
of duties or, charges may be assessed or ascertained and found to be
due upon the final liquidation of the entry." =* * *
This condition, so far as I am aware, appears for the first time in the
Eegulations of ^84. It does npt appear either in the Eegulations of
57 or of ^74 (vide Form No. 77, Eegulations of ^57, p. 146, and Form
No. 86, Eegulations of '74, p. 17.5).
To harmonize section 2899 and the form of bond prescribed by the
Department, as found in the Eegulations of '84, additional legislation
would seemingly be required.
As regards the fees of merchant appraisers in reappraisement cases,
if the interpretation of section 2725, Eevised Statutes, by Brown, J., as
reported in Federal Eeports, vol. 28, No. 7, in the. case of Iselin et aL
vs. Hedden, collector, be regarded as sound in law, I should favor some
legislative action changing the statutes in this respect.
In my judgment, in all cases where the importer claims a reappraisement, the compensation of the merchant appraiser should be paid by
him whenever the finding of the appellate board is adverse to him;
when in his favor, by the Government, thus applying what is understood to be the general principle in cases of arbitration.
I consider $10 per diem a reasonable compensation for such service.
Judge Brown held in the Iselin case, referred to above, that under
section 2636, Eevised Statutes, the collector was liable to the penalty
therein prescribed when he demands or receives any other or greater
fee, compensation, or reward than is allowed by law; and that, although
the exaction was in pursuance of a regulation of the Treasury Department, still that constituted no legal defense.
In myjudgment that section calls for amendment. The question of
intent should constitute the gravamen of the charge.
If the collector in good faith enforces a Treasury regulation, issued
Xiresumably in pursuance of law, and based thereon, he should not be
subjected to any personal liability for so doingj neither should his acts
subject him to any penalty.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
149
To meet such a contingency there ought to be some statutory provision that, in the event of such liability iucurred or penalty imposed, ^the
Government should indemnify and save harmless the collector.
Before closing this report I may be permitted Driefly to refer to the
eff'ect of the civil service reform law, upon the efficiency of the service.
I have endeavored to be true to the spirit and letter of the law; and,
without enlarging upon the difficulties attending my effbrt to explain
to the vast number of applicants for office the impossibility of making
appointments, except through the examinations, I ta.ke great satisfaction in stating that in all respects the condition of the customs service
at this port has been greatly improved through the wholesome influence
of this reform.
I have recommended changes only in those cases where I believed
they would add to the efficiency of the service, endeavoring to inspire
the officers and employes with proper self-respect and ambition to succeed through merit alone; to make them feel that the custom house
is no longer to be a political, but a business, institution, and to be administered on purely business principles, so that hereafter they may all
manfully maintain their own opinions and act according to their own
convictions, so long as they take no active part in politics.
The result, thus far, is most encouraging, and it would be greatly to
be deplored should this grand experiment fail through want of support
on the part of the legislative or executive branches of the Government.
I inclose communications from deputies Munroe and Preston, submitting various suggestions which I regard worthy of consideration.
I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant,
L. SALTONSTALL,
Collector.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington^ D. 0.
[Enclosure ISo. 1.]
W A R E H O U S E D I V I S I O N , CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, October 23, 1886.
'Hon.
L. SALTONSTALL,
/
.
Collector of Customs, Fort of Boston :
,
S I R : With reference to Department letter (confidential) of the 15th inst., the subject matter referred by you to this division has received due aud careful consideration;
concerning which I respectfully submit the following report:
(1) *'As to whatever reforms have been made."
The comparatively recent advent ofthe deputy in cbarge necessitates conciseness,
and in this connection, as the present condition of the division as a whole may be
considered satisfactory, I would report progress and ask further time.
^
(2) '' Contemplated reforms, or those which may be advised."
Referring to synoptical decision No. 7116, it appears t h a t a protest must be lodged
within ten days from the time of the liquidation of the transportation entry made at
the port of importation. It frequently bappens t h a t tbe ten days have elapsed before the consignee at the port of destination makes entry, or before the appraiser at
the last-named port has completed his examination, and should 'he return a different
classification from t b a t reported by the appraiser at the port of importation, and be
sustained in such action by the latter office, the merchant thus debarred from the
right ot protest is without redress.
To illustrate: On t h e 15th June, 1885, an entry for ^'warehouse and immediate
transportation " was received at this' office from the port of New York, bearing date
of June 3, 1885, covering t w o cases containing merchandise of various classifications.
150
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.
Rewarehousing entry was duly made b y t h e consignee, and a prompt examination
made by the appraiser. Owing to a difference between the appraising officers at the
two ports in the classificatiou of certain articles embraced in the invoice, the entry
was returned to the port of New York under date of June 30, 1885, for readjustment.
This port was notified by the collector at the port of New York, under date of October
24, 1H85, to the effect ' H h a t as the corrections sought by this office would result in a
reduction of the duty, and in view of Department instructions contained in S. S. 7116,
he was unable to reliquidate t h e entry."
(3) " Such as are called for by importers, and which will require a change in the
law or its administration."
In addition t o t h e requirement of article 359, paragraph 2, Customs Regulations of
1884, '' t h a t a notice of tbe liquidation of entries be posted in some conspicuous place
accessible to the public," aud (paragraph 3) " the posting of the transcript will be
deemed and taken to be a full notice to all parties interested," I would suggest t h a t
a copy ofthe ^'bulletin notice" of bis liquidation be forwarded to theimporter, thus
obviating numercms complaints of lack of notice and the necessity of frequent examination of the files of this office for such information. ''
The enforcement of the order to sell bouded goods wbich have been in warehouse
three years, despite tbe fact of the payment of the duties, causes great complaint
from merchants for obvious reasons. After all claims of the Government have been
satisfied the merchant naturally looks upon the matter as one which concerns only
himself and the warehouse proprietors ; and the attempted euforcement of the order
has in every case aroused great opposition. It ];)romises to be a source of constant
friction and much confusion, aud I am constrained to include it under the head of
merchants' complaints.
I regret t h a t the limit of time at my disposal does not permit an addendum fromthe
superintendent of warehouses, and t h a t my report is thus bereaved of t h a t which
must have proved instructive and unique. A suggestion of his, however, in regard
to the sale of goods remaining in bondedw^arebouse beyond three years from date of
importation, and upon which duties have been paid, is not.ed under question three.
Very respectfully,
W. PRESTON,
Deputy Collector.
fEnclosure No. 2.J.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Offiice, October 21,1886.
Hon.
L E V E R E T T SALTONSTALL,
Collector of Customs :
S I R : In compliance with your request for a report of the reforms or improvements
t h a t have been made in my division during the paist year, and for such suggestions
as will, in my opinion, without impairing t h e efficiency of the service, prevent annoyances to the importers, I have respectfully to submit the following:
The changes suggested by the special agents who visited this port in September,
1885, were mostly of a routine character, and were, with few exceptions, immediately
adopted.
The abohtion of the 48-hour list, so called, which gave the privilege to the importers who signed it of having their importations remain on the wharf for a limited
time, was a change recently inaugurated. The custom which had prevailed for some
years of granting general orders in advance of the entry of the steamers has also been
discontinued.
The order of the hono^'able Secretary of the Treasury, dated May 6,1886 (S. S. 7501),
^supplemented by your letter of August 4, last, has had a good effect, and more attention to work is now given by those clerks who were neglectful than formerly. I would
respectfully submit t h a t in my opinion the second paragraph of article 295, general
regulations of 1884, wbich directs t h a t the bill ot lading and uot tbe invoice must ordinarily govern as to who is'the cousiguee, is in direct contradiction to the intent and
spirit of the law, so far as having the entry made in the name of such consignee is concerned. I t would be better to deal withxthe owner or importer direct, rather than
with the consignee, who frequently is a custom-house broker, and knows nothing whatever about the merchandise.
Sec. 2859, Revised Statutes, allows the collector to admit to entrj^ merchandise not
exceeding pOO in value without the production of a consular invoice; S. S. 7356, dated
February 8, 1886, reduces the limit to |50. This action has caused a great deal of
annoyance to our importeis, particularly those who import from the British Provinces,
and I would suggest t h a t |100, as the law provides, is a fair limit.
EEPORT OF THE SECBBTAHY OF THE TREASURY.
151
Sec. 2844, Revised Statutes, permits the authentication of invoices in the absence of
a consul by two respectable merchants residing in the port from which the merchandise shall have been imported^ This section is practically inoperative as it is now,
for the reason t h a t there are no importations into this port from any country where
there is no consul. I would suggest t h a t the section be amended by prescribing some
limit of distance—say 20 miles—that the shipper shall travel to obtain consular verification. This suggestion is made because I hear frequent complaints from our importers of merchandise from the provinces, that the shippers are many miles from the
consular office, very often several days'journey, and to require them to go such long
distances to procure verified invoices must be a great burden to them. Complaints
are being made by importers of merchandise from Europe of the requirements of sec.
2854, Revised Statutes, t h a t invoices shall be produced to the consular officer nearest
the'place of shipment. I t is the practice for our large importing houses to employ a
commission merchant in a large city—such as Berlin—and they have been in the habit
of having their goods from the districts in the vicinity all included by their commissioners in one invoice. Now the invoices from the districts outside of the large city
must be verified by the consular officer nearest the shipper. This requires separate
invoices for small shipments, and entails vexatious annoyances to the importers,
which might be avoided if invoices were verified a t the last port.
Section 2901, Revised Statutes, requires the collector to designate the packages to
be sent for examination. I would suggest t h a t this section be amended by having
the entry clerk, under t h e direction o f t h e deputy collector, designate these packSection 2921, Revised Statutes, provides for an allowance of duties when a deficiency is found on examination by the appraiser. The practice at the present time
is to assess duty on the missing articles, unless the appraiser reports the case *' full
and in good order," or the importer submits positive proof t h a t the articles in question were not landed in this country, something which in most cases it is impossible
to do. I t seems to me t h a t the law clearly intends to aff'ord relief to, t h e importer,
and it certainly must be a hardship to oblige him, at considerable expense, to seek
redress in court. If the packages have been robbed duriug the voyage of importation, on proper proof being furnished, allowance should also be made.
Powers of attorney are now required to be signed by all the members of the firm
(S.S.5580). I t would greatly facilitate business if this rule was amended to allow
the powers to be executed by those members of the firm who reside in the United
States. Article 775 of the regulations, third paragraph, requires all goods embraced
in t h e I. T. entry to be entered within twenty-four hours after their arrival; and, if
by reason of the non-arrival of any part of t h e goode, the portion which has arrived
must he sent on storage as unclaimed.
This should be amended, as by reason of the non-arrival of p a r t of a consignment
the portion already here rhust be sent to store, thus causing an expense to consignees
which it is entirely put of their power to avoid. I would suggest t h a t it would be
proper to accept an entry on arrival of the first portion, covering the whole importation, and the subsequent arrivals to be treated as of this entry.
Articles 829 to 834, inclusive, should be amended as set forth in letter from this office to the Department under date of October 7.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
^ M, A. MUNROE,
Deputy Collector, First Division.
N O . 3O
. .
^
-
. NOVEMBER 13.
S I R : In a printed statement of the representations made on March 4,
1886, by merchants and manufacturers of Boston to a subcommittee of
the Ilnited States Senate Committee on Finances, I find a report made
by the '^Committee on Testimony" of facts in behalf of those merchants
and manufacturers " as to undervaluations of imported merchandise
entered for customs duties," in which there is a severe arraignment of
this Department previous to March 4, 1885, and of the importers and
customs officers at the port of New York, wherein it is said, among other
things, '^ that the custom-house in this port of Boston is free from those
evils may be due to its exemption from the consignment system of which
New York is the center.''
152
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASTRY.
I fiitd also in the same document a report in behalf of the same mer
chants and manufacturers, made by a '^committee on legislation," to
which are appended the names of ten well-known citizens of Massachusetts, and among them that of Mr. Worthington, yoiir immediate
predecessor in the office of collector of customs at Boston, who reported
to me on September 15, 1885, that he neither had, or had been able to
procure, any evidence t h a t ' ' duties have not within the last few years
been levied and collected, as the law requires," or '^Hhat the full amount
of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected," wherein it is
said, among other things, that *^ in practice, unless there is some cause
for suspicion, the invoice is often taken as correct without any investigation."
.
I desire you to make diligent inquiry, and report to me immediately,
of any invoice which has ever, by the ap»praising officer, or the collector, at Boston, been thus taken as the basis of duty ^'without any
investigation," or without adequate investigation.
In a report made to me by Appraiser Stearns, under date of October
23,1886, I am told that between October 1,1885, and October 1, 1886,
there were in Boston sent to the appraiser 36,371 invoices; that 34,933
were reported to the collector by the appraiser as ^^' value correct"; that
1,438 were advanced in value by him; that 79 were advanced more than
10 per cent.; that 45 were appealed for reappraisement; and that on 10
the advance was sustained.
You are requested to forthwith inform me:
^
(1) What nuinber of all .the invoices thus advanced by the appraiser
were of purchased, and what number of consigned, merchandise.
(2) What number of those advanced by the appraiser above 10 per
cent, were of purchased, and what number were consigned.
(3) What number of those advanced on reappraisement above 10
per cent, were purchased,.and what number were consigned.
(4) Of those finally advanced on reappraisement by any percentage
whatever, and especially those advanced more than 10 per cent., what
examination was made in the collector's office or by the naval officer to
ascertain whether or not,there was undervaluation when the invoice
was made, and whether or not the undervaluation was made '^ with an
actual intention to defraud the United States."
(5) Who actually made the examination, and what is now the rule
and habit of your office and the naval office in regard to the examination
of fraud in invoices.
(6) If any examination was made in regard to fraud in the invoices
referred to, was any discovered or suspected; and, if so, was either of
the invoices presented by you to the district attorney for prosecution;
and, if not, you will fully explain to me why not.
(7) You are requested also to inform me whether or not, in your opinion, the provisions of the existing law of June 22, 1874, requiring the
United States to prove, affirmatively, on a prosecution for forfeiture on
account of undervaluation in an invoice, ^^ an actual intention to defraud
the United States," and to obtain a special finding of the jury or the
court on the allegation of ^^ actual intention," is inj urious to the revenue
and an undue protection of importers and their property from seizure
and condemnation.
(8) I also desire you to carefully examine the printed reports of the
two committees of merchants and manufacturers, to which I have referred, and tell me whether or not, in your opinion, the conduct of importers or customs officers at the port of Bostou, has been such during
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
153
the present year as to justify or warrant criticism or condemnation,
similar in any particular to that applied therein to the importers and
customs officials at the port of New Yorko
Eespectfully yours,
DANIEL MANNING.
Secretary.
Hon.
L E V E R E T T S . SALTONSTALL,
Collector of Customs, Boston, Mass.
N O . 4O
.
' CusTOM-HousE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Collector's Office, December 1, 1886.
Hon. DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasuryj Washington, D . C :
S I R : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th
ultimo, and in reply have the honor to state—however true it may be at
other ports, which does not seem hardly credible—that '^unless there is
some cause for suspicion the invoice is often taken as correct without
any investigation." I know of no instance here where any invoice has
been taken as the basis of duty i^ without any investigation," o r ' ' without
adequate investigation."
So far as I am aware, the appraising officers at this port endeavor
faithfully to live up to the requirements of Section 2902, E. S.; and
there have been instances—though not of frequent occurrence—where
the collecter has exercised his prerogative under Section 2929.
In reply to your ^ r s ^ inquiry, I would state that the number of all
the invoices advanced by the appraisers between October 1, 1885, and
October 1, 1886, was 1,185, of which 1,120 were of purchased and 65
of consigned merchandise.
Of this latter number (65), 46 were of merchandise consigned to commission merchants at this port, and 19 were consignments to agents of
the foreign shippers.
In reply to interrogatory No. 2, I would state that 79 invoices were
advanced above 10 per cent., of which number 54 were purchased goods,
and 25 consignments. Of the 25, 22 were consignments to resident
commission houses at this port, and 3 were consignments by the foreign
shippers to representative agents here.
In reply to inquiry No. 3, I would state that of the 79 inyoices which
had been advanced by the local appraiser above 10 per cent., 58 were
appealed to the Board of Eeappraisement, and of which number 11
were purchased and 7 consigned, which latter included 4 consignments
to commission merchants and 3 to agents of the foreign houses.
Of the 18 so appealed, the advance made by the local appraiser was
sustained in 15 instanceSg while in 3 cases the advance, although less
than that reported by the local appraiser, exceeded 10 per cent, ofthe
value declared in the invoice.
The advances made by the local appraiser on the 1,185 invoices above
referred' to were not additions to the value of the merchandise per se
alone, but included charges which, prior to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Oberteuffer case, were required by the Department to be
added to make dutiable value. (Vide S. 6296.)
154
^ REPORT
OF
THE SECRETAEY OF THE TREASURY,
I t is thought that of the additions so made by the appraiser, 75 per
cent, were for charges which had been deducted by the importer at the
time of entry.
In reply to inquiries Nos. 4,5, and 6,1 would state that in the absence
of any intimation made by the appellate Board that their iuvc^tigatiou
had led them to suspect that the transaction was tainted with fraud, tbe
valuation ascertained and reported by said Board would be regarded ns
final and binding, as well upou the importer as ui)on the Goverumeut.
Iu General Instructions No. 7, of July 30,1853, theDepartment held
that an undervaluation to the extent of 20 per cent, was presumptive
evidence of fraud, which would justify a seizure on the ground of fraud.
In 1884 there were large advances made by the appraiser to invoices
of bicycles and tricycles, representing some 22 importations. Seizures
were made for undervaluation, and proceedings were instituted through
the United States attorney, which resulted in a settlement by way of
compromise authorized by the Department.
'
Since then there have been, as far as I am aware, no seizures made
for undervaluation, nor prosecutions therefor.
In reply to inquiry No. 7, I have tp state that in myjudgment so exacting are the provisions of section 16 of the anti-moiety act of June
22, 1874, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the great liiMJority
of instances for the Government to prevail in litigated cases. It may,
therefore, be regarded as ^^ injurious to therevenue, and an undue protection of importers and their property from seizure and condemnation."
The law, therefore, is defective in this regard. The Government in
the collection of its revenue is often thwarted by the exacting terms of
said section.
Eemedial legislation I consider important, by which a full iucfiiiry
iuto the intent and purpose of all parties interested in the importation
ofthe goods would be open to the Government.
The chief class of fraudulent importations has been that of goods
consigned by foreign manufacturers and owners, and it is against this
^' consignment" system that legislation should be directed. The breaking up or checking this system would greatly enhance the revenue;
the i^nterests of the honest importer would be materially benefited;
whilcithe only parties who would suffer detriment would be the foreign
manfacturer or owner anfl the unscrupulous importer.
In reply to inquiry No. 8, I would-say that, so far as my knowledge
extends, neither importers nor customs officers at the port of Boston
during the present year haye, by their conduct, subjected themselves
to criticism or condemnation similar to that applied to the importers
* and customs officials at the port of New York in the printed reports
referred to.
I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant,
L. SALTONSTALL,
Collector.
No. 5.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Naval Office, December 2, 1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury:
S I R : I regret exceedingly that the opinion and answer of this office,
relative to your letter of November J3, did not accompany the reply
which I learn to-day was forwarded yesterday by the collector.
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY.
155
Collector Saltonstall showed me your letter of November 13. He then
informed me that he w^ould consider the matter and advise me when
he was ready to reply, that we might confer about the matter, and that
my. answer might accbmpany his.
Since then this office has had no information on the subject, until I
learned to-day, on inquiry, that the collector's answer had been forwarded, and that it was largely based upon a new statement of appraisements, referred to from Washington, of which corrected statement
this office had no knpwledge, and concerning which it can now answer
only in general terms, as no time exists for a new examination.
I deem this explanation proper to excuse any apparent remissness on
the part of this office. We were delaying for inlormation wliich was
not furnished us.
The inquiries of the letter of November 13 seem to be addressed to
the collector solely, save Nos. 4 and 5, on the third page, and I confine
my replies therefore to the inquiries thus referred to.
'^
Inquiry No. 4 is, substantially: " What examination was made by
the collector or naval officer of those invoices reported on by Appraiser
Stearns, October 23, 1886, advanced, by any percentage, but especially
more than 10 per cent., to ascertain as to undervaluation at making ot
invoice, and whether or not such undervaluation was made with actual
intention to defraud the United States""?
Inquiry No. 5 asks who made the examination, and what is now the
rule here in regard to the examination of fraud in invoices.
My reply is: All invoices are carefully scrutinized at the time of
liquidation. If there appears any indication of error, or any informality
or irregularity in the invoice itself, or in any ofthe accompanying returns from the surveyors' or appraisers' departments the entry is held
until all doubt is removed. This examination is always made by the
deputy naval officei', who consults with the naval officer if any questions
arise before the entry is liquidated.
We^. have not believed that there was any systematic attempted undervaluation of invoices of goods entered at this port, and therefore we
have had no extraordinary system to investigate invoices, intending
to carefully scrutinize each entry on its process through liquidation to
discover any errors or irregularity, believing this to be sufficient. We
have seen nothing to take the entries referred toSby Appraiser^Stearns
but of the usual category, wherein goods are not always invoiced at the
value deemed fitting by the appraisers.
This statement, it seems to me, covers both inquiries Nos.' 4 and 5.
With careful examination of the papers accompanying each entry, we^
think we should quickly observe any attempted fraud other than p e r '
taining to values, in which case this office would delay liquidation, and
take such decisive steps as, in its opinion, the case warranted to protect
the Government and punish the aggressors.
I t seems to me that the matter of undervaluation rests with the appraisers' department, and that, if the forms of law are complied with,
and in the absence of evidence of fraud, the naval office has no option
but to accept, in liquidation, the values attested by the appraiser.
In suppprt of this opinion, I respectfully refer to the decisions of the
Department relative to the functions of appraisers. Synopsis Nos. 7235
and 7800, which to me seem conclusive.
I am sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HENEY O. KENT,
Navalofficer.
156
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
No. 6.
• TREASURY D E P A R T M E N T ,
O F F I C E OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C, December 6, 1886.
S I R : In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, and to the naval officer's letter of the next day, in respect to the legislation of June 22,1874,
I desire to say, that the law referred to has not diminished your responsibility, or that of the naval officer, for a vigilant scrutiny of each
invoice and entry in order to ascertain if either was made with an actual
intention to defraud the revenue. The report of the appraiser cannot
relieve either of you from the obligation and labor of such vigilance.
Before that law was enacted customs officers would not havebeen justified in making seizures, or the collector in requiring district attorneys
to begin prosecutions for forfeiture, unless satisfied that prima facie
evidence existed, and could be obtained, of an actual intention to defraud the reveuue. Because the law of 1874 made new rules for the
conduct of trials in court, the obligation of collectors to make seizures,
w^hen they have reasonable ground to believe the existence of an actual
intention to defraud, has not been changed. Sections 2922, 2923, and
2924 of the Eevised Statutes confer Mrge powers on collectors aud naval
officers to discover and prove frauds in the revenue, and henceforth
they will be held by the President to strict personal responsibility for
the faithful execution of those sections. Chapter 10 of title 34 of the
Eevised Statutes, and especially section 3072, defines with perfect
clearness the powers,to be held and -the work to be performed by collectors in making seizures and instituting proceedings for forfeiture.
This Department and the good repute of the chief customs officers
at the several ports suffer in the estimation of Congress and the country by the insinuations, more or less distinctly put about in Boston and
elsewhere, that great frauds are committed against the revenue by false
invoices or. false entries, and especially in New York, and that such
frauds are not vigorously dealt with for the reason that the antemoiety
law of 1874 deprived collectors, naval officers, and surveyors of a large
and clearly defined share of the proceeds of seizures and forfeitures.
TheDepartment is at a loss to understand how customs officers can
be convinced of large and repeated and persistent undervaluations in
invoices or entries, and not be Ciuabled by the powers given to them by
law and especially by sections 2922, 2923, and 2924, to discover and
present to the district attorneys the evidence of an actual intention to
cdefraud, if such undervaluations were actually made in the invoice.
The law is well settled that the reportof an appraiser declaring ''value
correct" does not protect an invoice from forfeiture if proved to have
been intentionally fal-se in order to defraud the revenue.
Eespectfully yours,
D. MANNING,
Secretary.
Hon.
L E V E R E T T S . SALTONSTALL,
CoUector of Gustoms, Boston, Mass.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
157
No. 7.
H E N R Y 0 . KENT.—Appointed Naval-Officer of Customs in t h e District of Boston and
Cliarlestown, Massachusetts, December 4, 1885.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Naval Office, October 27, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
S I R : I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, in which you
request me to send to you prior to November 1 a statement of all reforms
in the administration of this office made by me during the present year,
of all other reforms in contemplation, and to communicate knowledge
of any complaints made by importers relative to the execution of the
customs laws, and to state how, in my opinion, the execution of those
laws has been improved duriug the present year.
In reply I have the honor to submit the following specified list of
changes in administration inaugurated in this office since January 1,
1886, which changes I regard as '' reforms" in administration.
I. Under Department circular of May 6, 1886, the time of employ6s
has been carefully k e p t ; consequently they are prompt at their desks
at 9 a. ra., remaining to the clbse of the day, with only the authorized
30 minutes for lunch, to avoid being marked and reported as " l a t e " or
"absent without lea^ye." No newspaper reading or unnecessary noise
occurs during office hours.
II. Admission behind the counters or among the clerks is not granted
to outsiders, and especially to custom-house brokers. Visitors are not
allowed.
III. Inspectors are not allowed to see the Naval Office copy of ships'
manifests under any conditions whatever.
IV. This office insists on the seizure of all smuggled merehandise, instead of allowing it to be subsequently entered and delivered on payment of duty, as has sometimes been, proposed,
V. Under Department orders all protests and appeals filed with the
collector are examined and entered in a register specially prepared by
us for that purpose in the Naval Office.
VI. At the suggestion of this office declarations are now made by incoming intermediate and second-cabin passengers, as well as by firstcabin passengers, first-cabin passengers only being formerly required
to make said declarations.
VII. At the suggestion of this office, concurred in by the surveyor,
arrangements havebeen made on several docks for the exclusion of the
public from the space designated for discharged cargoes and baggage.
VIII. More careful supervision in the posting of warehouse liquidations is required.
IX. The record of ships' manifests and of the entering and cleariug
of vessels has been placed under one head, and greater attention is
paid to this branch of the customs work. It is the intention to liquidate the entire cargo of a vessel before her clearance is granted, so far
as it is possible to do so without possession of actual returns from inspectors, on all articles contained therein, instead of clearing on sur
vey or's clearance tickets furnished that office by the Department, and
by the surveyor declared to be sometimes essential.
X'. By arrangement with the surveyor an agreed schedule has been
made of the percentage of packages of all weighable merchandise which
158
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
shall be tared, thus securing a uniform rule and greatly accelerating
liquidations.
I t is proper to state that all the changes recorded in this letter when
proposed by this office have met the cordial concurrence of the other
departments of the customs service at this port, and that conferences
have of late been frequent to secure improved efficiency in details and
in routine work.
In compliance with the further requests of said letter I venture to
submit the following specified suggestions.
I. I t seems to this office that weighers should not see invoices. These
invoices are not in our custody, and consequently we have no responsibility in the matter.
II. We have been of opinion that weighers should not return net
weight or tare when they, for any cause, do not actually tare the goods,
but take this tare and net from the invoices; but rather that they should
return the gross weight only, leaving to the liquidating clerks the ascertainment of such net weights. The surveyor is of opinion that his
duty requires the addition to the dock-books of such tare and net to
complete his returns. It seems desirable that this point be authoritatively determined—whether tare should be entered upon the dock-books '
unless it is ascertained by actual weighing.
III. We think the inspectors should not be allowed to see the ship's
manifests.
'
IV. This office suggests the advisability of a monthly abstract, to be
made by the collector, of all " free orders," covering description and
value of the articles so admitted, said abstract to be countersigned by
the naval officer.
V. Should not arrangement be made, by increase of force or otherwise, so the cargoes of steam vessels can be fully accounted for, by inspector's returns, within the time allowed, so the naval office will not be
obliged to clear on a general certificate or " ticket" from the surveyor's
office, or, by declining to accept such ticket, delay the ship, which may
be ready to leave with favoring tide or weather f
Sailing vessels already account for their cargoes, as do small steamers,
per inspector's returns; but the surveyor is now unable to complete such
returns of cargoes of large steam vessels. The regulations,.however,
contemplate such returns in all cases, as we understand them in this
office.
I am unaware of any complaints by impbrters in regard to the execution of the customs laws at this port, aside from trivial matters of detail that occasionally arise, and which are amicably adjusted. Such
complaints, if any there are, would come more frequently under the
knowledge of the collector.
My belief is that the execution of the laws has been improved by the
changes hereinbefore recited and numbered from I to X.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Your obedient servant,
H E N E Y O. KENT,
Naval Officer.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
159
No. 8.
J E R E M I A H W . COVENEY.—Appointed for a term of four years to the office of Surveyor
Castoms for the District of Boston and Charlestown, in the State of Massachusetts,
August 7, 1886.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS.,
Surveyor's Office, October 27, 1886.
S I R : In reply to your communication dated October 15, 1886, I have
the honor to rex)ly that on August 21,1886,1 assumed the duties of surveyor of the port of Boston and Charlestown, and have instituted the
following reforms iii the administration of the department:
In the inspector'is force, consisting of 79 men, I have .established a
more prompt manner of reporting for duty than had heretofore existed.
I have directed and enforced a regular and prompt manner of making
returns of vessels discharged. Communications with other departments,
relating to matters of the smallest details affecting %he business of the
outdoor force, are required to be made through the surveyor's office.
By this means the surveyor is enabled to be kept informed upon the
entire business transacted through and by his department.
The constant wearing,of uniforms by officers while on duty is now
exacted, and a uniform cap, heretofore not worn, is being made for use
of outdoor officers.
The examination of passengers' baggage has been improved in this,
that 2 inspectors have been appointed acting deputy collectors, without additional pay, to take declarations and administer oaths to passengers.
The former inspectress, incapacitated by age and infirmities, has been
removed, and a more active person appointed, who attends personally
on all steamers arriving in port carrying passengers.
An entirely new system of locating and working inspectors on xhe
arrival of the steamers at Cunard wharf has been adopted, by which passengers are .afforded greater facilities for dispatch and the interests of
the Government are more carefully guarded.
The examination of sea stores is being carefully looked after, and the
unlading of excess of coals in the sea stores without permit, which has
been heretofore allowed, has been stopped. I have detailed 2 inspectors as searchers. Whose duty is to thoroughly examine vessels of all
kinds, even after the examination is made by the officer making return
of the vesseL
A daily report of inspectors is now furnished, showing the stations
of and work done by inspectors. A consolidated weekly report is also
made. Heretofore goods Trans. Ex. in bond were allowed to pass from
railroads to steamers, or vice versa, across the city without pass. This has
been remedied, and inspectors are now ordered to send passes to officers
at the final point of departure of the goods in transit.
NIGHT I N S P E C T O R S .
In this department, consisting of 30 men, officered by an acting captain and 2 sergeants (inclusive), I have made some changes in minor details of value to the working of the force and remedied a longstanding
neglect by the detail of 2 night inspectors for duty each night at the
barge office. Heretofore, in the event of the arrival of a vessel after
dark, which is liable to occur every night, there was no officer at the
160
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
barge office to assist the boarding officer, and vessels were allowed to remain in the stream without an officer. By the change made the 2 night
men are reaviy to be [)ut on board on the arrival of incoming vessels
and there remain until relieved in the morning. By this detail a longstanding neglect to properly protect the revenue is remedied.
THE W E I G H E R S .
The weighers' department consists of a United States weigher and
27 assistant weighers. This force has been reformed to a great extent
since my assumption of the duties of this office, August 21. I was com^pelled to ask the collector to call for the resignation of Mr. Thomas C.
Parks, the former United States weigher, as, after sufficient trial, I satisfied myself that he was not competent to fill the position to the full
benefit of the Government.
There seemed to^be a lack of discipline; errors were constantly occurring in weighing, necessitating the frequent amendment of returns;
dock-books and returns were improperly and carelessly made. Since
the appointment of Mr: Andrew Hall, whow^as promoted from the line
of assistant weighers, a great improvement has taken place, and the
change has been of benefit tothe Government, to the importers, and to
the force of assistant weighers, in the improvementof returns, greater
correctness in weighing, and stricter attention to duty by the entire
force in the weighers' department.
Consolidated district daily reports are now sent to the surveyor's office, showing the location of and work done by each assistant weigher
during the day.
The measuring of lumber as now done at this port is performed by
Mr. John W. Wiggin, surveyor-general of lumber for the Stateof Massachusetts, at a contract price of 16 cents per M. This work is done under the immediate direction of the United States weigher, and has been
improved in the manner of keeping the books, showing the measurement and disposition of foreign lumber. Th6 measurement of coal,
salt, and other merchandise has been and is being done by the weigher's
department. Previous to the change of United States weigher this
work was done very carelessly, and gross irregularities occurred, notably one measurement where, through the carelessness of a measurer,
an excess of 23 tons of coal was caused by the use of a 400pound beam
instead of a 500 pound beam. This has alT been improved, and but
little difficult^ iii measuring is now had.
The gauger and assistant guagers, three in number, with an inspector
detailed as marker and prover, gauge, mark, and prove all the gaugeable goods impprted int"© this port.
A daily report showing the work done and where performed has been
ordered to be made, thus showing the time and place of eniployment of
this force'every day.
The reforms here suggested have been made with a view to correct
looseness in details, and to prevent irregularities heretofore existing,
which have grown out of a too careless attention to business, and by
means of which the efficiency of the department w^as greatly impaired.
The effect of these reforms has been to greatly improve the service, in
requiring every officer in the surveyor's department to live fully up to
the Treasury rules and regulations, and exacting from them a full and
complete service, and I think that the collector ofthe port, the naval
officer, and the importers will join in saying that the improvements
made in the surveyor's department since August 21,1886, have been of
REPORT OF T H E
SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY.
161
positive and substantial benefit to a business-like and effective administration of the duties of this department of the custom-house.
In reply to your request to acquaint you with any other reforms which
I would advise in this office, I desire to respectfully submit the following changes that might be made in this department:
The necessity for a uniform overcoat by the out-door officers of this
department is acknowledged by all persons familar with the service.
I would ask that the Treasury Department order the wearing of such a
coat, and that style and texture of the goods be prescribed by the Department.
This, with the cap now being made, would insure a complete uniformity of uniform, and would prevent the irregular and unsightly
spectacle of a half-uniformed customs officer, now so frequently met
with here.
The necessity for quartering of the inspectors in the same building
with the Barge Office is demanded in the interest of a quick dispatch of
business, and I would ask that provision be made to accomplish this
desirable improvement.
As before stated, all lumber imported into this port is measured under the direction of the United States weigher, by a sworn weigher of
the State of Massachusetts, styled a surveyor-general, at a contract
price of 16 cents per M.
It seems to me advisable that a person thoroughly familiar with lumber of various kinds should be appointed by the Government with the
pay of a day inspector, to supervise, and, if need be, resurvey and inspect measurements made by the surveyor-general.
This contract of the surveyor-general of lumber has contmued in force
with the Treasury Department since 1878, and while I have no doubt of
the accuracy of the State survey, prudence demands a careful scrutiny
of lumber surveying under a United States officero
In the exainination of baggage—of cabin passengers' in particular—the inspector, after examining the trunks, satchels, or bundles of the
passenger, puts upon each piece of baggage a chalk mark with his initials and number, signifying that the several pieces have been properly
examined, aud the owner is at liberty to remove them from the wharf.
This manner of marking seems to me entirely inadequate, and, from its
liability to be counterfeited, its easiness of erasure and difficulty of
distinctly marking on the various pieces of baggage, suggests that a
tag or poster of a distinctive pattern be devised to make the record of
an officer's inspection of baggage something definite and lasting.
The night inspector's force is now consolidated into two (2) districts,
covering seven European steamers, at least "two tramp steamers a week,
and a water-front of some 7 miles. The duties demanded of this force
are very arduous; and, when the details for barge and steamer duty
and the special detail of four (4) men to count the passengers on pleasure steamers in the summer are made, the^ force is greatly reduced.
1 would recommend that an increase of'the force be made as follows:
A captain, to be appointed with pay of a day inspector, $4 per day ;
two lieutenants, to be appointed with pay at $3.50 per d a y ; five additional night inspectors, to be appointed at $3 per day. This increase
of the force of night inspectors and the creation of three officers with increased pay will be of great advantage to the discipline of a force whose
duties require constant and faithful servicein all seasons, and under whose
care are intrusted, not only the guarding of the water front, but the custody ofthe several important bonded warehouses in the several districts.
The weigher's force, so important to the conduct of the business of the
H . E x . 2--VOL I I — - 1 1
162
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
department, requires constant and watchful care, and with a view to its
efficiency I would recommend that in the future special examinations
be made to determine the qualifications and fitness of assistant weighers, and among the requirements should be one that the applicant should
be 5 feet 7 inches in height. This height is necessaiy, that a full aud
complete control of the beani should be had by the person handling it.
An assistant weigher is now detailed to weigh cigars, tobacco, and
opium, aind also to attend to general weighing at the appraisers' stores.
The importation of cigars having increased from 67,264 boxes in 1882 to
135,948 boxes in 1886, fully 100 per cent., and the imports of tobacco haying also increased proportionately, in view of the importanceof the duties
performed by this assistant weigher, I would recommend that his pay
be fixed at $1,600 per year instead of $4 per day, as at present established.
The general complaint made by importers through this department is
in regard to the allowance of tare. ParticuLMy in the articles of tin, glass,
wool, and sugar, the need of a uniform manner of taring is apparent.
In connection with the naval office, consultations are now being held to
remedy this complaint, and I have no doubt a result saticsfactory to the
Government and the importer will be speedily arrived at.
In conclusion I beg respectfully to say tbat I have endeavored to fully
cover all the points embraced in your letter.
Very respectfully,
J E E E M I A H W. COVENEY,
Surveyor.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING-,
Secretary of the Treasury.
^
No. 9.
ALBERT B . STEARNS.—^Appointed Appraiser of Merchandise, District of Boston and
Charlestown, Massachusetts, J a n u a r y 22, 1886.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, October 22,1886.
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
tbe 15th instant, noted confidential, requesting a detailed exhibit of reforms instituted by me in the administration of this office during the
past year, together with the consequences of such reforms, &c.
I would premise by saying* that my incumbency of the office of principal appraiser has fallen short of the described time by nearly three
months ; that during the period immediately preceding my assumption
of the duties of this office the care and direction of aff'airs devolved upon
Assistant Appraisers Joslin and Jones.
The health of my predecessor was such that he was precluded from
giving his valuable direction to the business of the office fbr several
mouths, and as Assistant Appraiser Jones was a notoriously inefficient
officer3 there was considerable demoralization so far as relates to the division under his charge. In this I cast no reflection upon the majority
employed under his direction, for injustice I will say I could have selected the least among thein and shown by comparison a marked superiority in qualifications over those possessed by his official superior.
Assistant Appraiser Joslin, it gives me pleasure to say, is a most energetic and competent officer, the division under his charge being in a
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
163
most excellent state of discipline and faithful in the performance of its
duty to the Government.
In the report of the examination of the customs service and business
at this, port by the Treasury agents, in September, 1885, which is embodied in your last report to Congress, on pa?ges 117 and 118, they were
pleased to advise against the appointment of two appraisers of equal
and concurrent authority, as likeiy to lead to conflict, want of harmony,
and possible injury to the interests of the Government.
Up to this time the appointing pow.er has seemed to concur in this
view, and I can unreservedly state that an undivided responsibility'and
direction has resulted in great improvement in the work and dispipline
of the force. The officers have felt a larger confidence and greater incentive to perform their several duties, because of the knowledge that
their work and records would uot be the subject of dispute between two
executives, and certainly the work requisite for an exact carrying out
of tbe regulations does not involve labor beyond the capacity of one
chief appraiser.
By this has been saved to the Government the past year the sum of
$3,000, the salary of one appraiser, and improvement of the force been
attained. The act of April 20, 1820, section 9 of the United States
Statutes at Large, provided that 2 appraisers should be appointed for
all the principal ports from Boston to New Orleans, these of&cers being
appointed by reason of their skill as experts, for the purpose of making
all the examinations of imported merchandise.
The act of May 28, 1830, provided for an additional appraiser at New
York, making 3 for this service, because of the increase of business, and
2 assistant appraisers at Boston and Philadelphia. July 27, 1866, the
law was amended, under pressure of an increased tariff schedule, to
the extent of substituting one appraiser and 10 assistant appraisers at
New York in place of 3 appraisers of equal authority; but this change
in character was not applied at any of the other ports above mentioned.
To all business minds it seems imperative that this anomalous condition
should be repeatedly and forcibly broughtto the attention of Congress.
The first evil that occupied my attention was the necessity of instituting a reform in the manner of ascertaining damage allowances. Importers were dissatisfied and the collector's office discouraged because
of the wretched condition to which this branch of the service had degenerated.
I found improvement impossible so long as Assistant Appraiser Jones
held his commission in this service. Whereupon I suggested his resignation and consequent retirement. So gross had become the abuses in
his division, I was compelled to take this work entirely out of his hands
pending the confirmation of his successor. From that date to the present time I am happy to report that no complaint has been preferred
touching this matter. No book containing details of examinations of
damaged merchandise, such as time, place, and conditiou, from which
the appraiser might judge for himself of the corrections of his returns,
had been kept by Mr. Jones, It was customary for the warrants to lie
in the appraisi^r's office for months after their issue, before allowance or
return was made to the collector, thus completely obstructing the adjustment of accounts.
This practice unquestionably involved a loss to the Government in
most cases, while in a few injustice was done the importer, for the reason
that the appraiser was obliged to make his allowance largely upon guess,
as the subject of appraisement was removed. The Treasury regulation
requiring stenciling of damaged packages I found had been wholly
ignored by the damage appraiser.
164
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No surprise which our return to legal methods has caused has been
more striking than this, so far as the importation of glass is concerned,
the oldest importers of that commodity hardly believing it possible that
such requirement existed. I am of opinion the Government has heretofore allowed more than one rebate upon the same importation of glass.
Assistant Appraiser Kitfield has given this matter prompt and intelligent action, and in the management of his division, in all other respects,
shows a first-class ability.
^
As regards the personnel of this office, I found that in many instances
this department was a place of refuge for political dependents and
clever do-nothings who were a burden to their friends. Examiners,
clerks, a^nd packers in some instances were decrepit and unable to do
anything like adequate return for their wages, and other branches of
the service were suffering for want of proper attention. Notable reforms
have been made in the examination of merchandise upon the wharf by
the officers of this department. I found three officers provided to make
examination of goods, but no opener and packer to display and repack
the merchandise for the examiner's classification.
Upon investigation of this matter, it came to my knowledge that the
examiners, were in the habit of requesting the assistance of employes
upon the wharf to perform this work, which only should be executed
by sworn officers commissioned b y t h e Governmenfc. In this respect
the officers of this department were putting to a severe £est the good
nature of the employes of importers and steamship companies, and
sometimes coerced them into its performance by refusing to pass the
goods if such work was not forthcoming. I immediately called the Department's attention to this state of affairs, upon which, I believe, you
requested the special agent of this district to report, and, the finding
being in accordance with the above statement, I was authorized to appoint two openers and packers for this work.
As this service is now executed, it has become apparent that this
reform has resulted in great good to importers, steamship companies,
and Government examiners, and all concerned.
Previous to this year, and my assuming the functions of this office,
the force was as widely separated, so far as the business of this department was concerned, as if situated in different towns. Indeed, there
was a distinct and clearly marked division of the officers themselves,
whose business relations seemed to have nothing in commo»n. This
gave rise to vexatious delay in certain cases.
I reformed this mischief by causing the force to be brought under
one method and discipline. By reason of having sole control, I have
been able to cause the current internal aff'airs to conform to a correct system of CO operative work, which has been admirably efi'ective, as it has
more clearly defined the relations ofthe subordinate officers to the assistant appraisers and left me free to attend to the more important matter coming within the province of the appraiser.
The amount of merchandise that was allowed to be examined upon the
docks, by inspectors of customs at thi« port, previous to the present
year, was far greater than could be intrusted to them with safety to
the revenue. It had come to be a very general practice for this office
to report upon invoices of free goods without knowledge even of their
whereabouts, or the mark of an inspector to denote that he had verified
the marks. Under such a system, proceeding without proof that the
goods were not of a dutiable character, the Gov-erument was dependent
solely upon the integrity of the importers, deriving no security from the
action of its own agexucies.
•
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
165
As the standing list of goods for wharf examination has now been
abolished, I find that a vast volume of work has pressed upon us
Therefore, in obedience to your request that I acquaint you with whatever reforms T may have in contemplation, I recommend that a limited
number of sugar samplers, who are acquainted with wharf work, be
commissioned as '^'examiners and samplers," so that at times when
their services happen not to be needed for their specific duty, I can
transfer them to assist in the examination of goods upon the wharf. By
this means no extra expense will be incurred and the Government bill
for training will remain without increase. Otherwise I apprehend that
it will be necessary to appoint one or two examiners to handle this
work. '
^
With reference to the reforms in the force employed, I have to report
that I have abolished two positions, each salaried at $1,600, reduced
others, and increased some salaries, in accordance with business principles. I have also added to the force two persons in the lower grades,
as before mentioned, and increased the force in efficiency and number,
at less expense than before.
Although the law provides for an examiner of drugs and chemicals,
the laboratory was without appliances to carry on the work required.
How this important work had been transacted in the past is incomprehensible. At my request the Department has furnished the necessary
supplies, so that now the Government obtains correct results.
In the above-named office was located a person whose duty was to
serve in several capacities (such as sampler of drugs, then turned over
to the examiner of liquors, at times), but who was not possessed of the
knowledge requisite to serve in either. I immediately transferred this
officer to the position made vacant by the discharge of an unreliable
man in the sugar force, and subsequently obtained the services of an
educated and trained person as sampler of drugs and chemicals by examination under the civil service rules.
Great and numerous complaints by importers and merchants flood
this office, caused by the ambiguities and obscurities of the tariff*. In
this respect it is only perplexing, if not amusing, to be harangued day
after day by parties whose interests lie in opposite directions, all quoting the several conflicting paragraphs in the same schedule to sustain
their position. Customs officers are constantly reminded, after this manner, that the present tariff* law is a work which covers as many theories
as the Bible sustains theologies.
I am of the opinion that this evil could be mitigated to a large degree if you would provide for a quarterly'conference, at New York, of
the appraisers of the larger ports. I am confident that by this system,
if adopted, a radical reform in classification would be attained. Eevised
Statutes 2608, and article 1399 of the General Eegulations, devolves
this duty upon the general appraisers, but the fact is established that
the success contemplated by the law has not been achieved, and caunot be effective under the present system.
I think I may properly close this communication by stating, without
fear of contradiction, that among the chief complaints now made to me
by importers are, that the present execution of the customs laws at this
port are enforced too rigidly, as to the letter and spirit of the same.
In this respect I propose to continue to reform the work of this office
so far as it lies within my province.
;
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. B. STEAENlS,
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Appraiser.
Secretary ofthe Treasury.
166
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 10.
H E N R Y S, BRIGGS—Appointed United States General Appraiser April 11, 1872.
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D STATES G E N E R A L
APPRAISER,
Port of Boston, Mass., October 28, 1886.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
S I R : I respectfully submit the following response to the several requests contained in j our letter dated October 15,1886:
First. To the request for a full and detailed exhibition of whatever
reforms in the administration of my office have been made by me, and
have been made at this port this year, I have to remark that tliere have
been no material changes in the manner in which the duties ofthe general appraiser have been performed, so far as proceedings at this port
have been concerned, and that my attention has not been called to any
particular complaints or demands for reforms.
The instructions of the Department relating to the mode of procedure on reappraisements, promulgated by the circular of June 9, 1885
(S. S. 6957), did not require any material change in the practice already
existing except the exclusion of professional legal counsel employed
by importers from the reappraisement hearings. It may be proper, however, to note another exception, with respect to a practice which in the
circular cited appears to have been considered by the Department as a
a, departure from the methods contemplated by the law and regulations, viz, the practice of hearing two or more reappraisement appeals,
by two or more merchant appraisers sitting with the general appraiser,
in certain cases where the merchandise in question is the same and exported at about the same period from the same markets. The practice
seemed to me so unobjectionable that, after .having expressed my views
and stated my practice in a communication to the Department, in reply
to the argument of Mr. F . L. Stetson, in August, 1885 (the press copy
of which communication fails to preserve the precise date thereof), the
practice has been continued whenever the circumstances of the case
seemed to make it advisable. Inasmuch as the views expressed by me
were not expressly disapproved by theDepartment, I have been led to
believe that they were acquiesced in. There can be no doubt that the
practice facilitates proceedings and promotes thoroughness in the investigations. I believe it is adopted by all the general appraisers in
the reappraisements held by them respectively in New York. There is
seldom occasion to resort to it at this port.
The letter of the honorable Secretary is addressed to me as " general
appraiser at New Yorh," but I have understood that the inquiries relating to the administration ^' at your port" refer to the port of Boston. This suggests a reference to the fact that a very considerable part
of the current year has been employed in holding reappraisements at
New York, under special instructions from the Department. I do not
consider, however, that the inquiries addressed to me invite an extended and detailed expression of views respecting the administration
of the general appraiser-s office at that port. The methods of reappraisement at that port are somewhat peculiar, and diff'erent from the
forms prescribed by regulations. Whether a stricter observance of such
forms, or other changes, would tend in any degree tb relief from existing evils cannot be satisfactorily tested except by experiment.
Eecurring to that part of the inquiry which relates to the administration of the duties of my office, I have endeavored to observe the instruc
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
167
I
tions found in the Treasury Eegulations (articles 1399-1407), both iu respect to action at this port and in visiting other ports and collection
districts within the general appraiser's division assigned to me. Eeferring to the third paragraph of Department circular of June 27, 1877 (S.
S. 3281), in which it is declared that—
The principalduty of the general appraisers, under the law," is to visit the various
ports for the purpose of supervising the method of appraiseraent of dutiable goods,
and securing uniformity in their values and classifications—
I remark that the° authority to visit ports others than those at which
they regularly reside is not altogether clear. I have hitherto acted under the authority conferred by a special letter of instructions addressed
to G^iueral Appraiser Heyl and myself, dated September 20, 1877, directing visits to several specified ports, in which occurs the following
paragraph, viz:
The Department does not desire that, after your performance of the work herein
assigned, your visits shall be restricted to ports specially desiguated; but deems it
proper t h a t you should at auy time visit ports at which your services may be specially
needed, and authority for such visits is hereby given.
Article 1399 of the Eegulations prescribes as a duty of the general
appraisers—
^ .
to supervise the appraisement of merchandise within their assigned jurisdiction, by
visiting and inspecting the several ports therein as often as, from time to time, may
be designated by the Secretary of tlie Treasury.
Questions of valuation and classification arising in the supervision
of these subjects at the ports within my division, and more particularly
questions of valuation arising on reappraisements, make it desirable to
make frequent visits to the port of New York to confer with appraising officers there. I have during the month of August visited several
ports on the northeastern frontier. The more attention that is given to
this duty, the more I am convinced of the usefulness of such visits and
that more attention should be given to them; a n d t h e purpose to give
more attention to them may be mentioned as a ''reform in contemplation."
A reform in the administration at this port which has come under
my observation is worthy of note, viz, the practical establishment of
a single responsible head to the local appraiser's department, in lieu of
the dual organization that has heretofore for many years existed. I am
satisfied that the general efficiency of the department has been materially improved under the new system and its new administration.
The new, extended, system of sampling merchandise and return of
samples to the general appraisers, which has been inaugurated by the
honorable Secretary during the last fifteen months, should also be noted
as a change in the direction of reform or improvement.
While necessary absence from this port at New York so much of the
year has prevented giving that attention which the subject deserves,
it is my purpose hereafter to make it a subject of more particular attention.
The recent supply of better facilities for classifying and preservation
of samples will promote the practical usefulness ofthe system.
That part of the Secretary's letter which requests information respecting such advisable changes as maybe called for by those importers
who transact considerable business with the customhouse, and which
will require change either in the law or its administration, though in
terms limited to changes at this port, may, perhaps, be intended to include changes applicable to all ports. The business of reappraisements
168
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
has brought to my attention one subject of complaint, the only remedy
for which lies in a change of the statute law; but it is one which, it
seems to me. may be demanded on equitable considerations. I refer to
the existing law which subjects the importer to the inevitable and ir.
remediable imposition of an additional duty of 20 per cent, whenever the
invoice or entered value is advanced on appraisement to the extent of
10 per cent. The cases where such provisions operate unjustly are those
where the merchandise is obtained by actual purchase in the ordinary
course of trade, and so invoiced at the price paid, but which, it may be
shown on investigation by the appraisers, is below the standard set by
the law, viz, the market value. It is to be considered that this standard is not one which is generally easily or exactly ascertainable. The
importer who goes into the foreign market to purchase may be supposed to know what the published or quoted prices are, but such quotations are not the highest emd best evidence of that marhet value. Actual
transactions of purchase like that by which he has obtained his own
goods are the best evidences. What such transactions are, beyond his
own, he is not presumed to know. One purchaser may purchase for
cash a certain quantity of goods at a certain price, while it may be ten
other purchasers on the same day purchase the same kind of goods afc
varying prices, paying, it may be, 10 or 12 per ceut. above that paid
by the first. I t may be considered that the eleven transactions of
purchase herein supposed would furnish the best evidence of the actual
marhet value, b u t i t is not to be assumed that either of fche eleven purchasers had any knowledge of any ofthe transactions besides his own.
The application of this inflexible rule, by which the price actually paid
by one of several purchasers is advanced to the price, or average price,
at which other purchasers procure their goods, in many cases inflicts a
veritable hardshii^;^; notably so in such cases as the importations of
worsted yarns and fabrics, when the variation in prices from day to
day, although it may not have been to the extent of 10 per cent., has
been sufficient to change the rate of duty, so that a manufacturer who
has made a contract or purchase at a certain price on a certain day, on
terms advantageous to his business as manufacturer of worsted fabrics,
is subjected, by reason of a subsequent slight advance, to a rate of
duty which would make his importation disastrous.
Importations at this port are, as a rule, made upon actual purchases,
and complaints are frequent and, it seems to me, well founded, by importers, that they are subjected to what may appropriately be termed
a penalty for invoicing their goods according to the requirement of the
law, viz, the price actually paid. It is natural and reasonable that
they should understand that the price actually paid in open market, in
the ordinary course of trade, constitutes market value, inasmuch as it
has been held by high judicial authority that such actual purchase is
prima-facie evidence of market value.
The tendency to undervaluation at ports where importations are principally upon consignments by foreign owners to their agents in this
eountry is, I suppose, the principal ground of support for the.law as it
now stands; but it would seem that it ought not to be beyond the ingenuity of law-makers to frame a provision by which a discrimination could
be made between a fraudulent consignment and a bona fide purchase
by an honest importer.
^
'
It is not against undervaluation in invoices which show prices actually
paid that the loud and prolonged complaint has been aimed. I do not
consider it impracticable to make such change in the statutory law as
to provide that the imposition of the additional or penal duty shall depend upon the finding of the appraising officers that the undervalua
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
169
tion was intentional, or made so carelessly as to imply culpability.
Whether it would be advisable to place such discretionary power in the
local appraisers, whose action is necessarily summary and hurried, is a
question; but the course of investigation on reappraisement is su'ch
that the cases are rare in which the reappraivsing officers do not have the
information which enables them to determine whether an undervaluation of goods obtained by purchase is undervalued to the extent of implied culpability.
Perhaps a better remedy may be suggested in the amendment of the
existing laws, relating to the addition by the importer at the time of
entry to the invoice value, by extending the period during which such
privilege may be exercised, I do not perceive any sufficient reason
why the importer, in case he shall be satisfied from the evidence fiirnished by the appraiser or from information from any other source,
that his purchase price, as invoiced, measured by the strict standard of
market value, is too low, should not be permitted to add to the entered
value, at any time before liquidation, sufficient to make market value.
This might be left in the discretion of the collector upon the report
ofthe appraising officers, or upon information from whatever source, sufficient to satisfy him that the invoice valuation was made in good faith
aud without intention o.f undervaluation.
I think that the advance of the invoice values, which are the prices
paid by honest purchasers, is one of the most pr,olific causes of dissatisfaction and complaint in the administration of customs laws at this
port.
The injurious and offensive, because to the importer it is inequitable,
operation of the existing law is particularly exemplified in that class
of importations which are based on orders for goods to be mauufactured or to be delivered at a future date, which class embraces a large
proportion of the finer and more costly kinds of textile fabrics of mixed
materials, the market value of which fluctuates with the cost of component materials. The rule that duties shall be assessed upon the
market value at the date of exportation, irrespective of the actual cost
or the market value at the time when the contract for purchase was
made, results frequently in an advance on appraisement, which the
importer could not have foreseen, and operates to complicate and disturb^ contracts, based upon such purchased value, which the importer
has made for the sale of his goods in the home market.
* While it may be well understood as a principle of law that the citizen
is supposed to know what the law is, this law is no less a hardship and
injurious in its application, because it is impossible to foresee and calculate upon its application. After long observation of its operation, I
find importers of high standing and large business experience protesting now as earnestly and honestly as ever against the operation of a
rule.by which their bona fide purchases are ignored, and values additional to those at which these goods have been honestly purchased
found to such an extent that the rate of duty is largely increased.
The doctrine that ignorance of law is no excuse for non-observance,
so far from being satisfactory, is met with the protest that such a technical application to such a subject-matter is an offense to the common
sense of justice. Neither does the suggestion that a change in existing
laws would be productive of great abuse in the port of New York, convince the honest sufferers there, and at other ports, that they should
be involved in penalties designed for dishonest importers, or that a modification of the law may not be devised, by which the innocent shall
be protected, while the different class shall be left to bear the consequences of dishonest practices.
170
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY.
I am satisfied that some such provision as that of conferring upon collectors discretionary authority, based upon the reports of reappraising
officers, to permit importers to amend their entries, in case of honest
mistakes as to market value, at any time before final liquidation, is
practicable and would be safe. Already appraisers are charged in certain cases (Treas. Eeg., Art. 453) with the duty of reporting their opinion to the collectors where certain irregularities in invoices appear to
be attributable to fraudulent intent; and it would seem equally proper
to require appraisers to report an opinion, resulting from careful investigation, of a fraudulent or culpable purpose in undervaluations.
Another improvement in administration which would require change
in the statute, according to the construction by the Department of existing laws, which I beg leave to suggest, woukl be the enlargement of
the discretionary authority ofthe Secretary of theTreasury with respect
to the correction of mistakes on reappraisements. The occasions for
the exercise of such power would probably be of rare occurrence, but
in view of the fact that decisions of reappraisements, when conducted
according to law, are absolute and irreversible, it would only be just
and reasonable that there should be some remedy for the acknowledged
mistakes which occasionally occur in the best administration of any law
or in any practice. I would recommend that authority be conferred
upon the Secretary to permit reappraising officers, upon their own request, and upon grounds satisfactory to the Secretary, to revise their
report and correct mistakes which are discovered subsequent to the
making of the report, such authority to extend, within reasonable
limits, beyond the date of liquidation. According to present practice,
sanctioned by judicial authority, the power to correct such mistakes at
any time hefore liquidation is exercised, and there seems to be no sufficient reason w^hy similar authority, under the sanction of the Secretary,
should not be extended. The objection that the existence of such
authority would unsettle the long-established understanding that the
reappraisement is a finality, and open the way to frequent and unreasonable applications to fche Secretary for revision, is met with the suggestion that application is only to be made by the reappraising board,
and by the fact that in practice, under the present authority to revise
before liquidation, its exercise is of very rare occurrence, although applications have been frequent and urgent. Under the present system
of -reappraisements such full opportunity is given to importers to prepare for the hearings that there is seldom any reasonable cause presented for reopening the investigation.
The tendency in modern legislation has been to enlarge equity jurisdiction for the correction of mistakes in the administration of general
laws and their application to particular facts and circumstauces.
It would seem in the line of such liberal reform that such authority
should be conferred upon the chief executive of the Department, who
already exercises, under the law, so large powers in the establishment
of rules and regulafcions for the administration of that Department.
I consider ifc a duty to again invite the attention of the Department
to a point in the administration of the law, in respect to the ascertainment of mar'ket value, which involves such diff'erence of opinion as to
make it difficult to apply the law to a certain class of invoice valuations.
Having stated the grounds of complaint on the part of the importer
against the operation of the law adversely to his interests, consideration
should be had for this important class of cases in which a construction
of the law made several years since operates to the prejudice of the interests of the Government. I refer to a ruling of the Secretary of the
Treasury made April 21,1884, by which the collector at Boston, having
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
171
been called on to act as umpire in a case of disagreement between
the general and merchant appraisers, was instructed that in ascertaining the market value of certain worsted yarns he might accept the
price at which such goods were generally sold to the United States purchaser in distinction from the higher prices at which they were sold to
any other purchasers. This ruhng has never been promulgated iii the
usual way by printing in the synoptical series of decisions; and I am informed that it is not recognized at other ports as authority for the very reason thafc ifc has not been generally promulgated, the inference being that if
it had been the purpose of the Department to have the principle of the
ruling adopted by appraising officers it would have been announced in the
usual way. I am inclined to this view because of a personal interview
with the late Hon. Secretary Folger a few months subsequent to the ruling, and a few weeks before he w-as permanently disabled from official
duties, in which interview the subject was discussed, and the Secretary
declared that he would give it further consideration. At this port the
ruling is well known, and is frequently cited by importers and merchant
appraisers in reappraisements. It would seem to me that its general
adoption would be so subversive of the geuerally accepted rule of finding market value that there would be not only practical difficulty in its
application, but that it would seriously affect the revenue. While the
equities of bona fide purchasers have beto recognized in considering
their complaints against the technical application of the law to innocens
and ignorant undervaluations, there can be no such consideration in thit
class of cases, for in.the case in which the ruhng was made it was conceded that the prices were exceptional, and this knowledge may be presumed in all such cases, the motive presiented to the seller to induce a
discount from the ordinary prices being that the purchases are for the
United'States market.
The following is an extract from the ruling of April 21, 1884, referred
to:
It is conceded t h a t the invoice'shows the prices actually paid for the merchandise.
These prices are lower, however, than prices of the same goods for the Euglish market. But it is stated t h a t the invoice prices are those at which such goods are sold
for exportation, so t h a t it is said there are two wholesale prices, both of them actual,
one .tor consumption in England and the other for exportation, and the question
arises which of these two values is to be chosen as the basis for the assessment of
duties.
In decision 3238 it was held that the general range of prices actually paid for good,
shipped from foreign countries may properly be accepoed as a standard for t h e aetual
market value or wholesale price prescribed by law as a basis for the assessment of
, duties, although the actual market value of such goods for consumption iri the country of export may be greater. If there is an actual market price for goods to be exported to the United States, thpugh that market value differs from tbe actual value
of ^oods sold for consumption abroad, the former should be the standard of assessable value for the customs officers here.
By actual market value is meant a general market value by which any person could
buy in the foreign market for exportation to the United States in competition with
another purchaser for the same purpose, or, in the language o f t h e decision cited, *'a
general range of prices actually paid." * <* *
As a matter of fact in that case, established conclusively by the report of Special Agent Tichenor, whose information was obtained by personal interviews with the sellers of the merchandise in question, the
prices invoiced were below all other prices except those made especially
for the United States market, the exception being against prices for export to other countries besides the United States, as well as those for
consumption in Great Britain.
Decision S. S. 3238 is cited as supporting the ruling in this case. A
reference to that decision shows that it was arrived at not without
doubt, and was justified partly on the ground that the book trade was
172
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
peculiar, so as to '' render it impossible to fix any positive standard of .
value for any particular book for any given time?' I t was fouud that
the price at which they were invoiced to the Unifced States were substantially the same as those at which such books were sold to all Englishspeaking countries, and that an exceptional price had not been made
for the United States. The previous decision of April 11, 1877 (S. S.
3196), is cited, and the Department says "there is no occasion to modify
that decision." Thequestion of roj^alty was discussed, but, indepiendently
of that, it was held that a no less price than that realized from the books
sold for consumption in England could " b e accepted as a basis for assessment of duty," and, in conclusion, that as it did "not appear that
the publishers had reduced the price of their books for consumption in
England or for shipment to countries other than the United States,"
the value reported by the appraisers must be sustained. Although the
instructions to the collector at Boston purports to be in harmony with
the decision of May 15, 1877 (S. S. 3238), which latter affirms the preceding one of April 11 (S. S. 3196), it goes far beyond that, and declares,
without the qualification that the prices must be the general exporfc
prices, that " b}^ market value is meant a general market value by
which any persou could buy in the foreign market for exportation to the
United States in competition with another purchaser for the same purpose." i. e., for exportation to the United States. This decision of May
15 (3238) was based on the consideration that an exceptional price had
not been made exclusively for the United Staties. The last paragraph
is to be construed with the preceding paragraph, so that, although the
precise lauguage is used as quoted in the instructions to the collector,
it is to be read when quoted as it was originally given "in view of all
the facts," a material one being that an exceptional price had not been
made exclusively for the United States. The instructions to the collector could not have been given in view of any such fact, for the fact
was established beyond all question that the worsted yarn had been
purchased and invoiced at an exceptional price, made exclusively for
the United States importer.
Eeference is made to a report by late Special Agent Bingham on this
subject, to be found printed in the " Eeport of the Secretary ofthe Treasury on the Collection of Duties," dated December 7, 1885, pp. 399-401,
in which the instructions to the collector are discussed and contrasted
with the generally accepted definitions and standard of market values.
° Eespectfully, yours,
(Signed)
H. S. BEIGGS,
\
General Appraiser.
No. 11.
P O R T OF BOSTON, MASS.,
Appraiser's Office, November 29, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
S I R : I herewith transmit the statement required in your letter of the
16th ultimo.
The imperfect records of this office in the past is the cause of my
delay.
Very respectfuUy, your obedient servant,
A. B. STEAENS,
Appraiser.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
m
October 1,1884, to October 1,1885, to
Octoberl, 1885.
October 1,1886.
(a) Invoices examined and appraised
(&) Invoices reported value correct ^
.
.....
(c) Invoices advanced in value by appraisers
(d) Invoices advanced more tban 10 per cent
(c) Invoices appealed to re-appraisers
f Advance sustained
(f) Effect and result of re- J Advance partially sustained . . .
appraisement.
j Advance made above appraiser.
(. Invoice sustained
No. 12.
O F F I C E OF THE
29,902
29,135
767
50
22
7
10
1
4
36,371
34 9?3
1,438
79
45
10
15
5
15
.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
D I S T R I C T OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Boston^ November 16, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, D. C :
S I R : In reply to^ your letter of the 8th instant, in regard to presentations to this office in 1886 by the collector for frauds on the customs
revenue, I would say that there has been but one such case. Emily
Eigby was accused of attempting to evade payment of duty on certain
ribbons, laces, &c., valued at about'$375. A suit was commenced
against her, the writ being returnable in circuit court October 15,1886,
but it was discontinued before entry, in accordance with instructions
from the Solicitor of the Treasury in his letter of September 27, 1886,
the defendant having redeemed the goods by payment of their appraised
value and having deposited the sum of $500 and costs in an offer ot
compromise.
Eespectfully, yours,
JAMES EUSSELL E E E D ,
* '
Assistant United States Attorney.
POET OF N E W YOEK.
No.
1. •
CUSTOM. H O U S E , N E W Y O R K
CITY,
Collector's Office, December 2, 1886.
To the Honorable the S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E J R E A S U R Y ,
Washington, D. C. :
S I R : In response to your request for my views upon the customs
service, I beg leave to say that I have not yet had sufficient experience
to enable me to point out intelligently and in detail evils to be remedied
or to suggest improved methods in the customs administration atthisport.
There are, however, two subjects which forced themselves upon my
attention soon after taking charge ofthe custom-house; these are:
1. The imperative need of a new custom-house and a new public store.
2. The cumbrousness of the present system of thepayment of duties in
the custom-house in actual money, and the consequent need of change.
(1) That the custom-house building at this port is unfit and inadequate for the proper and orderly transaction of the business needs only
to be stated. In past yea.rs, when the amount of business was comparatively small, it may have answered the demands of the service in a
certain way, but it does not now afford the requisite accommodations
174
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
for either the public or the customs officials, and its interior arrangement and construction are such that it cannot be altered so as to make
it fit for custom-house purposes. Without such accommodations,
orderly, efficient, and economical administration is exceedingly difficult.
Private firms and corporations recognize the fact that proper buildings
in which to conduct their business are essential to success. They spare
no reasonable expense to secure suitable and safe buildings and appointments for all the details of the work to be done. But the Government,
while it has expended large sums for the erection of public buildings in
various cities and towns of the country, has been content to leave its
servants charged with the administration ofthe largest financial collecting agency in, the world in buildings not originally intended or constructed for the purposes for which they are now used, and not at all
adapted for such use.
The appraisers' department is inconveniently located in an old sugar
refinery about a mile and a half froni the custom house, and the building is, like the custom-house, quite unsuitable for the business, nor is it
large enough for the work of examining aud appraising merchandise
and the safe keeping of the same.
Many of the transactions of the collector's office require the concurrence ofthe naval offices. The convenience of the officers and employes
of both of these departments, as well as that of the public, requires that
these officials should be located in close proximity and under the same
roof; but the naval office was crowded out of the custom-house buildiug several years ago and is now located in a rented building across the
street. The lease will expire within three years, and should it be impracticable to renew it or to secure adjacent quarters for the uaval office,
great inconvenience and delay would result to all concerned. The amount
paid for rent for the twp buildings used for the naval office and the appraisers' store for the last five years was about $375,000, or $75,000 per
annum.
It is therefore respectfully suggested that Congress should make
immediate provision for the purchase of a suitable site and the erection
thereon of a building of sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the
several departments of the customs service at this, port. The ground
upon which the custom-house stands is very valuable and would probably sell for a sufficient sum to pay for a site in another location.
(2) The losses which have occurred in past years in the cashier's
department of the custom-house, and the risk to merchants in handling
the large sums of cash used in the payment of duties, have rendered
desirable some method of payment by checks or certificates.
Yours, respectfully,
.
D. MAGONE,
Colleetor.
No. 2.
SILAS W . BURT—Appointed Deputy Naval Officer April 29,1869; as Clerk and Comp
troUer May 24, 1873; as Naval Officer J u l y 11, 1878, and J u l y 11, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Naval Office, October 30, 1886.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D, C. :
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 15th instant, requesting me to give you a full and detailed statemeut
of the reforms in the administration of my office, and generally in the
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
175
customs business at this port, that have been made within this year, and
also to communicate to you other information regarding reforms either
contemplated, desirable, or called for by pur principal merchants, as
also the complaints made by them as to the present execution of the
customs laws at this port.
In obedience to your request I would respectfully submit the following statement, in which I have treated the several branches of the
customs business in their order of succession.
(1) Entrance and clearance of vessels.—Under this head the most important change has been that made by the act of June 19 last, abolishing certain fees, which became effective on July 1,1886. The amount
of fees thus abolished that was collected at this port during the fiscal
year ending June 30, was about $25,000. The result of their abolition
has been a great simplification in the work connected with the documenting, transfer, entrance, and clearance of vessels. I know of no
complaints in regard to the execution of the laws under this head.
(2) Entry of merchandise.—The marked improvements on this point
within the year are expressed in the several decisions by the Treasury
Department: (1) More closely defining dutiable invoicevalue; (2) Tending to an insistence that the entered value must be the dutiable invoice
value, with such additions thereto as the importer may-make; (3) Giving force to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the '^Oberteuffer case," that the invoice and entry are co-ordinate parts of a single
transaction, and that both are to be considered in the assessment of
duties; (4) That the oaths administered at the time of entry as provided
by section 2841, Eevised Statutes, so far as they refer to costs, values,
and discounts, apply to the invoice alone, and not to the form of entry.
While these decisions have not been precise and definitive, their general
trend has been in the direction indicated. It is always difficult to reverse
a procedure long in practice, even when it is manifestly defective. At
the very foundation of the assessment of duties under our present laws
is the invoice, a document so important for this purpose that a costly
corps of consular officers are sustained in foreign countries to verify it
for customs purposes. The important element in the invoice is the cost,
including all costs bf finishing the goods as exported, all of which constitutes the dutiable invoice value, or, expressed in brief, '^ the invoice
value." This should be the entered value, with such additions thereto
as the importer may elect to make. Thus there is a clear standard of
entered value as of invoice value, leaving no chance for future doubt or
misconstruction as to either. The appraiser has before him the invoice
only in determining the market value, amd the collector and naval officer
have the invoice, the entry, and the appraisement before them in the
liquidation of the exact amounts upon wiiich duties are finally assessed.
The merchants have for several years sought relief from the necessity
of appearing in person at the custom-house to' take oaths on entries of
goods. It is not necessary to recount the inconveniences they suffer in
this respect, but to again recommend the repeal of the oaths, and substitution of declarations verified by the signature and seal of special
notaries commissioned by the Secretary of the Treasury.
So, too, as applicable not only to entries of goods but to all other
official transactions connected with their movement, there should again
be pressed the legislation abohshing the annoying fees now collectible
on various documents, and which are small, indistinct amounts, vexatious in their payment, and difficult in their proper accounting.
(3) Fayment of duties.-—There have been proposed several plans by
which duties might be paid without the presentation of the actual coin
or other lawful rboney at the custom-house.
176
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The importers have generally urged the acceptance of certified checks
by the collector. There are certain obvious objections to this plan, and
whatever one is adopted will require amendments to the present statutes aff'ecting the subtreasuries and other public depositories, as well
as those affecting the collection of duties.
(4) Warehousing and bonding of goods.—There is a general desire by
importers that the 10 per cent, additional duty now assessed upon goods
remaining in warehouse over one year shall be abolished. I t is my
own opinion that our w^hole warehousing system should be remodeled,
and so far as practicable that the British system should be substituted;
the main features to be incorporated being a liberal term for warehousing, and for allowances for normal loss in quantity in bond when such
loss diminishes values; a provision whereby the cost of the warehouse
system should be borne by the interests benefited; the cancellation of
export bonds upon alternative evidences satisfactory to the collector
and naval officer; and a reduction of the number of bonds now required.
The Governuient storekeepers should be so paid that their compensation would not, as uow, appear to be directly contributed by the warehouse proprietors upon whom they are the only check. For all importations made under the provisions of sections 2507, 2508, and 2509 there
should be distinct series ofbonds, to be kept apart from, but treated in
the same manner as, regular warehousing bonds. Some of the above
suggestions were incorporated in the bill introduced in the House of
Eepresentatives on February 1 last by the HoUo Abram S. Hewitt (H.
E. 5010, Forty-ninth Congress, first session).
(5) Appraisement and reappraisement.—^Under the general direction
of the Secretary of the Treasury, much has been accomplished within
the year at this port in securing more accurate appraisements^ Appraiser McMullen has been indefatigable in his endeavor to carry out
the provisions of the law governing appraisements (sec. 2902 E. S.
particularly). In this delicate task he has naturally incurred the opposition and censure of many of the importers the value of whose goods
has been advanced. I desire to renew my recommendation that the
methods of appraisement be arranged and systematized so that in regard to the great bulk of importations groups may be established and
a standard and staple commodity in each group be made the scale or
key for that group. Articles of the same materials, uses, and origin
must have a correlation in value, the common elements being cost of
raw materials and labor. The concentration of research upon a single
key would secure a more accurate valuation, and the fluctuations in this
value would suggest responsive changes in the other commodities in the
group. This method of judging by reciprocal relations is how adopted
by the appraisers to someextent, but the extension and systematization
of such apian would be of great benefit. The advantages that might
have been gained by the more efficient appraisement of goods during the
last fifteen months have been very greatly impaired by the defective
methods of reappraisement and the administration of those methods.
The cure for these defects must be radical, through legislation abolishing the present provision for general and mercijant appraisers, and substituting a board of general appraisers upon plans hitherto submitted
to you and to the special Senate committee on the subject of undervaluations.
Apropos to the appraiser's functions it may be here indicated that
they are both intrinsic and incidental; the former beiug those imposed
by law, i. e., the appraisement of the market values of imported goods;
the incidental are those originating in the fact that the appraiser is the
liEt^o!^* 6f ME SECfeiiTAt^l^ Of i^iiie TRriA^uiiir,
ill
only Customs official who examines and inspects the goods and who can
certify to other officers the facts revealed by such examination. The
action upon these facts (which do not enter into the question of market
value) devolves upon the collector and naval officer, or the Secretary of
the Treasury; and the opinion of the appraiser as to such action, whether
voluntarily expressed or requested, is only advisory. Thus the opinions
of the appraiser as to classification are advisory, and the responsibility
of action on this point rests wholly with the other officers above named.
There has been some misapprehension on this point, and appraisers and
general appraisers have sometimes undertaken to decide both classification and dutiable values.
(6) Liquidation of entries.—By this term is meant that ascertainment
of the duties payable on every entry contemplated by sec. 2931, Eevise Statutes. The original estimate of duties at time of entry is based
upon the ex parte papers produced by the importer, but in liquidation
these papers are supplemented by the reports of the appraisers, weighers, gaugers, and other officers, who have subsequently examined th.e
goods and testify as to their value, character, quantity, and condition,
and the liquidation takes into account all the papers and certificates,
with the provisions of law, regulations, and decisions pertinent to the
entry. The Treasury Department, within the past year, by its decisions, aBd particularly those regarding protests, to be more particularly
mentioned herealter, has greatly improved the methods and results of
this important process.
(7) Protests and appeals.—At an early date in your administration of
the Treasury Department, you became apprised of the many vexed
questions pending before the Department, and the courts upon protest
(sec. 2931, E. S.) from the hquidated amount of duty. Your first action
was on May 2, 1885, deciding that a legal protest upon an entry for
warehousing must be made within ten days after the liquidation of that
entry, and could not be made upon a final withdrawal of the goods.
This decision, correct in law, and equitable in its relations to entries
for direct consumption and those for warehousing, shut off* many claims
having no substantial justice, but v/salid under previous rulings. The
amount of money thus saved to the Treasury cannot be accurately estimated, but was very large.
The minute and extended inquiries you made between A u g u s t l , 1885,
and March 1, 1886, demonstrated serious defects in the administration^
of the law (sec. 2931, E. S.), leading to a vast accumulation of ap-'
peals to the Secretary of the Treasury, and great arrears in the disposition of suits instituted in the United States courts. The decision
of important questions being thus long delayed inflicted great injury
upon commercial inteiests by the uncertainty as to rates of duty that
might govern in the future, while the delay increased the interest
charges upon all cases decided adversely to the Government. There
was also inedequate preparation of the evidences for transmission to the
district attorney. I beg pardon for even thus briefly touching upon the
matters exhaustively treated in your letter of March 23, last, in answer
to a resolution of the House of Eepresentatives, in regard to suits
against collectors of customs. I have done so so only as a preface to
a review of what has been accomplished under your orders since April
1, last. All protests are now examined by^ the collector and the naval
officer, and after consideration of the points presented by the importer,
the original liquidation is either confirmed by those officers, or a reliquidation is directed. Should the collector and the naval officer diff§p
H. E?;. 2-^yoL ii--™12
178
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASUl^Y.
in such consideration, the matter of difference is immediately reported
to the Secretary ofthe Treasury for his decision.
The beneficial results that might reasonably be anticipated from this
new procedure have not as yet fully accrued, for the following reasons:
At the time when the new regulations were put in force on May 1, there
were large arrears in the disposition of liquidations as well as of protests, and since that date these arrears of liquidation have not been
largely reduced; the great mass of accumulated protests and appeals
are upou points that should have been brought to suit, and the protests on these points are growing in volume, and as they are against
Departmental decisions on appeal, they cannot be disposed of or reduced by any action here upon the protests. These accumulated appeals are mostly upon the following points: 1st, on coverings andcharges under the 7th section, act March 3, 1883. Although the Supreme Court decision (in re Oberteuffer et al. vs. Eobertson) appeared
to cover all disputed points as to the above section, the protests are
still filed in great numbers, and are almost invariably vague in their
terms, not specifying particular charges on any invoice or entry, and
generally having no grounds that can be ascertained by the most careful examination of those documents. In such cases the liquidation
must be confirmed with a consequent appeal to theSecretary and probably the same fruitless labor in his office. The tendency to vague protests ^^at large" is increasing and the law^ should provide that matters
of protest should be clearly and definitely stated in detail.
(2) A class of protests, increasing in volume, is for the allowance for
breakage under section 2, act of February 8, 1875, which allowance, it
is claimed, was not repealed by the act of March 3, 1883.
(3) A large number of protests are also made against the duty of 50
cents per gallon on wines, upon the claiml that the actof March 3,1883,
did not repeal the duty of 40 cents per gallon imposed by the second
section of the act of February 8,1875.
. (4) Protests against the imposition of the metal rates of duty upon
textile fabrics containing metal threads.
(5) Protests upon all classes of textile fabrics liquidated at rates according to material under the several schedules but claimed to be subject to duty as "materials for hats." (T. I., new, 448.)
(6) Protests against the assessment of wool and worsted duties on
certain fabrics of mixed materials, and claiming that they are dutiable
at 50 per cent, ad valorem because silk is their component material of
chief value.
(7) Protest against any duties on sugar imported from certain countries, clainiing that the treaties with those countries contain the " most
favored nation" clause, and that sugars from them are free because
they are free under the reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
It would be a great relief if lhe points at issue in these seven
classes, particularly in the last six, could be brought into court and
decided. They cover tens of thousands of entries and the mass daily
increases, involving great labor in recording, both here and in the Department, while the interest in cae-e of adverse judicial decision upon
the suits will add materially to the outgo from the Treasury.
In spite, however, of this drag of arrears in liquidation andof the formal treatment of such a volume of protests that cannot be arrested, the
results of the new raethod of reviewing protests by the respouvsible offi.cers at theport have been satisfactory. One hundred and fifty-two reliquidations of protested entries have been made to date, arresting certainly so many appeals to the Secretary, and probably many times thai,t
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
179
number had the protests in question not been reviewed here. Already
the influence of this review is perceptible in the better education of'the
liquidating clerks and the more efficient discharge of their duties. There
is also a promise of much better preparation of evidence to sustain in
the courts cases where the protest and appeal are denied. This reform
in the treatment of disputed assessments of duties is entirely due to
your official care, and in time will relieve the overburdened dockets in
the Treasury Department and courts of law, and also remove one of the
obstacles in the way of legitimate commerce, and that is, the doubt as
to the rates of duties that will be imposed.
Drawbacks.—This letter has been extended so far that I can touch
but lightly on this; subject. I beg leave to renew the recommendations
for amendment of the statutes made in my letter to you of November
19 last for reasons therein stated at length.
Your request that this report should be made to you before the 1st
proximo has so limited .the time I could give to a review of the year's
work and to the consideration of what should be advised for the future,
that I have probably omitted many matters pertinent to your inquiries.
I would have treated the question of the necessary legislation, fixing a
precise and practical basis of dutiable value, had I not learned that'you
were making special inquiry on this subject in directions where there
are better sources of information.
All of the above is respectfully submitted by
Your obedient servant,
SILAS W. BUET,
Naval Officer.
No. 3,
T R E A S U R Y D E P A R T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y ,
Washington, D. C, November 8, 1886.
S I R : In your interesting letter of October 30,1886, you refer to "complaints submitted to me and to the Senate committee on the subject of
undervaluations."
Will you kindly give me the dates of those submitted to me, and also
copies, if you can obtain them, of those submitted to the Senate committee?
You also mention great arrears in protests and liquidations in New
York growing out of transactions (I infer) before my protest order.
Will you furnish me with a statementof the number of such protests in
arrears, and say whether appeals thereon have been made ? Why have
• not reports on such protests and appeals been.made to the Department '^
Be good enough to specify the chief questions presented therein.
You also allude to the vagueness of protests. Is not the law sufficient
in that regard; and, if so,why are not protests which are illegal because
vague rejected on that account, and so reported to the Department ?
I invite you to send rae, at your convenience, your views on the " precise and practical basis bf dutiable value" mentioned at the close of your
letter.
'
Eespectfully, yours,
. D. MANNING,
Secretary.
SILAS W. B U R T ,
Esq.,
^avo^ Officer, New Yorh
180
' REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OP THE TREAStJRY.
N o . 4. -
•
.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Naval Office, November 12, 1886.
Hon. D A N I E L
MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C; :
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of ybur letter of
the Sth instant,' requesting me to explain certain expressions in my letter to you of the 30th ultimo, relative to the customs administration
at this port.
I would respectfully invite your attention to my letter of the 30th
ultimo, wherein I mention plans submitted to you and to the Senate
committee on the subject of undervaluations and not " complaints submitted, &c.," as your letter represents. These plans suggested such
legislation as would repeal the present statutes providing for general
appraisers and merchant appraisers and substituting for them a board
of general appraisers having sole appellate jurisdiction. I believe that
several such plans were prepared and brought to your attention, and
that of the Senate committee. I inclose a letter from me to Senator
Aldrich of that committee on February 22 last, in which I briefly outlined the defects in the present system, and suggested a board of general appraisers.
The arrears in protests mentioned by me partly accrued before your
orders of March 13 last, and that part originated in inefficient administration and the retention of many protests (with coincident appeals
attached), because of defects or informalities which in most cases should
have led to peremptory rejection or prompt reference to the Treasury
Department or because of other reasons to me unknown. A part of the
arrears accrued after your order of the above date and were caused by
the apparent indisposition of the collector to obey that order, and it
was not until May 1 that the protests were sent to "this office for review, and the month's accumulation then came in within two or three
days. I do not know how the long delayed protests have been disposed of, but presume they have been reported.
Since May 1, when your order of March 13 was put in operation here,
the protests made subsequent to that date and sent to this office have
been promptly considered and the arrears have been cleared off.
In my l)revious letter I mentioned the arrears of liquidation as well
as of protests, and it was to the latter I more particularly referred.
These arrears, I regret to report, have for a long time existed and have
averaged for several months past thirty thousand entries.
The causes for these arrears are several, the principal one being the
many errors made in the liquidations in the collector's office and the
difficulties encountered in obtaining a correction of them. As this excessive number of errors aud the delays in their correction originated
in defects in administration, they will doubtless be reformed by the
present collector, who is gradually and efficiently reorganizing his office.
Another cause of these arrears has been the inadequate force of clerks
engaged in liquidation, which has been repaired by the authority recently granted by you to increase the number. '
The reliquidation of.entries under the supreme court decision in the
Oberteuff'er case has begun, and the readjustment for refund of excessive duties in cases in suit, and otherwise valid, will be pushed forward with all possible rapidity.
In regard to the vagueness of protests, you ask me if the law is not
ginfficient in that regard, and why protests are not rejected upon that
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
181
account. The law ordains that the importer shall set forth in the protest " distinctly and specifically the grounds of his objection " to the
liquidation. I inclose herewith some of the blank forms of protests in
use at this port, as a more clear explanation of what I have termed as
"vagueness," than I could otherwise give. Exhibit No^. 1 is usedin
protests against the inclusion of coverings and charges, and is made
most frequently upon entries where every item of cost for coverings or
charges appearing on either the entry or invoices has been, excluded
from the liquidated dutiable value. As the terms of the protests are
general, it requires a minute and lengthy examination of the invoice
and entry in order to discover if there are any discernible grounds for
the protests, and as some of the protested liquidations cover many invoices and long and complicated entry statements, much labor and time
are expended in the effbrt to test the allegations in the protest, which in
most cases prove unfounded.
If this latter document had specifically in licated the several items
for coverings or charges claimed as non-dutiable, by amounts and names,
the examination could be accurately and rapidly soade.
Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, being protests against the validity of appraisements and reappraisements, show in a degree that is absurd, the indefinite, obscure, and difiusive terms in which protests are couched. Every
possible contingency is covered by these documents, which allege every
conceivable delect of commission or omission as tainting every official
act connected with the appraisement of the goods in question.
Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 are more speci.ic in terms than those mentioned^
but fail, to indicate the distinct and specific grounds of objection.
It would seem that a certain class of attorneys have discovered the
vast possibilities of the existing procedure on disputed assessments of
customs duties.
Their protests are framed " a t large," and are like a fine-meshed seine,
intended to entrap all kinds and sizes of fish, known and unknown.
Their policy is first to keep the protest and appeal alive as long as pos- ^
sible, in order to bring within its indistinct terms any subsequently dis- '
covered ground of objection. Thereafter it is to their advantage to
delay a hnal adjustment in the courts, so as to accumulate as many protested entries as possible, since their contingent profit in case of a successful issue increases proportionately with the magnitude of the claim.
All these delajys are obviously injurious in every way to the interests
of the Government.
>
^
If the Treasury Department considers as valid such protests as I
have above particularly alluded to, there should be such an amendment
to the law as will require a particular specification of each distinct act
and item in the liquidation of an entry against which an importer^ may
protest and the exclusion of all matter not pertinent to the specific acts
and items objected to.
In my letter of 30th ultimo, I gave seven difi'erent clauses of protests
on^which suits are delayed to the great disadvantage of the business
in the custoins offices and the Department, and with probable increased
loss to the public treasury.
Y'ou have also asked me my views as to a "precise and practical
dutiable value." Of course such a value is the essential basis for the assessment of all ad valorem duties. As the theory of all customs taxes is
that tliey are imposed upon foreign goods consumed within our country,
the taxable value should logically be the valueof the goods in tbe condition in vvhich they reach the actual consumer. Some effort has been
m'M^ ft'Oiii time to time to frame legislation t^hat would secure such 'M
182
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
end, the latest being embodied in the seventh section ofthe act ofMarch
5, 1883, excluding the cost of coverings and other charges. This proA ision as construed by the Supreme Court has not accomplished the
jnirpose sought, since it enforces the exclusion of certain values pertaining to and inseparable from the goods as ultimately consumed. But
the real and insuperable difficulty is in the impossibility of administrating any provision of law designed to talx the goods in the condition
when consumed. In order to comply with the constitutional provision
that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the
Unite€l States," a home valuation of imports, naturally different at the
several ports, cannot be adopted, aud the tax must be, and therefore
always has been, based upon the actual market value or wholesale price
iu the foreign market. This value thelaw previous to act of March 3,
1883, enjoined should include certain costs .and charges, which injunction that act repealed for reasons above stated. As some of these costs
and charges do now and always have formed a part of the foreign market value or wholesale price, the appraisements for the last three and
a half years have been based upon a condition of the goods in which
they have no expressed or recognized price. Under the most favorable
auspices the proper appraisement of imported goods has been a difficult
task, but the present law has raade it practically impossible. The basis
for appraisement should be the value of the goods as prepared to be
placed in the outside packing-case for shipment to the United States.
This condition ofthe goods accords as near as may be to the wholesale
price in the foreign market. It also has the rare advantage of being
the condition in which the appraiser examines them, and he thus Jias a
visible and tangible basis of valuation and not'a hypothetical oue unrelated to any condition in which the goods are bought or sold at wholesale.
There are many excellent and sound theories relative to customs taxation that cannot be adhered to in practical administra,tion, such as the
universal application of the ad valorem system of rates ; so, too, the a>ppraisement of the goods per se,or in the condition as consumed, is in
theory the proper method, but in practice is not feasible, as shown by
the experience of the last three years.
The section of the bill known as the "Morrison bill," introduced in
Congress at the. last session, providing for a new definition of dutiable
value, w^as notentirely satisfactory, and recently there was furnished by
this office to^Special Agents Tingle and Tichenor the draft of an amended
section, which I understand these officers will include in some report
to you.
in making any change in the basis of dutiable value it must be borne
in mind that such change will work a reduction or increase of tax upon
the several classes of goods with resultant eff'ects upon commercial and
manufacturing interests, as also upon the aggregate amount of revenue
derived from the customs.
In my letter of the 30th ultimo I omitted to mention among the transactions of the past year the reduction ofthe drawback rate upon refined hard sugars exported.
*
This rate, which went into effect upon the 1st instant, was estabhshed
provisionally, pending an inquiry as to what further reduction may be
necessary. Under your direction I have been gathering statistics per
tinent to such an inquiry. They touch both special and general commercial conditions at home and abroad, and may also include particular
informatiou that can be giv^u only by the refiners themselves. The,
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
183
extent of the statistics will delay for some weeks their collection aud
collation for your use, bat the provisional rate is apparently so near
the proper one that the delay will not materially injure any interests
concerned. The great importance of the subject in its relations to the
refiners, the revenue, and to our general commercial interests indicates
a careful and thorough inquiry before a permanent drawback rate is
fixed.
\ would most respectfully suggest that there should be a commission
appointed, by authority of law, to revise and recast all that part of the
United States statutes comprised under Title 34 and the amendments
thereto, and to report such revisions to Congress for consideration and
enactraent. The basic law under which duties are collected is that of
March 2,1799, which has been amended and enlarged by several scores
of acts passed siuce. These frequent and distinct changes have failed
to adapt the law to the growing needs and changed conditions ot our
commerce. Those of our citi'zens interested in the carrying trade, as
well as in the importation and exportation of merchandise, have daily
cause to complain of the obstacles and inconsistencies of this patchwork code. T«lie corresponding British statutes have been entirely recast six or seven times within the past century in order to adapt tbem
to the growth and changes in commercial methods and relations. This
responsiveness of legislation to commercial needs is one of the elements
in that superiority of the British fbreign trade to our own that is so
often a cause of national regret. I will venture to say that you could
do no greater public service to our commercial interests than by securing a thorough recast of our statutes regulating them.
Witii great respect, I am your obedient servant,
SILAS W. BUET,
Naval Officer.
fEnclosure FO.JL.—Exhibit No. 1.1
L A W O F F I C E CHAS. C U R I E ,
(44 Exchauge Place, N. Y.)
New York,
•
, 188-.
Hon.
E D W A R D L. ^HEDDEN,
Collector of Customs, New York :
SIR : We protest agaiust your decision aud 'exaction of duty as made by you ou our
entries below referred to of certain
and otber merchandise aud against tbe
paymeut of tbe dufcies exacted thereou, or exacted ou any of tbo cbarges tbereou, or
upon a value enbanced by reasou of tbe cost or value of said cbarges, or upon tbe
exaction of duty upon any value in wbicb smy of tbe cbarges mentioned and referred
to in section 7, of tbe act of Marcb 3,1883, as non-dutiable, bave been taken or made
a basis of estiniate in determining tbe dutiable value of said merchandise, upon tbe
following grounds and upon eacb and every one of tbem.
First. Against ^'our decision establisbing as tbe standard dutiable value of imported mercbandise, tbeir value in tbeir put up, packed, and covered condition, including tbe cost of tbeir putting up, packing, and tbe coverings in wbicb tbey are
contained, and against all additions we are obliged to make on entry to cover sucb
iteras of cost, claiming tbat the said items of cost are not dutiable, and t b a t you bave
no legal rigbt to assess duty tbereou, and t b a t it is part of your official duty to
cause the proper dutiable value of said goods to be returned b y t h e appraiser, wbicb
value should, be exclusive of the items of cost mentioned, but t h a t on the contrary
you bave liquidated and assessed tbe duties upon bis return value wbicb includes
said cbarges and cost s, contrary to tb>e expressed provision of section 7, act of March
3, 188S.
V
Second. Against your certificate of entered or declared value ou invoice as false
and unautborized by law in containing the value and cost of coverings aud cbarges.
Third. Agaiust the return of tbe appraiser as uot in accordance'with tbe facts, in
t b a t it pretends to return tbe market value of tbe mercbandise only, wbereas in fact
he has added to such value tbe cost of putting up, packing, and coverings in which
184
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
tbe goods are contained, or bas taken and returned a value wbicb includes, besides
tbe goocl;S, tbese cbarges and tbe coverings, contrary to tbe provision of section 7,
act of Marcb 3, 1883; and furtber against t h e return as ma'de by the appraiser, upon
t h e grounds t b a t tbere bas been no Jegal appraisement or ascertaiument of ibe dut i a b l e or market value of said goods, in t h a t the appraiser.has not acted upon bis
own knowledge andjudgment, hut under directions o f t h e Secretary of tbe Treasury.
T b a t be bas aggregated in bis return tbe market value of said goods and tbe cost of
.putting up, packing, and tbe coverings in wbich tbey are contained, wbereas the
value of the goods sbould bave been stated separate from such cbarges and tbe coverings, and the duties assess'ed on tbe merchandise only in accordance with tbe express provision of section 7, act of March 3, 1883; and we protest for these reasons
against your assessment of duties on such illegal return.
Fourtb. Tbat under the act of Marcb 3, 1883, the cost or market value of said
mercbandise is alone dutiable, wbereas in ascertaining tbe dutiable'value tbereof
tbere bas been illegally estimated and included as a part of such value cbarges expressly declared by section 7 of said act to be non-dutiable.
Fiftb. Tbat under tbe act of Marcb 3, 1883, only tbe value of said mercbandise is
dutiable, wbereas tbe value of tbe usual and necessary sacks, crates, boxes, and otber
coverings bave been estimated as p a r t of the value of said goods, in determining tbe
amount of daties for wbicb tbey sbould be liable, contrary to the provisions of section
7, act of Marcb 3, 1883.
Sixtb. Tbat by tbe act of March 3,1883, all duties tberetofore exacted upon cbarges
incurred in the importation ofmerchandise are repealed, but there bas been included
in estimating tbe dutiable value of said goods, actual, usual, and necessary charges
for putting up, preparing, and packing said merchandise, and we hereby separately
and distinctly protest against all duties assessed by reason of such additions to tbe
actual cost or market value of tbe actual mercbandise imported.
Seventb. That under tbe act of March 3, 1883^, said mercbandise is only dutiable
at its first cost or net raarket value in tbe principal markets of countries wben exported, wbereas tbe appraiser, in fixing tbe dutiable value of said mercbandise, bas
illegally estimated and included as a part of such-value the charges for bleaching,
dyeing, dressing, finishing, and p u t t i n g up said merchandise and tbe coverings iu
wbicb it is contained, or one or more of said charges, and you have assessed duty
thereon.
Eigtb. Tbat under section 7, of the act of March 3, 1883, tbe dutiable value of
said merchandise is its cost or triie market value a t tbe date of its exportation in tbe
principal markets of'the country whence it was exported, free of cbarges, but you <=
bave assessed a dinity tbereon upon a valuation in excess of such net cost or value.
Ninth. We furtber protest against t h e duty assessed, claiming t h a t sections 2900,
2902, 1905, and 2906 of tbe United States Revised Statutes, as well as otber provisions
of law heretofore existing, bave been so modified by section 7 of tbe a^it of Marcb 3,
1883^. t b a t tbe legal dutiable valine of said goods is now to be determined witbout tbe
estimation of tbe value or cost of the packages or coverings of whatsoever kind, containing said goods, or tbe putting up, or tbe packing of tbe same, or tbe estimation
of auy of tbe cbarges which were dutiable by said sections, or any, otber provisions
of law prior to tbe passage of tbe act of Marcb 3,1883, but the appraiser, in bis return
of tbe market value of said goods, has included therein the value or cost of said
cbarges, or some one or more of them, and you bave assessed d u t y tbereon witbout
making any allowance tberefor.
Tberefore we give notice tbat we pay all higher duties-or rates than is claimed
above as the legal duty, under compulsion, and to obtain and keep quiet possession of
our goods, and we also give notice t b a t we do not intend by this protest to relinquisb
or waive auy rigbt we may bave to a refund of the diJQference between tbe duty exacted of us, and any less duty whicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty upon
said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against the present duty cbarged upon
said goods, claiming that said duty is not tbe legal duty to wbicb said, goods are
cbargeable, holding you and the Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted
by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of d u t y tbereon, and bereby give notice t b a t we intend this protest to apply to
all future similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith
submitted for transmission by you to t h e Secretary of thie Treasury, under tbe rules
of your office, to be an appeal to bim from your decision, and to likewise apply to all
future similar importations hy us.
Attorney.
ForN E W YORK,
Hon.
,
188-.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury :
• S I R : Appeal is bereby taken from tbe decision and action o f t h e collector in bis as^essme^t of dut^ on the importations respectively mentioned ii^ the protest liJ.ed ijeye
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
185
w i t b witb bim under tbe rules of your office, copy of wbicb is on tbe back hereof submitted and referred to, as embodying tbe grounds and reasons of our appeal to you
on eacb of said importations.
Very respectfully,
By CHARLES CURIE,
Attorney.
[Enclosure No. 2.—Exhibit No. 2.]
^
L A W OFFICE CHAS. CURIE,
(44 Exchange Place, N. Y.)
New York,
, 168-.
Hon. E D W A R D L . H E D D E N ,
Collector of Customs, Neiv York:
SIR : We protest against your decision and exaction of duty as raade by yoa on ©ur
entries below referred to of certain
and otber merchandise, and against t h e
payment of tbe duties exacted thereon, or exacted on auy of tbe cbarges thereon; or
upon a value enbanced hy reason of the cost or value of said charges, or upon tbe
exaction of duty upon any value in excess of the net value of said good as expressed
in tbe invoice.
In tbat—
Thero have been informalities and illegalities in t h e appraisal of said goods, both as
to form add substance in one or more of t b e particulars following, to w i t :
The appraising officers have not exercised all reasonable ways and means in their
power to ascertain, estimate, and appraise t b e true and. actual market value and
wbolesale price of said goods as required by sec. 2902, Revised Statutes, and existing
law. That is to say :
They have acted upon ex parte testimony.
Tbey bave acted upon ex parte testimony of incompetent witnesses.
Tbey have excluded t h e testimony of competent witnesses.
Tbey have refused the testimony of competent witnesses.
Tbey have neglected to properly inform themselves of the facts submitted for their
inquiry and determination by evidence wdthin their reach, contrary to t h e requirements of said section.
Tbat said appraisal has not been made i n conformity with law in t h a t the legally
constituted appraiser or officer has not made the personal examination as required by
sec. 2901, Revised Statutes.'
They have not appraised the goods a t their actual wholesale price, or their actual
market value in the principal markets of the country of exportation a t t h e time of
exportation as requiied by secs. 2904 and2906, Revised Statutes; and Sec. 7, act March
3, 1883.
They have not appraised tbe goods at their actual wholesale price, or their actual
m a r k e t value in the principal markets of the country ©f exportation a t the time of
exportation as required by secs. 2904 and 2906,'Revised Statutes and sec. 7, act March
3, 1883—namely, tbe price wbicb discreet and experienced merchants in said goods can
and do buy or procure tbem at wbolesale in said markets, b u t have estimated them
at t h e price wbicb careless or indiscreet buyers pay for them, or wbich second-hand
dealers or storekeepers sell them to casual or inexperienced purchasers.
That said appraisal has not been made o n t h e appraiser's own knowledge a n d j u d g ment, b u t upon tbe suggestion of outside parties, whom t b e importer is denied the
r i g h t to face and to question in support of his own sworn invoice.
That t b e invoice or entered value as declared in the invoice or entry is the actual
and legal value upon wbich duties legally accrue, because tbey are the actual wholesale price, cost or market value tbereof a t time and x>lace of purcbase or procurement,
and duties levied in excess are illegally exacted because of t h e reasons and grounds
berein set forth.
T h a t in making tbe appraisal aforesaid the appraiser has acted, not on his own
judgment, b u t on instructions of tbe Treasury IDepartment or special directions of
special agents of the Treasury.
W e protest against tbe appraisal of said merchandise as made by t h e appraising
officers upon t h e further ground of informality and illegality as to both form and
substajice in one or more of t h e particulars following, to w i t :
T b a t if t h e appraiser is nbt satisfied t b a t our invoice price states the actual wholes a l e price or market value of said goods at t h e time of exportation, because of there
being no other purchasers of said goods and a t said time and place, or for any other
reason be caunot ascertain tbe actual market value of said goods, t h a t iu such case
t is his duty to determine the dutiable value of said goods UUder tbe prgvi sions pf
186
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
section 9 of tbe act of March 3, 1883, not to exceed tbe cost of production aud the putt i n g up of such mercbandise for shipment; but that, ou tbe contrary, be bas made certain arbitrary additions to sucb net cost for manufacturers' or commissioners' profit,
contrary to the provisions of said section.
We protest furtber against tbe interference to our rigbt to an impartial reappraisement as contemplated by section 2930, Revised Statutes, by a discreet and experienced
mercbant in tbe merchandise in question, and tbe denial of our rigbt t a produce evidence in support of our invoice value, and of the denial of our right to be present at
tbe bearing, and of tbe denial of our rigbt to face aud question our traducers or ac
cusers, as arbitrary and illegal, tbereby rendering tbe said contemplated legal remedy
for our aggrievance nugatory aud of no practical use or efi'ect, but, on the contrary,
rendering it a mere sbam"for tbe illegal confirmation of a previous illegal act under
color of law, at the expense of tbe appellant.
That tbe denial of our said rights is equally illegal, whether done by instructions
from tbe Secretary of the Treasury or at tbe appraiser's own suggestion, aud w^e protest against its illegality from whichever source the denial may emanate.
We protest against tbe additions to value we are obliged to make on our eutry
above the invoice value to meet tbe illegal and arbitrary standard of value fixed as
aforesaid, upon tbe grouuds and reasons aforesaid, claiming the same to bave been
done under duress and compulsion by the arbitrary withholding from us tbe right to
an impartial reappraisal as aforesaid, and to obtain possession of our goods.
We furtber protest agaiust tbe duty assessed, claiming t b a t sections 2900,2902,2905,
and 2906 of tbe United States Revised Statutes, as well as otber provisions of law
heretofore existing, bave been so modified by section 7 of tbe act of Marcb 3, 1883,
t b a t tbe legal dutiable value of said goods is now^ to be determined witbout tbe estimation ofthe value or cost o f t h e packages or coveriugs of whatsoever kind containing said goods, or the putting up or tbe packing of the same. Or tbe estimation of auy
of the cbarges which were dutiable by said sections, o r a n y otber provisions of law
prior to tbe passage of tbe act of March 3, 1883, but tbe appraiser iu bis return ofthe
market value of «aid goods bas included therein tbe value or cost of said charges, or
some one or more of them, under cover of ^' market value per se," and you bave assessed duty tbereon witbout making any allowance tberefor.
We protest against the appointment as mercbant appraiser of any jpersou who is
not an actual importer, aud a discreet and experienced buyer of like goods iu the
principal markets of the countries from which tbe said goods bave been imported, as
contrary to tbe provision of section 2930, Revised Statutes, and existing law.
We especially protest against tbe appointment of a domestic manufacturer as mercbant appraiser, and of the rigbt of the collector so to do, and against tbe collector's
decision claiming sucb right, upon tbe ground tbat sucb appointment is iu direct con'flict witb tbe provision of section 2930, Revised Statutes, providiug for a discreet and
experienced mercbant, and therefore illegalj and depriving us of tbe otberwise legal
redress of tbe wrong complained of.
Some of the reasons for our objections to said appointments a r e :
Tbat he is an interested party in keeping up high values.
That bis business interest depends to a great measure in keeping up such prices.
Tbat he bas no experience as a mercbant in the markets ofthe countries from which
said goods bave been imported.
That be is biased, and an interested party.
That be does not come within the legal requirements, in tbat he is not a discreet
aud experienced mercbant, nor is be familiar witb the foreign value of tbo goods in
question, nor is he an experienced buyer in such markets.
We further specifically protest against your denial of our right to a reappraisement
as provided by section 2930, Revised Statutes, without first paying an amount of money
for tbe expense of sucb reappraisement.
T b a t you have no authority in law to exact of us sucb fee or sum of-money as a
prerequisite to our right to said reappraisement, and your action in so doing is arbitrary and illegal.
That tbe appraisal as made by the local appraiser is wrong, incorrect, and based
upon a false standard, or erroneous conclusion as to tbe facts, from which appraisal
we bereby appeal by virtue of said sefction, claiming tbe rigbt thereto, free from any
taxation for tbe privilege tbereof.
Therefore we give notice t b a t we pay all higher duties or rates t b a n is claimed above
as the legalduty under compulsion and to obtain and keep quietpossession of our goods,
and we also give notice t h a t we do not intend by tbis protest to relinquish or waive
any rigbt we may have to a refund o f t h e difi'erence between tbe duty exacted of us
and any less duty whicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty ou said "goods,intending tbis protest to be made against tbe preseut duty cbarged upon said goods,
claiming that said duty is not tbe legal duty to wbicb said goods are cbargeable,
holding you and tbe Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you
upou said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of
duty thereop^ f»,ud hereby give notice that we intend tbis protest to apply to fill future
KEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY.
187
similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted
for transmission by you to tbe Secretary of the Treasury, under the rules of your
office, to be an apxieal to bim from your decision, and to likewise apply to all future
similar importations by us.
We separately protest against tbe returned value as made by the ax>praiser as erroneous, informal^ aud illegal in tbat be bas, contrary to the provisions of sections 2902,
2904, and 2906, Revised Statutes, based bis valufition on contracts for future delivery,
tbereby taking an hypothetical or speculative value instead of the actual wholesale
market price whicb actually obtained for immediate delivery on tbe day of exportation, claiming tbe invoice value to be tbe correct value of said goods, and tbat unless
it is sbown by evidence of actual transactions made on tbat day, by purchases and
sales lor immediate delivery, our invoice must stand as evidence of the true value,
and cannot be avoided or set aside for purpose of admitting hypothetical and speculative values based ou a theory as to wbat migbt be tbe value at some time in tbe
future on the happening of some coutingent event.
We furtber and separately protest against the appraising officer's metbod of computing t h e cost of said good's under the provisious of section 9, act March 3, 1883, as
informal and illegal, in t b a t tbey bave not computed the same by ascertaining tbe
cost aud value of tbe materials composing sucb merchandise at t b e time aud place of
manufacture, togetber with tbe expense of manufacturing, preparing, aud putting
up sucb mercbandise for shipment.
Tbat w^e intend this protest to apply to the actions of tbe reappraising officers as
weil as to tbose of tbe local appraisers.
Yessel.
Prom-
Date.
Kind of entry.
Entry
No.
Date of liquidation.
^
-, Attorney.
For[Enclosure No. 3.—Exhibit No. 3.1
Hon. E D W A R D L. H E D D E N ,
Collector of Custonis, port of New York:
S I R : In tbe matter of tbe eutry, appraisement, reappraisement, liquidation, and
demand for duties on tbe importation of mercbandise
marked
. Invoice
dated at
•. Goods shipped per S. S. from
.
Please take notice t h a t we bereby protest against tbe payment of tbe sum of
I—'•— and the sum of |
, amouuting in all to tbe sum of $
-, exacted by
you from us as additional duty upon said invoice, wbicb amounts we bave paid under
duress and compulsion, in order to obtain possession of our goods, holding you and tbe
Government responsible for tbe return of tbe said excessive amounts exacted from us
ou the goods iu question ; and t h a t w^e protest against tbe exaction of any duty on
said mercbandise beyond tbe amount paid by us upon tbe original entry of tbe same
on or about tbe
day of
, 188-. We claim t b a t tbe liquidation assessment
and exaction of any duty in addition to tbe amount paid by us on tbe entry of said
goods, including tbe additional duty or penalty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, are not
warranted by law.
We claim that the appraisement and reappraisernent of said goods by virtue of
which the suras beyond tbe amount paid as aforesaid for duty at tbe time of t h e
entry of said goods were assessed tbereou, w^ere not, nor was eitber of tbem, conducted
in accordance with the requirements of law, and tberefore tbe liquidation, assessment, and exaction of said duty and penalty, so called, in addition to tbe amount paid
at tbe time of said entry, were unwarranted, illegal, and void.
' /
We claim tbat said re-appraisement was illegal and void, because tbe mercbant appraiser wbo acted on said re-appraisement was not a disinterested merchant and free
from bias; beeause'be was not a discreet and experienced merchant; because be was
not familiar witb the character and value of said goods; because be was not qualified or authorized by law to act as sucb merchant appraiser, and because you bad uo
authority to appoint bim mercbant appraiser; and also because tbe undersigned were
not allowed t o b e present eitber in person or by representative during tbe proceedings on said re-appraiseriient; because we were not allowed to be present eitber in
person or by representative during tbe examination of tbe witnesses on said re-appraiseineut j beeau^e we were ^ot permitted to be presetit gn &m^ re-appraisement tu
188
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
examine the witnesses t h a t were produced to testify agamst us j because we were not
allowed to be present on said re-appraisement and to produce witnesses in our own
behalf and to have them examined in our own behalf, for the purpose of establisbing
tbe correctness of the prices of said goods; because we were prevented from examining tbe written statements of the witnesses on said re-appraisement, notwithstanding tbe fact t b a t said statements were read and considered by said re-appraisers,
and influenced their minds in reaching their conclusions on said re-appraisement;
because we were not permitted on said re-appraisement to appear by or to be represented by an agent, factor, or broker; because we were not permitted to appear
by, or to be represented by, or to bave the assistance of counsel on said re-appraisement—all this contrary to law. Because improper testimony and statements were
received and accepted as evidence on said re-appraisement, including the statements or testimony of American merchants unfamiliar with the foreign market
value of said goods; because competent and material statements offered and tendered
to said general and merchant appraisers on said re-appraisement were excluded; because competent and mateiial statements ofi'ered and tendered on said re-appraisement
as evidence of tbe correct valuation of said goods w^ere excluded by said re-apprais
e r s ; because said re-appraisers disregarded tbe evidence as presented in tbe testimouy
of witnesses on said re-appraisement, and acted contrary to tbe evidence, and upou
tbeir own judgment and supposed knowledge in deciding the same, to the great injury of said importers; because tbe decision arrived at on said re-appraisement was
contrary to tbe facts, contrary to tbe evidence adduced, and contrary to l a w ; because
testimony was received and accepted by the said re-appraisers as competent evidence
wbich was so incompetent, improper, irrelevant, and valueless tbat it should have
been ignored, set aside, and disregarded altogether; because said general and mercbant appraisers and each of them in their deliberations on said re-appraisement, and,
in tbe decision arrived at, acted in fraud and evasion, and disregard of tbe law, and
in collusion with the collector of the port and the Secretary of the Treasury, for
tbe purpose of exacting t h e excessive and illegal duty paid as aforesaid; aud, furthermore, tbat they conducted said re-appraisement in fraud of the importers, and by
collusion witb adverse or rival interests, and by information or advice not communicated to the iraporters, and on evidence unknown to tbem, which they were afforded
no opportunity to controvert, baving been denied a bearing; because you would not
release said goods or permit said mercbandise to be re-appraised upon our demand
therefor, witbout exacting frora us payment as and for compensation for said merchant appraiser, an amount and an exaction unwarranted b y l a w ; and we protest
t h a t said re-appraisement was altogether irregular, unlawful, fraudulent, and void,
and not in conformity with our demand tberefor, and tbe laws and regulations applicable thereto; and also tbat your appointment of mercbant appraiser to assess duties
on our said importations was unlawful and void, and tbat you have no warrant or authority tberefor, nor had sucb mercharit appraiser any lawful qualification or right to
act officially in the premises, and we hereby demand a re-appraisement of said goods
to be conducted according to law.
We claim t b a t said appraisement and re-appraisement eacb aiud both of them were
illegal and void, because none o f t h e said goods were properly or legally examined by
tbe appraiser, the assistant appraiser, or the examiner, wbo originally examined and
advanced the prices of the same; because none of said goods were eitber properly examiued or appraised on sucb original appraisement; because said re-appraisers did not.
nor did eitber of tbem, diligently and faithfully examine and inspect such packages
of said goods, described in said invoice, as were duly desiguated b y t h e collector, and
ordered to the public store, tbere to be opened, examined, and appraised; because
none of said goods were properly examined by the general or the merchant appraiser
as required by law, nor did the said general or merchant appraiser eitber propeiiy or
legally examine or appraise tbe same; because none of said goods were properly examined by any or all of tbe witnesses on said re-appraisement, who testified for the
Government and against.tbe importers, nor did any or all of said witnesses eitber
properly or legally examine or appraise the same, and we also claim that said appraiser, assistant appraiser, and examiner, as well as said general, and mercbant appraisers were severally and collectively in making their said pretended appraisement
and re-appraisement, unlawfully under the suggestion, direction, and undue influence •
o f t h e Secretary ofthe Treasury and otber unauthorized persons, and t h a t said pretended appraisement and re-appraisement were not in fact, nor was either of them tbe
act of the appraising or re-appraising officers assuming to make tbe same, but was the
record o f t h e determination or desire of some otber officer or person wbo was witbout
lawful authority eitber to appraise or re-appraise said merchandise; because said general and mercbant appraisers violated t h a t provision of law^ whicb requires that appraisers shall arrive at their conclusions by " a l l reasonable ways aud meaus" witbin
tbeir power, tbe ways and means resorted to on said re-appraisement being unreasonable, unjust, unlawful, a n d i n the highest degree arbitrary and oppressive; bec?iuge thetyue and tactual foreign uni-rket v^lue find wholesale price Qf said goods ou
ll^PORT OF
THJE SECIIETARY
OF THE TREAStfRY.
189
which duty sbould bave been assessed, was the value of tbe same as stated in tbe said
invoice, tbe value by and in accordance with which such goods are bought and sold in
the foreign market aud any otber or diff'erent so-called foreign market value or wholesale price, sbould not bave been accepted, cpnsidered, or regarded in any manner
whatsoever in the assessment of duty on said invoice ; because the amount exacted as
duty on tbe cbarges mentioned on the said invoice, including cartons, packing,
packages, putting up, coverings of various kiuds, packing materials, labor in packing,
and otber miscellaneous charges was unjustly and illegally exacted. Said charges
should not have been considered or taken into calculation in estimating tbe duty,
or any part thereof, on the said goods, for the reason, t b a t under tbe laws of the
United States, the naked merchandise alone was liable to duty, according to section
7 of the tariff" act of March 3, 1883; because said appraisement and re-appraisement
and each of them were conducted and concluded contrary to l a w ; because said
appraisement and re-appraisement, and each of them, were unlawful and illegal, aud
sbould be canceled, set aside, and declared null and void. .
We claim t h a t the additions to^ the invoice value of the charges for packing and
putting up, which were b y t h e cnstoms officers of this port placed upon tbe entry as
a p a r t of the so-called dutiable value of said goods, were illegal and unwarranted;
t h a t your refusal to permit said merchandise to be assessed for-duty at tbe value expressed on tbe invoice, with said* additions or deductions allowed, was unlawful aud
unwarranted ; t h a t your menace, and t h a t o f t h e appraising officers, to impose a penalty or additional duty on said merchandise, unless we made or submitted to the addition of said undutiable items to the true invoice value, was unwarranted by law,
and t h a t such additions as we made to said invoice value were made only in order to
avoid tbe payment of said additional duty or penalty, and to obtain possession of our
goods, and we claim t h a t the additions compulsorily made to said invoice by or under t h e direction of tbe revenue officers, were unwarranted by law, and t h a t we
should n o t b e in any respect concluded or bound tbereby. We also protest against
tbe fees or special compensations of any and every nature whatsoever exacted from
us on the entries and liquidations of the entries, and appraisement and reappraisement of said goods.
Wherefore, we demand t b a t said duties illegally exacted of us, as aforesaid, be repaid to us in accordance with our claim herein set forth.
Uated, New York, —•
, 188-.
APPEAL.
To the Secretary of the Treasury :
'
You will take notice tbat pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, we hereby
appeal from tbe decision ofthe collector of customs at this port, assessing duty on
our importations of mercbandise described in the above protest, and for the reasons
particularly set forth therein.
Dated, New York,
, 188-.
Office and P. O. address, No. 4 William Street, New York City.
[Enclosure No. 4.—Exhibit No. 4.1
\
Claim Dee, June 28, 1886; covers also SS.
N E W YORK, June 26, 1886.
Hon.
.
Collector of Custonis, New York:
SIR : We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of duties as made by
you on our importations below nientioned, consisting of certain nails, composed of
iron, shank and head of composition metal, of which copper is the component material of cbief value, u. s. e. or p. f., plated or gilt, claiming said goods are entitled to
entry at 4 cents per pound under section 2499 and the provision for ^ * and all other
wrought-iron or steel nails, u. s. e. or p. f., in Scbedule C, actMarch 3,1883, or if these
nails are to be deemed excluded from said provision because of the material their
heads are composed, or because of tbeir commercial designationIthen they aredutiable,
first, wnder the provision in said Scbedule of said act for all composition metal of which
copper is the comp. mat. of c. v. u. o. s. e. or p . f., or at 35 per cent, ad valorem for
all manf. of which copper is the comp. mat. of c. v. u. s. e. or p. f.; or, second, at no
more than 35 per cent, ad yalorem under the provision in said schedule for plated and
gilt articles and wares of all kinds, they being known as ''gilt-beaded nails," and
not at 45 per ceut. ad valorem or as cbarged by you ; and we give notice t h a t we pay
all other higher rates thau is claimed above as the legal rate under compulsion and
to obtain possession of our goods; and we also give notice that we do not intend by
this protest to relinquish or waive any right we may have to a refuiid of the differ-
190
m^pon-r
OF THE SECRJSTARY OF THE TREASURY.
ence between tbe duty exacted of us aud auy less duty wbicb may hereafter b e adjudged tbe legal duty upon said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against tbe
present duty cbarged upon said goods, claiming t h a t the said duty is not tbe legal
duty to which said goods are cbargeable, holding you and the Governuient responsible
for all excess of duty exacted by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, aud protesting against all illegal exactions of duty tbereon, and bereby give notice tbat we
intend this protest to apply to all future similar importations by us, and also intend
tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmissiop by you to tbe Secretary of
the Treasury, under tbe rules of your office, to bean appeal to bim from your decision,
and to likewise apply to all future similar importations by us.
.
^
Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, New York.
For
.
i Enclosure No. 5.—Exhibit No. 5. j
N E W YORK,
, 188--.
Hon.
Collector of Custonis, New York :
S I R : We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of duties as made by
you on our importations below mentioned, consisting of certain braids, plaits, flats,
laces, trimmings, and tissues, used for making or ornamenting bats, bonnets, and
hoods, composed wholly or in p a r t of silk, cotton, flax, hemp, metal, wool, or worsted,
or other substance or material, and not specially euumerated or provided for under
existing laws, claiming said goods to be subject to only 20 per cent, ad valorem under
the provision of Scbedule N, act Marcb 3, 1883, and not at 50^ 45, 40, 35, or 35 and
40 per cent., or as charged by you ; and we give notice t b a t we pay all other higher
rates tban is claimed above as tbe legal rate under compulsion and to obtain possession of our goods ; and we also give notice t b a t we do not intend by tbis protest to
relinquisb or waive any.rigbt we may bave to a refund of the difference between the
duty exacted of us and any less duty wbicb may hereafter be adjudged the legalduty
upon said goods, intending tbis protest to be made against the present duty charged
upon said goods, clairiiing t h a t said duty is not the legal duty to wbicb said goods are
cbargeable, holding you and the Government responsible for all excess of duty exacted
by you upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of duty tbereon, and bereby give notice tbat we i n t e n d this protest to apply
to all future similar importations by us, and also intend the duplicate protest herewith submitted for transmissiou by you to the Secretary of tbe Treasury, under tbe
rules of your office, to be an appeal to him from your decision, and to likewise apply
to all future similar importations by us.
Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, N. Y.
For —•
...
N E W YORK,
, 188-
[Enclosure No. 6.—Exhibit No. 6.1
Hon.
Collector of Customs, New York :
S I R : We hereby protest against your decision, liquidation, and assessment of duties
as made by you on our importations below mentioned, consisting of certaiu torchon '
laces, of liiieu or linen and cotton mixed, or otber like mixed laces, claiming t h a t such
as have flax or linen as a component material of chief value are dutiable at ouly 30
per cent, ad valorem, by force of section 2499, Revised Statutes, as flax or liuen laces
and insertioijs, under the provisions of Schedule J, act of March 3, 1883, because,
first, said laces assimilate to flax or linen laces more tban to any other euumerated
laces ; or, second, because linen or flax being the component material of chief value,
, they are dutiable by force of said section and schedule as if wholly of linen or flax ;
or, thirdly, by force of said section and schedule, at no more than 35 per cent, as a
manufacture of flax n. o. p. f.; fourth, those whicb have cotton as a component material of chief value are dutiable at 30 per cent, by assimilating to ''linen laces," by
force of section 2499, Revised Statutes, and Scbedule J of said a c t ; or, fithhj, at uo
more tban 35 per cent, ad valorem as a raanufacture of cotton n. o. p. f. under said
section and Schedule J, act March 3, 1883, and not at 40 per cent, ad valorem, or as
cbarged by you ; and we give notice t h a t we pay all other higher rates tban is claimed
above as the legal rate under compulsion and to obtain possession of our goods; and
we also give notice t b a t w^e do not intend by this protest to reliijquish or waive 9-ny
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF TME TREASURY.
191
right w^e may have to a refund of the difference between the duty exacted of us and
any less'duty wbicb may hereafter be adjudged tbe legal duty upon said goody, intending this protest to be made against tbe present duty cbarged upon said goods,
claiming t h a t said duty is riot the legal duty to wbicb said goods are chargeable,
holding you and theGovernment responsible for all excess of duty exacted by you
upon said goods above tbe legal duty, and protesting against all illegal exactions of
duty tbereon, and hereby give uotice t b a t we intend this protest to apply to all future
similar importations by us, and also intend tbe duplicate protest herewith submitted
for transmissiou by you to the Secretary of the Treasury, under tbe rules of your
office, to be an;appeal to bim from your decision, and to Ukewnse apply to all i'ufcure
similar importations by us.
Attorney, 44 Exchange Flace, New York.
For
.
[Enclosure No. 7.1
P O R T O F N E W YORK,
Naval Office, February 22, 1886.
Hon.
NELSON W . A L D R I C H ,
^
U. S. Senator, Washington, D . C :
M Y D E A R M R . SENATOR: Before I had thoroughly considered tbe x>roposition to
establish an appellate board of appraisers I was averse to it.. I am convinced t b a t
tbis was caused by a trace of t h a t official over-conservatism t h a t I am generally free
from. Tbe more t revolve the matter now t h e more I am persuaded t b a t it affords
tbe only practicable relief from the difficulties in reappraisement under preseut tariff'
conditions. I; would advance t h e following points as cogent:
(1) Tbat t h e original conditions wbicb induced tbe employment of merchant appraisers no longer exist. Not only is appraisement not an arbitration or a compromise, b u t the class of merchants from whom sucb appraisers sbould be drawn is
uot now available for tbe purpose. I t forms too small a proportion of tbe entire mass
to be available in view of the vast increase of business. The great proportion of
consignees in tbe aggregate mass of importers is fatal to the utility of sucb a metbod
of reappraisement.
(2) Tbe collector should be relieved from all concern in appraisements, eitber iu
tbe selection of reappraisers or as an umpire when they disagree. At tbis port the collector has so much else upon his hands t h a t he cannot attend to appraisement duties
. properly. This alone would suffice were there no other reasous for his relief. I reiterate my profound conviction t h a t there is no escape frora undervaluations with
our high rates and tbe existing and probable future commercial conditions. A heavy
customs t a x can be collected with uniformity and ease only by sjiecific rates, and it is
only upon the presumption t h a t it is impracticable to generally substitute tbese for
our present ad valorem rates t b a t I have sketched tbe followiug as tbe metbod I think
the best adapted to the purpose in v i e w :
Let there be establisbed in the Treasury Department a board of, say, twelve officers
wbo sbould have final appellate jurisdiction as to appraisement of imported mercbandise and of all questions of fact relative to the classification of sucb mercbandise, aud cbarged with tbe equalization of valuations of mercbandise throughout the
whole customs service.
These officers should be appointed by the President, witb tbe advice and consent
of tbe Senate, and sbould hold tbeir offices duriug good behavior, removable only
upon cbargesi filed in the Treasury Department and publicly announced. They
sbould receive a salary of, say, $6,000 per annum, and tbe payment of actual traveling expenses when on public duty away from tbe port of detail, as hereinafter provided.
The central office of tbe board sbould be at tbe port of New York, and tbe officers
sbould be detailed by the Secretary of the Treasury from time to time, so t h a t tbere
be tbree officets at tbe port of New York and one eacb at tbe ports of Boston, Pbiladelpbia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, and San Francisco, and two at large for tbe
districts east of tbe Rocky Mountains, and one at large/or tbe districts west thereof,
tbe residental ports of sucb officers.at large to be fixed by tbe Secretary of the Treasury. Tbe Secretary of the Treasury sbould change tbe detail of tbe several officers
at stated intervals, so t h a t they would rotate from port to port.
In case an importer is dissatisfied with tbe original appraisement of any goods, or
witb tbe classification of sucb goods as affected hy tbe facts appertaining thereto,
b(^ sbould bave tbe rigbt to appeal to the appellate appraiser at tbe port or in the
district where sucb goods are imported, and t h e decision of sucb appellafe appraiser
should be finalaud cojiclusive as to the value of the goods or as to tbe facts relative
to clcisslficatipn. At tbe port of New York tbe tbree appellate appraisers sbould be
192
REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
organized as a board, whereof one of tbem, by devSignation of tbe Secretary of the
Treasury, should be chairman, and tbe appeal sbould be made to such cbaitman, who
should be empowered to refer it to either of bis associates for decisiou or to tbe full
board of three officers, as be should deerri advisable, and the decision made by sucb
ofBcer or board of officers sbould be final and conclusive.
At t h e central office a t New York sbould be received and filed general and special
reports from United States consuls and otber officers as to t h e market values and
prices current a t all foreign markets, as well of r a w materials as of mauufactured
articles, the prices of labor, rates of depreciated currencies, and copies of sucb foreign
commercial journals as t h e Secretary of t h e Treasury may have subscribed for.
Samples of goods appraised from time to time sbould be collected and kept for reference, as also samples sent by consuls, w i t b prices current marked tbereon. From
tbe central office circular letters should be sent to all appraising officers, giving tbe
appraised values of merchandise, accompanied, when practicable, by samples of tbe
goods.
Tbe decisions of t h e appellate appraisers should govern all appraisements subsequently made until set aside by new decisions, and i t should be competent for the
Secretary o f t h e Treasury to order a conclave of at least five of tbese officers to meet
at New York to consider and determine valuations, witbout regard to appeals for reappraisement, and t h e values so determined should continue until set aside by new
decisions.
This would provide for advances in value throughout t h e country, without regard
to appeals by merchants.
I am aware t h a t this scheme is crude, and t h a t the details I have given should be
partly legislative and partly administrative. But w h a t I have presented may be suggestive, though I believe you have given the subject some attention and may have
perfected your ideas.
Apart from t h e crudity of my proposed plan, I perceive there are three objections
to which it might seem open:
(1) That it is in its terms arbitrary—what is popularly called "one-man power."
I t may seem paradoxical, b u t it is nevertheless true, t h a t t a x laws, to be efficient and
uniform, must be enforced b y arbitrary measures t b a t secure a prompt and final decision. I n tbis they are similar to our election laws, which have reached practical
perfection in New York State b y a summary decision.
(2) That the plan is expensive; but, o n t h e other hand, t h e task is.one t h a t requires
well-paid officials and an effective staff, and I sbould not think an annual outlay for
salaries, clerk-hire,traveling and other expenses of $150,000 to $200,000 would b e a t
all excessive in comparison with the results economical and otherwise to be obtained.
(3) Tbat t h e scheme is cumbrous, and requires t h e co-oi)erative and uniform action
of many officers. I t must be remembered t b a t tbe assessment of ad valorem duties
is cumbrous, since it demands t h a t t h e fluctuating values in a thousaud foreign markets sball be determined in a hundred ports and with equal precision at New York
and Evausville, Ind. To secure harmony and justice in the administration of such
a complicated and burdensome method there must be a special macbinery t h a t in
the nature of things is as complex as the fabric it is to produce. The fault is not in
the plan b u t in the. nature of t h e work it is designed to accomplish.
Secretary Manning's recent communication t o the House is a clear and strong presentation of some of tbe difficulties encountered in administering customs laws, and
imposes upon Congress t h e responsibility for relief. I hope Mr. Hewitt's bill providing a new basis of dutiable values will be rapidly pressed, so as to make as little disturbance to business interests as possible througb tbe radical cbange in taxation
caused by tbe recent Supreme Court decision.
< Very respectfully,
SILAS W. BURT,
Naval Officer.
Ko. 5.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
O F F I C E OF T H E S E C R E T A R Y ,
Washington, D. C , November 16, 1886.
S I R : 1 have yours of the 12th instant, in which you transmit to me
certain blank forms of protests in use at the port of ^ e w York, which
^re marked '* Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6."
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
193
I shall be under obligation to ;foa if you will ascertain and report to
me, as far as you are able to ascertain it, what' decision, if any, was
made iu regard to the illegality of those protests ou account of vagueness 5 by whom that decision was made, and also what report, if any
thereou, was transmitted to this-Department.
Eespectfullv yours,
. ^ .'
^
DANIEL .MANMNG, •
Secretary. ^
Hon.
SILAS W . BURT,
Naval Officer, New York City.
No. 6.
P O R T OF N E W YORK,
Naval Office, November 17, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. :
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 16th instant, relative to certain exhibits of vague protests contained
in my letter of the 12th instant, and requesting me to ascertain and report
to you what decision, if any, was made in regard to the vagueness of
such protests.
I would respectfully report that until your order of March 13 last
went into operation at this port, on May 1, the protests were never
seen at this office. I w a s therefore ignorant regarding all procedure
and usage as to such documents prior to the last date. I was then, informed that such protests as I have invited your personal attention to
were accepted by the Department upon appeals, and as they continued after that date to be accepted by the collector, who had been the
repository of all previous orders and regulations as to protests, I saw
no reason to reject them. I was confi^rmed in the belief that such protests were acceptable under existing laws and regulations by an examination of the protest upon which the suit of Oberteuffer vs. Eobertson
was brought, which is quite as indefinite as to the items objected to
as is the protest represented as Exhibit No. 1 in my inclosures.
I hav^e felt that if such protests were acceptable under the law as
now framed that there should be additional legislation requiriug a protest to be as precise and detailed in its terms as is now the bill of particulars, as defined by section 3012, Eevised Statutes.
I t may be that there are orders and regulations or decisions by the
Department^ made prior to your order of March 13, and consequently
unknown to me, which would have caused the rejection for vagueness
of some protests officially acted upon here since that date.
I have, however, no official means of reference to any such orders,
&c., if any such there be.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
SILAS Wc BUET,
Naval Officer.
H. Ex. 2—VOL 11-^—-13
194
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
No. 7. •
• • •"
,
-NOVEMBER 13.
S I R : In the report made to me by the appraiser at New York, it appears that from October 1,1885, to September 30, 1886, there were
16,927 invoices advanced n value b y t h e appraiser; that 1,587 were
advanced more than 10 per cenc. and 2,050 appealed for reappraisement.
It also appears by the report of General Appraiser Bro wer that during
the same period 2,089 invoices (the discrepancy is explained by the appraiser) were appealed ; that 106 were withdrawn ; that on 426 the entry was sustained; that on 272 the appraiser's advance was wholly, and
on 1,014 partly, sustained; that on 49 the value was returned to be more
than the appraiser had reported; that on 114 there were divided reports which went to the collector, and 108 are unfinished.
I desire to know how many of the inyoices advanced by the appraiser
over 10 per cent, represented purchased and how many consigned goods,
and also what portion bf the 272 invoices in which the appraiser-s advance was sustained on reappraisement were for purchased goods»
Also, I wish to be told how many of those 1,587 and of those 272 invoices, if any, were by the coilector presented to the district attorney
foT prosecution as fraudulent, or were represented by the naval officer
to the collector to be iraudplent.
If it shall be that none of the iuvoices thus advanced in value by the
appraiser and the reappraisers have been presented to the district attorney for prosecution as fraudulent, or only a very small portion, then
I desire to be made acquainted, if possible, with the reasons which persuaded the proper officers of the customs that those invoices had all, or
nearly all, been hoiiestly and innocently made and with no intention to
defraud the revenue.
Eespectfully yours,
,. Dv'MANNING, •
Secretary.
Hon.
SILAS W. B U R T ,
/
Naval Officer, New York,
:
•
"•
N o .
8 .
.
••-:;
•
•-/•:•.
-
':
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , NAVAL O F F I C E ,
Noveniber W, 1886.
Hon. DANIEL^ MANNING-, . '
•'//•','-''•
Secretary of theTreasury, Washington, D . C :
S I R : I have the honor to inform you that I would have made an
earlier acknowledgment of the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant,
relative to reappraisements and additional duties, had I been able to
obtain the required information to answer the inquiries therein made.
I find that the records in this office do not refer to the conditions of appraisement on the several invoices, and that I can only report to you
the respective numbers of invoices for consigned goods and purchased
goods advanced ten per cent, or more and on which additional duties
were assessed during the year ending September 30,1886. This, however, will not coincide with the nunibers given by the appraiser for the
same period, since the transactions in the several customs offices are
not coincident, and as I have not the detailed list of invoices included
in the appraiser's report,, I cannot collate my own statistics with those
given by him. I t will take several days longer to get up the entries and
invoices for my report on this point.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. OF THE TREASURY.
105
Eeferring to the last queries in your letter of the 13th, I would answer that I am not aware that within the year ending September30
last any invoices were presented by the collector to the district attorney as fraudulent. There were none such officially represented by the
naval officer to the collector as fraudulent. Since the passage of the
act of June 22, 1874, known as the ''Antimoiety Act," it has been held
that in the absence of any evidence of fraudulent intent, other than
that of under-valuation in the invoice and entry, no prosecution, either
in rem or in personam, could be sustained. Thus an invoice and entry
of goods at one-quarter their appraised value would not work forfeiture .
or other penalty, unless it could be affirmatively proven that such an
under-valuation was made by invoice and entry with intent to defraud
therevenue.
Yery respectfully,
^SILAS Wo BUET,Naval Officer.
No. 9.
• P O R T OF N E W Y O R K , NAVAL O F F I C E ,
November 27,1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, Do -Co
•
S I R : I have the honor to inform you that in answer to your inquiry
of the 13th instant, relative to what proportion of advances of value by
reappraisement attach to consigned goods, I have found great difficulty
in obtaining trustworthy data, on accountof the method in which the
customs accounts have been kept. But in a review of the additional
duties assessed under section 2900, Eevised Statutes, for advances in
value since October 1, 1885,1 find that of the advances carrying a penalty of $50 dollars or more there were 70 per cent, attached to consigned
goods. If there were excluded from the problem the penalties assessed
upon addition of value of coverings and of charges (prior to Suprerae
Court decision) the proportion of consigned goods subject to a material
penalty would be aboiit 75 per cent, of the whole.
, Wishing I could give you more satisfactory statistics,
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SILAS W. BUET,
Naval Officer.
No. lOo
NOVEMBER 13,1886.
S I R : I send you herewith a copy of a printed report of ''communications respecting undervaluation of impprted merchandise submitted
by an organization of merchants and manufacturers of Boston " ou
March 4, 1886, and request you to carefully examine the same, and report to me whether or not facts within your knowledge, since you have
been a naval officer, and if so, what facts, justify the criticism and condemnation applied therein to importers and customs officers at the port
of New York, and to this Department as well.
I call upoii you, and not the collector or surveyor, to favor me with
the result of your observation and experience in that regard, because
the collector has so Recently come to the port of New York, and the sur
19G "
REPoitT
OF T H E
SECRI^TARY 6 F
THE
TREASURY.
veyor is now prostrated by a severe illness, and because your intelligence, experience, and zeal in the matters referred to are of an exceptional character.
Will.you kindly return to me the inclosure?
Eespectfully yours, <),
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
SILAS B . BURT,
Esq.,
Naval Officer, Neiv York City.
No. 11.
H A N S S. BEATTIE.—Appointed Surveyor of Custoras fort be port of New York, New
York, J u n e 27, 1885.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W Y O R K C I T Y ,
Surveyor's Office, November 4, 1886.
S I R : Acknowledging the receipt, by due course of mail, of your letter of the 15th instant, calling for certain information touching the administration of the affairs for the past twelve months of the department of which I have the honor to have charge, I respectfully report
that, while, in theory, the duties of surveyors of customs are solely
executive at ports where there are also a collector and naval officer,
the port of New York covers so vast an extent of territory, and the
volume of business transacted therein is of such magnitude, that, in
addition to purely executive duties, the surveyor is constantly called
ou to take greater responsibility and to decide more intricate questions
of law^ and regulations than the collectors of customs at other ports.
A t this port there are 320 inspectors of customs; 119 night inspectors
(so called); 87 weighers and assistant weighers; 13 gaugers and assistant gaugers, and a force of 175 weighers' laborers, on an estimate for
the smallest average day's work, also 14 skilled laborers and 28 ordinary laborers with the gauger. To see that this force performs its
varied duties properly and efficiently is the special function of the surveyor. Experience has shown him that it is unwise, if not entirely
impracticable, to vest discretion in these subordinates, and that that
surveyor who considers it primarily his duty to see that the regulations
of the Department and the orders of the collector are carried out to
the letter, secures the best results to the service.
During the past year much progress has been made in the conduct of
the aff'airs by the simplification of the methods of business procedure,
a continuous insistance on clearness and certainty in the issuance of
orders, and the enforcement of strict compliance with the provisions of
the statutes and regulations.
To secure a proper observance of these statutes and regulations it
has been found necessary to recommend the removal of many subordinates in all branches ofthe force subject to the supervision of the surveyor. The causes of such removals have been in some cases inexcusable ignorance of the rules and regulations goYerning the bureau in
which the removed officer served, in others an apparently inherent inability to become subject to the simplest requirements of discipline, and
in almost all, as compared with that reciprocityof regard which usually
obtains between the private employ6 and employer, a callous indifference to the iuterests of the Government.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
197
Simplification in the method of business procedure has been obtained—
s
.
First. By mobilizing the gangers' force under one head, concentrating its clerical employes in one office, and directing the performance of
its outdoor work therefrom. For a detailed statement of the benefits
which have thus far accrued to the service and to the public from the
reorganization of this force, I respectfully refer to the report of Mr. C.
H. Knight, gauger, under date of October 18,1886, herewith submitted,
Second. By the adoption ofthe same principle of mobilization to the
force of inspectresses, who, under the immediate supervision of one of
their own sex, are now detailed to their respective assignments in the
same manner as inspectors of customs are detailed. Heretofore the
method of assigning inspectresses to duty was to have them notified,
under the immediate direction of the deputy surveyor or Superintendent
of the barge office, at their homes, by telegraph, of the arrival of steamships at Fire Island, Sandy Hook, or Quarantine, according as notice
was received of the arrival of a vessel at one or the other of these points.
Obviously this system of operating this force was liable to, and did frequently result in, the failure of an inspectress to be promptly in attendance at the wharf on the arrival of a vessel. To render such occurrences
less liable to takeplace, and for the purpose of securing a proper record
ofthedujbies discharged by the inspectresses, they have been divided
into two watches, of four each, the tirst reporting for and awaiting assignment to duty in a room in the barge office (separated from other
branches of the force there located), from 9 o'clock a. m. to 4 o'clock«p.
m., a detail being made from that of one or more of them who may not
have actually performed work during these hours, for any vessel which
may arrive at her wharf between the last-naoied hour and 9 o'clock a.
m. of the following morning, when the second watch relieves the first
froin duty for the next twenty-four hours. The results thus tar obtained
from this change have not only been more satisfactory to the service,
but also to the inspectresses themselves, among whom a more equitable
division of the aggregate of duties to be performed by them has been
secured, without at the same time sacrificing any consideration for their
sex, which should be observed.
Third. By the modification of regulations, an instance of which is
that approved by the Department March 12, 1886, in respect to the
transfer of bonded merchandise for export and the shipment of merchandise entitled to drawback, when exported.
The modification of this regulation has been made without prejudice
to the revenue, the expense of collecting which would have been ma
lerially augmented by the increased force which would have been necessaril}^ required to strictly carry out the provisions of the regulation
before it was modified.
,
Among the matters which, at the present time, seem to me most deserving of the attention of the Department are:
First. The condition and methods of conducting the business of the
force employed in weighing.
Second. The questions ofthe examination of passengers' baggage and
the payment of duties thereon on the wharf.
Third. The transfer to public store of packages ordered there for
examination.
For some time previous to July, 1885, the port of New York was, with
reference to the weighers' force, divided into four districts, each under
the charge of a United States weigher, too small a number, if the certificates of weight on which the collector bases his liquidation of the
duties on articles paying duties by weight should be signed by the
198
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
person ascertaining it, and too many, by tliree, if the duties of weigher
can be construe;d to be merely supervisory.
The ascertainment of gross weight is comparatively simple. Giv^en
correct a t d sharp beams and accurately adjusted poise, and true gross
weight can be obtained by persons of ordinary intelligence, exercising
care; but the question of tare is more difficult and requires judgment and
experience in selecting the packages to be tared, so that proper representative packages of the whole lot may be taken. The emplo^^ment of
unskilled labor in handling the merchandise to be weighed, so that a
sufficient number of laborers may always be ready when required, and
. yet none be employed that are not needed, is a result which ought to
and cau be substantially attained.
It must be conceded that the collector should base his finding of the
amount due the Government by an importer, on merchandise paying
duty by weight, on a statement or return made to him by that employ^
who directly ascertained, or, at least, witnessed, the ascertainment of
the net weight so stated or r<eturned. The courts have decided (Marriott vs. Brune, 9 How., 619), that the collector is bound by the return
of weight made by the weigher, he being ,the officer created by the
statute for the purpose of ascertaining the weights ofmerchandise upon
which duty by weight is paid. To have returns of weight made by the
United States weighers who have personally supervised the actual
weighing and ascertainment of tare would, at this port, require that the
number of such w^eighers be increased to at least twenty, involving an
incjrease of $40,000 in the expense of collecting the revenue—-for their
salaries alone—if, as has been generally conceded, the act of Juue 26,
1806, fixing the salaries of weighers at this port, has not been repealed
by reason of its provision not being included in the revision of the
Statutes. The question then arises, Has the collector the right to accept, as the basis of liquidation of an entry, a return or statement of
weight made to him by an assistant weigher '^ If this question be decided in the affirmative, the reorganization ofthe weighers' department
is comparatively a simple matter, which might be accomplished by constituting it of one weigher, at a salary, as provided by law, of $2,500 per
annum, whose duties should be the direct supervision, under the surveyor, of twenty, or more or fewer (as experience may decide to be necessary), principal assistant weighers, at a compensation, to be fixed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, as noio, at $4 per diem, or, perhaps, $25 per
week, whose duties shouid consist of personally making or supervising
the making of weight, allowing of tares, and making and signing of returns. • Under these principal assistant weighers the remaining number
of assistant weighers (whose salaries might be fixed at $3 per diem, or
$20 per week) deemed necessary could be employed. The employment
of unskilled labor could be regulated by the appointment of one foreman
of weighers' laborers and two classes of laborers—those employed by the
week and those by the hour, as emergency might require—it being the
duty ofthe foreman to assign them to work, as the principal assistant
weighers might inform him, from timeto time, their services were needed.
The reduction from the amount now paid the assistant weighers would
not only offset the shght increase in the compensation of the principal
assistant weighers, but the amount saved from the salaries of the
weighers w^ould also make a large reduction in expenses. .
This plan, if adopted, would give no principal assistant more than he
could j)ersonally attend to'; and, by enabling the weigher and the surveyor to hold him to a strict and rigid responsibility, would certainly
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
199
increase the efficiency of the force and insure the greatest accuracy of
the returns.
On the 20th of March last I addressed a communication to the honorable the collector of the port, recommending a reorganization of the
weighers' force. The recommendation, approved by the then collector,
was, as I have been informed, forwarded to the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury. As up to the present date I have not been officially advised of what disposition, if any, was made of that communication, in order that the views then presented may be before you with
those now expressed, I take the liberty of reproducing it here. It is as
follows:
CusTOM-HousE, NEW YORK,
Surveyor's Office, March 20, 1886.
S I R : Tbe honorable t b e Secretary of tbe Treasury baving ordered a reorganiza- .
tion of the gangers' force a t tbis port, in accordance witb tbe terms of my recom-,
meudatiou to bim, uuder date of January 18, 1886, I would respectfully suggest tbe
propriety and practicability of applying tbe same metbod of mobilizing and operating
the weigbers' force from a suitable central ijoint a t tbe i)ort.
Tbe force, as now organized, is distributed, as you are aware, over four priucipal
districts, eacb of wbicb is under a cbief weigber, at an annual compensation of |2,500,
or au aggregate of |10,000. Eacb of tbese weigbers has a central office, and one of
tbem (tbe weigber iu cbarge of tbe Brooklyn district), in addition to bis central
ofifice, bas tbree suboffices. To eacb of tbese offices, both principal and sub, tbere is
^attached a clerical, janitor's, and otber force, wbicb it is necessaryto maintain under
existing arrangements. There is also a force of assistant weigbers (sixty-two in number), apportioned among tbese districts and divisions, at an expense, for eacb assistant, of | 4 per diem, or an aggregate of $77,624 per anuum. I n addition to tbese regular assistant weigbers, tbere are also temporary assistant weigbers and laborers
employed by tbe w^eigbers at a compeusation of 30 cents per bour wbile actually occupied.' The average number of sucb temporary assistant weigbers employed during
tbe fourteen weeks ending Marcb 4, of the present year, was forty-eight, eacb of whom
was occupied d u r i n g t b e sameperiod an average of forty-nine and one-half hours, and
received an average compensatiou of $14.83^ per week.
It is unnecessary, for my present purpose, to state tbe cost of labor and otber incidental expenses for tbe same period, as it is not at present contemplated t b a t tbe
metbod of employing such labor, or providing for tbe other incidental expei^^srs, be
changed.
Data which I h a v e collected show t b a t in tbe Brooklyn district (to wbich forty
regular assistant weigbers are assigned), between J a n u a r y 2 and March 15, of tbe
present year, tbere were numerous days upon wbicb from live to eleven regular assistants rendered no service whatever t o t h e Government. For instance, on J a n u a r y
2, 1886, in tliat district, there were nine of tbese regular assistaLL v/eigbers who were
awaiting orders all day at an expense of $36 to th^ Treasury, for it received no return
wbatever ; on tbe 4th of tbe same montb tbere were seven ; on tbe 8tb, five; on tbe
9tb, t e n ; on tbe 21st, eleven; on tbe 25th, eleven; o n t h e 29tb, five, and a proportionate nuniber of idlers during tbe entire period coveredby tbe records wbicb I have
bad made. Investigation has shown me t b a t tbe facts just stated are approximately
true of tbe otber districts, aud t b a t tbis loss of energy and waste of money must be
chiefly attributed to tbe existing metbod of organization.
As au initial step toward securing more efficient aud economical administration of
tbe force, I respectfully recommend—
First. T b a t tbe services of tbe four cbief weigbers be discontinued, and t h a t in
tbeir stead a superintendent of weigbers, at an annual salary of $3,500, and a superiutendent of taring, a t au annual salary of $2,500, be appointed.
Second. Tbat tbe services of sixty-two assistant weigbers, wbo now receive a compensation of $4 per diem eacb, be discontinued, and t b a t autbority be given to employ in their place aud stead, not exceeding fifty weigbers, a t a compensation of 40
cents per bour.
Tbird. Tbat thw autbority now possessed for employing temporary assistant
weigbers, at a compensation of 30 cents eacb per hour, be discontinued.
Fourth. That the services of tbe present foreman of weigbers be discontinued, and
•that autbority be given to employ eigbt temporary foremen of weigbers, at a compensation of 50 cents each per bour.
Fifth. That tbe existing provisions for tbe employment of skilled aud ordinary laborers, ja.uitors, and otber necessary force be contiuued.
Sixtb. That tbe central office, for tbe transaction of the business of the entire
weighers' force, be located at tbe barge offico, with eigbt suboffices; four in Brooklyn,
200
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
one in Hoboken, two on tbe Nortb River, aud one on tbe East River, Now York City ;
tbe intention being to place a foreman iu cbarge of eacb, tbe suboffices to be chieily
for tbe purpose of storing the tools, and as a locus for tbe assembling of laborers, &c.
Tbe foregoing recommendations are so far iu accordance with tbe views wbicb I
bave frequently expressed since I assumed office t b a t I trust tbey will receive your
approval aud t b a t of tbe bonorable tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury. If adopted, they
will not only secure uniformity of procedure in tbe conduct of the business of the
weighers' force, but tbey will also result in a very material reduction of operating
expenses. I am satisfied tbat, with tbe better means of supervising tbe force wbicb
sucb reorganization will afford fifty men, employed at a compensation of 40 cents per
bour, at au estimated annualcost of $50,000, will perform tbe services of tbe sixty-t^yo
men wbo now cost tbe Government over $77,000 per aunum. Otber items of saving to
be effected will occur to you, as, for instance, tbe $4,000 o f t h e amount now paid cliief
weigbers, tbe one-third of t b e expense now incurred for a scattered clerical force,
and the avoidance, to a very large exteut, of tbe expense uow incurred by numerous
regular assistants being occasionally idle wbile in receipt of pay.
The saving likely to be effected by tbe employment of a superintendeut of taring
will be tbe subject of .another communication.
,
Yours, very respectfully,
H. S. BEATTIE,
Surveyor.
Tbe COLLECTOR O F T H E P O R T .
I understand that objections were made through some official channel to the following, among other, recommendations, made in theforegoing communication:
First. To the employment of a superintendent of taring.
Second. To the method of employing weighers at a per horam than
a per diem rate of compensation.
The first objection, I am unofficially informed, was made on the grounds
that a superintendent of taring was an officer unknown to the statute,
and that it was as much the duty of weighers to ascertain the tare as it
was their duty to ascertain the gross weight of merchandise.
(3learly this last objection was made under a misapprehension of the
duty which it was intended a superintendent of taring should discharge.
The object in recommending the appointment of a superintendent of
taring did not contemplate that such an officer should ascertain the
actual tares on all merchandise weighed—an obvious impossibility—but
that he should ascertain that such tares as were found by the weighers
were honestly found.
There is no more important duty discharged by a weigher than that
of the ascertainment of tare. I t is a very important duty—one that requires skill, knowledge of the nature of the merchandise to be weighed,
and familiarity with the coverings in which it is imported.
In this connection, I would respectfully refer to a recommendation of
the surveyor under date of March 20,1886, relative to the result of tests
made, under his direction, ofthe weight of bags in which sugar was imported from Havana. The statement inclosed with this showed that the
then existing schedule allowance of tare was altogether too large, there
being, in. some instances, a difference of| nearly 100 per cent, in favor
of the Government, between the actual ascertained tare and the tare
allowed by schedule, and on receipt of which the Department amended
article 598 of the regulations of 1884, so as thereafter to require that
actual tare only should be taken on all such sugars.
This very recommendation was bottomed upon the fact that the
weighers had neglected to do their duty under Article 597 of the regulations, a neglect which could not possibly have continued so long had
there been an officer charged with the special duty of seeing thalt the
(xovernment received its just allowance of tare. Whether or not such
an officer was known to the statutes was not considered. The object
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
201
was to indicate the necessity for the appointment of an officer—by whatever title he might be known was immaterial—who would give his undivided attention to the practices employed and the methods pursued
by the weighers in the ascertainment of tares.
The second objection—namely, to the employment of men at a per
horam rather than at a perdiem rate of compensatiouT—was, asT have
been unofficially informed, made on the grounds, among others, that
on a tenure of office of so uncertain and limited duration, it would be
impossiblejo secure honest and efficient service, and that opportunity
would b e afforded to a surveyer who desired to avail himself of it, to
frequently fihsiDge the personnel of the force for political rather than
for business purposes.
As matter of fact, temporary assistantweighers have been for years,
and are now, employed on the conditions proposed, at less favorable
rates of compensation; and the chief weighers who were in the service
when the present surveyor entered it, and the more competent of them,
have repeatedly stated that the work done by the temporary assistants
at the lesser rate of compensation, was and is done as satisfaetorily
as that peiformed by the permanent weighers at the higher rate of
compensation.
But neither is the appointment of a superintendent of taring nor the
employment of weighers at a per horam rate of compensation a vital
object of the reorganization then or now recommended. The essential
part of both of the recommendations is that which contemplates the
operation of the force from the most available central point.in the port
under the immediate supervision of one head, in order that uniformity
of procedure in the conduct of business transactions of the same nature
may be obtained, and that waste of time and force may be avoided.
A reorganizatiou which will secure such a mobilization of this force
and the operative concentration of its scattered energies must benefit
the revenue and be of great convenience to the commercial interests of
the port. Whether under such a reorganization one class of weighers
shall, as now, be employed at a rate of $4 per diem; another, as now,
at a rate of 30 cents per hour, and the laborers connected with such
force at the rate of 30 cents per hour while actually employed, or
whether all assistant weighers and all weighers' laborers, who may be
necessary to the discharge of the duties connected with this Bureau,
shall be paid a per diem rate of pompensation, is a matter of minor importance, and onC'which need not prevent the adoption of the essential
features of either recommendation.
In this connection I beg leave to draw your attention to a communication from me to the collector of the port under date of July 13, ultimo,
forwarded by him to the Department with letter of approval under date
of July 30 ultimo, recommending the expenditure of $5,000 for the purchase of a steam launch for the speedy transfer of various customs
officers under my supervision and control to and fro within the limits
of the port, as might be required by their assignment to duty. As
promptitude and dispatch are among the principal objects of the proposed reorganization, the adoption of the suggestion made by me in
said commuhication and approved as stated by the collector would be
a not unimportant element in the effectiveness of the suggested change.
I believe, howjever, that a perusal of the letters referred to will make
it apparent that its adoption would be in the interest of economy and
good business method, not merely as an adjunct of the proposed reorganization, of the weighers' force, biit even independently thereof,
202
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
and I accordingly take this occasion of again presenting the matter on
both grounds for your consideration.
Second. Examination of and payment of duties on passenger^'baggage on the wharf.
These are .matters which, in the past, have been the fruitful source of
scandal and complaint. During the last year the cause for both has
been largely diminished. But as this decrease in the cause for com
plaint has, as far as the conduct of the force is concerned, largely resulted from the fear of loss of place, rather than from the assertion of a
self respecting manhood, the improvement in this particular has not
been wholly satisfactory. By uo means is it intended to be understood
that all inspectors are generally or habitually guilty, while in the act of
examining passengers' baggage, of disregarding the prohibitions of the
statutes and regulations; but it cannot be denied that, to some extent,
passengers continue to fee the officers with whom they are brought in
contact on the wharf, and that some of these occasionally accept gratuities. The custom of feeing officials for sometime^ real, but more frequently imaginary favors received, has so long obtained ainong the
traveling public that it is extremely difficult to entirely stop it. In
every case in which the ofieuse of accepting a fee has been reasonably
fastened upon an inspector he has been removed^ The offense, however,
is so difficult of proof; passengers in giving fees to these officers observe
so religiously the rule of not letting their left hand know w^hat their
right hand (Joes, and the opportunities afforded on poorly lighted and
numerously crowded wharves for the infraction of the law unobserved
are so great that the evil complained of can only be eradicated by an
incessant weeding out from the service of such inspectors as may be
reasonably suspected to be guilty of the offense. Under these circumstances, calling as they do forthe minimum of interference with the right
of the responsible supervising officer, for cause which is satisfactory to
him to remove a subordinate, the tendency to insist as a condition requisite to the removal of an officer, that the proof of his guilt shall be as
strong as that which would convince a jury in court, the continuous
efforts of subordinate officers to compel the making of such proof of
cause for removal, and the encouragement which they receive from wellmeaning citizens in the maintenance of this position, offer a most serious
obstacle to the realization of good and clean service.
The honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, by the detail of several
special agents' inspectors to assist the surTcyor in the detection of irregularities on the part of inspectors in examining baggage, hai materially aided that officer in the supervision of this lorce. It is, hoNvever,
evident that when oneof these officers complains of an infraction of the
regulations by an inspector, and the latter, as he usually does, enters
a general denial to the complaint, the surveyor is inevitably compelled
either to take no action on the complaint, or, because of his faith in the
Mrness and honesty of the complaining officer, to recommend the removal of the alleged offender.
Objection may be made that the supervision which it is desired to obtain by these assignments of special inspectors is the proper function
of the deputy surveyor, and that he, if competent, woujSil be able to fill
all necessary requirements. The answer to such objection is that the
so-called deputy surveyor is a deputy only in name ; that the time of
the present deputy, as was that of his immediate predecessors, seems
to be almost wholly occupied in the supervision of inspectors employed
in the examination of passengers' baggage; that it seems im])ossible to
obtain^ for a compensation of $2,500 per annum, a man new to the serv
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
203 .
iQe, who is possessed of that equipment of character and intellect which
constitutes the surest guarantee of securing good, intelligently-directed
and clean work, well done. Subordinates who have been long in contact with and the' associates of other subordinates of equal grade, are
rarely free from embarrassment when they become the superiors of their
former equals in office, and the experience of the present surveyor is
that their hearty co-operation in any efforts to improve the service by
removal for other than scandalous conduct is not to be expected. If
employt^s, who find in the letterof the regulations a law for whose spirit
no respect is found in their consciences, are to be eliminated from the
service, such elimination must be effected* through the assistance of
officers who are untrammeled by their former associations. In the absence of any provision for a compensation which would secure the entire time and services of a deputy of a much higher order of ability than
has beeii possessed by the majority of those w^ho have been appointed
to that office, it is only by the use of such agents as these specially-assigned inspectors that the surveyor can inform himself of the character
of the force supervised by him and the quality of their work.
In the mean time the system of collecting duties on the wharf would
be improved if the representative of the appraiser were required to keep
an account showing the amount found by him to be due on each entry
of merchandise appraised by him, and to forward the same, through
the United States appraiser, to the collector, in order that it might be
coinpared with the returns of the other officers, and any failure to collect the full amount appraised detected.
Another check on possible irregularities in the collection of duties on
the wharf would be provided by requiring the collector's representative
to give a receipt for the amount received by him from passengers in
payment of duties. Passengers frequently imagine that the money
they pay on the wharves as duty is not accounted for to the Government, but is retained by the officer receiving it, and that it merely
represents an unauthorized levy or assessment which the inspector who
has examined their baggage makes for his own benefit. The furnishing of a propeiiy worded receipt to each passenger who pays duties on
the wharf would do much to remove this impression.
Third. Delay in the transfer to the public store of packages ordered
there for examination is also, from time to time, the cause of complaint,
by importers. It must be admitted that under the present system of
transferring these packages from such points as the w^harves at Hoboken and Jersey City, they frequently do not reach the public store until a week after the vessel in which they were imported has been entered
at the custom-house. While many causes combine to produce this result, the principal reasons assigned for the delay are the manner of discharging a steamer under a general order, day order, and night permit,
and the fact that since the passage of the act known as the '^antimoiety act"; the contract for public cartage has to be awarded, ^fter
advertisement, to the lowest bidder.
The question is one that has been so fully discussed during the past
year in my reports to the collector that I now merely deem it necessary
lo call attention to a suggestion in one of the latest of such reports,
namely, that the delay complained* of in relation to the transfer of j)ublic store packages from New Jersey, Brooklyn, and other points remote
from the public store could be avoided by the use of steam lighters instead of the use, as at present, of trucks or carts. Doubtless, such a
change iii the means of transfer is practicable, and could be properly
construed as the '^'public cartage of merchaudise."
204
'REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ThG practice of taking the capacity of casks containing distilled
spirits brought in bond to this port for exportation, is one to which I
have called the attention of the Departmeht as unnecessary, and have
suggested the propriety of modifying the regulations relating thereto,
as more fully appears by the following :
[Extract from report made to collector by sarv^eyor, Ootober 12,1885, in re treatment of reimported
American whiskiea.]
The history of a barrel of whisky reimported is tbis : W h e n i t leaves tbe distillery
w^arebouse for export its capacity is ascertained, which, with tbe wantage and otber
particulars, are cut or punched ou the bilge stave, and a warehouse and an export
stamp affixed, containing tbe sa'me information. Its serial number is also branded
ou it. I t is transported uuder bond to tbe collector of tbe port from whence it is to
be exported. It is tbere gauged again by a.customs gauger, wbo bas to ascertain its
capacity, wantage, &c., alongside the export vessel, and is also watched by au agent
of the internal revenue, wbo takes tbe proof, and in case "there is an excessive wantage, is, I believe, expected to account for it. It is exported, and after a time, greater
or less, is imported as an "American production returned,'^ and as sucb is admitted
upon payment of a duty equal to,tbe internal-revenue tax ; but first, and before it can
be admitted as an "American production returned," tbe impbrter must prove to tbe
satisfaction of tbe collector in wbat vessel it was exported, its serial number, its export number, produce a certificate tbat it was landed abroad, and tbe customs gauger
must be satistied after again gauging it and scoring it t h a t it is tbe " original "package, serial numbers and all, before be can stamp it "American wbisky reimported."
Now, I respectfully submit t b a t sucb a barrel ought to be forever after— if it bears
anywhere, on eitber of its beads, tbe customs stamp of imported liquors—free from
suspicion, aad tbat if auy internal-revenue agent sbould ever want to determine its
history, be should be instructed to ask for it from tbe collector of tbe port wbere it
was returned. Tbe mere giving of tbe serial number of tbe import stamp would be
sufficient for tbe collector to furnish its entire history.
I have, if anything, understated the various manipulations and markings that a
barrel of "American wbisky returned^' bas to be subjected to before it can reach
tbe control of an importer or bis customer. But I bave dwelt upon it at length because I bope tbe Department will look into the wbole matter, witb a view of seeing
if some regulations cannot be framed whicb, wbile protecting both tbe iuternal and
customs revenue, will reduce very greatly tlie expense necessary under tbe present
regulations, and I would be very glad if the Departnient would detail some oflScer of
tbe internal revenue to confer with you and tbis office, to the end t b a t some more
prtjcticable regulation may be arrived at.
,
As already noted, the Department, under date ofMarch 12,1886,
modified article 295 of the Surveyor's Eegulations, so as to remove the
difficulties theretofore encountered in the strict enforcement of the unamended regulation. In the same communication in which this modification was recommended attention was directed to the existing practice in regard to the transfer of goods under I. T. entries, reference
being made to the propriety of fixing the time when, and the place
where, the responsibility of the common carrier begins, but especially
with the view of effecting a further simplification iu the conduct ofthe
business of the surveyor's department. Notwithstanding that in view,
of the modification of the regulations in regard to the transfer of
bonded nierchandise for export, and the shipment of merchandise entitled to drawback when exported then allowed, it was considered by
the Department that the practice in respect to the transfer of goods
under I. T. entries might remain unchanged. I avail myself of this opl)ortunity to request a reconsideration of the suggestion, and for that
purpose I respectfully submit the following extract from my letter to
the collector, under date of February 5,1886, in relation thereto :
Tbis mercbandise is transported from tbis port to certain ports desiguated by law,
b y t h e great railroad companies of tbe couutry, who, althougb under very heavy
bonds required by tbe Governmeut from tbem as " common carriers "°to transact tbis
business, are not apparently responsible until tbe merchandise is delivered to tbem
at tbeir depots.
REPORT OF THE SECttETAtlY OF t f i t l
TRfeAStlRY.
^
206
In practice any broker or agent presenting the proper bill of lading and invoices is
permitted to make an I. T. entry by any bonded route in tbe third division of the
collector's office.
Tbis entry is cbarged against tbe bond o f t h e common carrier in tbe seventb division, witbout tbe knowledge or consent of tbe coisimon carrier, and a permit is issued
to the discharging inspector of the import vessel, directiug bim to send tbe mercbandise described therein to tbe depot of the common carrier by tbe carts or lighters
designated on tbe back of the permit, a n d n o t until tbe mercbandise is loaded on
the cars of tbe comraon carrier does its agent receipt for tbem.
Article 4S8 of the Surveyor's Regulations of 1883 directs t h a t I. T. mercbandise sball
he transferred from the discbarging vessel to tbe common carrierfs depot under tbe
same supervision as is required in case of tbe exportation of imported mercbandise
to foreign countries.
I respectfully submit t h a t tbe practice at this port, in regard to tbe entry of mercbandise for transportation without appraisement, should be changed ; t b a t no entry
should be allowed until the agent of the common carrier consents to tbe entry being
charged against its bond, and t h a t the only customs drayman or lighterman t b a t
should be designated hy tbe collector for tbe transfer of tbe merchandise from the
discharging vessel to the car, vessel, or vehicle of transportation should be t b a t of
the common carrier t h a t has assumed the responsibility by permitting tbe entry to
be charged against its bond.
If this cbange of practice should be made, I am of opinion t h a t the supervision
of the shipping inspector, as provided in article 432 (Surveyor's Regulations, 1883),
would fully comply with the requirements of tbe act of J u n e 10, 1880. and tbe safety
of t h e r e v e n u e be amply provided for by tbe transfer ticket prescribeel in article 430
(Surveyor's Regulations).
Importers are occasionally subjected to much inconvenience by a
practice which obtains in the fifth division of the collector's office of
requiring that the permit shallbe an exact copy of the bill of lading,
even if it contains manifest clerical errors, or differs frpm the invoice.
Although the collector is bound by law'^to account for every package
on the manifest of a vessel, and the bill of lading is a copy of the manifest, there seems to be no good reason why, in addition to the marks
and numbers, as given, of the bill of lading, the permit should not have
any discrepancy between the bill of lading and the invoice noted ou it,
preceded by the word " or." Inspectors could then note on their return
under which, mark or number the packages themselves were found.
This method of procedure would seem to be as safe as that of having
a permit first delivered to the inspector, then recalled, and merely indorsed, by some deputy collector, ''Land and return as found," while,
in time alone, it would frequently save the importer twenty-four hours.
I trust that the foregoing statement will impress you with the advisability of the reforms suggested in that branch of the service. I
should have replied earlier to your inquiries had not the stress of business compelled me to postpone my answer until near the expiration of
the time allotted in your letter. As you are xirobably aware I was then
the subject of an assault which until now incapacitated me from completing and forwarding this reply.
I am, sir, yours, respectfully,
H. S. BEATTIE,
Surveyor.
Hon. DANIEL MANNma;
Secretary of the Treasury.
,200
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
[Enclosure l^o. 1.]
CusTOM-HousE, N E W YORK C I T Y ,
Gauger's Office, October 18, 1886.
H A N S S . B E A T T I E , Esq.,
Surveyor:
SIR : I beg leave to offer a report as to tbe workings of tbe gauger's department
since the reorganization by you, May 1, 1886.
Im tbe first place I will take up tbe matter of baving one gauger at an office located
in t b e custom-bouse, instead of tbe old plan of having tbree gaugers witb offices
located in different parts of tbe port of New York.
I will submit a case for illustration: A mercbant imports tbree lots of wine b y
three different vessels, to be discbarged at piers in Brookl.y n, on tbe East River, and on
the North River; under tbe old plan of tbree gangers' offices it would necessitate tbe
mercbant sending to all tbe different gangers' offices for information as to wben tbe
wines would be gauged and returned. Now, under thepresent plan, he can, by call^
ing or sending to tbe gauger's department, a t once obtain any information as to t b e
time the wines would be gauged, returned, &c.
Tbe reorganization as made by you is not only a great source of benefit to tbe wine
and liquor importers, but is also a benefit to tbe department. Tbe expenses are less,
the work is attended to more promptly, tbe men under tbe gauger are under better
control, and a t all times i t is known wbere eacb and every member of the gauger's
force can be found if wanted.
I will now take as an example tbe case of a clerical error in a gauger's import return : Under tbe old plan t h e gauger would make his returns to your office for examinatiou as to clerical correctn-ess and tben return to his office. If, after an examination of tbe returns by your office, an error sbotild be found, tbe gauger would not
know of i t until tbe next day, witbout the return for correction was sent to bis office
by special messenger. Now, under tbe present plan, each and every return of gaugers
are examined in the gauger's office before tbey are sent to your office; but if by auy
chance an error sbould be overlooked by the gauger's office it can be at once returned,
and tbe error corrected witbout delay.
I have conversed witb many importers of liquors, custom-bouse brokers, and clerks
of importers, and I find tbere is but oue opinion, t h a t tbe reorganization as made by
you is a success in every way. Herewith please find letters from some of those baving business witb gauger's department.
By. statement herewith you will see t h a t in tbe five montbs of tbis year, 1886, tbo
nominal fees of the gauger's department were in excess of tbe expenses $3,137.94
while in the same montbs of 18>So tbe expenses exceeded the fees 1^,742.14, aud in tbe
same length of time there were gauged, in 1886, 4,765 casks more than in same montbs
of 1885. Tbat is, in tbe jGLve montbs of 188.'^ tbere were 170,244 casks gauged, a t an expense of 124,050.44, while in the same time, 1886, tbere were gauged 175,009, casks,
at an expense of $21,181.^4, showing a gain of 4,765 casks gauged as also au amount
in fees of 12,869.10.
And in conclusion I would say tbat, after many years of experience in tbe gauger's
department, I am fully satisfied tbat tbe gauging of imports and exports under tbe
present plan can be attended to witb more dispatch tban ever before.
Very respectfully,
C. H . KNIGHT,
Gauger.
Ganger's department.
1885.
1886.
Montb.
Expenses.
May
June
July
Auo^nst...
September
Pees.
Expenses.
67
90
31
08
34
$4, 986 44
4, 823 59
5,172 91
4. 633 00
4,434 50
$6,487 80
5,615 56
4,247 77
4,545 96
3, 548 95
$4,170 17
4, 334 11
4, 300 30
4, 242 80
4,133 96
21, 308 30
24, 050 44
24,440 04
21,181 34
$5, 008
4, 611
4, 725
3,198
3, 764
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Fees, 1885
..;.......
:
Fees 1886
,
207
$21,308 30
24,446 04
Excess in fees, 1886
3,137 74
Expenses, 1885.
:;......
Expenses, 1886
24,050 44
:.......
21,181 34
Saved in expenses
2, 869 ip
Expenses over fees, 1885
Pees over expenses, 1886
^.
2, 742 14
3,264 70
[DuTivier & Co., New York.l
NEW
YORK, Ociober 18, 1886.
C. H. KNIGHT, Esq.,
United Statps Gauger:
D E A R S I R : I n answer to your query in regard to t b e location of t h e United States
gangers' and stampers' offices,-1 would^say w^e find t h e present system of combiuing
all the gangers' and stampers' offices in t b e custom-bouse to be a great improvement
on tbe old plan. I t facilitates the business of tbe importers very mucb, we can get our
, goods staniped in one-third the time we could formerly, and would be very loth indeed
to return to t b e old system.
Yery truly, yours,
DU VIVIER & CO.
'\ ,
[Officeof James Eeid & Co., 49 Broadway.!
1
C. H. KNIGHT; Esq.,
N E W YORK, Oc<o&er 19, 1886.
United States Gauger:
D E A R SIR : I n response to your inquiry, if tbe present mode of concentrating tbe department of gauger and stamping office in the custom-house is more convenient for
tbe merchants than tbe former practice of several gaugers at different locations,
would say t h e present is infinitely more convenient, saving t h e merchants a great
deal of time and labor, t b e former method beiug cumbersome, inconvenient, and a
great loss of time.
Yours, truly, &c.,
^
JAMES REID & CO.
fOffice of Josepb H. Beams & Co., No. 253 Wasbington street. 1
NEW
YORK, Ociober 18, 1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
United States Gauger:
.
.
DEAR SIR : We consider tbe present arrangement for gauging and stamping goods
in bond very advantageous t o tbe importers. Our goods are gauged aud stamped
promptly under tbe present system, wbich a t times is of considerable importance to us.
Yours, &c.,
^
J . H . BEARNS «fe CO.
[Peter McQaade, importer, 33 Pearl street.]
I
N E W YORK, Octoher 18,1886.
C. H. K N I G H T , Esq.,
United States Gauger, Custom-House :
D E A R SIR : I have mucb pleasure in acceding to your request to give my opinion as
to bow t h e transaction of the business in your department now compares witb its conduct previous io t b e 1st May last.
Briefiy, I find much improvement; our facilities are increased, t b e vexatious delays that existed formerly much decreased, aiid I should be extremely sorry to find
the department reverting to t h e old methods.
I am, sir, yours, truly,
P E T E R McQUADE.
'i08
REPORt
O F T H E SfeCREfARY
O F f U E TREAStJtlY.
[F. Boegler & Co., 26 South WiUiam street.]
NEW
YORK, October 18, 1886.
C. H. K N I G H T , Esq.
Uniied States \yeigher and Gauger:
DEAR SIR : We take pleasure in expressing our entire satisfaction with tbe management of your department during t b e past five months. The vexatious delays b y
whicb our business bad suffered prior to t b a t time are now removed, and we only
trust t b a t tbe present system may continue in force.
Very respectfully, yours,
F. BOEGLER & CO.
[Emil Schultze & Co., 36 Beaver street, New York.]
NEW
YORK, October 18, 1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
United States Gauger, Fort of New York:
D E A R SIR : We tbink t b a t t h e present system of stamping and gauging is better
than t h e old one, as it does away witb unnecessary delays, and we would suggest
t b a t tbe metbod should be continued, as we are convinced t b a t it would satisfy all
tbe wants of tbe importers of New Yock.
Respectfully, yours,
EMIL SCHULTZE & CO.
[Offlce of Gottsch Brothers, importers of wines and brandies, No. 346 Greenwich street.]
N E W YORK, October 18,1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
United States Gauger, Fort of New Yoi'k:
D E A R SIR : Comparing t h e preseut system of gauging and stamping now in force
in your district with tbe former metbod, we would like to say t b a t it is working to
our entire satisfaction, and tbat in our opiuion, i t is far above tbe old way.
Very respectfully,
.
GOTTSCH BROS.
[Clarence M. Eoof, 22 College place.]
NEW
YORK, 'October 18, 1886.
Mr. C. H. KNIGHT,
United States Gauger, Port of New York :
DEAR SIR : We find t b a t t h e present metbod of gauging aud stamping followed in
this city is much superior to the old metbod, preventing numerous delays aud annoyances. We sincerely hope t h e department will continue in t b e same line. We feel
certain t h a t tbey will receive t h e thanks o f t h e merchants of New York.
Respectfully, yours,
CLARENCE M. ROOF,
Per M. HOYT, Attorney.
[Office of Davis, Clark & Co., 15 Dey street.]
N E W YORK, Octoher 18, 1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
United States Gauger, Fort of New York: .
DEAR SIR : We find t h a t tbe present metbod of gauging and stamping our goods is
far superior to the old way, inasmuch as we are not obliged to visit several warehouses in New York, and oftentimes go to Brooklyn, in order to have a cask gauged
and stamped.
We remain, yours, very respectfully,
DAVIS, CLARK & CO.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY/OF THE TREASURY.
-209
[Samuel Streit Sc Co., 31 Liberty street.]
N E W YORK, October 18,1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
,
United States Gauger, Port of New York:
D E A R S I R : We take pleasure in stating t b a t t b e method of gauging a n d stamping
now followed in this city is a decided improvement over t h e former style and meets
w i t h our approval.
Respectfully, yours, &c.,
SAM'L S T R E I T . & CO.
[Pringle & Gondran, 138 and 140 Liberty street.]
NEW
€ . H . K N I G H T , Esq.,
YORK, October 18, 1886.
>
United States Gauger, Fort of New York:
" D E A R SIR : I n regard to t h e present arrangement of one office for the issuing of
stamps and assignment of gaugers, we wish to state t b a t we are in favor o f t h e present system, and hope i t will continue. We remain,
Respectfully, yours,
PRINGLE. & GONDRAN.
fFerd. Euttmann, sole agent for Messrs. J . J . Meder & Zoon, Schiedam and Amsterdam, 51 Broadway.]
NEW
YORK, October 18, 1886.
CHARLES H . K N I G H T , Esq.,
United States Gauger: >
D E A R S I R : I n answer to your request for my opinion about t h e recent changes in
the location and workings of t h e United States gauger's office, i t affords me a great
deal of pleasure aud satisfaction to state t h a t t b e present appears a most decided improvenient on former methods of transacting the business of t b a t office, and its cent r a l location in t b e custom-house building a great convenience and saving of time t o
the* merchant.
I can cheerfully testify t o t h e prompt attention and dispatch of all business whioh
has passed through your office for my account.
Yours, respectfully,
FERD. RUTTMANN.
[Edw. Blackburn & Co., 25 Beaver street.]
N E W YORK, Ootober 18,1886.
C. H . K N I G H T , Esq.,
United States Gauger, Fort of New York:
D E A R SIR : We are decidedly in favor of t h e present arrangement of having only
one office for tbe stamping of wines and spirits, and hope there may he no change, as
we find it a great improvement on t h e old system.
Yours, truly,
EDW. BLACKBURN & CO.
[Ramsay Crooks, 25 Soutli William street.]
N E W YORK, October 18, 1886.
C. H . K N I G H T , Esq.,
-
United States Gauger, Fori of New York:
D E A R SIR : I n regard t o t b e present arrangement of one office for t h e issuing of
Btamps and assignments of gaugers, I wish to state t h a t I am in favor of t b e present
system, and I bope i t will continue so as long as t h e present system of stamping imported wines and liquors is enforced.
Yours, respectfully,
RAMSAY CROOKS.
H. Ex. 2~voL n—-14
210 ' REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.^
[I. Hays & Co., importers of wines, brandies, seltzer water, &c., 55 Warren street.]
N E W YORK, October 18, 1886.
C. H. K N I G H T , Esq.,
United States Gauger, City:
. .
,
DEAR SIR :. We bereby wish to inform you t b a t tbe system of stamping and gauging
now in operation under one department works better than t b e old';
Respectfully,
I. HAYS &.C0.,
. Per J . M .
[56 Wall street.]
NEW
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T :
YORK, October 18, 1886.
„
DEAR SIR : We tbink t b a t tbe couvenieuce o f t h e merchants bas been largely pro»
moted by tbe cousolidatiou ofthe various gauging districts uuder one central head in
the custom-bouse. The work bas been more promptly done and more promptly r e turned, and we are of opiuion tbat tbe iuterests of t h e Government as well of tbe merchants bave been greatly conserved tbereby.
'
Very truly, yours,
B. WARREN HAMM,
Representing Messrs. Cook &, Bernheimer, Darwin &> Co., Gonzalez Byass & Co., C,
H. Pye, E . C Hazard & Co., Osw. Jackson & Bro., Dodge, Cammyer &. Co.,
Davis, Clark & Co., C. Fraebt & Co., R. Greucen & Co., C. H. Marten, A. Rijneyo
Scbmersahl & Wittzhau, and others.
[P. W. Engs & Sons, No. 131 Front street. New York.]
NEW
Mr. CHAS. H . KNIGHT,
YORK, October 18, 1886.
^
United Staies Gauger:
D E A R SIR : We are pleased to say t b a t tbe changes in t h e working and location of
United States gauger's office is favorably observ^able over t h e former modes of transaction of business witb tbe office. I t s location is certainly a very great convenience^
being quite central to tbe majority engaged iri tbe business requiring t b e gauger's
services.
.
The promptness with whicb all our requirements are met calls for our strong commendation.
Yours, truly,
P. W. ENGS & SONS.
[Cook & Bernheimer, 144 to 150 Franklin street. ]
N E W YORK, October 18, ^1886.
Mr. C. H . K N I G H T :
D E A R SIR : We desire to express our approval of tbe change recently made consolidating tbe various gauging districts of tbis port into one district and under one bead.
'Our experience is t h a t t h e mercbandise imported and exported receives equal, if not
better, attention under the present system tban could possibly obtain under a system
divided in itself. We are of opinion t h e change has been to tbe benefit of tbe merchants.
Yours, respectfully,
*
COOK & BERNHEIMER.
[Lawrence Myers & Co., office 35 and 37 South William street.]
NEW
YORK, October 18, 1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T -:
D E A R SIR : We are greatly in favor of the present method of gauging and stamping^
liquors, as it avoids numerous delays wbich occurred under the old system.
Respectfully,
LAWRENCE MYERS & CO.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
211
[Heyman Brothers, importers, 75 Murray street.]
N E W YORK, October 18,1886.
Mr. C. H. K N I G H T ,
United States Gauger, Fort of New York :
D E A R SIR : We find t b a t t h e present method of gauging and stamping our goods is
far superior to tbe old way.
Yours, very respectfully,
HEYMAN BROS.
[Enclosure No. 2.]
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK,
Surveyor's Office, July 13, 1886.
SIR : I cannot find t h a t t b e exact limits of the port of New York as a subdivision of
the colleetion district of the city of New York are anywhere legally or officially defined. Custom, however, appears to bave bounded its northern limit on the Hudson
River by Communipaw on the west and the city line on the east; on the East River
by Port Morris on the west and Point Lawrence on t h e east. Its soutbern boundary
follows t h a t of the collection district, including Staten Island. The water front embraced witbin these limits, as will be seen by t h e report of Lieutenant^Colonel Houston, o f t h e United States Engineer Corps, inclosed herewith, is over 150 miles.
This water front is divided into fifty districts, to eacb one of wbicb it is necessary
to detail at least one iuspector of customs for tbe protection of the revenue, in supervising the discharge of smallsvessels, to wbich it is impracticable to assign other inspectors, and in receiving from and shipping by common carriers mercbandise in bond
(appraised and unappraised).
lu addition to the inspectors tbus detailed to district duty, other inspectors are
assigned to steamers and large sailing vessels as tbey arrive, and remain on duty wiih
them wberever tbey discbarge until tbey are unloaded. Tbe weighers and gauger,
with tbeir assistants a,nd laborers, are also constantly employed on all portions of this
water front. All of these persons scattered, as tbeir respective duties compel them to
be, I am required, u n d e r t h e provisions of section 2627 of the Revised Statutes, to
superintend and direct. To do this properly, it is necessary for me to visit various
parts of tbe port, often remote from one anotber, a t very short notice.
I bave caused to be prepared aud^inclose herewith a table showing the distances
o f t h e places, wbicb it is my duty to visit, from t h e barge office, the most central
point in tbe port, the time which, under the most favorable circumstances, taking
advantage of ferries, horse-cars, aud elevated railroads, is necessarily consumed t o
reach eacb place, compared with tbe distances by water, and the length of time required if use were made of a steam launch.
Sucb a steam lau icb, capable of steaming from 8 to 10 miles per hour, can be
purchased bere, complete and in good order, for less t b a n $5,000. In view o f t h e
fact t h a t its use in sending for inspectors from remote distric s when their presence
at tbis office is required, aud in transmitting orders wben promptness is essential
would save tbe services for otber important duty of several inspectors, in addition t o
permitting me to perform my personal duties properly.
I bave no hesitation in recommending t h a t a sum not exceeding $5,000 should be
expended .for tbis purpose.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
H. S. BEATTIE,
Surveyor.
Tbe Hon. COLLECTOR O F T H E P O R T .
[Enclosure No. 3.]
,
CUSTOM-HOUSE, N E W YORK C I T Y ,
Collector's Office, July 30,1886.
The SECRETARY O F T H E T R E A S U R Y ,
Washington, D. C :
SIR : I respectfully transmit herewith a communication from the surveyor of the
port, under date of t b e 13tb instant, with inclosures, recommending the expenditure
o f a sum not exceeding $5,000 for tbe xiurchase of a steam launch to be used in t h e
general supervisory duties of the surveyor, and for t h e speedy transfer of district and
otber inspectors to and fro between tbe barge office, theif center of location, and t h e
points witliin tbe port to which they are respectively assigned for duty.
212
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The inclosures, otber t b a n than tbe letter, coilsist o f a statement by D. C. Houston,
lieutenant-colonel of Engineers, U. S. Army, of tbe number of miles of water-front
witbin tbe port of New York, and a table contrasting tbe lengths of time consumed
in reaching various important points within t h e limits of t h e port by the present
method of travel and by t b e proposed Jaunch respectively.
I t will be seen from this statement t h a t by the use of tbe proposed launch t h e travel
mentioned can, on t h e whole, be accomplished iri half thetime now consumed, a reform
of great consequence, as t h e efficiency of this service depends very much upon its
promptitude and expedition.
Moreover, I am informed by t h e surveyor that the time of a t least tbree inspectors
is constantly occupied in communicating with t h e officers in remote districts of the
port wben their attendance at t h e Central office is required, and I have ascertained
. from inquiry t b a t t b e cost of running tbe proposed steam launch will not exceed $8
a day, an expense more t h a n counterbalanced by t h e service of t h e inspectors who
have been tbus ascertained to act as messengers.
For these reasons I approve t b e suggestion of t h e surveyor and recommend^ t h e
same to your favorable consideration.
Yours respectfnlly,
E. L. HEDDEN,
Collector.
1^0. 1 2 .
.
.
J O S E P H TRELOAR—Appointed chief clerk November 24, 1855.
OusTOM-HousE, N E W Y O R K CITY,
Collector's Office, Novemher 5,1886.
S I R : I havethe honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letterof
the 15th ultimo, in which you request from me a statement of the reforms made during this year in the administration of the customs
service at this port; of any other reforms which are, within my knowlledge, called for by importers who transact considerable business with
the customhouse; and of the chief complaints made by importers ^^in
regard to the present execution of the customs laws" at this port; and
in what particulars the execution of the customs laws has in my opinion
been improved.
My memory serves me to enumerate the following reforms made dur, ing this year:
\
A more full and careful examination into apjulications to make entry
by pro forma invoices, which, it is believed, has resulted in a material reduction in the number of such entries. From personal contact with him
I cian testify that the deputy collector now charged with such matters
is well qualified therefor, and is doing good work.
The refund, on adjustments made by the collector and naval ofl&cer,
without certified statements to the Department, of duties decided to
have been illegally exacted, except in suit cases. By this procedure
payment is more promptly made of the claims of importers, clerical
labors materially lessened, and the work done, it is believed, with that
exactness which the protection of the Government demands.
Your instructions that protests lodged before liq^uidation must be rejected as not in compliance with the laws (sec. 2931, Kev. Stat), which
requires them to be filed within ten days after liquidation of the duties,
leave no uncertainty in the minds of the importers or of the customs,
oflQcers as to the time when notice of dissatisfaction with the assessment
of duties shall be made, and have put an end to many questions which
liad consumed much valuable time.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
2IS
NEEDED REFORMS.
Increased accommodations for the appraiser's force. The law now requires that one package at least out of every ten packages shall be sent
to' the United States public store for examination; but the present
buildiug, rented by the Government for the use of the appraiser, is in capacity not more than half sufficient to allow a compliance with the law?
and the inadaptability of the building (an old sugar refinery altered) in
every particular is strikingly apjparent to every person who visits it.
As a consequence examinations of merchandise on the "wharf' are resorted to extensively, and I am unaware of any statute that p^rovides
that they may be raade there. Would it not be wise to legalize the
examination of bulky merchandise at such places for appraisement?
I t is noteworthy that the appraising ofiicers do so well as they do in
their much limited and confined apartment.
A larger building and one better suited to the orderly and prompt
transaction of the public business than that now occupied as a customhouse is also a crying necessity. The employes therein are cabined,
cribbed, and contined, and do not have the space necessary to correctness and dispatch in the discharge of their functions.
Many complaints are made at this ofl&ce by importers because the
law (sec. 28M, Eev. Stat.), relieves them from the production of consular invoices only where there is no United States consular officer in the
country from whence shipments may be made, andnot when the nearest
United States consul is so far distant from theplace of shipment that
he can be reached only with great expenditure of time and money.
I have heretofore recommended that the law provide that additional
(penal) duty shall attach for undervaluation in entries hy pro forma invoices, the same as when entry is made by certified invoice. And I now
suggest for your consideration that it be recommended to Congress that
the additibnal (penal) duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem shall accrue for
undervaluation in the invoice of consigned goods. Such distinction between purchased goods and consigned goods was made by section 17 of
the act of August 30,1842 (second proviso, vol. 5, S t a t , p. 564:).
In the case of purchased goods the importer should, in myjudgment,
have the right, as he has by statute, to make such additions in his entry to the invoice as he may deem necessary to make market value, for
the reason that, the market value may have advanced between the date
of purchase atid the date of shipment; but in the case of consigned goods
the consignor is the owner, and doubtless knows what the, wholesale
price or market value of his goods is at the date of their shipment; and.
if for undervaluation in his invoice made at that time the law should
impose an additional duty he will have incurred it by his own act, as
does the importer when he understates the value of purchased goods
in his entry. Complaints are also made by importers of delay in the
transfer from the wharves by the public-store carman of packages ordered for examination and appraisement.
.
These are occasioned mostly by the discharge of cargo, as allowed by
law, immediately on arrivalof the vessel andthe retention on the wharf of
the goods for forty-eight hours, as authorized by the Department. The
present collector has taken energetic measures for better service in this
particular; but I submit that, as recently suggested by the surveyor of
the port, the transfer of such packages could be more promptly made
by the employment of steam lighters. I favor the amendment of thie
214
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
law, if necessary, to this end. (See section 25, act June 22,1874, voL 18
Stat. L,, p. 186.)
,
The subject of reappr.aisements is an important dne, and demands, in
my opinion, further legislation. If the importer is dissatisfied with an,
appraisement he may appeal to reappraisers, without cost to himself, for
their services; and the great increase in the number of such appeals impresses me that itnporters in many instances resort thereto as an experiment, arguing to themselves, doubtless, that they can be no worse off even
if the reappraisers do not reduce the value, I suggest as a remedy that
the law provide, as is now under consideration, I believe, by the committee of the Senate, for a board of geueral appraisers and for a payment of a fixed sum by the importer to cover the expense of the reappraisement in cases where it does not sustain the Appeal; the Government to bear the expense where the entered value is sustained. A
board of general appraisers is almost a necessity, by reason of the
constant complaint of importers against the selection of their competitors in trade as reappraisers. And if merchants are to act in such cases,
who is more competent than a competitor in trade'?
The many questions growing out of the execution ofthe seventh section of. the act of March 3, 1883, have been fruitful in comjilaints of
delays in the adjustment of duties. If outside or shipping packages
are not to be made dutiable, and the previous law as-to charges shall
not be re-enacted as the clearest remedy for the iiresent disputes, then
I can suggest no better amendment than that cbntained in the fifth
(printed) page of your letter ofthe 29th ofMarch last addressed to the
chairman of the subcommittee of Ways and Mean,s', House of Eepresentatives, striking out, however, on the ninth line of that amendment, I re.c-l
ommend, the words *' when so bought and sold or when consigned.'^
The words '^ when so bought and sold " would still leave it for dispute
that the goods are not bought and spld in a paciked condition, that is to
say, for instance, in cartons, it being alleged that the naked goods are
bought separately from the coverings. Such was one of the pleas as to
matches.
Some years since, as a member of a committee appointed by the Sec. retary of the Treasury to inquire into'the workings of the customs
service at this port, I joined in a recommendation that the entry clerks
in the naval office could be dipensed with without detriment to the interests of the revenue and at the same time simplify the entry of merchandise, thus saving alsp the valuable time of the importer.
I am still of the same opinion, and annex hereto a copy of the recomniendation which was made in that respect.
I can readily understand and appreciate the need which the head of
the Treasury may have for the services of an agent to look into special
matters from time to time a t t h e difierent ports; but the constant presence in the custom-house of a number of special agents is, to my mind,
a hindrance to the public business. Of course it is natural that they
will labor to show a necessity for their existence by exerting themselves
in the discovery of irregularities; and that they-will make their efibrts
in such direction by consuming the valuable time of experienced customs officials whose attention may already have been given to the matter which the special agent may desire to investigate lor credit to himself. There are many excellent men in the force of special agents, but
the collector is responsible for the discharge of the duties of his office;'
and if special officers are needed to look into the doings of those under
him they should be men of experience and training in the service, subject to his sole direction, and capable of sifting a matter understand
REPORT OF THE SEORETARY OF THE TREASURY.
215
ingly without taking unnecessarily the time of officials whose constant
attention is required to current business.
I am, with high respect, your obedient servant,
J O S E P H TEELOAE,
Chief Clerk ojf the Customs.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[Enclosure No. 1.1
#
»
#
#
*.
D E C E M B E R 7,
*
*
1882.
Tbe naval officer originates nothing, b u t bis functions are to act as a cbeck against
t b e collector, in order to establish his responsibility for tbe duties collected.
At tbe present the entries, wben presented by the importer, after being examined
and passed in tbe collector's office, are sent to the naval office, wbere a like examination is made, and if tbe naval officer finds no objection to the actions of tbe collector's
office be conutersigns tbe permit for tbe landing o f t h e goods, on a certificate o f t h e
proper officers t h a t the estimated duties have been deposited or bond daly given.
Tbe estimates of duties, however, o n t h e presentations of an entry is but preliminary, aud tbe correctness tbereof is dependent upon t h e reliability of the description
•of tbe goods given by the importer in bis entry. The rate or tbe amount of tbe duties
due canuot be definitely fixed by either tbe collector or naval officer until the return
of tbe appraiser sball have been made as to the cbaracter of tbe merchandise and its
dutiable value, or u n t i l t h e returns of tbe weigber, measurer, or gauger as to quantity
shall be furnished, and tbese reports are never made until after the entry has been
passed on the preliminary examination now made by the collector and naval officer.
If goods are incorrectly described in an invoice and entry, and a consequent wrong
rate of duty is set forth in the entry, or tbe goods are so described in the papers pre-sented as to indicate t h a t tbey belong to the free-list, wben in reality they belong to
tbe dutiable list, tbe error would not ordinarily be discovered until after the receipt
of t-be returns of the appraiser as before indicated.
We bave tberefore xiroposed in our estimates to dispense with tbe preliminary ex-amination of the entry in tbe Naval Office, and to simply require tbe officer known
as tbe cashier in tbe Naval Office to note on tbe copies of tbe entries lodged in t b a t
toffice tbe collector's estimates of duty, and to require tbe naval officer to prove t h e
correctness of tbe collector's final adjustment or liquidation o f t h e amouut payable,
tbus preserving a perfect check against the collector's daily receipts, and against his
final settlement of tbe duties.
W^e fail to see t h a t the iiresent system serves any otber pnrpose t b a n a useless cumulative action, and a consequent hindrance to the prompt dispatch o f t h e business
connected witb tbe entry of imported merchandise.
Tbe course of procedure proposed would save valuable time to importer, not lessen
t h e security to tbe Government, and would save tbe salaries of one chief entry clerk,
a t $)2,500; five entry clerks, at a salary of $2,200 eacb, and two messengers, one at
•$840 and one at $500, whose services could tbus be dispensed with, and in t h a t event
there would be no need for tbe counter signature of the naval officer t o t h e permit to
land t h e goods from tbe importing vessel. Every prominent official in tbe collector's
office we consulted, and whose opinions may be relied upon, from tbe nature of their
official experience, concur in recommending the proposed cbange. I t may properly
be added tbat wbile tbe collector's entry clerks do commit errors in t h e preliminary
estimate of duties, it is equally true t h a t such errors will, witbout the assistance of
tbe naval-office entry clerks, the day following tbe day of entry by tbe impost clerks
in tbe collector's office. The discovery of such errors is now made daily, notwithstanding tbe previous review o f t h e entries i n t h e naval office.
Tbe claim of tbe Government for additional duties arising from error, or otherwise,
is secure under tbe law, by tbe retention o f t h e packages ordered for examination and
appraisement until full payment of tbe duties due, and by tbe bond of the importer
to return to the custody of tbe officers of tbe customs the package delivered to him
o n payment o f t h e estimated duties and not ordered for examination.
Tbere need be no apprehensions, we think, t b a t by tbe cbange proposed tbe sums of
money involved in the errors heretofore discovered by tbe entry clerks in tbe naval
office will be lost to tbe Government. If sucb cbange were likely to lead to t b a t result we sbould not recommend its adoption. To urge a continuance of tbe present
-system because it w^as adopted long ago is to debar improvement in measures wbich
were placed on the statute book in the earlier days of tbe Republic, and wbicb sbould'he modified from time to time, as business may require, and tbe interests o f t h e Gov•©rnment permit.
216
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
•ISTo. 1 3 .
.
LEWIS McMuLLEN^Appointed February 27,1852; appointed Appraiser April 23, 1885k.
P o i t T OF K E W Y O R K ,
APPRAISER-S OFFICE,
October 30, 1886,
Hon.
DANLEL MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C : '
S I R : I am in receipt of your communication of the 15tli instant,
in which I am '^ requested to prepare a full and detailed exhibition of
whatever reforms in the administration of my office have been made by
me this year, or have been made at this port, together with the conse
quences of such reforms, as far as they have to me become apparent.-'
I am " also requested to acquaint you with any other reforms in my
office which I have in contemplation or which I advise at this port, and
especially such as are within my knowledge called for by those among
importers who transact considerable business with the custom-house,
and which will require a change either in the law or its administration.-^
You also desire me to '^set forth the chief complaints, if any (including causes of such complaints), which are now made to me by importers
in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port, and
declare in what particulars the execution of those laws, in my opiniouj
has been improved during the present year.I respectfully state that the appraiser-s department is composed of
ten divisions for the appraisal of merchandise, one invoice bureau, and
a laboratory.
The first division, to which is assigned the appraisal of personal and
liousehold effects, goods in what are known as packed packages, lumber, hides, rags, animals, See., the inspection of goods claimed to be
samples, the appraisal on wharf of merchandise contained in passengers- baggage, and which also estimates the proper allowance to be
made on goods claimed to have been damaged on the voyage of importation, is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Daniel J. Moore. This
division has been reorganized by the rempval of several examiners,,
whose vacancies have been filled by other and better officers. This'fact
is apparent in the great reduction of allowances for damage over the
previous year, being an estimated reduction of more than one-half.
The second division, to which is assigned the appraisal of jewelry,
precious stones, bronzes, paintings, 'engravings, lithographs, books,
paper, toys, fancy goods, china, glass, earthenware, &c., is in charge
of Assistant Appraiser Cyrus A. Stevens. Several examiners have
been removed in this division and their places filled by the appointment of officers of greater integrity and ability, which has been shown
in the increased appraised value of merchandise passed in this division,
particularly on china and glassware.
The third division, to which is assigned the appraisal of manufactures of silk, laces, and embroideries, is in- charge of Assistant Appraiser William Kent. Very little change has been made in the personnel of this division, the examiners being officers of integrity and
ability. The goods appraised in this division are largely on consignment. This is the fact particularly in regard to manufactures of silk.
They are consequently invoiced at less than their^proper market value
The advances in this division for the past fiscal j^ear amount to $2,217,240, which is $581,167 in excess of the preceding fiscal year.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY bF THE TREASURY.
217
The fourth division, to which are assigned manufactures of linen,
cotton, jute, and hemp, is in charge of Assistant Appraiser George N.
' Birdsall, The merchandise appraised in, this division is morC/Stable in
its prices, and is generally on invoices of purchased goods. This divisioh has been strengthened in its appraising capacity by the removal
of one examiner, the resignation of another, and the appointment of
two others in their i^laces, and also by the appointnaent of an additional examiner.
The fifth division, to which are assigned manufacturesof worsteds
hosiery, gloves, straw goods, hats, hat material, feathers, flowers, yarns,
&c,; is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Edward Eowe. This division
has been strengthened by the addition of two examiners. Advances
have been made, i)articularly on yarns and worsted dress goods, in
consequence of the advance on the raw material.
"^
The sixth division, to which are assig:ned wool and manufactures of
wool, furs, hemp, carpeting, oil cloths, &c., is in charge of Assistant
Appraiser Edgar A. Brown. This division has been reorganized by the
removal of two exa;miuers and filling their places with others of greater
integrity and expert knowledge- The work of the assistant appraiser
and examiners for the past year in advances on woolen goods and the
advances made by iraporters, together with the changes in classification that formerly existed, of classifying woolen as worsted goods, will
amount in the aggregate to $861,972.99.
The seventh division, to which is assigned the appraisal of drugs and
chemicals, perfumery, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser Charles
E. Stott. No change has been made in the examiners in this division,
as they are all hjonest and capable officers.
The eighth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of windowglass, looking-glass plates, leather, sugar, molasses, and melado, is in
charge of Examiner Abraham G. Eemsen. This division has been
thoroughly reorganized by the removal of several examiners and samplers and filling their places with officers of known integrity andca^pacity, which is shown by the fact that on the same quantity and quality,of sugar there has been collected half a million dollars more this
year than during the preceding year.
'
The ninth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of hardware,
cutlery, iron, steel, tin plates, lead, tin, marble, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser David C. Halsted. There has been no change in the
examiners in this division, the present incumbents being officers of integrity and ability.
The tenth division, to which is assigned the appraisal of wines, liquors,
cofiee, tea, cigars, fruit, &c., is in charge of Assistant Appraiser David
C. Sturges. There has been no change made in the examiners in this
division. Tbey are men of integrity and ability, and all but one have
been a long time in the service.
The invoice bureau is in charge of Chief Clerk Herman F. BauerThe invoices are received from the collector in this bureau and distributed to the various divisions to which they belong. When the goods
bave been examined and the proper returns made by the assistant appraiser they are returned, and, after being properly approved by the
appraiser, are transmitted by an official messenger to the collector.
The laboratory is' in charge of Examiner Edward Sherer, to whom
and his assistants is assigned the" analysis of all merchandise which is
required to be analyzed in this department, and also the polarization
of all sugars. The services of this laboratpry are frequently called into
requisition by the department and the collectors of other ports. There
218
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
have been no changes in the personnel of the laboratory, the examiners
having proved themselves capable and trustworthy officers.
The clerical force of this department has been improved during the
past year by removals and the filling of the vacancies with men pf greater
ability.
The force of openers and packers has been reorganized, many re-^
movals have been made, and the vacancies filled with better men. The
force, as at present constituted, is in a more satisfactory conditiou than
it ever has been. The men, without exception, are performing their duties faithfully and well.
Eeforms have been made (luring the past year by refusing to recall
and reconsider advanced invoices upon the assertion of importers that
the additions to make market value were exorbitant; by requiriug the
prPmpt attendance of every eraploy6 during office hours, declining to
grant teraporary leaves of absence on frivolous excuses, prohibiting officers and other employes from visiting importers' stores without my approval 5 also b y t h e removal of careless and incompetent examiners,
clerks, and openers and packers, and the substitution of others more
painstaking and capable.
,
I have no hesitation in saying tbat the officers and employes constituting the fprce of this department will compare favorably with any
other body of men in the service pf the Government.
I have no other reforms in contemplation, except such as may, from
time to time, suggest themselves. The real reform now required is adequate room for the appraisal of merchandise, and an increased force of
examiners to properly perform the arduous and increasing duties of this
department. The latter cannot be made available without additional
accommodations. The condition and capacity of this building are treated
of in my communication to you dated Februaiy 19,1886.
There have not been any serious complaints made to me by importers
in regard to the present execution of the customs laws at this port.
The execution of these laws has been improved during the pa^t year
by the more liberal construction put upon them by the Department.
There is no serious cause for complaint on the part of importers against
the administration of the law, but against the construction of the law,
and a very earnest desire to get rid of its ambiguities by the substitution of a clearly-defined commercial tarifi'.
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant,
L E W I S McMCJLLE]^,
Appraiser.
ISTo. 1 4 .
GEORGE V. BROWER—Appointed United States General Appraiser July 3, 1885.
P O R T OF N E W Y O R K ,
O F F I C E OF U N I T E D STATES G E N E R A L A P P R A I S E R ,
November 1, 1886.
Hon.
DANIEL
MANNING,
Secretary ofthe Treasury, Washington, D. C :
: In reply to you letter of the 15th ultimo, 1 have the honor
to submit the following report:
There have been several reforms in the administration of-the afiairs
of this office, the effect of which has become apparent only during
DEAR SIR
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - 219
the year last past. The method of conducting reappraisements has
materially changed, pursuant to the letter of the Department, under ^
date ,of June 9. 1885 (synop. 6957), in which attention was called to
abuses that existed in the hearing of causes on reappraisement. The
efi'ect of that letter has enabled the merchant and general appraiser to
hear all causes and decide them in an orderly manner, permitting them
to give their whole time and attention t o t h e real issue. Honest importers, who heretofore deemed it their duty to employ lawyers to protect their interests, although at first strenuously objecting tp the change,
now heartily approve of the working under the present system. Instead ofthe unseemly noise and confusion ofttimes attending reappraisements, by the conflicting interests, there is now quiet, order, and a
sincere desire'to get at the true facts in ^ach case, and not to obscure
them. Much annoyance was caused also by the announcement of the
result ofa reappraisement to the importer, the merchant appraiser being frequently besieged by the importers for a rehearing of their cases,
and, by their importunities, they would sometimes cause him to waver
and demand a rehearing and a change of result, not from his own unbiased judgment, but by the persistent efi'orts of the importer. All
decisions are now sent to the collector, where they are first announced,
except in occasional instances, where the exigencies of the case may
require a knowledge of the result by the importer, for the purpose of
facilitating him in making entries on the reappraised basis.
During the last year cases have been erected in which samples of all
merchandise that has been reappraised have been placed, labeled, and
numbered for the purposes of comparison and examination, and such
samples will be held so iQpg as they are valuable for coraparison. In
all cases where there is an appeal the saraples will be filed away until
the hearing and determination of the protest and appeal by the court,
and for use therein when necessary.
The quarters assigned to the general appraiser are wholly inadequate
for the proper transaction of the increased business of the office. When
the present offices were provided the appeals for reappraisement were
about twenty-five or thirty per month, while at the present time they
are in the neighborhood of three hundred per month. All this vast
amount of merchandise has to be opened in two small rooms and there
inspected and examined by the witnesses and appraisers. These rooms
oft( u cannot contain one-half the articles to be examined, and the halls
and passage-ways are filled with boxes, crates, bales, and casks, so as
to scarcely allow passing and repassing. ^ The halls are dark and
unsuitable for the inspection of the merchandise. We need at least
four times the space we now have in order to permit a proper .examination of the various articles that come up daily for reappraisement, and
to facilitate the business of the department. The room in w^hich the
merchants, importers, and witnesses summoned by the Government
assemble, and in which they are sometimes compelled to remain for a
long time, is small and unfit for the purpose, being often crowded almost
to sufiocation to the serious embarrassment of the clerks in the discharge
of their duties, they being compelled to occupy a portion of the same
room. Many improvements in the method and management of this
department could be made if there was more space in which to transact its business. I t is no fault of the general appraiser that the accommodations are so limited. Application has been made for more room,
but the overcrowded condition of the present building used for public
stores prevents the acquisition of greater space. As the work of appraisement and reappraisement, to be carried on effectually and econom-
220
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
ically, should be conducted in the same building, the only relief would
seem to be in having a public store-house commensurate with the dignity of the Government and the importance of this port.
Since the decision of the United States court, decreeing that the enaction of a deposit to pay the expenses of a merchant appraiser was illegal, reappraisements have increased rapidly. If the present law is not
adequate to protect the Government, then some immediate legislation
is necessary to compel the importer to make a deposit, as many cases
on appeal are of the most trivial nature, the amount involved being
sometimes scarcely enough to pay the expense thereof, and the appeal
only taken'to embarrass the appraising officers and tending to throw
discredit on reappraisements. These numerous appeals are becoming
a great burden to witnesses and merchants, requiring almost daily attendance at the public stores, to the great detriment of their business.
Merchants on whom the Government can rely, who come and act at a
great personal sacrifice, are becoming very much discontented, as theyoften have to act on a great many cases, occupying the greater portion
of the day, and unless some arrangement or plan can be adopted to
lighten their labors they will refuse or evade service, to the great detriment of the revenue. Witnesses who come day after day upon the
same cases cease to perform their duty a^ satistactorily as when only
occasionally called, their great anxiety often being to escape'duties
which have become exceedingly irksome. On some questions there
have ]3een nearly two hundred appeals, and with one uhiform result on
reappraisement. The'exactions and appeals did not cease until the decision of the United States court, sustaining the general appraiser, and
the direction of the Department to appraising officers. Competent
merchants who give their time to the investigations, after having acted
thereon in an intelligent and conscientious manner, ofttimes find all
their efforts neutralized on every succeeding invoice of the same class
and character. ,
Eeappraisements should have some binding fbrce and eff'ect and should
be conclusive upon the importer and the GoYernment, at least for a
reasonable period, unless for good cause shown to the department or
the collector, to the effect that there was an error o n t h e reappraisement, in that there was fraud or that new and important evidence had
been received since the reappraisement, or that the market value had
materially changed since the previous reappraisement or reappraisements.
This office has outgrown all the machinery or laws made for it on its
organization, and has become one of the most important departments
in the revenue service. Eor the last eight or nine months past the business has increased so rapidly that it is impossible for one general
appraiser to hear all the cases, and at times it has been necessary to request the aid of all the general appraisers to prevent delay. The
inadequate accommodations for the transaction of business,^ however,
prevent more than two general appraisers acting to advantage. There
is, probably, no department in the customs service that requires more
prompt legislative action than the administration of the office of general appraiser at this port. If the suggestions herein made are deemed
wise and prudent and such action should be advised and,taken, with it
should be coupled some regulation whereby the compensation of the
general appraiser of the port of New York may be made commensurate
with the importance of the position.
Yours, very respectfully,
.
GEO. V. BEOWEE,
United States Oeneral Appraiser.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
'
' No. 15.
..
221
\
H. W H E E L E R COMBS—Appointed United States General Appraiser December 4,1877,
O F F I C E OF U . S . G E N E R A L A P P R A I S E R ,
New York, October 27,1886,
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C :
S I R : In reply to your circular letter of the 15th i n s t a n t , ! have the
honor to state that at the time of my appointment to the office of general appraiser at Baltimore, in July, 1884, there were but two clerks
attached to that office, who were the only employes under my control.
I have feeeh aide, by systematizing the business of the office, to dispense
with the services of one of them without impairing the efficiency of that
branch of the service.
^
The most important improvement^ in the execution of the customs
laws within the district under my personal supervision has resulted from
a strict enforcement on my part of Department letter (L.G. M:) of June—,
1885, requiring appraising officers to forward daily samples of all merchandise of which samples could be taken, appraised and classified by
them, to the general appraisers of their respective districts. By means
of these daily samples I have been enabled to promptly detect and correct numerous erroneous classifications of imported merchandise, and
have thereby secured, practically, within that district uniformity of classification and valuation. I, have, in accordance with Department letter
above referred to, scheduled and retained in my office the samples received under said instructions and find them' to be of great value for
reference and comparison in the supervision of classification and valuation of imported merchandise at the many different ports within my district. Had the order been strictly enforced in the several general appraising districts, as contemplated by the Department, it would have
resulted in the greatest good to the service by securing uniformity of
classification and valuation at all the ports of the United States. I
would respectfully suggest, as the best means of securing uniformity of
practice at the various ports, the establishment of a bureau of samples
at New York, to which appraising officers should be required to forward,
daily or weekly, samples of all textiles appraised and classified by them,
with label attached, showing the place of manufacture, date and place
of exportation, with weight, value, and classification, and also a weekly
or monthly report giving same information concerning all merchandise
other than textiles appraised and classified by them. The beneficial
results experienced by me in the jierformance of my duty in the supervision of classifications, from the daily samples of textiles, caused me to
require samples of all wools exported from Mexico and entered at the
ports along the border. From these samples I discovered that large
quantities of merino wools, or wools having traces of merino blood, were
being entered at these ports as carpet wools of the third class, upon
which the duty imposed was .2J cents per pound. This inforraation
having been furnished by me to the Department, instructions Were
issued from the Department which have corrected this erroneous classification and resulted in the collection of a large amount of duty which
otherwise would have been lost to the Government, besides bringing
about a uniform classification of such merchandise at the various ports
of the United States. .
I am not aware of any complaints at Baltimore with respect to the
present execution of the customs laws, although I have been away from
222
.REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
that port so much of the tirae during the last year that I have had bufc
little opportunity to hear such complaints, if any exist. Having been
on duty at ^this port (New York) constantly since May last, I am familiar
with the complaints and causes therefor existing here, but suppose you
will be fully advised of tbem by the local officers of this port.
The greatest number of reappraisements in the Baltimore district
have been upon "iron cotton-ties- and ^>Portland cement,- two articles
of merchandise which are sold by the pound or hundredweight, and
upon AYhich the duty should be specific. Complaint will naturally exist
so long as ad valorem duties are collected upon such a number and variety of articles of merchandise.
The execution of the customs laws has been, in ray opinion, greatly
improved within the last year by relieving appraising officers and examiners of all outside or undue infiuences, heretofore frequently exerted
upon them, and by your policy of holding each xirincipal officer of the
customs service at the various ports alone resppnsible.for the proper
performance of the duties charged upon him by law. The prohibition
of attorneys from appearing and practicing before reappraising boards
has operated very beneficially at this port (New York).
Yours, very respectfully,
H. W H E E L E E COMBS,
United States General Appraiser.
No. 16.
P O R T OF N E W YORK, A P P R A I S E R ' S O F F I C E ,
Octoher 26, 1886.
Hon.
D A N I E L MANNING,
Secretary of tlie Treasury, Washington, D. C :
SIR : In reply to your communication of the 16th instant, I have the
honor to transrait herewith a stateraent covering the period frora October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885; and the period from October 1,1885, to
October 1,1886, giving for each aforesaid year the following information
concerning the transactions at this office:
(a) The wliole number of invoices examined and appraised.
(b) The whole number of invoices reported value correct as given in
invoice.
(c) The number of invoices advanced in value by the appraiseri
(d) The number of invoices advanced by more than 10 per cent.
(e) The number appealed to reappraisers.
In reply to inquiry marked (/) I transmit herewith a communication
from General Appraiser George Y. Brower, dated October 25, in which
the effect aud result of reappraisement are specifically stated. The discrepancy between iny statement and that of the general appraiser as to
the whole number of invoices appealed to reappraisers during the respective years is accounted for by the fact that a considerable number
of the invoices which were acted on by the reappraising board iu each
of these years had been received at the office of the general appraiser
prior to the coraraencement of the years in question, while in the statement furnished by me the dates are carefuUy confined to the years and
months in which t h ^ appeals were taken.
Very respectfullv, your obedient servant,
L E W I S McMULLEN,
Appraiser.
22S
EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASURY.
[Enclosure l.J
* ^
'
-
PORT OF N E W YORK,
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES GENERAL APPRAISER,
October 2^0,188^.
L E W I S MCMULLEN,
Esq.,
Appraiser of the port of Neiv York:
SIR : In compliance witb your request to be famished with a statement, covering
t h e periods from October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885, and from October 1, 1885, to
October 1, 1886, of the number of invoices appealed for reappraisment, and t b e result of said reappraisements, I respectfully submit the following :
Total uumber of appeals from October 1, 1884, to October 1, 1885
1,078
W i t b tbe followiug action :
Appeals witbdrawn by importer
103
Entry sustained
•.
,
177
Appraiser's advance sustained
236
Appraiser's advance sustained in part
,
464
Advanced beyond appraiser's valuation
:
65
Divided reports:
Collector sustains entry
i
2
Collector sustains general appraiser
'
9
Unbnisbed reappraisements
,
22
1,087
Appeal8 received from October 1, 1885, to Octolier 1, 1886
W i t b tbe following action :
Appeals witbdrawn by importer
Entry sustained
i
Appraiser's advance sustained
Appraiser's advance partly sustained
Advanced beyond appraiser's v a l u a t i o n . .
Divided reports:
Collector sustains entry
Collector snstains geueral appraiser
Decision not rendered
Appeals not taken up or unfinished
1
-
^-
2,089
106
426
272
1,014
49
106
4
4
108
;
Total
2,089
The 106 cases above named in which t b e collector sustained the entry were t b e
Donskoi wool cases.
Yours, very respeptfully,,
,
GEO. V. BROWER,
United States General Appraiser.
[Enclosure 2.]
ConsoUdated report of invoices examined, <^c'., in the appraiser's department. New York,
from October 1, 1884, to September 30, 1886.
Months.
October...
November
December
January . .
Eebruary.
March
April
,
May
June
July
Aagust —
September.
Total
Whole number of
iuvoices exami n e d and appraised.
Whole number of N u m b e r of ininvoices reported;
voices advanced
valae correct as
in value by the
appraiser.
given in invoices.
1884-'85.
1885-.'86.
1884-'85.
16, 921
14,747
15, 605
14,369
15, 064
17, 683
15, 923
14,781
15, 351
17, 259
18,170
18,319
18, 560
16,881
16, 763
16.139
17, 661
39,950
19, 338
15, 983
18, 931
18, 319
21,467
20, 031
15, 834
14, 068
14. 928
13, 540
14, 080
16, 206
14, 860
13,794
14,222
15, 506
16,439
16, 600
17,168
15,901
14, 777
14, 951
16, 447
18,217
18,112
14, 862
17, 747
16,513
19, 468
17, 933
1,087
679
677
829
984
1,477
1,063
987
1,129
1,753
1,731
1,719
1,188
1,214
1,733
1,226
1,121
1,184
1,806
1,999
2,098
220, 023
180, 077
203,096
14,115
16,927
194,192
1885-'
1884-'85.
1885-';
1,392
224
REPORT OF^ THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Consolidated report of invoices examined, ^c.—Continued.
Months.
Number advanced
by more than 10
per cent.
Number appealed
to reappraisers.
1884-'85. 1885-'
1884-'85. 1885-'8a.
75
36
33
63
75
September.
October
November.
December..
January - . .
Pebruary ..
March
April
May
June
July
Auguat .w..
98
76
107
120
130
60
96
Total
70
138
188
167
127
100
98
157
108
237
200
20d
187
186
183
268
1,014
2,050
119
107
98
164
179
151
117
101
149
170
1,587
No. 17.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
J O F F I C E OF T H E SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C, October 15,1886.
S I R : Will you at your earliest convenience and before November 1,
1886, present to me such considerations and suggestions as you may
deem it useful to lay before me, growing out of your observation and
experience in dealing with suits, in your judicial district begun against
collectors of customs for duties alleged to have been illegally exacted ?
Is the force in your office adequate for the economical, proper, and efficient defense of those suits, and, if not, why not, and what additional
force is needed? Is the existing relation between your office and the
custom-house that which is needed, in your opinion, for the proper defense of those suits, and, if not, what improvement can you suggest?
You are invited to freely express to me whatever, in regard to this
most important subject, you may deem it useful for the public service,
and for the due protection of the rights of importers who are plaintiffs,
to be presented to my attention while engaged in preparing my annual
report to Oongress.
And will you likewise inform me how many and what description of
suits for the presentation of false invoices or fraudulent entries at the
custom-house have been begun, by the request of the coUector, during
your term of office, and whether or not any such have been brought to
trial, and, if so, with what result?
Eespectfully yours,
DANIEL MANNING,
Secretary.
Hon.
S T E P H E N A. W A L K E R ,
United States District Attorney, New York.
REPORT OF T H E
• SECEETARY OF THE TREASURY.
225
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O R N E Y
^OR THE'SOUTHERN D I S T R I C T OF N E W Y O R K ,
• New York,. October 21,1886.
S I R : I am in receipt of your letter of 15tb instant, requesting any
suggestions I may have to make respecting suits against collectors of
customs in this district, and asking particularly—
Is the force in your office adequate for the economical, proper, and efficient defense
of those suits, and if not, wby not, and what additional force is needed ? Is tbe existing relation between your office and tbe custom-bouse t b a t wbicb is needed, in
your opinion, for i^e proper defense of tbose suits, and if not, wbat improvement can
you suggest ?
There has been but one session of the courts of 17 days' duration devoted'to the trials of suits of tliis character since I entered npon the
duties of this office, but I have arrived at very clear convictions upon
many points in reference to the subjects which you have hitherto dealt
with in so intelligent a manner, and will present my response to your
inquiries without discursive argument, and in a form wMch I hope" will
be most convenient for your usCc
First. With the present number of judges assigned for the trial of
customs cases, and the consequent limited time for actual trials, the
number of assistants, and the working force of this office, are sufficient
to try the legal issues involved in the suits now upon the calendar notwithstanding the fact bf their appalling numbero You will understand
by this that the strictly professional work involved in the trial of a suit,
or any of the suits against the collector, can be attended to (under
present conditions as to ^ the opportunity for trials) with my present
assistance.
Second.' As to the relations of this office to the custom-house, and the
collector as my client, there is need of reform, and of certain changes,
which cannot be accomplished without additional expense to the G-overnment. My answer to your first inquiry, you have observed, is limited to the questions of laiv presented in each casCo It could not be
truthfully made so broad as respects all the issues presented in the
cases which are likely to be moved for triaL There is no sufficient provision for the discovery, preparation, and presentation of evidence on
questions of fact arising in these trials*
It should be the duty of the collector, and he should have the authority and force to accomplish it, to provide the names of witnesses, a
digest of their evidence, samples ofthe merchandise in question, in other
words, the facts involved in every expected trial. I am satisfied that
the same duty should be imposed upon the collector, in reference to
customs cases, which belongs to a private client in a private case, of
giving to the attorney, whom he employs, the facts, and their sources,
to which the law is to be applied. Some one competent to represent
the collector in his relations to this offlce, with right of access to every
document in any department of the revenue in this city and following
the lines, methods and subjects of inquiry directed by this office, should
be charged with the responsibility of securing and presenting for use
upon trials the facts in every case. Such person should have headquarters in this post-office building.
Let me illustrate this necessity briefly by a single class of cases.
There are pendiug in this office some suits of venerable age known as
the square yard issue. Two bf these suits have been to the Supreme
Court, and the questions of law involved are fully settled* Probably
H. Ex. 2—VOL II
15
226
REPORT OF T H E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
three hundred thousand dollars are claimed in the actions which have
not been tried. The Supreme Court has decided that it is a question
of fact, to be decided by the jury, whether Saxony wj^ol cloths are articles of "similar deiscription^ to delaines. The verdict of any number
of juries upon this point will never make this question res adjudicata.
No investigation, or study, or preparation on the part of this office
is necessary on the legal questions involved in such a case. But the
trial comes on, and the plaintiff produces a dozen witnesses to prove
that, as a question of fact. Saxony wool goods are articles of similar
description to delaines. It is not an answer to say that two juries,
one in Boston and one in this city, have found otherwise. Witnesses
must besecured and produced who will swear otherwise.
The custom heretofore has been that the appraiser should forward the
names of the officers who made the original appraisement—probably now
out of office, and possibly employing the experience gained while in
office in some business adverse to the interests of the Government—-and
one or two other names, probably names of those importing goods at
the time in question. These men, and others if possible, must be
drummed up by the young men in this office. Without criticising fhe
service rendered by them or their predecessors, or speculating upon
results, I am satisfied that the inethod, or system, if it can be called
such, is wholly bad, 'dnd that the plan I suggest of bringing the collector through a skilled agent or bureau, into a direct responsibility for
the facts of each case would be a vast improvement.
Third. The foregoing suggestions concern only the state of affairs as
they now exist with the present judicial force for the trial of customs
cases.
Nothing can be added by me by way of argument to the. authority
ofthe letter to Oongress of March 23, 1886, respecting the necessity of
a radical change in suits against collectors which would be involved in
the appointment of an additional judge. Until that is done, any reforms and changes will alleviate x)nly the surface of the difficulty presented by the vast accumulation of cases, the consequent expense by
way of interest, loss of cases upon trial by death, and disability of witnesses, and all the evils consequent upon the present condition of affairs, which you so clearly apprehend, and have so urgently set forth.
Below will be found a description of the suits for the presentation of
false invoices, or fradulent inventories, begun since I entered upon the
duties of this office, March 4,1886, with the disposition of the same.
Following-named suits were brought at request of collector by the
United States for violation of sections 2839,2864: Eevised Statutes, and
section 12, act June 22,1874:
United States V8.20 Cases Cedar Cigar-box Shooks, &c. Letter from eoliector June 3,
.1886.
'
Undervaluation and false invoice as to quantity and measurement. Compromised
July 2, 1886.
,
United States vs. No. 6, 1 Bale Cotton-Yam. Letter from coUector June 16, 18S6.
False invoice as to price. Compromised August 7, 1886.
United States vs. One Case Silk and Cotton Astrakhans, No. 147. Letter from ooUector
August 16, 1886.
False invoice as to price. Fending.
!
Sanie t)«. Same.
^
Same remarks.
Verv respectfully, your obedient servant,
'" '"^
' • STEPHEN A.. WALKEE,
U. 8. Attorney.
To the SsoRETARy OM THE TREASUBY,
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
T R E A S U R Y D E P A E T M E N T , O F F I C E OF T H E
227
SEOEETABYJ
WasMngton, B . Go, Novemher 8,1886.
Snt: Eeferring to yoiiir letter of the 21st ultimo, will you inform ine
how' many days in 1886 have been given by the circuit court for the
Southern District of New York to the trial of collector's suits with a
jury, the nnmber and total of all the suits tried, and the names of the
judges holding the conrto'
Also, please inform me how many presentations to your office have
in 1886 been made by th© collector of false invoices or entries for
prosecution.
Eespectfully yours,
Do MANNING,
Secretary.
S T E P H E N A.
WALKER,
Esq.,
United States States Attorney, New York Gity.
NOo 20o
O F F I C E OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O R N E Y
F O R T H E S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T OF N E W Y O R K ,
j
New York, November 10,1886.
The
S E C R E T A R Y OF T H E T R E A S U R Y :
S I R : I have the honor to acknowledge th© receipt of your letter of
the 8th instant, asking for certain information as to suits brought
against collectors of customs in this districto
In answer, to the first part of your letter, I beg leav© to refer to th©
statement herewith inclosedc
As to th© second part, I beg to stat© that, as it appears by th© records
of this offices n^ suits for th© presentation of false invoices or ©ntries
wer© b©gun prior to Jun© 3, 1886, during th© year 1886, and a list of
such cases was submitted to yon in my letter dat©d October 21j 1886,
addressed to you.
Very respectMlyj
STEPHEN Ao WALKEE,
United States Attorneyo
[Snolosnre No. 1.1
Suits tried &^ mjury in 1886.
Ssri®8 No.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
O.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N. a
8570
8580
9959
9960
458
8650
8611
7883
Title of suit.
Henry Hermann eiaZ. v. W.H. Robertson
L. Weddigen et al. v. Same
J". O. Carleton and another v. Same
E. Luckenieyer and another v. Same —
Otto W. Paliitz et al. u. Schell
Jacob Basch et al. v. Robertson
Fred'k Beck and another v. Same
Wm, »«i!tmgftTrt®« amd »R»th®r v. S«3a».,
V©rdiot f o r -
Plaintiffs
...do--..
Defendant
...do....
Plaintiffs
Defendant
Plaintiffs
do
j u d g e before whoitt
triod.
Dat® of trial.
Wheeler..
Shipman .
do . . . .
...do
Wheeler..
Shipman.-
1886.
Jan. 11
Jan. 12
Jan. 12
Jan. 13
Jan. 13,14,15
Jan. 14
Jan. 15
<Jft».15
,
,..do
228
REPORT O F T H E SECRETARY O F T H E TREASURY.
Suits tried by a Jury in 1886—Continued,
Title of s u i t
Series No.
N . S . 9422
N . S." 399
N . S. 6862
N . S . 6872
N.S.
N. S.
N. S.
N. S.
N. S.
N. S.
N.S.
7304
6971
7519
7128
9449
7506
9431
N.S.
N. S.
0. S.
N. S.
N. S.
N.S.
N. S.
N.S.
O.S.
9613
6935
1585
9985
8676
7837
6807
9965
317
N; S. 10092
0. S. 1804
N . S . 9063
K. S. 10038
N. S. 2824
N. S. 10064
N . S . 9986
Verdict for—
Judge before whom
tried.
Date of trial.
1886.
E. P. Grleeson Manufacturing Company Plaintiffs . . . . . Shipman.. Jan. 18
V. Same.
Wheeler., Jan. 18
E. A. Oelrichs and another v. Barney
. . . do
Jan. 18
do
H. Passavant et al. v. Merritt
do
'
G. Callamore and another v. Same ..
Plaintiffs, by Shipman.. Jan. 19...
direction of
the court.
Jan. 2 0 . . . . . . . .
....do
Edward Hill and another v. Same
Defendant
PlaiDtiffs
. . . . d o . . . . . Jan. 20
J. Kurtz et al. v. Same
.
Jan. 20,'21
....do
Chas. L. Tiffany v. Same
Plaintiff
Jan. 2 1 . . :
J. Kurtz et al. v. Same . . . .
. . . Plaintiffs
...do
>
do .
L. A. Solomon et al. v. Eobertson
....do
Jan. 21,22,25..
Dwight &c., late Waterman, v. Merritt.. Defendant
...do
Jan.26
Gustav Falk and another v. Eobertson. Defendant (sec- . . . . d o
Jan. 27
ond trial).
W. H. Perego and another v. Same
Split verdict.. . . . . d o
Jan. 27,28
Plaintiffs . . . . . . . do .1-... Jan. 28
D. Cameron and another v. Merritt
5Jan.28,29*.... ')
Defendant
....do
C. Meletta v. Schell
^Feb.lt
C Von Pustan v.Eobertson
Plaintiffs ! . . . . . . d o , . . . . F e b . l .
L. Fleishmann v. Same
....do
....do . . . . . Feb. 2
n
H. Wallach and another v. Same
Feb.3
Split verdict.- . . . d o
F
e
b
3
Plaintiffs
John F. Brigg et al. v. Merritt
....do
^
Wm. H. Schieffelin et al. v. Eobertson... . . . . d o
.-..do
Feb. 3,4
Fewstgr Wilkinson et al. v. J . E. Pai- . . . d o
April 6,7
Coxe
sons, &c.
Geo. C. Miller v. Eobertson
•
Plaintiff...... . . . d o . . . . . April 7,8,9 . . .
April 9,12 . . . .
J . W. Smith, &c., V. Eobt. Schell, &c . . . . Defendant
....do
April 12,13,14.
Chas. A. Edelhoff" et a l v. Eobertson . . . . Split verdict.. . . . . d o
April 15,16....
Philo L. Mills and another v. Same
...do .....
. . . do
April 19, 2 0 . . . .
Philip Mettre v.C. A. Arthur
Plaintiff.....: . . . d o
April 20
Thos. K. Cummings v. Eobertson
....do
Defendant
Aprir20,21....
....do
....do
Joseph Nettreclift et al. v. Same
}.
s
1
^
1
}=,
r
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
•Numberof days given by the United States circuit court for the southem district of New York to
the trial of collectors'suits with a jury (31 days),
t Number and total of all suits tried in 1886 (35 suits).
'
No. 21.
:NI^W YOB.K, November 20,1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNINGS,
Secretary of the Treasury:
S I R : Agreeably to your instructions of the 18th instant, I have examined the records o f t h e general appraiser's office at this port for the
purpose of ascertaining whether th© reappraising force is adequate for
the proper transaction of the business of that office, and respectfully
report as follows:
As the business is now conducted the reappraising force is not adequate.
If it were practicable to assign all of the four general appraisers to constant duty at New York, it is doubtful whether they could promptly dispose
of appeals, so long as the presient unbusiness-like methods are continued.
During the twelve months ending September 30,1885, the number of
cases received by the general appraiser for reappraisement was 1,078.
For the twelve months ending September 30, 1886, the number of appeals was 2,089. Since that date to the 19th instant, 459 appeals have
been received, making 2,548 since the 1st of October, 1885. A t the
present monthly average the number of appeals for the current fiscal
year will exceed 3,000. In order to dispose of them promptly at least
ten cases per day must be passed upon. There are now 310 appfeals^
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
229
many of them at least two months old, awaiting the action of the general appraiser. The increase in the number of appeals is to be attributed partly to greater care and vigilance on the part of certain of the
examiners and assistant appraisers in appraising consigned goods, particularly silks and woolens, and partly to the discontinuance in July last
of the practice of requiring the importer to pay the fee of the merchant
appraiser.
Besides the general appraiser permanently located at this port, one
of the other three general appraisers bas been here almost constantly
during the past year under temporary assignment to assist in the disposition of appeals.
It appears that the mode of business adopted years ago, when appeals
were few—not exceeding 300 in a year—is still continued, although the
number of appeals has reached over 2,000 annually.
The practice of the general appraiser has beeh, and still is, to devote
but two to four hours per day for five days in the week to reappraisements. The rule is to set the reappraisement cases for hearing at 11,
11.30, 12, and 1 o'clock, except on Saturday, when no cases are heard.
From five to six, sometimes more, merchant appraisers are summoned
to be present at the same hour. These gentlemen, as well as importers
and witnesses, congregate in large numbers in the general appraiser's
rooms, awaiting their turn, and there is great pressure to hasten the
.hearing of cases. Sometimes two or more cases, where there are different merchant appraisers, are heard at the same time b j General Appraiser Browero
^
All this results in a confused and hurried disposition of business.
Many cases are necessarily adjourned from day to day, causing loss of
time to all concerned and giving rise to just complaint. During the
present week the number of cases set for hearing and disposed of by the
two general appraisers was as follows: Monday, 15th, 16 cases appointed,
11 disposed of, and 5 adjourned; Tuesday, 16th, 21 cases appointed,
14 disposed of, and 7 adjourned; Wednesday, 17th, 15 cases appointed,
7 disposed of, and 8 adjourned; Thursday, 18th, 17 cases appointed,
11 disposed of, and 6 adjourned; Friday, 19th, 25 cases appointed, 19
disposed of, and 6 adjourned.
It is evident from the above that assignments have not been judiciously made.
. The adjournment of some of these cases is due to the non-appearance
of the merchant appraiser appointed, the practice of the collector being to address the letter of appointment to a member of a firm, with
an alternative to sorae other member of the same firm, as, for example,
to James M, Constable, or some other member of the firm of Arnold,
Constable & Co, This is not, in fact, an appointment by the collector
of a particular person to serve as merchant appraiser as contemplatBd
by law, but is an authorization to a firm to select oue of its members
to act in that capacity. I t frequently occurs that the member of the
firm familiar with the merchandise to be reappraised is absent from the
port, and therefore fails to be present when the case is set for hearing.
It has long been the custom, under fhe regulations, for the local appraiser
to send to the collector the names of five or more firms from whom a
selection of a merchant appraiser may be made, the others being summoned as witnesses by the general appraiser. Upon inquiry recently
made by the collector he found that over fifty persons whose names had
been sent to him at different times by the appraiser as eligible for appointment as merchant appraisers were either dead, aliens, out of
business, or otherwise ineligible.
230
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
These facts suggest a renewal of the recommendation heretofore made
that the ^appraiser be required to furnish the collector a list, to be revised monthly, of individual merchants (members of firms) legally qualified to serve as merchant appraisers of the various classes of merchandise imported,
.
'
The lack of adequate space in the rooms assigned to the general appraiser for opening and displaying merchandise under reappraisement
is another obstacle in the way of the orderly and prompt dispatch of
business. It causes delay and confusion in examinations by reappraising officers and expert witnesses.
Notwithstanding the great increase of appeals and the large number
of cases now in arrears at this port, I am of the opinion that with a
thorough reformation in the methods of business, and with proper management, the two general appraisers now on duty here^ would be able
in a few weeks to dispose of the accumulated cases, and that thereafter
one of the general appraisers, with occasional assistance from the others,
could keep up the work.
To do this it will be necessary—
1. That the general appraiser permanently located at New York, shall
give his entire time, during business hours, to his official duties.
2. That he shall appoint the hearing of cases at suitable hours, from
9.30 a. m. till 3.30 p. m., each day, including Saturday.
3. That when the importers and witnesses in a case are not present
and ready at the hour appointed, or the merchant appraiser is absent,
. the case may be put at the foot of the list for future assignment.
0 4. That the appointment of merchant appraisers shall be made by
personal service upon the individual merchant selected, and if it be
then ascertained that for any proper cause the person so selected cannot serve, another appointment shall be made without delay.
I t is proper to state that General Appraiser Combs, who has been on
duty here for some time assisting Mr. Brower, has suggested to the latter changes in methods calculated to expedite the work and secure -a
more orderly transaction of business, Mr, Brower, however, while expressing himself favorably, has taken no action toward making the
changes proposed.
Eespectfully, yours,
A, K. TINGLE,
Special Agent.
POET OF P H I L A D E L P H I A .
Noolo
'
'
JOHN CADWALADER.—-Appointed CoUector of Custoins for the District of PhUadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, July 30, 1885.
OUSTOM-HOUSE, P H I L A D E L P H I A ,
PA.,
Collector's Office, Octoher 30,1886.
Hon. D A N I E L MANNma,
.
Secretary of the Treasury .»
S I R : i beg to transmit the following reply to your- communication of
16th instant:
Upon assuming the duties of this office on August 12,1885,1 called
for a statement, in writing, from each of the clerks and other chief
officials, defining their duties as they then were and had been, to ascer-
REFORT OF TB^E SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.'
231
0
tain, as far as possibie, at once, their relative qualifications. From the
replies and my own observation I found a lamentable lack of system in
the department. Disregard of proper habits of business among the
employes—smoking, lounging, reading newspapers, running in and out
ofthe buildings, constant visits from friends and acquaintances during
business hours—was the rule and not the exception. Leaves of absence
had been granted with but little, if any, restriction.
The change in the office of surveyor of the port was not made until
December, 1885, and my sources of information as to the inspectors, &c.j
was, until that time, limited and unsatisfactory, I found, however,
many men upon these rolls who had scarcely ever performed a day's
service; intemperance was very common, and irregularities of many kinds
prevailed. Officers then known as '^ night inspectors " were especially
unworthy. From the date upon which Mr. Campbell became surveyor
a complete change in his department has been effected. I cannot speak
too highly of the attention and fidelity of the surveyor to his duties.
He gives close personal supervision to the various branches of the
service. He visits docks, wharves, and vessels at all hours of the day
and night, and thus secures a vigilance and care among the subordinates hitherto unknown. The force of ^^ night inspectors" was, with
scarcely an exception, composed of incapable and negligent men. The
duties of this class were entirely distinct from those of an inspector, and
their designation was deceptive. They received very high compensation, namely, $3 per diem, and their duties were limited to watching
vessels and docks during about six hours, frora sunset to midnight, or
from midnight to sunrise. As charges against the night inspectors
were made and removals took place I asked that their offices be abolished, and I asked for the appointment in their stead of officers to be
known as ^'surveyor's watchmen," with compensation at the rate of
$840 per annum, being the same amount paid to other night watchmen.
By this change, which I warmly commend to your consideration to be
extended throughout the service at other ports,^ [ effected a reduction
in the expenses of the department of $8,670, and have secured a force
superior in every respect to the former body of night inspectors.
The chief weigher has made many excellent reforms in his department, and has watched very closely all incidental expenditures, reducing
them about 50 per cent., and has limited the laborers' roll as far as
practicable. A great increase in the business of his department—nearly
double that of former years—has been met by him, as shown by the
statement annexed hereto, at less cost in the permanent force, and the
cost of weighing per ton has been reduced from 9.7 cents in 1883, under
his predecessor, to 6 cents in 1886. A question of some difficulty has
arisen in regard to compensating customs officers for extra work at
night and on Sunday. The business of this port requires facilities for
weighing as well as discharging cargoes at night. These have been
partly provided for night service; but it is much to be desired that
vessels should be permitted to continue discharging during Sunday.
Volunteers from the inspectors for Sunday work can be obtained if
extra compensation, equivalent to a night's service, is given, and I ask^
authority to this end. Many requests have been made by masters to
clear their vessel at night on completing their discharge. As the return of the inspector must be compared with the manifest, a n d t h i s
could not be done after the custom-house had closed, I have hitherto
seen no proper mode of complying with this reasonable demand. As
I have reorganized my clerical force by appointing chiefs of division,
who, as "clerks designated," are authorized to administer the necessary
232
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
oaths and to issue the requisite certificates, I have requested authority
hereafter when an application is made prior to 3 o'clock by a master to
clear his vessel after hours, to designate the several chiefs of divisions
in rotation to attend at the office for the purpose, at any hour required—
the vessel to pay $10 for this special service, which shall be paid, as
in the case of other night service, to the chief of division attending at
the office.
*'
\
The following r^eforms are among the more important secured :
The clerical force has been organized into divisions, known as law,
statistics, estimation, liquidation, and navigation, with chiefs of each
division, who are directly responsible for the work of the minor clerks.
Hitherto there was no head for any of these branches, except one general deputy.
An auditor has been- appointed, an officer absolutely necessary to the
* department. This position is filled by my special deputy, Oharles Henry
Jones, esq., who has brought to the service high attainments, and has
proved himself one of the most competent, efficietit, and thoroughly
informed officials in the customs department.
I recommend an abolition of compensation by the day and a substitution of fixed salaries for all employ^s« ^ An evil of the service, I think,
is the very high rate of compensation for the lower grades of employment—being two or three times that of similar service in private positions—and inadequate compensation for positions requiring a high
standard of attainment.
I recommend a reclassification of the clerical force into three grades,
namely, clerks at $1,200, promoted clerks at $1,500, and chief clerks
at $2,000. A t present there is no substantial difference between the
duties of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th classes. The suggested change has a
meaning: $1,200 will secure the best qualifications, and is nearly 25 per
cent, higher than banks, &Co, pay, and is therefore ample for all new
clerks. Where capacity and fidelity have been proved, promotion may
•follow, with the further prize of the chief position in prospect.
The bonds and powers of attorney had never been properly drawn or
renewed, and were practically of little or no value or protection to the
•Government. A competent lawyer is now in charge of this department,
and systein has succeeded disorder. The records and papers of the
office were in great confusion—in heaps upon the floors and without arrangement; brokers and their clerks and others had free access to them,
with the consequences natural to such indiscriminate handling. They
have now been completely overhauled and arranged, and, in order to
examine a paper, formal application must be made to the record clerk.
Additional duties, found to be due, upon liquidation, had been allowed
to remain uricollected for a long period of time. The arrears have now
been largely reduced and the current list carefully and promptly collected. Formerly, entries after being handed in and accepted, were
constantly taken away by parties concerned. This is no longer permitted.
The regulations had been generally disregarded by the employes as
to pledging and assigning their pay in advance. Moneys were loaned
to them by brokers, and discounting hy fellow employ6s was common.
Money was frequently paid by parties outside of the office to obtain
facilities and favors. The discovery of these and many other irregularities have rendered it necessary to have many of the employes removed,
and at present the force is more competent and efficient than it has
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
233
ever been, as is freely admitted by the old employes, whose fidelity and
effieieijcy have secured their retention. ^
The appraisej's department, under the care of Joseph B. Baker, esq.,
my predecessor as collector under President Buchanan, has been reformed in many ways, to the great benefit of the Department and of the
public. All favoritism and discrimination has ceased, and a cordial cooperation with the general office has succeeded a condition of almost
constant conflicts under former administrations. The relation of the
appraiser to the collector is, however, anomalous, and, in myjudgment,
should not continue. At present he nominates all the examiners, packers, and laborers in his department, and his assistants are Presidential
appointments. Neither the appraiser nor any of his subordinates is under
bond, and although he has exclusive custody of large quantities of merchandise of great value, for examination, all responsibility for this property
andthe care of it rests npon the collector, who cannot supervise or control
the employes. There is no reason that these ofificials, exclusive of the
personal clerks, as in the case ofthe surveyor, should not be appointed,
as other officers of the customs, by the collector, and I recommend legislation by Congress to effect this result. The office of cashier of a customhouse is a very responsible one. They are obliged to receive large sums
of money very frequently under great pressure. These moneys must be
carefully examined. No checks or drafts are receivable, light coin and
counterfeit notes must be guarded against, and a very difficult portion
of the duty is in returning proper change to those paying duties.
Under the present cashier, Mr. Vaux, there has been sec
@FedFRASER