Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

For entry under a false invoice or certificate the goods or their value should be forfeited, the penalty to be divided as other forfeitures were. The Solicitor of the Treasury was required to look after all frauds and attempted frauds upon the revenue. Frauds were punishable by imprisonment for a term not to exceed two years, and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars. The punishment also included removal from office in case a customs officer was implicated. It was made the duty of the district attorney, by § 13, to defend all suits brought against collectors or other officers of the revenue for their official acts.

Up to this date the chief officer of any port or his appointee on getting a warrant therefor from a justice of the peace, might, enter any private premises not unreasonably remote from the coast, search for and seize any goods on which all the duties had not been paid, and examine and remove for inspection any books or papers containing information with regard to such goods.2 The act of 1863 (§ 7) placed this power in the hands of the United States District Judge, who was authorized to issue such a warrant to the collector only upon proof by affidavit to his satisfaction that fraud had been actually committed or attempted. The invoices, books or papers so seized were to be retained by the officer seizing them, subject to the control and direction of the Solicitor of the Treasury.

This dangerous power was subsequently further restricted on July 18, 1866, and March 2, 1867.3 According to these laws the warrant was directed to the United States District Marshal instead of to the collector, and the papers were to be subject to the disposition of the court instead of the Solicitor of the Treasury.

1 This office was established by the law of May 29, 1830.

2 § 68 of the law of 1799.

3 39th Congress Session II., Chapter 188. This act provided for the distribution of fines and penalties, giving carriers a lien for freight which could be enforced before the release of the debtor's goods from the warehouse, when previous notice had been given to the collector.

3. Dutiable Value.

The increase in duties in 18641 was accompanied by slight changes in the collection laws. The method of determining the dutiable value was again defined, this time as2 "the actual value of such goods on shipboard at the last place of shipment to the United States," and was to be ascertained by adding to "the value of such goods, at the place of growth or manufacture, the cost of transportation, shipment, trans-shipment, with all expenses included, the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind, commissions at the usual rate, in no case less than two and a half per cent., brokerage and export duties, together with all costs and charges." This finally settled a moot point in the law of 1851 (March 3), and put an end to the contention on which, up to that time, over fourteen hundred suits had been brought against the collector at New York, viz., that under the former law no account should be taken of commissions and certain charges.3

The last section of this act allowed baggage or personal effects arriving in the United States in transit for a foreign country to be deposited with the collector, to be retained and delivered by him to the parties having it in charge on their

'June 30, 1864, 38th Congress Session I., Chapter 171.

2 Over this there was a difference of opinion and on its substantial reenactment in 1866 there was a sharp contest; in the Senate Mr. Sherman attacked it as bearing too heavily on bulky goods, and introducing so many elements into the estimated cost as to render it uncertain, thus giving rise to frauds and perhaps inequality.

Mr. Edmunds on the other hand upheld it, saying that all tariffs were based on home value, and that these were its necessary elements. On the vote it was stricken out; but as the House did not agree, it was retained in the above form.

3 Under the law of 1851 the Secretary of the Treasury had made a ruling that certain charges, including commissions at two and a half per cent., should be items in estimating dutiable value. This caused a vast amount of litigation, and many of these cases, commonly called the "charges and commissions cases," remained pending down through the seventies. The government was compelled to pay out several millions in judgments-the items of interest and costs forming a large proportion of the total amount.

departure for their foreign destination, under such rules as the Secretary of the Treasury might prescribe.

4. Appraisement at New York.

On July 27, 1866, the matter of appraisement at the port of New York,' was again taken up, and as fixed by this law has remained substantially the system of appraisement at that port to this day."

In lieu of the appraisers formerly stationed there, the president was authorized to appoint one appraiser who had had experience as such, and with the same qualifications heretofore required of the several appraisers. This officer was to have supervision of examinations, inspection and appraisements. Under him were to be not exceeding ten assistant appraisers, appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and with qualifications similar to those required of the appraiser. Their report, approved by the appraiser, was to be regarded as the legal appraisement.1

In lieu of the clerks at this time employed in the examination of goods, the Secretary of the Treasury was to appoint, on nomination of the appraiser, such number of examiners as he might determine to be necessary. These examiners were to be “practically and thoroughly acquainted with the character, quality and value" of the articles in the examination of which they were employed. Their compensation was not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars yearly.5

The Secretary was also to appoint, on nomination of the appraiser, the clerks, verifiers, samplers, openers, packers and

139th Congress, Session I., Chapter 284.

2 Other ports are governed in this matter by various statutes, but the main facts of the system excepting the names of officers are practically the same.

3 See supra, pp. 34 and 42.

Their duties were apportioned among them, each having a particular department, as special examiner of drugs, appraiser of damaged goods, etc.

The appraiser's salary was fixed at $4,000, and that of the assistant appraisers at $3,000 each.

messengers employed in the appraiser's office, and to fix their number and compensation. The old laws as to the manner of valuation and appraisement were to apply as before.

5. Transportation in Bond.

The act of July 28, of this same year,1 authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint certain ports at which goods destined for Canada or Mexico might be entered and transported in bond to their destination through the territory of the United States, under such regulations as might be prescribed. Goods subject to duty might also be transported across the territories of those countries, with the consent of the proper authorities, in transit from one place in the United States to another, over such routes and under such regulations as the Secretary should prescribe.

The law of July 14, 1870, farther perfected this system of bonded transportation. According to its provisions goods destined for certain interior points-about one to each state— when entered at specified ports, and after they had been sufficiently examined [without removal to warehouse or appraiser's office] in order to roughly verify the invoice, might be immediately shipped to their destination, provided a bond be given, with at least two sureties, for double the invoice value of the merchandise with the duties added. The formal entry, appraisement and payment of duties could then take place at the place of final distribution.3 Such merchandise should be delivered only to common carriers designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, who were to give such bonds and in such amounts as the Secretary might require, and who were to be responsible for the safe delivery of the goods to the collector at the port of destination. The goods while in transit were not to be unladen or trans-shipped, but should be conveyed in cars, 139th Congress, Session I., Chapter 298.

'41stCongress, Session II., Chapter 225.

3 Amended, but very slightly changed, by Act of July 2, 1884, 48th Congress, Session I, Chapter 142.

vessels or vehicles securely fastened with locks or seals under the exclusive control of the officers of the customs.1 For greater safety inspectors might be placed at proper points along the routes, or upon the trains or cars, at the expense of the respective companies.2

6 Special Agents and General Orders.

On May 11, 1870,3 Congress passed the first law distinctly authorizing the appointment of special agents of the Treasury to be employed in the customs service. The act limited the number to be appointed to fifty-two, and divided them into three classes, with salaries running from eight dollars down to five dollars a day. Already at this time there were some fifty-one such agents receiving salaries-besides expenses and mileage-from five thousand dollars down. Under what authority these men were employed is not exactly clear, but the custom of appointing them seems to have obtained almost from the establishment of the government.

The influence of special agents on the department and on the development of the system is hard to estimate. It is principally through them that the Secretary comes in contact with the local service. Some such officers are absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the system; and the Secretaries unite in declaring them indispensable to the proper supervision of the local officers. They certainly have had a great inflence in cen

1 Any person breaking the locks or seals, or in any way gaining access to the goods with the intent of unlawfully removing them, may be imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than two years.

2 By the treaty of March 1, 1873, a like privilege of exporting goods through the United States was given to Canada.

341st Congress, Session II., Chapter 98.

The maximum number allowed was subsequently [August 15, 1876] reduced to 20, and again [June 19, 1878] raised to 28, where the limit remains to-day.

"The only ground on which their appointment could be legally justified would be that implied from the twenty-first section of the law of 1799, that collectors, naval officers, etc., should "at all times submit their books, papers and accounts to the inspection of such persons as might be appointed for that purpose."

« AnteriorContinuar »