tralizing the customs administration, and through them the actions of collectors have been subjected to a strict central administrative control.1

Attention had been called to these agents by the extravagant sums paid them and by their marked inefficiency. In other words, the office had got into politics. Attention was not confined to this branch of the service alone. Investigating committees were appointed, and during the next few years the management of the New York custom house for several administrations past was examined without bringing great credit upon any one connected with it. One of the great fields for extortion from importers had been the “general order business" as it was called. In order to facilitate the sailing of vessels making regular trips, the law had long allowed them to make application to the collector, who would thereupon issue a general order that after five days all goods on board should be landed and taken into the possession of the custom house officials. This period was shortened in 1854 to three days, and in 1861 to a single day. As the time allowed to remove goods became shorter, the amount left to be taken to the government" general order stores " greatly increased. The importers were compelled to pay the charges for storage and cartage from the vessel to the stores. As the treasury regulations with regard to the matter were very loose, the management of this business was left largely to the collector. He farmed out the general order business in such a manner that the importers were subjected to exorbitant charges and poor accommodations. Monopolies such as the cartage bureau were created, which though licensed by the collector were allowed to demand inordinately high pay for services which the importers were bound to accept. This, perhaps, was much more a fault in the service than in the system.

1 See report of Secretary Manning on Collection of Duties, 1885, p. 38.

2 House Report, No. 30, 39th Congress, Session II.; Senate Report, No. 227, 42d Congress, Session II.; Senate Report, No. 380, 41st Congress, Session III.

By the twenty-fourth section this great source of scandal— the general order business-was put into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, together with the control and regulation of the bonded warehouses. The officers of the customs were forbidden to have any personal ownership of or interest in either the bonded warehouses or the general order stores. The cartage of merchandise was to be let under regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury to the lowest responsible bidder who might give sufficient security.

7. Searches and Seizures.

The provision of the old law which had allowed the entry into private premises on a warrant, and the seizure of private books and papers for the purpose of obtaining information on which to bring suit of frauds intended or accomplished, was totally abolished. In lieu of the similar provision in case of suits already begun, it was provided that after suits for forfeiture had been actually commenced, the attorney for the government might make a written motion describing the desired book, paper or invoice, and setting forth the allegations that he expected to prove; and thereupon the court in which the suit or proceeding was pending might at its discretion issue a notice to the defendant or claimant to produce the desired document at a day and hour prescribed in the notice. This notice was to be duly served by a United States Marshal, and if the defendant or claimant failed to produce the document, or to explain his failure satisfactorily, the allegation stated in the motion should be taken as confessed. If the document were produced, the government attorney should be permitted to examine it and offer the same in evidence. But the document should remain in the custody of the owner or his agent, subject to the order of the court. This entirely took away the great facilities formerly offered for obtaining evidence in the preparation of a suit, and greatly limited the opportunity for procuring evidence during the prosecution of the suit. Previous to 1874, by the law of 1799, in suits brought for violation of

any provision of the customs revenue laws, if a probable cause for such prosecution was shown to the court, the burden of proof in establishing the innocence of the act was upon the party defendant. But by this law, the questions whether the alleged acts were done with the actual intent to defraud the United States were to be passed upon by the court or jury as a separate finding of fact. And unless intent to defraud should be found no fine, penalty or forfeiture was to be imposed. 1 This law was also interpreted2 to cover the whole ground of frauds on the revenue, and to do away with the action formerly allowed for the value of goods tainted with fraud, but which had been withdrawn from the custody of the government. 3 Any person accused of a violation of the customs revenue laws might make a petition to the judge of the district where the violation occurred, setting forth the facts of the case and praying relief. The judge might thereupon, if the case in his judgment required it, fix a time and place at which the collector and district attorney should be notified to attend and show cause why the petition should not be granted. This summary investigation should be held before the judge or a United States Commissioner and the petition with a certified copy of the evidence should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, who might mitigate or remit the fines and direct the discontinuance of the prosecution as he deemed it just. Suits for the recovery of a fine or penalty must be brought within three years, and whenever duties should have been liquidated and paid, such settlement in the absence of fraud or

1 Section 4 of the act of May 28, 1830, required that in order to obtain a verdict for the government, it must be found that the invoices were made with intent to defraud the government. Section I of the act of March 3, 1863, required that in order to obtain such a verdict it must be found that the false invoice or other paper was made knowingly. But the Supreme Court still held (3 Wallace 114), that it was thrown on the claimant of the goods seized to dispel the suspicion, and to explain the circumstances which indicated that there had been knowing under-valuation.

219 Federal Reporter, p. 893.

This section was repealed by act of 1890.

protest by the importer should be conclusive after the expiration of one year. In case of fraud in the invoices, only the package containing the merchandise to which the fraud related should be forfeited.

8. Compensation of Customs Officers.

This act, also, partially inaugurated a much needed reform in the manner of compensating officers. At the time of the establishment of the system it was thought that the customs service would be practically self-supporting. With this end in view, the act of 1779 laid down a set of fees to be exacted from all who had dealings with the customs service, for the benefit of the customs officers. In addition thereto the officers received only nominal salaries.

These fees, gathered from various sources and for various services, differed slightly in different districts, ranging in amount from ten cents to several dollars, the major portion being in sums of fifty cents and less. The plan was never successful, and the system was at no time self sustaining. The multitude of small fees, though inadequate in most cases to compensate the officer, yet in busy ports amounted in the aggregate to sums which, in some instances, rewarded the officers beyond all desert. To remedy this, the twenty-third section of this act provided that in lieu of all "salaries, moieties, and perquisites of whatever nature," the collectors, naval officers and surveyors of the principal ports were to receive the fixed salaries named therein. Why the system of salaries was not extended to all ports at this time does not appear. That it should have been so extended has been recognized by all officials familiar with the workings of the law. Action to this effect has been repeatedly recommended by the different Secretaries of the Treasury in their reports to Congress.

1 Collector of New York, $12,000; collectors of Boston and Philadelphia, $8,000; collectors of San Francisco, Baltimore and New Orleans, $7,000; collector of Portland, Me., $6,000: the naval officer and surveyor at New York, each $8,000; naval officer at Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, $5,000.

These fees were for the most part made up of small and vexatious exactions, difficult to collect, and involving a large amount of unprofitable clerical work in the accounts. They were also uncertain. For instance, the allowance for storage, for which no equivalent service was rendered, might be retained by the collector to the amount of two thousand dollars, if the sum amounted to so much. Under the complicated system of computation adopted, this system opened wide the way for fraud, at least in the smaller districts. Many collectors on the northern, northeastern and northwestern frontiers received more from the sale of blanks to the railway companies1 than from their salaries. In some instances the income from this source has exceeded the official salary by ten or fifteen thousand dollars. Furthermore, the income to the government from this source is comparatively meagre, being less than a quarter of a million dollars in recent years.

9. Repeal of the Moieties Clause.

About this time the numerous prosecutions of importers for fraud and the immense sums recovered by revenue officers and informers in these suits, as well as the vigorous and unscrupulous enforcement of the harsh provisions of the law by officers interested in the resulting penalties, raised a general and just clamor for a change in the law. The scandals of these proceedings were indeed very great, the hardships upon some innocent importers very severe, while the vexation, annoyance and apprehension of all were deplorable.

The Secretary of Treasury wrote a letter to Congress advocating the abolition of moieties and many fines; the Con

1 Permitted by § 2648 of the Revised Statutes.

2 Collectors at New York received from this source: May 1866 to March 1869, $102,710; April 1869 to July 1870, $41,304; July 1870 to Nov. 1871, $55,997; Dec. 1871 to Nov. 1873, $56,120.

House Report 111, 38th Congress, Session I. History of Proceedings in the case of Phelps, Dodge & Co. Miscellaneous Document No. 264, 43d Congress, Session I. House Report No. 30, 39th Congress, Session II.

• Executive Document No. 283, 41st Congress, Session II.