Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. If the importer in any such case establishes these facts as aforesaid he becomes entitled thereby to the findings of the board in his favor as prescribed by the statute, and he would not forfeit that right because of mere carelessness alone upon his part in the transaction.

In the present case, if we construe the board's opinion correctly, the importer's petition was denied upon the ground that if the importer was not guilty of fraud he was at least very careless. We do not regard this finding as an answer to the issue raised by the importer's petition, or as a sufficient ground for its denial, accordingly we reverse the board's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

REVERSED

On appeal, the above case was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States, Nov. 8, 1924. On June 8, 1925, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals was sustained, and the case remanded for a new trial before the Board of U. S. General Appraisers.

[blocks in formation]

ASSISTANT EDITORS Frank Rotello

P. B. Selbe Kenneth Parmelee

E. F. Bogan R. B. Rutledge

A. A. Giebel Jack Lee

J. E. Schindler William Nobbe

F. S. Conway William L. Bruckart

F. S. Bonanno J. A. Nye

George E. Pickett, III. R. T. Joy

John A. Cannon

FACULTY ADVISORS Prof. Theodore Peyser

Dr. Albert H. Putney Prof. Frederick P. Myers Prof. Hayden Johnson Hon. Henry R. Rathbone, M. C.

Stuart Lewis

LAW REVIEW

Volume VI

May, 1926

Number 2

INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS UPON
GROWTH OF CENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT
BY EDGAR F. FOWLER, CLASS OF 1926.

I.
HE spectre of States' Rights is walking again. It was

believed that this old question had been settled perTaanently, except, perhaps, in the minds of a relic of the Old Guard, when the outcome of the Civil War resulted in favor of an indestructible Union. Recently, however, there have been statements issued by men holding high positions in both the Federal and the State governments, expressing concern over the extent to which the Federal Government has taken over responsibilities formerly reserved to the States. These statements have been echoed the country over in the press, in magazines, by the colleges, and by the public generally. Criticism is rife. Charges of usurpation, encroachment and bureaucracy are being hurled at the National Government. The slogan of “Back to States' Rights" is heard with increasing frequency.

To substantiate their claims of over-centralization, the critics point out that Washington is full of bureaus; that every year sees the addition of more bureaus; and that these arms of the Executive are reaching out to control an increasingly large proportion of the activities of every individual in the Nation.

At the present time there are in the Executive branch of the Federal Government ten departments, and more than forty independent establishments, the latter directly under the control either of the President or of Congress. In the two hundred or more bureaus, boards and commissions composing these departments and other establishments, there are employed—according to the annual report of the Civil Service Commission of 1925—548,077 persons, 61,509 of whom are in the District of Columbia. Thus, one person to every two hundred of the population of the United States is employed in serving the needs of the Federal Government.

« AnteriorContinuar »