and exported containing American products, tion, after examination, by the appraiser, declaration having been made of intent to with an indorsement stating whether the return the same empty. R. S. §§ 2504, 2505. articles are of domestic or foreign manufacBy section seven of the act of February 8, ture." By section two of the customs ad1875 (18 Stat. at L. 307, 308, chap. 36), it ministrative act of June 10, 1890, chap. 407, was provided "that bags, other than of all invoices must contain a correct descripAmerican manufacture, in which grain shall tion of the merchandise, signed by the manhave been actually exported from the United ufacturer or by the person owning or shipStates, may be returned empty to the United ping the same, or by his duly authorized States free of duty, under regulations to be agent, which under section five might be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." adopted by the domestic consignee or owner, Section six of the tariff act of March 3, who by section nine was made liable for the 1883 (22 Stat. at L. 488, 489, chap. 121), employment or use of any fraudulent or false provided that on and after July 1, 1883, invoice or statement by means whereof the "the following sections shall constitute and United States may be deprived of lawful be a substitute for title 33 of the Revised duties. Under section ten it was the duty of Statutes." The provision in regard to the appraiser to ascertain, estimate and empty returned bags of American manufac-appraise the actual market value and wholeture was re-enacted in substance in the free list, but that of section seven of the act of 1875 was omitted, and bags, excepting bagging for cotton, were made dutiable.

Paragraph 493 of the tariff act of 1890 retained the same exemption from duty upon returned empty bags of American manufacture and was silent in regard to returned empty foreign-made bags which were filled when exported.

In view of this legislation, acting Attorney General Maxwell advised the Secretary of the Treasury, July 20, 1893, that the provision of section seven of the act of 1875, exempting foreign-made grain bags, was repealed. 20 Ops. Atty. Gen. 630. This ruling was followed and approved by the Treasury Department, August 22, 1893, Syn. T. D. 14,281; and the same ruling was made by the Board of General Appraisers, February 3, 1894, in Kent v. United States, G. A. 2448, as it had been in prior decisions; by Judge Lacombe, in effect, April 21, 1891, in Re Straus, 46 Fed. Rep. 522; and specifically by Judge Townsend in Kent v. United States, 68 Fed. Rep. 536, June 2, 1895. The latter case was carried to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit and the decree affirmed, April 7, 1896, 38 U. S. App. 554. The rule applied was that "when a later statute is a complete revision of the subject to which the earlier statute related, and the new legislation was manifestly intended as [141]a substitute for the former legislation, the prior act must be held to have been repealed;" and the opinion of Judge Shipman leaves nothing to be added in support of the conclusion reached.

Foreign-made bags, then, being dutiable at two cents per pound under paragraph 365 of the act of October 1, 1890, and these bales being permeated with bags of foreign manufacture, the appraiser reported all the bags

as dutiable and the collector so assessed them.

sale price of merchandise imported, and the number of yards, parcels, and quantities. And evidently this ascertainment involves character and quality as well as value, since the statement, invoice, or entry must be true in respect of the character of the goods as well as of their value. 26 Stat. at L. 131, 136.

On the question of identity, then (which under the law includes the question of country of manufacture), the production of the papers required by the regulations are not conclusive proof, and if the appraiser, after actual examination had, decides that the[142] goods are not as described, but are such, in fact, as to fall within a different classification, and so reports to the collector, his judg ment must stand unless reversed on reappraisement, or by the Board of General Appraisers on protest filed.

As to these bags, the examiner reported to the appraiser his finding of a very large percentage of foreign-made bags in the shipments, and the appraiser reported that he found the shipments to contain bags of foreign manufacture and that the importations were dutiable at two cents per pound under paragraph 365.

If the importers were not satisfied with the examination made, and objected to the competency of the examiner and appraiser, they should have applied for a re-examination; but they did not do this, nor did they offer evidence before the Board of General Appraisers tending to establish an objection on that ground.

But it is said that the appraisement was invalid because the examination was not in

accordance with § 2901 of the Revised Statfor the benefit of the government, and we utes. That section, however, was intended have held that it is not mandatory, and that official acts are not invalidated for want of strict compliance therewith.

The section reads thus:

Erhardt V.

But the importers insist that this assess-Schroeder, 155 U. S. 125 [39: 94]; Origet v. ment was illegal because of the insufficiency Hedden, 155 U. S. 228 [39: 130]. or invalidity of the examination; or of the absence of a statute specifically applicable; "The collector shall designate on the inor because it was not confined to foreign-voice at least one package of every invoice, made bags.

and one package at least of every ten packParagraph 493 required proof of the iden- ages of merchandise, and a greater number tity of articles entered as exempt thereunder, should he or either of the appraisers deem it and this was not only repeated in the regu- necessary, imported into such port, to be lations, but article 336 required "verifica-opened, examined and appraised, and shall

order the package so designated to the pub-duty shall be imposed, as in the familiar inlic stores for examination; and if any pack- stances of the classification of articles comage be found by the appraisers to contain any posed of two or more materials, at the rate article not specified in the invoice, and they of duty charged on the component material or a majority of them shall be of opinion of chief value; in section 2911 of the Revised that such article was omitted in the invoice Statutes, that whenever articles composed with fraudulent intent on the part of the wholly, or in part, of wool or cotton, of simshipper, owner, or agent, the contents of the ilar kind, but different quality are found in entire package in which the article may be, the same package charged at an average shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture on price, the appraisers shall adopt the value [143]conviction thereof before any court of com- of the best article as the average value; in petent jurisdiction; but if the appraisers section 2912, that when bales of wool of difshall be of opinion that no such fraudulent ferent qualities are embraced in the same Intent existed, then the value of such article invoice at the same prices whereby the avershall be added to the entry, and the duties age price is reduced more than ten per thereon paid accordingly, and the same shall centum below the value of the bale of the be delivered to the importer, agent, or con- best quality, the value of the whole shall be signee. Such forfeiture may, however, be appraised according to the value of the bale remitted by the Secretary of the Treasury on of the best quality, and that no bale, bag, or the production of evidence satisfactory to package shall be liable to a less rate of duty him that no fraud was intended." in consequence of being invoiced with wool of lower value; and in section 2910, that "when merchandise of the same material or description, but of different values, is invoiced at an average price, and not otherwise provided for, the duty shall be assessed upon the whole invoice at the rate to which the highest valued goods in such invoice are subject."

Assuming that fraudulent intent was lack ing, these bags were not held for forfeiture, but the collector, in effect, added them all to the entries, leaving it to the importers to prefer such claim to exemption as they might consider they were entitled to.

Section 2901 was brought forward from section 32 of the act of March 2, 1861 (12 Stat. at L. 197, chap. 68), and on December 28, 1868, Mr. Secretary McCulloch made the following ruling.

At that time the law imposed a duty of twelve cents per pound on all woolen rags, and admitted free rags composed of cotton and linen and intended for the manufacture of paper, and twenty-one bales of rags brought into the country from Canada and containing at least forty per cent of woolen rags, though imported as containing rags for the manufacture of paper, had been seized. The matter being referred to the Secretary, he ruled in a letter addressed to the collector of customs at Rochester as follows: "If you are satisfied that there was no intention on the part of the importers to conceal the dutiable rags by mingling them with others free of duty, you will not hold them for condemnation, but will allow the parties to separate such as are dutiable from such as are not so, and make entry accordingly, paying the proper duty on the former class. These instructions are to be considered as applicable only to such bales as contain so large a proportion of woolen rags as to render it worth while to collect a duty. Forty per cent of woolen rags is, however, much too large a percentage to be allowed entry as free goods."

Numerous provisions exist in the statutes and regulations designed to protect the Public Treasury from the bringing in of goods at a less rate of duty than they ought to pay under cover of association with goods properly subject to the lower amount; and the protection intended to be secured ought, on principle, equally to be accorded in respect of dutiable goods invoiced indiscriminately with free goods.

Of these seven importations, according to the importers, all the bales in two of them, and ten per cent of those in three of them, were ordered to the appraiser's store, while as to two of them, the number taken for examination fell a little *short of ten per cent; [145] and of all these bales, one hundred were opened. It appeared also that all the merchandise covered by all the invoices was of the same character and description. Since the bales that were opened were found to contain foreign-made bags in large numbers in importations claimed to consist solely of American made bags, it is not easily seen how the examination of a larger number of bales would have affected the result arrived at by the appraiser. And, as before observed, if the importers believed that they had sustained injury because more bales were not opened, they should have applied Again, in July, 1890. it was held by the for a re-examination, and they might have Treasury Department that where cargoes of produced evidence before the Board of Genanthracite and bituminous coal were im-eral Appraisers to maintain their claim that ported, so mixed as to render it impracti- the bags were American made notwithstand[144]cable to *separate the free from the dutiable ing the return of the examiner and the recoal for the purpose of the accurate weigh-port of the appraiser, or they might have ing of each kind, the whole cargo should be treated as dutiable. T. D. 10,098, Syn. 1890. The general policy of the law is indicated in the statutory requirements that where goods of different qualities or different values are mingled, or are composed of material of different values, the highest rate of

protested on the ground that the duty should
have been levied only on part thereof, and
tendered evidence to support that conten-

If they had furnished evidence of the num-
ber of bags of domestic manufacture and the
number of bags of foreign manufacture, or

had sought a re-examination with the view | 493, it was the duty of all persons bringing to an adjustment by proportion, and that in goods claimed to be free out of a class had been had, then the collector might have otherwise dutiable to prove affirmatively the assessed the foreign bags so ascertained and admitted the American bags free from duty. But it was for the importers, and not for the government, to make the separation on which such a claim for relief would have rested, or, at least, to have invoked the rule of proportion based on a re-examination.

The importers contended that they had complied with the law and the Treasury regulations by furnishing certain statements of the shippers as to the origin of the goods, and certain certificates as to their exportation filled with wheat, and that this prima facie evidence of the bags being of the manufacture of this country had not been disproved. But if it were admitted that these papers made a prima facie showing, that showing was overturned when it appeared that foreign-made bags in large numbers made up the importations.

The remedies provided by the act of June 10, 1890, furnish the equivalent for the ac[146]tion against the collector which was originally the remedy for an illegal exaction of duties (United States v. Passavant, 169 U. S. 16 [42: 644]; Schoenfeld v. Hendricks, 152 U. S. 691 [33: 601]); and as in that action, so in this proceeding, the importer must establish the illegality in order to recover back duties paid under protest; and this, in a case like the present, involves, in substantiating that contention, the making proof of the identity of the merchandise. Earnshaw v. Cadwalader, 145 U. S. 247, 262 [36: 693, 699]; Erhardt v. Schroeder, 155 U. S. 125 [39: 95].

Moreover, where merchandise liable in large part to duty is entered as exempt therefrom, the collector has the right to assume that the mingling was intentional and with design to evade the revenue laws; and hence even where the confusion of goods is accidental or not fraudulent in fact, and forfeiture is not incurred, it yet devolves on the importer to show what part of the whole he contends should not be taxed.

facts constituting the exemption, and that they should separate and designate such merchandise, accompanied by the evidence required by law. This decision was reaffirmed May 5, 1894 (G. A. 2613), and again in the case before us.

*On the 27th of April, 1894, which was aft-[147] er this case had been carried before the Board of General Appraisers and the evidence had been taken, the Treasury Department (T. D. 14912) held that in the absence of any provision of law to prevent the importation of both free and dutiable secondhand bags baled together, collectors might pursue the course of examining the designated number of packages, making such investigation of their contents as would reveal the character of the bags contained therein, and then adopt the finding of the appraisers as the basis of the assessment of duty on bales not examined. And since then it has been determined that importers of bags must have bags of foreign and bags of domestic origin packed separately. T. D. 18425.

Notwithstanding the positions taken by the importers are, as we have seen, untenable, we are not disposed to hold, in the light of these rulings of the Department and the special circumstances of the case, that, if the proportion of dutiable bags sufficiently appeared or might reasonably have been ascertained, the circuit court could not have adjudged a recovery in that proportion, or directed a reliquidation.

A re-examination de novo is now impracticable, but it appears to us that the evidence taken by the Board affords an adequate basis for a conclusion. The examiner testified that he found "along about 80 to 86 per cent foreign make;" "in general from seventy-five to eighty per cent;" and that, in his judgment, there was no invoice "that would show over twenty-five per cent of American bags;" yet he also said that he could not give specific details of each invoice, and that he "supposed if seventy-five per cent of the bags in the bale were of foreign manufacture, it carried the whole of them."

But these importers planted themselves on the ground that all these bags were exempt under the act of 1875; or, if not, that the as- In view of this testimony, and considersessment was wholly void for insufficient ex-ing that the statute was not strictly pursued amination; or illegal except as to foreign-in the examination (though we perceive no made bags, which it devolved upon the gov-reason to doubt the faithfulness of the ofernment to segregate from the common mass. In the case of Kent, already referred to, it was decided by the Board of General Appraisers, February 3, 1894 (G. A. 2448), that the act of February 8, 1875, was not in force, and a reliquidation was ordered for a classification according to the proportion of foreign and American bags found in two bales which by agreement had been examined as representative bales, bag by bag. On the second of May, 1894 (G. A. 2610), the Board of General Appraisers held, in the matter of Balfour, Guthrie, & Company, that inasmuch as bags made of burlaps were dutiable, except such as are described in paragraph


ficials in the discharge of their duties), and the difficulties in the way of determining the make of the bags disclosed by the evidence, and bearing in mind that the taxation of so many of the bags as were of American manufacture operated as a penalty in *spite[148] of the concession that no fraud on the revenue was intended, we think it unnecessary to remand the cause for another hearing, and that the ends of justice will be best subserved by directing a decree for the refunding of one-fourth of the duties paid.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded with a direction to enter such a decree.

172 U. S.

I. R. HARKRADER, Sheriff of Wythe Coun- fully represents and shows to this honorable

[blocks in formation]

1. A final order overruling the return of the sheriff and discharging a prisoner from custody on writ of habeas corpus, made at a stated term of the circuit court of the United States, is appealable, although the original order was made at chambers.

2. An order discharging a prisoner on writ of habeas corpus, which, if valid, takes away his custody from the state court and puts an end to his imprisonment under the process appeal to this court, although he is dis

of that court, is final for the purpose of an

charged only pending an injunction. 8. An injunction against a criminal prosecution in a state court under a valid state law, of a bank officer for embezzlement, cannot be granted by a Federal court because it had previously obtained jurisdiction in equity cases in which a receiver of the bank had been appointed and the civil liability of such officer was in litigation.


A court of equity, although having jurisdic tion over person and property in a case pending before it, is not thereby vested with jurisdiction over crimes committed in dealing with such property by a party before the civil suit was brought, and cannot restrain by injunction proceedings regularly brought in a criminal court having jurisdiction of the crime

and of the accused.

5. A circuit court of the United States sitting in equity in the administration of civil remedies has no jurisdiction to stay by injunction proceedings pending in a state court in the

court that he is a citizen of the United States of America and a citizen of the state of North Carolina, and a resident of the city of Wilmington in that state; that he is unjustly and unlawfully detained and imprisoned in the county jail of Wythe county, Va., at Wytheville, Va., in the custody of I. R. Harkrader, sheriff of said county, and as such of a warrant or order of commitment made the warden and keeper of said jail, by virtue by the county court of Wythe county, Va., at Wytheville, Va., on Monday, the 10th day of August, 1896, a copy of which order or warrant of commitment is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit "A."

Your petitioner would now show that on a petition filed by him before the Honorable Charles H. Simonton, United States Circuit Court Judge for said fourth circuit, embracing said western district of Virginia, on the 5th of August, 1896, the said honorable judge, Simonton, entered an order on said petition allowing it to be filed in the equity cause of H. G. Wadley v. Blount & Boynton et als., pending in said court, and on said petition, duly verified and sustained by affidavits, the said honorable judge, Simonton, on said 5th day of August, 1896, in accordance to the prayer of said petition, granted an injunction against Robert Sayers, the commonwealth's attorney of Wythe county, Va., J. A. Walker and C. B. Thomas, special prosecutors, and the creditors embraced in said petition, together with their counsel, from all further proceedings in said county court of Wythe upon an indictment obtained against the said H. G. Wadley in said county court on the 16th day of May, 1894, and especially from exacting or requiring any bail or any commitment to imprisonment of said H. G. Wadley on said indictment in said county court.

A certified copy of the said petition which name of the state to enforce the criminal of August, 1896, is herewith filed, marked was presented to Judge Simonton on the 5th[150]

laws of such state.

[No. 41.]

Exhibit "B", and a certified copy of the
said order of Judge Simonton of the 5th of
August, 1896, on said petition is likewise

Argued October 17, 1898. Decided December herewith filed, marked Exhibit "C."
5, 1898.


an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia discharging H. G. Wadley, a prisoner, from custody, on writ of habeas corpus. Reversed and cause remanded with directions to restore the custody of said Wadley to the sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia.

Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras:

In the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Virginia, one H. [49]G. Wadley filed a petition, signed and sworn to August 10, 1896, praying for the allowance of a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was as follows:

To the Honorable Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon, Va., Fourth Circuit.

Your petitioner, H. G. Wadley, respect

Your petitioner, H. G. Wadley, would fur31st of January, 1895, on ther show that heretofore, to wit, on the theretofore awarded by him to your petitionan injunction er in his case of H. G. Wadley v. Blount & Boynton et als.. in this court, by the Honorafully sustained the contention of your petible Nathan Goff, he, by a decree of that date, tioner by refusing to dissolve said injunction and continuing it in full force, and by said decree enjoined and prohibited all further prosecution of said indictment in the county court of Wythe county, Va., as shown by copy of the said decree and the opinion of the Honorable Nathan Goff, herewith filed, marked Exhibit "D.”

Your petitioner had hoped that after this final decree in the United States circuit court by the Honorable Nathan Goff on said injunction, prohibiting all further prosecution of said indictment, that the order of that honorable court would have been obeyed; but that was a vain conjecture, as the said Robert

Sayers, commonwealth's attorney of Wythe County, Va., and said special prosecutors, J. A. Walker and C. B. Thomas, persisted and continued, from term to term or from time to time, in calling up said indictment in said county court, and asking for a continuance of the said indictment and for the commitment of the said H. G. Wadley to the county jail of Wythe county, and he was bailed with sureties for his appearance before the said county court to appear on Monday, the 10th of August, 1896, being the first day of the August term of the said county court. Your petitioner would now show that notwithstanding the fact that the honorable judge, Simonton, as aforesaid, did on the 5th of August, 1896, enter said order especially forbidding any further order in said case in said court except a mere order of continuance, and although copies of the said order were duly executed on said commonwealth attorney, Robert Sayers, and on said special prosecutors, J. A. Walker and C. B. Thomas, and all of the creditors named in said peti[151]tion and upon their counsel *of record by the marshal for the western district of Virginia; which order was duly executed on Saturday, the 8th of August, 1896—

Your petitioner, H. G. Wadley, would now show that in flagrant and contemptuous violation of both of the orders named, that of the Honorable Nathan Goff, of the 31st of January, 1895, prohibiting all further prosecution of said indictment, and in violation likewise of the said order of the Honorable Charles H. Simonton of the 5th of August, 1896, upon the calling of the said indictment this day in said county court of Wythe county, Va., the said commonwealth's attorney and one of the special prose cutors asked for a continuance and stated that they had nothing to do with the question of bail or with the question of the commitment of petitioner, but that that was the duty of the court, and thus indirectly accomplished what the order of Judge Simonton in express words prohibited, for the said commonwealth's attorney and special prosecutors, instead of asking a compliance by the said county court with the order of Judge Simonton, indirectly asked the court to commit him by saying it was the duty of the court to do so, and thereupon W. E. Fulton, the judge of the county court of Wythe county, Va., in violation of said orders of the United States court, did order the said petitioner, H. G. Wadley, to be committed to the sheriff of Wythe county, to keep and hold him over to answer said indictment, which is now enjoined by the said United States court, and your petitioner is now in the custody of the sheriff of Wythe county, at Wytheville, who is ex officio the warden and jailer of said county, and your petitioner is thus deprived of his personal liberty by the said court on its own motion committing petitioner to the custody of the jailer of Wythe county, Va., procured as aforesaid.

ors having themselves summoned before the grand jury of the county court of Wythe county, Va., on the 16th of May, 1894, and carrying *before the grand jury and reading[152] to them a copy of the deposition of your petitioner, which had been taken of petitioner in an equity suit of Blount & Boynton et als. v. H. G. Wadley, et als., and thus indirectly by said record or deposition from the United States court taken in a cause in that court indirectly required petitioner to testify against himself in a criminal case, and upon the mere copy of said deposition of petitioner, illegally taken from the files of the said cause in the United States court and read to said grand jury of Wythe county, petitioner was indicted. A copy of said indictment is fully set forth, with said exhibit, along with the petition filed on the 5th of August, 1896, and is here referred to as a part of this petition.

Petitioner avers that his term of imprisonment, now complained of, began on the 10th day of August, 1896, at 12 o'clock M., and that such imprisonment still continues, and that he is now in the custody of the said sheriff, as such jailer, at Wytheville, Va.

Your petitioner will now show that his detention and imprisonment as aforesaid is illegal in this, to wit:

First. That this court, by two decrees, that of Judge Goff of 31st of January, 1895, as also by the second order of Judge Simonton of 5th of August, 1896, declares and adjudicates the prior jurisdiction of the said United States court, both of the person of your petitioner, and also of the subject-matter of the controversy and of the issues involved in said indictment, and that said prior jurisdiction of the said United States court renders such detention and imprisonment of prisoner by said county court illegal.

Second. That, as stated by the Honorable Nathan Goff in his petition filed with his order of the 31st of January, 1895, in the injunction case, the indictment against petitioner in said county court of Wythe county, Va., was obtained against him illegally and in violation of his constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States, by the misuse and abuse of the records of the United States court, in the withdrawal therefrom of a copy of the deposition of petitioner taken in said court in said equity cause and read and used *before the said grand jury of said county[153] court of Wythe as the foundation of said in


lawful detention and imprisonment, your Wherefore, to be relieved from said unpetitioner, H. G. Wadley, prays that a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to I. R. Harkrader, sheriff of Wythe county, Va., at Wytheville, Va., and keeper of the said jail of the said county, and in whose custody petitioner now is, may issue in his behalf, so that your petitioner, H. G. Wadley, may be forthwith brought before this court, to do, Petitioner avers that the said indictment submit to, and receive what the law may di upon which petitioner was committed was il-rect, and upon the hearing thereof that your legally and improperly obtained, in violation honor will discharge petitioner from all furof petitioner's rights as a citizen of the Unit- ther custody or imprisonment, and that he ed States, by the counsel for the said credit- go hence without bail.

« ForrigeFortsett »