Hoe given to the defendant; the only dates being the-presentation of the pos1rofficeorders, etc. ,andthe commencement of this suit.
I feel 'l'Jonstrained, therefore, to sustain the demurrer to these answers. Whatever question there may corrte hereafter of negligence on the part of the government I think must be presented in some further pleading.
UNITED, STATm'l1.:ELEVEN HORSES.
D.lna,iana., Jup.e2, 1887.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-EXEMl'TIONS-ANIMALS FIT FOR BREEDING.
In a proceeding to forfeit 11 stallions and a jack; the information charged that certain Canadians were.engaged in importing animals from Canada for sale; tbatthey were uj>tllPgaged .iu breeding orrajsing,.ap.imals; and that theY certain citizens of Indilina to make their affidavit to the collector of cristomsthatthey w'tlre'the owners of the animals; and had imported them expressly for breeding purposes, 'when in fact the animals were the property " of ti\e for sale woPt., tha.t the fact that the ammals were fit 'for breeding purposes dId Mt entItle the Importers to exemption from customs duties. under the act of congress ,of' March S, 1888. (22 St. at Large, oOl.!.)lexemming from duty. animalsspeciallyhp.pqrted for breeding purposes, if the, animals were,in fact for sale"and that the lnformation sUfficiently charp;ed 'an offense agai)lst: the customs laws.
: ,':'," :,' I, '
Emory P. Sellers, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Graham H. Harris,. Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellants. ' Harrison, Miller & Elam, for appellee.
GRESHAM, J. This is a proceeding to forfeit to the United States eleven stallions and onejack, for violation of the customs laws. The information is inexcusably long, but it charges, in substance, that Albert and Wesley Fansom, of Toronto; Wl)re engaged in importing animals into the United States from Canada land other foreign countries for sale; that they were not engaged in bteeding or raising animals; that in February, 1887"they caused Henry and Scott Galloway, citizens of Indiana, to make and present to the collector of customs at Port Huron their affidavit, stating that they were the owners of the animals, and had imported them into the United States expressly for breeding purposes, when, in truth and in fact, theaffiants did not own the animals, but they were the property of the Fansoms, who did not import them for breeding purpOses, but for sale 'and' profit; and that the Fansoms thus succeeded in ha\7ing the animals ,entered at Port Huron free, although they were subject to duty, thereby defraUding the United States of the : revenue dUEl thereon. The Fansoms;as claimants,. extepted to the information, on the ,grollnd· that the facts charged did not· amount to a violatiohof the cus. toms laws, and did not, therefore/ientitle the United States to a forfeit, ure of the property. The district court sustained the exceptions, and , dismissed the libel, from which decr the United States appealed. e
UNITED STATES V. ELEVEN HORSES.
By Schedule G, subsec. 252, act of March 3, 1883, (22 St. at Large, 503,) the duty on live animals is 20 per cent. ad valorem; and by subsection 642 of the same act it is provided that." animals 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." 22St. at Large, 517. Article .386 of the regulations promulgated by the secretary of the treasury on July 1, 1884, reads as follows: "For the admission of the free entry of animals, when imported for breeding purposes, there shall be produced to the collector at the port of importaof Shipment, (orl' tion a certifioatefrom tIle United States consul at the bond giyen in a sum equal.to value,) showing the animals are, to the. best of his)nformation and belief, especially intended for such purposes, ap.d also a stdtement of the owner, under oath, that they were imported from into 'the United States especially for breeding purposes." . June 22, 1874, (18St. at Large, 186,)pro;vides that any owner, importer, consignee; agent, or other person who shall, with'intent to defraud the revenue, make, or attempt to make, any entry of importedmerl1handise by means of any frau.dulent orfalse invoiee, affidavit, letter, or paper, or by means of any false statements. written or, verbal,. or who. shall, l,e guilty of any willful act or omission, iby means whereof the United States shall be deprived. of the lawful duties .accruing upon such merchandise, or any portion thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice, affidavit, letter, paper;, or statement, or affected by such act or omission, shall, for each offepse, be fined in any flum not exceeding $5,000, .nor less than $50, or imprisoned for any time not exceeding two years, or both, and, in addition to such fine, fluch merchandise shall be forfeited, etc. All live animals imported into the United States are liable to a duty ·of 20 per cent. ad valorem, unless they are brought in for a period, not .exceeding six months, for exhibition or competition for prizes offered by agricu!tural or racing. associations; or are by persons emigrating from 'foreign countries to the United States with their families,and in actual uae forthat.purpose; or unless they are specially imported for breeding purposes. It is only animals brought in for the three specified that are placed upon the free list, (22 St. at Large, 517 ,) and before they can be entered free, proof must be made, in compliance with the regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, showing that they ate not liable to d·uty.. ' . " A statement of the owner,. under oath, that they were imported from abroad into the United States expressly for breeding purposes," is re.quired as a condition precedent to the free entry of animals of that class. The sworn statement in this case was made by Quince and Galloway, -and not by the owner, and the animals were not imported expressly for breeding purposes, but for speculation. The in question was reasonabliil.and necessary for the protection of the government against fraud. Exemption from duty.is the exception, and the Fansoms were .obliged to :show, by a truthful statement of their own, or of some one
authofizedto act for them, under oath, that they were entitled' to enter the animals free. While the statute was doubtless enacted in the interest of breeders, and for the purpose of improving the stock of the try, and thus increasing its wealth, it will not bear the construction conthe claimants. It does not say that all tended for by the animals, male or female l fit for llreeding, or capable of breeding, may be entered free. If that had been the intention of congress, why use the words, "'animals specially imported for breeding purposes?" It would bealil'upfair to the government to give:it the construction .claimed as it wOIilld be toimporters to say that, having once in good faith entered anim:als free by making the required proOf, they may not thereafter sell them.' The statute is satisfied when the owner in good faith imports anifor breeding; and he is thereafter at liberty to change mals his mind, and sell them, or use t,llem as if they had never been imported. United States v. One Hwndred and Ninety-m:.c Mares, 29 Fed. Rep. 139. If the, charges in the information are true, the claimants caused a false affidavit to be made and presented to the collector, and succeeded in having their. animals entered free as the property of oth'ers, when they were subject to duty, and thereby defrauded the government of its just revenue. , .The judgment of the district court is reversed, with instructions to overrule the :exceptions to the information·
. HARLAN i
J' l concurs.
(OVrcuit Oourt,]). Kanaa8. 1887.)
COURT OJ' MURDER. . 'KANSAS-"CllJj:ltOXEE OUTLET". .
The .. Clietoltee 'Outlet" is within that portion of· th$ ·Indian territory . placed wiUlin ·the jurisdiction .of the United States district court of Kansas by the act .of congress of January 6, 1883, (22 St. U. S. 400,) and jurisdiction of a murder committed there is in that court, and not in the district court for the Western district of Arka.nsas:
Indictment for Murder. On plea to the jurisdiction. Certified. W. Perry, U.,8. Dist. Atty" for plai,ntiff. Henry T. Sumner and D. W. a. Dwnean, for defendants.
BREWER,J.' The defendants were,indicted in the district court of the district of Kansas for murder. They filed a plea challenging the jurisdiction of that court. That plea has been certified to this court' for decision. The question presented is whethel'the district court had jUrisdiction of tile place at which the offense is charged to have been committed. The place is described in the indictment as "within thnt part of the Indian