(Circuit Court, S.
New York. April 18,1889.)
IMMIGRATION-BoARD OF COMMISSIOKERS-DELEGATION OF POWERS.
The board of commissioners of emigration. who by act Congo AuI\'. 3, 1882, Rre required to examine into the condition of immigrants, cannot delegate to a committee the power to determine whether such immigrants shall be permitted to land.
Habeas Corpus for the release of detained immigrants. Alfred Steckler, for petitioners. KeUy&Macrae, for Board of Emigration Commissioners. Abram J. Rose, Asst. U. S. Atty., for Collector.
LACOMBE, J., (orally.) The return presented by the commissioners of emigration in this case was prepared so as to state a legal conclusion, it being contended in their behalf that the action of the Castle Garden committee, to whom by resolution they have undertaken to delegate their powers, is of the same legal effect as would be the action of the commissioners themselves. Their counsel, however, in open court, concedes that, except so far as said CasUe Garden committee has taken action in regard to these immigrantf', there has been no action had by the board of commissioners of emigration. That board, in iact, have not had a meeting since the arrival of relators, on April 10th. The next regular meeting day will be April 25th. Attention has been called to the decision of Judge BROW:';' in Be Brac'IIladfar, 37 Fed. Rep. 774. There, however, the prespnt point was neither raised nor argued, and the suggestion at the close of the memorandum is wholly obiter. The second section of the act of August 3, 1882, requires the determination as to the condition of immigrants to be had by the board of and assisting them to commissioners. For the purpose of make such examination, they are authorized, either individually or through persons whom they may appoint, to go on board any ship or vessel bringing immigrants to this port, but this permission is not to be construed as authorizing them to delegate to any persons other than themselves the important functions-quasi judicial in their characterwhich are by that act confided to them. Of course, a reasonable time should be allowed the commissioners of emigration to examine into the iilcts, which they may gather either by their own observation as a body, or by their individual exertions, or frum the reports made to them by the agents they may employ. It is hard to say in advance what in each particular instance should be considered a reasonable time, but in view of the fact that their action in this particular case has been framed to meet the suggestion contained in the case above cited, and that a meeting of the commissioners at which action can be had will take place within a week, and that their agents have already reported to them adversely to the application of the relators in this case, a delay until the
day after such meeting of the commissioners will not be unreasonable. The relators will therefore be remanded, and further proceedings upon this writ suspended, until the 26th of April, at 11 A. M.
UNITED STATES 'V. ALLEN
(District Oourt, E. D. Yi'l'ginia.
CUSTOMS DUTIES-ExPORT BONDS-BREACH.
Act Congo .Tune 9. 1880, (21 8t. at Large,167.) provides that exported articles shall be entered on the outward manifest of the ship taking them abroad, but is silent as to who shall perform that duty. Held, that where goods are consigned to the collector of customs at the port of shipment, to be by him shipped abroad, and he gives a personal receipt therefor, reciting that "the said merchandise was duly inspected and marked at this port, and laden on board the foreign-bound steamer W., it * * and that said vessel and cargo were duly cleared from this port," the exporters had a right to presume that the gOfJds had been entered on the ship's outward manifest. and the fact that they had not been so entered was not a breach of the export bond. The fact that in the collector's receipt, which was on a printed form, the cl'luse expressing the entry of the goods on the outward manifest is struck out, is immaterial when such receipt is not given until after the vessel has cleared.
At Law. Debt by the United States against Allen & Ginter. J. C. Gibson, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Jas. Lyons, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., for plaintiffs. Legh R. Page, for defendants.
HUGHES, J. The United States sues Allen & Ginter, tobacco manufacturers of Richmond, Va., for the penalty of an e:xport tobacco bond. This penalty, $1'i3, is double the amount of $26.50 which would have been chargeable on the tobacco if it had been sold for consumption in the United States. The tobacco which was the subject of the bond having been intended for exportation, and actually exported, no tax could be laid upon it by the government of the United States; clause 5 of section 9 of the first article of the constitution, providing that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." All the provisions of the law and regulations of the treasury department of the United States were complied with by the defendants in shipping the tobacco in regard to which they are now sued, both in transmitting it from their factories in Richmond by Coast Line steamer to New York, and shipping it thence to Antwerp, Holland, except one, which will be mentioned in the seqnel. In the bond on which the defendants are sued they stipulated in its penal clause that the collector of internal revenue at Richmond should receive, within 45 days from the 3d of September, 1887, the detailed report from the proper inspector of customs required by regulations, and a certificate from the collector of customs at the port of New York, that the toba.cco intended to be exported had been received by him, and that the tobacco had been duly laden aboard