prodtlQe $25,000 for the public fisc, if the chlirge should not destroy the trade. As to this half of the revenue arising from. the insJ.oection required, what is it but a tax? I know of no better definition of a tax thaI;l that it is a burden imposed by legislation upon persons or property, tOl'tl-ise money for public 'purposes, 01' for the accomplishment of some rightful governmental end. This law treats the money derived from the pwners of the meats as general public revenue, lind there is no provision declaring or implying that it is to be used for sanitary or inspectionpurposes. In terms an inspection law, it is in fact a law, taxing for the benefit of the state treasury a prime necessary .of life, an universalarticle of human food, and an important commodity of general No one will pretend that a tax law which avowedly collectB arevenue for the public treasury of a state from chargesJaid uponarticles of brought into the state for sale, is constitutional.,Suchis:the law under consideration, 'nor can ,y.on change its essential cbarMtel',by calling Han inspection law. , ,I will an order for the disch.arge,of the petiti.oner!, , , I bave., Q,ll-p,this cause ,brought in,to ,the. circuit court, and have heard it there, in Qr4er that it may be taken, dire¢ttQ the -supreme court of the United it will probably be heard as a privileged case.
In r6 KAUFMAN.
(Ci'1'cuU Court, D. MarYland.. April 91, isOO.) .. : . :
. . . .
.Ami'r-PtuvA".....ENLIIlTMBNT Oll' MINOBS'-DllSBRTION-H.ulB.&.1 CoRPtrS.
of. age, andre6eives pay and,clotbing, and afterwards and is arrested 88 a des6rter, aDd, ail tbe'tlJrie of his petition ill held by tbe United Statell awaiting trial ,.by a tbe oriIlle of desex:ti,on, will not be relEl8sed, under a writ of 'h.iJheas corpus, upon'the ground tbat, being a IIlinor, his enlistment was unlawful, . , and contrary to tbe Revised Statutes of the United States. . <S2Ittabusb1l
. A IIlinor who enlists in the United Stat?1 arIllyupon hil representation that he il
of Habeas Corpus. States.
U. S. Atty., for
. .. Kaufman flies. petition, for the writ of habeas corpus,. for. th¢ of his son, an· enlisted soldil:1J,' t1W army of the TJaitedStatel;l, ,WllQ is now at Fort McIIenry. It app,((arll,fr,om the petition and the .proofalso, that Oscar, St. Augus,tine, the ,year and desertedM:l!-rch 20, caJlle to l3altimore, where and he.dby themilitary o( the United States, anl1, ordered. a court-martial sitting at, Fort .McHenry for a deserter. It in proof. tha.t,altho\lgh :Kaufml;tn stated he was ,21 years of a.ge, at the timeo! his
MUSER tI. MAGONE.
enlistment, he had not reached his majority by a few months. It also appears that after his enlistment he received both clothing and pay as a soldier in the service. By the Revised Stat\1tes, tit. 14, § 1117, it is provided that no person under the age of 21 years shall be enlisted or mustered into the service, without the consent of hill parents or guardians, provided he has such, entitled to his custody or control; and by section 1118 it is provided that a minor under 16 shall not be enlisted, even with such consent. By section 1342, art. 47 ,ofsame title, it is provided that any soldier who, received pay, 'orhaving been duly enlisted into the service of the United States, deserts the same, shall in time of war Buffer death, and in time of peace any punishment, less than death, which a court-martial may award. Kaufman was a soldier in the army, though improperly there; but he was not authorized to determine the legality or illegality of his service himself, ,by deserting it.' To say that a'soldier placed on picket, his service leas agreeable than he had imagined, may' expose his fellows to surprise and destruction by walking away,and be excused because he was of opinion he was improperly enlisted, and that his parents have objected to it if hehltd consulted them,. would destroy all discipline in the servioo; and it was this state ofatl'airs that section 1342, art. 47, was' enacted· to prevent. If he be in theservioo, and takes pay as a soldier, whether he was properly enlil'lted or not,if he desert, he is liable to be is not en:" tried and punished by court-martial. .The party, titled to, be discharged under the writ, and must be' returned to his command;and: it is so
(Oircuit OoWrt,S. D. New York. Decemberll,l889.)
The finding of a reappraising board, constituted under section 2980 of the Revised Statutes,88 tQ. the value of imported merchandisel-.isfinalaud conclusive, and cannot bet:eviewed by the courts. Citiug S'tfdrB v. rOOBWle, 18 Bow. 521. .
SAKE-CONSTRUCTION OP LAWS-FOREIGN MANUPAOTTIRESlKPORTED POR SALL
DtJ'rIES-ApPRAlSAL-REAPPRAISING BOARD-REvneW. .'
Section II of· the tariff act of March 3, 1883, provides only for cases where an cle, made in a foreign country 1& not sold there, but 1& brought to the United .States for sale.
Section.II·.of the tariff act .of 1883 does not require a deWtmination as to the cost of. each. specific bale or cask or bag of goods. It reqllires only a determiuation, estimation, or ascertainment of what the vallie of goOd. of the kind iniported was .,in the places whence they came at the of; exportation. ; Inasoertaining the expenses of manUfacturing II of the act of lil83, theremustbeincludednotonly .the expense of ihe various.proOO8sElS of manUfacture, butal"'o general such 88 iutel1l8t on the.QaPitalinvested, cost of insurance, salaries of employes, etc. . . . , .
BAMxn..:.ExPENSES OP MANUPACTURE.
I ·. SJJ4E-PItOPIT. . i: In determining the value of imported goods, "Proll.t"lhould be ooNldllred 88 an element of 'value by the appraisers only so far /,\S it enters into the selling the goods in the markets of the foreign country from whiohthey were Imported.