i RE . QUAINTANCll:.
the collector, but by the importers. Upon receipt of this by section 14 of tpe aforesaid administrative customs act, the, Collector submitted the case thus presented to a second board of general appraisers at :this port, who overruled the importer's protest, and affirmed ,the decision of the collector as to the aforesaid assessment of duties. Within the time prescribed by section 15 of .the customs . act the importers applied to the United states court for this district for a review of this last-mentioned decision. . . ' , W. , .wickham Smith, ,of Ourie, Smith & Mackie, for importers. EdWflrd, Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collectQr.
LACOMBE, Circuit Jndge, (uraUy.) An. appraiser, whenever called npon to act, is not constra,ined at all by the rules that pertain to courts, but goes to work to satisfy. his own mind, in the best way he can, what goods are worth i and he can do that notwithstanding he reaches the conclusion that the goods are worth more than ,the value fixed by the local appraiJrer. The decision of the board of United States general appraisers is therefore affirmed.
Court, 8. D. Ne:w York. March 9, 1m)
AND. CoTTON. SHIRTING&. .
Silk and cotton shirtings, invoiced as "mixed shirtings," consisting of cotton warp threads, some white and some colored, and silk weft threads, the cotton constituting 63.27 per cent. in weight of the fabric, and the silk 86.78 per cent. in weight, the silk being the component. material of chief mue, held, that the merchandise was dutlable at 50 per cent. ad under paragraph 414 of the tariff act of Ocl.Qb6r 1, 18\10. and not, as classified by the collector; at 10 cents per square 1ard, and 35 per cent. ad vaZorem, under paragraph 848 of the same tartir.
At Law. Application by the collector of customs at New York for a review of of the board of United States general a,ppraisers reversing the the decision of the collector op the classification of certain merchandise entered attheport of New York in March, 1891, which was invoiced as "mixed shirtings," and returned by the appraiser as "silk and cotton shirtings, silk chief value, 10/35," and duty accordingly assessed thereon by the collector at the rate provided for cotton cloth containing an admixture of silk, at 10 cents per square yard, and, in addition thereto, 35 per cent. ad valurem, under Schedule I, par. 348, of the tariff act of October 1,1890. Against this classification the importers prtltested, claiming that their goods were dutiable only at 50 per cent. ad mlurem, under the provisions of Schedule L of said tariff act, (paragraph 414,) as
l'EDoii BEPOR1'll:B, vol 49.
'wMph 'Il\lkis the materiil.()fchief vahie; providedfdt1in the act The board' of geneeml;appraisers sHstained of the fhiding as 1'(1) That the merchandiste'il!ikn'6wn 'as 'shirting;"(2)'thatit is not:ootton cloth, silk aild'coUon; materials sillds the greatervaltie; (3) thatTt less than 200'!thieads to the l!9.uareinch, both the warp and. filling;" and thiitthe merchandise was dtitiaBle'at 50 per cent. ad valoi'em under paragraph 414 of the tariff act. collector procured the return Of the ,board of appraisers to be filed in' thecifuuit court, pursuant to the provisions ofSection 15 of the act of June 10; -1890, and thereupon obtained an order from the court referring the matter to one of the said board of general appraisers as, an officer of the court to take testiDlony therein:" Upon 'this reference it was provetHhat the material in questfun consisted ofcotton warp threads, some white and some colored, comprising 63.27 per cent. 'in weight of the whole fabric, and of silk weft thtE!ads; constituting 86.73 per cent. in weight ofthe It was to contradictthe finding of the board ofgeneral a'ppraisers that silk Waif largely the component material'of chief value. On the trial in the circuit court it was contended on behalf of the government that the term "cotton cloth," as used in the present tariff, was not a trade term, as it was not under similar provisions in the tariff of 1883, as decided by the circuit court in UUman1l. v. Hedden, 38 Fed. Rep. 95; and that the provision for cotton cloth with admixture of silk, in paragraph 348, was more specific than the, ;for manufactures of silk in paragraph 414; and that the undisputed evidence showed the material was composed in weight of nearly two-tllirds cotton and a little over onethird silk. Edward MitcheU., U. S. Atty.,.and J. T. Van &n88elaer, Asato U. s. Atty.. ..' ' Com.8tock' -':·Brown, for importers. Judge. Ido not find any difficulty in interpretmg paragraphs 3:48 and 414. Reading them together,theyseem to provide that cotton cloth shall pay a certain rate of duty when it contains an admixture of silk, but, if .that admixture of silk is present to such an extent that it becomes 'a manufacture of which silk is the, component material of the rate of duty to be paid by the article is not the one provided by paragraph 848, but is that provided by paragraph 414. I shall affirm the 'decision of the board'of appraisers.
8. D. N(NJ Torle." .Marcb 11, 1.)
L Oufto)(sDtmils-Bo.utD OP
BY CIJI.Om'r Co1JR'l'-EVIDBNOJI. ; On a,review by thecireult court., underAct Cong. June 10, 18llO, 51/). olthe decitiiOll . of general appraisers, a motion to strlk.e out , . denied, although the record,as certIfied, states that the facti were .", "found the evidence and ClOmmon "and included evidence taken m whicbtbe importers were DQtconcerned, and had.bad no OPPP)'tunlt)' td,pewer or oontrovert the same. .
It ie' q1early the,intention of the BClt, aeshown by tbe proceedings in congr8!8 leadIng to its passage, that the board of. appraiser!! should possess eXPljrt knoWledge of their· own, and,that their decision should be based upou such knowledge andithlU,videncellubmitted, or upon no ,evidence at., all, ,lor.m the, absence Of, the importer and bia witne88es. Rector qf 1:[0111 7'rinUl/ v,' U. 8., 12 Sup. OJ;, Rep. 511; appUd.,
All evidence taken before tbe board 1a by BeJQtion 15 made COmpetent before th. circuitCoun on review, but the importer is then entitled to coDUovert it under tbe ordinai'y rules of evidence. ., ' .
BTATEMENTBY LACOMBE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
,The impPrters in this case have applied to the circuit court for a review of the decision of the 1;)oard of general appraisers, actingunder.the act of June 10, 1890, known as the "Administrative Customs Law." The boarllltad duly filed thlilreturn required bY,section 15 of that act, and motjoij. is now made to, strike therefrom certain evidence included· in such . , ' W. W. $muh, for the motion. Edward )f,it(MJ" U. S. ,Atty., andHt:n1"Jl o. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., . , . , Circuit Judge·. 'The importers, in this case, being dissatia. tied with tlte decision of the collector as' to the classification of their gqods, and rate of duty imposed thereon, gave the notice in writing raqw, red " 14 of administrative act. Thereupon all the papers ',Ilnd exhibits were transmitted to the board of three general which and decide the case thus assist' them, in reaching a., cOJlclusion the testimony of prolluced by the importers and by the collector of the. porto! New York was' taken under oath, and .such testimony is returned them. A statement of the facta involved in the case, as found by the is duly certified to this court, prefaced by the statement that they find tpe (acts" from the record and the evidence, and from common nowledge." . ' .There is alsoincluded in the return evidence taken iDj two other caSes, with which these importers had no concern, of the existence qf. wlticl;1 tel\thuony they .were wholly ignorant, and which they never a,ny ()pportunity to answer or controvert before. the If the iI+ cases .bltt"pre. the. board of general appraisers are
be regulated in accordance with the prJnciples which prevail on the trial of causes in courts, a system of procedure as abnormal as this could be supported only by and language in the statute providing for it. the board of appraisers do not sit merely created to ai ,parties mtroduced by one slde or the other. Whatever may be the Mthe statute,the true rulefoT itshiterpretatiop is ,to be found i.n' tilt:!: intention of its ,makers, and we may find that intention in the which terminated in its Bectnr. etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U. S., 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511. The excerpts ,from the, debates in the senate (volume '21. pt. 4, Cong.Rec. &lstCong. 1st Se'S$.p. 4004 et seq.) which were submitted on the argument by the district attorney leave no qoubt BSta the character and functions of the board which congress ihtended'io create. The appraisers were to be experts, with knowledge of their own as respects the values and classifica.. :tiono( imported goods,-knowledge derived, not only from swornevidence taken in the particular case in hand, but from, countless other cases involving similar goods. A clause securing to the importer the privilege of being present before the board of general appraisers,With or without counsel, as he. might elect,' was stricken out before passage, with th,e express intent that the proceedings before the board might be to a large extent informal, and that they might sit, 'not as a court; but parte revenue tribunal, before which the parHes were to have no right to be heard by counsel, to be confronted with witnesses, or to make argument, although the board might, if it chose, requlre the attendiurce of witnesses, and invite the' importer to attend and" state his case sonallyor by counsel. It was plainly contemplated by the framera of the act that the board would sitas experts'to decide Ina summary manoer .quel§tiotls Of value and classification arising uriderthe tariff laws, reaching their decision from their own expert knowledge and from the evidence submitted to them, or such as they might obtaln. Arempnstrance'byJmporters againstthe passage of the act in its present shape, which was'presentedandread in the senate, expressly criticised the p,ending biUbecailse "no right is given to the importer to be present, with or without at the pJ,"Oceedings of the board, or to cross-examh. Ji the government's "fritnesses," a'nd because' "the board can the classification andratEI upon any oraven no evidence at all, in the absence of the importer and any witnesses he might be able to secute," and because "all the testimony that the board may thus obtain. or choose to use is made competent evidence before the circuit court, if an appeal is taken." I do notfihd anything in'the letter of the act itself which requires a. differenHnile:tpretation of its meaning, apd, even if I did, should not. since the qeciilion in the Holy Trinity Case, trUpra, feel warranted in abidiing by its'letter, in the light of such unmistakable evidence as to the intention of its iliakers. As theact-(aection 15) expressly provides that all the evidence taken by ahd before the appraisers shall be cOplpetetit evidence 'before the circuit court. arid 'as their returnshow8 that the evidence in the two cases with
IN BE eMit.'
which this importer was riot concerned was taken by or before them, the motion to strike it out is denied. The' importer has abundant oppor.. tunny to controvert any such eVidence, tlpon the reference to which he is entitled under the fifteenth seciion of the act. .
In re COOx.·
(Cftrcuit Court.:E. D.Wisconsin.
J!ABB,U COBl'l1e-INTlIlBs'UTB. ExTlU,DITION·.
The executive warrant II, however, prima ftJcle evidence of' flight, and, being delivery 9Uhe prisoner to .the .demandiulr statll. the surrendljr lslawful. The executive warrant has, npon surrender of the prisoner, spent its foree. He is then held in lawful custody, under process of the state, and cannot .thereafter assert that he was not a fugitive from.Justice. One who personally, within a state, has sE!t in motion the machinery for crime, and departs the jurisdiction, after the cominlssion of an act in furtherance of, but the oonsummation of, the offense,.11 a "fu£itive from justice, n within the meauiXli: of the law. .
.. SA.MlIl-F'UGlTIVlI FROM JUSTJClI.
'" SAME-TRIAL I'OR OTHlIlR Ob'lIlNSES.
Wbether.one surrendered by one state to another can be VIed for 8D7 other offense for which he was surrendered, qUQ1rs1 . (81/ZU1bua bil the Oourt.) . .
Or Habeas GJryus.
ST,ATEMENT BY DISTRICT JUDGE·
. On the '18th of February, 1892, upon the petition of Charles E. Cook, claiming; to be restrained of. his liberty by one Colden A. Hart, sheriff of the county of Dodge, state of Wisconsin, a writ of habeas corpus was . issued out of this court, to which the sheriff made due return, which the petitioner duly traversed. The facts disclosed by the record, so far as essential to the determination of the. matter, are substantially these: On the5th'day of March, 1891, one George W. Morse complained to a justice of the peace of the county ofDodge that the petitioner, Charles E. Cook, and one Frank Leek, on the 7th of May, 1889,opened a bank at Juneau, 'in the county of Dodge, styled the "Bank of Juneau," and enterednpon and engaged tin a general banking business, having a pretended: capital of $10,000; and continued in such business, soliciting and receiving deposits up to and including the 20th day of June, 1890, upon which day the bank closed its doors and failed. That Cook was the principal owner of such bank, owning nine-tenths interest therein, Leek owning one-tenth interest therein. That Cook was an officer of the bank,and.hadtbe general supervision of the business,which was transacted either by him personally, or, under his order and direction, by one Riohardson, acting as his agent. That from January 6, 1890, to v.49F.no.l0-53