MACHECA
11.
UNITED STATES.
845
perintendent of a department, and thus within the scope of the Hoss decision, (and that doubtless was the view taken by the learned judge,) it would seem that the ruling was directly in conflict with the Randall Case. I do not know that I need add more, or that I can make my any clearer. I have given this case a most careful examination. I am fully aware of the direction of modern rulings. The views expressed and the principles enunciated in the Farwell Case may IJot be obviously and unquestionably correct. It is not improhable that ere long the rule of exemption laid down in that case may be entirely overthrown. But if overthrown it should be by legislative action, and not by judicial decision. The true path for judicial walk is, as J conceive, super antiquas vias. I think the motion for a new trial should be sustained.
MAORECA and others v. UNITED STATES.! (Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. January 16,1886.) The jurisdiction of the circuit court on writ of error from the district court, in cases at law, extends no further than to pass upon such error as may appear by the record, and when there are no bills of exception to show any rulmg of the court below prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, nor assignments of error pointing out any of the proceedings in the court beloy< as injurious to the plaintiff in error, and when the counsel point out no error, and this court sees none on inspection of the record, it conclusively follows that the writ of error should be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court affirmed. 2. SAME-CIRCUIT COURT No POWERTO REVISE DISCRETION OF SECRETARY OF THE The discretion vested by law in the secretary of the treasury to remit penalties, in cases where he may be satisfied no willful negligence nor fraudulent intent exists, cannot be revised or controlled bv the courts. TREASURY TO REMIT PENALTIES.
1.
ApPELLATE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURT AT LAW.
On Motion· to Dismiss. W. S. Benedict, for plaintiff in error. Charles Parlange, U. S. Atty., for the United States. PARDEE, J. The facts of the case are set out in brief of plaintiff in error as follows: On the eighteenth of May, 1883, the government claimed from the defendants $1,255 on the following cause of action: On the thirteenth of February, 1882, defendants imported from Palermo, Italy, 3,064 packages of oranges and lemons, subject to the payment of a duty of 20 per cent. The entry was not accompanied by any certificate or consular invoice. The goods were delivered on a pro forma invoice, with bond given to furnish cousular invoice within six months. Defendants deposited the import duty, es1 Reported
by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans, bar.
846
REPoRtER.
timated at $1,175.40. The bonds amounted to $1,700, and were duly signed, and dated eighteenth of February, 1882. The duties amounted to $2,230.44, leaving a balance due of $1,255. The bond was forfeited, as the consular invoice was not furnished within the delay prescribed, whereby the penalty has attached. The conditions of the bonds are that defendants "shall and do, within six months from the date thereof, produce to the collector, for the time being, for the district of New Orleans, a duly-authenticated invoice of said goods, wares, and merchandise, and shall pay to the said collector the amoqnt of duties on the appraisement of said goods, wares, and 'merchandise." Defendants answer, by the general issue, and (1) that they made the bonds; (2) that they produced, within the legal delay, an authenticated invoice of said goods, the duty on the importation being properly paid; (3) that a clerical error in said invoice appeared, in not stating "that all of said merchandise was free on board, all charges included;" (4) that an additional authenticated invoice became requisite to correct said error, and was furnished by the consul to collector of customs, who declined to cancel the bond of respondents; (5) that the error occurred in the omission of the word "ditto," or words indicating the same, from their proper position on the invoice; (6) that there was no intention on the part of respondent to evade the payment or any duty. The invoice referred to 3,061 packages of fruit, shipped on the steam-ship Peconic, which sailed on January 18, 1882, and shows the value to be, "all charges included," 14,751.80 liras. The same was sworn to by the shipper, and certified by the consul, and that the value of a lira is 19 3-10 cents. Upon these issues, the case coming on for trial, the court directed a verdict for the government, but ordered the entry of judgment to be deferred, to enable defendants to apply to the secretary of the treasury for remission. The petition for a remission was filed, and the judge made the following statement of facts: "I make. as the statement of facts in this case, the foregoing statement of the petitioners, with the exception of the statement as to the second invoice. As to that, the fact, as appeared on the trial of the case, was that a first defective invoice was furnished by some error. The second invoice. designed to correct the error, was but a copy of the first. The third invoice was the one which was correct. and I am satisfied that it was an error of the clerk who made out the second, that he omitted the marks shOWing that all the items were not frt?e on board. The second invoice was still defective, and the third invoice was correct. but received by the customs officers after the time prescribed by the statute. I am satisfied that the error was a technical, and not an intentional. mistake."
The secretary having declined to interfere, a motion was made on November 21, 1884, to enter the judgment, which was thereupon A rule for a new trial was taken, and was overruled, but with an order to stay proceedings upon said judgment for four months, to en-
MACH;ECA t1. UNITED STATES.
847
for reasons then given 1 again recommend that the prayer of the above application be granted."
able. defendants to make another application· to the secretary for a. remission. The second application was made, and was recommended to be granted by the United States attorney in the following words: "1 recommended that the original petition for remission be granted, and And by the judge, as follows:
"1 find the facts of the case, as they appeared on the trial, to be correctly stated in the foregoing petition, and in thE! original petition for remission these facts were succinctly as follows: Goods were imported, some of which were not dutiable. Invoices for the goods contained this error, i. e., they {)mitted to place a 'ditto' aftAr some of the items in the invoices. Time, to the of the statutory permission, was given the importers to obtain corrected invoices. By mistake the uncorrecte(l invoices were forwarded and received, and presented to the collector. Efforts were immediately made by the importers to obtain corrected invoices, which were successful, but after the time allotted by the statute had expired. The question submitted by the case to the honorable secretary of the treasury is whether thElre shall be a remission in a case where there was no intention to defraud, and where the -embarrassment came from a clerical error in the invoice originally presented; where effort was honestly made to produce corrected and proper invoices, which was not till after the termination of the delay allowed by the statute, though a few days after that termination the proper invoice was obtained and presented."
On February 20, 1885, a motion was made to revoke the order staying execution, and another order was on March 17, 181;5, staying proceedings until the delay of four months from January 7, 1885, elapsed.' The secretary again decliuing to interfere, an appeal was taken, and allowed, and a writ of error granted, writ served, citation issued, and bond given. The district attorney for the United States has filed a motion to .aismiss the appeal, because no bond was given, and because, the suit being o!?-e at law, no appeal would lie; and he also moves to the writ of error, because there are no bills of exception nor assign. ments of error accompanying the same. The plaintiff in error make3 no pretense that there is any appeal before the court, but does insist .on his writ of error, and submits the case to the court on the facts as though the case were on appeal. The whole merits of the case are argued as though thll court 011 writ of error could inquire into them and give relief. Thejurisdiction of the court, however, extends no further than to pass upon such error as maya ppear by the record; .and as there are no bills of exception to show any ruling of the court below prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, nor assignments of error pointing out any part of the proceedings in the court below as -ous to the plaintiff in error, and as the counsel point out no error, and this court seea none on inapectioJ:!..of the record, it conclusively follows that the writ of error should. be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court affirmed. See Kerr v. OlampHt, 95 U. S. 188. The theory of the plaintiff in error that the discretion vested by law
848
J'EDERAL REPORTER.
in the honorable secretary of the treasury to remit penalties, in cases where he may be satisfied no willful negligence nor fraudulent intent exists, can be revised or controlled by the courts, is wholly untenable. See Walker v. Smith, 21 How. 579 i Dorsheimer v. U. S., 7 Wa.ll. 166. Judgment affirmed.
In re AUBREY and another.! (Oi1'ouit OOU1't, E. D. Louisiana. December 30, 1885.) 1. BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.
The acts of parliament known as the" British Merchant Shipping Acts" only include or embrace the statute law relating to British merchant ships and sea· men, and the common law of Great Britain, except when altered by statute, remains still in force for the government of consuls.
When a British consul, in a matter of discipline, is dealing With British subjects, on board of a British ship, courts of the United Stl-.tes are not called upon to look for his jurisdiction further than the instructions issued by the British foreign office. 8. REV. ST. § 728. Section 728 of the Revised Statutes in terms embraces all consular agents whose governments give them jurisdiction, but the authority conferred upon such consular agents to sit as judge or arbitrator, mentioned in the statute, refers to, and is limited to, authority conferred by the United States, And construing section 728 with sections 4079, 4080, and 4081 of the Revised Statutes, such authority is limited to such officers of foreign nations as are entitled thereto, under treaty stipulation with the United States; and then only when such foreign country gives the same privileges to consular officers of the United States, the latter fact to be ascertained and proclaimed by the president. 4. RIGHTS OF CONSULAR OFFICERS TO SIT AS JUDGES OR ARBITRATORS. Neither under international law, nor under the statute law of the United States, has a consular officer of a foreign government a right to sit as judge or arbitrator within our territory, and render decrees or orders affecting personal liberty, which orders or decrees the courts of the United States are authorized or required to enforce, unless the consent of the United States to such jurisdiction has been given, either by express statute or treaty stipulation. 5. COMITY AND RECIPROCITY.
2.
JURISDICTION OF BRITISH CONSULS.
Comity and reciprocity to be extended to representatives of foreign governments depends upon congress, and is not lodged within the judiciary. See 2 Op. Attys. Gen. 378, citing The lV61'eide, 9 Cranch. 889.
On Application for a Writ of Habeas Oorpus. James McOonnell and Richard De Gray, for relators. A. de G. de Fonblanque, British Consul, and E. T. Florence, for reslJondents. PARDEE, J. The relators are held by the keeper of the parish prison under a commitment from one of the commissioners of this court, parporting to be in compliance with section 728, Rev. St., and based I
Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.