the informer's share of the mitigated fine of $50, imposed under section 4500, Revised Statutes, on the steam-tug "Fawn," by Department letter of the 12th ultimo. You state that Mr. Scott is the informer in this case, and you recommend that he receive the moiety, if division be made of the fine. Section 4500, Revised Statutes, provides that one-half of the fine recovered thereunder shall be for the use of the informer, and inasmuch as the act of June 22, 1874, applies only to cases arising under the customs-revenue laws, it is competent for the informer, although an officer of the United States, to receive one-half of the fine in this case. You will, therefore, pay to Inspector Scott one-half the mitigated fine on the steam-tug "Fawn," or $25, if the money is still within your control; but if you have deposited it to the credit of the United States Treasurer, you will report the number and date of the certificate of deposit at your earliest convenience. Very respectfully, SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, Albany, N. Y. H. F. FRENCH, Acting Secretary. (4615.) Additional duty of 20 per cent. cannot be enforced where proceedings are had for forfeiture of goods. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 16, 1880. SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 22d ultimo, upon the subject of certain importations of hammocks made by Thebaud Brothers, and proceedings against said parties to recover the value thereof. From your letter it appears that a suit in personam was brought against these parties to recover the duty-paid value of the goods, on account of alleged fraudulent undervaluation on entry; that subsequent to the institution of said proceedings the parties paid the value for which the suit was brought. The question now occurs whether the additional duty of 20 per cent. imposed by section 2900 of the Revised Statutes can be lawfully exacted on these goods. The decision of May 21, 1878, in the case of Westerman & Co., to which you refer, related to a case where the goods had been seized, and it was therein held that the Government must determine for itself, in the first instance, whether it will accept the additional duty of 20 per cent. or take proceedings for forfeiture, but that both remedies cannot be pursued. The principle of this decision extends clearly to cases where no seizure is made, but where proceedings in personam for recovery of the home-market value are instituted; and it therefore follows that, in the case under consideration, the additional duty of 20 per cent. must be refunded to the parties. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 19, 1880. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, upon the subject of assessment of duty on collections of articles styled "Chinese medicines." From your letter, it appears that each package contains from fifteen to sixty smaller packages, containing various articles, such as shelled almonds, pills, cinnamon-bark, raisins, lizards, roots, and other articles. The invoice does not specify the cost of each article, but gives the cost of an entire package. If separated in detail, some of the articles would be chargeable with ad valorem duty, some with specific duty, while others would be free of duty. The practice at your port appears to be to segregate the articles and assess the duty appropriate to each, while at San Francisco a uniform duty of 20 per cent. appears to be imposed on the whole. The first point to be noticed is, that the invoices do not conform to the law. Section 2858, Revised Statutes, provides that invoices comprising articles subject to specific duties shall state the actual quantity thereof. Therefore, where the invoice is not so made out, it should be rejected, and entry be permitted only on a full specification of particulars and bond to produce proper invoice. The more correct plan is to give to each of the articles its appropriate classification, and the collector at San Francisco will be instructed to follow that course. If proper invoices, or a specification of particulars, be produced on entry, the work of classifying the various articles will be much simplified. Pending entry in accordance herewith, the articles will be sent to general-order store as unclaimed. It is deemed proper to add that section 2910 is inapplicable to this case, because the various articles are not of the same material or description. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Portland, Oreg. H. F. FRENCH, Acting Secretary. (4617.) Charges on invoices.. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 20, 1880. The attention of this Department has been drawn to the fact that, notwithstanding the notices which have been published from time to time of the requirements of the law relating to the invoicing of imported merchandise, invoices are still occasionally presented to collectors of customs which do not specify the charges to be included, under section 2907 of the Revised Statutes, in estimating the dutiable value of such merchandise. In 1877 the Department requested the Secretary of State to instruct United States consular officers abroad to have all dutiable charges inserted in invoices, independently of the price of the goods, and on the 13th of July, 1877 (Synopsis 3298), decided that if charges were not added in the invoice, and the goods "were not expressed as free on board," it was the duty of the appraiser to add such charges and 100 per cent. additional, under the act of June 22, 1874. The decision of April 25, 1878 (Synopsis 3550), relating further to the matter, states that the appraiser is not authorized to accept any other evidence that charges are included in the value expressed in the invoice than a specification thereof in the invoice or an explicit statement in that document that the goods were purchased "free on board," or that the price or value specified included the charges, as the case might be. As it subsequantly appeared that a summary enforcement of this rule would inflict loss in cases in which it had been the custom to regard certain charges as included in the invoice value, collectors of customs were advised, October 4, 1878 (Synopsis 3735), that when the price paid included charges for packing and cartons, invoices might, for a limited time, be accepted as correct; and in the instructions of August 27, 1879 (Synopsis 4163), authority was given for the acceptance of corrected invoices in certain cases. The Department is now of opinion that sufficient notice has been given of the requirements of the law upon the subject, and that the original rule should be enforced. You are therefore instructed to decline to accept such corrected invoices presented after October 1, 1880, and thereafter to cause dutiable charges to be added, and duties, regular and additional, to be assessed in all cases in which the invoice presented does not specify such charges, or explictly state, as aforesaid, that the invoice price includes them. In the mean time, corrected invoices may be accepted in the manner authorized by Decision 4163, above cited. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS. H. F. FRENCH, Acting Secretary. (4618.) Common carriers-Approval of bond of Shepard & Mead. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 20, 1880. SIR: You are hereby informed that the Department has this day approved the common-carrier bond of Shepard & Mead, transmitted in your letter of the 12th instant. Under this bond, the above-named firm is authorized to transport appraised merchandise in bond from the port of Boston, Mass., to any port in the United States which has been or may hereafter be designated by law as a port of entry or delivery, and vice versa, in suitable vessels, owned or controlled by it, plying coastwise between such ports and the port of Boston. In every instance where other vessels than those owned by said firm are used, such vessels shall be distinctly marked "Shepard & Mead." The privileges of said Shepard & Mead as a common carrier under this bond shall be confined exclusively to the transportation of materials named in section 2513, Revised Statetes, and which shall be so stated in the transportation entry at the port where said entry is made. One copy of the bond is inclosed, to be placed upon the files of your office. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. J. K. UPTON, Assistant Secretary. (4619.) Common carriers-Approval of bond of the St. Louis and New Orleans Transportation Company. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 23, 1880. SIR: You are hereby informed that the Department has this day approved the bond of the St. Louis and New Orleans Transportation Company as a common carrier for the transportation of dutiable unappraised merchandise in bond, under act approved June 10, 1880. Under its bond, the company named is authorized to transport unappraised goods in bond from the port of New Orleans, La., to the ports of Louisville, Ky.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa., and St. Louis, Mo., in the following manner, viz: In the steamers and barges hereinafter named, owned, and controlled by the said company, and plying upon the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers between the ports named above, viz: Steamers "E. M. Norton," "A. J. Baker," "John Means," and "Alps;" barges "Lewis," "Wm. Gordon," "Laura," "Andy Johnson," "A. J. Baker," "Transit Co., No. 13," "Milton," "W. P. Halliday," "Maggie Sayre," "Francis," "S. A. M. Moore," "Ironton," "Transit Co., No. 15," St. L. and N. O. T. Co., Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and such other steamers or barges as may be hereafter specially authorized and designated by the Secretary of the Treasury: Provided, in all cases where other steamers or barges are so authorized and designated, the consent, in writing, of the sureties on the bond shall be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury. One copy of the bond hereby approved is inclosed, to be placed upon the files of your office. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New Orleans, La. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. (4620.) Common carriers-Approval of bond of Merchants' Despatch Transporta tion Company. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 23, 1880. SIR: You are hereby informed that the Department has approved the bond of the Merchants' Despatch Transportation Company as |