Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

orem as a manufacture of India rubber and cotton, and it is conceded that the article is manufactured of India rubber and cotton.

The provision in Schedule L for endless belts or felts for paper or printing machines is reproduced from the act of March 2, 1867, and the importer claims that the provision for endless belts or felts in that act and in Schedule L relates only to those articles when made of wool. He alleges that at the time of the passage of the act of 1867, there were no endless belts or felts for paper or printing machines manufactured of India rubber and cotton, and that consequently the article which forms the subject of the present appeal cannot be considered as coming within the provisions of Schedule L. This statement is not contradicted by either yourself, the appraiser at your port, or the customs officers at New York, to whom the papers were submitted.

Upon due consideration of the subject the department is of opinion that the provision in Schedule L, for endless belts or felts relates only to such articles as are manufactured wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, and does not include articles made of India rubber and cotton, like those under consideration.

It is therefore held that the appeal is well taken, and you will reliquidate the entry at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, and forward a certified statement for refund of the duties exacted in excess.

Respectfully,

JOHN SHERMAN,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.

EXHIBIT U.

Secretary.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
March 23, 1877.

SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter, dated the 27th ultimo, relating to certain machinery for the manufacture of jute, imported by Messrs. Buchanan & Lyall, per "Queen," October 21 and December 8, 1875; per "Egypt," December 30, 1875; and per "Caledonia," November 24, 1875.

It appears that this machinery was entered free of duty, but that the entries were subsequently liquidated as liable to duty, such duty amounting in the aggregate to $21,154.95, none of which has been yet paid.

In the report of the appraiser, dated June 10, 1876, he states that the machinery in question is not an "assembling of several machines previously in use, but a complete system, exclusively adapted to the manufacture of yarn or twine from the jute fiber, to be woven into burlaps for the formation of oil-cloths, &c., and that the drawings, plans, and patterns for this machinery are of English origin, and essentially different from any heretofore in use in the United States."

He states, further, that an attempt to work hemp in combination with jute in this machinery resulted in the destruction of the cards and other damage to the machinery; and in his letter of June 28, 1876, he reports that he is entirely satisfied, after an examination of other machinery, and conference with manufacturers of machinery in this country, that the machinery in question is entitled to free entry under the act of February 8, 1875.

This opinion is reiterated in his report upon the subject, dated August 25, 1876.

A report has also been received from the United States appraiser at Philadelphia, who states that his examiner of machinery saw the machinery in operation at the international exhibition, and is of opinion that it could not be adapted to the manufacture of any material other than jute.

In the department's letter, dated the 5th of April, 1876, relating to these cases, you are informed that it was deemed proper that no measures should be taken for the collection of the liquidated duties until the question involved could be more fully considered.

You are now informed that, upon the facts stated, the department has concluded that the machinery is entitled to exemption from duty under the act of February 8, 1875.

You will therefore reliquidate the entries accordingly.

It is obvious that only machinery of a very peculiar construction would be entitled to free entry under the provisions of the statute cited, for "all machinery not now manufactured in the United States, adapted exclusively to manufactures from the fiber of the ramie, jute, or flax." This decision will not, therefore, be treated as a precedent for any other cases not specially considered by the department.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

EXHIBIT V.

H. F. FRENCH,
Assistant Secretary.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., March 23, 1877.

SIR: In the matter of the suit of Weihenmeyer vs. Arthur, (N. S. 4164,) recently tried in the United States circuit court at New York, the district attorney, in a letter dated the 28th ultimo, advises the payment of the judgment in such case so far as it relates to the embroidered articles, so called, viz: First, the bead slipper cases; second, worsted and silk slipper-patterns; third, worsted and silk slipper-patterns, upon all of which the excess of duties complained of amounted to $373.62.

Upon entry, on the record, of satisfaction of the judgment to the extent mentioned, you will take measures, according to the usual course of procedure, for the repayment of the amount due under these instructions.

This action is taken for the reason that the district attorney and the Attorney-General are of opinion that the bill of exceptions in the above case, as certified by the court, does not present the questions involved in the suit in such a manner as to render advisable the presentation to the Supreme Court of that part of the record which relates to the articles named.

This action will, however, not be construed as a precedent for any other case.

The residue of the record will be presented to the Supreme Court, and the questions relating to embroideries will be tried when practicable in some other suit.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

H. F. FRENCH,

Assistant Secretary.

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Washington, November 28, 1877.

SIR: I have the honor to present the annual report of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1877, accompanied by additional tables and statements bringing down the operations of this branch of the service as nearly as possible to the present date.

DISTILLERIES.

The following statement shows the number of distilleries registered and operated during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1877:

States and Territories.

Alabama..
Arizona..

Arkansas

California..

Colorado.

Connecticut
Dakota

Delaware.

District of Columbia.

Florida

Georgia..

Idaho..

Illinois

Indiana.

Iowa..

Kansas

REPORT

OF

Kentucky

Louisiana.

Maine

Maryland.

Massachusetts

Michigan.

Minnesota Mississippi

Missouri.

Montana.

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey.
New Mexico..
New York.
North Carolina

Obio

Oregon
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island
South Carolina

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »