Page images
PDF
EPUB

and to introduce the goods into the market, at the same time that goods paying the modified duties were introduced;

That in the opinion of Mr. Dimond, the Collector of Vera Cruz, who knew all the circumstances, the claimants' case "was fairly stated, and well entitled to the considerate attention of the Government," and that the professed object of the Government, as stated by Mr. Walker in his preamble to the tariff of the 30th of March (in which the mistake was made), was to "substitute a moderate duty when compared with that imposed by Mexico," but which in fact, through the mistake made and afterwards corrected, "substituted an exorbitant duty when compared with that imposed by Mexico," the claimants are on every principle of equity entitled to the benefit of the correction, and to have their goods placed on the same footing as similar goods introduced at the same time in the same market.

A doubt has been raised by my colleague as to whether,. Mr. Walker having stated his inability to remit the excess duties, we are able to go behind his authority, and do that which he could not do. In this doubt I confess I do not participate. It is clear to my mind that, finding a claim to be a just one, and deserving of relief, we are by the terms of the Convention bound to admit it, wholly irrespective of whether or not any officer of either Government could or could not, under any particular Statute, have given the relief prayed for.

It is clear that Congress itself could have given the relief if, on examination, it was found to be a case in which the parties were equitably entitled to it; and I hold that Congress through the Executive of The United States, and Parliament through the Executive of Great Britain, have delegated to us the task of inquiring into all claims, properly presented under the first and third sections of the Convention of 1853, and of deciding upon their merits whether they are entitled to redress or not; and if to redress, to what amount.

To hold otherwise might have had the effect of frustrating the whole object of the Convention, for it is not to be

assumed that either Government knew particularly what were the exact nature and extent of the powers of individual Officers of State under the respective Constitutions of the two countries.

I award therefore the sum of 18,877 Dolls. 87 cents., with interest at per cent. from the 22nd November,

1847, to the 15th January, 1855.

* Rate of interest in Mexico in 1847. I have always been of opinion that a uniform rate of interest should be allowed to the claimants of both countries when the circumstances justify the allowance of any interest. My colleague, however, and the umpire think differently. They are of opinion that the legal rate of interest prevailing in the country of each claimant should be allowed. The effect, however, of this determination, is to award interest to British claimants-no matter where resident, or where they were about to employ the money of which they may have been deprived—at the rate of five per cent., and to American claimants of at least six per cent. I am therefore compelled, although against my will, in cases like the present (as a matter of form because the decision of the umpire, so far as regards British claimants, is against me), to award interest at the rate prevailing in the country where the money would have been used.

MR. UPHAM, United States' Commissioner:

THIS case presents the common complaint of hardship that always arises whenever an advance of tariff is made contrary to the expectations of the importer.

In the

It involves two difficulties for our consideration. first place, this Commission has no power to alter and control the clear and explicit effect of a tariff established by either Government, in order to grant lighter terms than such law had established.

It is an exercise of legislative power not confided to us, or of a dispensing power which is equally unauthorized.

In a second place, the application now addressed to our discretion has been already addressed to the Government at Washington, and has been denied, under an immediate knowledge at the time of all the circumstances of the case. A modification of the tariff was made as requested in reference to woollens and one description of cotton goods, but was directed to take effect prospectively, for the reason that the duties, under the prior tariff, had been paid on various importations, and it was not supposed the case was such as to require a retro-active effect.

This decision was afterwards adhered to on the application of some German merchants; notice of which was communicated to the British Minister, by letter of Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, on the 8th of January, 1848.

Were the case in our control, the same reasons that operated on the department, in making this decision, should operate on us at this time, but there is no right of appeal to us from their decision. We may give a construction in matters of strict law to an established tariff different from that given by the officers of the Government; but their decision on matters confided by law to their discretion is final. We cannot go behind the tariff to overrule it.

Some confusion exists in the statements as to the tariff complained of. My colleague, in speaking of the application

of the German merchants, says that the tariff of the 30th of March, though higher than General Worth's tariff, was "much lower than the Mexican tariff." In another portion of his opinion, speaking of the same tariff, in reference to this claim, he says "the duties were much higher than the Mexican tariff." These diversities are accounted for by the fact that the remarks apply to different portions of the tariff. On cotton goods, with the exception of a particular article of that description, the duties were much lower, while on woollens, they were much higher than under the Mexican tariff.

The importation of the claimants in this case consisted both of cotton and woollen goods, in large quantities of each. My impression is that, on the whole importation, they were gainers by the change of Governments, at least that their loss was of but small amount. If so, it would obviate any appeal on account of the general hardship complained of, and the case resolves itself into a mere question as to what extent the claimants should profit by the American occupation of Mexico. It is certain that the damage is much less than would appear from the operation of the tariff on one class of goods alone.

The views of my colleague that "if we find the claim to be a just one, and deserving of relief, we are bound, by the terms of the Convention, to grant it, wholly irrespective of the question whether any officer of either Government could, or could not do so, under any particular Statute,” and that we can grant relief "in any case where Congress could have given it, if on examination it was found to be a case in which the parties were equitably entitled to it," I cannot con

sent to.

For the reasons given, I am of opinion no proper ground is presented for the exercise of our authority within the powers assigned to us.

“MCCALMOnt & Co."

London, 8th January, 1855. THE umpire reports that this claim arises out of the following circumstances:-Messrs. McCalmont, Greaves and Co., being engaged in the trade to Mexico did, in the year 1846, prepare a large amount of goods for that market; but hearing of the declaration of war and blockade of the Mexican ports by the forces of The United States, they shipped their goods to Havana, there to wait the removal of the blockade and the order of their Vera Cruz partner. These goods were prepared for the Mexican market under the supposition that they would have to pay duties according to the Mexican tariff. Vera Cruz was captured by the American forces in March, 1847, and General Worth opened the trade and issued on the 31st March a temporary tariff to remain in force until further orders from The United States Government at Washington. This temporary tariff established generally the same duties as were payable in The United States, with 10 per cent advalorem in addition. Representations were made to General Worth, and he, in consequence, made some alterations in his temporary tariff. After these modifications, the claimants' partner at Vera Cruz sent orders to Havana for their goods to be sent forward. They were shipped per "Susan," and per "William Randall," and were daily expected to arrive when the new tariff (dated 31st March) arrived, from Washington, the provisions of which were very injurious to the interests of the claimants, who remonstrated and sent immediately to Washington, praying for modifications. The "Susan," and "William Randall," arrived on the 27th May. The Collector of the Customs at Vera Cruz permitted the goods to remain in deposit until an answer came from Washington to the representations of the claimants. On the 10th June, an order came from Washington altering the tariff, and left

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »