The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

APRIL 10, 1902. TREASURY DECISIONS. TREASURY DrpartmMENt, April 3, 1902. PRESENTS IN PAssENGERS’ BaccacE. Articles intended for distribution as presents, contained in the baggage of persons arriving in the United States, are not entitled to free entry under paragraph 697, act of 1897. Before the U. $. General Appraisers at New York, March 29, 1902. In the matter of the protest, 80432/-18145, of J. Mc- Donald Peacock, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, N. Y., as to the rate and amount per La Bretagne, and entererd December 17, 1900. Opinion by SomErviLe, General Appraiser. The appellant in this case protests “against the pay- ment of duties” on certain articles contained in his per- sonal baggage, which he concedes in the protest and in letters to the Board were intended for Christmas. pres- ents for his friends. The local appraiser’s return de- scribes the goods as “beaded articles, $60,” and as ‘‘man- ufactures of metal, $1.00,’ and there is no further. evi- dence of their character. Appellant arrived on the steamer Lucania, on December 8, 1900, and his baggage on December 9, by the La Bretagne. ‘This delay, how- ever, being caused by the failure of a French railway to forward the baggage in time for the Lucania, and through no fault of the protestant, is no detriment to his rights, if, as seems probable from the record, he be an American resident. (In re Wyman, G. A. 5109.) There is no affirmative request for relief in the pro- test, and no paragraph is named as supplying a classifica- tion more appropriate than that adopted by the collector. But if we construe this protest to have the precision re- quired by law, and refer it to paragraph 6097 of the tariff act of 1897, and if it be further conceded that the mature of the articles would otherwise entitle them to free entry, we are of opinion that no construction can be given to paragraph 697 which would extend its benefit to articles intended for distribution as presents. The body of the paragraph is limited to such articles as “are in the use of” arriving passengers, and, by its express terms, “shall not be held to apply to merchandise or articles intended for other persons or for sale.” But under the doctrine of United States vs. One Pearl Neck- lace (111 Fed. Rep., 164), the privilege of returning resi- dents of the United States, with respect to personal bag- gage, must be sought exclusively in the proviso, which reads, so far as pertinent, as follows: Provided, That in case of residents of the United States returning from abroad, all wearing apparel and other per- sonal effects taken by them out of the United States to foreign countries shall be admitted free of duty,* * * * but no more than one hundred dollars in value of articles purchased abroad by such residents of the United States shall be admitted free of duty unon their return. “Wearing apparel and other personal effects” was con- strued by the Board In re Wyman (G. A. 5109) to em- brace the ordinary baggage of passengers. But the accep- ted definitions of “baggage” confine the term “to that which is personal to the passenger and carried for his tse or convenience,” and exclude those things intended “for larger or ulterier purposes.” (Macrow vs. Railway Company, L. R. 6 Q. B., 612; Story on Bailments, sec. 499). As thus stated, its meaning will not admit pres- ents intended for other persons, and the courts have so held. Otherwise, as was said in one case, “it would be almost impossible to lay down any rule of limitation, either as to quantity or value.” (Navins vs. Bay State Steamboat Company, 4 Bosw. N. Y., 225; The Ionic, 6 Blatch., 538). The precise question, however, is whether the term. “articles purchased abroad,” in the last clause of the _ proviso, has any broader meaning than the phrase just discussed. We think not. No different construction could be given it without exempting any merchandise enumerated in the tariff act, to the value of $100, when brought by residents. Such a result is repugnant to the intent of the paragraph as a whole, which was clearly framed for the accommodation of travelers as such, and is not compelled by the language if we apply the doctrine of noscitur a sociis. ‘his view aims at a construction “which will carry out the spirit and intent of the entire provision of the statute, and, while it comports with the ordinary habits of passengers and travelers, will not open _ the door for fraud.” (Blatchford, J., Astor vs. Merritt, Tit. S., at 214 ;°Ty 2D. 18928). ie _ The protest is overruled and the collector’s decision as- sessing duty under various paragraphs is affirmed. ‘Fruit vessels plying between infected or suspected fruit ports and ports of the United States——Amendment of cir- cular 134 of 1900. eS TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Orrick of SUPERVISING SURGEON-GENERAL, M. H. &., : Wasuincton, D. C., April 3, 1902. To United States consular officers, masters and owners of vessels, collectors of customs, and others: In view of the fact that five days’ detention is consid- ered sufficient in the case of passengers on fruit vessels eaying uninfected fruit ports of Central and South Amer- ca for ports of the United States, paragraph 7 of Depart- ment Circular No. 134, dated August 31, 1900, entitled of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported . THE MARINE RECORD. “Special regulations for the government of vessels plying between infected or suspected fruit ports and ports of the United States,” is hereby amended by substituting the word “five” for the word “ten? wherever the latter occurs in said paragraph. : WaAteR WyMAN, Approved: Surgeon-General M. H. S. L. M. SuHaw, Secretary of the Treasury. Inspection of foreign steam vessels and collection of fees therefor under certain conditions.- Treasury Department, April 1, 1902. To supervising and local inspectors. of steamboats, col- lectors and cther chief’ officers of customs, and others whom it may concern: The following act of Congress is published for the in- formation and guidance of all concerned: An Act to amend section forty-four hundred of the Re- vised Statutes of the United States, relating to a recipro- cal recognition of boiler-inspection certificates between the several maritime nations having maritime inspection laws. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assem- bled, That section forty-four hundred of title fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding to said section, as amended by the Act of Congress approved March first, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, chapter one hundred and forty-six, page six hundred and ninety-nine, volume twenty-eight, United States Statutes at Large, third ses- sion, Fifty-third Congress, after the word “aforesaid,” a provision as follows: Provided, however, that when such foreign passenger steamers belong to countries having in- spection laws approximating those of the United States, and have unexpired certificates of inspection issued by the proper authorities in the respective countries to which they belong, they shall be subject to no other inspection than necessary to satisfy the local inspectors that the con- dition of the vessel, her boilers, and life-saving equip- ments are as stated in the current certificate of inspection ; but no such certificate of inspection shall be acepted as evidence of lawful inspection except when presented by steam vessels of other countries which have by their laws accorded .to the steam vessels of the United States visit- ing such countries the same privilege accorded herein to the steam vessels of such countries visiting the United States; it being further provided that there shall be col- lected and paid into the Treasury of the United States the same fees for the inspection of foreign passenger steamers carrying passengers from the United States that any foreign nation shall charge the merchant vessels of the United States trading to the ports of such nationality ; it being further provided that the Secretary of the T'reas- ury shall have the power to waive at anv time the collec- tion of such fees upon due notice of the proper authorities of any country concerned that the collection of fees for the inspection of American steam merchant vessels has been discontinued. Approved, February 15, 1902. . Local inspectors of steamboats are hereby informed that, until officially notified-by this Department to the con- trary, they must continue to inspect and certificate, as formerly, all foreign steamers carrying passengers from ports in the United States (including the Hawaiian Islands and the island of Porto Rico). In view of the fact that the Dominion of Canada, under an act (61 Victoria, ch. 46) entitled “An Act respecting the inspection of steamboats, and the examination and licensing of engineers employed on them (assented to June 13, 1898),” charges an inspection fee of $8, and 8 cents per ton additional, for each merchant steamer of the United States inspected by its officers, except in the Province of Ontario, collectors of customs will, until fur- ther notice, collect from all steamers owned in either of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada requiring in- spection by the United States inspectors of steamboats the same fees as charged by the inspectors of the Dominion government for the inspection of merchant steamers of the United States. Collectors of customs are further directed to withhold in all cases, until such fees are paid, the copies of certifi- cates required to be issued to such steamers under the provisions of section 4421, Revised Statutes, such fees, when collected, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States under such regulations as shall hereafter be pre- scribed by this Department. When the fees above referred to have been received by the collector or other chief officer of customs, that officer will give the master, agent, or owner of such steamer a receipt therefor. O. L. SpaAuLpIne, Assistant Secretary. ———— or Shipping.—Injury of Workman.—Liability of Ship— The owners of a ship are liable for an injury to a car- penter, employed by a firm which had been hired to make repairs or changes in the interior of the ship to fit it for cargo, and who was sent on board to work during the night, and fell through a hatchway in a dark and unusual place, which had been negligently left open, without noti- fication or warning to those who were doing the work. West India & P. S. S. Co., Limited, vs. Weibel 113. Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 160. ‘than in certain prescribed limits, should be guilty of a Grant of Land Below High-Water Mark- having granted in fee a strip of land unde tending out 4oo feet from high-water mark, canno after give another the right to erect a public dock De Lancey vs. Wellbrock et al., ta el: Rep. (U. S.)_ if Adimiralty.—Salvage Award.—Interest—Where a ant made greatly exaggerated and unwarranted claim salvage services and towage, he will not be allowed ir est on the amount awarded. Merritt & Chapman Derri and Wrecking Co. vs. Chubb et al., 113 Fed. Rep. ( 173. oe Boundary.—Land Below High-Water Mark—The. in shore boundary of a grant of a strip of land below hig water mark, 400 feet wide, changes with the high-wate mark, the shifting of the shore being from natural caus De Lancey vs. Wellbrock et al. 113 Fed. Rep. (U. 103. : Admiralty.—Pleading—Waiver of Misjoinder—Wher no exceptions are taken to a libel in which separate claim for salvage and towage services against different defen ants are joined, objection to the misjoinder is waived Merritt & Chapman Derrick and Wrecking Co. vs. Chub! et al., 113° Fed. Rep. 4(U.S:)- 173. ae Salvage.—Suit for Compensation-—-Decree as Betwee Defendants.—The pleadings and proofs in an action to re cover for salvage services, in which judgment was r dered against an insurer which had contracted for the services. Held, not to authorize the court to decree the payment of such judgment by the company which owned the salved vessel, also a party defendant, on the ground that in another proceeding by it for limitation of liability it had been permitted to retain a sum deducted from the — appraised value of the vessel to pay the claim of the sal- — vors. Merritt & Chapman Derrick and Wrecking Ci vs. Chubb et al., 113 Fed. Rep. (U. S.)- 173. Railroads—Drawbridge—Failure to Open—lLoss of Ves- sel_—Evidence.—Question for Jury.—Where, in an action against a railroad company for failure to open a draw- bridge, whereby a schooner was prevented from passing — to a place of safety, and was lost, the captain and two or three persons on board testify that the bridge tender was continually signalled to open the draw by the blowing of the conch shell, which was often used for that purpose, — and which could be heard from one and one-half to five miles, according to the state of the atmosphere, and an equal or greater number of witnesses for defendant tes- tified that they heard no signal, the questions whether the signals were given, and whether they could be heard in the storm then raging, were for the jury. Louisville & N. R. Co. vs. McDonald, 31 So. Rep. (Miss.) 418. - Se Navigable Waters—Dumping of Refuse Matter—In- dictment.—Sufficiency—An indictment based on Act June 29, 1888, (25 Stat. 209), as amended by Act August - 18, 1894, (28 Stat. 360), charged that M., being the owner, and R., being the master of the steamer, “did unlawfully dump”! and “aid. and abet in ‘the dumping” of, refuse matter, “into the tidal waters of the harbor of New York, and the waters adjacent thereto;” the place being “at the Southern District of New York, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction cf the United States, and within the jurisdiction of this court.” Act March 3, 1890, prohibited the discharge of refuse into any navigable waters of the — United States, etc. Section 16 declared that any master, pilot, or engineer, etc., who should knowingly engage in towing any vessel loaded with refuse matter to any point of deposit in any harbor or navigable water elsewhere violation of the act. Held, that the indictment charged an offense within the act of 1809, as well as within the act on which it was based, and therefore that the court would not consider whether the earlier acts were repealed by the act of 1899. United States vs. Moran et al. 113 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 172. or <r PRODUCTION OF MANGANESE. The production of manganese throughout the world is increasing at a rate at least commensurate with the growth of the demand for it. As our readers know, its use has expanded very materially in recent years, in con- nection with the manufacture of Bessemer and open-hearth steel, but the element is of tolerably wide distribution in localities where it is capable of easy working, in relation to the consuming centers, and there is no reason to fear” for a failure of supplies in the years to come. On the contrary, the development of new mines promises to lead to a plethora, and consequently to a serious fall in prices, unless the manufacture of steel grows pari passu with it, which seems improbable. It is estimated that the world’s production during the last year was close upon 900,000 tons, of which over 430,000 tons were supplied by Russia, 120,000 tons by Spain and Portugal, 83,000 tons by India, and the remainder by other countries among which Brazil leads with a round 70,000 tons. ‘The Russian contribution forms the backbone of the whole annual supply. It comes mainly from the Trans-Caucasus.—London Engineering.