Auffmordt v. Hedden

• Decision Date: 08 December 1890
• Parties: AUFFMORDT et al. v. HEDDEN, Collector
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

137 U.S. 310

11 S.Ct. 103

34 L.Ed. 674

AUFFMORDT et al. v. HEDDEN, Collector.

December 8, 1890.

H. E. Tremain, M. W. Tyler, and A. P. Ketchum, for plaintiffs in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for defendant in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is an action at law, brought by Clement A. Auffmordt. John F. Degener, William Degener, and Adolph William von Kessler, composing the firm of C. A. Auffmordt & Co. against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of New York, in the superior court of the city of New York, and removed by the defendant into the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, to recover an alleged excess of duties, paid under protest, on goods imported into the port of New York from Bremen by the steamer Main, and entered at the custom-house at New York on March 13, 1886. After issue joined the case was, on the application of the plaintiffs, separated into two causes of action, the present one covering all questions of law and fact involved in the importation, except those which concerned the rates of duty affecting it, and the trial involved in the case now before us proceeded on that basis. It was had before Judge WHEELER and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for $10, for which amount, with interest and costs, judgment was entered in July, 1887. The plaintiffs brought a writ of error, claiming that the verdict should have been for a larger sum. The valuation of the goods on entry was 7,070 francs, on which a duty of 50 per cent. was paid. Afterwards, the appraisers raised the valuation by adding 440 francs 10 centimes to the 7,070 francs, making a total valuation of 7,510 francs 10 centimes. On a reappraisement by a merchant appraiser and a general appraiser, under section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, the same result was reached, and, on this valuation of 440 francs 10 centimes, a duty of 50 per cent. was paid, amounting to $42. The controversy in the case relates to this $42. There is no foundation for the suggestion made in the brief for the plaintiffs that they paid any duty upon non-dutiable charges. Various assignments of error are made which are not especially referred to in the brief for the plaintiffs, and those which are discussed in that brief may be classified under distinct heads. Section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, under which the principal question in the case arose, was as follows: 'If the importer, owner, agent, or consignee of any merchandise shall be dissatisfied with the appraism ent, and shall have complied with the foregoing requisitions, he may forth with give notice to the collector, in writing, of such dissatisfaction, on the receipt of which the collector shall select one discreet and experienced merchant to be associated with one of the general appraisers wherever practicable, or two discreet and experienced merchants, citizens of the United States, familiar with the character and value of the goods in question, to examine and appraise the same, agreeably to the foregoing provisions, and, if they shall disagree, the collector shall decide between them; and the appraisement thus determined shall be final, and be deemed to be the true value, and the duties shall be levied thereon accordingly.' At the trial, the plaintiffs put in evidence the following-named parts of the general regulations under the customs and navigation laws, published by the treasury department in 1884, namely: Chapter 3, pt. 3, arts. 447-506, both inclusive; chapter 5, pt. 8, arts. 1399-1410, both inclusive; and articles 1415-1417, both inclusive; also, extracts from instructions issued for the guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned, by the secretary of the treasury, under date of July 1, 1885, known as 'Treasury Department Document No. 712,' being instruction of June 9, 1885, p. 245, No. 6957; instruction of June 10, 1885, p. 249, No. 6959; and instruction of July 20, 1885, p. 305, No. 7029. Of the general regulations of 1884, above referred to, those which are material in this case are set out at the end of this opinion.

In the present case the plaintiffs filed protests and appeals to the secretary of the treasury on the 29th of April, 1886. There was no decision by the secretary on the appeals, and this suit was brought. The notice of dissatisfaction with the first appraisement was dated March 22, 1886, and contained a request for a reappraisement. Mr. McCreery was selected by the collector to be the merchant appraiser, but the notice to him of his selection was not put in evidence. The oath signed by him, and sworn to before a deputy-collector, on the 8th of April, 1886, was put in evidence, and was in the following terms: 'I, the undersigned, appointed by the collector of the district of New York to appraise a lot of manufactures of silk and cotton imported per steamship Main from Bremen, the importer having requested a new appraisement thereof in accordance with law, do hereby solemnly swear diligently and faithfully to examine and inspect said lot of manufactures of silk and cotton, and truly to report, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation of the same to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States, in conformity with the provisions of the several acts of congress providing for and regulating the appraisement of imported merchandise. So help me God.' The plaintiffs were notified by the collector, on the 20th of April, 1886, to pay the additional duty. This was after the reappraisement, and the additional duty was paid, they having previously paid $10 for the merchant appraiser's compensation.

In the course of the trial, the plaintiffs proposed to show by Mr. McCreery that, at the time he acted as merchant appraiser in the present case, he acted as such at the same time in other cases. This testimony being objected to by the defendant as irrelevant, it was excluded, and the plaintiffs excepted. The court, however, admitted in evidence the fact that some other appraisals were going on at the same time with the one in the present case, although it excluded, under the exception of the plaintiffs, testimony as to how many of them there were. The plaintiffs also, for the purpose of raising the point that the merchant appraiser should have been selected by virtu of the classification of employes in the classified customs service, as certified to by the secretary of the treasury under section 882 of the Revised Statutes, being the classification provided for by section 6 of the act of January 16, 1883, c. 27, (22 St. 405,) offered such classification in evidence, but it was excluded by the court under the objection of the defendant, as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered to show that the merchant appraiser was not appointed under the civil service rules under the said act of 1883, but the court excluded the evidence, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered in evidence sundry depositions of witnesses taken before the reappraisers in this case, in regard to market value, but they were excluded by the court on the objection of the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also offered to show by a witness the true and actual market value and wholesale price of the goods in question, and of goods identical with them, in the principal markets of the country from which they were exported, at the time of their exportation, in March, 1886; but, on the objection of the defendant that the testimony was immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant, it was excluded, and the plaintiffs excepted. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs for the $10 merchant appraiser's fees. The defendant asked for a direction for a verdict for him except as to such $10. The plaintiffs requested the court to submit to the jury, for their finding the question whether or not there was any lawful appraisement or reappraisement in the case. The court refused so to do, but directed a verdict for the defendant except as to the $10, to which action of the court the plaintiffs excepted. The plaintiffs then asked the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed beyond the $10, on the ground that the statute under which the merchant appraiser was appointed was unconstitutional and void, under that provision of article 2, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, which reads as follows: 'The congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments,' claiming that the merchant appraiser was an inferior officer, within the meaning of that provision, and was not appointed in accordance therewith. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs excepted. They then requested the court to submit all of the testimony to the jury, with proper instructions as to what constituted an appraisement or a reappraisement, which request was refused, and the plaintiffs excepted. They also requested the court to submit all of the evidence to the jury touching the value upon which the duty was assessed, and the value declared on entry, on the ground that section 2930 of the Revised Statutes was unconstitutional; that the plaintiffs had the right to have submitted to the jury, under proper instructions, on the evidence, all questions touching the imposition of duty; and that, by withholding the evidence from the jury, by virtue of an unconstitutional statute which declared the conclusions of the reappraisers to be final, the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional right to a trial by jury, in a case where, by the common law, it obtained, under article 7 of the amendments of the constitution. This request was denied, and the plaintiffs excepted.

It is provided, by section 2902 of the Revised Statutes, that it shall be the duty...