200 Chests of Tea. this way of considering the testimony, the conflict 1824. exhibits more a matter of apparent than real diversity of opinion. But if it be not thus reconcilable, it appears to us that the weight of the evidence is so strong, that teas of this description have been long imported into our market as bohea, that no Court of justice would feel itself authorized to inflict the forfeiture under the statute, upon a presumed intentional violation of its provisions. There is, indeed, something that applies still more forcibly to the claimant, under these circumstances, than applies in common cases. He came into the tea trade since the peace of 1815, and has been most extensively engaged in it. At the time of his first commercial enterprise, teas of this description were publicly and commonly imported into New-York as bohea, and had acquired a known commercial character. He acted upon this settled usage; and if the present seizure can bé sustained, he is to suffer for a forfeiture, which he had no adequate means to avoid, and could not have foreseen. Then, as to the intention of fraud. It is said that these teas were imported in congo chests, covered with a thin paper, for the purposes of disguise, and that, upon inspection, it is clear that the original congo still remained in the chests. The circumstance that these are congo chests, whose structure is perfectly known, would not justify the conclusion that there was an intention to defraud the revenue, since that structure might attract observation, and thus lead to immediate VOL. IX. 56 200 Chests of Tea.. 1824. detection. It would have been more natural to have disguised congo teas in bohea boxes. But the difficulty that lies in the argument derived from this source, is, that upon opening the chests, the contents are proved to be exactly what the New-York witnesses call bohea, and the Boston witnesses congo. So that the question of fraudulent disguise depends upon the fact, whether the tea be or be not bohea; and if it be settled to be the latter, then the suspicion from this circumstance vanishes. The same answer may be given to all the other circumstances relied on as badges of fraud. They become utterly unimportant, if there was not a real misrepresentation of the quality of the tea. There is one cogent fact, which presses with peculiar weight in the consideration of this part of the case. It is, that after the present seizure was made, and the whole train of suspicions disclosed, the remaining teas, of the same denomination and importation, which were yet in the public stores at New-York, underwent a strict examination there under the authority of the officers of the customs. The result of that examination was an unequivocal opinion, that they were the common bobea of commerce; and this result being communicated to the government, no farther proceedings were thought necessary to vindicate its rights. But another fact, which is decisive against the supposition of a fraudulent intention, is, that the teas were purchased in China as bohea, at the usual bohea price, and upon their importation into 200 Chests of Tea. New-York, were there sold at the usual bohea 1824. price. They were sold at prices from thirty-one to thirty-six and a half cents per pound, when, at the same time, and in the same place, congo sold at forty-eight cents per pound. This is not a matter of doubtful or equivocal evidence; it is admitted and proved in the most positive manner. What then could have been the inducement to fraud? Men do not perpetrate frauds upon the revenue from the mere love of mischief, or the wanton disregard of duty. There must be some leading interest, some enticing object in view, to lead them to such a violation of social law and moral sentiment. In the present case, no such motive could exist, for the whole conduct of the party is at war with the supposition. Nay, more, the perpetration of the fraud would have been against his interest. We do not here allude to his private reputation as an opulent merchant, engaged in an extensive commerce in teas, nor to the powerful influence that, under such circumstances, public opinion must have upon him, in its stern and severe, though silent rebukes. But his immediate interest in the same trade and in the same voyage, would be sacrificed by such unworthy proceedings. He would hazard large interests upon a paltry saving in duties, from which he could in the end derive not the slightest benefit. It has been said, that unless the present libel can be maintained, a wide door will be opened for the admission of frauds in the importation of If this be true, it forms no reason for a different judicial construction of the acts of Con teas. 1824. 200 Chests of Tea. gress, much less for the enforcing a forfeiture where the facts will not warrant it. Congress can provide an easy remedy, by.changing the specific duty to a duty ad valorem, a policy which has already obtained the sanction of other nations. It is unnecessary to go farther into the discussion of the merits of this case. The judgment of the Court is, that the decree of the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, given pro forma, ought to be reversed, the libel of the United States be dismissed, and the 200 chests of tea be restored to the claimant. But the Court are also of opinion that there was probable cause of seizure, and direct it to be certified upon the record. Decree reversed. [LOCAL LAW.] JOHN MASON, Appellant, V. JOHN MUNCASTER, survivor of George Deneale and John Muncaster, CHURCH-WARDENS OF . CHRIST CHURCH, FAIRFAX PARISH, ALEXANDRIA, and the said JOHN MUNCASTER and EDmund J. Lee, PRESENT CHURCH-WARDENS OF THE SAID CHURCH, and others, Respondents. A bill in equity, brought to rescind a purchase made under the decrce The Vestry of the Episcopal Church of Alexandria, now known by APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. 1824. Mason V. Muncaster. |