moieties clause of the act of 1799, except that in no case should the appraisers be entitled to receive any part thereof. Under this act dutiable value was estimated by including all charges except insurance. But the appraisers were to value goods at the "current value at the time of exportation in the country where the same may have been originally manufactured or produced."

3. Appraisement Reforms of 1830.

Although these laws must have been a check to the grosser frauds upon the revenue, the importer's invoice was still received in the majority of cases as correct, and no examination or appraisement was ordered unless the suspicions of the collector happened to be aroused. It was becoming evident, however, that a scheme of valuation which relied so completely on the honesty of none too scrupulous foreign importers was a direct discrimination against native dealers, and placed too high a premium upon perjury, with too slight means for its detection to work at all justly.

The tariff law of May 19th, 1828, declared that in all cases where ad valorem rates were levied upon goods imported, it should be the duty of the collector to have them appraised at their actual value, "any invoice or affidavit thereto, to the contrary notwithstanding," and that in all cases where the actual value so ascertained should exceed the invoice value by ten per cent., fifty per cent. additional should be charged; that is, the duties should be raised one-half. The stringency of this provision, however, was greatly lessened by a proviso that nothing in the section should be construed to impose this fifty per cent. additional for a variance of a bona fide invoice of goods from their actual value.

About this time the general discussion of the tariff and the continued prominence of tariff questions in the public mind seems to have called some attention to the methods of its administration as well.

1 Statutes at Large, Vol. IV., p. 274.

No better opportunity could be offered for a change in methods than that which a change of principles affords. When the people begin to distrust an old principle, they are apt to distrust all things connected with it. When they attempt to discard a settled policy, they are willing to throw off with it many of the purely incidental features of its application. They are then open to reforms, changes, even experiments. That there was need of reform in the customs administration was plainly evident in many directions. A mere examination of the records of some departments is sufficient to condemn them. As a sample of the inefficiency of parts of the service and the general laxness in the system of public accounts prevalent at this time, it is only necessary to state that during the seven years preceding 1828 the nominal exports of spices on which drawbacks were obtained, in spite of the fact that they were not produced, but, on the contrary, were extensively consumed in the United States, exceeded the nominal imports by $168,155. As further illustrative of the t condition of the service under the method of compensation in large part through fees, it may be mentioned that in many places the inspectors received more than double the compensation of the collectors who employed them.2 Great embarrassment in the conduct of business was also experienced by the various ways in which these fees were computed. There was hopeless lack of order in the classification of the various ports. At some the custom houses were built or purchased by the government; while at others the collectors. were compelled to furnish them at their own expense.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1829 called the attention of Congress to some of the objectionable features of the prevailing practice, and indicated certain necessary reforms which Congress partially incorporated in the law of May 28, 1830.

1 See repealing laws of 1870 and 1890, infra, pp. 68 and 87.

2 Report of Secretary Ingham, December, 1829.

The President was authorized to appoint an additional appraiser for New York, and the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint not exceeding four assistant appraisers, two in Philadelphia and two in Boston, "who shall be practically acquainted with the quality and value of some one or more of the chief articles of importation." They were to examine such goods as the principal appraisers might direct, and report the value to them for revision and correction before it was handed to the collector. But in any case where the collector deemed the appraisement too low he might direct a' reappraisement, either by the principal appraisers or by three merchants designated by him for that purpose. If the importer was dissatisfied with the appraised value, he should apply to the collector in writing, stating the reasons for his opinion. Thereupon the collector was to appoint one merchant "skilled in the value of such goods," and the merchant was to appoint another. In case of disagreement, these two were to appoint an umpire. When a majority of them agreed, they should report the result to the collector. In case this differed from the value set by the government appraisers, the collector was to decide between them. One package at least out of every twenty was now to be examined.3

A provision which was the forerunner of several similar ones that have caused great annoyance to appraising officers was the one requiring that when goods of which cotton or wool was a component part were found in the same package, the value of the best article contained in such package should be taken as the average value of the whole. Indeed as the law went promptly into effect there was very general complaint

1 Heretofore two appraisers had constituted the force at New York, but the law of 1828, requiring the appraisement of all goods imported, threw an overwhelming amount of work upon them, as at this time more than half the total imports entered at that port.

2 Their salaries were to be at New York $1500 a year; at Philadelphia and Boston $1200.

3 Formerly one in fifty. See supra, p. 35.

from importers, who from the lack of sufficient notice were compelled in some instances to pay unreasonable duties. There was no definite requirement as to what size and form of parcel should constitute a package, and some kinds of goods such as laces, etc., were, it was claimed, almost necessarily imported in packages containing several classes of different values. This affords an illustration of what complications a seemingly simple provision may create.

In his report for 1830 Secretary of the Treasury Ingham made several suggestions looking to changes in revenue collection in contemplation of expected tariff legislation. By far the most important of these was the substitution of "home valuation" in place of the "foreign valuation," which had always hitherto been the basis of appraisement. In the course of a somewhat extensive argument, he called attention to the impossibility of the officers keeping themselves informed as to current value in foreign markets with sufficient precision to render it an item of uniform ratio to that of current value in the United States.

This same difficulty exists to-day. But he went on to show that as long as the current value, or rather the invoice price of goods in the foreign market, was made the basis on which duties were laid, peculiar advantages were given to those having special opportunities of purchasing or making up invoices at rates below the real value; that is, advantage was given to the foreign merchant who thereby had the benefit not only of greater intimacy with the foreign markets-which might be presumed to be offset by the American's advantage in selling -but also of the fact that he could in consequence enter his goods lower and pay less duties. It was chiefly owing to this that extensive branches of importing business were tending to fall more and more into the hands of foreign merchants, and of those who, whether foreign or American, were least scrupulous in their dealings. Subsequent experience has borne out these statements. But they seem to be the inherent tenden

cies of any ad valorem system, if not its necessary results. The remedy proposed was to adopt "the current value in the United States" as the dutiable value-disregarding, of course, the cost in the foreign market, and excluding all charges and additions. It was urged in support of this plan that the officers, by proper attention and diligence, could readily ascertain the current value of goods in their vicinity, that a mass of information could speedily be collected to correct errors, and that the effect of such an arrangement would be to steady prices, to expose merchants to less hazard, and to restore as far as possible the equality between foreign and domestic dealers.

This principle was adopted in the law of March 2, 1833, but its application was to be postponed till after June 30, 1842. Before that time had arrived, a secretary hostile to the plan had taken office, and the great difficulties of its enforcement were more plainly seen, so that it was in actual or rather attempted operation for only a few months before its repeal, in 1842.2 Several years later, during Pierce's administration, the idea was again taken up, but was handled so roughly by Guthrie, then Secretary of the Treasury, that it was abandoned, and the experiment has never since been attempted.

The change in the tariff in 1832 brought with it some additional regulations.

The Act of July 14, 1832, which was not to go into effect until the third of the following March, abolished the long standing custom of adding ten per cent. or twenty per cent. to the cost or value of goods in estimating the duty thereon. Duty less than two hundred dollars was to be paid in cash without a discount; if it exceeded that sum it might be paid or secured to be paid one-half in three and one-half in six

1 House Report, No. 943. 27th Congress, 2d Session.

2 Bolles in his Financial History makes a misstatement here. Cf. supra, p. 37,

note.

3 Report of Secretary of Treasury, 1856.

* The law had heretofore placed fifty dollars as the limit.