1841, June 29. Hon. John Sergeant and Hon. G. W. Toland, in Congress, to Hon. Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Treasury.

1841, June 29. N. F. Williams, collector, Baltimore, to W. Forward, comptroller.

1841, June 30. John Chew, surveyor, Havre-de-Grace, Md., to W. Forward, comptroller.

1841, July 2. W. Forward, comptroller, to George W. Clinton, collector, Buffalo, N. Y., and H. Perry, surveyor, Albany, N. Y.

1841, July 7. H. Perry, surveyor, Albany, N. Y., to W. Forward, comptroller.

1841, July 8. G. W. Clinton, collector, Buffalo, N. Y., to W. Forward, comptroller.

1841, September 17. Jona. Roberts, collector, Philadelphia, to W. Pinkney, surveyor, Baltimore.

1841, September 18. N. F. Williams, collector, Baltimore, to Comptroller of Treasury.

1841, September 18. N. F. Williams, collector, Baltimore, to Jona. Roberts, collector, Philadelphia.

1841, September 21. Jona. Roberts, collector, Philadelphia, to J. N. Barker, acting comptroller.

1841, November 4. J. N. Barker, acting comptroller, to N. F. Williams, collector, Baltimore.

1842, March 8. H. Addison, collector, Georgetown, to J. N. Barker, acting comptroller.

1842, March 8.

Circular from acting comptroller, to collectors, naval officers, and surveyors.

1842, March 9. J. N. Barker, acting comptroller, to H. Addison, collector, Georgetown.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. N. BARKER,

Hon. W. FORWARD, Secretary of the Treasury.

Acting Comptroller.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Comptroller's Office, June 18, 1793.

SIR: Your favor of the 3d instant has been received. There is nothing in the law to exempt ferry boats of more than five tons burden from being licensed, unless such boats are of the description mentioned in the 37th section, and are employed in the harbor of a town or city. That it was the design of the law that ferry boats should, in certain cases, be licensed, clearly appears from the 12th section.

The law makes it the duty of the collectors to administer certain oaths, and take a bond, before granting an enrolment, and for the enrolment allows a fee of fifty cents; at the same time, it prohibits the taking other or greater fees than are allowed. I think, therefore, that the true construction is, that the fee of fifty cents includes the compensation for taking the bonds.

Your obedient servant,

WILLIAM ELLERY, Esq.,

0. WOLCOTT, JR., Comptroller.

Collector, Newport, Rhode Island.

TREASURY Department, Comptroller's Office, February 15, 1808.

SIR: My opinion in the case stated by the collector at Philadelphia is now submitted.

The question is, whether vessels not decked, and above five tons, sailing from one part of a district to another part of the same district, ought to be licensed.

This question depends on a correct construction of the 6th and 37th sections of the coasting act.

It appears to me that, by the section first mentioned, all vessels of five tons and upwards are subject to the operation of the coasting act, unless they are embraced by the saving clause contained in the 37th section, which is in these words: "That nothing in this act shall be construed to extend to any boat or lighter, not being masted, or, if masted and not decked, employed in the harbor of any town or city." It does not appear that the vessel which occasioned the letter of the collector is thus employed; that she is employed to go from one place in a district to another place in the same district. I am of opinion, therefore, that this vessel is subject to the operation of the coasting act.

but

If the owner of the vessel shall refuse or neglect to take out a license, she will be subject, in certain cases, to the payment of foreign fees and tonnage, and in others to forfeiture, according to the provisions of the 6th section before mentioned.

The foregoing may be considered as an answer also to the case submitted by Mr. Sloan.

I have the honor to be, &c.

G. DUVALL, Comptroller.

ALBERT GALLATIN, Esq.

[EXTRACT.]

TREASURY Department,

Comptroller's Office, February 2, 1815.

SIR: With regard to the liability to the payment of tonnage duty of certain boats described by you, and employed in the navigation of the canal connecting the waters of Elizabeth river with those of Pasquotank, in North Carolina, it may be remarked, generally, that all such as are clearly above five tons burden ought to be subjected to the payment of the duty; and, although their construction may be such as to preclude the ascertainment of their burden in the particular mode prescribed by law, it is not thence conceived that other means might not rightfully and legally be resorted to for the attainment of the fact, particularly in cases where it should appear that the mode of construction had been adopted with a view to evade the payment of the duty to which the vessel would otherwise have been liable.

In all these cases, however, it is deemed advisable that the collector exercise a sound discretion, guarding, as he doubtless will, the public interest on the one hand, and abstaining from all unnecessary and vexatious rigor on the other.

Your obedient servant,

N. LUFBOROUGH, Acting Comptroller. CHALES K. MALLORY, Esq., Collector, Norfolk, Virginia.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Comptroller's Office, September 6, 1823. SIR: In your letter of the 12th ultimo, which was accompanied by your accounts of the customs for the quarter ending the 30th June last, and an account for postage in the 2d quarter of 1822, the amount of which was suspended for want of a voucher and, by other documents specified in your letter, you request particular instructions on the following case:

Large quantities of foreign goods coming from Albany and New York, destined for Buffalo, and other places to the west, are brought on the canal to Rochester, then shipped in lake vessels to Lewiston, in the Niagara district, from thence are carried in wagons over the portage to Schlosser, two miles above the falls, and thence in boats on the Niagara to Black Rock and Buffalo. In the passage up the river, an opportunity is afforded for the illegal introduction of goods from Canada, with a bare possibility of detection. The business, you say, is increasing, and the temptation for the commission of fraud great.

The boats which convey the goods from Schlosser to Buffalo are not licensed, and their owners claim that they are exempt, under the last section of the act for enrolling and licensing vessels. These boats depart from one place in the district to another place in the same.

You ask, "does the law contemplate that boats so employed (carrying foreign goods in value more or less than $800) shall be licensed, that the manifests of their lading are to be attested to on departure from, and arrived at, places in the same district? or, if exempt from the requirements of the law in these particulars, is an inspection of the goods to take place as if brought from a foreign port? If such inspection is to be made, what is the nature of the evidence that is required, or, rather, what evidence (under circumstances) should be deemed satisfactory proof of the legal importation of the goods?"

In reply, I have to observe that, as you have not given particular description of the boats to which you allude, their burden, &c., I can only state, generally, that from their employment they are not entitled to the benefit of the last section of the act for enrolling and licensing vessels, passed the 18th of February, 1793, which embraces only boats or lighters not being masted, or, if masted and not decked, employed in the harbor of any town or city.

It will thus be perceived that, to come within the exception, the boats must not only be of a particular description, but their employment must be confined in the manner stated.

If the boats of which you speak are under five tons burden, I am of opinion that, from the general tenor of the act referred to, but particularly from the 6th section thereof, they are not required to be licensed for carrying on the coasting trade.

It must be admitted, however, that the act in question by no means contains regulations adapted to the vessels and boats employed in the commerce on the lakes, and in the districts on the north and northwestern boundaries of the United States.

This is not to be wondered at, when it is taken into view that when the act was passed there was but one district of the kind, which was in the State of Vermont, on Lake Champlain.

In relation to importations into those districts from a foreign port, the case

is different, the collection law containing regulations applicable to every description of boats, vessels, &c., which may be employed in such importations.

If the boats to which you allude should bring any articles liable to ad valorem duties from any other district to your district in the original packages of importation, they will be amenable to the provisions of the 37th section of the supplementary collection laws of the 1st of March last, which are general, and therefore applicable to all the districts in the United States. In the absence of legal regulations adapted to the section of our country in question, I can only recommend, in relation to articles liable to ad valorem duties arriving in packages other than those in which they were imported, and to articles liable to specific duties, whether arriving in such packages or the original packages of importation, a continuance of the course which, you say, you have hitherto pursued, in making a partial inspection of the goods, by comparing the packages with the bills of lading, &c., which, although it may have a tendency to impress the parties with a belief that you possess the means of discovering frauds when committed. In relation to articles liable to ad valorem duties arriving in the original packages of importation, it will be remembered you are to pursue the course pointed out in the 37th section of the supplementary collection law before mentioned.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

MYNDERT M. Dox,

JOSEPH ANDERSON, Comptroller.

Collector, Buffalo, New York.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Comptroller's Office, March 29, 1824.

SIR: Your letter of the 13th of January last came duly to hand; but, owing to a great press of business, which is usually the case during the sitting of Congress, I have not been able to reply to it before.

You refer to the 13th, 17th, and 34th sections of the act for enrolling and licensing vessels, passed the 18th of February, 1793, and propound the following questions in relation to them, viz:

1. Is an inspector of the customs deemed an officer concerned in the collection of the revenue, within the meaning of the 13th section?

2. If an inspector of the customs be not authorized to receive and certify manifests, and tender the oath required by the 17th section, and other sections of the act, would he be so authorized, in case he should be also appointed the special deputy of the collector; and could the collector legally make such an appointment?

3. Is the compensation act of the 2d of March, 1799, or the act before mentioned, to regulate the fees on taking bonds?

In reply to the first and second questions, I have to observe that an inspector of the customs is an officer concerned in the collection of the revenue, within the meaning of the law, and, as such, has a right, agreeably to the 13th section of the act for enrolling and licensing vessels, to inspect the enrolment and license of any ship or vessel, and, according to the 18th section, to inspect manifests, and make certain interrogatories, but not authorized to receive and certify manifests, and administer the oath required by

the 17th section, and other sections of the act-the authority for so doing being restricted to the collectors and surveyors.

The person, however, who has heretofore acted as an inspector of the customs may, under the 7th section of the act of 3d of March, 1817, entitled "An act to continue in force an act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports and tornage, &c.," which section was continued in force by the act of May, 1822, without limitation of time, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, be appointed a deputy collector; and, as such, may be authorized to receive and certify manifests, administer oaths, grant permits, clearances, &c., and generally perform such acts as the collector himself is authorized to perform; in which way, the difficulties and incouveniences, arising from the circumstance of there being no other officer than an inspector of the customs stationed at Whitehall, at the south end, of Lake Champlain and the head of the canal, the point of departue and arrival of the canal boats, being 90 miles distant from the port of entry and your residence, will be obviated.

In conformity with the provisions of the 7th section of the act referred to, it will, however, be necessary that the propriety of the appointment of a deputy, with the powers mentioned, and to be stationed at the port of Whitehall in your district, should be submitted by you to the Secretary, and approved of by him.

In relation to the 3d question I have to observe, that it has uniformly been decided by this Department, the fees provided in the compensation act of 2d March, 1799, have reference exclusively to services to be performed under the collection law of the same date, in case of vessels proceeding to and arriving from foreign ports; and that it does not repeal, or in any wise affect, the fees provided in the act for registering and recording vessels, passed the 31st December, 1792, or the act for enrolling and licensing vessels, passed the 18th February, 1793; consequently, the fees specified in these two acts are still to govern, as to the services to be performed under them, respectively.

Respectfully, your obedient servant, PETER SAILLEY, Esq.,

JOS. ANDERSON, Comptroller.

Collector, Champlain, N. Y.

TREASURY DEARTMENT, Comptroller's Office. April 6, 1824.

GENTLEMEN: The Secretary of the Treasury has referred to me your joint letter to him of the 2d instant, wherein you state that you had been informed that the collector of the district of Champlain, in the State of New York, had recently issued a notification requiring the owners of canal boats to take licenses to navigate them as for coasting vessels, and ask whether such notification had been issued in pursuance of instructions from the Treasury Department, and, if not, whether instructions from the Department to the collector of that district might not obviate the necessity of so modifying the law as to exempt canal boats (which it could never have intended to have included) from the inconvenience and embarrassments of its provisions.

In reply, I have to observe that, from the enclosed copy of a letter re