Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/newyorkcustomhouOOunse r L 27th Congress, 2d Session. Rep. No. 669. Ho, op Rets. NEW YORK CUSTOM-HOUSE. April 28, 1842. Read, and laid upon the table. Mr. Stanly, from the Committee on Public Expenditures, submitted the following . REPORT : The Committee on Public Expenditures respectfully submit to the House a report made by the honorable George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Poindexter toas one of the commis- sioners appointed by the President, on the 10th of May, 1S41, to ex- amine into the affairs of the custom-house in the city of New York. The committee, being apprized that the expenditures at the custom-house in the city of New York had increased very greatly for several years past, felt bound to become acquainted with the nature and character of these expenditures, that the guilty might be exposed and punished, and like abuses corrected for the future. As, however, the time allowed the com- mittee for such an investigation was not sufficient to enable them to attempt it, with any probability of success, unless they had abandoned the sittings of the House; and, as they had been informed of the nature of the duties of the commissioners, they concluded it would be more satis- factory to the House to await the report of the commissioners. On the 9th day of February last, the House of Representatives adopted a reso- lution, reported from the Committee on Public Expenditures, requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send a copy of the reports of the commissioners. No answer to that resolution has yet been received. Some days since, the committee called on the Secretary of the Treasury, to know when they would receive an answer to the resolution referred to, and whether the report made since the date of that resolution would be sent. Some days elapsed, and no answer came ; another letter was addressed to the Secre- tary of the Treasury ; and to this, after waiting another day, the committee received no answer. The committee, knowing the general desire to be made acquainted with the proceedings of the commissioners, and believing that it was due not only to the House of Representatives, but to the American people, that abuses should be exposed, and feeling anxious that measures might, be taken during the present session to prevent the recurrence of the degrading enor- mities practised at the New York custom-house, determined to call on Mr. Poindexter, one of the commissioners, and to submit the result of his labors to the consideration of the House. 2 Hep. No. 669. This report is herewith submitted. The committee earnestly and re- spectfully invite the attention of the House to its details. It is believed that the wickedness of public officers here exposed is unparalleled in the histo- ry of any civilized Government ; and public interest, the interest of the in- jured and unjustly oppressed citizens, and, above all, public honor, irnperi- ously demand a remedy at the hands of the Representatives of the people. REPORT OF GEORGE POINDEXTER, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE AFFAIRS OF THE NEW YORK CUSTOM-HOUSE, PAST AND PRESENT, CONCLUDED IN APRIL, 1842, TWCtrrDING THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE TWO BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS, IX THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 4 Rep. No. 669. REPORT. Commissioners' Office, 1841. The undersigned, one of the commissioners appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the orders of the President of the United States, by commission bearing date 10th day of May, 1841, having performed the duties required of him, in connexion with Messrs. Kelley and Stewart, the other commissioners, so far as the same relates to the examination and in- vestigation into the affairs of the custom-house in the city of New York, has the honor to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury the following report, being a condensed view of the evidence taken before the commis- sioners, so far as the same may be deemed important to the future action of Congress, or of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the various subjects to which it relates: The undersigned has examined and considered a report on the evidence and investigations of the commissioners, taken in the city of New York, pre- pared and offered for his signature, by Alfred Kelley, Esq., one of the com- missioners, from which report the undersigned, after mature deliberation, deems it proper to withhold his assent and signature ; because said report does not, in the opinion of the undersigned, contain a fair and impartial representation of the testimony given, or the most material parts thereof, on the subjects which the undersigned regards as involving the most important acts of the collector of the port of New York, touching his powers and du- ties, and the great interests of commerce placed by the laws under his supervision. The undersigned deems it proper, however, to state, that there are por- tions of said report to which he is not disposed to object ; but, in connection with oiher parts of the same document, it would be difficult to discriminate between the parts to which his assent might be given and the objectionable portions of the report. The undersigned has therefore deemed it proper and due, as well to himself as to the Government, under whose appointment he acted, to offer his own views of the testimony herewith reported, and of the considerations resulting from that testimony, without intending, in any manner, to impugn the motives or judgment of the other commissioners, who may have taken different views of the subjects brought before them, and of the evidence taken and recorded jointly by the commissioners. The first branch of inquiry to which the attention of the commissioners was drawn by their commission is the abstraction and misapplication of the public money receivable by the collector or other officers of the cus- toms, which does not appear on their accounts transmitted to the Treasury Department. The testimony taken on these subjects may be referred to in general terms, as the same is entirely too voluminous to be incorporated in this report ; but the more prominent, points to which the undersigned desires Rep. No. 669. 5 to draw the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury are the following : First. The expenditures foiling under the head of cartage and labor. Second. Stationery and printing, storage, and other incidental expenses of the custom-house, in all its departments. Third. Light-house expenses, revenue cutters, and the expenditures incurred at the quarantine ground below the city of New York. The manner of keeping the various accounts of the custom-house, and of the moneys received and paid over to the collector, through the cashier or his assistant, and passed to the credit of the United States, so as to secure a strict accountability of each officer, respectively, to the Treasury Depart- ment, will be the subject of auother branch of this report. First, as to cartage and labor. The undersigned, on his arrival in the city of New York, and at the commencement of the investigations which he was charged to make, found all the arrangements of the custom-house, and most of the officers thereof, precisely in the condition in which they had been left by Jesse Hoyt, on his removal from that office ; and so they continued for several months after the labors of the commissioners began. It will therefore be only necessary to look into the system adopted by Hoyt, to show its real character under the new collector, until a n form was produced, to some extent, by the investigations of the commissioners. It will be seen that the expenditure of money, by Jesse Hoyt, for cartage and labor, was not only enormous in amount, but applied, as the under- signed believes, to corrupt purposes, and paid out by the order of the col- lector to the accounting officer of the custom-house, without any sufficient voucher to show the actual amount of labor performed, or of the cartage for which payment was demanded and made at the cashier's office. The 26th answer of John A. Fleming, auditor of the custom-house, in his testi- mony, will show the character and description of all the vouchers on which these payments have been made. They contain but two lines, without any specification whatever : " Paid for cartage. Do. for labor." Which in all cases the auditor, under the the direction of the collector, ad- mitted as a sufficient voucher to authorize the payment of any amount carried out by the storekeeper, George A. Wasson, whose receipt was taken for the same, under which it was charged to the Treasury of the United States, and approved by the Department at Washington. No evi- dence was required from the storekeeper, of any description, either written or otherwise, of the sums paid by him for cartage or labor, to whom paid, at what time, or at what rates, but every thing connected with the transaction was taken for granted, on the mere exhibition of the vague account, as above stated; and the amount of money from time to time called for by the storekeeper was, hy order of the collector and the sanction of the auditor, (an officer dependent on the collector,) paid over to George A. Wasson, the principal storekeeper of the appraiser's store in Nassau street. It appears, from the testimony of many witnesses examined on this subject, that, after Mr. Hoyt became collector of the port of New York, there were two privi- leged carts employed in transferring goods ordered to the public store in Nassau street for examination, either from ships or other public stores, and that all other carts were excluded from participating in the transfer of such goods, notwithstanding great inconvenience and delays were experienced by the want of a sufficient number of carts to perform the service required 6 Rep. No. 669. for the proper despatch of the business in the transfer and examination of goods ordered to that store by the collector. One of these carts so privi- leged, it is in evidence, was the property of George A. Wasson, the pub- lic storekeeper ; and the other, although entered in the name of George Shourt, it may well be doubted whether, by a secret arrangement, some of- ficer in or out of the custom-house did not receive a proportion of the profits. The system adopted by the public storekeeper, who was the owner of one of these carts, for estimating the charge on each package transferred to said public store for examination, was in substance as follows: On each package from 31i to 50 cents, according to distance ; and if, at one load, the cart should bring from four to eight packages, the full price of a load was charged on each package ordered ; so that, while the merchant could pro- cure carts to transfer goods an equal distance for from 3H to 50 cents per load, the Government was charged by these privileged carts, owned in whole or in part by custom-house officers, sometimes at the rate of four full loads, and sometimes extending to the number of eight loads, as ap- pears by the testimony ; and thus the labor which other carts would per- form for fifty cents, at the highest, was charged to the Government at rates extending from two dollars per load to four or even five dollars per load. This system of charging will account for the enormous sums paid to George A. Wasson for cartage and labor, without any sufficient voucher to justify it, and which amounted, according to the statement furnished by the auditor, to the sum of $94,430 92, as follows : Statement of moneys paid at the custom-house, New York, for cartage and labor at the appraiser's store, in the years 1S3S, 1S39, and 1840, viz : Years. Cartage. Labor. Total. In 1S38 In 1S39 In 1S40 §10,168 S3 1S,326 26 13,193 35 $13,260 20 21,579 78 17,902 50 $23,429 03 39,906 04 30^095 85 94,430 92 Custom House, New York, May 31, 1S41. It may be proper, if not instructive, to take some notice of this man, George A. Wasson, whom we found occupying the same position under Mr. Curtis which he had previously held under Jesse Hoyt, the late col- lector. He is the same individual who, in addition to his office of store- keeper, was made a deputy collector by Hoyt ; and without performing any additional duty, he received from the custom-house the sum of fifteen hundred dollars per annum, in addition to his other salary as storekeeper. He was employed by Mr. Hoyt, with other subordinate officers, to assist in appraising goods, and pass them or certify them for seizure, without re- gard to the opinion of the regular appraisers. He was made use of to go abroad to other cities, and seize goods which had regularly passed the cus- tom-house in New York; and, in short, was a sort of factotum of Mr. Hoyt, and, in the seizure and condemnation of goods, was one of his Hep. No. 669. 7 standing witnesses in court, both in New York and elsewhere. He is the same person of whom Mr. Samuel Lawrence (of the house of Lawrence, Stone, & Lawrence) says, in his evidence, "that he believes him to be competent, faithful, and upright, in the discharge of his duties, and that he shall continue of that opinion until he is proved otherwise." The pur- poses to which the services, in and out of the custom-house, of this indi- vidual, George A. Wasson, were applied, under the orders and instructions of Jesse Hoyt, will sufficiently explain the grounds on which Mr. Lawrence placed so high an estimate on these services. This subject will be more fully set forth in a subsequent part of this report. It is in evidence, that by order of the collector, (Hoyt,) this man (Wasson) was despatched on various occasions to other cities, for the purpose of causing the seizure of woollens, which had been many months previous, and in some instances over one year, regularly passed at tli3 custom-house in New York, and the duties thereon paid by the importers. He had no authority, under the revenue laws of the United States, to appraise goods at the custom-house, in which he was a mere storekeeper and a nominal deputy collector ; and yet he was authorized and did actually reappraise woollens, so previously passed at the custom-house in new York, and the duties thereon paid, as aforesaid, which woollens had been removed from the city of New York to other cities for a market ; and under his reappraisement these goods were seized and libelled; and his evidence of their real value, at the place whence imported, was received in the courts of the United States, to prove an original fraudulent entry, although he had never seen these goods in New York, and their actual cost at the European market at which they were purchased might, and probably had, changed more than half a dozen times from the period of the entry of the goods to their reappraisement and seizure. In one of these excursions he reappraised cloths and cassimeres in the city of Baltimore, and caused their indiscriminate seizure, attended the trials, and gave evidence in the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland, under the orders of the collector of the port of New York. And, besides his legal compensation as storekeeper and deputy collector, he received, for his expenses and those of his attendants at Balti- more and Philadelphia, the following sums, as will appear on the books of the auditor at the New York custom-house, viz : For legal fees for travelling and attendance on the court, three and hundred six dollars and twenty-five cents - - $306 25 Extra compensation paid by the collector at New York, nine hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-five cents - - 960 25 Making, in the whole, at Baltimore, for attendance at one term, the round sum of twelve hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents ------- 1,266 50 At Philadelphia, for expenses for himself and attendants, be- sides the legal fees paid by the marshal, the sum of five • hundred and fifty-six dollars and eight cents, at one term, of the court ------- 556 08 At Baltimore, for himself and William Cairns, for attendance at one term, besides the legal fees paid by the marshal, two hundred and fifty-one dollars - - - 251 00 8 Rep. No. 669. Making, in the whole, an expenditure of seventeen hundred and sixty- seven dollars and thirty-three cents, over and above the legal fees, incurred between the months of May and October, in the year 1S40, for attendance on three trials, which appears to have been paid by the collector at New York, without any voucher filed in the auditor's office to justify the pay- ment. On other occasions, this same individual was sent to Boston on similar business, but there is no voucher in the auditor's office to show the amount paid to him for his attendance and expenses in that city. It will be proper to remark that, during the time occupied in attending these trials, all the duties of George A. Wasson at the custom-house in New York were neg- lected, while he was in the receipt of the full amount of the compensation allowed by law to the public storekeeper and deputy collector. These facts furnish a glimpse at the enormous system which will hereafter be noticed, to embarrass foreign commerce and thereby diminish the revenue, in which George A. Wasson, William Cairns, and others, were used as the instruments of the collector, in the appraisement, seizure, and condemnation of woollens imported by foreigners into the port of New York. It also appears in evidence that a great variety of petty frauds and illegal practices were perpetrated by this same individual, George A. Wasson ; and r without entering into a detail of the testimony given before the commis- sioners on these matters, it will be sufficient to class them under the general heads of abstraction of goods from the public store in Nassau street, for his own use, which was done to a considerable extent, as will abundantly appear by the testimony of Floyd D. Archer, John Searing, and others ;. the purchase of goods at the nine months sales, sometimes in his own name, and sometimes in the names of other persons, of the quality of which, goods he had acquired an accurate knowledge, by appraising and packing them, which was denied to all other bidders, who were not allowed either to see or examine these goods when offered at auction ; the abstraction of custom-house coal for his own use, and the employment of laborers, hired and paid at the public store, to labor for his own use and benefit. Some of these fraudulent practices will be more fully explained and exposed in a subsequent part of this report. Thus it will be seen that George A. Wasson, besides the enormous sums before stated paid to him for cartage and labor, without any voucher other than a mere general charge, was made a deputy collector, having no duty to perform, at a salary of fifteen hundred dollars per annum ; that he re- ceived large sums of money from Hoyt, the collector, for attending trials on seized goods at Baltimore and elsewhere, without being required to specify any item of expenditure on which these advances could be justified; that he abstracted a large amount of goods from the public store, and made use of the custom-house coal for his own use, and employed the time of a large number of laborers in and about his own premises, whose hire was paid by the public, and whose services were constantly required at the public store. The undersigned found this man in office at the commencement of the investigations into the affairs of the New York custom-house. He was continued precisely as he had been placed by Mr. Hoyt until the investi- gations had progressed about one month, and then was removed, because the commissioners discovered that the laborers and subordinate officers under his control refused to testify to facts within their knowledge, implicat- ing him, fearing the consequences which were threatened, of instant re moval, if they did so. He was allowed to testify in extenuation or expla Rep. No. 609. 9 nation of the evidence given against him ; but his answers to interrogatories put to him, being deemed unsatisfactory, were received, with the intention of again calling him to answer before the commissioners, which subsequent examination was never carried into effect. At the close of his testimony, given under oath, he states that the same extravagant system of charges for cartage and labor, which had been sanctioned while Jesse Hoyt re- mained in office, was continued under the new collector, Edward Curtis; and that he informed Mr. Curtis fully on this subject shortly after he came into office. It cannot fail to be matter of surprise that such a man as this should be an object of commendation with distinguished manufacturers in different portions of the country, and that he should be pronounced by them u honest and faithful," and recommended as a fit person to be con- tinued in office at the New York custom-house. The reason may perhaps be made manifest, when another part of this investigation shall be taken up for consideration. The branch of disbursements at the custom-house which follows next in order is the expenditures in the collector's office and the other depart- ments employed in the collection of the revenue, in books, stationery, and printing. The undersigned submits a comparative statement of the ex- penditures falling under the above heads, as they existed during nine months of the year 1S38, the years 1839 and 1840, and three months of the year 1841. The aggregate amount expended in each year will appear by the statement herewith exhibited, which embraces the several branches of the public service connected with the customs at this port ; the whole of which, for the period of three years, embracing a few days longer than the term of Mr. Hoyt's administration of the custom-house, amounted to the total of $51,703 22, divided under the several heads, as follows: •Amount of sums expended for stationery in the various departments of the custom-house. Articles. 183S 1839. 1840. 1841 Total. 9 months. 3 months. Blank books - §2,932 03 4,066 30 $4,812 06 SI, 577 00 $13,387 39 Steel pens and quills 657 54 1,593 88 2,671 24 1,332 50 6,255 16 Lead pencils - 26 25 346 63 581 38 618 00 1.572 26 Foolscap and post paper 906 00 818 76 1,413 51 414 75 3,553 02 Letter paper 157 50 783 50 649 89 393 50 1,984 39 Report and envelope paper 104 13 586 40 852 38 599 88 2,142 79 Drawing paper - 31 25 50 00 81 25 Tape - 186 24 619 00 840 81 486 00 2,132 05 Wafers and vtax. 194 81 337 39 349 25 881 45 Sand - 33 00 70 38 67 00 32 00 202 38 Blanks - - - 2,239 19 4,676 50 3,518 81 2,435 25 12,869 75 Knives - 23 25 130 84 118 25 161 00 433 34 Checks and certificates - 623 03 132 32 44 85 800 20 Ink - • 123 63 191 15 231 19 155 99 701 96 Total amount of stationery- 8,043 04 14,210 27 16,138 76 8,605 12 46,997 39 Sundries, not enumerated 444 46 3,570 60 574 40 116 57 4,706 03 8,487 50 17,780 87 16,713 16 8,721 69 51,703 22 10 Rep. No. 669. In 1S3S In LS33 Iil 1840 111 3 months of 1 S4 1 - RECAPITULATION. - 558,487 50 - 17,780 87 - 16,713 16 - 8,721 69 51,703 22 From the foregoing summary it will be seen that the average amount paid in each year, commencing at the close of the first quarter of 1838, and ending on the 31st March, 1841, was $17,234 42, which was paid by the collector to the following-named persons, to wit : M. P. O'Hern ------ $25,298 90 Fenwick & Fiora, (printers) .... 10,813 99 A. S. Gould ------- 7,637 17 G. F. Hopkins & Sons - - - - - 83 00 Win. G. Boggs - - - - - - 627 19 A. T. Jones"- ------ 1,507 25 Hector Craig l,68S 00 Boien & Parks ------ 409 50 A. C. Flanagan - - - - - 550 00 Wm. Davids & Co. - - - - - - 262 50 J. Goldsmidt - 4S7 50 Jared W. Bell - - - - - - 116 10 M. McGrath - - - - - - 11 50 L. J. Cohen ------ 4 00 C. L. Allen ------- 75 49,547 35 Paid sundry individuals subsequent to J. Hoyt's term of office, but ordered during his term - 2,155 S7 51,703 22 The following tables will exhibit the prices actually paid at the custom- house, and those at which the same articles are sold in the New York mar- ket, and at which it was in the power of the collector to have purchased them, either by contract or by purchase in the usual way, at the wholesale houses, through a suitable agent appointed for that purpose. Hep. No. 669. 11 Comparative prices of stationery under Jesse Hoyt, late collector, and Edward Curtis, collector, and the market value in the city of New York, as shown by the testimony of David Felt, stationer. Prices under Mr. Prices under Mr. .Market value. Articles supplied. Hoyt. Curtis. Cash book, 4 quires each - $20 $11. Impost book — — $8 unbound, 2 quires; $fi unbound in 2 $19 50, book of 15 book of 15 quires, quires; book of 15 quires, bound. bounds $68. quires, bound, $53. Bond book $15 each - $12 - $6 each. Treasurv note book $6 each $6 to $15 - $4 each. Notice book $8 each $3 each. Master's oath, 2 on a sheet - $ 12 per ream $12 to $14 per ream $7 per ream. Consignee's oath, 4 on a $12 per ream $12 to$l4 per ream. $7 per ream. sheet. Form of permit, 4 on a sheet Shipper's oalh, G on a sheet $12 per ream $12 to $14 per ream >~ per ream. $12 per ream $12 to $14 per ream $7 per ream. Entry of merchandise, 2 on $12 per ream $12 to $14 per ream $ / 50 per ream. a sheet. Other blanks $10to$l8 $10 to $18 per ream $6 to $7 50. Pens by the card, largest and $1 25 to $1 85 - 75 cts. to 83 cts. - $6 by the gross, or best. 50 cents per card. Commercial pens 75 cents per card 75 cents per card 17 cents per card. Pens by the card, usual size, 75 cents to $1 25 - 75 cts. to 83 cts. - 25 cents per card, or, (small.) if taken in boxes, at $1 80 per gross. Letter paper (average price) $5 to $8; $6 67 aver- $5 per ream to $7 $3 to $3 50 (ruled) by the ream. age one quarter, 1841. per ream. per ream. Abstract piper $100 to $141 None $47 50 per ream. Foolscap - $6 per ream $5 per ream to $5 50 $2 perream, (ruled.) Abstract paper, (inferior $70 per ream. 18| cts. per sheet, or $15 per ream. quality.) $80 per ream. Abstract, (smaller size) $40 per ream $11 per ream. Pencils, by the gross $15 to $28 $15 to $12 $9. Tape, by the gross - $12 to $18 $12 $6 50. Wafers, by the pound $1 50 $1 50 60 cents. "Wax, by the pound $1 75 $1 50 75 cents. Quills, by the 1,000 $40 $40 $35. Ink, by the gallon - $1 50 $1 25 - 75 cents. Sand - $3 to $3 50 per peck $2 per peck, or 25 cents per quart. 12 g cents if pur- chased by the bushel, • or 25 cents per peck. 12 Hep. "No. 669. £ ■*«* s § 53 <5 oo 11 c« § * 8 ^ -IS i s 8.,* * o 6 S5 — - co co o — ' o gV- 1 » 03 CT a Oi 03 r-t a* CM W cm o •-a 1 w ■ i CJ O O 03 o a> Ph co c: CO UT T3 co ^ _i> -r; co co co 3 - — ( § • -h a> a> X) o « ° o o ^ 2 - C C «* o c o CO CM co «i CO 'O o o O © O) CO Ci o c CM CM ei o CO V) *o CO CM l> r— 1 CO CO o o o co co CM CM c> CO o CI IT) »C r~ co I— 1 CO l> 3 vxT oT ccT »— 1 CO CM 1— 1 CO CO OS I> o co CM r-l O i—i CM CO CM o o co CO vo CO o -h CM o CO 1 »0 rf* co CO — • VO O co lh- t - CM CM 1— I 1 bo o O <» c3 jsj 03 O L O < v: 6 2 .9 vT 2 o S £ o o . -g o o M o 03 C3 03 o O CO 03 H o O -i— > CO Tf O !- VO vo VO VO CO C5 CO CM 1 1- VO co — i Oi CO CO 1—1 ^ cc O VO CO CO vo^ CM Ci or <£ 1 i CO — • o CO CO VO vo CO CO O CI CO 1 o» o I—I co rf i—i o r* CO o CO CO CO o r-t VO — " CO cT co" co" co" 1 o VO i s oo W ^ — ' Kl h 5 £ £ £ CO o Rep. No. fi69. 13 To the foregoing statements of expenditures for stationery, it may afford an illustration of these expenditures to give the amount of the second quar- ter of each year, from 1838 to the second quarter of the year 1841. Mr. Hoyt entered on the discharge of his duties, as collector, at the commence- ment of the second quarter of the year 1838; and Mr. Curtis entered on the discharge of his duties, in the same office, at the commencement of the sec- ond quarter of the year 1841 : Officers. 2d quarter 1838. 2d quarter 1839. 2d quarter 1840. 2d quarter 1841. Collector Appraisers Storekeeper Inspectors Washington street store - Staten Island store $2,040 31 S 00 #1,518 69 245 15 570 76 736 00 40 S8 #2,436 63 130 99 652 73 644 50 49 00 109 00 #1,753 78 US 50 203 87 24 50 20 56 2,048 31 3,111 48 4,022 S5 2,221 21 From the foregoing statement, it appears that in the second quarter of 1838, the first three months of Mr. Hoyt's collectorship, the amount of expenditure for stationery and printing, including all the departments of the custom-house, was $2,048 31 ; and for the second quarter of the two succeeding years, while Mr. Hoyt remained in office, the amount of ex- penditure was as follows: in 1839, S3, 111 48; in 1840, $4,022 S5 ; and. in the second quarter of 1841, being the first three months of Mr. Curtis's collectorship, the amount of expenditure was $2,221 21. This estimate places the first month of Mr. Hoyt's expenditure for stationery and print- ing below that of the first three months of Mr. Curtis's expenditure, by the amount of $1 72 90, notwithstanding the unusually large sum charged in the last quarter of Mr. Hoyt for stationery and printing, which was calculated to diminish in the same ratio the necessity of a large expendi- ture for the same purposes in the first quarter of his successor, who had the benefit of this enormous expenditure at the close of the term of ser- vice of his predecessor. Reference is made to the table of expenditures for stationery and printing in the last quarter of Mr. Hoyt's collectorship, to show the amount charged under that head in the settlement of his final account. It will be seen, also, by the above table, that the reduction, dur- ing the second quarter of the year 1841, of expenditures for stationery and printing, did not take place in the collector's office, but was made in other departments of the custom-house, which are now regarded as inde- pendent of the collector, on the subject of these various expenditures, each being held responsible for the disbursements made in the execution of its legitimate duties. The undersigned has caused these comparative statements to be care- fully compiled from the vouchers furnished to the commissioners by the auditor of the custom-house. They are offered, not in consideration of 14 Kep. No. 6G9. the amount of expenditure, but to exhibit a fair specimen, through them, of every other expenditure, great and small, in the custom-house at New York, for a series of years past. They will serve to guide the accounting otiicers of the Department of the Treasury, in the examination of all fu- ture returns which may be made of disbursements for similar purposes. It will be seen, in the general abstract of the sums expended for books, stationery, and printing, during the last quarter of Mr. Hoyt's collector- ship, including 20 days while J. J. Morgan was in office, and a few days before the commencement of the second quarter, that the expenditures under the various heads amounted to $8,721 69, distributed as follows : Blank books - $1,577 00 Steel pens, and a small amount for quills, of which but few were purchased - - - - - - 1,322 50 Lead pencils - - - - - - 618 00 Foolscap and post paper - - - - - 414 75 Letter paper - 393 50 Report and envelope paper - - - - - 599 8S Drawing paper - - - - - - 50 00 Tape - - - - - - 4S6 00 Wafers and wax - - - - - 349 00 Sand - 32 00 Blanks ------ 2,435 00 Knives - - - - - - - 161 00 Ink - - - - - - - 155 99 Sundries, not enumerated - - - - - 11657 Total - $8,721 69 This enormous amount stands charged on the books of the eustom-house in the short space of three months, of which $5,416 11 were debited to the collector's and storekeeper's offices, in which there were employed 79 clerks ; making an average of $275 76 per annum for stationery for each person attached to these offices. There weie, during this quarter, one hundred and thirty-six reams of foolscap and letter paper ordered and sup- plied for the use of the custom-house, which forms a part of the aggregate sum as above stated. It is evident that so large an amount of stationery could not have been required for any legitimate purpose connected with the business of the several departments of the custom-house, to be used in the short period of three months, and therefore the greater portion of the articles purchased must have passed into the hands of Mr. Curtis, who succeeded to the office of collector about the close of that quarter, or have been fraudulently abstracted from the custom-house, of which no evidence was given to the commissioners ; but in the accounts and vouchers ren- dered by Mr. Curtis in the second quarter of the same year, being the first quarter after he became collector, there is charged, for disbursements in the purchase of stationery ordered and received by him for the collector's-, office alone, $1,753 75; for the appraisers, $118 50; for the storekeeper,, $203 87 ; for inspectors, $24 50 ; for the store in Washington street,, $20 56 ; making, in the whole, the grand total of $10,942 90 for station- ery alone, during one-half of the year 1S41. A careful examination of the tables hereinbefore referred to, and made Rep. No. 669. 15 a part of this report, will sufficiently demonstrate the causes which have led to the enormous expenditures for books, stationery, and printing ; but it may be useful to present a summary of the most remarkable items charged to the custom-house in the bills rendered by the several individu- als who had the benefit of supplying these articles. The single item of steel pens and quills, of the latter of which but few were ordered, and therefore scarcely worth mentioning, amounted, during the three years of Mr. Hoyt's administration of the custom-house, to the sum of $6,255 16. The price of these pens, charged in the bills rendered and paid by Mr. Hoyt, ranged from the minimum of $9 per gross to the maximum of $22 per gross, the larger proportion being of the lower class, which are in gen- eral use for clerks, both mercantile and official. The depositions of David Felt, E. J. Eno, and Josiah Hayden, who are large dealers in the article of steel pens, are referred to, to show the standard price per gross of the de- scriptions used at the custom-house. If purchased in boxes, which is the most convenient mode of supplying clerks, (the cards being entirely use- less,) it will be seen that the first class of " Gillot's " magnum bonum pens, or pens of equal quality, could be supplied, in the New York mar- ket, at $4 50 per gross on the card, or one-half that sum in boxes ; and what is denominated the "commercial pen," at $2 per gross on the card, or $1 50 in boxes. Taking the average of these prices, and considering that nineteen-twentieths of the pens supplied to the custom-house are of the latter class, it will appear that, at these rates, the sum appropriated by Mr. Hoyt while he remained in office would have supplied the enormous quantity of 432,237 pens, making an average of 144,079 per annum, to be distributed among about 100 clerks who are constantly employed in writing, and a few other subordinate officers of the customs who occasion- ally have to make reports to some one of the departments of the custom- house. This would amount to an average of about fifteen hundred pens for each constant writer per annum. Mr. Eno, agent of a large manufacturer of pens in Massachusetts, testifies that he exhibited at the desk of the collector, Mr. Hoyt, to the cashier, bond and entry clerks, specimens of the class of pens which were paid for by Mr. Hoyt at the minimum of $9 per gross, and made an offer to furnish the custom-house with any quantity of this article which might be wanted at the moderate rates above mentioned, to wit : $1 50 per gross in boxes, and $2 per gross on cards, to which the collector " gave an off-hand answer, declining the offer so decidedly as to prevent any repetition of the offer." Such conduct on the part of this high officer of the Government can be accounted for only on principles and motives in- consistent with the faithful discharge of the important duties with which he was intrusted. It may be asked why particular individuals are allowed and paid at rates ranging from $9 to $22 per gross for pens, for the use of the custom- house, when an offer to supply like articles at the moderate price of $1 50 per gross is contemptuously rejected and spurned ? The undersigned refers to the volume of evidence taken by the commissioners to demon- strate the fact, which, in the absence of clear proof, might well be doubted, that this and numerous other cases of favoritism, so gross and palpable that none can mistake it, had their origin in a system of fraud on the public Treasury, to promote the interests of selected partisans, who could be relied on for efficient services in popular elections. 16 Rep. No. 669. This conclusion is strongly enforced by the mass of evidence taken in relation to the existence of a custom-house tax, regularly levied and paid, in advance of elections for city officers, for Governor, and Representatives in the State Legislature, for members of Congress, and for President and Vice President of the United States, during the whole period of the two preceding administrations of the Federal Government. This tax was graduated on a scale corresponding with the salary received by each officer and the importance of the pending election, and a refusal to pay it, was immediately followed by removal from office. It will also be seen, by the report of the surveyor and oilier evidence, that numerous officers of the customs were absent from duty, either by the express permission of the collector or without censure from that officer, for weeks and months prior to elections, for no other purpose than to influence voters, and lend their aid to the success of candidates favorable to the party in power, while their salaries as officers of the Government, suffered no diminution in consequence of their absence from duty. It is mortifying to be obliged to trace the conduct of a high and re- sponsible officer of the Government to motives so unworthy of the station he occupied and of the moral character of the country ; but a faithful discharge of public duty leaves the undersigned no alternative but to animadvert freely on official malpractices so gross and alarming, establish- ed as they are by a chain of testimony which to every impartial mind must be conclusive. The same system of wasteful extravagance is seen in every article falling under the denomination of stationery. The undersigned will briefly notice some of them, before this part of the report is closed. For the supply of blank books and blanks, from the commencement of Mr. Hoyt's term of service to the date of the appointment of Edward Curtis, there is charged the enormous sum of $26,257 14, or an average of $8,752 38 per annum. The manner in which bills for these articles were rendered and passed by the auditor makes it almost impossible to discriminate between the various classes of books, so as to ascertain precisely the difference between what would have been the actual cost in the New York market and the prices paid at the custom-house. Referring to the testimony of David Felt, and to the comparative statements made in a previous part of this report, it appears, upon exhibiting to the witness samples of blank books purchased by Mr. Hoyt, that such as are charged at $20 are placed by the witness at $11, those charged at $15 are rated at $6, and others charged at from $6 to $S are estimated at the selling prices in New York at from $3 to $4 each. But the most remarkable item in this class of charges, made by Mr. Hoyt, is of " impost books," which are purchased in small quarter- bound books of two quires, which, at the end of each year, are bound up in one volume, containing fifteen quires. The quarter- bound books of two quires are charged at $8 each, which would bring the entire volume of fifteen quires, at the end of each year, to the sum of $60, besides the bind- ing, which is charged at $8 ; while this large volume, well bound, Mr. Felt states, could be supplied at $19 50 — making a difference in a single volume, including the binding, of $48 50. Since Mr. Curtis carne into office, the price of each small book of two quires is reduced to $6, which would bring the large volume of fifteen quires to $45, exclusive of the binding; which, if charged at former rates, Rep. No. 669. 17 would amount to $53 per volume — making a difference of $33 50 between the price paid and the actual cost at which it is valued by Mr. Felt. This example is selected from numerous others, for the purpose of placing before the Government and country, in a clear light, the reckless extrava- gance which has been practised without restraint, in the collection of the revenue at this port, under former administrations ; but it assuredly does not stand alone in enormity, for there is scarcely a single article supplied to the custom-house that does not bear it company without a blush. It will presently be seen how far those errors have been corrected and reformed under the new collector, Edward Curtis. Deeming it unnecessary to go through the whole list of disbursements, for every article falling under the head of stationery, it will be sufficient to state that the prices paid for them by the collector, Hoyt, during his term of service, usually ranged from 100 to 200 per cent., and in some instances more, above the regular New York price for the same article ; and the trouble of procuring them at the regular charges would have been even less than it was to find individuals who would consent to be made the instruments of rendering such bills as those paid by Hoyt, to answer the ends to which the undersigned has heretofore adverted. But it may be proper and useful to extend the notice, which has been taken of extravagant items, to a few more, which are too remarkable to be overlooked. In the bills rendered by O'Hern and others, the article of writing sand is charged at the rate of from $3 to $3 50 per peck, and in some cases even higher ; when it is in proof, by the deposi- tion of David Felt, that he supplied the same, if taken by the bushel, at \2h cents per peck, or 50 cents per bushel ; and if taken by the single peck, at 25 cents ; and at these rates he testifies that his profits would be 200 per cent. During the three years of Mr. Hoyt's time, there was paid for writing sand the sum of $202 38, which, if purchased at the customary rates, ac- cording to the deposition of Mr. Felt, would have supplied the quantity of four hundred and four bushels and three pecks. It may be useful, also, to extend this summary to some of the items in these bills to particular descriptions of paper purchased by the collector from the persons selected to supply the custom-house. " Abstract paper," or " blue-laid English imperial," ruled, is charged in the bills of O'Hern at the rate of from $100 to $144 per ream : its value being, in the New York market, from $30 to $47 50 per ream. " Impost-book paper," which is worth in the market $15 per ream, is charged in the custom-house bills at from $70 to $S0 per ream ; and demy paper, ruled to pattern, which may be purchased at $11 per ream, is usually charged to the custom-house at $40 per ream. The ordinary qualities of paper are advanced in price, on a gen- eral scale, about one hundred per cent. It is worthy of remark, that all the supplies for the custom -house were furnished at second-hand by the individuals heretofore named, selected by Mr. Hoyt, to whom the opportunity was afforded of purchasing at the rates, or even lower than the estimates contained in the deposition of David Felt, and the increased price paid to them by Mr. Hoyt constituted an enormous profit, while it is manifest that the wholesale dealers would have supplied the same articles at the reduced rates menlioned by Mr. Felt, on which he states there would have been to the stationer a clear profit of from twenty- five to thirty-three and a third per cent. This system of favoritism, so in- consistent with the public interest and fair dealing, was uniformly extend- 2 18 Rep. No. 669. ed to the most violent political partisans, who earned the favor by their de- votion to the hand from which they received it. There is one case which it may be proper to mention particularly. A custom-house officer, in the surveyor's department, of the name of Jones, was evidently concerned in the supply of stationery to the inspectors of the customs, who were furnished with such articles, through his office. By reference to the deposition of Alfred T. Jones, the son of the above- named officer of the customs., it will appear that he, being a lad of eighteen or nineteen years of age, made purchases, for cash and on credit, of stationery^ for which he presented bills at the custom-house, amounting, in all, as far as known, to $1,507 25, which were paid. The age of this youth, in whose name the bills were made out, connected with the fact that his father was the proper officer for supplying the inspectors of the customs ; the great improbability that he could have obtained credit on his own account from any wholesale dealer ; the equivocal manner in which he testifies, first de- nying any participation of his father in these transactions, and then admit- ting that he paid to his father the profits, or a portion of them, adding- that he did so because his father was his natural guardian, who held the amount paid for his benefit, would seem to leave no rational doubt in the mind of any one that the business was done on the capital of the elder Jones, and that the profits inured to his benefit, except so far as he might reward his son for the service rendered. The profits were similar to those already noticed. This man is still retained as chief clerk in the surveyor's office by the present collector, Mr. Curtis. Nearly the same remarks may be applied to the principal surveyor of the port, Hector Craig; who, being a paper manufacturer, supplied his own department with paper, amounting in the whole to $1,68S, during his term of office ; and, what is still more remarkable, the bills were made out in his own name, at the foot of which he certified, under his own signa- ture, that the amount was "just;" and, without any other evidence of their accuracy, they were audited and paid at the custom-house. The price of printing blanks, of various descriptions, is charged, in the bills paid by Mr. Hoyt, at the minimum of twelve dollars per ream, ex- tending through various intermediate prices to the maximum of twenty- five dollars, while, according to the testimony of Mr. Felt and others, they were worth, in this market, from six dollars to seven dollars and fifty cents per ream. The aggregate amount paid during the three years of Mr. Hoyt's collectorship, for printing various descriptions of blanks required at the custom-house, was $12,869 75 — nearly or quite double the sum for I which the same work might have been procured by contract with a regu- lar printer, at the usual rates paid for printing in New York. It is not believed that the printing paid for by Mr. Hoyt, in the article of blanks,, was either necessary in the transaction of the public business at the cus- tom-house, or that the quantity ordered was used for that purpose ; which, in point of fact, may be truly said of every other article of stationery con- tained in the bills furnished to the commissioners by the auditor for that period. Included in the general result of $51,703 22, expended by Mr. Hoyt in articles of stationery, are the bills rendered and paid for like articles ordered for the use of the public store at Staten Island, at which the quarantine ground of the port of New York is established. These bills are, in some respects, of a character even more extraordinary than those already re Rep. No. 669. 19 viewed, and therefore require particular notice. There are but two per" sons employed at this store who stand in need of stationery in the discharge of their ordinary duties, and the business season in each year does not ex- ceed three months. It appears that the aggregate amount paid for the supply of stationery to these two persons, while Mr. Hoyt was in office, was $1,388 27; making an average of $462 75§ per annum, or $154 32 per month, while their services were required. For nine months in the year there are no vessels at quarantine, and therefore the storekeeper and his clerk have no duties to perform during those months. In the year 1838, for the first two quarters there appears to be no charge for Staten Island ; in the third and fourth quarters of that year the amount expended was - - - - $129 56 In 1839, for the whole year - - - 164 38 In 1840, for the whole year - 604 75 In 1841, for the first quarter, (January, February, and March.) 489 58 Total - 1,3S8 27 The above statement, founded on a report of the auditor, is presumed to be correct, although it falls short, in some particulars, of the bills at. first rendered by the same officer. It is evident that the amount of stationery for the use of the storekeeper and his clerk at Staten Island, paid at the custom-house, was either not furnished, or not used at that establishment. A few examples drawn from these bills will fully justify this conclusion. For nine months of the year 1840, including only three months of business, there is charged twenty-five reams of letter and foolscap paper, at the round sum of one hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty cents, and every other article in the same proportion. Could this quantity of paper have been fairly appropriated to the purposes required at this single store ? or could any two clerks have written over twenty-five reams of paper in three months ? Assuredly not. But what renders this enormous supply of paper still more unreasonable is the fact that, for the same three months, there is charged one hundred and* eighty-six dollars and fifty cents for printed blanks, exclusive of one other ream, for the printing alone of which there is charged twenty-five dollars — being double the amount usually charged for printing and paper in Mr. Hoyt's bills for the custom-house, and four times the amount at which the same work might have been done, at the customary rates. It constitutes a singular fact in reference to these expenditures at the quarantine ground, that by far the largest bills were run up at those periods of the year when not one dollar of expenditure was necessary at the public store, for stationery or printing : and the vast disparity between the amounts expended in different years ought not to be overlooked. Without, going further into detail, it will be sufficient to take the last six months of Mr. Hoyt's term to prove that something more than the public service entered into the appropriations made by him at the above-mentioned public store. Commencing with the month of October, 1840, after all business had ceased, and ending in the month of March, 1841 , before any vessel could be detained at quarantine, there was paid for the supply of stationery at Staten Island the sum of eight hundred and ten dollars and eight cents. It is worthy of remark, that, previous to and about the time of the presidential election, there was paid for the use of this storekeeper, who Rep. No. 669. had no duty to perform, the sum of three hundred and twenty dollars and fifty cents. In the month of January, 1841, the bill rendered by M. P. O'Hern, and paid at the custom-house, amounted to the sum of - $168 50 In the following month of February, the bill of the same individ- ual, rendered and paid as above, amounted to - - 161 83 And in the month of March following - - - 159 25 Total ------ 489 58 In these bills, besides the twenty-five reams of paper, and the large quantity of printed blanks heretofore noticed as having been supplied for three months of the year, 1840, the following analysis will show the amount and description of articles purchased for the supply of a single clerk at that store. Amount: 1841 — January - $168 50 February - - - - -161 83 March - - - - - 159 25 489 58 Distributed as follows: 31 cards steel pens - - - - * $41 50 8 reams printed blanks - 94 00 9 blank books - 73 75 1 pair shears - 1 50 4 bottles ink - 3 75 3 reams letter paper - 18 50 9 reams foolscap - - - - 67 00 100 quills - 44 00 24 dozen tape - 31 00 7 lbs. sealing wax - 15 00 9 lbs. wafers - # - 13 00 1 letter stamp - 75 4 water cups - 2 75 1 ream envelope paper - 7 00 1 ream blotting paper - 7 00 1 desk knife - 1 50 2 sand boxes - 2 00 9 balls twine - 3 83 6 paper folders - 4 50 2 inkstands- - 3 50 1 bronze pen rack - 1 50 6 pieces India rubber - 1 50 24 dozen lead pencils - 46 00 2 quarts sand - - . - 75 489 58 To which may be added the singular fact, that in the bill for February, 1841, there is an item " 1 card Perryian pens, extra fine, #12," being one dollar and thirty-three cents per pen, for the especial use of an inspector of Rep. No. 669. the customs charged with the keeping of the public store on Staten Island. These enormities cannot but strike the mind of every reflecting man with astonishment. They are evidences of official delinquency, if not down- right corruption, which have but seldom, if ever, occurred in any civilized country upon the face of the earth ; and the minute detail which is here given of them is designed to draw the attention of the Government to the reckless expenditures of the public money made under the authority of Jesse Hoyt, late collector of the port of New York, and thereby enable the constituted authorities the better to guard against the recurrence of similar abuses in future. Considering that for the six months commencing on the 1st of October, 1S40, and ending with the first quarter of 1841, the quarantine regulations ceased to operate, and consequently no supply of stationery was required at the public store at the quarantine landing; considering, also, the large amount of bills paid during these months, for blank books, printed blanks, paper of various qualities, pens, and other articles, at prices enormous and excessive beyond all former example ; the inference would seem to be neither unreasonable nor improbable, that these bills were wholly fictitious, and designed to cover advances of money made to the storekeeper on Sta- ten Island for secret purposes, of a nature requiring concealment, and which could not with safety be disclosed in the quarterly accounts of the collector with the Treasury. No one can look at the bills, with a full knowledge that the articles were not wanted in the discharge of the public duties of the storekeeper, and withhold his belief in the conclusion which is drawn from the premises. The impression is very strong, that the same end was intended to be accomplished by the bills already noticed and commented on, for supplies of books, stationery, and printing, at the custom-house ;. which impression is strengthened by the testimony of Mr. Fleming, the cashier, who states, under oath, that the quantity of these articles ordered was greater than could be used by the several departments of the custom- house. But the whole of these bills were audited and paid to the order of Mr. Fleming, without regard to quantity or price, he looking, as he said, only to the footing, as comprising the extent of his official control over them. This source of expenditure, with such facilities, and without check, might be carried to any extreme desired, in the absence of all restraint at the Treasury Department, which at that time was in no instance interposed^ by the requisite vigilance of the accounting officers of the Treasury. To what extent these abuses have been looked into and reformed, by the present collector, is but imperfectly known ; but, so far as the evidence has been furnished, a comparative statement will be exhibited. From a review of all the evidence taken on the subject of stationery, both as to quantity and price, the undersigned cannot for a moment hesitate in ascribing the amount ordered and the prices paid for these articles to con- siderations and motives founded in official corruption ; it is not within the scope of human reason, candidly exercised, to draw any other conclusion. The whole expenses incurred by Mr. Hoyt for these supplies might have been limited to the sum paid at the custom-house in any one year of his administration, or even less. Fifteen thousand dollars would have been amply sufficient for the whole term of three years; and thereby, with ordi- nary economy, the Government might have saved on this single branch of expenditure not less than thirty-five thousand dollars. Viewing the sub- ject in this light, it became a matter both of curiosity and of interest to. 22 Kep. No. 669. learn what officer of the customs was charged with the duty of ordering these supplies. Mr. Fleming, the auditor, was questioned on this subject, and testifies, that it is the duty of the officer at the head of each depart- ment of the custom-house "to judge of the prices of articles, and correct exorbitant charges, and to ascertain whether the articles charged have been actually delivered; and the signature of the officer ordering the arti- cles was deemed to be a sufficient voucher for its payment. He also states that accounts are rendered in duplicate, each bill examined to test the ac-' curacy of its footing and the calculations of its different items ; "but in no case did the auditor require evidence of the delivery of the articles charged in any bill, or the necessity for the quantity ordered, orthe price at which they were charged, except for the mere purpose of testing the accuracy of the footing." In a letter addressed to the collector, and transmitted to the commissioners, under date of November 5, 1841, Mr. Fleming, the audi- tor states, " there is one part of the order [of the commissioners] to which I feel called to make a remark. In alluding to a former statement [of sta- tionery] it says, 'furnished by John A. Fleming,' &c, by whom the said stationery was ordered." "This is," continues he, "an entire misconception. Each officer at the head of each branch of various departments of the custom-house ordered all the stationery, &c, for the use of his office. When bills were made out, they were taken to the different persons who ordered the arti- cles, and were by them approved to be correct. They were then brought to the auditor's office for payment; and he, after seeing them properly ap- proved, drew a check on the cashier for the amount." Mr. Fleming further states, in his testimony, that the quantity of sta- tionery ordered could not have been required for actual use ; " that it must have been taken from the office in an improper manner ;" and that, in running his eye over the bills, some of the charges appeared " unusually large," which were nevertheless passed and paid. But he acquits himself of all responsibility, by denying that the supplies were furnished to his order, or that his duty as auditor required any thing more of him than to see that the footing and extensions corresponded. M. P. O'Hern, one of the individuals selected by Mr. Hoyt to furnish stationery for the use of the custom-house, while under examination before the commissioners, on being asked if he had the names of the persons to whom he furnished steel pens and other articles mentioned in his bills, replied in the following words : " These pens were supplied to the auditor himself; almost all the large orders were made by the auditor ; all the main articles, such as books, tape, pens, pencils, and paper, were ordered by him." And when asked if the principal part of the articles furnished to the collector's department were ordered by Mr. Fleming, he replied, " The articles were generally- ordered by the auditor." These bills of the collector alone amount, in three years, to more than $25,000. Thomas J. Fen wick, another witness of the same class, was asked, "What custom-house officer ordered the principal part of the books and other stationery from your office ?" To which he answered, "Mr. Flem- ing ordered them, chiefly." A. S. Gould, another witness, who supplied the custom-house with printed blanks, &c, was asked, " Have you fur- nished the New York custom-house with books, stationery, and printing; and, if so, by whom were the articles usually ordered ?" In answer, states : Rep. No. 669. 23 " I have furnished the custom-house with printing only, which was ordered by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Fleming, usually by Mr. Fleming." Again: Sidney Wetmore, deputy collector and storekeeper, when ques- tioned on the same subject, as to supplies of stationery furnished to his department of the custom-house, states that he always understood that there was a contract with A. S. Gould, and Gould & Banks, Fen wick & Fiora, and M. P. O'Heru, made with the former collector, as with the present ; that he was instructed to obtain the supplies required for his office from those persons ; that all these bills went to the auditor, by whom they were paid ; that he checked the bills, to show that the articles had been received, but that the prices affixed were not subject to his revision. " This duty," the witness states, " is especially one belonging to the audi- tor, Mr. Fleming, as I consider, and as the practice has been" The testimony of this witness is also referred to to show that his check on bills for stationery charged to his office was not invariably required by the auditor, to authorize their payment and that nine bills, amounting in the whole to $1,210 95, weie paid by the auditor without his check, and that he had no knowledge whatever of the existence of these bills. Thus it will be seen that the testimony of four witnesses, intimately connected with the custom-house in the supply and consumption of stationery, con- tradicts, in express terms, the evidence given by Mr. Fleming, the auditor, and the letter addressed by him to the colleector, both in respect to the orders given for stationery and the person whose duty it was to regulate the charges contained in the bills rendered. But, taking the whole evidence together, the singular anomaly is presented, of an immense expenditure of the public money, made for the avowed purpose of supplying the custom- house, while the articles furnished are subjected to no revision as to prices, either by the auditor, whose particular duty it would seem to be, or by the head of the department of the custom-house to whom they were furnished. This startling fact may in some measure account, both for the large amount expended under Mr. Hoyt, and the enormity of the charges, which have been adverted to in a previous part of this report. Mr. Fleming swears that he did not order stationery, except for his own office ; that he paid no bills without the check of the head of the depart- ment for whose use the articles were ordered, by the person filling that office ; those stationers who supplied nearly the whole of the stationery for the custom-house testify that all, or nearly all, of the supplies which they furnished were ordered by Mr. Fleming ; and Mr. Wetmore, the public storekeeper, proves that a large amount paid for stationery, and charged to his office, was paid on bills which he did not check, and of which he had no knowledge. The weight of evidence is clearly against the veracity and integrity of Mr. Fleming, who filled the office of auditor during the whole term of Mr. Hoyt, and is still continued in office by Mr. Curtis, the present collector. The statements of Mr. Fleming are still further contradicted by the vouchers which he in his official character has furnished, under oath, to the commissioners. The accounts and vouchers, under the preceding head of expenditures at the custom-house, of Edward Curtis, so far as they have been furnished to the commissioners, will be examined in a subsequent part of this report. The following is the average statement of the amount paid for stationery during the whole term, commencing with the year 1825, to the close of Jonathan Thompson's term of service as collector, and running through the 24 Rep. No. 669. whole period of Mr. Swartwout's term, and also that of Jesse Hoyt and J. J. Morgan, bringing the whole expenditure down to the date of the ap- pointment of Edward Curtis : Stationery for - Do - Do .... Do .... IS25 1826 1S27 1S2S $3,333 64 2,772 88 3,640 44 3,237 46 12,984 42 Annual average ... — §3,246 10£ Stationery for - - - - 1829 3,540 24 Do - - 1830 5,676 44 Do ... . 1831 6,259 11 Do .... 1832 7,980 62 Do - 1 o o o 1833 9,o7o 16 Do .... 1834 5,076 67 Do - 1835 4,603 58 Do . . - 1836 6,042 92 Do - 1837 5,497 01 54,352 75 Annual average - — -■ 6,039 191 Stationery for 1st quarter 1S3S 1,082 25 Annual average - 4,329 00 Stationery for 2d, 3d, and 4th quarters - loJo Q A Q "7 Kf\ o,4o / OU Do .... 1839 17,780 87 Do .... 1840 16,713 16 Do 1st quarter 1S41 8,721 69 51,703 22 Annual average - 17,234 40 The above statement may be referred to as constituting a pretty accurate specimen of the various expenditures at the custom-house for the whole period included. The result of the entire expense of collecting the revenue for the same time will be found in the annexed general abstract, certified by the Register of the Treasury, and the comparative statement drawn from that document, by which it will appear that, for the four years of Mr. Thompson, the amount of revenue collected was - §54,255,145 13 Rep. JNo. 669. 23 At an average expense, per annum, of - $194,744 25* Or at the rate of about ----- l-*?^ per cent. The number of officers of every description is reported by the Register to have been 142, and by the auditor of the custom-house at 159, for the year 1825. For the succeeding three years, the number of officers, of every description, employed by the collector, was : 158 for the year 1826, 155 for the year 1827, 163 for the year 1828 ; and, as reported by the auditor, 166 r 160, and 169, for the same years. No reason has been given for the dis- crepancy in these reports, and the same irregularity, as to the number of officers employed by the collector, will be found in each year of Mr. Swart- wout's term, and also in that of Jesse Hoyt, to the end of his term of service. Mr. Swartwout, it will appear, remained in office about the period of nine years, during which the revenue col- lected amounted to - $127,62S,210 66 At an average expense of collection, per annum, of - 378,857 8S Or at the rate of - - - - - - 2 T Vo per cent. The whole number of officers employed by Mr. Swartwout, as certified by the Register, is as follows : Year. Register's re- Auditor's re- port. port. 1829 ------ 199 210 1830 ------ 215 227 1831 ------ 243 260 1832 ------ 269 290 1833 ------ 328 349 1S34 334 356 1835 ------ 327 347 1836 ------ 321 412 1837 ------ 407 424 The amount of revenue collected during the time of Mr. Hoyt was - -$32,021,829 69 At an average expense, per annum, of - - - 554,702 33 Or at the average rate of- - - - -5 20 per cent. The whole number of officers employed by Mr. Hoyt is as follows ; Register's re- port. Auditor's re- port. For the year 1S3S - 487 464 Do 1839 4S1 498 Do 1840 470 479 i 26 Rep. No. 669. From the foregoing tables, it will be seen that Jonathan Thompson, in first year of his collectorship, received into the custom-house duties to the amount of - §15,754,827 54 At an expense of collection of - 211,471 87 Or at the rate of - - - - - - 1 T 3 _ 4 ^ per cent. And employed the services of officers, of all descriptions, to the number of 142 Passing over the intervening years, down to the year 1840, it appears that Jesse Hoyt received at the custom- house duties to the amount of - - - - $7,591,760 95 At an expense of collection of - - - 563,829 39 Or at the rate of - - - - - - 1~q per cent. And employed the services of officers, of all dercriptions, to the number of 470 Thus, by regular advances in the expense of collecting the revenue at this port, between the year 1S25 and the year 1840, it appears that at the latter period, compared with the former, the increased expenditure may be estimated at about five hundred and fifty per cent. It further appears, that the increase of officers employed in the collection of the revenue at the same period was three hundred and thirty seven per cent.; so that, as the amount of duties received into the custom-house has diminished, the expense of collection has risen in a much greater ratio, and the number of officers employed in its collection has increased in about the same propor- tjon. Some allowance, it is true, may be made for this increase of officers, on the ground of free goods admitted since the act of 1833 ; but the following table will exhibit the amount of imports and exports into the port of New York for the period of three years, taking one year of the collectorship of Jonathan Thompson, one year of Samuel Swartwout, and one year of Jesse Hoyt, which shows, between the years 1S25 and 1S40, an increase of a fraction under three millions in value of imports and exports, or less than four per cent.; which falls far short of a reasonable justification for the vast increase of officers which were employed at these periods in the col- lection of the revenue : Imports, 1825 - $50,024,973 Exports, 1825 - 34,032,279 Imports, 1S40 - Exports, 1840 - 30,1S6,470 $S4,057,252 S7,032,394 Less imports and exports in 1825 than in 1840 - - $2,975,142 These tables are presented to draw the attention of the Government to this subject, and to elicit further investigations into it, with a view to such reforms as may lead to a more economical system for the collection of the revenue, which seems to be demanded by every consideration connected with the public interest. The next branch of expenditures at the custom-house to be examined is the rent of % Rep. No. 668. 27 PUBLIC STORES AND STORAGE. It appears that the collector of the port of New York has, for a number •of years past, rented on his own account, all the public stores necessary for the storage and safe keeping of merchandise imported from foreign coun- tries ; that all charges for storage have been received by the collector, and, after paying the rent accruing on each of these stores, the overplus has been considered an emolument belonging to the collector, for which he lias not been held accountable to the Treasury. The surplus storage thus received by Jonathan Thompson and Samuel Swartwout is not known ; no evi- dence having been given in relation thereto. But the practice has been continued by Jesse Hoyt to the close of his term of service ; and the ques- tion arises, to which the attention of the undersigned has been called, whether this source of income to the collector can be justified under the several laws relating to that subject; and, if not, by what authority the several collectors have appropriated the proceeds of storage to their own private use and benefit ? By the act approved March 2, 1799, section 21, it is provided, among other things appertaining to the duties of the several collectors, that, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, each collector shall u provide, at the public expense, storehouses for the safe keeping of goods, and such scales, weights, and measures, as may be necessary ;" and by the same act, section 51, it is enacted, " that all goods, wares, or merchandise, of which entry shall have been made incomplete, or without the specifica- tion of particulars, either for want of the original invoice or invoices, or Jor any other cause, or which shall have received damage during the voy- age, to be ascertained by the proper officers of the port or district in which the said goods, wares, or merchandises shall arrive, shall be conveyed to some warehouse or storehouse, to be designated by the collector, in the parcels or packages containing the same, there to remain, with due and rea- sonable care, at the expense and risk of the owner or consignee, under the care of some proper officer, until the particulars, cost, or value, as the case may. require, shall have been ascertained, either by the exhibition of the original invoice or invoices thereof, or by appraisement, at the option of the owner, importer, or consignee, in manner hereafter provided, and until the duties thereon shall have been paid or secured to be paid, and a permit granted by the collector for the delivery thereof;" and by the same act, section 56, provisiou is made for the safe keeping, " with due and reason able care, at the charge and risk of the owner or owners thereof, unclaimed goods, which, at the end of nine months, are directed to be sold according to the provisions of the act; and the duties and all charges thereon being deducted, the overplus, if any there be, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, for the use of the owner or owners ; but if such goods are of a perishable nature, they shall be sold forthwith." The foregoing summary comprises the substance of all the laws relating to the powers of the collectors of the several ports of the United States, to provide storehouses for the safe keeping of goods, with th^exception of special provisions respecting goods detained at quarantine, under the health laws of the several States, prior to the act of March 3, 1841. It will be seen that the whole extent of the power conferred on the col- lector is to provide, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, " at the public expense, storehouses for the safe keeping of goods." No 28 Rep. No. 6G9. authority whatever is granted to any collector, either express or implied, to rent storehouses by private contract, on his own account, and receive the overplus of storage, after paying the rent, for his own private use. Such a power is inconsistent with the phraseology of all the laws on the subject,, which speak in express terms of public storehouses rented " at the public expense." And no contract made by a collector for the rent of any store- house can be valid, under the act 1799, without the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury first had and obtained. It may be asked, if these storehouses could be rented by the collector on his own private account, and for his own benefit, why it was deemed n3- cessary by the Legislature to require the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury to give validity to any contract for the rent of such storehouses ? It would have been idle to make such a provision for any other purpose than to guard the public interest. The conclusion would seem to be una- voidable, that all storehouses rented by any collector, for the safe keeping of goods imported into the United States, are public storehouses rented " at the public expense" and can no more be regarded as the private property of the collector than the custom-house in which he transacts his business. It is believed that this practice of appropriating the receipts for storage to the use of the collector, after the rents are paid, prevails at no other port of entry except the port of New York. It has no foundation in law to sustain it; and under whatsoever pretext it may have been tolerated for so great a length of time at the Treasury Department, this source of income to the collector can be justified on no principle appertaining to his office, or warranted by the laws relating to the collection of the public revenue. But the practice, as it existed under the late collector, Jesse Hoyt. requires a more minute investigation to demonstrate its iniquity, and the loss sustained by the Gov- ernment in its results. To justify the payment of storage to the collector, when it exceeds the amount of the rents, it is alleged that the Government has at no time looked to that as a source of revenue ; that it desires only to redeem the sums paid for the use of the public stores, and the overplus has been considered too small a matter to attract the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury. If this be true, it is equally correct that the Government should be fully indemnified for all its expenditures at these stores, before the collector should be permitted to appropriate to his own use any part of the storage, on the ground that it is a surplus. The following statement will place, this matter in a clear light : The rent paid by the Government for the public stores in Nassau street is $11,000; of this sum, no part is restored from the storage of goods, al- though the law authorizing them expressly requires the payment of all charges by the owner or consignee, before the goods are removed. This provision of the law has been wholly overlooked ; and all merchandise or- dered by the collector to the public stores, for examination and appraise- ment, is delivered without the payment of storage, or any charge whatever. How far this practice in violation of law ought to be corrected, is respect- fully submittea^to the Secretary of the Treasury. But, independent of the rent of these stores, and the enormous expense attending them, for salaries to officers and for exorbitant charges on the labor and cartage of goods, which has heretofore, in the space of three years, amounted to the round sum of ninety-five thousand dollars, besides stationery, for which , in the same period, for the use of three clerks, there was paid to Geo. A. Wasson, Bep. No. 669. 29 the public storekeeper, the sum of $2,962 79, there remains to be brought into this estimate the actual expense incurred by the Government at the general stores, where the largest portion of foreign goods imported into the port of New York are stored. The following statement will show the amount paid by the Government at these general stores in the city of New York, and the rent paid by the collector for each store. By the testimony of Sidney Wetmore, the store- keeper of the port, it appears that there were five stores, as follows : 1 store, 109 Washington street, rented of F. F. Marbury, at - $1,200 1 store, 153 Greenwich street, rented of F. F. Marbury, at - 1,200 1 store, 270 Water street, rented of R. C. Cornell, at - 1,S00 1 store, 274 Front street, rented of J. N. Lord, at 1,100 1 store, 230 Cherry street, rented of R. Barton, at 1,000 Total ------- 6,300 This sum was paid by the storekeeper out of the receipts for storage, and the balance passed to the credit of Mr. Hoyt, the collector, on private ac- count. The expense incurred by the Government in keeping up these stores, exclusive of the rent, is — For the salary of the storekeeper - $1,500 00 For clerk hire of 5 clerks, at $1,000 ... 5,000 00 For the salaries of 15 inspectors, at $1,095 - 16,425 00 For stationery for the 5 stores - 2,721 48 Making an aggregate sum of 25,646 4S This estimate of the annual expenditure at these stores is exclusive of the public store in Nassau street, to which reference has heretofore been made, and of the night watch, and also of the public stores in Brooklyn and at Staten Island. From these latter stores no account has been ren- dered of storage, and Mr. Wetmore states, in his testimony, that the store- keepers at these places make their returns directly to the collector. It is worthy of remark, that the public store at Staten Island is owned by the Government, and whatever storage may have been received from the storekeeper at that store is a clear gain of that amount to the collector who pays no rent, as in other cases. The result of the whole of this investigation is, that Mr. Hoyt, the col- lector, rented five stores on his own private account, in direct contraven- tion of the act of 1799, which directs that they shall be rented " at the pub- lic expense," with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury. From this violation of law, he has accumulated an income, during his offi- cial term of about three years, of the sum pf $29,883 36, which will be great- ly increased by the addition of the storage at Brooklyn and Staten Island while the Government collected for him this income at an annual cost as above stated, with the addition of the salaries of three storekeepers' at Brooklyn and Staten Island, and stationery at the latter place, of $29 294 24. In this sum the night inspectors are not included, as no vouchers have been furnished to the commissioners to show the amount paid for this class 30 Rep. No. 669. of officers at the public stores. This large sum received by the late collector, independent of his salary, which it would seem, both in law and equity, ought to have been applied to the discharge of the expenditures incurred by the Government in providing these stores with a sufficient number of officers to conduct them, and the incidental expenses of these officers, con- stitutes but a small item in the vast sums drawn by Mr. Hoyt from various sources, and appropriated to his own use, which will constitute the subject of investigation hereafter. The attention of the commissioners having been drawn to the subject of these receipts, by Mr. Hoyt, on account of storage, and also the fact having been disclosed, in the testimony of Mr. Wetmore, that, after Mr Hoyt left office, he, as the public storekeeper, had collected considerable sums of out- standing storage on goods put in store before the expiration of Mr. Hoyt's term of service, they addressed a letter to the present collector, under date of August 25, 1S41, in which it was suggested that all further payments to Mr. Hoyt, by the storekeeper or any other officer of the customs, on ac- count of his claim to storage, should be discontinued. Notwithstanding this letter of the commissioners, Mr. Curtis, the collector, has continued to allow the money drawn from these collections to be paid over by Mr. Wetmore to Mr. Hoyt, up to November 1, 1841. The sums thus paid since Mr. Curtis came into office amount in the whole to $1,121 23. On the 3d day of September, 1S41, Mr. Curtis addressed a letter to Mr. Hoff- man, the district attorney of the United Slates, asking his opinion upon the subject of these payments, enclosing to him a copy of the letter of the com- missioners. It would seem that, in the regular course of official duty, this opinion ought to have been sought by Mr. Curtis from the Solicitor of the Treasury, inasmuch as the district attorney is limited in his duties to cases depending in the district and circuit courts of the United States ; and it is the particular duty of the Solicitor to settle all legal doubts of the collector on questions relating to his official duties. But the district attorney, under date of September 4, in reply to the letter of the collector, gives to him a written opinion: in which, without referring to the laws of Congress re- lating to the subject, he makes the usage of the collectors of the customs at this port the foundation of his opinion. He says, among othar things, that prior to the act of the 3d March, 1S41, " it was the usage, long recognised by the Department, at this port, for the collector to provide all the stores for storing merchandise at his own private cost and charge, and the labor bestowed upon the goods stored was also at his charge. If the storage of goods amounted to more than the rent and expense of the labor, the profits were his; and if, on the other hand, the amount received for storage was not sufficient to remunerate him for his expenditures, the loss would be his ; the Government losing all profit, but at the same time being saved harm- less from all loss." From these premises the district attorney draws the conclusion that the storage "collected, or to be collected, for storing goods in his own stores, became a private debt, due to him." It is evident that the learned counsel, in drawing out his opinion, did so hastily, and without that strict examina- tion of the laws of Congress which would doubtless have brought his mind to a different conclusion. The usage referred to, and taken for granted by the district attorney, is in direct opposition to the act of 1799, and to all the subsequent acts relating to the storage of goods; which laws expressly provide that the public stores shall be rented " at the public expense." But Rep. No. 669. 31 the idea is still more absurd, that the collector is bound to pay for all the labor necessary to carry on these stores, and to bear the loss, if the amount of storage should fall short of the rents and incidental expenses. The fact is, and so is the law, the collector bears no part of the expense incurred at these stores; and if the storage should not be sufficient to pay the rents, the collector would undoubtedly turn round and say to the Secretary of the Treasury that the deficiency must be made good by the Government; for the plain reason, that the law directs all public stores to be rented at the public expense. But if a profit accrues, according to the opinion of the dis- trict attorney, it becomes ipso facto the private property of the collector. This may be very plausible, but it is not law. This abuse has been in part corrected by the act of the 3d March, 1S41 ; but the claim of Mr. Hoyt to more than thirty thousand dollars, which has gone into his pockets for storage during his term of office, collected at an expense of ninety thousand dollars by the Government, may well be con- tested, and ought to be the subject of judicial decision. The manner in which these public stores have been conducted, with the full knowledge of the Government at Washington, in direct violation of law, must strike every candid mind with astonishment. In the first act of Congress authorizing the collector to rent such places of deposite for the safe keeping of foreign merchandise imported into the United States, pass- ed on the 2d of March, 1799, they were denominated public ; usage has converted them into private property. In the same act the collector is re- quired to obtain the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, to give validity to any contract for the rent of storehouses u at the public expensed Did Mr. Hoyt seek or obtain such approbation before he rented the five several stores on his own private account and for his own benefit? He did not. The Secretary of the Treasury is required to fix the rate of stor- age. Has he performed that duty ? We have no evidence that he has given any order on the subject. Thus the laws are set at defiance, and the whole subject left open to the arbitrary discretion of the collector, who has seized the opportunity to^add to his income ten thousand dollars per annum, without cost or risk ; while the Government, at an annual expense of more than thirty thousand dol- lars, supplies storekeepers, clerks, inspectors, night watch, books, printing, and stationery, to carry on these private stores ; and the surplus of storage is, by the force of usage, and against law, appropriated by Mr. Hoyt to his own use. The plainest dictates of justice, without the aid of legislation, would seem to demand that the receipts from storage should be applied to meet the ex- pense of these establishments ; and this was the manifest intention of the law, under the authority of which the system went into operation. Connected with the subject of storehouses and storage, the evidence re- lating to the sale of the goods saved from the burning of the public store in Front street will be noticed, with the circumstances attending this transac- tion, presented in general terms, according to the facts proved before the commissioners. The result of this sale will appear from the following re- port of the auditor of the custom-house, to which is appended the receipt of Mr. Wetmore, the public storekeeper. 32 Rep. No. 669. Statement of sales of goods saved from the fire at public store No. 261 Front street, {referred to in the testimony of John A. Fleming.) Amount of sales - - - - - $9,918 00 Do do - - - - - 12,711 50 $22,629 50 Commissions, 2\ per cent. ... 555 74 Cartage, labor, &c. - - - - 15 00 Advertising - - - •• - 19 59 Storekeeper's bill - 2,100 00 2,700 33 Nett proceeds paid by auctioneers, Feb. 1840 - 19,929 17 JOHN A. FLEMING, Auditor. Custom-House, New York, June 12, 1S41. Copy of storekeeper's bill, charged in account of sales of goods saved from fire at public store, No. 261 Front street. Sales of burnt goods to public store, Dn. To storage and expenses on goods rescued from the fire, 261 Front street - - $2,100 00 Received payment in full. S. WETMORE, Storekeeper, Custom-House. New York, February 20, 1840. The history of all the transactions of the custom-house officers, acting under the orders of the collector, as well in securing and packing the goods preserved from the fire, whether damaged or not, and the manner in which the sale was conducted, will fully appear in the testimony taken and re- corded, and to which reference is made. The witnesses examined were numerous, and the testimony given by them excursive and elaborate, con- stituting more matter, both relevant and irrelevant, than could be conve- niently incorporated in this report. This testimony discloses a tissue of official perfidy and fraud of the most disgraceful character, from the com- mencement to the close of the auction sale of these goods. Without en- tering into details, which would be tedious and unprofitable, a summary of the leading facts testified to by the witnesses will be sufficiently compre- hensive to embrace all that is essential to draw the attention of the Gov- ernment to this matter. On the night of the fire in Front street, by which the public store situ- ated in that street was consumed, with its contents, the custom-house offi- cers who were designated by the collector to take possession of the rem- nant of goods saved from the conflagration had express orders to admit no person to examine the goods; so that the claimants were deprived of an opportunity of selecting such parcels as they could identify and claim as a part of their importations, and separate them from the general mass thrown together by the officers of the customs who had charge of them. On the same night, or the following morning, the goods were removed to an open lot, used as a coal yard, where they were prepared in heaps or lots for sale, Rep. No. 669. 33 by certain officers of the customs selected by the collector for that purpose. From this lot all persons were excluded, and especially the claimants of the goods, who applied for permission to examine the parcels, and desig- nate such as might belong to them ; which was refused, and, during the preparation of the goods for sale, only one or two persons were admitted within the enclosure, and they by the special permission of the collector, who were also allowed to carry off a part of the goods, on a mere allega- tion that they were the owners of the goods so carried off. These persons appear to have been favorites of the collector, as all other claimants were strictly prohibited from entering the enclosure. Thus the goods were se- cretly arranged for auction, without the knowledge of any other person or persons than those employed in the business, so that it became impossible for bidders to know the good from the bad lots; many of the pieces being sound, or nearly so, while the largest portion were damaged to an extent which rendered them entirely worthless. It appears, in evidence, that some individuals, during the time the laborers were engaged in making up the heaps, preparatory to the auction, took a position in the third story of an adjoining building, from which they could observe the manner in which the heaps were arranged. The custom-house officers within the enclosure, finding that they were observed, and the manner of putting up the heaps or lots was discovered, so that no advantage could be taken at the sales by themselves and their friends, from the exclusive knowledge they possessed of the value of the different heaps or lots, set to work forthwith, in the night time, and rearranged the goods in a manner well calculated to deceive the persons who had detected them, and others to whom their information might be communicated. The first sales took place on the 7th February, 1840. At this sale, the inferior goods, or those most damaged, were offered. The sale went off quietly, because those in the secret knew the goods to be worthless, and, of course, there was but little competition from that quarter. The bidders who attended the sale to purchase for their own use were deceived in the quality and condition of the goods by a great variety of expedients, resort- ed to by the custom-house officers to mislead them. Among other expe- dients, damaged goods, which were of no value, were enclosed in an en- velope of the finest description of cloths, perfectly sound and uninjured. Thus, the purchaser, supposing he had obtained a good article, on opening the piece, to examine its contents and quality, found, to his utter astonish- ment, that the interior was filled up with damaged goods, of no value what- ever. The deceptions were numerous at this sale, but these will serve to show their general character. The purchasers were so grossly deceived in their purchases, that it was believed by the custom-house officers that they would not venture to bid at the second sale, for which the most val- uable portion of the goods saved from the fire were reserved. This sec- ond sale took place on the 14th February, 1840, one week after the first sale ; but it is evident that the whole might have been disposed of at the same time, if it had been so ordered by the collector. The frauds prac- tised at this sale transcended by far those which had been discovered at the first sale. It will be seen, by a recurrence to the testimony of numerous witnesses, that the heaps or lots were so arranged that no bidder who had not seen the manner in which they were put up could form any idea of their rela- tive value, this being known only to the custom-house officers and those 3 34 Rep. No. 669. who were combined with them. The best heaps or lots were covered with damaged goods, and the inferior or worthless parcels had on the outside whole pieces of sound goods, or nearly sound, having received but little injury from the fire. They were surrounded by armed men, belonging to the custom-house, who forcibly resisted every attempt made by persons who desired to purchase to examine the heaps or lots, or even to touch any part of the goods. In one instance, a person present drew from under a heap of goods apparently damaged a piece of sound cloth, which had re- ceived no injury. He immediately proclaimed to the other bidders the fact, and pronounced the sale a fraudulent one, and called on the officers super- intending the sale, demanding that the heap or lot from which he had drawn the piece of sound goods should be offered again for sale. This was re- fused, and a riot and confusion ensued, which was quieted only by the in- terposition of the civil authorities. Alderman Purdy, who was called to suppress the riot, stated to the persons present that the sale was a shameful one, but that violence could not prevent it. The result of this sale, ac- cording to all the evidence, except that of one or two of the guilty custom- house officers, was that every valuable heap or lot was bid off by these officers or their accomplices, while great losses were sustained by those bidders who were not in the secret. John D. Phillips, a witness, who attended these sales, testifies that "Mr. Caspar Marks, a dealer in dry goods, purchased a lot at two hundred dol- lars or thereabouts, being one of those lots in which no perceptible differ- ence could be discovered, and next to or near to some of those lots which brought about thirty or forty dollars. On the day following the sale, meet- ing Mr. Marks in Pearl street, I mentioned the circumstance to him, and asked him how he liked the bargain. " Oh !" said he, " I knew what I was about; but my information cost me a hundred or a hundred and fifty dol- lars;" and, from further remarks, he (Mr. Marks) gave rne to understand that he had bought in collusion, or with an understanding that some cus- tom-house officer, who was in the secret as to the arrangement of the goods, was to share in the bargain." The same witness states his opinion, that if the goods had been fairly sold at the second sale, they would have brought ten thousand dollars, at least, more than the sum for which they were sold. James M. Oakley, a custom-house officer, who was the principal super- intendent at these sales, in answer to an inquiry, whether " any officer of the customs, either in his own name or by the intervention of another per- son, purchased any goods at this sale," testifies : " I know nothing on this subject except from rumor ; there was a report to that effect, but I have no knowledge as to its truth." This same custom-house officer, at a subse- quent day, offered for sale, at his own house, to Michael Levy, more than one hundred yards of a cloth which Mr. Levy testifies was a part of the cloth sold at the auction of burned goods, which he declined to purchase, in consequence of its having been wet and wrinkled. Mr. Oakley stated to him that he u had had a coat from it, and would have a cloak made from it for his wife, and retain the whole, rather than sell it for less than three hun- dred dollars." This is a sample of the verity of the custom-house officers called to testify concerning these sales, and of the estimate which ought to be placed on their statements. Most of the witnesses testify that the goods were intentionally arranged so as to deceive bidders ; and, in many instances, heaps or lots of the same Rep. No. 669. 35 external appearance were bid off, some of them at from two to three hun- dred dollars, and others, adjoining to them, apparently equally valuable,, went off at from forty to ninety dollars. After the sale, Michael Levy, one of the witnesses, saw a lot of fourteen pieces of fine cloth, which had been taken to Brooklyn to be cleansed, which he had no doubt was a part of the goods bought at this sale by a man of the name of Harrison, who was be- lieved to be connected with the custom-house officers. On the whole, there can be no doubt that most of the valuable goods, and those which had sus- tained the least injury, were purchased by custom-house officers, either in their own names or in the names of other persons ; which opinion is en- forced by the declaration of Caspar Marks, who informed Mr. Phillips that he had made good bargains, but that his information had cost him from one hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars. While this fraudulent sale was progressing, a deputation was sent to Mr. Hoyt, the collector, to inform him of the fact that the sale was un- fairly conducted. Mr. Phillips, who was charged with this duty, reported that Mr. Hoyt treated his application with marked indifference, and utterly refused to interfere in the matter. It is also in evidence, that the officers and laborers engaged in securing and preparing these goods for sale tore off from the sound pieces of cloth the marks and ends by which alone they could be identified by the owner ; and, at the close of the sale, no pur- chaser was permitted to enter the yard and receive his goods, but they were delivered at the entrance of the enclosure ; and, whether they belong- ed to the heaps or lots purchased, or not, it was impossible for any pur- chaser to know, as it was in the power of the officers or laborers within the enclosure to change the pieces at pleasure. From the proceeds of these sales it appears, by the statement of the auditor, hereinbefore referred to, that, for expenses, including a charge for storage — when, in fact, the goods were not stored after the fire — there was paid to Mr. Hoyt the sum of $2,100 on his own private account, according to usage, and on the 20th February, 1840, there was also paid to him, as collector of this port, to be placed in the Treasury, for the benefit of the owners of these goods, the sum of $19,929 17; which sum, nor any parfc thereof, was not at any time paid into the Treasury, but the whole amount thereof was appropriated by Mr. Hoyt to his own use, and iiominally passed to the credit of the Government in the last quarter of his term of service, ending on the 31st of March, 1841, more than one year after it had been received by him. The claimants of the goods applied for an equitable division of the proceeds of these sales, according to the loss sus- tained by each, at the burning of the public store in which they were deposited. This was denied to them by the collector, who, in a' corres- pondence with Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, received an order from the Department not only to refuse this equitable division of the money received by the collector, to be held for the benefit of the sufferers, but he obtained from that high officer of the Government positive instruc- tions to investigate, by all the means within his reach, the invoice price of the burned goods, and to demand from each importer the full amount of duties which would have accrued under their respective invoices. This Treasury order answered all the purposes of the collector, because it de- terred any owner of a part of the goods rescued from the building from making any claim on his individual account, as it would subject him to the operation of the order for the whole amount of duties accruing on his im- 26 Rep. No. 669. portation 5 and, thereby, Mr. Hoyt remained in the undisturbed possession of the money arising out of the sales of these goods, without the fear of a demand of any portion of it from any one of the sufferers by the fire. It stands credited to the Government, it is true, but that will be the last of it. There are some peculiar facts in relation to the loss occasioned by this fire, in addition to those narrated, which deserve to be noticed. The number of packages in the public store at the time it was consumed was six hundred and eighty seven, consisting almost entirely of woollen goods of British manufacture. Their value is estimated by one of the importers, who had a full knowledge of their quality and amount, at about one million of dollars. It appears, by the evidence of John Taylor, jr., and John Harris, two of the largest importers, that these woollens would have been entered at the custom-house, and the duties paid, long prior to the fire by which they were destroyed, but that the importers were deterred from entering their goods by the arbitrary system of seizures which had been adopted by Mr. Hoyt, the collector, and which rendered every thing insecure which was placed within the grasp of his power. Many of these importers offered to enter their goods according to law, and to subject them to appraisement, so as to avoid the risk of presenting an invoice, which at that time was the certain precursor of seizure and compromise, or of a pro- tracted and expensive litigation, which, in nine cases out of ten, ended in the ruin of the unfortunate importers, from delay and interruption in their ordinary pursuits. But this offer was rejected by the collector, and, in con- sequence of the difficulties and embarrassments thrown in the way of for- eign commerce in woollen fabrics, this large amount of goods remained in store until they were consumed by the fire, as above stated. The loss to the importers, thus delayed in the entry of their goods, was entire ; and the loss to the Government, in the duties which might have been collected on a fair valuation by the appraisers, was not less than $400,000. But all this, and much more of a similar character, was done by Jesse Hoyt, col- lector of the port of New York, under the deceptive guise of a patriotic devotion to the public interest, and an ardent desire, in the discharge of his official duties, to protect the public revenue from frauds and evasions. For a more particular detail of what occurred in relation to these damaged goods, saved from the fire, and the conduct of the collector, reference is made to the testimony of Mr. John Harris. Other witnesses have testified on the subject, but the evidence of Mr. Harris enters more at large into all these transactions: and, from the respectability and mercantile intelligence of the witness, his statements may be implicitly relied on. The evidence taken on the subject of the sale of goods remaining un- claimed for the space of nine months in the public stores will next be ex- amined. The following table will exhibit, for the years 183S, 1839, and 1840, the amount of the appraised value of goods falling under the above description; the sums which they brought at auction; the amount of du- ties accruing on the same; expenses of sale, and the amount paid into the . public Treasury, for the use and benefit of the owners, when applied for, for each year : Rep. No. 669. 37 Years. Amount of ap- praised value of goods, with- out duties. Duties on goods. Total value of appraised goods, includ- ing duties. Total value of gross sales. Collector's and other charges. Paid into Treasury for use of owners. 1838 $3,753 73 $1,388 25 $5,141 98 $4,095 41 $1,182 83 $1,523 88 1839 4,299 15 683 91 4,983 06 3,211 45 1,390 57 1,087 87 1840 14,671 69 4,758 81 19,430 50 13,107 96 3,329 51 4,969 19 Total 22,724 57 6,830 97 29,555 54 20,414 82 5,902 91 7,580 94 The following analysis is given, to show the nature of the charges made on these goods : Collector's commission ----- $33 57 Auctioneer's commission ----- 838 07 Advertising ------ 2,760 78 G. A. Wasson, for labor - - - - - 147 50 Weighing - - - - - - - 26 25 ■ Jesse Hoyt, for storage - - - 2,036 80 Not accounted for - - - - - - 59 94 Total ------- 5,902 91 From the above statement it appears that, in the year 1S40, the goods remaining in store over nine months unclaimed accumulated, from about an average of $4,000 in the two preceding years, to the sum of $14,671 69 — an increase which can only be accounted for by a knowledge, on the part of the importers, that any attempt to enter their goods at the custom-house would, under the general practice of Mr, Hoyt, subject them to seizure, either before or after the duties had been paid. In many instances the in- voices were not of sufficient amount in value to justify the enormous ex- pense attending a trial of the goods in court, and in all such cases judg- ment of condemnation has usually gone by default, and a total loss to the claimant, however innocent of any design to defraud the revenue, has been the consequence. Such claimants, therefore, have preferred to take the risk of a nine months' sale, rather than incur the expense of claiming their goods after seizure, or a forfeiture for the want of defence. The sales of the three years included in the above estimate resulted in a loss to the owners of the goods, taking them at the appraised value, with the addition of the duties, of $15,143 63. If these goods had passed the custom-house in the usual way, they would have brought, in the New York market, at least 10 per cent, above their appraised value, including the duties, which, being added to the loss on the sales at auction, would bring the amount of actual loss to the owners up to the sum of $18,099 13.* The bills paid by the collector for expenses charged on these goods are extravagant in a de- gree which imparts to them the idea of fiction rather than of fact. Take, for example, the item for advertising, which is fixed in the account at $2,760 78, being above 12 per cent, on the appraised value of the goods, for advertising alone. Mr. Hoyt, it seems, did not neglect himself in the charges on these goods, having reserved for his own use $2,o3S 80, being 9 per cent, on the appraised value of the goods, for storage. The other 38 liep. Ho. 669. items charged on the goods, being of less amount, are not deemed worthy of particular notice; but they are pro rata equally extravagant. It may be useful to explain the manner in which these sales are conducted. By the act of 1799, section 56, it was provided that all goods admitted to entry shall be " kept v/ith due and reasonable care, at the charge and risk of the owner or owners thereof, for the term of nine months; and if within that time no claim be made for the same, the collector shall procure an inventory of said goods, and an appraisement thereof, to be made, and to be verified on oath or affirmation by two or more reputable merchants, before the said collector, and to remain with him." At the expiration of nine months, such goods, so remaining in store unclaimed, are directed to be sold according to the provisions of the act above referred to, and, after deducting all charges thereon, the overplus,if any there be, is directed to be paid into the Treasury of the United States, there to remain for the use of the owner or owners, who shall, upon due proof of his, her, or their property, be entitled to re- ceive the same. This act has been modified, so far as it respects the ap- praisement of the goods, which was, by the act of 1823, transferred to the appraisers appointed by the President ; in all other respects, the law is with- out change. It remains to be seen in what manner the provisions of law, in relation to these unclaimed goods, have been executed. In the first place, the mode of advertising the goods for auction, which takes place usually in the months of December and January of each year, has been merely to give the marks and number of the packages, the names of the vessels, and the place whence imported. No description of the goods in boxes or packages is given, either in respect to the quantity in each box or package, the quality, or the material of which they are respectively com- posed. The custom-house officers who assist in the appraisement are alone informed on these points. The auctioneer is furnished with a gen- eral statement of the appraised value of each box or package, but no de- scription of their contents is given, and no special examination of the goods, by persons attending the sale for the purpose of purchasing, is permitted. The boxes or packages, if valuable, are generally let down, from a scuttle, on a platform above the heads of the bidders, and out of their reach or inspection, or suspended by a rope from the upper rooms in which they are stored, but equally out of the view of the bidders, so that no one can obtain a knowledge of the quality of the goods, except those who have had private opportunities of inspecting them, or such as are let into the secret for purposes of speculation and profit. This unfair system of auction sales, differing entirely from the custom observed in the sale of goods on mercantile account, has resulted in heavy losses to some and exorbitant profits to others. The uncertainty attending all purchases made by those who did not possess private means of exam- ining the goods has deterred almost every prudent merchant from attending the sales. The result has been, that by far the greater part of the valuable packages or boxes of^oods sold under these circumstances have been pur- chased below their cost or appraised value by custom-house officers, whose opportunities afforded them a full knowledge of the articles which they purchased, which no other person attending the sales possessed, except such as were in the secret, and united with these officers in speculations, and in whose names the goods are usually struck off, to prevent suspicion, which would otherwise have attached to the officer of the customs interested in. the purchase. In some cases, George A. Wasson, the public storekeeper Rep. No. 669. 39 and other officers belonging to the appraiser's department, purchased in their own names, but the more general practice was to substitute the name of another person. In one instance, which is given in the testimony of John D. Phillips, a clerk in the store of Messrs. Mills & Co., (the custom-house. auctioneers,) at a salary of five hundred dollars per annum, availing himself of the oppor- tunity of a private examination of a large quantity of silk goods and Genoa velvets, became the purchaser, in the name of another person, of the whole, or nearly the whole, of the valuable goods. These goods were arranged and the sale conducted in the same manner as at the other nine months sales. The witness testifies that this clerk realized a small fortune at this single sale, arising out of the knowledge he had acquired of the quality and value of the goods. These fraudulent sales have been for a long time made at the custom-house in New York, to the great injury of the individual own- ers, as will be seen by the preceding table ; and it would seem that, on every principle of justice and fair dealing, they ought to be reformed. The same system of advertising, without a catalogue of the goods for the inspection of purchasers, has been adopted by the present collector, and it is presumed will be in all respects continued, without some special legislation to pre- vent it. The extravagant expenditures and other practices at the New York cus- tom-house, which have been noticed in the preceding part of this report, might have been prevented in their inception, and" may be checked in fu- ture, by a careful examination of the vouchers at the end of each quarter, as they are returned to the Treasury Department ; and by instructions to the collector, properly enforced, on any part of his duties where errors ap- pear to exist in the performance of these duties. But this has hitherto been almost entirely neglected ; and it is matter of no little surprise that the gross frauds and malpractices of Mr. Hoyt have not only passed without rebuke, but they have been either tacitly or expressly approved by the head of the Treasury Department for the time being. All the officers of the customs, including the appraisers, were subjected to the arbitrary will of the collector ; and if any one of them should have the independence to perform his official duty otherwise than as directed, he at once became the victim of his supreme master. The orders of Mr. Wood- bury were, in some instances, disobeyed with impunity ; and if the Secre- tary complained, a still higher power was appealed to, where the collector was certain to find support. The advances to reform have been com- mended to the notice of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the official letters of the present collector, and freely spoken of by him before the commis- sioners, but they are not to be found in any department of the custom- house under his immediate control. Under the existing organization of the custom-house, the collector may, at his own discretion, order the auditor to check on the cashier for any bill, however extravagant or unjust, and such order may not be disobeyed, as the auditor holds his office at the will of the collector. He may, on the other hand, give an order to this officer to reject any bill, however reason- able and just, and the same result will follow. The cashier of the custom- house is in no better condition in the discharge of his duties, he also being equally bound by the orders which he may receive from the collector, the binding force of which is guarantied by the power of removal from office, now held and exercised over these officers at the pleasure of the collector, Rep. No. 669. without any efficient control which may be relied on at the Treasury De- partment. The appraisers have heretofore been subjected to the arbitrary will of the collector, which has been productive of much embarrassment to them in the discharge of their duties, and to the foreign commerce at this port. This department of the custom-house has, since the commissioners com- menced their investigations, been practically reformed, so as to render the appraisers independent of the collector in the appointment of their clerks and other subordinates, and in the appraisement of goods. This innova- tion of the former practice is essential to the independent action of this im- portant branch of the custom-house. The appraisers are, by law, forbidden to receive any portion of fines, penalties, and forfeitutes, accruing on the seizure of goods, so as to remove from them all temptation to raise the in- voice price of foreign merchandise, and thereby subject it to seizure ; and yet, under Mr. Hoyt, they were overruled in their appraisements by per- sons selected for the purpose, while he looked to the same inducements which were denied to the appraisers, in order to exempt their judgments from all bias resulting from contingent pecuniary considerations. Without enlarging on these details, the undersigned would respectfully recommend modifications of the existing laws, limiting the powers of the collector over the officers of the customs, and erecting departments respon- sible only to the President of the United States. The auditor of the cus- tom-house should be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and made wholly independent of the collector in the discharge of his duties, to be prescribed by law. The cashier should also be appointed in the same manner, and required to give security in a penal sum sufficient to cover any defalcation" which might arise in the receipt and deposite of the public money according to law and the instructions of the Treasury Department. His duties and re- sponsibilities should be so regulated as to render him independent of the control, either directly or indirectly, of the collector. The naval officer, intended as a check on the collector, has heretofore been unable to fulfil the intention of the law as it has been administered by former collectors. This office also deserves the particular attention of the Treasury Department and of Congress, in order to make it competent to perform the salutary functions desigued in its creation. The appraiser's department requires revision and reorganization, both in respect to the number of appraisers and their salaries, which are now below the standard requisite to command the services of the best-informed mer- chants, whose knowledge of foreign markets is essential to protect the • revenue from frauds, and give uniformity to the valuation of goods of every description imported from foreign markets ; and the appraisers, so consti- tuted, should, in all respects, be free from the control of the collector. The Secretary of the Treasury should be clothed with power to appoint and remove inspectors of the customs, weighers, gaugers, and measurers, as well as night inspectors. These inferior officers are now appointed by the collector ; but, when appointed, they are subject to the orders of the suveyor only, who has no power to enforce his orders, by removal, with- out the concurrence of the collector, who may impose on the surveyor in- competent or refractory officers, for whose conduct he is in a great degree responsible, without the power to command obedience to his orders in any other manner than by an appeal to the collector. This evil has been seen Rep. No. 669. 41 and felt in the practical operation of the present arrangement relating to this subject. Other modifications of the existing system might be suggest- ed, particularly in relation to light-houses and revenue cutters ; but the undersigned has appended to this report a bill, which comprises #11 the views which he deems it important to present in relation to these matters, which he earnestly recommends to the consideration of the Department of the Treasury. The attention of the commissioners was particularly directed by their instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury to an inquiry, " whether frauds have been secretly and habitually practised by importers of mer- chandise, to the injury of the revenue ;and if so, whether it was owing to any defect in the existing laws, or to the connivance or negligence of any of the officers of the customs; and if so, of whom." In search of these frauds, and the manner in which they have been or might be perpetrated, the commissioners have examined the most intelli- gent and experienced merchants engaged in the importation of foreign goods and in domestic manufactures, both in New York and Boston. The interrogatories put to these merchants covered the whole ground of their knowledge of frauds or evasions of the revenue laws; their belief in the ex- istence of such frauds; the information which they had received from others, and circumstances which might lead to the conclusion that such frauds and evasions had been practised, to the injury of the revenue or of the honest importer. Of their own knowledge, not a single witness called has testified to any fact which established, in any particular case, or any number of cases, the existence of frauds or evasions of the revenue laws. From rumors and various circumstances relating to the discrepancy in price between importers of the same description of goods, (some of these selling at a price far below what could be afforded by others at a reason- able profit,) and speculative opinions, all agree that frauds have been prac- tised on the revenue, at different times, to a considerable extent. They also speak of the devices by which these frauds have been successfully perpetrated, and by which they may be again ; but of their own know- ledge they do not profess to know any thing, resting their opinions entirely on general reputation and the course of trade, as it has existed under their own observation. Many of the witnesses examined on these points are domestic mannfacturers or their agents, or merchants referred to by such manufacturers to establish the existence of frauds on the revenue, in order to place foreign commerce under the most rigid restrictions, to exclude the foreign fabric, for the benefit of domestic goods of the same description. It may therefore be fairly presumed, that if any positive evidence could be adduced to fix the charge of fraud on any number of foreign importers, it would have been, as the door was widely thrown open, by the commis- sioners, to the introduction of such evidence. None such, however, was adduced, and it is presumed, therefore, that none such existed. The following extracts from the testimony of Josiah Lane, a large im- porting merchant in New York, will serve to show the nature and extent of all the evidence given by this class of witnesses in relation to frauds or supposed frauds on the revenue, alleged to have been committed by im- porters of foreign merchandise : "Question 2. Do you know, or have you satisfactory evidence to induce you to believe, that the revenue laws have- been evaded, or that frauds 42 Rep. t No* 669. upon the revenue have been practised by importers of goods into the city of New York ? "Answer 2. My knowledge of frauds upon the revenue, by importers, is only f$om common report. I have heard it reported so constantly, that I verily believe extensive frauds have, at different times, been committed. " In answer to the 3d question, Mr. Lane says : " The devices by which frauds are practised upon the revenue, / pre- sume to be, by importers presenting for entry and swearing to false in- voices of goods which pay an ad valorem duty." He further states: "My house, to a certain extent, has been compelled to abandon the im- portation from France of articles paying high duties, as we have uniformly been undersold by other importers of such articles, who have seemed to possess some secret means by which they could afford to sell such goods at less than cost, to those importers who buy in foreign markets with money." And in answer to question 9, on the same subject, he states as follows : "It is within my knowledge, as it is generally notorious, that certain houses carry on the business of importing certain articles paying high duties, and that they are able to drive out competition, by underselling what is called the fair merchant. My opinion is, that it is not from buying their goods lower in foreign markets, but that they pay less duty here at the custom- house, and of course can afford to sell for less than a neighbor w ho has paid honest duty. I am not able to name the names of such importers, not hav- ing proofs to substantiate frauds against any particular firm. These firms could be known to the officers of the custom-house, if their goods were critically examined when passing entries." These extracts constitute the strongest evidence taken by the commis- sioners to establish the existence of fraudulent practices to evade the pay- ment of proper duties on importations made into the port of New York. They disclose no definite fact on which the judgment can rest, or by which a remedy could be suggested, to prevent the recurrence of the practices complained of, and which are presumed to have existed. That frauds have been committed on the revenue since the foundation of this Government, and that these frauds will continue to exist to the end of time, so long as revenue is collected on foreign importations, does not admit of a doubt. The most prolific source from which they spring, and that which is found most difficult to be overcome. is the smuggling of foreign merchandise into the United States along our extensive frontier bordering on the British provinces. Smuggling may also be perpetrated in the night time, or by collusion between the discharging inspector and the officers of vessel, or the owner or consignee of the goods. It is in evidence that this latter practice has been not unfrequent in this port. The expense incurred by the Government for night inspectors is very great, far beyond any thing which could justify the appointment of so large a number of inspectors of this class. They ought to be reduced, if not entirely dispensed with, except so far as may be necessary to guard the public stores against fire and the abstraction of goods deposited in those stores in the night time, which it is in evidence has sometimes occurred by the connivance or approba- tion of the public storekeeper or his assistants. The difficulty and risk of smuggling from vessels regularly entered, after the manifest has been delivered to the collector, would seem to be a suffi- Rep. No. 669. 43 cient guard against the landing of packages in the night, and thereby cre- ate a discrepancy between the manifest and the goods entered for the pay- ment of duties. The penalties on the ship, besides the crime of perjury which would attach to the captain, in case the goods contained in the man- ifest should fall short, might be considered adequate to the suppression of smuggling from vessels in port during the night ; but it is, nevertheless, alleged that this practice has existed to a certain extent. Smuggling by collusion with the discharging officers, by means of bribery, is both more practicable and more frequent. The laws, as they at present exist for the suppression of smuggling, seem to require revision and modification, to render them effective. It is worthy of consideration, whether it would not be productive of a salutary influence on the public mind to stimulate vigilant efforts in the detection and seizure of smuggled goods introduced into the country through the British colonies in Canada, to give to the person or persons making the seizures the whole amount of the value of the goods seized and condemned, on the payment of duties. Such a measure would excite the whole population on the frontier to active exertions in detecting smugglers, for their own benefit, which they could not be induced to do when a small portion only of the goods inured to the benefit of the person making the seizure. The practice might in this manner be rendered extremely hazard- ous, if it would not be entirely suppressed, by the dread of detection. To prevent smuggling in the night time, or by collusion with the dis- charging inspector, after a vessel shall have arrived in port, a similar regu- lation, giving to the night inspector, or other person making the seizure, the whole amount of the value of the goods seized, and not, as at present, to the Government and certain other officers of the customs, would, it is believed, do more to check the practice than any supervision of these in- spectors which could possibly be exerted by the collector or surveyor of the port. - How far the payment of duties may have been evaded by the devices mentioned in the testimony, of introducing and swearing to false invoices, has not been and it is believed cannot be demonstrated by proof. That cases of this description may have occurred, is not only possible, but prob- able ; but if the fact be as it is represented, the fault must be traced to de- fects in the administration of the laws, rather than to the laws now in force on that subject. For the purpose of preventing these evasions of the payment of the full amount of duties, Congress created the office of appraiser, and designated a sufficient number of appraisers and assistant appraisers at each port to examine and appraise all foreign merchandise imported into the United States. The invoice produced and sworn to, whether it be fair or false, forms no guide to the appraisers in fixing the market value of the goods at the place whence imported ; and if such goods are passed, and the duties paid, at a valuation below the proper standard, the error lies at the door of these officers, and cannot properly be charged on the importer, whatever might be his intention at the time of the entry of his goods. No other remedy, it would seem, could be pro- vided against such evasions or attempted evasions of the revenue, but the one now in existence, by which the merchandise is subjected to the exami- nation and appraisement of officers selected by this Government to per- form that duty, and who ought at least to be presumed to act with fidelity in the discharge of the trust confided to them. 44 Rep. No. 669. The undersigned is of opinion, from a review of all the evidence taken, that the principal appraisers and their assistants, during Mr. Hoyt's collect- orship, were honest, faithful, and intelligent men, on whose judgment and impartiality great reliance might have been placed, in protecting the pub- lic interests by a uniform and just standard of valuation of all the foreign merchandise sent to the public store for their appraisement. But these men were interrupted in the discharge of their duties by means resorted to by the collector, for the accomplishment of objects distinct from the protec- tion of the revenue, as will hereafter be shown ; and in consequence of these illegal, fraudulent, and arbitrary proceedings of the collector, the revenue collected at this port, during his term of office, was reduced in a much greater ratio than by all the other devices which have been ascribed to foreign importers. To show the rise and progress of these interruptions of the regular for- eign commerce of the country at this port, and their effect on the public revenue derived from imposts, it is necessary to go back lo the commence- ment of the term of office of Jesse Hoyt, and sum up the evidence taken on the subject of the existence of an understanding or combination in relation to the importations of foreign woollens, between THE DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER AND THE COLLECTOR OF THE CUSTOMS OF NEW YORK. The undersigned, in approaching this subject deems it due to himself to premise -that it forms no part of the object contemplated in the review of the testimony which will be submitted to implicate in any manner the high character of the manufacturers whose names are connected with the trans- actions of the collector of this port. The evidence given by these manufacturers will be chiefly relied on to demonstrate the extent to which their interposition, to control the action of the collector in reference to importations of foreign merchandise into the port of New York, was carried. Other evidence will be noticed in connex- ion with that given by the manufacturers, for the sole purpose of placing these matters fully and fairly before the Treasury Department, without prejudice to the parties concerned; and also for the purpose of bringing to the view of the Government facts and circumstances intimately connected with the public revenue and other great interests of the country. The vast amount of foreign merchandise imported into the port of New York, and the duties collected on such importations, constituting more than one- half the amount collected throughout the Union, renders it particularly in- cumbent on the Executive to see that the laws imposing duties, and pre- scribing the manner in which they shall be estimated and collected, should be faithfully executed, free from all influences which might be brought to bear on the conduct of the officers of the customs, from any quarter whatever. It is obvious that if the manufacturing interest of the country should be per- mitted, by any device whatsoever, or by any arrangement or understanding with the collector of this port, to affix a standard of value, from time to time, on foreign importations imported into New York, other than that which may be fixed according to the provisions of law, that such interfer- ence would operate to establish any protection which might be deemed necessary to interdict the foreign fabric, and give the command of the home market to the domestic manufacturers, without the sanction of laws im- Eep. No. 669. 45 posing duties, either for revenue or for the encouragement of any particular branch of manufactures in the country. If duties are collected on a high standard of value in this port, into which so large a proportion of foreign merchandise is brought, and if that stand- ard can be regulated by the influence or interference of the domestic man- ufacturers of the same articles, the tariff of duties may in this manner be changed as often as it may be required by such manufacturers, or at the pleasure of the collector. The effect of such combinations would not only supersede the existing laws of the country, but would effectually interdict all future legislation, however, guarded, imposing a tariff of duties either for revenue or protection. Such a system, under which the laws may be readily evaded or rendered inoperative, it is clear, will not and ought not to be endured by the American people. Let the laws rule, and all parts of the Union will be equally subjected to their burdens, and will equally par- ticipate in their benefits. There is no principle which would justify or tolerate the interference of the domestic manufacturer to raise the standard of value of foreign goods imported into New York, which would not equally apply to every other part of the Confederacy. What would be thought of a committee from Charleston or New Orleans demanding interviews with the collector at this port, for the purpose of fixing a lower standard of value on importations, and thereby opening more widely the door to the introduc- tion of foreign merchandise, for the benefit of the great agricultural interest of the nation ? Such an interference would not be tolerated for a moment, and would doubtless produce an excitement which could not be readily sub- dued; and yet no American citizen can with any reason or plausibility defend the like privilege to another portion of the Union, who undertake, under the guise of protecting the revenue from frauds, whether real or imaginary, to demand an increased standard of value, and thereby interdict the foreign article, to promote the particular branch of industry in which their capital is invested. These preliminary remarks are made to draw particular attention to the state of things which existed during the term of office of the late collector, Hoyt, which will be seen and appreciated by reference to the testimony, the material parts of which will be examined and condensed. It appears, by the evidence of William S. Coe, formerly an appraiser of woollens in this custom-house, and late naval officer, that, as early as the year 1S29, under the high-pressure tariff of the preceding year, great dis- satisfaction was manifested by the woollen manufacturers at that day, on the subject of the standard of value fixed by the appraisers on woollens im- ported from England ; and that a principal manufacturer interfered with the appraisers in the discharge of their duties, and attempted to dictate to them a higher standard of value by personal importunity, and, failing in that, he resorted to the promulgation of a pamphlet, in which, to use the language of Mr. Coe, " myself and Mr. Johnson, my colleague, were handled in a very ungentlemanly manner. 77 This individual, whose name was Peter H. Schenck, a large and extensive manufacturer of woollens, who profess- ed to represent that interest generally, not having succeeded by his charges of partiality on the appraisers, nor by the publication of his pamphlet, which was designed to operate on popular feeling, to the prejudice of these officers of the customs, finally resorted to the expedient, with the consent and approbation of Mr. Swartwout, the then collector, of designating the 46 Rep. No. 669. ship Silas Richards, shortly expected to arrive from Liverpool, freighted with woollen goods of British manufacture, and subjecting the whole cargo to the strict examination and appraisement of five merchants, all of them importers, and well acquainted with the value of woollens, both in the markets of Europe and of this country. These five merchants were of the class denominated American importers — were men of high character for integrity, and, as such, were selected to make the appraisement of the cargo, after the arrival of the ship Silas Richards, by Mr. Swartwout, the collector. Mr. Coe testifies that they proceeded, from day to day, without the pro- duction of any invoice, in the examination and appraisement of these goods, until the work was finished. Mr. Schenck was of opinion, as he said, that this examination would justify his charges of partiality on the regular ap- praisers, and satisfy the collector that extensive frauds were practised on the revenue in this branch of commerce ; but the result did not, by any means, correspond with his expectations. After the conclusion of the ap- praisement of these goods by the five merchants selected, the invoices were produced, and, to the utter astonishment of Mr. Schenck and his associates, the difference between the invoice value and the appraisement on the whole cargo amounted only to the paltry sum of £29 sterling, which was in favor of the invoice value. Not content with this signal rebuke of his groundless charges and surmises, implicating the appraisers, under the pretext of a pa- triotic desire to protect the revenue, Mr. Schenck was permitted by the col- lector to select five other merchants, of his own choosing, and the goods were again subjected to their examination and appraisement. The result was an entire concurrence in the appraisement previously made. From this time, it appears by the testimony of Mr. Coe, this clamorous leader of the manufacturing interest was silenced, and ceased all further interference or interruption in the regular business of the custom-house appraisers. This warfare against foreign importations was occasionally continued, un- der different modifications, to the great injury of a numerous class of im- porters, during the term of Mr. Swartwout ; but it seems that, between the years 1836 and 1338, the efforts of the manufacturers had in a great meas- ure subsided, and given to commerce a short season of repose. Passing from this epoch to the commencement of the year 1838, when Jesse Hoyt was appointed collector of this port, the crusade of the manufacturers against importers of foreign woollen goods was again renewed, in a manner and under circumstances more injurious to the public revenue, and more em- barrassing to the importer, than at any former period. Patriotism and a desire to protect the revenue was the professed object of the manufacturers in lending their kind offices at the custom-house in New York, in order that the laws might be faithfully executed, and the public Treasury filled by their disinterested exertions, for which they claimed the thanks of the coun- try. Mr. Hoyt, it seems, had scarcely taken his seat as collector before he was waited on by Mr. Samuel Lawrence, of Lowell, and, as he himself tes- tifies, " I called on him [Hoyt] to give him my views of the mode the wool- len appraisement department, had been conducted under his predecessor, and urged him to look into it." Again : Mr. Lawrence says : " Sometime after, I was in New York, and Mr. Hoyt told me he wanted a good judge of woollen goods ; and if I would recommend such a person, he would make him an assistant appraiser. I made considerable effort to find such a man, but did not succeed, and never proposed one. Mr. Bradley is one of the best judges of woollen goods I know, and I might have suggested this place Rep. No. 669. 47 to him, but I do not remember to have done so. At any rate, T should have been very glad to have had him in that department, believing him to be faith- ful and competent." In answer to a question relating to the subject of select- ing an appraiser of woollens for the New York custom-house from the manu- facturing interest of New England, Mr. Lawrence says s " I do not believe Mr. Hoyt ever offered to appoint au appraiser recommended by the manufac- turers of Boston, Lowell, or any other place, except to myself, as above stat- ed." He further states, in answer to a question, whether any woollen manufacturer had attempted to raise at the custom-house in New York the standard of prices on the foreign woollens market above the actual cost : " The first time I ever called on Mr. Hoyt, after he was appointed collector, to give my views of the manner the appraisement department had been conducted in the New York custom-house, I stated to him my firm belief that the standard of valuation there was too low." He then proceeds to give his reasons for this opinion, but adds that he had not, in the slightest degree, interfered with any officer, or made an effort to change this sys- tem. Mr. Hoyt promised, at this interview, to call to the assistance of the appraisers some importers of woollen goods, to carry out the views of Mr. Lawrence. In answer to the second question propounded by the commis- sioners, Mr. Lawrence says: "From my own knowledge, I know of no cases of frauds practised by importing merchants in the city of New York." It is in proof, by the evidence of Mr. Win. W. Stone, the partner of Mr. Lawrence, that the " only case of fraud practised by importers at the port of New York, which actually came to my knowledge, was the entering of 114 cases and 10 pieces of broadcloths in an unlawful manner, by James Bottomly, jr., during the year 1S3S. These goods were seized in an auction room, upon complaint made by one of my partners, Mr. Samuel Lawrence." It may be asked if, in the year 1841, Mr. Lawrence declared, on oath, that he had no knowledge of any frauds practised by importing merchants in New York, under what circumstances or state of facts he could have made a complaint, on oath, in 1838, which caused the seizure of the goods of James Bottomly, jr., on the ground that they had been fraudulently entered at the port of New York, and transferred to Boston for a market. It further appears, by an official communication of George A. Wasson to the collector of this port, that simultaneously with the seizure of the goods in Boston, on the complaint of Mr. Lawrence, he addressed a letter to the district attorney at Baltimore, or to a mercantile house in that city, advis- ing or informing them of the frauds committed in New York by the York- shire importers, and of the seizure in Boston ; and recommended "that all goods in Baltimore, that were suspected as belonging to any one of these importers, be immediately seized," as having been fraudulently entered at the port of New York. And notwithstanding these proceedings, taken at the instance of Mr. Lawrence, and his advice given to the district attorney of Maryland, he solemnly affirms, under oath, more than three years after- wards, that he had no knowledge of any frauds practised by importing merchants in the city of New York. The circumstances under which the goods of James Bottomly, jr., seized in Boston, were condemned by the verdict of a jury in that city, will form the subject of future comment. In answer to another question put by the commissioners, having relation to the appointment of appraisers in the New York custom-house, Mr. 48 Rep. No. 669. Lawrence says : " For more than twenty years / have believed that ex- tensive frauds were committed at the New York custom-house, by a class of men from Yorkshire, England ; and, from 1834 to 1838, the amounts were enormous/ 7 And he further states: " It is within my knowledge, that a number of Yorkshiremen, residents of New York, sold English broad- cloths for many years at prices less than they could be laid down here by a regular importer who bought his goods for cash in England, and paid the duties fairly. I have seen thousands of pieces, and critically examined ahnost as many of these goods." Whether Mr. Lawrence made this "critical examination at the custom-house in New York, he does not state; but if they (the goods) were seen and examined elsewhere, it does not appear how their identity became known to the witness, and more espe- cially it does not appear by what means he is enabled to refer directly to the houses in New York by which the importations were made and the frauds committed of which he complains. The witness further testifies, that he visited the woollens left at the cus- tom-house in New York, in company with Mr. Hoyt at one time, and in company with George A. Wasson and William Cairns at another, and gave his opinion of the value of some foreign wool. His visits to Mr. Hoyt, the collector, were frequent, and their intercourse had relation entirely to the business transactions of the custom-house. But, in all these things, Mr. Lawrence protests that he was actuated by no other consideration than a desire to see that the laws were faithfully executed, and avers that he never " offered advice or made a suggestion to any officer of the cus- toms in regard to the performance of his duties, or interfered in any manner with the affairs of the custom-house." It is worthy of remark, that this declaration is made by Mr. Lawrence in the face of his admission that he had urged upon the collector in the most earnest manner the necessity of establishing at this port a higher standard of value than that fixed by the appraisers, by which to estimate the duties on foreign woollens. If this is not giving advice, or interfering with any officers of the customs in the discharge of their official duties, its real character and definition remains to be given by some casuist better skilled in that branch of reasoning than the writer of this report. Mr. Lawrence swears that he obtained the promise of Mr. Hoyt to call in to the appraiser's assistance some importers of woollen goods, and a further promise to appoint any one an assistant appraiser in the woollens loft whom he might recommend, he being largely concerned in the manufacture of domestic woollen goods. Were these promises or pledges obtained with- out the advice or interference in any manner whatever of the witness with the affairs of the New York custom-house ? The foregoing extracts from the testimony of Mr. Lawrence will serve to show the inception of that extensive system of seizures of foreign woollens which was put in opera- tion by Mr. Hoyt, for the double purpose of filling his own pockets with money extorted from the foreign importer, and to drive foreign woollens out of the market, for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer of that fabric. The testimony of this witness will be again recurred to to illus- trate these and other points of this report. The testimony of William W. Stone, the partner of Samuel Lawrence, in the manufacture of domestic woollens, will next be noticed. Mr. Stone, like his partner, testifies that he has no knowledge of any frauds committed by importing merchants at the custom-house in New York, save only the Rep. No. 669. 49 case of James Bottomly, jr. He states that he made frequent visits to Mr. Hoyt and other officers at the custom-house, but particularly on the subject of Mr. Bottomly's case, to obtain testimony from the subordinate officers of the customs in New York, to aid in the condemnation of the goods. He further states that, on these occasions, he visited the woollens loft, where he found Mr. Cairns and Mr. Lounsberry ; that he examined cloths of British manufacture, which were opened for appraisement ; made experi- ments on them, by applying muriatic acid to the colors, and caused many of the pieces to be remeasured by Mr. Cairns, and found a piece marked 14^ yards, which measured 151 yards; gave his opinion to the appraisers that it was " too liberal," and said to them "this is evidently wrong." The appraisers present spoke of the five per cent, allowed in England ; to which he replied, that this allowance was on the invoice, and had nothing to do with the length of the goods. Mr. Stone assigns, as a reason for making this visit to the woollens loft, that "he had occasion to see Mr. Cairns" on business, the nature of which, is explained more fully by other witnesses. The cause assigned for the frequent interviews which took place between Mr. Hoyt, the collector, and other officers of the customs, with this witness, is, his "peculiar situation " as the partner of Mr. Samuel Lawrence, who had caused the seizure of the goods of James Bottomly, jr., and who, being at Lowell, devolved on him the duty of obtaining testimony from the New York custom-house to- condemn the goods. It is not pretended, by either Mr. Stone or Mr. Law- rence, that they have any knowledge whatever of any frauds practised by that class of foreign importers of woollens usually known by the name of Yorkshiremen, except that which is derived from the trial in Boston, in the case of the United States vs. Bottomly. The residue of their testimony, if it may be so called, is composed of conjecture, of rumor, and of probabil- ities, in respect to the manner in which frauds on the revenue might be committed; but" whether they have been so committed or not, neither of' these witnesses pretend to possess any knowledge. It may be useful,, therefore, to present the prominent features of this case against Bottomly,. and the means by which it was commenced and prosecuted to the final condemnation of the goods. The seizure took place in an auction store in the city of Boston, on the complaint of Samuel Lawrence, a manufacturer of domestic woollens, who has testified that he knows nothing of any fraud committed by any im- porter in the city of New York. Second. The case was continued by the district attorney for several months, who, in the mean time, visited the collector of New York, to ob- tain evidence, and to confer with the district attorney for the southern dis- trict of New York, the result of which was, that he informed Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Stone, his partner, that he could not make out a case; that sev- eral seizures had been made in New York, under similar circumstances, and that he was informed by Messrs. Hoyt and Butler that they could not make out a case, for the want of positive evidence, the laws not being; strong enough to reach the case. Third. Nothing daunted by this opinion of the law officer of the Gov- ernment, this firm of woollen manufacturers obtained permission, through the collector of New York, to employ counsel, and proceed with the case, without, the aid and against, the consent of the district altorney. Thus the seizure became at once a question between these manufacturers and tliQ 4 * 50 Rep. No. 669. foreign importer, in which the name of the Government was used nomi- nally to subserve their purposes. The means employed to obtain testi- mony are disclosed in part in the deposition of Mr. Stone, for which pur- pose he made frequent visits to Mr. Hoyt and the other officers of the cus- toms in New York. He at length succeeded in procuring the attendance of several subordinate officers, who attended at the trial, and gave evidence. The inducements thrown out to these officers are not fully known; but the following testimony of Joseph R. Bleecktr, one of these witnesses, will fur- nish data upon which to calculate the inducements offered by Mr. Stone, to accomplish his object, in the condemnation of the goods seized on the oath of his partner, Mr. Lawrence. The witness made the following objections to attending the trial and giving testimony : that his person would be sub- ject to arrest for debt in another State ; that his pecuniary situation was such that lie could not bear the expense ; that he stood in the relation of informer, and might lose his share of the goods, if condemned. One objec- tion was overcome by a writ of protection, procured at the instance of Mr. Stone ; another by a peremptory order from Mr. Hoyt, the collector ; and the remaining objection, on the score of expense, was obviated by the pledge of Mr. Stone to pay all the expenses. The witness states that he had several conversations with Mr. Stone and the lawyers employed by the manufacturers, about frauds, and was told by Stone and the others that his .evidence was of the greatest importance to the " manufacturing interest" He further states, that his expenses and those of George A. Wasson were paid by Mr. Stone. But the most remarkable feature in this case was, the production of a paper called the confessions of James Campbell, late deputy collector in the custom-house at New York. This man acted occasionally as entry clerk, and performed other services, at the prompting of Mr. Hoyt, with whom he was a particular confidant and favorite, until his crimes became known to the public, and forthwith Mr. Hoyt made an indignant display of moral feeling, and thrust him from his desk. The name of James Campbell very soon became odious in New York ; the juries would not listen to his testimony ; but these facts were not so well understood in Bos- ton, and hence the transfer of his statement, to be used on this trial. The first scene in this judicial drama ivas to prove, by his own confes- sion, the infamy of this witness ; and then to presume that his connexion with James Bottomly, jr., and every thing else necessary for the condemna- tion of the goods, is taken for granted, without proof, or the shadow of proof, having any bearing on the claimant. The permit necessary to the landing of the goods was demanded, under the first count in the declaration ; it was in the hands of the collector, (Hoyt,) and carefully withheld from the claimant or his counsel. The original invoices were also called for, and they, like the permits, were safeiy lodged at the custom-house in New York; and except the confessions, as they are called, of this vile culprit, which were in the most extraordinary manner admitted as evidence, with- out oath, there does not appear, on the report of the trial, one particle of evidence, either to identify the goods or the vessels in which they were im- ported, or to show fraud, or an attempt at fraud, in the port of New York, at the time the goods were entered, passed, and the duties paid by James Bottomly, jr., the claimant. Every thing was left to conjecture or infer- ence, founded on the most trivial circumstances, such as the removal of the Rep. No. 669. 51 marks and numbers from the pieces of cloth, which is the common practice of merchants after the entry of their goods and the payment of duties, which the court deemed sufficient evidence of fraud to throw the burden of proof on the claimant, that the goods " were duly landed with a permit," alleging that it was easy for the claimant to do so, "if the facts were so; that the fail- ure to do it might well warrant the jury in concluding against the claimant." This charge of the judge, without entering into the legal absurdities which are apparent on the face of it, was made with a full knowledge that the per- mit which he demanded as a sine qua non from the claimant, was, of neces- sity, deposited with the collector at New York, at the time the goods were delivered and the duties paid. It ought not to escape notice, that this trial was, in fact, carried on by a combination of manufacturers interested in the destruction of foreign com- merce, and, of course, in the persecution of the importers ; and that it took place in a manufacturing district, where, without effort, a jury might be found ready and willing to give any verdict which that pervading and pow- erful interest might require for its protection. The undersigned has no knowledge of any case, in the judicial history of England or the United States, where a penal prosecution, abandoned by the Government on the ground that it could not be sustained, was permitted to be carried on by a vindictive combination of individuals, whose wealth and influence, connected with local feelings and prejudices, might enable them to carry out their private ends in the name of that Government whose legitimate law officer had pronounced the party prosecuted innocent! The case of James Bottomly, jr., whose goods were seized, tried, and con- demned, in Boston, constitutes the only instance on record in the civilized world of this anomalous character ; but yet it is referred to by Mr. Law- rence and his partner, Mr. Stone, as the basis of all their conjectures, of which they profess to know nothing, of frauds on the revenue alleged to have been committed by foreign importers at the port of New York. Mr. Stone goes further, and lays great stress on the confessions of James Camp- bell to establish the existence of such frauds, for the reason that said Camp- bell, in order to implicate others, has grounded their guilt on his own infamy — he having obtained, as a condition precedent to his confessions, a promise of forgiveness and indemnity from the collector, Hoyt, who, under an apprehension that Campbell intended to sail for Europe on the 10th of October, 183S, in a letter to the district attorney, ordered him to be held to heavy bail to prevent his departure, and to use him in the condemnation of goods put under seizure by the collector, and for other like purposes; thus holding a rod over the degraded man whom he had used for corrupt pur- poses, and, so long as he would be believed on oath in the courts of justice, he designed further to use, in the consummation of his acts of tyranny and oppression on the foreign importers. There appears to have been a com- bination of the manufacturers of domestic woollens, extending from Boston to Baltimore, connected with Hoyt, the collector of the port of New York, to break down foreign commerce in woollen fabrics, and substitute the do- mestic article, without competition. At the head of this combination stood Mr. Samuel Lawrence, an extensive manufacturer of woollens in Lowell. He caused the seizure of numerous parcels of imported woollens found in the city of Boston, but failed in procuring their condemnation. On his own complaint, the goods of Bottomly were seized ; and by his exertions, and those of his partner, Mr. Stone, as hereinbefore set forth, the condemnation 52 Rep. No. 669. of the goods was effected. He opened a correspondence, both in Phila- delphia and Baltimore, for the purpose of procuring the seizure of all goods belonging, or supposed to belong, to the Yorkshire importers, as will appear in the official communication made to the collector, Hoyt, by George A. Wasson, on the 1st of May, 1838, (see Appendix A,) a copy of which, accompanies this report. He was in constant intercourse and correspond- ence with the collector, Hoyt, and other selected officers of the customs in New York, on the subject of seizures here and elsewhere, in supplying evi- dence from his own house in Lowell, and the payment of money to wit- nesses and counsel to carry out their views in the depression of the com- merce in foreign woollens at this port. He states, in his own evidence, that he had authority to send on an appraiser, to be placed in the woollen loft, and that he made " considerable efforts to find such a man, but did not suc- ceed." He believes that Mr. Bradley would have been a suitable person,, he being a manufacturer of domestic woollens, and admits that he might have suggested this place to him, but does not remember to have done so;, but does not believe that Mr. Hoyt offered to appoint an appraiser recom- mended by the manufacturers of Boston, Lowell, or any other place, except to hi?nselj, considering his connexion with that branch of business as prop- erly and efficiently represented in his person. It appears, also, by the statement of St. G. W. Teackle, of Baltimore, that Mr. Lawrence offered to advance $500 to counsel, to assist in the trials of seizures in Baltimore; but the agent of the manufacturers in that city, at the trials, refused to pay the money, finding it unnecessary, as the cases were prosecuted by the district attorney and other counsel sent on by the manufacturers from Philadelphia. The result of this warfare on the im- portation of woollens from abroad is, in part, disclosed and admitted by Mr. Lawrence, in his answer to the fifteenth question put by the commis- sioners, in which he says: "From all the intormation I can gather, there are less woollen goods from England in the country, and on their way,, than for many years past." This admission goes far to establish the original design of the combination, as well as its successful consummation. How far these proceedings have deteriorated the public revenue may well be imagined ; but there is positive proof on this poinr, which will be noticed in its proper place. These disinterested services the parties claim to have rendered from the purest impulses of patriotism, to protect the revenue from fraud or evasion, and to render their valuable aid to the President of the United States, in the execution of his constitutional duty to " take care that ihe laws are faithfully executed." It may be that the country and Government are much indebted to them for filling the measure of their own avarice at the expense of the public Treasury, and for having pro- duced a state of things so highly favorable to their own interests, as testi- fied to by Mr. Lawrence — that, in the year 1S41, there are fewer woollens from England in the country, and on their way, than for many years past. Mr. Stone and his partner (Mr. Lawrence) both profess to have been actuated solely by a desire to protect the public revenue from frauds; but this idea comes in conflict with another declaration made by Mr. Stone, that he was induced to take the active part he did because, at that time, he was " largely concerned in the Middlesex woollen mills at Lowell, and was suffering in consequence of large quantities of woollens being sold weekly at auction in Boston, at prices which, our importers stated, wer below what they could import the goods at." Whether this latter motive Rep. No. 669. 53 'predominated in the mind of the witness over the anxiety he expresses to protect the public Treasury, must be left to the judgment of an impartial public. As a corollary to these extracts from the depositions from Messrs. Stone & Lawrence, it appears, by the testimony of Arthur French and •Charles Bradley, woollen manufacturers, that an effort was made to pro- cure the services of Mr. Bradley as an appraiser in the woollens loft at ■the custom-house in New York. Mr. Lawrence, representing the manu- facturing interest, obtained the promise of Mr. Hoyt to appoint any one an appraiser whom he might recommend ; he made every effort in his power to find such a person, without success, but is not certain that he proposed it to Mr. Bradley. It became, however, known in Boston that such a promise had been made, doubtless through Mr. Lawrence ; and Mr. French testifies that he held a conversation with a firm of merchants in Boston interested in the woollen manufacture, and that he expressed his opinion that an intelligent, skilful, and discerning person ought to be placed in the woollens loft, as an appraiser of foreign woollens, for the protection of the domestic manufacture ; and that it would be to their interest to contribute a large sum of money annually to pay for the ser- vices of such a person : and, at the same time, mentioned that the sum of five thousand dollars, including the salary allowed by the Govern- ment, would be a suitable compensation. " Some one" then present re- marked that Mr. Hoyt would be willing to appoint' such person as the New England manufacturers would unite in recommending ; expressed his gratification that Mr. Hoyt was beginning to understand the case, and was willing to provide a remedy. On the same day, Mr. French states that he met Mr. Charles A. Bradley in the street, and, well knowing that he was entirely qualified for the position, said to him, u Will you accept an appointment as an appraiser of woollen goods at the custom-house in New York?" He answered, "Yes, if they will pay me enough. " The witness •then said that, as Mr. Hoyt was willing to appoint such appraiser as might be recommended by the manufacturers, they would make him up an an- nual salary of five thousand dollars. Mr. Bradley, in his deposition, recognises the same conversation; but adds, that he was not formally offered the appointment on the terms men- tioned, and that, if it had been so offered, he should have declined it. This arrangement, as agreed on between Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Lawrence, having failed, offers were made to some of the subordinate officers of the customs, of pecuniary compensation, to watch over the interests of the domestic manufacturers in the woollens loft of the public store. George R. Ives, late a merchant in New York, one of the firm of Labron & Ives, who were particularly favored at the custom-house, informed Mr. John Taylor, jr., as he testifies in his deposition, " that the Eastern manu- facturers had offered him two thousand dollars a year if he would act as a spy for them, and give information who was doing the largest woollen im- porting business, and which of them was selling most woollens at auction, and other matters, generally, about the importers. I cannot state positive- ly that any particular name was mentioned by Mr. Ives as having offered him this money, but am fully under the impression that he said Mr. Samuel Lawrence, of the firm of Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, was the person." Subsequently, this same Mr. Ives was examined before the commission- ers, and, in answer to question seven, denies that he or any of his partners had authority from any Eastern manufacturer to offer a reward or compensa- 54 Rip. No. 669. tion to any officer of the customs in New York, to protect their interests and watch the importers of woollens ; but, in his answer to the eighth question,, he admits " that, in 1S39, after the numerous seizures of woollens, or about that period, he had a conversation with Mr. Samuel Lawrence, of Boston, to this effect : that the Eastern manufacturers could well afford to em- ploy agents to watch their interests, and obtain a knowledge of the various imported woollens into this and other ports;" and, further, "that such agents would help greatly to protect the interest of the domestic manufac- turers ; and I think Mr. Lawrence assented to this opinion." Again, he says : " I mentioned the subject to other parties, and perhaps to custom- house officers ; but not with a view to induce them to accept such agency, or that I was authorized to employ them" These equivocal answers correspond with the usual manner of Mr. Ive^s in answering questions put to him by the commissioners; he having, at least ono ne occasion, sworn positively to a fact, which he afterwards, under oath, as positively contradicted. But he does not undertake to contradict the evidence of John Taylor, jr., as to an offer having been made to him of two thousand dollars per annum, in consideration of the service mentioned. Mr. Taylor, at his instance, was recalled and cross-examined on this point, who reaffirmed his original testimony, after Mr. Ives had waited on him and importuned him to modify it. The next witness on this subject is Jeremiah Lounsberry, an assistant appraiser in the woollens loft, who testifies as follows : " In the spring or summer of 1839, Mr. George R. Ives informed me that he was authorized, on behalf of the Eastern manufacturers, to give me a salary of two thousand dollars per annum, in addition to what I was then receiving, if I would ivork for them. By ' working for them/ I under- stood, of course, that I was to raise goods and report them for seizure. He said he was authorized to make the offer; and, if I recollect right, Mr. S. Lawrence, of Boston, was named as the person who would pay the money. He said, if I would consent, he would arrange it immediately. The proposal I treated with contempt. Shortly after, Mr. Cairns was sent to the woollens loft." This witness was also applied to by Mr. Ives to modify his testimo- ny, which he declined doing. Jos. R Bleecker, late assistant cashier, also testifies oir the subject of pecu- niary compensation offered for the same purpose, by Mr. Ives and Geo. A. Wasson, public storekeeper. He says: " In the course of conversation, about two years since, Geo. R. Ives mentioned to me that Lawrence, the woollen manufacturer, would give $1,000 per annum to any person who would keep a sharp lookout on the Yorkshire importers, to prevent them from entering goods falsely invoiced. Mr. Wasson also mentioned the same thing to me." Thus the evasive denial of Mr. Ives, that he had been of- fered a compensation of two thousand dollars per annum to act as a spy on the Yorkshire importers, is contradicted by the positive testimony of John Taylor, jr., to whom he imparted the information ; and his further denial that he had been authorized to offer a compensation for the like pur- pose to any officer of the customs, or that he ever made any such offer, whether authorized or not, is expressly and effectually overthrown by the depositions of Jeremiah Lounsberry, assistant appraiser, and Jos. R. Bleeck- er, late assistant cashier of tire custom-house, as will be seen in the above extracts. The following facts may be considered as clearly established by the evidence of the manufacturers themselves : Rep. No. 669. 55 First. That frequent and confidential communications were held be- tween Jesse Hoyt, collector of the port of New York, and Messrs. Law- rence & Stone, on the subject of the standard of value to be fixed at the appraiser's department on foreign woollens, and seizures of goods then made, and about to be made, of imported woollens. Second. That Mr. Hoyt promised Mr. Lawrence that he would appoint any domestic manufacturer of woollen goods, who might be recommended by him, as an appraiser in the woollens loft at the New York custom-house. Third. That Mr. Lawrence made considerable efforts to obtain such a man, but did not succeed. Fourth. That the offer of Mr. Hoyt became known, through some chan- nel, to the manufacturers of woollens in Boston. Fifth. That, after consultation with some of these manufacturers, Mr. Arthur French t\ ade the proposition, informally, to Mr. Charles A. Brad- ley, a manufacturer of woollens, and suggested the sum of five thousand dollars as the salary that would be paid, by contribution of the manufac- turers, if he would accept the appointment. Sixth. That the appointment was not tendered by the collector (Hoyt) to Mr. Bradley in a formal manner; but he states, that if it had been so tendered, with the salary mentioned by Mr. Freuch, he would have de- clined it. Seventh. That the failure to obtain the services of Mr. Bradley was fol- lowed by an attempt, made through Geo. R. Ives, who was intimately as- sociated with the Eastern manufacturers, whether with or without author- ity is not known, to engage the services of Mr. Lounsberry, the assistant appraiser, ' ; to work" for the Eastern manufacturers ; or, in other words, as the witness understood it, to raise and report woollen goods for seizure. An offer was made to this appraiser, as he testifies, of two thousand dol- lars per annum, to be paid down, if he would accept it. The offer was spurned with contempt, and was not repeated. Eighth. That a similar offer was made by Ives and Wasson to any offi- cer of the customs who would perform the service in presence of Joseph R. Bleecker. The evidence by which this summary of facts is established has been drawn principally from the largest manufacturers of woollens, and from officers of the customs in New York, sustained by the official correspond- ence of the collector, Hoyt. It would, therefore, be idle to doubt the ex- istence of a distinct understanding or connexion between the collector and the manufacturers of woollens, to carry into effect the system which was afterwards fully developed, of throwing embarrassments in the way of the regular importations of woollens from abroad, and thereby giving to the domestic fabric the entire control of the market. The next plan in order, according to the arrangement of Mr. Hoyt, was to call in to the aid of the appraisers such merchants as he might select for the purpose, believing, as he did, that this expedient would prove an ade- quate substitute for the special appraiser, to be recommended by the man- ufacturers, and appointed by Mr. Hoyt, in which Mr. Lawrence states he had not succeeded. Whatever may be said to palliate or justify these attempts of the manu- facturing interest to introduce into the New York custom-house a system of valuation which, in its effects, would be equivalent to a high tariff of protection, it will not be questioned, that if such influences can be legiti- Hep. No. 669. mately exerted over the foreign commerce of the country, for its destruction, by a mercenary arrangement with the collector of this port, which receives so large a share'of importations, there is no principle appertaining to the equality of rights and of taxation, secured to all parts of the Confederacy in the Constitution, under which all the other great interests of the country could be denied the like privilege of being represented in the New York custom-house, for the extension of commerce, by recommending appraisers for the various lofts in which foreign merchandise is deposited for appraise- ment. The dangerous tendency of such innovations on the supremacy of the laws, through the operation of conflicting interests, making this custom- house the arena of the combatants, must be apparent to every reflecting mind; and the mischiefs would be doubly augmented by allowing one great branch of home industry, confined to particular States and sections of the Union, to combine with the collector of this port for purposes identified with the advancement of their separate pecuniary gains, at the sacrifice of all other branches of industry and the deterioration of the public revenue. Let it be supposed that the chamber of commerce or the mercantile com- munity of a Southern city should have sent a deputation to the collector of the port of New York, complaining that the standard of value fixed by the appraisers on foreign woollens was too high, and destructive in its effects on that branch of importations, is it within the range of probability that Mr. Hoyt would have said to such deputation, * I will appoint any one whom you recommend an appraiser in the woollens loft, to protect your interest ?" There is not a man in the country who would risk his reputa- tion for sanity by the expression of his belief that such a reply would have been made or such a privilege granted by Mr. Hoyt. But Mr. Lawrence, a woollen manufacturer, informs Mr. Hoyt, in the name of the Eastern manufacturers, that the standard of value, affixed to foreign woollens by the appraisers at the New York custom-house, is too low, and ought to be rais- ed to protect the domestic manufacturers of that fabric. Mr. Hoyt, without hesitation, replies, assenting to the necessity of raising the standard of value; but, inasmuch as he cannot rely on the appraisers to aid him in raising it, he informs Mr. Lawrence that, to accomplish the end desired, he would appoint and place in the woollens loft, as an appraiser, any person whom he might recommend, who would co-operate in bringing the standard to a point cor- responding with the views and interests of the domestic manufacturers. Failing in this expedient, and in all others which had been tried or sug- gested between the parties, it remains to be seen by what means the de- struction of commerce in foreign woollens was ultimately accomplished. The new device resorted to by Mr. Hoyt to raise the standard of value, and thereby subject foreign woollens to seizure, was, in all cases, after the regular appraisers had examined and appraised the goods, to call in such robandi of fraud, or intention of fraud, would devolve upon the Government, and not on the claimant. This view of the subject is presented, as applicable to the act of 1799, if it were now in full force, to show that the act has not been complied with by the collector, so as to enable him to sustain his seizures and prosecutions, under it. But since the creation of the appraiser's department in the cus- tom-house at New York, and since the act of 1832, which declares that it shall be the duty of the collector, in all cases where an ad valorem rate of duty on goods, wares, or merchandise, imported into the United States, to cause the actual value thereof, at the time purchased, and place from which the same shall have been imported, to be appraised, estimat- ed, and ascertained, by the appraisers of the United States, it is manifestly clear that the system, as it existed under the act of 1799, being wholly inconsistent with the subsequent laws prescribing the manner of entering and appraising foreign merchandise, has become, to all intents and purpo- ses, totally null and void ; for the two systems could not exist together, and therefore the new law takes precedence of the old. If these premi- ses be correct, (and there seems to be no legal ground on which they can be controverted,) it follows, as a necessary consequence, that as all goods must, of necessity, undergo the examination and valuation of the ap- praisers, for the purpose of fixing on them a proper standard of value, or ascertaining their actual cost at the place whence imported, and as the col- lector, to whom the appraisement is required to be reported by law, before *the goods are passed, must be satisfied with the accuracy of such appraise- S6 Rep. No. 669. mcnf, no seizure of goods, of any description whatever, can be made after they shall have been fairly submitted for appraisement, with or without in- voice, and are regularly passed, the duties paid, and the permit of the collec- tor given to the owner or consignee to receive the goods from the public stores, which are accordingly delivered under such permit, on the ground that they were invoiced too low, or under any other allegation touching the entry of the goods in any respect whatever. If it were otherwise, it is evident that there would be no security for property ; and the foreign im- porter, after having fulfilled all the requirements of our laws, and having transferred his goods to such places as he might think fit, for the supply or consumption of the country, would, at no subsequent time, be safe in the cus- tody of his goods, but, under any frivolous pretext which the collector of the port at which they were entered and passed might invent or allege, by him- self or other officers of customs, his goods would be subject to arbitrary seiz- ure and prosecution, under a reappraisement, made, not at the port where they were entered by the lawful appraisers, but by merchants and custom- house officers at the place where they might be found ; and thus all confi- fidence in our laws, and all security in their execution would, be destroyed > and to the same extent the commerce of the country would be diminished. Of what avail is it that revenue laws are enacted, prescribing, in detail, the mode of entering goods imported into the United States, of examining and appraising them, by men selected and appointed for the purpose, and thereby ascertaining the precise amount of duties to be paid upon them, if, after this scrutiny has been had, according to our own laws, under the su- pervision of our own officers, and the full amount of duties demanded paid, the importer is still left at the mercy of the collector, and his goods liable to seizure and condemnation, for the very absurd reason that the officers of the customs, to whom the dutyof affixing a fair valuation on them belonged, have been faithless in the discharge of their duty, and have permitted, the goods to pass at a rate below the standard value at the place whence imported ? Such vexations would put an end to foreign commerce, be- cause our own laws would furnish no guaranty to importers of foreign merchandise, after they shall have been complied* with in every particular, if the defect of judgment or the neglect of duty on the part of the offi- cers of the Government is deemed a sufficient cause for an allegation of fraud on the importer, who has in no manner interfered with or partici- pated in the wrong which may have been done to the Government by its own officers, over whose actions no such importer can exercise any control whatever. It is believed that in no civilized country known to the com- mercial world is such a principle recognised 5 and no example can be found, in our commercial relations with other countries, where au American citi- zen, having complied with the laws of that country, has been, at a future- day, deprived of his property, under an allegation that the officers of that country were deficient in the discharge of their duties, and permitted the goods to pass the custom-house at lower rates of duty than they ought to have paid, according to subsequent discoveries or valuations, ascertained or made by the defaulting officers. There is, in England, a limitation on the seizure even of smuggled or concealed goods ; but it was never heard of, in that country., that goods regularly passed at any custom-house were liable to seizure and condemnation, in the hands of the owner or any other person to whom they may have been consigned or sold, at any time there- after. Rep. No. 669. 87 All our commercial treaties with foreign nations are based on stipula- tions of the most exact reciprocity ; and this Government, in all those trea- ties, guaranties to the foreign importer perfect security in his property im- ported into the United States, after he shall have submitted himself to the laws of this country. Can it be said that this stipulation is executed in good faith, if, after the foreign importer has thus submitted himself and his prop- erty to our laws, his goods may nevertheless be taken possession of, seized, and condemned, under new valuations, or other evidence of their value, professed to have been obtained long after they have passed into the hands of the owner or consignee, in conformity with all the provisions of our laws relating to imposts ? Such a proceeding must be regarded as wholly unauthorized by the existing laws of this country, and if permitted to be carried into effect, and become a precedent for the future action of the Government, involves a direct and palpable violation of our treaty ob- ligations with foreign countries, which cannot fail in the end to affix a stain on our national character. No country can long maintain commercial re- lations with the jest of the world which is liable to the charge of bad faith in the observance of its treaty stipulations, for it is on the binding obliga- tions of these that confidence is imparted from os:e nation to another throughout the civilized world. It would therefore seem to be the in- cumbent duty of this Government to apply a speedy and suitable corrective to these interpolations on our laws and treaties, and thereby restore foreign commerce to its legitimate footing. The undersigned, having in a very cursory manner offered his own opinion on these extraordinary seizures of foreign woollens, made in Phil- adelphia and Baltimore by Cairns and Wasson, acting under the orders of Jesse Iloyt, collector of the port of New York, deems it a fit occasion to incorporate in his report an extract on the same subject from the opinion of the learned and distinguished jurist, James Kent, the excellent and much celebrated chancellor of New York: " There would be no security in the purchase of goods, and no end to vexation and tyranny, if goods are not free from arbitrary or discretionary seizure, when the duties have been paid and the goods fairly passed through the Government officers into the general mass of the circulating commerce of the country. The act of 1799 gives no color for such an act or assumption of power. All the powers conferred upon the collector under the 66th, 67th, 68th, and 71st sections of the act of 1799, evidently apply only to goods while in transitu and under the control of the custom- house department, and the packages unbroken, or if smuggled into the country without payment of duties. The right of seizure is tor concealed goods, or goods suspected to be concealed, and which are subject to duty ; that is, cases where the duties have not been paid. The power of exam- ining invoices, and ascertaining true entries, and the true cost of goods, is when the goods are sub judice, or under the control of the custom-house ; and it is too late, after the examinations are closed, and duties paid, and the ordeal passed, and the goods delivered over into the hands of the importer or purchaser for commercial use, to go on and seize on suspicion. The right of action, or the exercise of the tremendous power of seizure and search, and violating domicil, only applies either to goods smuggled or concealed, or suspected to be so, without payment of duties, or while the goods are still under the hands of the collector in packages. I do not see 88 Rep. No. 669. any thins; in either the 67th, 68th, or 71st sections of the act of 1799, that gives the inquisitorial power, except in the two cases I have mentioned." Passing from the legal question to the great injustice and oppression of these seizures, it may be remarked that, independent of the sweeping, undefined, uncertain, and false affidavits of Cairns and Wasson, under which they were made, which is of itself sufficient to condemn the whole proceeding, the impossibility of arriving at any just appraisement of goods which had so long been in the country, and passed through the custom- house at New York, must strike every wne with peculiar force. The ever-varying transmutation of prices, both in the foreign and domestic markets, would seem to render it almost impossible for the most skilful and experienced merchant to affix a fair valuation on goods imported into the United States six or twelve months after they have been regularly appraised and delivered to the owner or consignee. It is a fact well known to the commercial community, that the standard of value at which foreign woollens are estimated is not the same in any two ports of the United States; but in each it is fixed according to the opinion of the offi- cers of the customs and importing merchants, drawn from their own busi- ness and experience in foreign markets. In New York it is one thing, in Philadelphia and Baltimore another, founded on a very different esti- mate of the price of such goods in the markets of the country from whence they are imported ; and the same may be said of every other city into which foreign woollens are brought. The woollens seized in Philadelphia, it appears by the evidence, were reappraised by an inspector of the custom-house in New York and two Government appraisers of Philadelphia, assisted by certain selected mer- chants, being small dealers in woollen goods, who imported into Philadel- phia, the highest, not more than fifteen packages per annum, and the others a still smaller amount, and some of them did not import at all. The ap- praisement was made in private, and concealed from the claimants until the trial. This appraisement was deemed sufficient, under the 71st sec- tion of the act of 1799, to throw the onus probandi on the claimant, to show the actual cost of the goods in England ; and the appraisement of the Gov- ernment appraisers at the New York custom-house, and of nine of the largest and oldest importing merchants of woollens in New York and Philadelphia, were ruled out as insufficient to relieve the claimant from the necessity of resorting to the manufacturer in England to prove the ac- tual cost of the goods; and, on an application for a commission to obtain such proof, the claimants were informed that time could not be allowed them for that purpose. The cases in Baltimore were conducted in a sim- ilar manner, and on similar principles. Under these circumstances, two cases in the district court of Pennsylvania were tried, and verdicts ren- dered against the claimants, and two others in Baltimore, in the district court of Maryland. These cases are still pending in the circuit courts of Pennsylvania and Maryland, resting on legal questions reserved at the trials in the district courts. Mr. Hoyt, for the purpose of justifying his course in making indiscriminate seizures of all foreign woollens imported into New York by foreign importers, makes the broad allegation, in his correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury, that it was, and had been, the uniform practice of these importers of woollens, for a number of years past, to invoice their goods at prices below their actual cost or value, and thereby avoid the payment ol the full amount of duties which ought to Rep. No. 669. 89 have accrued on such importations. It has already been shown that he utterly failed to make good these alleged frauds before the juries in the district court of New York, and that verdicts for the claimants had been given in nearly all the cases instituted in that court. In addition to this striking fact, that the conduct of these foreign importers had been grossly misrepresented by Mr. Hoyt, may be added the following opinion, given under oath by the principal appraisers and their assistants at the port of New York : New York, June 9, 1841. Gentlemen : The undersigned, late principal appraisers of the customs for the port and district of New York, beg leave to submit the following report, and respectfully solicit that it may be considered as a part of their testimony, viz : From Ions and careful observations and examinations of merchandise at the custom-house, they are fully satisfied that there have been no frauds of any consequence practised on the revenue by the undervaluation of cloths and cassimeres at their entry. Because there has been, in all English fabrics of that kind, a great uniformity in value on the invoice prices, when of similar quality, whether imported by American or foreign merchants. Because most of the woollens, particularly the middling and lower quali- ties, have not been subjected to duties according to invoice value, but have in most cases been subjected to increased duties through prejudice, caprice, or false valuation, by those acting as appraisers, who were not the legal appraisers of the New York custom-house. Because there has been no motive to undervalue the goods on invoice, since it was not taken as the criterion of value on which the duties were to be computed, and con- sequently the merchants on the other side of the water could not consider their invoices as a guide to the duties to be imposed here. Because neither in our official capacity nor otherwise have complaints been made of any in- stances of suspected undervaluation, either by importers or by persons engaged in the manufacture of domestic goods ; and, had there been any such undervaluation, the vigilance of rivalry and promptings of interest would have made the facts known. Because, in the sales of cloths and cassimeres, where they have been made after seizure, by consent of par- ties and without prejudice, they have rarely brought the invoice cost and charges, even when made under the most favorable circumstances ; and, in a large majority of the cases, they have not brought to exceed two- thirds of the custom-house valuation. That there were frauds by smug- gling, committed during the last term of Swartwout's incumbency, there cannot be a doubt; but these were brought about by collusion of officers of the customs with certain importers, and whether by undervaluation or otherwise, the undersigned, not having seen the goods, are unable to say. We have confined these remarks to cloths and cassimeres, solely be- cause no allegations of frauds in any other descriptions of merchandise or manufactures have ever been made by the American manufacturers, to our knowledge ; but it is due to the public to state, and we do it with great deference and respect, that, among the numerous cases of evasions and frauds that came under our observations when acting as appraisers of the customs, whether by false or undervaluation, or otherwise, much the 90 Rep. No. 669. greatest proportion, both in numbers and amount, were of goods other than those in which wool was a component part. JEROMUS JOHNSON, A. B. VANDERPOOL, A. B. MEAD, Late principal appraisers of theporl of New York, To the Hon. the Investigating Commissioners Now sitting at the City Hotel. December 13, 1841. Sir : The annexed copy of a letter addressed to the editor of the Ex- press in June last, by the late assistant appraisers, to which my signature is attached, which was published about the time it was written, 1 desire may be taken and considered as a part of my testimony, delivered under oath, before the late board of commissioners, the same having been acci- dentally omitted in rendering my answers to the interrogatories furnished to me bv the board. EDGAR TRIPLER. To the Hon. George Poin dexter, Chairman, fyc. To the Editors of the Express : Gentleman: The undersigned, having read the recent statements of the late appraisers of the port of New York in relation to the woollens department, and having been for a long time employed in that department, as an act of justice to ourselves and to them, deem it proper to say that we fully concur in those statements. The late appraisers might have gone further, and added, that not only were the appraisements of the proper and legal appraisers nullified, but in many instances Mr. Hoyt, the late collector of the port of New York, set aside appraisements, made legally and illegally, by his own direct assump- tion and command. The signature of the appraisers was obtained, as a matter of form, after the examinations had taken place by the other officers, just as all such papers are signed now at the custom-house. The fiaud consisted in using those names as evidence without consult- ing those who signed the papers as to the propriety of the seizure. In this way the appraisers were made to sanction seizures, apparently, when they had no reason to suspect fraud, and no information on the subject till the case came into court. JEREMIAH LOUNSBERRY, Late Assistant appraiser of the Woollens Loft, ABRAHAM VANDERPOEL, Late Clerk on the Woollens Loft, EDGAR TRIPLER, Late and now Clerk on the Woollens Loft, This evidence, given by impartial men, whose duties made it incum- bent on them to scrutinize, examine, and appraise all woollen goods brought into the port of New York, is abundantly sufficient to stamp as false the charge of fraud, or intention of fraud, on the foreign importers, who have suffered such immense losses by the arbitrary and illegal pro- Rep. No. 669. 91 ceeciings of Mr. Hoyt. When called on for evidence on which his opinion was founded, charging a general system of fraudulent importations by means of invoices at a lower rate than the market value of the goods at the place whence imported, he relies on the case of Bottomly, here- tofore noticed, where the goods were condemned in Boston on the state- ment of James Campbell, not given under oath, but admitted as testimony by the judge, at a time when the infamy of Campbell was so well estab- lished in New York that even Mr. Hoyt did not dare to introduce him as a witness in the courts of that city. He also makes frequent reference to the case of Wood, in which a conviction of the defendant was obtained on the evidence of a single witness, George R. Ives, who implicated other importers by expressions which he ascribed to Wood, the defendant, which, being at best hearsay testimony, involving the character of other persons, ought not to have been admitted in the trial. But this witness, who was called by Mr. Hoyt in almost every case of seizure of foreign woollens instituted by him, stands self-convicted, in two separate affidavits made by him before the commissioners, of wilful and corrupt perjury. On such testimony Mr. Hoyt rests his denunciations of foreign importers, while it stands contradicted in all its parts by the lawful appraisers, whosp oppor- tunities of information on the subject entitle them to speak of their own knowledge, and by the verdicts uniformly rendered against the collector, by impartial juries of skilful and well-informed merchants, in the district court of New York. Such are the flimsy pretexts resorted to by the col- lector to cover his corrupt and unfounded persecution of foreign importers, the effect of which was seen and felt in the reduced amount of foreign importations into New York, and the consequent diminution of the public revenue derived from that source. Mr. Hoyt commenced his operations, as he stated to the Secretary of the Treasury, to protect the American merchant from being undersold in the market by means of fraudulent im- portations, and the revenue from deterioration by undervaluations. These merchants were put on juries, where they might, by their verdicts, pro- tect themselves, if their business had sustained any injury from the cause assigned by the collector ; but the result of their verdicts proved that they entertained far different opinions of their own interests than those ex- pressed by Mr. Hoyt, who had taken them under his protection. It be- came necessary for the collector, under this state of things, to prevent, if possible, these silly merchants, who did not know how to protect them- selves from these fraudulent importers, being summoned by the marshal to serve on juries in seizure cases. He accordingly made frequent and earnest appeals, both to the Secretary and Solicitor of the Treasury, to change the mode of summoning juries, by giving suitable instructions for that purpose to the marshals. These instructions (see Appendix J) were issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury on the 27th day of February, 1840 ; and constitute a most singular portion of the judicial history of the country, and therefore it may be proper to notice them in connexion with the ex- traordinary proceedings of Mr. Hoyt against foreign importers, whose goods he caused to be seized and sought to condemn by means so unpre- cedented, and so disgraceful to the character of the Government of the United States. The entire correspondence between the collector and the Solicitor of the Treasury is annexed to this report, and referred to, to show the nature of the complaints of the collector, and the remedy applied 92 Rep. No. G99. at his instance by the Solicitor. But a few extracts from this correspond- ence are inserted, lor the purpose of directing the attention of the Gov- ernment to the material parts of it, in relation to the manner of summoning juries. Mr. Hoyt, in a letter addressed to the Solicitor, (see Appendix J,) under date of 22d February, 1840, enters fully into the causes which he alleges have operated to defeat so large a proportion of his seizure cases. Among other things he says : " We have been heretofore unfortunate in the selection of juries in the courts of the United States. They are not drawn, as is the practice in other courts, but are selected by the marshal from what sources he pleases ; and hitherto large numbers of jurors have been taken from the mercantile classes, against which course I have re- monstrated, so far forth as delicacy would permit me to do, in a matter in- volving the manner in which a public officer of great responsibility dis- charged his public duty." He ascribes the refusal of the marshal to comply with his modest request to change the mode of summoning jurors to mercenary causes. He says : " It is reasonable to suppose that the officers of Government would naturally incline in feeling ivith the United States ; but in all seizure cases they derive about the same benefit from a seizure, whether the goods are condemned or acquitted." In various other letters of Mr. Hoyt to the Solicitor of the Treasury, he urges the necessity of excluding merchants, and the trading classes generally, from serving on juries in cases of prosecutions or alleged violations of the revenue laws. He states, emphatically, that he had lost all confidence in these classes, and despairs of condemning goods put under seizure, if the marshal is permitted to put them on his panel of jurors for the District court of the United States. The Solicitor reciprocates the feelings and opinions of the collector on the subject, and says to him : u I will thank you for a full and frank expression of your views, and shall at all times be happy to receive any remark upon the means of improvement which your experience may suggest to you as worthy of consideration. / am ex- tremely anxious to adopt a course by which a recovery in suits by the United States shall be more certain.'''' This course will be found in the letter of the Solicitor to the marshal of the southern district of New York, prescribing his duty in the future selection of jurors. After some general remarks, touching the character of persons to be summoned on juries, he instructs the marshal as follows : In making up a jury, you have the whole range of your district, em- bracing a dense population of intelligent, well-informed men, of a high order of integrity. Whether selected from within the city or without is a matter of little moment, so far as expense is concerned, when compared with the importance of having an impartial body, unexceptionable either to plaintiff or defendant. You w«l have perceived that verdicts have been repeatedly rendered against the United States, in prosecutions for breaches of the revenue laws, on proof of facts that, in most other places than New York, would have ensured a verdict in its favor. These things are injurious to a well-regulated trade. They encourage irregular traffic at the expense of fair business men, and tend to give rogues an undue advantage over the honorable importer. I am aware that it is not wholly in your power to correct the existing evils which have grown out of great former laxity in revenue officers at New York, but I trust you will cor- dially co-operate with the present officers in endeavoring to produce a healthy moral sentiment upon the subject of enforcing the revenue laws." Rep. No. 669. 93 M There are few persons who have not often seen honest men err in judg- ment, in consequence of influences from which they, at the time, believe themselves entirely free. It imputes nothing against the honor of New York merchants to suppose that, in this respect, they are subject to the like imperfections which belong to other men. I have therefore to request you to bear these general observations in mind, when selecting jurors for the trial of revenue cases, and endeavor to select impartial, capable men, who are totally disconnected with trade and all its influences, such as you would willingly trust to arbitrate a case of your own of equal magnitude and importance. Should you succeed, general confidence wilt attend their verdicts, and complaint that the revenue law at New York is a dif- ferent thing from what it is in other places will be less frequent. Possi- bly men who, for a long time, have found their profits in frauds upon the custom house, may prove clamorous, but it will be noise without either just cause or honest sympathy, because the whole nation knows that con- fidence may well be placed in the integrity and judgment of honest far- mers and mechanics, and that it is not less proper for the United States to seek a fair trial than for a private citizen. This is all I desire to ac- com plish." This is the course which the Solicitor has adopted to render a recovery in suits by the United States more certain. It was the result of the uni- ted counsels of Jesse Hoyt, collector of the port of New York, and Mat- thew Birchard, Solicitor of the Treasury of the United States, and deserves to be perpetuated for the benefit of posterity. Whoever heard before of a system of empanelling jurois, under which entire classes of the commu- nity are excluded, and rendered non-jurors, without the commission of crime, for no other reason than to render a " recovery in suits by the United States more certain?" The Solicitor, aware of the gross libel which his circular cast on the mercantile community, first flatters, and then attempts to apologize for their exclusion as unfit and unworthy to serve on juries in revenue cases. He sympathizes with Mr. Hoyt in the numerous verdicts which have been rendered against the United States under the wanton seizures made by him, without any justifiable cause, and calls the attention of the marshal to these verdicts, as a sufficient rea- son for packing the juries who might be summoned in future cases. He charges on the trading community in the city of New York the high crime of rendering verdicts against the United States on a state of facts which, in any other place, would ensure a verdict in their favor ; and, by way of palliative, he professes the greatest respect for that class of citizens, and a sincere desire to arrest the progress of a irregular traffic at the expense of fair business men and honest importers." And jet he is unwilling to trust these fair business men and honest importers with the detection and punishment of rogues, who interfere with the regular course of trade, to the prejudice of their own business and the injury of their own interests, which he is determined to protect and defend, by prohibiting these much- injured men from serving on juries in revenue cases, where they might be- come the protectors of their own interests, if, in point of fact, they had sustained any injury, at the hands of foreign importers, by means of false invoices or evasions of the revenue laws. He apologizes to these objects of his protection by telling them that he has often seen honest men err in judgment, in consequence of influences from which they at all times believe themselves entirely free, and assures them that he means to im- 94 Rep. No. 669. pute nothing against the honor of the New York merchants, further than to say, that they are not fit to serve on juries in revenue cases. He then proceeds to give them his final reason for this determination, which is certainly paying a high compliment to the integrity of the entire class of merchants in the city of New York. He informs them, in very courteous terms, that " men who, for a long time, have found their profits in frauds upo-n the custom-house may prove clamorous, but it will be noise without just cause or honest sympathy, because the whole nation knows that con- fidence may be placed in the integrity and judgment of honest farmers and mechanics ;" and, by unavoidable implication, he infers that the like confidence oue;ht not to be reposed in the integrity and judgment of mer- chants. It will not be denied that confidence may be reposed in honest farmers and mechanics, in the discharge of every duty which they may be called upon to perform, so far as their means of information will ena- ble them to discharge such duty ; but it is a well-known fact that the class of citizens referred to are less familiar with the operation of the revenue laws, and the usages of commercial men, than those whose business it is, from day to day, to mingle in the transactions of commerce at the custom- house. Let it be supposed that the merchants had fulfilled all the expec- tations of Mr. Hoyt, in rendering verdicts for the United States in his sei- zure cases, can it be believed for a moment that he would have tampered with the marshal to exclude them from juries in revenue cases, or that the Solicitor of the Treasury would have given an order to that effect ? Assuredly not. We should then, in all probability, have seen the col- lector imploring the Solicitor o/ the Treasury to instruct the marshal to confine himself to that class, and not to summon on juries u honest farmers and ?}iechanics," for the plain reason that they had no knowledge on the subjects which would be brought before them. In such a case the Solici- tor would undoubtedly have complied with the wishes of the collector, in order to render a u recovery in suits by the United States more certain." To exclude either or any class of the community, who are competent jurors, from being summoned by the marshal on his panel, is a usurpa- tion of power on the part of the Executive Government, unprecedented in the judicial proceedings of this country, which can be traced to no other motive than gross partiality and corruption. This circular from the Solicitor of the Treasury was found, in a very short time after it issued, to be productive of mischievous consequences ; and to remedy the evil, Congress, by an act passed on the 20th day of July, 1840, made a general provision, defining the qualifications of jurors to be summoned in the courts of the United States, and directed that they should be designated by ballot or lot, according to such rules and regula- tions as might be in existence in each State, and to conform the same to any change which may be hereafter adopted by the Legislatures of the respective States. This act was well calculated to secure to parties liti- gant, in the courts of the United States, fair and impartial juries on the trial of their causes. But, for reasons which have not been given, a Senator from Pennsylvania, at the succeeding session of Congress, intro- duced a bill to modify the general law, or suspend its operation in the district courts of Pennsylvania, for the period of one year. This bill passed without discussion, and, by a suspension of the rules of the Senate, was presented to the President on the 3d of March, 1841, and by him ap- proved. It provides that, " in and for the districts of Pennsylvania, jurors Rep. No. 669. in said districts shall be selected, returned, and empanelled, as if the said act [being the act of July 20th, 1840] had not been passed." The large amount and number of prosecutions on seizures of woollens made in Phila- delphia by the procurement of the collector of the port of New York remained on the docket undecided at the date of the last-mentioned act, suspending the operation of the act of the 20th July, 1840. Only one of these cases had been tried ; and it appears, from the evidence taken by the commissioners, that the whole of the jurors empanelled in that case were either directly or indirectly interested in domestic manufactures. This could not have happened, in all probability, if the jurors had been selected by ballot or lot. The result was a verdict for the United States, under a most extraordinary charge from the district judge. The remain- ing cases, involving seizures of woollen goods imported into the United States to an amount reaching to about $150,000, it was supposed would be tried in the course of one year, after the passage of the suspension act ; and the transaction throughout bears strong marks of having originated with the collector of the port of New York, who was deeply interested in the condemnation of these goods. And, fearing defeat under the new mode of summoning jurois, he would be most likely to suggest the resto- ration of the former practice, until these cases were disposed of. This infereece may not be justified by the facts, but the act bears so strong a resemblance to the previous devices of Mr. Hoyt, as to render the con- clusion plain and obvious, especially in the absence of any evidence to show the necessity of the act for any other purpose. It is deemed to be useful and proper to chronicle these remarkable events, as interfering with the purity of the right of trial by jury, and as connected with the persecutions and embarrassments to which foreign commerce was subjected by the harsh, illegal, and arbitrary conduct of the collector of the port of New York and his confederates. The next ex- pedient resorted to by Mr. Hoyt, to embarrass the importers of foreign woollens, and to extort from them large sums of money, as a condition on which they might be permitted to enter their goods at the custom- house, and prosecute their business, consisted of prosecutions, or threat- ened prosecutions, against these importers, under the 68th section of the act of 1799, for alleged entries, made during the term of Mr. Swartwout, on invoices at a rate below the real cost of the goods, with intent to de- fraud the revenue. Most of these goods had been entered, and the duties paid, eighteen months, and in some instances two years, before the date of the threatened prosecutions. A concise history of these cases will be given, from which it will abundantly appear that they were founded neither on law nor evidence ; that the collector on various occa- sions admitted that he had no evidence on which he could rely, to con- vict the defendants in these prosecutions; and that the money extorted from them was paid to him under duresse, and by an arrangement m;»de with them, to fill the measure of his avarice, without pretending to have any legal demand on them, either for duties unpaid or penalties ascertain- ed by the judgment of the district court of the United Slates. The fall importations of woollens into the port of New York, of the year 1839, were unusually large, and offered temptations to the collector of pecu- niary gain, by means of the arbitrary power which he exercised over the foreign commerce of the country, not to be resisted. The amount of goods in the public stores belonging to these importers, and which they 96 Rep. No. 669. were desirous to enter, and pay the duties accruing thereon to the collector, may be estimated at about three millions of dollars, but they were refused permission to enter them, until they had satisfied the de- mands of the collector for supposed breaches of the revenue laws alleged against them in foimer importations. Mr. Hoyt states, in a letter to the Solicitor of the Treasury, that he had caused process to be issued against four of the importers, two of whom were arrested, (to wit, Samuel Bradbury and George Shaw,) who were held to bail under the bloody 66th in the penalty of $20,000 each, being, as Mr. Hoyt states, double the amount of the sum for the recovery of which the suits had been institut- ed. This bail was afterwards reduced to $5,000, for reasons given by Mr. Hoyt, in his letter to the Solicitor. The other importers, being threatened with suits of a similar character, offered to pledge they* goods in store for the purpose of obtaining the requisite bail, but Mr. Hoyt, on being informed of their intention in this manner to give bail and defend the suits, knowing themselves to be innocent of the charge alleged against them, immediately caused them to notified that, if any attempt was made to pledge these goods for that purpose, he would immediately put them under seizure to prevent it. Thus left at the mercy of the collector, and liable to incarceration, and other vexatious proceedings against them, in a country where they were chiefly strangers, they were driven to the ne- cessity of retiring for the time being to Montreal, to avoid the persecu- tions to which they were subjected, until they might find relief, by a direct application to their own Government, or until it should be the pleasure of Mr. Hoyt to allow them to return and prosecute their lawful business without further interruption. These absentees, it is in proof, were for a considerable length of time in the city of New York, and almost every day at the custom-house, en- deavoring to prevail on the collector to allow them to enter their goods and pay the duties. It is evident that Mr. Hoyt might have procured the service of process on them at any time during their residence in New York, if he had really desired to do so ; but from the evidence of Samuel Lupton, then an officer of the customs, and intimately associated with Mr. Hoyt, it appears that his object was, to alarm their fears, and thereby in- duce them to leave New York, in which case he might dictate the condi- tions on which they should be permitted to return, enter their goods, and proceed in their business without the fear of legal proceedings against them, such as had been threatened. Mr. Lupton states that he was sent for by the collector frequently, and that in his conversations he de- nounced the Yorkshiremen as a set of rascals, and asked the witness if he knew the prominent men among them, to which he replied in the affirmative ; that afterwards, when he saw these men, he told them that they had better flee, for that Jesse (meaning Jesse Hoyt, collector) was after them. From these conversations with the collector, and his manner at the time, the witness states it as his opinion that it was the intention of Mr. Hoyt that the fears of these men should be excited, so as to induce them to leave the city. The witness further states, that he called on John Piatt, one of the Yorkshiremen, several times, and gave him notice to escape, in consequence of the threats of Mr. Hoyt; that Mr. Piatt re- plied, that he would not leave New York for Jesse Hoyt or any other man — that he had done nothing that he was ashamed of, or that he was afraid to have known. He testified, also, that Mr. Hoyt might have had Rep. No. 669. 97 all these men arrested if he had desired it — they were frequently in the collector's office and in the public stores, and their places of residence were well known ; and, further, that Mr. Hoyt had never sent for him be- fore or since, and then only, to hold the conversations above alluded to. The same evidence, in substance, was given by John Harris, and several other witnesses. Another device resorted to by Mr. Hoyt through his subordinate officers was, to endeavor to prevail on the importers to re- ceive their old entries, on which he had threatened to institute suits against them, and thus commit them to an ac twhich would be prima facie evidence of a fraudulent intent in making these entries, by means of which, and the evidence of his subordinates employed on the occasion to throw the onus on them, to prove the actual cost of the goods. The offer was made and indignantly rejected by these foreign importers, stating that their entries had always been fair, and that they had nothing to fear by their production in court. On several other occasions Mr. Hoyt in- structed the district attorney, when he had made seizures without proof, to hold the importers to heavy bail under the 66th section of the act of 1799, in which case they would in all probability run away, and abandon their claim to the goods. These circumstances are noted to show the unworthy expedients resorted to by the collector, to obtain possession of foreign merchandise, and appropriate the proceeds to his own use, without a fair and impartial trial, in which he knew he could not be successful, for the want of proof to sustain and justify the seizures. Each of the importers who retired to Montreal left in the city of New York an attorney in fact, regularly appointed according to the laws of the United States, with full authority to enter at the custom-house all their goods in store, and such as might subsequently arrive. These attorneys in fact made frequent applications to the collector to enter the goods be- longing to their principals then in store, and for the entry of such goods as arrived from time to time consigned to them or held as their own prop- erty. But Mr. Hoyt, in direct violation of the laws of the United States, and the uniform practice at the custom-house, denied to them the undoubt- ed right which they had to enter such goods and pay the duties thereon. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Hoyt opened a correspondence with these attor- neys in fact of the absent importers, for the purpose of compromising the threatened prosecutions against them, on the payment of certain sums of money, which the collector demanded, and the payment of which he en- forced by the exercise of the arbitrary power of refusing to permit their goods to entry, knowing that to detain them in store for any length of time would be destructive to the interests of the importers, and in some cases would involve them in utter ruin and bankruptcy. The only alter- native left to them was, to incur these inevitable and heavy losses, or sub- mit to any terms w T hich the collector might dictate. The history of these transactions may be found in the depositions of C. VV. Dayton, Jonathan Miller, George Shaw, John Harris, John Taylor, jr., and other witnesses^ who testified on this subject before the commissioners. The negotiations resulted in the payment to Mr. Hoyt and the district attorney, Benjamin F. Butler, of the following sums, by the persons with whom these forced compromises were made, to wit: • John Taylor, jr. ----- - $25,000 Counsel fee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt - 500 98 Rep. No. 669. James Bottomly, jr. - - - $20,000 Counsel lee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt 50 George Shaw ------- 15,000 Counsel fee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt - - - 125 Samuel Shaw - ------ 5,000 Counsel fee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt 50 Samuel Bradbury 7,500 Piatt & Duncan ------ 7,600 Counsel fee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt - - - 100 Henry Dixon ------- 6,000 Counsel fee to B. F. Butler, as per receipt 50 Making the grand total of - 86,875 In most of these cases no suits were pending in court. Process had been served only on one of them, (George Shaw,) who had given bail in $5,000, from whom the collector exacted $15,000, being $5,000 more than the sum originally demanded at the commencement of the suit, which Mr. Shaw was compelled to pay, or suffer his goods to remain in store for an indefinite period of time, at the pleasure of the collector. In no other case had process been served on either of the parties. James Bottomly, jr., was in England, and no process had been sued out against him, nor had he, at that time, any goods in store, but the collector alleged that he had formerly defrauded the revenue; and William Bottomly (his bro- ther) having goods in store to the amount of $750,000, the collector per- emptorily refused to admit them to entry, although no allegation of fraud was made or pretended against him, unless the sum of $20,000 was first paid to satisfy the nominal demand of the collector. Mr. Hoyt said that somebody should pay it, he did not care who it was, and that he would never suffer William Bottomly's goods to be entered until the money was paid. The payment was thus coerced from an innocent man, who stood acquitted of any attempt to evade or defraud the revenue, by the power which the collector held and exercised over his goods in store, contrary to all law, and in violation both of his duty and of every moral principle which ought to govern the conduct of a high officer of the Government of the United States. This act was nothing more nor less than public rob- bery, practised in open day, on the subject of a foreign Power, between which and the United States there existed a commercial treaty and the relations of perfect amily ; and this deed was done with the approbation of the Treasury Department, and not only approved by that Department, but commended as a faithful execution of his duty to the Government. Henry D. Gilpin, then Solicitor of the Treasury, during the progress of these extraordinary proceedings, addressed a letter (see Appendix K) to Benj. F. Butler, district attorney for the United States, dated December 23, 1839, and also a letter to Jesse Hoyt, collector, dated December 21, 1839, asking information as to the grounds on which suits had been or- dered against the above-named importers, and the causes which had led to an adjustment of them, prior to a final trial in the district court. In the letter of the Solicitor to Mr. Hoyt, in reply to several letters received from him, dated December 16, 1839, he says : " As you refer in all these letters to the reasons assigned in the case of John Taylor, jr., above refer- red to, for the reasons which led to the compromise, I send you enclosed Rep. No. 669. 99 a copy of a letter from this office to the district attorney, dated November 25, in relation to that case, and beg to say that, after suit has been com- menced and reported to this office, no settlement or adjustment should be made unless by the judgment of the court, or with the sanction of this office, after a full report, from the district attorney and collector, of the reasons for the same." He further calls on the collector to report fully all the facts in regard to each of these cases, to show the exact grounds on which suits were insti- tuted, and the nature of the suit, whether for penalty, forfeiture, or duties, and why the causes were not permitted to take the regular course of judicial adjustment. He further adds, in the conclusion of this letter, a request that in no future case reported to his office, or sent to the dis- trict attorney for suit, be withdrawn in any way from the regular course of adjudication, without all the facts being first reported to the office of the Solicitor, and the receipt of its sanction obtained. The letter addressed to Mr. Butler is substantially of the same import. Mr. Hoyt, in his reply to the Solicitor, states that the suits against the persons named were commenced under the 66th section of the act of 1799, and of course for a forfeiture of all the goods, or the invoice price thereof, alleged to have been fraudulently entered by the defendants, and that all the cases rest on the same principles. In relation to the inquiry why the suits were not permitted to take the regular course of judicial adjustment, Mr. Hoyt answers as follows : u First. My experience with the courts and juries, in reference to "ju- dicial adjustments" in this district, in cases where the collector and the United States are interested, leads me to distrust the value of such ad- justments. " Second. // ivas because I received, in my own opinion, as ivell as in the opinion of the district attorney, a much larger sum out of court than we could have obtained by remaining in." In another letter, addressed by Mr. Hoyt to Mr. Gilpin, the Solicitor, he holds the following language in reference to these cases, which is so pe- culiar and striking, and demonstrates so clearly the fraudulent intent of the collector in instituting these suits, and his subsequent compromises with the defendants, that it is deemed proper to insert the extract at large, taken from the letter itself. He says : u I will settle all I can, for it is a hopeless task to get any verdicts from the hands of Judges Betts and Mr. WaddeVs juries. We tried two cases of seizures last March, which were as plain and obvious as any thing could be, but the jury acquitted them. I have not reported them, because I directed the district attorney to make cases and move to set aside the verdicts, on the ground of their being against evidence, so plain did I con- sider them. In the cases, of Taylor and Shaw, and the others, commenced under similar circumstances, we should have had great difficulty in re covering, for the reason that we had not the possession of the original or any other invoices, and therefore had no means of showing from whom the goods were purchased ; but the parties supposed that I knew much more of those affairs than I actually did, and, having the fear of the collector some- what before their eyes, they had thought best to settle the suits ; and oth- ers entertain the same opinion, and no doubt will make satisfactory terms." The discrepancy between the statements made by Mr. Butler, the dis- trict attorney, to the Solicitor of the Treasury, and those contained in the 100 Rep. No. 669. above extract from the letter of Mr. Hoyt, are very peculiar, and difficult to be reconciled. Mr. Butler, in his report setting forth the grounds of the suits instituted under the act of 1799 against the importers of foreign woollens, refers to the case of Samuel R. Wood, and, relying on the hearsay testimony of George R. Ives, who has been shown to be unworthy of belief, says: u The disclosures in that suit led the collector to examine the course of dealing at the custom-house, prior, for the most part, to the period of his appointment, of the several persons above named. He collected their vari- ous entries and invoices, and, after full examination, made by him and my- self, in July and August last, we came to the conclusion that suits might safely be brought, and ought to be brought, against the above-named defendants." Mr. Hoyt expressly states, in direct contradiction to the facts stated by Mr. Butler concerning these invoices, that, u in the cases of Taylor and Shaw, and the others, commenced under similar circumstances, we should have had great difficulty in recovering, for the reason that ice had not possession of the original or other invoices ." But he draws consolation from the supposed ignorance of the defendants of the proofs which he ac- tually possessed, they believing that he knew much more of these affairs than he did. His next reliance, which certainly approached much nearer to the truth, was on the fears they entertained of the collector ; and on that ground he founded his hopes of extorting money from the whole of them, which he states himself he could not have recovered by remaining in court. The sagacity of Mr. Hoyt, in arriving at this conclusion, has been since abundantly demonstrated in the trials of all the cases where the de- fendants, " not having the fear of the collector before their eyes," refus- ed to enter into the iniquitous and illegal compromises proposed to them by the collector. These cases, after remaining on the docket of the dis- trict court of the United States for more than two years, were abandoned and discontinued by the district attorney, on the ground that he had no evidence to convict the defendants. All the other cases, where compro- mises were enforced by the refusal of the collector to permit the defend- ants to enter their goods in store, or which might thereafter arrive, or to pledge these goods to any one who might become their bail until the sums demanded of them by the arbitrary dictum of the collector, were in all re- spects precisely similar to the cases which the district attorney has been compelled to discontinue for the want of proof. It is manifest, therefore, that these enormous exactions were coerced, and that, if the cases had been continued in court, the result would have been the entire acquittal of the defendants. The persecutions of the collector, and the embarrass- ments thrown in the way of the regular business of many of these foreign merchants, drove them to the alternative of retiring without the limits of the United States for a few months ; and this circumstance, arising solely out of the unwarrantable conduct of Mr. Hoyt, the collector, has been seized on with avidity, as the strongest evidence which could be adduced of their guilt. It was charged on them, that they fled from justice, and thereby admit- ted the frauds on the revenue alleged to have been committed by them on former occasions. Mr. Samuel Lawrence, who took a deep interest in these prosecutions, in his testimony given before the commissioners,speak- ing of the importers of woollen goods from England, and of his belief that they had committed frauds on the revenue, states: " Some of these import- ers are the same men Mr. Hoyt compromised with. The fact of their Rep. No. 669. 101 fleeing from the country, and then paying large sums for permission tore- turn, are stronger evidences of their guilt than any evidence I could ad- duce. Their names must be found written in capitals on the books of the New York custom- house." And Mr. Stone, of the house of Lawrence & Stone, testified that he asked Mr. Hoyt why it was that the Yorkshiremen who ran away to Canada were in New York again publicly ? He replied, w that they had paid the fiddler;" Mr. Hoyt himself having been the chief musician on that occasion. After enumerating the sums extorted from these men, Mr. Stone says "that Mr. Hoyt called on him at the Astor House, and stated, in a conversation with the witness, that he thought this the best way to punish them, because it would be a difficult matter to get evidence to convict them ; and that it was impossible to get a jury in New York to convict, even with enough evidence." Thus it appears, that between Mr. Hoyt and these domestic manu- facturers there was a distinct understanding in relation to the means to be employed to drive these men out of the United States ; and, by refusing them permission to enter the large amount of woollens imported by them into the port of New York, to give, for the time being, these manufactu- rers of woollens the entire command of the market. Mr. Stone seemed to think that Mr. Hoyt had had not fulfilled his part of the engagement, and asked him, with apparent surprise, why these men were again in New York publicly ? Mr. Hoyt excuses himself by saying that they had paid the fiddler, adding, that this was the best way to punish them, especially as he had no proof to convict them, and could not rely on New York juries, even if he had pvoof. The whole of the correspondence of the collector and district attorney with the Treasury Department on this sub- ject will be found in the appendix to this report. It discloses throughout a tissue of premed jtated perfidy and fraud on these foreign importers, which has no parallel in the history of this or any other civilized country, w here the laws constitute a rule of action, and the faith of treaties is recog- nised and observed. The motives of the collector were mercenary and corrupt in thf • inception of these proceedings, and animated all his acts to the final cop summation of the official robbery which he perpetrated on his victims, ir , open day, and with the approbation of the Government at Washingt- on? to which he ought to have been held responsible for conduct so disgra ce f u i to the national character, and so injurious in its consequen- ces to t' l)e commerce and revenues of the country. Mr. Gilpin, it is true, made an effort, while he filled the office of Solicitor, to arrest the collector IB b' lS career of avarice, in violation of our own laws, and the high obli- gations of national faith, pledged to foreign Governments in treaty stipula- tions, reciprocity binding on the contracting parties; but his successor, yielding \C lne importunities and false representations of the collector, gave hfs un qualified approval of all the acts of Mr. Hoyt towards these importers alt* "*ough he admits, in express terms, that the compromises en- tered into' with tnem D ^ tne collector nad Deen forbidden by his prede- cessor, without i ^ e s P ec * a * sanction of that office first had and obtained. •Mr. Hoyt unbiuk informs tne Secretary of the Treasury and the Solicitor that tbew> compromises were made because he had no evidence On Which to cor t the det ' endants 5 lnat ne nad received a much larger sum h v ♦ - 1 * °i court than he could have obtained by remaining i com, P hi T ° "V confidence, in courts, and juries, and judicial 102 Eep. No. 669. climax of his iniquity, he boasts of having overreached and entrapped the defendants, by pretending to know more of these matters than he really did, and of having evidence against them which he acknowledges he had not, and thus, by a system of fraud and deception, he hoped to bring them all into his terms of settlement, and thereby avoid the inevitable defeat for the want of evidence which awaited him, if he brought the cases to a fair and impartial trial, before the courts and juries, whose verdicts and decisions he so strongly deprecated and feared. These unqualified ad- missions of the collector could not be misunderstood at the Treasury Department, where alone the proper corrective could be applied. They are sufficient to stamp on these transactions the most unqualified infamy and treachery, calculated to inflict a deep wound on the purity and moral character of the Government ; and yet, so far from being rebuked, they were approved and commended by the head of the Treasury Department, and one moiety of the money thus extorted from these foreigners, without the authority of law or precedent, was nominally passed to the credit of the United States without compunction, and with as little ceremony as if it had been received for duties properly imposed, or penalties legally in- flicted by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The other moiety was retained by the collector, as in the case of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. It appears by the letter of Mr. Hoyt (see Appendix K) of the 7th day of January, 1840, that these suits, or threatened suits, were not brought to recover a deficiency of duties paid to the United States at the time of the entry of the goods, but for an entire forfeiture, supposed to have ac- crued on the ground of fraudulent invoices, because, as Mr. Hoyt informs the Solicitor, this form of action " makes, with the aid of other sections, not necessary to name, a provision for the collector and other officers of the Government ; but, as an equivalent for the benefits enuring to the col- lector and his associates, it confers on the United States one-half of the recovery, instead of the deficiency of duties." Thus Mr. Hoyt concedes that the whole proceeding against these importers of foreign woollens was founded on mercenary calculations of profit to himself and his asso- ciates, while he holds out the like temptation to the Treasury Department, to reconcile his gross violations of law and duty to the conscience of the head of that Department. It will be seen, by reference to the 66th section of the act of 1799, that the basis of all prosecutions under that section must be, that the goods were " not invoiced at the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties thereupon." On this ground only can a suit be maintained, according to the provisions of the above-mentioned act, and no recovery in such suit can be had for a less amount than the whole value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, so fraudulently in- voiced, with design to evade the duties thereon, which are declared, in all .such cases, to be forfeited to the United States. Mr. Butler, the district attorney, being aware of these provisions of the act, cautiously informs the Solicitor of the Treasury, in his letter hereinbefore referred to, bear- ing date the 20th day of December, 1839, that Mr. Hoyt had carefully examined the course of dealing at the custom-house, for a long period past, and had collected these various entries and invoices, and after full examination of these entries and invoices, made by him and the collector. Rep. No. 669. 103 they came to the conclusion that suits might be safely brought against the importers. These are the facts assumed by the district attorney, well knowing that the invoices, or certified copies thereof, were indispensable to success in all suits brought to recover a forfeiture of goods charged to be invoiced below their actual cost. But Mr. Hoyt informed the solicitor, on the same subject, that " we should have had great difficulty in recovering, for the reason that we had not the possession of the original or any other invoices;" thereby clearly admitting that there was no foundation for these actions, in the absence of the only evidence on which a charge could be sustained that the goods were invoiced below their actual cost at the place whence imported, with intent to defraud the revenue. Which of these two high officers of the Government represented the case truly, in their official correspondence, is not distinctly known, but it is believed that Mr. Hoyt is correct in stating that he had no invoices, either original or others, because none such were in the possession of the district attorney in the three cases that were brought to trial and discontinued. It is evi- dent, therefore, that the collector could not have succeeded in extorting the large sums which he r eceived from the defendants, under the name of compromises, by any other device than the exercise of an arbitrary power, which he did by virtue of his office, of detaining in store the vast amount of woollens belonging to or consigned to them, and of denying to them the privilege of entry at the custom-house until the terms dictated and prescribed by him, as a condition for such privilege, were fully complied with. In this manner, and none other, did he accomplish his original pur- pose, by forcing a compliance with his iniquitous demands on these men, who, as far as the evidence has been disclosed, were wholly innocent of the charges made against them. There were no data on which the col- lector could form an estimate of any claim or pretended claim which he might make on the defendants. And Mr. Butler, in his letter to the Soli- citor on this subject, frankly admits that, " in stating the amount of the alleged forfeiture in any case, and for which the defendant was to be held .to bail, we were necessarily obliged to assume conj cturally such amounts as we supposed large enough to cover all the claims which might by pos- sibility be established, and to secure adequate bail." Mr. Birchard, in approving these compromises, states to Mr. Hoyt that his predecessor (Mr. Gilpin) " had full confidence in both yourself and the district attor- ney, and he exacted the report of the 7th inst. [January, 1840] to prevent a precedent which, in other hands, might be abused" — thus establishing a rule in these particular cases, founded on individual confidence, which he admits ought not to become a precedent, because, in the hands of men less pure and honest than Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Butler, it might be abused. The foregoing summary comprises only an outline of the enormities practised by the collector of the port of New York, with the sanction of the Treasury Department, on these foreign importers, by means of which their regular business was interrupted, their money extorted, and the laws and treaties of the United States wantonly violated, in derogation of the national faith, the destruction of foreign commerce, and the consequent deterioration of the public revenue. The evidence and correspondence on this subject, which accompanies this report, furnishes in detail all the facts connected with it, to which ref- erence is made for a more full and clear exposition of the actings and 104 Rep. No. 669. doings of the collector and district attorney, and the sanction imparted to them by the Executive Government, in the consummation of their crusade against these importers of foreign woollens. An appeal has been made by these men to the Government of Great Britain, for redress of the wrongs which they have suffered, in consequence of these illegal exac- tions and the injuries sustained by them in the prosecution of their lawful commerce with the United States. It may, therefore, be proper to inquire what satisfactory answer this Government can give to the Government of Great Britain, if a demand should be made, which in all probability will be, if it has not already been, of restitution to its subjects of the large sums extorted from them by the arbitrary exercise of power, not granted by law, on the part of an officer charged with the collection of the reve- nue, whose acts, in this respect, were known to and approved by this Government, which is thereby rendered responsible for these acts to the fullest extent. It may be assumed as a postulatum, that the only sources from which money can be derived to the Government, through the custom-houses, must be duties on the importation of foreign merchandise, to be ascertain- ed and fixed according to the provisions of law, and fines, penalties, and forfeitures, for a violation of the revenue laws, founded on the judgments of the courts of the United States, in a regular course of judicial pro- ceedings. If there be any other source from which money can be drawn from foreign importers, and paid into the public Treasury, it remains to be pointed out, as none such is known at this time, and it is believed that none such exists. The question then arises, did Mr. Hoyt demand and receive the sum of $86,875, paid to him by the foreign importers herein- before named, in consideration of duties fairly and properly assessed on their importations ? Assuredly he did not. The negative of the propo- sition is demonstrated by all the facts given by the collector to the Treas- ury Department; and Mr. Butler admits that, in commencing the suits which were ordered against these importers, he was driven to the neces- sity of resorting to conjecture in fixing a sum in which the defendants might be held to bail, which he took care to make large enough to cover, every possible demand which might thereafter appear to be due to the United States. The next inquiry is, was this sum exacted under the judgment of the courts, for ;fines, penalties, or forfeitures, incurred for a violation of the revenue laws? The answer to this inquiry is given in all the facts stated by the collector and district attorney, and by the whole correspondence of these officers with the Treasury Department, from which it will appear that the cases were arrested in transitu, in most of them, before process had been served, and in others no suit had been commenced, and in all the cases which were brought to trial the inno- cence of the defendants was clearly established, and the suits abandoned. If, then, money has been paid into the public Treasury, or is retained by the collector for his own use and that of his associates, forcibly drawn from the pockets of foreign importers, neither for duties nor penalties prop- erly ascertained or adjudged against them, is it compatible with the jus- tice or honor of this Government to retain and appropriate it as the prop- erty of the United States, with full evidence that it was extorted by the exercise of arbitrary powers in violation of law, not for duties due to the Government on the importation of foreign merchandise, nor penalties iacturzed by the violation of the revenue laws ? There would seem to be Rep. No. 669. 105 no principle recognised in the commercial intercourse between civilized na- tions, which would justify a proceeding so inconsistent with the dictates of common honesty, and so derogatory to the lofty character which this Gov- ernment has ever maintained, in all its relations with foreign Powers. If a naval commander of a national vessel in the service of the United States should, either with or without authority, arrest a merchant ship engaged in a lawful commerce, belonging to and sailing under the flag of another nation, and detain such vessel on her voyage until, by compul- sion, he exacted a large sum from the captain or supercargo of such mer- chant vessel for permission to proceed to her destined port, would this Government hesitate to restore the money thus extorted, when demanded by the Government of the nation to which such merchant vessel belong- ed ? In most cases it would not only become necessary to repair the in- jury, but the offending Government would be required to make a suitable apology for the act, and inflict punishment on the officer who had com- mitted the outrage. Is there any essential difference between this mode of exacting the payment of money by compulsion, and the case under consideration, in which the subjects of a foreign Power were denied the right of pursuing a lawful commerce, guarantied by tr eaty with the United States, until large sums of money assessed on them, at the discretion of the collector, should be paid, as a condition to the entry of their goods at the custom-house and the prosecution of their lawful business ? The latter case would appear to be the stronger of the two, because the money was equally exacted by compulsion, under the sanction of the constituted authorities of the Government for the time being. These questions are respectfully submitted, as involving considerations worthy to occupy the grave and serious attention of this Government, on the decision of which the integrity and honor of the nation, connected with its foreign relations, will either be sustained and vindicated, or sub- jected to the imputation of retaining in the public coffers money to which, by its own laws, it is not fairly entitled. Numerous other cases of com- promises with foreign importers, made by Mr. Hoyt, for the privilege of entering their goods, seized or threatened with seizure, have undoubted- ly taken place, for in all such cases compromises were proposed by the collector, which were in some instances accepted, and in others refused ; but these things were privately done, and therefore no distinct evidence could be obtained concerning them. There is, however, one case to which the attention of the Government ought to be drawn. It is the case of a seizure of a large amount of goods consigned to or in the possession of the firm of Lachaise & Fouche, a French house, principally engaged in the importation of goods free of duty. The history of this case may be found in the official letter of Benj. F. Butler, district attorney, to the So- licitor of the Treasury, bearing date August 22, 1839, and in the deposi- tion of Armand Lachaise, taken by the commissioners, in the presence of his counsel. The means resorted to by Mr. Hoyt, to obtain money from these foreigners, are unsurpassed in enormity and official perfidy by any act of his during his continuance in office. It seems to have been the policy of the collector, when he designed to make seizures, with a view to compromises, to select foreign houses, with whom there would, in all probability, be less sympathy in the community, and a better prospect of success, than there would be if like proceedings were attempted on an American house, who would be better enabled to resist his persecutions 106 Sep. No. 669. and defend their rights than strangers, who possessed no knowledge of our institutions and laws, and whose fears might the more readily be operated on to produce the desired result. Lachaise & Fouche were Frenchmen of good character and standing in France, and for some years prosecuted a successful business in New York, as importers of French silks and other goods, most of which were free of duty, and some of which were dutiable. They were ignorant of our laws, and even of our lan- guage, which they spoke very imperfectly. Mr, Hoyt cast his eye on these men, as fit subjects for the operation of his system of seizures and compromises. He accordingly put in requisition two of his subordinate officers, Campbell and Davis, who, so long as their testimony would be re- ceived in court, were invariably resorted to, to implicate foreign import- ers by swearing to corrupt collusions between importers and themselves. 1 The opinion of Mr. Hoyt of the character, for truth and veracity, of Mr. James Campbell, is given in a letter from him to Sidney Bartlett, coun- sellor at law, Boston. He says; w You need not be apprehensive of any collusion between Campbell and the claimant of the cloths you are about to try. He will avoid intermeddling on either side, if he can avoid it. By a perusal of his testimony on the trial here, you will readily perceive that he is ready to make any statement to serve himself without reference to the truth f any demand against the Government, on the draft of the Treasurer, was leemed by him to be necessary to constitute a payment to the Treasury ; )ut the amount passed to the credit of the Treasurer was regarded as a >ayment into the Treasury, subject to the draft of the Treasurer. This mint was contested in the correspondence between Mr. Hoyt and the rreasurer, which was finally settled in favor of the collector. Under this trrangement, all the money received at the custom-house was placed at he entire control and discretion of the collector — he paying such drafts as night be made on him, or refusing to do so, at pleasure; and on all pay- nents so made he claimed the right to exact from the Government a com- nission of 1 per cent, for disbursing the revenue which came into his lands as collector. To continue this system for his own advantage, he esorted to his auditor (Mr. Fleming) to state the advantages which would -esult from it, and recommended the adoption of his plan, as the best that :ould be devised, for accuracy, in the settlement of the old balances re- maining in the hands of the collector, and to make deposites with the receiver general of such money only as might accrue in the collection of the revenue subsequent to the passage of the Sub-Treasury act. He ob- jected to making deposites in bank, although instructed to do so, and recommended that such deposites should be made on the draft of the Treasurer, in favor of the bank, by means of which he set up a claim to a commission of 1 per cent, on the amount deposited, although it was his duty, as collector, to make such deposites, in conformity with instructions from the Treasury Department. The duty bonds, also, instead of being collected at the bank, as the practice had been, were lodged with the cashier of the custom-house, and, when paid, the amount of each payment was handed over to the collector, and held by him until drawn for by the 9 130 Eep No. 669. Treasurer, which, according to his definition of his powers and duties, entitled him to demand a commission, as above stated, for disbursements. These points being conceded to Mr. Hoyt, as every thing else was, two- thirds of the revenue derived from imposts at the port of New York was paid out under drafts from the Treasury Department, and the commis- sions debited to the Government, by Mr. Hoyt, in his account current, amounting in the whole to $201,580. The correspondence on this sub- ject will be found in the Appendix ; and, from its peculiar character for insolence, on the part of the collector, and submission from the officers of the Treasury Department, is commended as well worthy of the especial attention of the Government. To the large sums heretofore enumerated, which the collector appropriated and retained to his own use, besides the sum of $350,000, which he admits was held by him during his term of office to meet contingencies, may be added the large sum, for commis- sions, of - - - - - - - §201,580 00 And for fees and emoluments credited to the Government in the first instance, and then debited by Mr. Hoyt in his last report to the Treasury Department - - 37,176 35 Making the aggiegate sum, on these two items, of - - 238,756 35 The charge for commissions is clearly inadmissible, and seems to have been introduced for no other purpose than to mingle it with other matters, so as to produce a fictitious settlement of his account at the Treasury, while his indebtedness to the Government was in a regular course of ju- dicial adjustment. It is impossible to speak, with any approach to cer- tainty, of the actual defalcations of Mr. Hoyt, so diversified were the sources from which he drew money to his own use, and so enveloped in mystery were his accounts kept, both at the custom-house and at the banks. But, if his own representations are taken alone, independent of the fictitious credits which he claims, his indebtedness cannot fall far short of $300,000. Besides this large sum, it appears by the evidence of Mr. Fleming, the auditor, that, in the months of January and February, 1S41, entries were abstracted from the custom-house, by some means unknown, to the amount of $63,000, which enured to the benefit of Mr. Hoyt. This transaction is fully explained by Mr. Fleming, in his answer to a question put to him by the commissioners on this subject, in his answer he says : " The only entries that I have any knowledge of having been abstracted from the custom-house were a number that were supposed to have been taken from the cashier's office on the days that the duties were paid, and before the articles reached the proper files of the collector's office. This was in the month of January and February last, amounting to $63,039 72. These were ordinary entries for merchandise imported, and are the only papers, of any description, that have ever been taken or withdrawn from the custom-house, of which I have any knowledge. By whom they were taken, or for what purpose, 1 do not know; all the information that I possess on this subject is, that, in the course of the examination and com- pletion of the final accounts of Mr, Hoyt, it was discovered that the above entries were not included in the accounts of the vessels to which they properly belonged, and, if omitted in the abstracts for the Treasury, the effect would be to deprive the United States of the credit of these sums. u The mon^y had been regularly paid at the cashier's office, and en- Eep No. 669. 131 tered in his book of cash duties, which, in the examination of the accounts, enabled us to detect the loss of the entries." He further says: "Mr, Hoyt's account would have been benefited by the loss, inasmuch as the absence of credit to the United Slates would have been a gain to him, individually, of the entire amount, and the loss of the entries could only have effected, beneficially, the account of Mr. Ployt, and no other officer, as all moneys received were paid to him daily by the cashier, and the books of that officer show that these moneys have actually been received." In relation to the manner of conducting business at the custom-house, between the years 1S29 and 1837, while Mr. Swartwout was collector, and to his alleged defalcation at the time he retired from that office, the -commissioners did not deem it necessary to enter minutely into these matters. The elaborate report made on these subjects by a committee of the House of Representatives, in January, 1839, and the evidence taken by the committee having been printed in a volume for the use of Con- gress, it would have been a waste of time, and have incurred a useless iexpenditure, if the commissioners had entered at large into a re-examina- tion of the witnesses who testified before the committee of the House of Representatives, and whose depositions were already in the possession of the Government. Some additional facts have been elicited by the inves- tigation of the commissioners, since the return of Mr. Swartwout to the United States, of which it may be proper to present a summary in this report. It appeals that a large sum was received by the cashier and as- sistant cashier of the custom-house, on bonds deposited with these officers . for collection, after the suspension of specie payments by the banks in 1837. The amount of these bonds, as stated by the auditor, is $609,525 71, the whole of which, it appears in evidence, was received by the cash- ier and his assistant. Mr. Phillips, the assistant cashier, in his deposition, taken by the committee of the House of Representatives, admits that all i these bonds were paid at the cashier's office, but charges that the sums so received were paid over to Mr. Swartwout, as collector. This allegation Mr. Swartwout has denied, on oath, before the commissioners; and he further states, that he neither received the whole or any part of the money . collected on the bonds deposited with the cashier, nor did he at any time give any order respecting the entry of these sums on the cash book, nor any other order to a subordinate officer of the custom-house to violate his duty, or to omit the performance of such duty as required by law. Neither the cashier or his assistant can produce any evidence that this large sum was received by Mr. Swartwout on his drafts or checks, or that ■< it was paid to any other person by his authority. The fact, then, being admitted, that the money was received at the office of the cashier, it would seem to be requisite, on the part of that officer or his assistant, to show in what manner it was disposed of; and, if paid to Mr. Swartwout, an i entry should have been made at the time in the cash book, with the ini- tials attached of the person usually intrusted by the collector to receive such payments. In the absence of all such testimony, the question arises, whether the responsibility devolves on the collector, or the cashier and his assistant, to account for and make good to the Government this large , amount of money, confessedly received at the cashier's office, on whom, or his assistant, it is incumbent to show, by satisfactory vouchers, the pre- cise disposition made by either of them of this money, to acquit themselves 132 Rep. No. 669. of the imputation of having applied it to his or their own use. It is un- derstood that a suit has been commenced in the district court of the south- ern district of New York, in the name of the United States, against Phillips, the assistant cashier, for this balance, received by him, as he ad- mits, and the payment of which to the collector, or its deposite in the bank selected for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, it re- mains for him to establish, in defending himself against a recovery by the United States in this suit, which is still depending and undetermined. Ii also appears that a considerable amount of bonds, originally debited tc Mr. Swartwout, have been paid since his resignation as collector, anc passed to his credit at the Treasury Department. Under all the circumstances which have come to the knowledge of the undersigned, as one of the commissioners of investigation, relating to the indebtedness of Samuel Swartwout, late collector of the port of New York, it would seem to him to be the safest and most practical mode o bringing the affairs of Mr. Swartwout to a final close at the Treasury, t< authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, by the direction of the Presi dent of the United States, to settle and adjust the accounts of Mr. Swart wout at the New York custom-house on principles of equity, and tha suitable persons be appointed to make such settlement, after strict and ful examination of all the books, papers, and accounts of said Swartwout now in the custody of the collector at New York, and, after such exami- nation, to report the true balance which may be found due and owing fron him to the Government of the United States; which settlement shall be made with the consent and approbation of said Swartwout, who shal have liberty to be present while his accounts are under investigation ; ant the report of the sum found due from said Swartwout, for moneys re^ ceived by him as collector, to be binding both on him and the Governmerr forever thereafter. It would farther be expedient and proper to authorize the Solicitor of the Treasury, after the indebtedness of Mr. Swartwou sha 1 be fully and fairly ascertained, to take such steps, and enter inte' such arrangements with said Swartwout, to secure the ultimate pay men of the sum awarded against him, as, in his judgment, may be necessar) and proper to secure the ultimate payment thereof at the Treasury of the United States. Since Mr. Swartwout returned from Europe, he has made every efTor in his power to place in the hands of the Government a sufficient amoun of property to guaranty the ultimate payment of such sum as may be found deficient in his receipts and payments into the Treasury, as collectoi of the port of New York. But there does not seem to be sufficient povvei given by former laws to the Treasury Department to authorize such ar' arrangement, however advantageous it might be to the Government tc enter into it. Whatever may be said of the manner in which Mr. Swart- wout became a defaulter at the Treasury, whether it resulted from inten- tional error, or misfortunes arising out of negligence, or a want of propei attention to his subordinates, it is certain that no man could, under like circumstances, manifest a more sincere and ardent desire to restore to the Treasury the full amount which may be found due from him, on a fair and impartial investigation of his accounts. It is believed to be in his power to give the Government ample security for the ultimate payment of hu indebtedness, if proper authority is granted to the Treasury Department for the purpose. This can only be done by a special act, which the ur- Rep. No. 669. 133 ;ency of the case and the interests of the United States strongly recom- nend to the favorable consideration of Congress. Having brought this review of the administration of the custom-house n New York down to the close of Mr. Hoyt's term of service, the next ubject to be examined is the present condition of the custom-house, and he reforms, if any, of past abuses which have been introduced by EDWARD CURTIS, vho came into office on the 23d of March, 1841. Mr. Curtis had enter- ed upon his duties as collector but little more than one month before the itting of the first commission, which commenced on the 15th of May, ; 84 1 . The laborious investigations which the commissioners were bound |o make into the former practices at the custom-house, and the short period vhich had elapsed since the appointment of Mr. Curtis, combined with ither causes, which it may not be proper here to enumerate, operated to prevent a strict scrutiny into all his acts as collector prior to the final ad- ournment of the first board of commissioners. Some attempts were made at the time of the appointment of Mr. Curtis, that he was particularly i urged on the late President Harrison by the manufacturers of New Eng- land, for the office of collector, with an understanding, previously had,, 1 that he would carry out the practices of his predecessor, and, for that pur- pose, retain in the custom-house these men, Wasson and Cairns, the latter < of whom it was designed to raise to the office of principal appraiser. ! Without offering any decided opinion on the truth or falsehood of this alle- ■ gation, it will be sufficient to condense extracts from the depositions of the- ! several witnesses who testified on this subject, including those of several principal manufacturers of woollens at Lowell and Boston. A. Hyatt Smith, in answer to a question put to him concerning the payment of money on the compromise of suits brought against a number " of importers of foreign woollens, says u that Mr. Hoyt apologized to Mr. 1 Stone, of the firm of Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, for compromising the suits commenced by him, ( Hoyt,) by saying that he had no evidence by '■ which those suits could be maintained. This information I received from ! Thatcher Tucker, of this city, a commission merchant, who sells domestic 1 goods, who said that Mr. Stone made the statement to him. The suits : about which this conversation was had were those commenced against John Taylor, jr., and others, for alleged violations of the revenue laws."' Mr. Smith further states that, " In the same conversation, or a short time subsequent, the same gentleman informed me that one of the firm of A- & A. Lawrence, or Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, I cannot now recollect: 1 which, had informed him that it was settled, through the influence of the Boston houses, last fall, previous to the inauguration of the President, that Mr. Curtis was to receive the appointment of collector of the port of New York, and that he or his influence was to keep Cairns and Wasson : in the custom-house. This last conversation arose out of an application, ! which had previously been made to him, to sign a recommendation of Meigs- ' D. Benjamin for the office of collector of the port of New York." Mr. Thatcher Tucker, who is referred to in the deposition of A. Hyatt Smith, extracts from which are given above, being subsequently examined, on (he 19th of July, 1841, states: " In December last, I was in Boston, and in the counting house of Messrs. Lawrence & Stone. The subject of the ' custom-house appointments, for the city of New York, came up. It was 1 a subject in which we both felt an interest— Mr. Stone as a manufacturer, and I as an impoiter. Mr. Stone inquired of me my opinion in regard to the various candidates that were named for collector. In reply, I men- tioned that 1 preferred Mr. Curtis, from the slight knowledge I had of him. Mr. Stone agreed with me in opinion, arid stated also that Mr. Curtis was his choice. He also stated that he thought some of the other officers then in the custom house had proved themselves efficient officers, and I understood him to express his wish that they should be retained. Kep. No. 669. 135 The officers alluded to were, as I understood, attached, or were to be attached, to the appraiser's department. To the best of my recollection, the persons named were Cairns and Wasson. At a subsequent interview Avith Mr. Stone, which took place in New York in February or March, J think in the former month, but am not positive, the same subject was renewed. Mr. Stone then expressed his expectations that Mr. Curtis would be appointed as collector, and that the two gentlemen above named, Messrs. Cairns and Wasson, would be retained in office." The witness further states, that it was his impression that Mr. Stone represented the wishes of the manufacturing interests of Boston and Lowell. The fifth question put to Mr. Tucker by the commissioners is in the following words : " Did you ever state to A. H. Smith that Mr. Stone, of the house of Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, informed you that Mr. Hoyt, the collector, had apologized to him for compromising the suits commenced by Hoyt against a number of importing merchants, by saving that he had no evi- dence by which those suits could be maintained ?* To which the witness replied : " Mr. Stone, of the house of Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, stated to ime that he had had an interview with Mr. Hoyt, the collector, and had expressed his surprise that the Yorkshire importers who had been prose- cuted were still importing goods ; that Mr. Hoyt replied, that he had compromised a number of these prosecutions or suits, and had received about .$70,000 of them ; and assigned as a reason for compromising, that the suits could not be maintained or successfully prosecuted on the part the United States. The substance of this conversation I probably related to Mr. Smith, with whom I recollect to have had some conversation on this subject." The deposition of Mr. Stone, hereinbefore referred to, sustains, substantially, the above statement of his conversation with Mr. Tucker; but he adds that Mr. Hoyt informed him that these importers had " paid the fiddler." Mr. Lounsberry, an assistant appraiser in the the woollens loft, testifies that Mr. Stone, on his return from a visit to the city of Washington, in the month of March, called on Mr. Cairns, who was employed in that loft, and, in the presence of the witness, said to Mr- Cairns: U I have been to Washington, and it is all settled or fixed;" which expressions, and other parts oi the conversation, the witness understood to mean, that Mr. Curtis was to be appointed collector, and that he (Mr- Cairns) was to be continued in the appraiser's department. Mr. Samuel Lawrence, in his deposition taken before the commissioners, states that, about the time Mr. Curtis received the appointment of collector, he wrote to him that he was acquainted with two persons in the New York custom- house, Cairns and Wasson, whom he believed to be competent, faithful,, and upright in the discharge of their duties ; and that he believed Mr. Curtis would be doing the public great good by retaining them in office. In another part of this testimony, he says : u I strongly urged the retaining of Messrs. Wasson and Cairns; but that, excepting himself and his part- ner, Mr. Stone, he did not think these persons were known to any man- ufacturers of New England, and that he did not believe any effort was made by this class to retain them in office, except by himself and Mr- Stone, his partner." The solicitude manifested by these large manufactur- ers of domestic w 7 oollens, who assumed to speak in behalf of this class generally, to retain in office two obscure subordinates in the New York 138 Rep. No. 669. custom-house, is well calculated to sustain the belief that an arrangement, such as is mentioned by Smith and Tucker, as derived from Mr. Stone, had actually been matured, and that the purposes to be accomplished by retaining; them in office was a perpetuation of the system of seizures adopt- ed by Mr. Hoyt, and in the prosecution of which the services of these men were indispensable. But whether the continuance in office of Was- son and Cairns by Mr. Curtis, the new collector, was a matter of arrange- ment and previous understanding, between him and the woollen manu- facturers of New England or not, the result strongly enforces such a con- clusion, for, in point of fact, they were continued in office by Mr. Curtis ; and at the time the commissioners commenced their investigation into the affairs of the New York custom-house, they found the whole machinery put in operation by Mr. Hoyt, to break down the commerce of that port in foreign woollens, precisely in the same condition, in all respects whatever, as it was when Mr. Hoyt left the office of collectoi. No intimation of an intention to change it, especially in respect to these two favorites of the manufactur- es, was made known to the commissioners, if any such intention existed in the mind of Mr. Curtis, the collector. On the contrary, it was distinct- ly understood that they were to be retained in office. If any doubt could exist on ihe subject, it w 7 ould be removed by the contents of a letter from Mr. Curtis to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated May 10th, 1841, in which he says, speaking of charges which had been preferred against William Cairns, to prevent his appointment as a principal appraiser : " My opinion is, that Mr. Cairns is perfectly innocent, and that his successful and very efficient discharge of his duty has subjected him to a vindictive persecution from a body of foreigners and dishon- est importers, whose evil practices he has detected and exposed." Thus Mr. Curtis lends himself to one of the purposes contemplated by his appointment to the office of collector, and, with a view of sustaining Mr. Cairns in his position at the custom-house, ascribes to him the pecu- liar merit of having subjected himself to vindictive persecutions from a body of foreigners and dishonest importers, whose evil practices he detect- ed and exposed ; and concerning these evil practices of the same import- ers, who had fallen under the suspicion of the late collector, in some degree through the agency of this Mr. Cairns, who had so highly commended himself to the favor of Mr. Curtis, Mr. Hoyt, after obtaining from them under suits or threatened suits, for pretended violation of the revenue laws, more than $70,000, says to Mr. Stone, of Boston, "that he had compro- mised with them for the reason that the suits could not be maintained or successfully prosecuted on the part of the United States." So that Mr. Cairns, according to Mr. Curtis, is to be credited for having detected evil practices on the part of these importers, of the existence of which Mr. Hoyt admits there is no evidence to sustain a recovery in behalf of the United States! The innocence of Mr. Cairns, so boldly asserted by Mr. Curtis, was converted by the evidence of many witnesses examined be- fore the commissioners, and even by his own testimony, into the most glar- ing and palpable guilt, which frustrated the design of retaining him in the appraiser's department, and of carrying on through him the persecutions commenced by Mr. Hoyt, on a class of foreign importers, for the unworthy purpose of extorting large sums of money from them, and then making the open declaration that there was no evidence on which they could be con- victed of any infraction of the revenue laws. It is a singular fact in rela- Rep. No. 669. 137 tion to this particular branch of inquiry, that not only the appointment of a collector of the port of New York was made under the influence and by the exertions of (he domestic manufacturers of New England, but, in all cases where a difficulty arose in the selection of the most subordinate of- ficers of the customs, especially in the appraiser's department, an appeal was made directly to the manufacturing interests, by the parties, to turn the scale in favor of those who could be relied on to embarrass foreign commerce, and thereby favor that interest. For this purpose, George A. Wasson, a public storekeeper, who stood in his official relations to the custom house far below the notice of any distinguished citizen residing in a neighboring city, and who has since been expelled from office for his crimes, when he desired to fill the appraiser's department with persons suited to his own views and preferences, instead of addressing himself to the mercantile community of New York, to obtain their sanction, or directly to the Secretary of the Treasury, made bis appeal to Mr. Abbot Lawrence, of Boston, connected with the manufacturers of woollens, to sustain him in his recommendations ; and the result proves that he was not mistaken in thus resorting to foreign aid to control even the humblest appointment in the New York custom-house. In his letter to Mr. Lawrence of the 1 5th March, 1841, which is hereto appended, (see Appendix P,) he asks nothing for himself, for the plain reason that there was no office of the customs which could compensate him for the emoluments derived from cartage and labor, which he enjoyed under Mr. Hovt, and expected to enjoy under Mr. Curtis, the new collector ; but he recommends three individuals to Mr. Lawrence, for the appraiser's department, who had been active in- struments in the hands of Mr. Hoyt, in the appraisement of foreign wool- lens and raising the invoices so as to subject them to seizure, which letter was filed by the gentleman to whom it was addressed with the Secretary of the Treasury ; and, as far as the files of the Department furnish informa- tion, on this recommendation alone, two of the three persons referred to (to wit, Kichard B. Brown and Cornelius Savage) were appointed as- sistant appraisers, and the third, being William Cairns, whom he recom- mended as a principal appraiser, was defeated by the investigation insti- tuted almost simultaneously in the press of the city of New York into his past conduct. It would strike any one with surprise to be informed that cit- izens of Philadelphia or New York weie applied to, and exercised a con- trolling influence with the Treasury Department, in filling the various of- fices in the custom-house at Boston, or at any other port And yet such an unwarrantable interference in these appointments, coming from any quar- ter whatever, would not be more remarkable than the acknowledged in- fluence which the manufacturers of Boston and Lowell craimed and exer- cised in appointments of every grade at the custom-house in New York. The end to be accomplished cannot be mistaken, and it is left, on the ev- idence adduced, to the judgment of those who administer the Government to determine whether the appointment of Mr. Curtis to the office of collect- or was made under these influences, and with the understanding that the selected favorites of the manufacturers of woollens in New England should be retained in office for the benefit of that class, or others appoint- ed to subserve their views and purposes. The examination into the of- ficial conduct of Mr. Curtis, so far as it may be deemed necessary and proper, will be confined strictly to the testimony taken by the commission- ers, and the official letters and other papers furnished by the collector on 138 Rep. No. 669. the call of the board. The commissioners were informed at the moment of their appointment, by the Secretary of the Treasury, that the collector was instructed to give every aid and facility in his power to their investi- gation, and to supply them with any books, papers, or accounts, which might be found in his office, or any department of the custom-house. In the progress of the business confided to them, the commissioners, as a board, had seldom occasion to call on or consult Mr. Curtis, and therefore most of his communications, if he made any, respecting the conduct of his pre- decessors in office, were made in conversations with particular members of the board, of whom the undersigned was not one who enjoyed the ben- efit of such communications. But finding, at an early day of their sittings, that full and complete copies of the official letters of the late collector (Hoyt) to the Treasury Department and the law officers of the Govern- ment, with the answers thereto, were in a course of publication in a news- paper called " the Standard," published in the city of New York, and being impressed with the belief that this correspondence was, or ought to be, in the custody of Mr. Curtis, his successor, as appertaining to his of- fice, the commissioners felt it to be their duty to address the following let- ter to the collector : New York, June 28, 1841. Sir: We have noticed in the Standard the publication of several letters of Mr. Jesse Hoyt, late collector of this port, purporting to be official, as well as some letters directed to him in his official capacity. We deem it proper to draw your attention to the circumstance, and to ask of you, in your official character, whether copies of the letters above referred to have been furnished by any officer of the customs, or whether you are in- formed, and have reason to believe, that Mr. Hoyt retained possession of these letters, or had copies taken before he left the office ? We have the honor to be, very lespectfully, your obedient servants, GEORGE POINDEXTER. ALFRED KELLEY. WM. M. STEtJART. To Edward Curtis, Esq., Collector, fyc. To this letter Mr. Curtis replied on the same day, protesting that he had never read in the Standard the official letters mentioned by the com- missioners, or that he had ever seen these letters in the original. He then states that he is informed and believes that " Mr. Hoyt retained in his possession, atfthe time Mr. Morgan came into office as his successor, the most of his correspondence with the various departments of the Gov- ernment, and now retains it." Other matters relating to the official cor- respondence of Mr. Hoyt are mentioned in his reply, but the above ex- tract, denying that any such correspondence was to be found at the custom- house, put an end to all further inquiry on the subject. The commissioners of course took it for granted, on the receipt of the letter of the collector, that Mr. Hoyt had taken with him the greater part of his official letters, as collector, at the time he retired, and Mr. Morgan succeeded him. It w 7 as evident that the possession of this correspondence was either with Mr. Hoyt, or that copies had been furnished to him by some officer of the customs, which is explicitly denied by Mr. Curtis. The duties of the commissioners would have been greatly lessened, and their means of in- Rep. Xo. 669. 139 formation much enlarged, by having before them the whole of Mr. Hoyt's official letters to the Treasury Department and the district attorney. They would have led directly to the material subjects to be investigated, and disclosed the views entertained by the collector on these subjects, as well as the opinions of the Department in relation to his official conduct generally. With these lights to guide them, much of the time occupied by the board in taking testimony would have been saved, and a corres- ponding diminution in the expenses of the commission would have resulted, if they had been put in possession of that correspondence during their first session. But all hope of obtaining it vanished on being informed by Mr. Curtis that it had been taken away by Mr. Hoyt when heietired from the office of collector. At the opening of the second session of the commissioners, on the 25th day of October, 1841, the necessity of being possessed of the correspond- ence before referred to was strongly impressed on the minds of some of the commissioners, if not on the entire board. Accordingly a resolution was adopted unanimously on the 25th day of November, 1841, calling on the collector for the records of the official correspondence between Jesse Hoyt and the Treasury Department. This order was complied with, and the whole of the volumes containing the correspondence of the late col- lector were furnished to the commissioners by Mr. Curtis, on the 27th of the same month. He subsequently sent to the commissioners copies of several letters, which passed between himself and Jesse Hoyt, relating to the custody of these books of correspondence. The first of the series bears date July 7, 1841, from Mr. Curtis to Mr. Hoyt; the answer to which bears date July 8. The reply of Mr. Curtis to Mr. Hoyt is of the same date, and the answer of Mr. Hoyt is dated July the 9th, which ap- pears to have closed their correspondence on this subject. These letters form a part of the appendix to this report, and are referred to for more particular information of their contents. Mr. Curtis, in his first letter, states, on the authority of Mr. Gillelan, a copying clerk in his office, to Mr. Hoyt, that he had retained several official letter books, containing his correspondence with the various departments of the Government, and proceeds to class them under the following heads : 1st. The collector's official correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury. 2d. Miscellaneous official correspondence of the collector. 3d. Correspondence with the law officers of the United States. Mr. Curtis then proceeds to inform Mr. Hoyt that he considered it his duty to request him forthwith to deposite in the collector's office the books of official correspondence above mentioned. On the next day Mr. Hoyt states that "Mr. Gillelan is entirely mistaken. It is true, several of these volumes are in the auditor's office, and I believe they go regularly down to the vault every night ; and they are now in the box in which they go up and down to that vault daily." Mr. Hoyt, in reply to Mr. Hone, a deputy collector, who seemed to consider these books his property, and who offered to return one of the volumes to him, stated : " 1 told him they were not mine, but belonged to the office, and so 1 have always considered ; but my right of access to them I do not understand you as objecting to." He further informs Mr. Curtis that "the requisition to deposite them forthwith in your office is quite unnecessary, for they are already in your legal custody, as I have 140 Rep. No. 669 before stated." On the same day Mr. Curtis replied to Mr. Hoyt as fol- lows : " Mr. Gillelan informs me that, some time since, Mr. Fleming in- formed him that you had directed that the correspondence should not be sent down to my office. Mr. Fleming also informed me that you retained the correspondence, and that you had it locked up in your case." In answer to this letter, which controverts the verity of Mr. Hoyt's statement that these books were already in the legal custody of Mr. Curtis, and had never been taken out of the custom-house by him, and further that he had no claim to them, Mr. Hoyt says: "I have shown your letter to Mr. Fleming, who says that Mr. Gillelan misunderstood him. I never gave any such direction to Mr. Fleming, for the best of all reasons — I had no right do so. It is quite true that 1 have, on some occasions, put two or three of the books, as a matter of convenience, in the desk at which I have been in the habit of sitting in the auditor's office, but not for the pur- pose of withholding them from you." *' There are, I believe, about thirteen volumes in all ; there are vacan- cies in the desk referred to for three volumes, which is all there has been at any one time, and the others have lain loose on the tables, except at night, when they have been sent to the vault. There has not been, I think, over six volumes at one time in the auditor's office, and Mr. Fleming must certainly, therefore, have been mistaken in supposing that I had the correspondence locked up, and certainly the idea never oc- curred to me that I had any just control over it, further than to elucidate my own communications with the office." On this subject Mr. Fleming, the auditor, was examined, and the fol- lowing question put to him by the commissioners : " Was the official cor- respondence, recently sent to the commissioners, of Jesse Hoyt, late collector of the customs, contained in fifteen volumes, ever out of the possession of the collector for the time being; and, il so, under what cir- cumstances, and for what period or time?" To which he answered: "I do not know of any instance when the correspondence alluded to was ever out of the possession of the collector for the time being." From the preceding analysis of the letters which passed between Mr. Curtis and Mr. Hoyt, taken in connexion with the letter of Mr. Curtis to the commissioners, it appears — 1st. That, on the 28th of June, Mr. Curtis states that he is informed and believes that Mr. Hoyt retained in his possession the most of his official correspondence with the various departments of the Government, at the time Mr. Morgan came into office as his successor. 2d. That, on the 7th of July, Mr. Curtis enumerates the books of cor- respondence so alleged to have been retained, and demands that they be forthwith deposited in his office. 3d. On the day following, Mr. Hoyt informed Mr. Curtis that his requi- sition to deposite these books of correspondence forthwith in his office " was quite unnecessary, for they are already in your legal custody." 4th. On the same day, Mr. Curtis, on the authority, as he alleges, of Mr. Gillelan and Mr. Fleming, charges that Mr. Hoyt had directed Mr. Fleming not to send down to his office these books of correspondence, and that Mr. Hoyt retained the books, and had them locked up in his own case. 5th. Mr. Hoyt, on the 9th of July, gives a detailed denial of the above charges, and avers that " Mr. Fleming must certainly have been mistaken Rep. No. 669. 141 in supposing that I had the correspondence locked up, and certainly the idea never occurred to me that 1 had any just control over it." Thus, on the 9th of July, 1841, Mr. Curtis had in his own office all these volumes of correspondence, which, on the 28th of June, he informed the commissioners Mr. Hoyt had retained, when he went out of office. He kept this fact concealed from the board until it was drawn out at the subsequent meeting of the commissioners in November, 1841, when, on a call of the commissioners, the facts were disclosed as above given, and the books sent to them from the custom-house. These books, Mr. Fleming, the auditor, states on oath, were never at any time out of the possession of the collector for the time being. The question arises, did Mr. Curtis know, on the 28th of June, when he asserted officially to the commission- ers, that Mr. Hoyt had retained the most of his correspondence with the various departments of the Government, that these 15 volumes of that same correspondence were in the custom-house ? The most that can be said to acquit him of this knowledge is the fact mentioned by Mr. Hoyt, that six of the volumes were in the office of the auditor, where he had a desk assigned to him, the remainder of the volumes being always in the room occupied by the collector. But it is known to all who are familiar with the business of the custom-house that the collector spends a part of each day in the auditor's office, where these volumes lay loose on the tables, and must, therefore, have passed under his observation. The re- maining nine volumes were in his own room, and it would seem could not have been unknown to him; and, if Mr. Fleming is to be believed, the whole of these books were at no time out of the possession of Mr. Curtis. On what ground, then, either of fact or inference, can Mr. Curtis justify his declaration, made on the 28th of June, that most of this correspond- ence had been retained by Mr. Hoyt? If it was an official deception practised on the commissioners, to conceal the correspondence from their view, will it be overlooked or approved by the Executive ? There can be no difficulty in arriving at a just conclusion on these points, by a care- ful and candid examination of the evidence herein furnished. It is a singular feature in the history of these transactions, that, after Mr. Hoyt had utterly disclaimed, in his correspondence with Mr. Curtis, either that he had possession of the books containing his official letters to the various departments of the Government, or that he had any right or pretension whatever to control them, averring most positively that they belonged to the office, and were in the legal custody of the collector, he, on the 27th day of November, 1841, after Mr. Curtis had sent them to the commissioners, made a formal demand of them as his private property. He says : " The bearer is authorized to receive them from you, and to de- mand the possession of them. The original letters from the Department to me I left on file in the custom-house, where I presume they now are, and the originals from me no doubt on file in the Treasury Department. The copies of both are my private property, and, as I require the use of them, at this moment, you will of couise not hesitate to send them to me. They consist of 15 volumes." This demand he has continued to make, through the collector and in his own name, to the Secretary of the Tieas- ury, in defiance of his own admissions before referred to. These books, while they remained in the possession of the collector, excited none of his apprehensions, for they were accessible to him, and to no other person, he having enjoyed the privilege of a desk and other accommodations in the 142 Rep. No. 669. auditor's office, from the time Mr. Curtis entered on his duties as collect- or, up to a very late period, and perhaps at the present moment. But his solicitude to reclaim them out of the hands of the commissioners may be readily accounted for, on the ground that they contained disclosures of his official acts, which could not well bear the light, and which he feared would, through this medium, be exposed to the public gaze. It is a fact which it may be proper here to notice, that the withholding of these vol- umes from the commissioners at their first session, and the manner in which they have been disposed of since the 27th of November last, has been a principal cause of the delay which has intervened in completing this report and closing the duties of the commission. A comparative statement of the expenditures at the custom-house, during the term of office of Jesse Hoyt, and of Edward Curtis since his appointment, has already been given to some extent. That subject will now be resumed and completed. The organization of the official corps, as it existed under Mr. Hoyt, had undergone no material change at the time the commissioners commenced their investigation, and so continued until the removal of George A. VVasson, public storekeeper and deputy collector, which took place, as before stated, on the 4th of June, 1841. The enormous charges for cai tage and labor remained the same up to that period ; the indefinite bills of VVasson, without specification or voucher, were approved by the auditor and paid by Mr. Curtis, in the same manner, in all respects whatever, as they had been by Mr. Hoyt. It is true, as hereinbefore stated, that Mr. Curtis, on the 2d day of June, 1841, in- formed the commissioners, in an official letter addressed to them, that he had reformed the system of payments under this head of expenditure, and that, instead of the large advances made to VVasson under the previous practice, he had adopted the plan of making these advances in small sums to the clerk at the public store, who would of course be held accountable, from time to time, for their proper disbursement. But this reform, which would have doubtless been productive of salutary results, because the clerk would have been required to produce to the collector the bills and receipts on which his payments were made, thereby showing the amount of labor performed and the name of the laborer who performed it, as well as the charges for cartage, made out in bills with detailed specifications, seems not to have been made at the time, or, if made, it was certainly not carried into practical operation, as will be seen by the following bill, paid to George. A. Waston only two days thereafter, and on the very day of his removal from office : The United States to George A. PTasson, Dr. To amount of cartage and labor paid by him at public store No. 17, Nas- sau street, from 1st April to 28th May, 1841, inclusive : To paid for cartage - - - $2,368 05 " " labor - - - 2,305 91 4,673 96 New York, 4th June, 1841. Received the above in full. GEORGE A. VVASSON. Eep. No. 669. 143 This bill does not appear to have been authenticated or verified in any other manner than the sweeping statement of Wasson, unsupported by vouchers of any description whatever. It was incurred in the space of fifty laboring days, and amounts to forty-seven dollars per day for cartage, and forty-six dollars per clay for labor. What portion of this sum was actually received by the laborers and cartmen does not appear, but there can be no doubt that a large part of it went into the pocket of the public storekeeper, for his own use and benefit. The means of ascertaining the exact sum paid by the storekeeper is not furnished, the items of the va- rious accounts not being given ; and, in this instance, the sum of $4,673 96 was paid by Mr. Cuitis to George A. Wasson, in direct contradiction to his letter to the commissioners, on no better evidence than his own gene- ral statement and the confidence reposed in him by the collector simulta- neously with his removal from the office of public storekeeper for cause. In addition to this sum, there was paid, on the same day, to Mr. Wasson, the sum of $154 84, on an account rendered by him for furniture and supplies of articles for the use of the public store, during the same period of time. Some of the items of this account are very remarkable, and the whole of them charged at the most exorbitant prices. In less than two months, it appears that Mr. Wasson used, in the public store, ten dozen and a half of brooms, at the cost of $27 25 ; and in one month he charges for water $8 50 ; and without going further into the enumeration, as the account will speak for itself, it may suffice to state, in general, that the whole of the articles charged are extravagant in the extreme, if not entirely unnecessary for the use and consumption of the persons employed about the public store. Similar accounts to this, it is in evidence, were rendered and paid every month in the year, although, with ordinary care, many of the articles might be preserved fit for use one or two years before it would become neces- sary to renew them. Besides these sums, there was paid by Mr. Curtis the sum of hlHO 15 for cartage and labor, in the six days following the 28th of May, in which is included the sum of $290 for labor performed while Mr. Wasson remained in office, making an aggregate expenditure of $5,597 95 for cartage and labor, and supplies to the public store, in less than two months, equal to the annual sum of $33,5S7 70. This sum ex- ceeds the average expenditure per annum under Mr. Hoyt by $2,144 06. Of course there was, at the date of these payments, no reform, either in the manner of rendering the accounts of the storekeeper or of the amount paid to him on this branch of expenditure at the custom-house. Since the removal of Wasson, and the appointment of Alexander Edgar as his successor, a new arrangement of the manner ol keeping the accounts of cartage and labor, and the vouchers required at the auditor's office to pass them, was adopted, the result of which has been a considerable reduction in these expenses, especially in relation to cartage, which will be seen in the following comparative statements, taking one quarter of three succes- sive years as a specimen of the result of each year. In the third quarter of the year 1839, the number of packages ordered to the public store in Nassau street for examination and appraisement was 23,023, the cartage and labor on which was $11,573 73, being a frac- tion under 50 cents per package. In the same quarter of the year 1S40, the number of packages ordered 144 ltep. No. 669. to the public store for examination and appraisement was 11,551, being one-half the number of the same quarter of the preceding year. The cartage and labor during this quarter of the year 1840 amounted to $7,7S4 96, being 67 cents per package. In the same quarter of the year 1841 the number of packages ordered to the public store for examination and appraisement was 16,911. The cartage and labor on these packages amounted to $7,501 27, being 44 cents per package. Thus showing a reduction on the expenses of each package, as compared with the year 1839, of 6 cents per package; and, as compared with the year 1S40, the reduction is equal to 23 cents per package; making a difference of expense between the years 1839 and 1S41 of 12 per cent., and between the latter year and 1840 of 33§ per cent., in favor of the system carried into effect since the removal of Wasson, and the appointment of Mr. Edgar as principal storekeeper ; which may be estimated in an average year of im- portations, if there be no relaxation in its execution, at a sum not far short of $10,000 per annum. The bills of stationery furnished to the commissioners by Mr. Curtis will show to what extent that branch of expenditure at the custom-house has been reformed or modified. This subject has already been noticed, and a comparative view taken, in tabular statements, of the prices paid for books, stationery, and printing, under Mr. Hoyt, and those paid by Mr. Curtis, since he came into office. These tabular statements are drawn from vouchers called for by the board, and supplied by the auditor comprising both periods, down to the close of the investigations of the board, in December, 1S41. It will be seen, by reference to them, what the prices were of the various articles at the custom-house, compared with the selling prices of the same articles in the New York market. There is but a shade of difference be- tween the purchases made by Mr. Hoyt and those made by Mr. Curtis, each being over 100 per cent., on an average, above the price at which the custom-house could have been supplied by wholesale dealers in the city of New York. Since the first tabular statements were made out, the commissioners called on the collector for the several descriptions of books purchased for the use of the custom-house, or any department thereof, and the prices paid for the same. The books sent by the collector under this call furnish several classes, in addition to those previously noticed, which may be found in the following comparative prices of books furnished to the custom-house by T. & J. Waite, since the appointment of Edward Curtis as collector,, and the selling prices of books of the same description in the New York market. Rep. No. 669. 145 Item?. Prices paid by Ed. Curtis. Market prices inN. York. — . — 1. Protection book, 6 quires, folio post - #12 50 $6 00 9 TTnrnl rnpnt book 2 nnirps - - - 5 00 2 50 3. License bonds, 6 quires, foolscap, half bound on/ - ! nrint^n _ _ - cUlLl pi lULfyU - - - 6 00 3 00 4. Penal bonds, same size and description fj 00 3 00 5. Lists of crews, foolscap size, half bound and printed - 7 00 3 00 6. Enrolments, 5 quires, half bound and printed on both sides - 6 00 3 00 7. District bonds, 5 quires, printed on both sides, full bound in sheep, and double back - 12 00 6 00 David Felt, a wholesale dealer in stationery, who had been examined by the commissioners concerning the prices of books, printing, and stationery generally, in the Nuw York market, having before him samples of the ar- ticles purchased during the term of office of Jesse Hoyt, and on whose evidence all the tables have been made up, was particularly referred to by Mr. Curtis to affix prices to similar samples of books and stationery purchased by him. In his letter of the 25th of November, lS41,he expresses his wish to examine two or three other witnesses respecting his bills of sta- tionery and printing. He gives the names of David Felt, A. S. Gould, and William Bowne, as the persons he desired to examine, and says of ihem, that they are responsible men and competent judges, and therefore requests them to examine his accounts and samples, and give their opinion upon the subject. Gould had been previously examined as to the prices of printing which he executed (or the custom-house during the term of Mr. Hoyt, and which he continued to execute, in the name of T. & J. Waite r under Mr. Curtis. His bills, paid by Mr. Hoyt, were among the most extravagant of any that have been rendered to the commissioners; and those paid by Mr. Curtis, in the name of the Messrs. Waite, are equally extravagant, and in some cases more so. He was, of course, interested in keeping up these prices to the highest point. The same may be said of William Bowne, who is one of the stationers selected to supply the custom-house and some of its departments. Mr. Felt had no connexion whatever with the custom-house, and might, therefore, be deemed impartial. His judgment and long expe- rience in this branch of business entitle him to full credit, and, being one of the selected witnesses referred to by Mr. Curtis, he was re-examined ; and the result, so far as it relates to books, has been given in the above table. He fixes the prices paid by Mr. Curtis, for the classes of books enu- merated, at 100 per cent, higher than the market price at which they might have been purchased in New York. It appears that, immediately after Mr. Curtis came into office, he gave the principal supply of printing and sta- tionery for the custom-house to T. & J. Waite, near relatives of his, who were journeymen printers, having no printing establishment of their own in the city of New York ; nor were they in any manner whatever con- cerned in the purchase and sale of stationery. Their bills, which are ap- 10 146 Rep. No. 669. pended to this report, were in all respects equal, and, in some particulars more extravagant than bills for similar articles or printing paid under Mr Hoyt, which have heretofore been fully commented on. Mr. Gould testi-i, iies, concerning these young men, as follows : " The persons now employed' to do the printing use my materials, and I get a compensation for the use of the materials. The printers for the custom-house, in part, are Thomas G. Waite and Joseph Waite ; my journeymen are sometimes employed in doing the printing, and are paid for it at journeymen's wages. Mr. Thomas G. and Joseph Waite are practical printers, but have no office or printing materials of their own, and therefore use mine, as above stated. I do not know why they are so employed. " Why Mr. Curtis gave the printing of the custom-house to these two journeymen printers, without materials to execute the work, instead of making his contracts with well- established printers, of whom there were many in the city of New York, requires explanations which have not been given ; and his motives must, therefore, be left to inference drawn from the fact that the persons em- ployed were his near relatives. They had no means of their own to sup- ply stationery to the custom-house, and yet they made these supplies at their own extravagant rates, while it is evident that they must have ob-. tained the articles from some wholesale establishment, at rates far below . those charged to the custom-house. The bills were submitted to Mr. Felt, and were by him estimated at more than 100 per cent, above the selling, prices in New York. A few examples will serve to show the general character of these bills. In the supply of stationery to the Brooklyn store, the bill rendered charges the following prices: For foolscap paper, per ream - - - « - $7 00 For letter paper, per ream - - - - 7 00 ] For steel pens, per gross - - - - - -10 00 For one blank leger - - - - - - 12 00 And all the other items at similar rates • these rates are 25 per cent, above the usual prices paid by Mr. Hoyt. The following bill, rendered at the custom-house, and paid by the col- lector, is inserted at large, as a fair specimen of the charges made by T. G. & J. Waite, for printing, blank books, and binding : United States, per E. Curtis, Esq., Collector, to J. T. G. Waite, Dr. Date. June 4, 1841 - June 4, 1841 - June 4, 1S41 - June 4, 1841 - June 14, 1S41 - June 15, 1S41 - June 18, 1841 - June 26, 1841 - June 30, 1841 - Articles. To printing a ream of fine letter circular To printing 2,000 Treasury note checks To printing one ream of oaths, (blank) To binding book of certificates To printing three reams oaths To printing and binding six full-bound bond books, at $12 each - To printing and double ruling six reams of manifests, (half and whole sheets) To printing and binding six Treasury note re- ceipt books - To printing and binding two folio post receipt books - Amount. $15 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 38 00 72 00 96 00 36 00 30 00 $323 00 Rep. No. 669. 147 Custom-House, New York, July 2, 1841. Received from Edward Curtis, Esq., collector of the customs, three hun- dred and twenty-three dollars, and signed duplicate receipts. J. & T. G. WAITE. It does not appear, from any thing in the above bill, or others of a similar character which have been rendered by the same persons, that the paper on which the printing of blanks was executed, or of which the printed blank books were composed, was supplied by them, there being no item for paper. The conclusion therefore is, that the materials were furnished by the custom-house, and that the bills were made out for labor only. If this inference be correct, it raises these bills to a height beyond any thing which has come under the notice of the commissioners. Another class of .bills rendered by Henry Austice are, in some respects, rather below the standard of bills paid by Mr. Hoyt, but, in general, the prices for the same .articles correspond within a fraction. The article of steel pens is usually ! charged ten per centum higher in the bills paid by Mr. Curtis than those • paid by Mr. Hoyt. Commercial sand, the market price of which is stated by Mr! Felt to be fifty cents per bushel, which he informed the commis- ' sioners would give a profit to the merchant of 200 per centum, was paid for by Mr. Hoyt at the rate of $12 per bushel. This article has been re- dued by Mr. Curtis to $S per bushel, or 25 cents per quart. This is a greater reduction than can be found in any other article supplied to the custom-house. A concise narrative of the correspondence between Mr. •Curtis and the Secretary of the Treasury, relating to expenditures incurred hy him for books, stationery, and printing, for the first eight months after iiis appointment to the office of collector, is deemed necessary, in connexion with the bills actually rendered and paid by him during that period, to ex- hibit in a clear light the various and conflicting representations which he made to the Department, from time to time, on this subject. In the last quarter of Mr. Hoyt's term of office, including the mtmth of March, 1841, there was expended in stationery alone the sum of $8,721 69, which, had it been economically invested, would have supplied the custom-house abundantly for at least one year. Mr. Curtis came into office on the 22d day of March, finding this large amount ot stationery on hand, subject to his orders. The first quarter of Mr. Hoyt's term of office, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1S38, being the second quarter of that year, his sta- tionery bills, including appraisers, storekeeper, and inspectors, amounted to $2,04S 31. The same same quarter of the year 1839, these bills amounted to $3,111 48. And in the same quarter of the succeeding year to the sum of $4,022 85. As above stated, in the first quarter of the year 1841, being the last of Mr. Hoyt's term, this branch of expenditure reached the enormous sum of §8,721 69, the benefit of which accrued to Mr. Curtis, as he came into office before the end of that quarter. The stationery bills of Mr. Curtis for the second quarter of the year 1S41, including appraisers, storekeeper, and inspectors, as in the case of Mr. Hoyt in the second quarter of the year 183S, amounted to the sum of $2,221 21, being $1S1 90 greater than the expenditure of Mr. Hoyt in the first quarter of his term of office, notwithstanding the supply already in the custom-house, before referred to. The. first letter addressed by Mr. Curtis, the collector, to the Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of stationery, of which the commissioners 148 Sep. No. 669. have any knowledge, bears date October 26, 1S41. In this letter Mr. Cur- tis informed the Secretary that, in the absence of instructions from the Department, he had continued to supply the custom-house, as heretofore, at private purchase, and adds : " I wish to observe, however, that the bills of stationery and printing, since I have been in office, show a very great diminution of expense for these items ; and I have no doubt that my or- ders have been supplied as cheaply as they could have been after public proposals." It is certain that the diminution of expense which Mr. Curtis alleges would appear in his bills of stationery and printing is not to be found in any such bill furnished by him, or the auditor under his orders,, to the commissioners. These bills have been before commented on, and will speak for themselves. Mr. Curtis says he has no doubt that his orders have been supplied as cheaply as they could have been after public propo- sals. To test the accuracy of this conclusion, at which the collector seems to have arrived, it will only be necessary to compare his bills with the tes- timony of David Felt, a wholesale stationer of long standing, who was particularly called on, by the desire of Mr. Curtis, to examine the prices paid by him for books, pens, paper, printing, and other articles of station- ery, and compare them with the selling prices in New York. Mr. Curtis was supplied with steel pens by Messrs. T. G. & J. Waite, at $10 per gross. Mr. Felt fixes the market price of that article at $1 50 per gross, for that, class of pens used by clerks in mercantile houses and public offices. Can Mr. Curtis say that these pens were supplied to him as cheaply as they could have been obtained u after public proposals?" By referring to the deposition of Mr. Felt, it will be seen that every article of stationery and books included in the bills paid by Mr. Curtis is charged at least one hundred per cent, above the selling prices in New York ; and the same remark is applicable to printed blanks and other printing done for the cus- tom-house. Mr. Ftflt further states, in a supplemental deposition, after enumerating the prices of every article of stationery, books, and printings that he would have supplied the custom-house, in large or small quantities, as ordered, with the whole of these articles, at the prices contained in his deposition. Is it possible that Mr. Curtis could have been so entirely ig- norant of these prices, and of the terms on which he might have supplied the custom-house, as to allow himself to say that it would appear, by his bills, that he had obtained them as cheaply from hucksters, or retail deal- ers, at private purchase, as they could have been had after public propo- sals ? He has made this declaration to the Secretary of the Treasury, in an official letter, in the face of the most enormous bills rendered by him to the commissioners, and of the evidence of Mr. Felt, his own witness, who states, under oath, that he would have supplied the custom-house with the same articles at prices at least one-half beiow those paid by Mr- Curtis. The Secretary of the Treasury, in reply to this letter, advises the collect- or to change the system, and adopt the plan of public proposals, and of closing the contract for the supply of the custom-house with the lowest bid- der; and adds that, until better advised in the matter, he should leave the responsibility of the coarse to be taken to the collector. Mr. Curtis, in an official letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, bearing date November 1, 1841, concurs in the propriety of making public proposals for writing pa- per, ink, and pens ; but, as to all other items, says : " 1 do not see any other way but to employ a regular stationer and binder, taking care that his- Rep. No. 669. 149 -charges are reasonable, and not exceeding those which he makes to indi- vidual merchants who deal with him in the purchase oflike articles." It may be somewhat strange that Mr. Curtis could not see that any thing could be gained by purchasing books, bound or unbound, of a wholesale dealer, when, according to the testimony of Mr. Felt, after strict examina- tion of the specimens sent by Mr. Curtis to the commissioners, he would have furnished similar books at one-half the price paid by the collector at what he calls " private purchase." In the same letter Mr Curtis says : " I ex- tract from a bill made by a stationer whom I have employed certain items, that you may see the nature of the expenditures." The bill referred to bears date June 1, 1841, and was rendered by Henry Austice. An inspec- tion of the bill, compared with the extract communicated to the Secretary of the Treasury, will show that fourteen principal items, being the most extravagant charges contained it, are omitted, and those items only se- lected which would bear a favorable comparison with the prices paid for similar articles by Mr. Hoyt. It also appears that the extract is not con- fined to one bill, but two items are taken from a bill rendered by the same stationer, commencing on the 30th of March and ending on the 25th of May, 1841, while the whole of the residue of that bill, amounting to $386 13, is omitted. At the foot of this extract the collector proceeds to state: " The foregoing exhibits the current charges and items. Pens, ink, and paper, might no doubt be procured cheaper, though not much cheaper, by whole- sale purchase ; and that plan I propose to adopt hereafter. The other items seem to me to be such that they cannot be specified beforehand, and must be procured on such reasonable terms, from day to day, as are prac- ticable." Whether this partial reform in the purchase of stationery prom- ised by the collector has been carried into effect and operation is not known; but it is certain that the old system of purchases was continued down to the month of November last. The items extracted from the bills of Henry Austice were professedly designed to impart information to the Secretary of the Treasury in relation to prices generally paid by the collector for sta- tionery ; but it is certainly better calculated to mislead than to enlighten the Secretary on this subject. It may be asked why the collecter did not append to his letter of November 1st a full and fair copy of the bills of Henry Austice? Why did he pick and cull from these bills such items as would indicate a renewed economy in that branch of expenditure ? Why were the bills of T. G. & J. Waite, which have been before no- ticed for their enormous extravagance, wholly omitted in this expose of the collector, expressly made to quiet the mind of the Secretary of the Treasury, and assure him of reforms made and contemplated, in reducing the quantity and cost of stationery ordered by him for the use of the cus- tom-house ? Are such equivocations, not to say false representations, offi- cially made by the collector to the Secretary of the Treasury, calculated to inspire confidence in the fidelity of a high officer of the Government, in- trusted with the collection and safe keeping of millions of the public money ? The collector may be enabled to satisfy the Executive on these points : but, without explanation, they ought assuredly to call for the exercise of Execu- tive authority to rebuke them. In the same letter the collector informs tUe Secretary that the " aggregate for the bills of stationery and books during seven months is about fifteen hundred dollars, and a considerable quantity js now on hand." 150 Rep. No. 669. The following addition is made to the copy of this letter sent to the com- missioners, which is not in the original at the Treasury Department : " Refer- ence is here made to the bills of stationery for the offices of collector, audi- tor, cashier, storekeeper, exclusive of surveyors and appraisers* bills."' Here, again, is an attempt made by the collector to avoid the force of his official statement to the Secretary of the Treasury, limiting the expendi- tures for books and stationery at the custom-house, without reserve, to the small sum of fifteen hundred dollars, by an addition to the copy of his let- ter, which is not in the original, excluding from this estimate the survey- ors and appraisers' bills. Could the Secretary have inferred these excep- tions from any thing contained in the official letter of the collector on file in the Department ? Certainly not. It was an afterthought, evidently designed to cover the inaccurate statement of his expenditures previously made to the Treasury Department. But, admitting the exceptions interpo- lated by the collector to justify himself, it still appears, by the official re- turn of the auditor, that, on the 30th of September, 1S41, only six months after the collector came into office, the bills for his office, exclusive of the surveyor and appraisers, amounted to the sum of $2,591 10; and yet he- states these bills at Si, 500 for seven months, and alleges that he had a considerable quantity of the articles purchased with this sum on hand. But on the 25th of November, 1S41, the collector presented another ver- sion of these accounts ; and, after some preliminary comments, states i "The commissioners will observe that the statement shows the cost of sta- tionery, books, printing, &c, to amount to £4.580 50 for eight months, and that a great portion of this is upon the purchases made by the surveyors and appraisers." On this estimate for eight months, the collector is of opinion that $6.S70 SS would be sufficient for the annual supply of all the departments of the custom house with books, stationery, and printing. The various and conflicting statements of the collector, in his communi- cations to the Secretary of the Treasuiy and his reports to the commis- sioners, require particular notice. 1st. For seven months, he states to the Secretary of the Treas- ury that the aggregate of his bills for stationery and books was - - - - - - $1,500 00 2d. On the 16th of November, the auditor's report, sent to the commissioners by the collector, places that expenditure, for the collector's office, for six months, at 2,591 10 3d. The whole expenditure, including surveyor and apprais- ers, in the same report, is stated to be - - - 3,640 96 4th. On the 25th of November the collector reported his expen- ditures for stationery and printing, including a part only of the bills made by the surveyor and appraisers, at - - 4,5S0 50 The discrepancy of these statements, as well as the manner in which they have been made, must strike every one as exhibiting, in a very pecu- liar manner, the want either of accuracy or candor on the part of the col- lector who made them. But it is still more remarkable that, in all these statements and estimates of expenditure, the collector cautiously omits to take any notice whatever of the stationery purchased in the first quarter of the year 1S41, amounting, as before stated, to $S,721 69, nearly the whole of which should have been on hand when lie entered on the dis- charge of his duties as collector. This large sum, added to his bills for the Rep. No. 699. 151 first eight months after he came into office, would swell the amount of his annual expenditures, for books, stationery, and printing, to more than dou- ble the sum at which he estimates it in his letter to the commissioners, be- ing only $6,S70 88 per annum. It is believed, on the whole view of this subject, that but very little, if any, reduction has been made by the present collector in this branch of expenditure, as it existed while Mr. Hoyt remained in office. The receipts and disbursements at the New York custom-house for the three last quarters of the year 1S41 are better known at the Treasury De- partment than to the commissioners, who, under the peculiar circumstances attending the execution of their commission, were unable to enter minutely into their investigation. It appears, however, on this subject, that on the 4th day of November, 1841, the collector, without having been called on by the commissioners for a statement of his cash transactions, thought fit to create a commission (under what authority is unknown) to examine the cashier and auditor's books, and report to him the state of his accounts, as drawn from these officers. These commissioners were required, in their letter of appointment, to perform the following duties: " 1. I wish an examination of the books of the cashier, by which the amount of cash received by him since the 23d of March, 1S11, may be as- certained, and a condensed statement of the sources from which it was derived. "2. The amount of cash paid over to me, by the cashier, as collector. " 3. The amount of all other payments of money by the cashier, and a condensed statement of the nature of those payments. "4. An examination of the bank account of the collector, and of his re- ceipts for payments to the Treasury. You will bring the examination down to the 6th of November, 1S41. The cashier and auditor will render you any assistance you may require in this proceeding." This anomalous commission was composed of two subordinate officers in the collector's office, who held their offices at the will of the collector ; they were selected by him, performed their duties under his supervision, and reported the result of their examinations to him, for his approval. The novelty of this proceeding — it being, as is believed, without law or prece- dent to sustain it — is well calculated to excite doubts of the integrity and impartiality of the persons designated by the collector to report to him a statement of his own accounts, which he is bound to render quarterly at the Treasury Department. Under whose authority did Mr. Curtis commit this trust, in the result of which he alone is interested, to two of his own dependants, whose continuance in office might, and in all probability did, depend on a favorable report of the conduct of their superior, in his cash transactions, as collector? Suppose these officers had reported Mr. Curtis as a public defaulter, and then sent the report to him for his approval, is it to be presumed the commissioners would have heard any thing of it ? In such an event, what would have become of the officers ? The answer is inevitable : they would have been removed from office by their offended master. It is unnecessary, therefore, to impute any want of moral honesty to these subordinates of Mr. Curtis, as their position in the custom-house, and the manner of their appointment, subjects their report to suspicions well calculated to impair confidence in its verity. The letter of these commis- sioners or officers, to the collector, bears date November 12, 1841, on which day their investigations were brought to a close, and the general statement 152 Rep. No. 669. made by them handed over to the collector. They pay a compliment to the cashier, which, as it may be of some value to him, is inserted in their own words: " We avail ourselves of this occasion to testify to the urbanity and readiness to afford every required explanation evinced by the cashier, as well as to the admirable system displayed in the books of his department. " Thus has Mr. Curtis resorted to the novel and singular expedient of put- ting himself on trial before judges of his own choosing, who accord to him all that he desired — a general verdict of acquittal from his cash responsi- bilities. The collector, in return, expresses his entire concurrence in their report, and they, in their high character of commissioners, commend the urbanity, and readiness to afford information to them, evinced by the cash- ier, as well as his admirable system displayed in the books of his depart- ment ; and in this amicable manner the business is closed, to the mutual delight and satisfaction of all parties concerned. This is indeed making the most of a combination of the official power of the collector with the pliant subserviency of his subordinates, and may serve as a useful example, in like cases, to his successors in office. The account rendered consists of general items, which it is difficult to understand or scrutinize ; and therefore no opinion can be offered in respect to its accuracy, so far as it relates to these items. It seems that this plan of liquidating the cash transactions of the collector was determined on as early as the 4th of November, 1S41, that it was brought to a conclusion on the 12th; and on the 15th a resolution was adopted, at the instance of one of the commissioners, requesting the col- lector to communicate to the board the state and condition of his cash ac- count. To this resolution the collector replied, on the same day, by trans- mitting the account, taken as hereinbefore stated. The call and the an- swer being simultaneous affords strong reason to believe that it was insti- gated by the collector himself, and designed to cover his cash account from special examination and animadversion. Mr. Waters, the cashier, on his examination before the commissioners, states a balance remaining in his hands of $1,682 S3, accruing on excesse of cash balances paid at the custom-house, and not entered on his cas book, which he held subject to the order of Mr. Curtis, the collector. I is worthy of remark, that this sum, so held by the cashier, forms no part o the cash account made up for the use of the collector, and by him sent t the commissioners. W T hat disposition has been made of this sum, if any does not appear. Under Mr. Hoyt these excesses amounted to abou §101 per month, and since Mr. Curtis came into office they have accumu lated to the sum of §225 per month. The receipts from this source prop erly belong to the Treasury, and ought regularly to have been carried t the credit of the Treasurer at the end of each quarter; but Mr. Waters tes tifies that, up to the time Mr. Hoyt left the office of collector, he paid ove to him the sum of $2,S42 91, being the amount remaining in his hands of these balances, which Mr. Hoyt claimed and appropriated to his own use, and for which he has not, at any time, accounted to the Treasury. Mr. Curtis most probably retains the amount in the hands of the cashier, under the authority of the example of his predecessor ; but there can be no found- ation for such claim in either case. Connected with the disbursements and cash transactions at the custom-house, it may be proper to notice certain payments made to discharged measurers, under the checks of the auditor, beyond the fees earned by them up to the time of their removal. It ap- Rep. No. 669. 153 pears that, between the 20th of April and the 30th of Jane, 1S41, Mr Cur- tis dismissed seventeen measurers, and appointed fifteen others to succeed them, leaving the number in commission less, by two, than the number em- ployed by Mr. Hoyt. The following table, taken from the report of the auditor, will show the dates at which each of these measurers was re- moved, the sums earned by each, and the amount paid to them, respect- ively, at the custom-house : Statement of amoun t of fees accrued to the measurers who were removed from office by Edward Curtis, collector, and the amount paid to each. Names of measurers Date of removal. Amount of fees. Amount paid. John Alwise Jacob D. Clute William Dewell J. W. Forbes Edmund Fitch W. M. Hitchcock - William Hogadowe - Joseph Hopkins George W. McPherson George Nixon Lemuel Pittman J. W. Richardson - Henry C. S perry Alfred G. Stevens - John M. Thome J. B. Vanderpool J. M. Vreeland May May May June May June May May April June May June May May May May June 13, 1841 24, 1841 25, 1841 3, 1841 12, 1841 12, 1841 17, 1841 26, 1841 30, 1841 10, 1841 31, 1941 7, 1841 15, 1841 17, 1841 27, 1841 19, 1841 30, 1841 §311 10 419 06 375 06 434 03 355 77 487 48 401 33 285 97 261 82 365 59 343 94 449 52 262 37 537 85 371 93 407 81 499 23 6,569 86 By the above statement it will appear that the amount paid exceeds the fees earned by these dismissed measurers, in the aggregate, $3,732 is, up to the dates of their several removals. By the 7th section of the act of July, 1840, by which the act of July, 1S3S, is revived, each measurer is entitled to an annual compensation of $1,500, provided the fees earned by him or them shall amount to a sum sufficient to cover that maximum. The fees earned by the removed measurers up to the date of their respect- ive removals would seem to constitute the extent of their compensation, as regulated by the above-recited act. The spirit of the law, as well as its letter, contemplates payment only for services actually rendered ; and if these services bring into the public Treasury an amount sufficient to reach the sum of $1,500 per annum, they are respectively entitled to demand and receive that sum, or in the ratio of it, for the time they remained in the public service. The overplus, if any, arising from the fees of office earned by the measurers, enures to the benefit of the Treasury of the United States. The commissioners were informed of the payments made at the custom- house to the dismissed measurers of the maximum of their compensation from the 1st of January, 1S41, to the date of their removal from office, and, deeming these payments to be in violation of law, they passed an order calling on the collector for full information on this subject. In reply to this order, Mr. Curtis addressed a letter to the commissioners, bearing date 154 Rep. No. 669. November 8, 1S41, covering a report to him, made, at his request, by Mr. Fleming, the auditor. He professes to have had no knowledge of these payments prior to the 16th of September, on which day he was informed of it by Reuben Ellis, one of the measurers recently appointed, who, it appears, complained of the injustice thereby done to the newly appointed measurers. He called the attention of the auditor to this fact, and re- quested that officer to state " whether, in adjusting and paying the ac- counts of the removed measurers, he had consulted or advised with me upon the subject." The auditor admits, as appears by the preceding statement, that he had paid to these dismissed measurers the maximum of their legal compensation ; and, also, that they had earned in fees less than the amount paid them, by $3,732 18, but justifies the payment of this overplus on the ground of precedent. He says: " This has invariably been the case for several years past ; and in no instance, since the under- signed has been auditor, have the fees fallen short of that sum. On a final settlement with the above measurers, they were on this ground paid their pro rata compensation of $1,500." He made an estimate of the probable amount of fees which might or might not accrue to this class of officers during the whole of the year 1841, and brought his mind to the conclusion that it would at least be equal to the full compensation of each measurer during the year ; and then proceeds to say : " It matters not whether the fees fall short in the former or latter part of the year, if no deficiency occurs in the aggregate for the whole year. Nor is it material whether changes are made among the measurers, as the office is looked to, and not the individuals, and each person is entitled to his pro rata share of the annual compensation, and no one can receive more than such share, whatever may be the date of his appointment to office, or the amount of fees that had accrued, or the time of such accruing." It is be- lieved that precisely the converse of this reasoning on the part of the au- ditor would be the true interpretation of the act of 183S. The auditor, it seems, looked to the office, and not to the individual, in fixing the amount of his compensation ; whereas the law expressly refers to the fees earned by the individual as his rate of compensation, provided they should not exceed $1,500; in which case the surplus is directed to be paid into the Treasury. He refers to his construction of the act, as having been uniformly adopted at the custom-house, under the sanction of the Treasury Department. No precedent is referred to, or shown, to justify this as- sumption, and no sanction of the Treasury Department of any such princi- ple has been exhibited, either by the auditor or the collector. None such was in evidence before the board. The act of Congress must therefore govern the case, the plain import of which is in direct opposition to the payments made by the auditor to these dismissed officers. The law looks to services and fees incident thereto, while the auditor looks to the office, and not to services, which he wholly disregards. If this rule of construction should be adopted, the result would be inev- itable, that if a measurer is appointed to office by the collector, on the 1st day of January, and remains in office one month, earning nothing, his compensation must be estimated at the rate of $1,500 per annum so long as he remained in office; which is utterly inconsistent with the provision of the act which makes his compensation dependent on his earnings. The principle of a pro rata compensaiion — to be estimated by the aggregate amount of fees accruing to all the measurers employed at the custom- Rep. No. 669. 155 house, and dividing the same equally among this class of officers, so as to bring the salary of each up to the maximum, although one-third or one- half of them may not have earned that amount of fees — is not recognised by law ; and, if such a system has prevailed, it is a regulation adopted by i the collector without the authority of law. It follows, therefore, that the sum of $3,732 18 has been, with the consent of Mr. Curtis, taken out of the public Treasury, and paid to seventeen measurers whom he had dis- missed from office . The solicitude of Mr. Curtis to acquit himself of all knowledge or par- ticipation in these payments strongly indicates his belief that they were unauthorized; for, if they had been disbursements made in the ordinary course of business at the custom-house, it assuredly would not have enter- ed into his mind that it was necessary or proper to attempt to exonerate himself by casting the responsibility on the auditor, for whose acts, in all respects, the collector is held accountable by law. The auditor, as in duty bound, states to the collector, "that in no instance were you consulted by me in regard to any payments made to these officers." But this dec- laration, intended as it was to redeem the collector from responsibility for :the act, can avail nothing, as he was fully informed of the proceeding by Reuben Ellis, an officer of his own appointment; and on the following day he states, in his letter to the commissioners, " I made inquiry of Mr. Fleming, and received from him an explanation substantially like that which now accompanies his statement. On being assured by the auditor that he was certain, from the importations already made this year, and from the experience of past years, that the aggregate fees of the measur- ers for the year would exceed the maximum annual compensation allowed by law to this class of officers, and that, the course he had adopted was in conformity with the unquestioned usage of the department in many former cases of outgoing officers, I felt no further anxiety on the subject ;" thus affixing the seal of his approbation to the unlawful abstraction of the sum overpaid by the auditor to these officers, which he has since permitted to remain without investigation or correction. It is therefore most clearly the act of the collector; for which, if it be a violation of law, he ought to be held accountable. There is no reform more important, or more imperi- ously called for at the New York custom-house, than the expulsion of unfaithful and corrupt officers, whose conduct cannot bear the scrutiny of rigid investigation, and the introduction into their places of men of moral honesty and integrity, who merit the confidence reposed in them. Add to this proper checks, and a strict accountability at the Treasury Department, and the Government may be redeemed from the odium of bribery, corrup- tion, and of mercenary encroachments on the legitimate rights of lawful commerce, and the revenue from the deterioration produced by these causes. If the exposition hereinbefore given of the official corps, as it ex- isted under Mr. Hoyt, furnishes evidence of their want of purity and integ- rity, these defects were equally applicable to Mr. Curtis, the new collector. The same persons were found in office at the time this commission was instituted, and the same duties assigned to them by Mr. Hoyt were con- tinued, both in form and substance, by his successor. The few removals which had been made by Mr. Curtis were confined to the class of inspect- ors, and of these a very limited number were turned out. All the princi- pal officers of the customs remained as before. The changes commenced with Cairns and Wasson, who were strongly recommended by the col- 156 Bep. No. 669. lector to the Treasury Department, for honesty, fidelity, perseverance, and ability, in the previous discharge of their public duties, and subsequently removed by him, on full proof that they had no just claim to these high qualities. About* the same time, and while the commissioners were in session, another officer of the customs was removed by the collector, under very peculiar circumstances, which it may be proper to notice. The assist- ant cashier had been called before the commissioners, as a witness, to give evidence in relation to certain practices at the custom-house, and was assured of protection against the power of the collector to remove him from office, if he testified fully and truly to all he knew of these matters. He gave important testimony; and, a few days thereafter, he was removed from office by Mr. Curtis, with the written assurance, in the letter of dis- missal, that there existed no ground of complaint against him for any mal- conduct whatever. The person appointed to succeed him was the brother- in-law of one of the commissioners. Alfred Kelley, Esq , who was at that time officially engaged, among other things, in the investigation of the con- duct of the collector, by whom the appointment of his near relative was made. Both the removal and the appointment need explanation, to justify them as acts done solely with a view to the public good ; the one having been without caus3, and the other being, on its face, an attempt, at least, to propitiate one of the judges who was charged with the delicate duty of , taking evidence, and investigating the. official transactions of the collector. This movement may have been free from the taint of collusion or corrup- tion, but it is of a character sufficiently questionable to attract the partic- i ular notice which is here bestowed on it. Henry E. Riell, a gauger appointed by Mr. Hoyt, was also removed by Mr. Curtis on the 30th of April, 1841, and discharged from duty on the 17th of May following. On the subject of this removal, several witnesses have i testified before the commissioners, which is referred to for more particular ' details, but the substance may be comprised in the following analysis : Mr. Riell testifies that, immediately after the appointment of Mr. Curtis, he waited on him to congratulate him ; that he had previously been his friend, and supported his nomination and election as a member of Congress; that, at this interview, Mr. Curiis promised to retain him in office, but, at the same time, inquired of him whether, if retained, he, the witness, would pay a certain note of six hundred dollars, on which he was a co-endorser with Mr. Curtis and his brother, George Curtis, the amount of which they had paid, and taken up the note? To which the witness replied in the af- firmative, and was requested by Mr. Curtis to address him a letter on the subject, for reasons then stated. The witness accordingly wrote two let- ters, differing in some respects, and exhibited them to Mr. Curtis, who se- lected one of thorn as the letter proper to be addressed to him; which was done, and the collector renewed assurances to the witness that he should be retained in office. The letter delivered to Mr. Curtis, and placed on the files of his office, and by him handed to the commissioners, bears date March 29, 1841, and is in the following words : " Dear Sin: As the position you now occupy under the administration of President Harrison will probably lay you under the necessity of dispens- ing with my services as an officer of the customs in your department, I beg, very respectfully, to remind you that the entire deprivation of my pe- cuniary resources which would be occasioned by that event would render Rep. No. 669. 157 me utterly unable to meet the private pecuniary obligation to you under which I am laid, as the endorser of my brother's note. I therefore, as your debtor, consider it my duty to propose that I shall not be removed from office until I can discharge the balance of this debt which remains due, assuring you that this is my only motive for making the proposition^ and the only condition upon which, I presume, you would accede to it. " Respectfully, "HENRY E. RIELL. " Hon. Edward Curtis, Collector:' Some discrepancy arose between the parties as to the original proposi- tion — Mr. Riell asserting, under oath, that it came from Mr. Curtis to him, and that the above letter was written at the request of Mr. Curtis, submit- : ted to him, and accepted, as unexceptionable in its import or language. Mr. Curtis, on the other hand, alleges that the proposal was made to him by Mr. Riell, and rejected. Several witnesses were examined, at the in- stance of Mr. Curtis, to prove that he had informed them of his determina- tion to remove Riell from office. Whether any such intention existed in the mind of the collector or not, or whether he so expressed himself to these witnesses, is a matter wholly immaterial in placing a proper estimate on this transaction ; nor is it deemed important who made the first proposi- tion, or whether it was accepted at the time or not. The letter, a copy of which is above given, was produced to the commissioners by Mr. Curtis, and taken from the files of his office. Its authenticity, therefore, as well as its reception, is admitted. The letter contains a direct proposal from an officer of the customs, holding his situation at the will of the collector, to pay a debt for which he felt himself morally bound, due and owing to the col- lector and his brother, George Curtis, if he should be retained in office, which debt his pecuniary resources would not enable him to meet in care of his removal ; and adds : "I therefore, as your debtor, consider it my duty to propose that I shall not be removed from office until I can dis- charge the balance of this debt which remains due, assuring you that this is my only motive for making the proposition, and the only condi- tion upon which, I presume, you would accede to it." Here, then, is an express offer, made by a subordinale officer to his superior, of a pecuniary consideration for being retained in office, which is, to all intents and pur- poses, equivalent to a similar offer for an original appointment. The writer of the letter places his hopes on the influence which he presumes the offer would have on the mind of the collector, and expresses his belief, in bold terms, that it is the only condition on which the collector would ac- cede to it. This letter was received and put on file by the collector on the 29th of March, 1841, and the officer who offered to him the pecuniary con- sideration contained in it was not removed for more than one month there- after, and then only at the urgent solicitation of the whig friends of the col- lector. Why this delay and hesitation in performing an act which ought to have been instantaneous on the receipt of the letter containing the cor- rupt proposal ? To a high public functionary, having at his disposal an immense patronage, to be dispensed for the public good alone, it would seem that an offer of money or other valuable thing for the exercise of this deli- cate and important, power in favor of any individual, in or out of office, would have been a direct and palpable insult to the purity of his character 158 Kep. No. 669. and honor as an officer of the Government, not to be endured or toleratec for a single moment. If, then, there was, in point of fact, no previous un derstanding between the parties, as testified to by Riell, his removal shouk have taken place on the instant the insulting proposal was made. An lion orable man, animated by high and lofty principles, would not have paused for a day or an hour to calculate the consequences of performing a duty which was alike due to himself and the Government whose interests h( represented. But Mr. Curtis did pause for more than one month before he performed this duty, and the only reason assigned by him for the delay was the difficulty of finding a suitable successor! The facts speak for themselves, and the conclusion to which they lead must be left to the judg' ment of the Executive, to whom Mr. Curtis is responsible as well for his I moral as his official conduct. To that high tribunal it is submitted withoul further comment. Of a like character, though differing in the circumstances attending it, is the case of Peter V. Remsen. Reference is made to the deposition of Rem- sen, and the statements of George and Edward Curtis, to show the nature of this transaction. The existence of a debt due from Remson to George and Edward Curtis is admitted by all the parties. Mr. George Curtis, in his explanatory letter to the commissioners, which forms a part of his dep- osition, states : "The facts are as follows: Remsen, who was formerly ai member of the legal profession in this city, has been for several years, and' still is, indebted to myself and my brother. For two or three years past he had held an office in the custom-house, at a salary of some ^900. Some; time in April last I applied to the said Remsen, and solicited him to devotei a small portion of his salary to the payment of his note which I held." Remsen, it appears, was continued in office, as he states, under this ar- rangement, for three months, and at the end of the first month made a pay- ment on the note to Mr. George Curtis, which, at a subsequent day, Mr. Curtis offered to return, saying that he could not retain it under the stipu- lations originally agreed upon ; but Remsen refused to receive it, stating to> Mr. Curtis that "he need not fear any disclosures on my part; and I in- sisted on his keeping the money without any such understanding being ex- pressed, which he did for a week or ten days." The money was after- wards returned, in a letter from Mr. George Curtis, to Remsen, dated June 5, 1841. Mr. Curtis says : " I do so because I cannot doubt that the pay-: ment at this time is made by you under the impression of some supposed in- fluence which I might or could exert with the collector in relation to your continuance in the office now held by you." Why Mr. Curtis " could not doubt" that the payment was made by Remsen under the impression that his influence would be exerted to retain him in office, is not clearly under- stood, unless it had reference to a previous conversation or understanding, that the debt was to be gradually redeemed out of the salary of Remsen. This arrangement Mr. Remsen affirms was made between himself and Mr. George Curtis, which fact is denied by Mr. Curtis ; and the discrepancy in their evidence must rest on all the circumstances detailed in their respective depositions. It is admitted by Mr. Curtis, that he made the proposition to Remsen, to pay the debt out of his salary, but the stipulation to have him retained in office on that condition is supported only by the oath of Rem- sen himself, which is not admitted by the other party. These contracts for redeeming debts due and owing by subordinate custom-house officers to Rep. No. 669. 159 the collector, either in whole or in part, conflict with the oath required of such officers of the customs, which is in the following words : I, A B, of the customs for the district of New York, do hereby certify, on oath, that I have performed the services stated in the above account ; that I have received the full sum therein charged, to my own itse and ben- efit ; and that I have not paid, deposited, or assigned, nor contracted to pay, deposite, or assign, any part of such compensation to the use of any other 1 person ; nor in any way, directly or indirectly, paid or given, nor contract- ed to pay or give, any reward or compensation for my office or employ- 1 inent, or the emolument thereof. So help me God. Sworn and subscribed before me, this day of , 1841. The solicitude manifested by the collector to acquit himself of the charge imputed to him, of collecting debts due to him individually, or in connexion with his brother, George Curtis, by officers of the customs, out of their salaries, induced the commissioners to put to him the following interroga- tories, among others, which he was required to answer, touching his official conduct : "Question 6. Are there any officers of the customs, appointed by you, who are indebted to you or George Curtis, individually or jointly ? and if so, were they so indebted prior to their appointment ? and have you or he received any payment or payments in extinguishment of such debts ? "Question 7. Are there any officers of the customs for whom you are re- sponsible as endorser or security, or for whom your brother, George Cur- tis, was so responsible ? If so, state whether you or your brother, George Curtis, have received payment in extinguishment of such debts, for which you or the said George Curtis have become liable, as endorser or secu- rity?" To which questions the collector answered as follows : "One answer will be sufficient. Both questions look to a state of facts which may be equally innocent, whether they required affirmative or justi- fied negative answers. I regard the questions as without import, except as implying a charge of improper motive on my part, in the making of ap- pointments. Regarding them in this sense, I meet the whole matter by a full denial of any improper motives whatsoever in making appointments to office ; and I trust the commissioners will yet investigate the propriety of the accusation implied in the above questions, if time has not allowed the opportunity during the last six months." Here was an opportunity afforded to the collector to put a general nega- tive on the charge, that he kept in office particular persons who were in- debted to him, or jointly with his brother, George Curtis, or for whom either of them was bound as endorser, and exacted payment from such officers out of their respective salaries ; but it will be seen that he did not avail himself of the occasion to answer either negatively or affirmatively on these points. He evades the questions, by the inference that they were designed " to imply improper motives on his (my) part in the making of appointments;" and, without meeting the questions by a direct and posi- tive answer, he equivocates, and contents himself with the averment, that he had not been actuated by " improper motives" in making appointments to office. This might be regarded as an implied admission of the practice referred to in the questions, which the collector had it fully in his power to negative under oath, if no such practice existed. He might have said, in a 160 Rep. No. 669. few words, that no custom-house officer appointed by him was indebted to him, or jointly with his brother, George Curtis, either before or since his appointment, if such had been the fact. He might have declared, on oath, that neither himself or George Curtis were jointly or severally bound as endorsers tor any custom-house officer, for any sum of money whatever, if he or they were not so bound as endorsers. It was equally in his power to respond explicitly to the inquiry, whether such indebtedness or respon- sibility, if it existed against any officer of the customs, was in the progress of being redeemed by a fixed portion of the salary of such officer, exacted from him for that purpose. All this might have been said, if the truth would have justified it, in a few words, by the collector. But he satisfies himself with the inference, that some latent imputation was intended to be cast on his motives in making appointments ; and, in his own words, he says : " Regarding them (the questions) in this sense, I meet the whole matter by a full denial of any improper motives!" Whether this equiv- oque is tantamount to an admission of the facts alluded to in the 6th and 7th questions, concerning the indebtedness of his subordinate officers, as therein stated, and the appropriation of a dividend of their salaries in pay- ments made to the collector or his brother, George Curtis, is respectfully submitted to the judgment of the Executive, to whom he is immediately responsible for his official acts. The undersigned, having received instructions from the Treasury Depart- ment respecting the investigation to be made into the conduct of Mr. Curtis, the collector, which it would not be proper to notice particularly in this report, felt it incumbent on him to decline any further participation in.; taking evidence implicating the official acts of that officer. These instruc- tions are known at the Treasury Department. Since the commissioners i separated at the city of New York, the undersigned, having remained to ' perfect the duties assigned to him, as far as practicable, received informa- tion, from various sources, of the existence of testimony to establish the practice of buying and selling offices in the custom-house, through particu- lar agents ; but, not deeming it fit "and proper to enter upon the examina- . tion of evidence on a subject of so delicate a nature, in the absence of his ; colleagues, declined taking any such testimony while acting separately from the other members of the board. Some depositions, however, were ! voluntarily given on this subject, as well as in relation to the collection of debts due to the collector, in whole or in part, by subordinate officers of the 1 customs. These depositions were handed in; but, not forming a part of the regular proceedings of the board, they are omitted in this review of the evidence. In like manner, the expenditures for furniture and iron work, • in and about the new custom-house building, was brought to the notice of 1 the undersigned, subsequent to the return of his colleagues to the city of Washington ; and this having been a subject on which the commissioners had sought information while in session, and on which several reports had been made by the collector, on the call of the board, the statements made, on oath, by experienced and skilful mechanics, in the city of New York, were received, and are now appended to this report. The prices paid lor articles of furniture for the new custom-house, and for iron work done un- der contract, were submitted to these mechanics, and a comparative state- ment made between the prices so paid and the rates at which the same furniture and work might have been had, if diligent care and economy had been observed in making the contracts. A summary of this evidence, as a Rep. No. 669. corollary of the communications from the collector, is submitted, with the reservation that it is intended more for the purpose of inviting a full inves- tigation of the subject to which it relates, than as the basis on which a correct and conclusive judgment may be formed of the conduct of the parties concerned in these transactions. A correspondence was commenced by Jesse Hoyt, late collector, with Mr. Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, respecting the furnishing of the new custom-house, on the 12th day of September, 1S40, (see Appendix X,) in which the collector informs the Secretary that the new custom-house is in a state of forwardness for occupation, and inquires of the Secretary as to the fund out of which the expenses for furnishing the new building is to be drawn, and what furniture would be required. In reply, the Secre- tary informed the collector, that, with the exception of the furniture for the room of the receiver general, which might be charged to the appropriation in the Independent Treasury act, " no expense can be incurred without a special appropriation having been made by Congress for the purpose/' On the 14th of November following, (see Appendix Y,) Mr. Hoyt states to Mr. Woodbury, u I suggest that you ask Congress for an appropriation to purchase furniture for the building. Most of that which we have in the building we now occupy is wholly unfit, and could not be made so, for the reason that the shape of the rooms in the two buildings is so unlike, I think it would require from five to seven thousand dollars, in addition to the furniture we now have, that could be used, to fit up all the rooms." He adds, further, that Mr. Frazee, the architect, is of opinion that a larger sum would be required than he (the collector) had named. Mr. Wood- bury, on the 13th, (see Appendix Z,) in answer to Mr. Hoyt, expresses a wish to submit the matter to the appropriate committee at the meeting of Congress: and adds : u In the mean time it is desirable that Mr. Frazee should furnish the Department with a detailed estimate of the amount, of money required for the object stated, to be laid before the committee." This estimate was transmitted to the Secretary on the 12th of December, 1840, (see Appendix AA,) by Mr. Hoyt, who expresses the opinion, at the same time, that $15,000 would be sufficient to supply the custom-house with furniture. The estimate of Mr. Frazee amounts, in the whole, to $18,555, and is said to have been made by Mr. John Horspool, a cabinet- maker in New York. Various other letters passed between the collector, Mr. Woodbury, Mr. Frazee, and Mr. Bowne, on this subject, in which, among other things, Mr. Frazee presented his plans for the interior arrange- ment of the building, which plans were submitted to Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury; and on the 3d of March, 1841, Mr. Woodbury, in an official letter to Walter Bowne, Esq., commissioner of the new cus- tom-house, states to him that " it is desirable that Mr. Frazee's plans for the interior arrangement of the building should be carried into effect, so far as regards the arrangement of the fly-doors, furniture, and painting of the iron vjork," The estimates of Mr. Frazee were submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury to a committee of the House of Representatives, and rejected, at the session ©f Congress ending on the 4th of March, 1841. Mr. Woodbury, in all his correspondence with Mr. Hoyt on the subject of furnishing the new custom-house building, looked to an appropriation of money by Congress as indispensable to the commencement of any expendi- ture for that purpose. None such was made at that time or since. Mr. Curtis came into office on the 23d of March, and on the 25th of the 11 162 Rep. No. 669. same month he addressed a letter to Mr. Ewing, Secretary of the Treasury, in which he informs him " the late Secretary, after much inquiry and ex- amination, decided that Mr. Frazee should goon to furnish the custom-house, and furnish it in his own way, and without the interference of Mr. Bowne, who differs in opinion with the architect.'' In another letter from Mr. Curtis to Mr. Ewing, under date April 1st, 1841, he says: "If you will give me authority, I will proceed to furnish the building, pursuing thei pi m proposed by Mr. Frazee, the architect, to the late Secretary, and which was approved by him" He further adds, in the same letter, " I. shall, of course, observe the utmost economy in furnishing the new house, consistent with the plans of the architect; which. I have before said, were approved by the late Secretary, whose letter I have seen, directing Mr. Frazee to pursue his plan, &c; and not that of Mr. Bowne." To these letters Mr. Ewing returned the following answer: "Treasury Department, Jipril 5, 1841. " Sir : In consideration of the circumstances mentioned in your letter ol> the 1st instant, I deem it proper to authorize you to furnish the new custom-house plainly and substantially, using so much of the old furni- ture as may be convenient, and taking care to exercise proper economy in the matter." It will be seen, by reference to the various letters of Mr. Woodbury to. Mr. Hoyt and others, relative to the purchase of furniture for the new custom-house, that the purchases were suspended until a fund should be provided, by a special appropriation, to meet the expenditure. It alsc appears, by the extract of the letter of Mr. Woodbury, given above, thai he did not approve the plan of Mr. Frazee in extenso, for furnishing the building, as Mr. Curtis has stated, but limits himself simply to the 44 plar for the" interior arrangement of the building, so far as regards thei arrangement of the fly-doors, furniture, and painting of the iron work.' > The approbation of Mr. Woodbury is nowhere given to the estimate sub mitted to him by the architect, but is confined to the arrangement of the interior of the building, in putting up the furniture, erecting fly-doors, and painting of the iron work. This certainly falls far short of the approva mentioned to Mr. Ewing in the letters of Mr. Curtis, and on which Mr Ewing gave permission to the collector to proceed in furnishing the build- ing according to that estimate. The rejection by the committee of th( House of Representatives of the estimate and plans of Mr. Frazee, which were submitted to them by the Secretary, would have been sufficient, tc induce the Secretary, as a matter of duty, to withhold a subsequent appro- bation of them, even had he entertained that opinion prior to the decisior of the committee. On the 10th of April, 1841, Mr. Curtis authorized Mr. Joseph Hough, z broker in New York, to make a contract or contracts with suitable workmer to supply the furniture required at the new custom-house. In his letter of in structions to Mr. Hough, for his government iu the discharge of the duty con fided to him, which are very specific, he says : " You will call the manu- facturers to the new custom-house, and there, with them, wait upon Mr Frazee, who will exhibit the plans and drawings of the furniture to the made, under his direction and superintendence ; and to his satisfaction be whole work must be done." Again he instructs Mr. Hough : « When yoi mj>. No. 669. 163 ure prepared with any man or men with whom you think, upon the whole it will be most prudent to contract for all the work, or a portion of it, bring the men to me, and, if I am satisfied with the prices — as I presume I shall be with your judgment — I will close the contract." It does not appear that any call of the manufacturers to the new cusiom house was made, nor that Mr. Hough went with then) to Mr. Frazee to see his u plans and draw- ings of the furniture to be made;" neither did he obey the order of the collector, to bring the men !o him, with whom he might contract for the whole work, or a portion of it, for the purpose of obtaining his approba- tion of the prices before the contract was closed. These precautions, care- fully inserted in the instructions, which, doubtless, if carried into effect, would, by competition among the manufacturers, have greatly reduced the prices at which the work won d have been undertaken, were wholly disre- garded, and Mr. Hough took the responsibi ity on himself of selecting a manufacturer of his own choosing, with whom the contract was made. In his letter to the colleciorof April 20, 18 II, he says: " I have made inquiry among the cabinet makers, and have finally selected Mr. Abraham Storm, as one likely to give satisfaction, both as to stvle of work and economy in expense, and have his estimate for furnishing the new custom-house, which I herewith hand you. The estimate is made on the list and description of articles, as made by Mr. F razee." In pursuance of this selection, made by Mr. Hough, Mr. Curtis, on the 24th day of April, 1841, entered into arti- cles of agreement, with Abraham Storm, for the supply of the entire furni- ture which he deemed requisite ar the new custom-house, and took, as the basis of the contract, the plans, drawings, and estimates, previously made by Mr. Fraz »e, and which, after examination by a committee of Co igress, had been disagreed to. Too collector "reserves to himself the right to dis- pense with any portion of the work contained in the annexed estimate; also, the right fo vary from the said estimate ; and, in case of variation, the prices of ttie substituted work are to conform, as near as may be, to the prices of tiie within estimate, according to their relative value/' Some inner privileges are reserved to the collector ; but he finally " agrees to make payment to the said Abraham Storm, according to the annexed estimate (being the estimate rejected by the committee of the House of Representa- tives) and the terms of this contract, so fast as the said furniture, or any portion thereof, shall be deliver d, and approved of by the said Edward Curtis, the collector, and Mr. Frazee, the architect.' ' Mr. Ewiug instructs the collector to "furnish the new custom-house plainly and substantially, taking car - to exercise a proper economy in the matter." Some of the commissioners visited the custom-house, and examined the furniture as it was placed, who represented it to be of the most extravagant description; but no testimony was taken by the commission to t< st its value, when com- pared with the usual pri -es paid for similar work in New York. A few of the items in the estimate under which the contract was made will serve to show the general character of the furniture, and the prices at which it was estimated : Two large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 11 feet high, filled with pigeon holes, showing 12 doors in front, with suitable case and cornice, $396 each $792 "Six large mahogany book cases, filled with partitions, with doors, G feet G inches long and high, $98 each - 5SS 164 Rep. No. 669. Eight large mahogany book cases, filled with partitions, with doors, 13 feet long, $192 each ----- -#1,53 Twelve large mahogany book cases, 6 feet long, 11 feet high, filled in with pigeon holes, with 6 doors in front and writing table be- low, with drawers in frame, cloth on top, $192 each - - 2,30 Four large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 12doorseach,$396each 1,58 One large mahogany book case, 9 feet long, 8 doors - - 29* These items correspond with the other estimates annexed to the contrat with Abraham Storm ; the whole of which, for desks, book cases, and cour I ters alone, amounts to the enormous sum of $18,555. What portion of th sum has already been expended, and how far the work may have bee' varied from the original plans and drawings, is not l^iown, except th payment of $7,000, which is charged, as an expense incidental to the co lection of the revenue, to the fund derived from the fees and emoluments cj the collector, no further report on that subject having been furnished t jj the commissioners by the collector. The call of the House of Represen atives on the Secretary of the Treasury, for information as to what amour had been expended in the purchase of furniture for the custom-house i New York, .^ince the 4th day of March, 1841 ; also, the items of furniture also, under what authority the purchases had been made, and out of wru particular funds payment has been or is contemplated to be made, was ar. sweredby Mr. Curtis, the collector, by a copy of the schedule of the iterr." of furniture, only omitting the prices at which the articles of furniture wei estimated, and the contract under which the work was performed. N reply was made as to the amount which had been expended, other tha the sum of $7,000, before noticed, or of the fund out of which it is conteir plated to make future payments. The authority under which the pun chases have been made is traced by the collector to Mr. Woodbury ; bi. no such authority is to be found in his correspondence, without specif appropriation for that object, which was applied for and refused hy Congres: The payment of $7,000 is charged by the collector, in the absence of a t appropriation made by law, to the receipts derived from the fees an, emoluments which are directed by law to be applied to the payment of th' salaries of the collector, naval officer, and surveyor, and other expense, incident to the office of collector. The overplus, if any, is to be paid int the Treasury. Mr. Curtis, in his letter to the commissioners of the 20t| of November, 1841, says : " In regard to the inquiry of the commissioners, whether the paymer of the said sum of $7,000 has or has not, to that extent, created a deficienc in the payment of the charges by law to be made on that fund, I hav the honor to state that, so far as I can learn, the said payment has nc created a deficiency, and that no deficiency exists." On the receipt of this letter, the commissioners put to the collector th following question : "In your letter of the 20th instant, you state that the payment of $7,00 has created no deficiency, and no deficiency exists in the amount of fee and emoluments, in the payment of the charges by law made on that func Be pleased to state the aggregate amount of fees and emoluments for eac year, from January 1, I $25, to 30th September last; and the aggregat amount of clerk hire, fuel, and stationery, and other incidental expense.', and the sum or sums, if any, paid into the Treasury, as fees or emoluments in each year; and the sum or sums of money, if any, paid out of the Treasu y in each year, to make up deficiencies." Rep. No. 669. 165 To which the collector answered, under oath, as follows : "This is not deemed a deficiency, nor can it be so considered, because, what- verthe tariff act of July 14, 1832, has taken away, the subsequent annual ppropriation ac s have made good. When any item of expense is charged ) the fund derived from the fees and emoluments of the collector, &c, it is harged to that fund which is composed of the fees and emoluments dually collected at the custom-house under the existing tariff laws, to- ether with a sum annually derived from the Treasury, sufficient to pre- erve the whole fund equal to what it would have been, if all the fees and moluments had been collected, which would have been collected had not he tariff of duties been modified by the act of July 14, 1832. It was nder the advice of one of the most experienced and intelligent persons mployed in the department of the Treasury (then at the custom house) hat my letter of the 1st of April suggested to the Secretary that the ex- cuse of the furniture could lawfully be charged to the fund derived from ses and emoluments. The charge of the $7,000 paid for furniture can e no more said to have created a deficiency in that fund, than the pay- ment of the salaries of clerks, or the payment of any other expense, charge- ble upon the fund, to a like amount, would create a deficiency. At ihe ime of that payment, the fees actually collected for this year far exceeded hat sum ; and the charge of the cost of furniture to that fund of course liminishes that fund, but does not create a deficiency. All expenses of ;>lfice are first paid, and among them the furniture is included ; and for the payment of salaries resort is had to the appropriation act, if necessary." 1 Mr. Curtis, in his letter to the commissioners, states explicitly that the Payment of $7,000 for furniture has not, to that extent, created a de- iciency in the payment of the charges by law to be made on that fund, md that no deficiency exists. In his deposition he admits that the appli- ;ation of $7,000, drawn from this fund, to the purchase of furniture, di- ninishes it below the charges made by law on the fees and emoluments ; md that it is his intention to look to an appropriation by Congress to make *ood the deficiency thus created. In this manner he has drawn money rom the Treasuiy, not only without an appropriation made by law, but in lefiance of a refusal by Congress, at the preceding session, to make any ippropriation whatever for the object to which he applied it. First, he denies that any deficiency was created by the abstraction of that sum from fees and emoluments received at the custom-house, and asserts that no deficiency exists in that fund, for the purposes to which it is directed by aw to be applied. He then turns round and admits the deficiency created by his own act ; but, by a process of ieasoning which is not clearly under- stood, he insists that a deficiency in the fund is no deficiency, because the vacuum can be filled by an appropriation ! Mr. Woodbury, it seems, did not recommend a resort to this expedient, for the purpose of evading the refusal of Congress to grant the money, but invariably he informed Mr. Hoyt that nothing could be done without an appropriation. How far this usurpation of power over the public money, in violation of the Constitution, will meet the rebuke of the Government, remains to be seen. The undersigned was distinctly informed, by respectable manufac- turers of furniture in New York, that the prices in the estimate attached to the contract between the collector and Abraham Storm are about 100 per cent., on most of the articles named in the schedule, above the prices at which similar work, equal in all respects in point of quality and work- 166 Rep. No. 669, manship, might he contracted for and executed in the city of Now York". But the intervention of caus< s over which the commissioners had no con- trol prevented the examination of numerous witnesses on this subject, as well as the expenditure for iron woik on the new custom-house, which it will be found is even more enormous and extravagant tl.an the estimate of furniture for the same building. It appears that, on ti e 4th day of January, 1S37, a contract was entered into between Walter Bowne, Ben- jamin Ringgold, and Daniel Jackson, commissioners on the part of the Government ot the United States, and John G. Tibbcts, blacksmith, of the city of New York, for the whole supply of the iron work which might be- ■ deemed necessary and proper for the custom-house, until the building was completed. This iron work, as specified in the contract, was of various descriptions, some of it of the finest class of work and materials; but by far the larger portion was stipulated to be done of cast iron, and other iron> of about equal cost, put up with less regard to workmanship ; but the , whole is placed at an average cost of 18£ cents per pound. In this esti- j male the Sub-Treasury vault is not included, that work having been con- tracted for after the passage of the act of the 4th of July, 1S40, commonly called the Independent Treasury act. The cost of this vault, at the rate of twenty-five cents per pound on the iron, is #6,502 ; to which must be. added the price of two locks for the vault, being $600, amounting in the . whole to $7,102. The following abstract of moneys paid for iron work on the new custom-house exhibits the dates at which the bills were ren- i dered, and the amount of each bill, ending on the 16th day of April, 184 U The aggregate amount, up to that date, of payments made for iron work i of every description on the building, is #92,316 70; which, including j the cost of the Sub-Treasury vault and locks, makes the round sum ot #99,418 70. Abstract of moneys paid for iron work for new custom-house, New York. April, 1837, to February, 1S38 .... $21,703 63- February 21, 1838 - - - - - - 4,303 63 August 6, 1838 - 2,614 7^ September 15, 1838 ------ 2,315 83 i October 29, 1S3S ------ 2,336 36 December 19, 1838 ------ 1,497 39 January 24, 1839 - - - - - 1,289 45- I March 13, 1839 ------ 4.118 47 April 1, 1839 - 2^458 83 May 2, 1839 - 5,460 47 Certificate No. 11, April 9, 1838 - 4,485 88 May 10, 1838 - - - - - - 3,975 4fr June 4, 183S ------ 4,251 48 July 3, 1838 - - - - - - 3,688 90 July 20, 1839 ------ 1,367 70 September 2, 1839 ------ 1,453 13 November 26, 1839 2,5S5 00 May 20, 1840 ------ 7,963 88 July 28, 1840 ------ 3,757 35 November 5, 1840 ------ 1,740 48 November 7, 1840 - - - - - 1,7S7 30 February 1, 1841 - - - - - 75 Ofr Rep. No. 669. 167 April 16, 1841 ------ $7,084 94 April 16, 1841, Sub-Treasury vault - 6,502 75 April 16, 1841, locks for Sub-Treasury vault - 450 00 April 16, 1841, do do - - 150 00 Total - - 99,418 70 The whole of this work, except the vault and locks, was executed and paid for during the term of office of Jesse Hoyt, under the contract made by the commissioners with J. G. Tibbets. The vault and locks were paid for under an appropriation made by Congress after the present collector came into office. The original contract with Tibbets enumerates the va- rious descriptions of work to be done on the building, the classes of iron, from the lowest to the highest, of which the work was to be composed, and closes with the following stipulation : " And the said parties of the first part, commissioners aforesaid, do covenant and agree that they will pay unto the said party of the second part the sum of 18$ cents per pound for all the said iron work so required throughout, and which shall be weighed at the building, when delivered and approved/' It appears, by this contract, that the average price at which the whole of the iron work is fixed is the maximum price of the highest class of fine work, directed by the architect to be done on the building. An examination was made of the entire work, as it is placed in and about the custom-house, by two respectable blacksmiths of the city of New York, whose statement is ap- pended to this report. John M. Winant, a blacksmith of undoubted skill and respectability, made the first examination of the work, and noted the prices at which it might have been contracted for, and executed in a work- manlike manner. This statement, after a subsequent and separate exami- nation of the work made by J. C. Robertson, another blacksmith of equal standing and respectability, was concurred in by him, and a certificate to that effect, made under his signature at the foot of the estimates made by Mr. Winant. The estimates of these two blacksmiths range the prices of the iron work done on the new custom-house, under the original contract, at a minimum of 6 cents per pound, and a maximum of 18? cents per pound, instead of an average price of 18£ cents per pound, as stipulated to be paid for the whole work by the contract of the commissioners with J. G. Tibbets. The Sub-Treasury vault, which was paid for at the rate of 25 cents per pound, is valued by the above-named blacksmiths at 181 cents per pound. The result of the comparative value of the whole work, as fixed by the estimates of Winant and Robertson, and prices actually paid at the custom-house, show that the contract might have been made at a saving to the Government of one-half the sum actually paid out of the Treasury in virtue of the original contract of the commissioners. Since the present collector came into office, the iron work on the building has progressed to a considerable extent, if it be not fully completed. No new contract or change of rates has taken place, but, as far as the commission- ers are informed, the collector has thrown himself back upon the old con- tract, not only for the work therein described, but for desk stands, of which there are a large number ordered by the collector, which, being a deviation from the original contract, ought to have been separated from it. Mr. Winant and Mr. Robertson state this description of work at 8 cents per pound ; it has probably been paid for as the other work is, at I85 cents per pound, or, if payment is suspended for an appropriation, the estimate 168 Rep. No. 669. of the amount due will be founded on the contract with J. G. Tibbets. The amount now due and unpaid, for iron work of various descriptions, exe- cuted in the year 1S41, is not known, as the collector professes to have no knowledge on the subject, alleging that the expenditures for this work are under a contract made by the commissioners with J. G. Tibbets. On the ISth of November, 1841, the commissioners passed an order in the following worr's : "That the collector be requested to furnish the commissioners with a more full and complete answer to their order of the 8th instant, setting forth specially and particularly with whom any con- tract for iron work, in and about the new custom-house building, has been made, and by what authority ; and, also, to furnish the commissioners with a copy of such contract or contracts, and all the correspondence relating to the same ; and if no part of the money has been paid to the workmen employed, to state the fact distinctly. And, fuither, if any amount of money has been paid under said contract or contracts, by whom and by whose order and authority, and to what fund, has the same been made chargea- ble or has been charged." In reply to this order, the collector addressed a. letter to the commissioners, from which the following extract is given: " I have been informed and believe that the large iron Sub-Treasury safe, the iron railing, and other iron work of the custom-house, have been pro- vided under some order, contract, or agreement, made by the late Judge Benjamin Ringgold and others, commissioners appointed by the President of the United States for the construction of the new custom-house, with John G. Tibbets, ironmonger. What were the powers or authority of these commissioners I am wholly ignorant, never having seen their com- mission or their correspondence with the Department, or had any conver- sation with them on this subject: and, having no means to control their papers, it is wholly out of my power to furnish a copy of any of the va- rious contracts they may have made." To which, in the same letter, the collector adds : " If it be the wish of the commissioners, I will with pleasure make any application to the co umissioners for the constructing of the cus- tom-house, for information upon this subject, and communicate the result." The contract of the building commissioners was entered into long prior to the passage of the Independent Treasury act ; and there does not appear to have been any new contract, embracing the expense of the Sub-Treasury vault, as Mr. Curtis has intimated. The price of the iron work on this vault is placed above the extravagant rates of the other iron work on the building, and therefore cannot properly come under the original contract. By a. letter received from the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears that on the 6th of April, 1S41, G. F. Tallman was appointed by the late Secre- tary of the Treasury sole commissioner and disbursing agent to pay off the balances of claims due for materials and work done on the new custom- house building. This appointment was made on the recommendation of Mr. Curtis. On the 30th of April Mr. Tallman closed his accounts at the Treasury Department, and since that time there has been no building commissioner appointed. How these facts could have been unknown to Mr. Curtis it is impossible to imagine ; but in his letter to the commission- ers, an extract of which is given above, he recognises the existence of such a commission, and states his readiness, if desired, to make " application to the commissioners for constructing the custom-house, for information" on the subjects referred to in the order above mentioned. These transac- tions require a more particular investigation than has been given to them under the limited powers of the commissioners. Rep. No. 669. 169 So far as the undersigned has been enabled to look into the expenditures at the custom-house, since Mr. Curtis came into office, he has discovered nothing which would justify the opinion that they have been diminished in any branch falling under the special cognizance and supervision of the collector. Whatever reforms may have been made in the economy of sup- plies to the various departments of the custom-house must be ascribed to the appraisers, naval officer, surveyor of the port, and public storekeeper. In these departments a morp. rigid economy appears to be observed than was practised under Mr. Hoyt, who exercised over these officers unlimited con- :rol in all respects whatever. The power of the collector over these offi- cers has undergone no change by law ; but a new organization, in many particulars, has been made at the Treasury Department, which places them n an attitude more independent of the will of the collector than hereto- fore, and creates new responsibilities in the expenses incident to their offi- ces well calculated to lessen these expenses. By an official letter from the collector of the port of New York to the Secretary of the Treasury, bearing date March 14, 1842, it appears that the imountof revenue collected at that port for the year 1S41 is §10,802,119 94, md that the cost of collection was §598,435 61, equal to 5 T 5 T 4 T per cent, on he whole sum collected. From this general statement, contained in the etter of the collector, it is manifest that no retrenchment in the expenses it the custom-house has been introduced into practice by Mr. Curtis, since lis appointment ; and that the cost of collection, during his first year, sur- >asses the most extravagant year of Mr. Hoyt. In the letter of Mr. Curtis, )efore referred to, he attempts to draw a parallel between the revenue col- ected in 1829 and the cost of collection, and the year 1841, and to account "or the excess of the latter year over the former in the expenses of col- ection, being §385,904 50. The causes to which he traces this large imount of excess will appear in his letter, to which reference is made for greater certainty, as injustice might be done to him by a synopsis of the statistics and reasoning by which he expects to justify the increased ex- )enditure. The vast increase of expense in the collection of the revenue, )etween the two years selected by Mr. Curtis, compared with the amount )f duties collected, is ascribed by the collector, in his letter to the Secretary >f the Treasury, to the modification of the tariff in 1833, under which the ist of articles admitted free of duty was greatly increased, as also the num- )er of entries, and the forms of office changed, which rendered a greater lumber of clerks, laborers, and inferior officers of every grade, necessary o carry the new system into effect. Other causes are mentioned in his let- er, which it may be proper to notice hereafter, so far as his facts can be separated from the elaborate argument with which they are connected. ?or the purpose of presenting this whole subject of expense, at the New fork custom-house in a clear light, disrobed of all mystification, it is deemed )roper to give the following tabular statement, commencing with the year L825, and closing with the year 1841, including eight years under the tariff aws prior to to the year 1833, and nine years since the compromise act, vhich, according to the opinion of Mr. Curtis, has caused the increased ex- )ense of the latter year. This statement will furnish, from official returns, the gross amount of im- )orts and exports of each year, the amount of revenue collected, the cost of :ollection, and the number of officers of every grade employed in the col- ection : 170 Rep. No. 669. £ » D,— K w NOOOWO'NCDOOIMOO'} 1 - t CO CN CO ^^COtCW^O^C^t^iO^io — ^ O O CN 00 Tf ~* co of «o to co oT i/f «o cT at to r? m v? 0)HHH(NWCOTrTCOOTj«Tfvo>CW5iO 5c 0)OOic?505iOn©OO^h'^NN'-00 s u 2 b fn 3 cEatOOCSONOOCnONNN'tQOOO 3 j)HHHHO)WNNCOCOCO^«T)«1't1' C 3 »— t CI 1— 1 CO C5 o o CO o CO CN — 1 C. O CO l> >o CO CO IO cs CO us .£ i— • CO CO CO^ »o cr^ IO q co r-t "3 of «o r-' IO ©» of CO C OS co" co" *cr t^" of q »o i— < T T OS t- CO CO CO CO 03 l> »o h- CD o ©^ 0^ % OS «o *o I— 1 co CO co" iff o" m cT tv cT 0" CO t> cf 1— 1 OS CX> uo h? c rr cs o CO w CO CO CO c OS CN CO co o c> i—i CS CO CN CN t^- °i °i © CO 50 h» IQ °l » 10 OS »0 CN 00 CN — 1 — < 10^ t^- co^ os^ CO rr co wT 00" 00 ^ — < <3* to 00^ CO^ CN^ (» CN^ co co" us • I I I t • I I I • I I I I • I • I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 • «OtON00O)O'-WC0^iO Exports ------- 89,030.941 Total - - 32o71 70,281 At an expense, on the whole, of .52 per cent. Under the first year of the administration of President Tyler : Imports #75,266,015 Exports ------- 30,731,519 Total - - 105,999,534 At an expense, on the whole, of .57 per cent. 172 Rep. No. 669. The following table will show — 1st. The aggregate expense on the collection of the revenue, actually received into the custom-house, at the periods above referred to. 2d. The expense, estimated by the amount of imports, at the same pe- riods. 3d. The expense, estimated by the amount of exports. 4th. The total expense on imports and exports. Names of the collectors, from the years 1825 to 1841, inclusive. Jonathan Thompson, from the year 1825 to 1828, inclusive. Samuel Swartwout, from the year 1829 to 1837, inclusive. Jesse Hoyt, from the year 1838 to 1S40, inclusive. Edward Curtis, for the year 1841. *p s o .2 Per cent. 1.43 2.67 5.20 5.54 Cm C c 5 £.2 o 0> a co Per cent. .475 .58 .72 .80 c » a. S Per cent. .77 1.49 1.86 1.95 P Per cent. .29 .42 .51 .57 From the foregoing detailed statements it is manifest that during the past year, since the appointment of Edward Curtis collector of the poit of New York, there has been a great increase of expense at the custom-house, over the three preceding collectors, not excepting the wanton extravagance of Jesse Hoyt. The various views taken meet all the contingencies on which Mr. Curtis relies to justify the large amount expended by him since he came into office. On the revenue actually collected, his expenses exceed the average of Jonathan Thompson four hundred and eleven hundredths per cent., and the average of Samuel Swartwout two hundred and eighty- seven hundredths per cent. Jesse Hoyt approaches nearer to Mr. Curtis than either of his predecessors, the average between the two being only thirty-four hundredths per cent., in which Mr. Curtis holds the highest number. Estimating the expenses by the importations, the average of Jonathan Thompson was forty-seven hundredths per cent, on the whole amount imported, while he was collector. The average, on the same basis of Samuel Swartwout, was fifty-eight hundredths per cent. ; of Jesse Hoyt, for the three years of his term of service, seventy-two hundredths per cent.; and of Edward Curtis, for his first year, eighty hundredths per cent. On the exports for the same period, the average expense is estimated as fol- lows : Jonathan Thompson - - - - .77 percent. Samuel Swartwout - - - - - 1.49 " Jesse Hoyt- - - - - - - 1.86 " Edward Curtis ------ 1.95 " Rep. No. 669. 175 The average on imports and exports, taken together, bear about the same relation between the several collectors as the imports and exports, taken separately, placing Mr. Curtis in every instance ahead of his predecessors. Eight years of the time included in the several estimates were anterior to the passage of the compromise act, by which the list of free goods was in- creased. Nine years covered by these estimates were subsequent to the compromise act ; and therefore, whether revenue, importations, exporta- tions, or the increased labor and clerk hire under the new system, be taken as the standard by which to test the economy of the custom-house expen- ditures, Mr. Curtis stands convicted of having practised wasteful extrava- gance in a greater degree than either of his predecessors in office. He has had the benefit of all the calculations, statistics, and reasoning, contained in his letter of justification to the Secretary of the Treasury, but they utterly fail, on strict examination, to make good his defence. During the year 1841, while the commissioners were in session at New York, professions of economy and reform were repeatedly made by the collector, in his com- munications to the board and his official letters to the Secretary of the Treasury. The undersigned, having in part taken these professions for granted, came to the conclusion, at that time, that the custom-house expen- ses were in a course of retrenchment, and hopes were entertained that they might be brought back to the good old days of Jonathan Thompson. But the official statement of Mr. Curtis, at the close of his first year, puts these hopes to flight, and leaves us, in this respect at least, in a worse condition than we were left by the late collector, Jesse Hoyt. The following is the average number of officers, of every class, employed in the collection of the revenue at the above-mentioned periods : 1st. Jonathan Thompson's average - - - 164 2d. Samuel Swartwout's average - - - 319 3d. Jesse Hoyt's average - 460 4th. Edward Curtis's (one year) average - 470 From the foregoing data it appears that the great excess of expenditure in the collection of the revenue at tfce port of New York for the year 1.841,. over the preceding years, commencing with the year 1825, is as follows : cess of expenditures in 1841 exceeded those of 1825 $386,963 74 Do do do 1826 403,937 40 Do do do 1827 420,045 73 Do do do 1S28 403,827 85 Do do do 1S29 385,904 54 Do do do 1830 303,369 55 Do do do 1831 221,515 27 Do do do 1832 189,644 33 Do do do 1833 168,934 32 Do do do 1834 232,843 11 Do do do 1835 213,313 86 Do do do 1836 147,451 30 Do do do 1837 130,389 65 Do do do 1838 92,417 51 Do do do IS39 4,165 97 Do do do 1840 34,606 22 These excesses speak for themselves, and need no comment. Some of the causes which Mr. Curtis in his letter refers to as having produced these, excesses may be enumerated under the following heads : 174 Bep. No. 669. 1st. The rent of storehouses and the building in which the business of the custom-house is transacted. 2d. The employment of night inspectors. 3d. The addition of seven clerks for examining invoices and correcting errors which may be discovered in the extensions and footing of each iu- voice, which, he states, has been approved by the Secretary of the Treas- ury, but without any beneficial result to the revenue, so far as the collector has set forth in his communication. 4th. Light-houses, revenue cutters, and revenue boats, on which he al- leges that an unusually large expenditure was made in 1841. These seem to constitute the principal ground on which the collector places his defence for the excesses of expense incurred in the collection of the revenue since his appointment. Other matters are enumerated in his letter which appear to be unimportant, but on which he has thought fit to enlarge for his own vindication. He says, in conclusion, " I respectfully submit these facts and observations in proof of the correctness of my opin- ion, that there is an impropriety in adopting the amount of revenue collect- ed as a criterion for determining the cost of collecting it." This conclusion, however just it may be, is overthrown by the statistical tables before fur- nished, which accord to him the benefit of a comparison for a series of years of imports and exports, and of free goods under the compromise act, with the year 1841, in all of which he stands convicted, on either basis, of the same excess of expenditure which applies to the amount of revenue collected. The collector, in his comparative statement, leaves an interven- ing gap of twelve years, neither of which is touched in his expose, except the year 1S40, which he notices apparently for the purpose of furnishing an apology for the expenses of that year by his predecessor, which seem to bear a strong resemblance to his own in the succeeding year. It may be regarded almost as a joint defence of Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Curtis, as the former had previously mystified his expenditures in 1S40 pretty much on the same grounds, though not so elaborately, as those taken by his succes- sor, in vindication of both years. The period between the passage of the compromise act in 1833, down to the year 1841, having been entirely over- looked by Mr. Curtis, with the above-mentioned exception, it may be use- ful to select some of these years in which the largest amount of importa- tions were made into the port of New York. The true test of the necessity of the enormous expenses incurred by Mr. Curtis in 1841 is not in a com- parison between that year and 1829, but it must be found in those years which in all respects were subject to the same laws which existed in 1841. 1 The year 1S36 was the largest year of importations of foreign merchandise into the port of New York which has ever occurred since the foundation of the Government, amounting, as before stated, in value to $1 1S,8S6,194. The list of free articles was the same in that year as in 1841, with the exception of a short period of the latter year; and the relative amount of that class of goods, with the aggregate importations of the year, are presumed to be about the 1 same as iu other years under the same system. The amount of tonnage entered from foreign ports was 556,730 tons, and the amount of tonnage cleared for foreign ports in the same year was 404,9575 tons, being the greatest amount of tonnage entered and cleared from the port of New York in any one year, except the year 1839, when it was exceeded only by a small amount. The number of entries, it is fair to presume, corresponded with the amount of importations, as also the clerk hire and labor required at the custom-house. The excess of revenue collected in that year over the Rep. No. 669. 175 year 1841 was $6, 342,046 90, and the excess of expenses of collection in the year 1S41 over the year 1836 was, as above slated, $147,451 30. How can Mr. Curtis account lor this discrepancy, which took place under the op- eration of the same system of revenue laws, in all respects whatever? Why has it cost the Government more money to collect less than eleven millions of dollars in 1S41 than was expended in the collection of more than sev- enteen millions in 1S36? These are pi -in questions, aud they require a satisfactory a nswer. Without entering into specifications of the succeeding years, down to the year 1S41, the views taken of the year 1836 will apply to the whole of these years, as will be seen by the foregoing table of ex- cesses. The year 1S41, when reform and economy were expected, stands at the head of the list, and furnishes a fair ground on which Mr. Hoytmay claim exemption from all censure for the most extravagant year of his ad- ministration of the custom house. In the report of expenditures made by Mr. Curtis to the Treasury Department are the following items for the year 1841 : 1st. Light-houses ... - - $28,875 69 2d. Revenue cutters ----- 40,433 27 3d. Revenue boats - - • - - 12,2S4 75 Making an aggregate, in one year, on these three items - 81,593 71 A detailed report on these subjects will be made separately, and there- fore it is deemed unnecessary to comment on the items above specified. The undersigned has aire A. M., of 29th ; learned from him that he had been unable to get any infor- mation on the subjects of the inquiries of Mr. Hoyt, relative to the goods of Bottomly, De Casse, & M., or La Chaise & Fouche, and, by his advice, I proceeded immediately on to Baltimore, where I arrived at 2 P. M. : called on Nathaniel Williams. Esq.: found him anxious to render me every as- 1* 196 Rep. No. 669. sistance in searching for Bottomly's goods, he having, previously to my arrival, placed in the hands of the marshal a warrant for his arrest; with Mr. Williams, called on Messrs. Hoffman & Co., and found them free to communicate all their knowledge of Bottomly and his business. They have probably been his only agents here for more than a year past : have sold for him large amounts of goods ; made the last sale for him, in which they closed all his goods, on the 17th instant, cashed the sales, and remit- ted him the proceeds. From the frank manner of the Messrs. Hoffman, in answering all my questions, and from the assurance of Mr. Williams, and of the collector, Mr. Frick, of their high respectability and integrity, I feel satisfied they gave me all the information respecting Bottomly that was necessary for the purposes of my visit ; called on Robert A. Taylor &: Co., auctioneers ; were satisfied, from their statements, that they had never acted as the agents of Bottomly, and had reason to believe that they had not, and that they had none of his goods in their possession. We were informed that the house of Henry Bedell & Co. probably had some of his goods, and were desired to go there and search their premises. We did so, but could find nothing I could identify as the goods of Bottomly, although they had a very large stock of cloths on their shelves, but very few in cases, and those of other marks than the ones I was seeking. In their store I found B 976, 977, 989, 1,024, 1,048, c 1,051, 1,137, c 1,137, and 15 small bales of worsted goods, which they represented to belong to Thomas Beakley, of New York. Though these goods came within the mark and numbers of some of Bottomly's goods, yet, being a free article, and so unlike the goods we were in search of, we did not take them. Bottomly formerly used this house as his agents, but ieft them on account of a misunderstanding some months since, and, as we were informed by themselves and others, had, for a length of time past, only employed the house of Hoffman & Co. I found that William Bottomly, the brother of James, arrived in Baltimore on Friday, the 27th, but I could not get a sight-of him, though we both stopped at Barnum's, and neither could I team the object of his visit. John Taylor, jr. arrived in Baltimore on the 28th, and left on the 29th, on his return. I was shown a letter, by Mr. Williams, from Mr. Lawrence, of Boston, to a house in Baltimore, advising them of the frauds, and that a quantity of goods belonging to one of the. New York Yorkshire men had been seized there, and recommended that all goods in Baltimore that were suspected as belonging to any of them be immediately taken. Mr. Williams's opinion accorded fully with my own, that, in the absence of all proof to identify goods out of the cases, nothing could be gained by this step, although he is very desirous to ferret out the frauds, if possible, and will lose no opportunity that may offer of doing so. Returned to Phila- delphia on Tuesday, 1st of May ; saw the attorney, marshal, and collector. They had been unable to find any thing pertaining to the frauds. With the deputy marshal, I examined the stores of Davies, Stevenson, & Co., and S. C. & J. Ford, but could find nothing. The latter house referred me to Hemesly & Co., who have, for a year past, been the agents of Bottomly; found some cases of Bottomly's mark, but not a piece of goods — he having, as they stated, taken from them, about ten days since, all his goods that were then in their possession, without assigning any reason satisfactory to them. • 1 could not get any information of the goods of De Casse, Miege, & Co., Rep. No. 669. 197 or Lachaise & Fouche ; saw one empty case marked ^ in the store of Davies, Stevenson, & Co., who remarked that it was a very common mark, and probably well known to me, from which I infer that De Casse's goods are always sold under that mark. They appeared not to know any thing- about the The marshal informed me that, from the Union Line books, he learned that some goods arrived in Philadelphia, within the last ten days, consigned to De Casse & Miege, but could not learn that they had any house there. Returned to New York May 2d. G. A. W. B. Custom-House, New York, May 26, 1340. Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, covering a copy of questions propounded by the standing committee of the House of Rep- resentatives on the Expenditures in the Department of the Treasury, which you supposed could be ieadily answered by reference to the records of this office. The questions referred to are as follows : 1st. "What number of seizures has been made by the collector since the 1st of January, 1838, and for what cause in each case ?" 2d. "What number have been decided, upon trial, in favor of the United States, and what number released, and the amount in each case ?" 3d. " What amount of duties has been refunded by virtue of judicial decisions ?" 4th. " What has been the cost to the United States of those seizures ; what amount of fees paid to the district attorney, and to the collector, on account of suits for seizures?" In reply to such questions, I now send you— 1st. A return, marked A, which answers the first, second, and fourth questions. In the latter I notice the words " fees paid to the district attor- ney and to the collector, on account of suits for seizures." I assume by "fees to the collector" is meant his share of forfeitures arising from seiz- ures. In no other sense can the term fees" have any meaning : for he has not received, and could not rightfully receive, any fees," in the com- mon acceptation of the word, from any suits brought or defended by him. The return referred to will therefore show the whole amount of the share of the forfeitures I have received since I have held the office of collector. The first question requires me to report from the 1st of January. 1338. I came into office on the 29th of March, of that year, and I have not gone beyond that period, for two reasons : 1st. Because I did not think it was the intention of the committee to call upon me to report as to the action, in this respect, of my predecessor in office. 2d. If that was the intention, I have not the power to comply with the call, for the reason that there is no record in this office that would enable me to answer the inquiries. I have, in other respects, endeavored to give such an interpretation to the questions, by the answers I have made, as to convey to the commute 198 Rep. No. 669. the information I supposed they desired to possess ; and therefore I hav* Treasury Department, November 13, 1840 Sir : Your letter of the 10th instant, enclosing copy of one addressed to you by Mr. Frazee, architect of the new custom-house building, has been received. It appearing to be the opinion of yourself and the architect, that the building is not yet in a suitable condition to be occupied for custom-house purposes, your removal must necessarily be postponed for the present. In regard to the furniture required for the respective rooms, I shall be happy to submit the matter to the appropriate committee at the meeting of Congress. In the mean time, it is desirable that Mr. Frazee should furnish the De- partment with a detailed estimate of the amount of money required for the object stated, to be laid before the committee. I am sir, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. AA. Custom-House, New York, December 12, 1S40. Sir : In pursuance of the request in your letter of the 13th of Novem- ber last, I now forward you a letter from Mr. Frazee, addressed to me, en- closing an estimate made by Mr. John Horsepool, for the furniture for the new custom-house. I have retained it for a day or two, for the purpose of making some further inquiries. This estimate overruns the amount I had for- merly stated, what I deemed to be sufficient for the purpose. In expressing my own views on a former occasion, I had consulted no one, but it was from a very superficial knowledge of the subject. The estimate now sent is a detailed one, and such as I presume you desired. I still think that $1 5,000 would be sufficient. I do not concur with Mr. Frazee in the opiniou ex- pressed by him, that but little of the old furniture can be used. I think it will answer for the smaller rooms in the second and third stories. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. BB. Examination of Lester Wilson, referred to in the report of George Poindexter and IVm. A. Bradley, December 16,1841. Question. Where is your residence and what is your occupation ? Answer. I reside in New York, and am, professionally, a merchant. Question. Do you know any thing of the purchase or sale of offices La Rep. No. 669. 255 the New York custom-house, or of the offer of such purchase or sale ? State what you know on (he subject. Answer. Some time in the month of June last, John Whitaker, one of the night watch of the New York custom-house, showed mc a note, in the handwriting of George Curtis, which had been left at the United States barge office for him. I requested hirn to let me see it, but he had already, while I was making the request, thrown it into the stove. I only saw the superscription, which I recognised as being in the handwriting of George Curtis. He would have shown it to me, but he said he could tell me its contents. He said it was a "dun" from George Curtis for his monthly pay, out of his wages, $10 per month, which he stipulated to pay at the time ho received his appointment. He sard the note was giving him a blowing up for letting ten days pass by without paying his instalment, according to j contract. He told me that, at the time he received his appointment, he took a note from George to Edward Curtis, on the presentation of which he pro- cured it. The payment was in extinguishment of a judgment obtained against him for an endorsement on a note drawn by Mr. Hatch. A note was originally given, I believe, to raise money for election purposes when Mr. Cur- tis was a candidate for Congress, and was for a renewal of a note of #50, drawn at first in favor of Mr. Edward Curtis, which Whitaker paid at ma- turity ; but, in order to repay the money for the first note, he procured the note of Hatch in his own favor, which was taken by Mr. Edward Curtis, i and finally prosecuted to judgment, and which, with costs and interest, amounted to near $83. I do not remember whether he said it was prose- i cuted in the name of Edward and George Curtis, either separately or jointly, but that it was and is the property of one or both of them. Ed- ward Curtis, however, discounted the note originally. About the middle of November, he came to me in want of money, and I inquired of him whether ; he had paid his instalments to George Curtis ; he said he had not ; he I did not like to go to his office, but wished to meet him in the street, that he might u beg off," as he could not pay it. He then told me that he had paid him all the instalments for four months, within two dollars, amounting to $38. He also said that the balance was $45, and, if he could get the money, he would pay up the whole; and that Mr. George Curtis had promised him- that if he would do so, he would see that he was appointed to the office of inspector, which he said would be worth #90 per month to him, instead of the one which he now held, which was only worth $1 50 a day. He drew an assignment to me, for the purpose of procuring this money of a dividend, which will become due to him as the guardian of his children, in the court of chancery, amounting to $30, in February next. He said his object was to get money to pay up his indebtedness, and receive the office of inspector. My conversations with him have been frequent, on the subject; they originated, usually, because he wished my assistance, which has been occasionally rendered. In questioning what he did with his wages, at the first conversation, he hesitated, but finally told me of the arrangement with Mr. Curtis, as his apology for his wants. Whenever he has received his wages, he has always manifested great uneasiness if he were not able to pay George Curtis, fearing, he said, that, unless he did so, he should not obtain the higher office of inspector. Within a short time he told me that he had met George Curtis, and that he had granted him the indulgence in relation to the last instalment; and added, that Mr. George Curtis said, " Wait till the commission of investigation adjourn, and then 256 Rep. No. 669. I will help you to get the higher office; as the commissioners, while they are pretending to investigate the affairs of the custom-house, are only try- ing my brother, Edward Curtis/' L. WILSON. Sworn before me, this 1 7th of December, 1841. COR. MATHEWS, Commissioner of Dues, and acting as such, under the Investigating Committee. DD. [private.] New Yorx, December 12, 1838. Mr Dear Sir: I have your private letter of the -9th. I believe I have complied with all that you require, but I am not certain. If not, be pleased to let me know. I have written so much in relation to Price's affairs, that I have not time to resort to my books, and I certainly cannot recollect. More- over, my book of " correspondence with the law officers" is up at Butler's house, who took the oath of office to-day. He wanted to postpone it un- til to-morrow, but I pushed him up to the work to-day. I now feel greatly relieved. I have had an awful time of it since I have been in office. Send me a copy of the Secretary's report on Swartwout's affairs as soon as published. Will Congress now see the necessity of legislation ? In haste, &c. J. HOYT. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor, fyc. Extract of a letter from J. Hoyt, Collector at New York, to H. D. Gilpin, Solicitor of the Treasury, dated New York, Wednesday evening, De- cember 12,183S. I have now stated the two points in your last letter, which I did not allude to this morning. There is one other of a consolatory character which I ought to thank you for reminding me of ; that is, that " these troubles are good for me." I have no doubt you have heard the Presi- dent say, for I have heard him say similar things under similar circumstan- ces, that the outrageous flogging we got in this State this fall would be of great benefit to us. I like the benefit," but I abhor the flogging] I might make a similar reply to your morality on the subject referred to. The "good" I am thankful for; the " troubles'* I will dispose of the best way I can. God knows I am no stranger to them, and have not been, either as "man or boy," for forty-five years; nevertheless,! appreciate your kind feel- ing for the suggestionsthat naturally grow out of the occasion, and I thank you sincerely for them, because I know you feel and mean what you say, and there- fore I know how to appreciate it. The declarationof the great poet, that Rep. No. 669. 257 "it is a d d bad world we live in, and the fewer we praise the better,*' was never more happily illustrated than in the scenes of the last and present year. But I am amused with Mr. Butler ; he is so terrified at the iniquity of the age, that he has made up his mind not to receive a dollar of the public money, but he intends to make me receive all, and I am quite apprehensive that he will not receive even his own costs. I am quite sure he will not receive halt* as much as he will be entitled to. I shall lecture, him on this subject, as well with reference to his own benefit as the public in- terest; for if there is not a reasonable penalty imposed upon commercial negligence, punctuality ceases to exist. Under Swartwout, the first houses in reputation were in the habit of letting their bonds lie over for days, and that habit was of so general a character it did not affect their standing or credit, even if was known ; and after the suspension of specie payments, when the bonds were collected at the custom-house, it was not known, if they did lie over ; and hence I have been frequently charged with a desire to benefit the district attorney, when I sent the bonds to his office, in pur- suance of instructions and the law. EE. Examination of John M. Winant and J. C. Robertson, referred to in the report of Geo. Poindexter and fVm. A. Bradley. Question. Where is your residence and what is your occupation ? Answer. I reside in New York, and am a blacksmith by trade. Question. What is the usual price of iron work, both wrought and cast \ and what has been the price of such work as is furnished in the new cus- tom-house at New York ; and has there been any material alteration in the prices during the period from January, 1837, to January, 1842 ? State, if you please, particularly what is and has been the fair market value for the articles of shutters, sashes, doors, chain bars, anchors, cramps, &c, of the kind alluded to. Answer. The price of iron is somewhat less now than it was in 1837, and it has been gradually diminishing since that time. Wrought iron is about one cent and a quarter less per pound than in 1837, and cast iron about one half cent per pound. The prices of the articles such as are fur- nished in the New York custom-house, which I have seen, would, for wrought iron, be as follows : For shutters, about eighteen and a half cents per pound ; and the sashes with them would be worth about the same. Wrought-iron doors of the weight and quality furnished to the custom-house (which are very heavy) would be worth about the same price ; all the common doors are worth about twelve and a half cents. The iron work, consisting of railings in the inside of the custom-house, and of the quality furnished, was worth, in 1837, about twelve and a half cents; it could now be furnished at about ten cents per pound. The prices which I should affix to ail the articles at the two different periods would be as follows : In 1837. In 1840. Doors, (the labor being the principal value) - 18£ cts. 184 cts. Sashes and shutters, do. do. - 184 18| Iron railing, inside 121 10 258 Eep. No. 669. In 1837. In 1840. Chain bars, (supposed to be cramp anchors.) of English iron, not keyed - Sets. 6cts. If keyed ------ 10 8 Anchors, cramps, &c. - - - - -8 6 Chain bars, if keyed, made of Russia iron, would be worth about two cents per pound more. The Sub-Treasury vault in the custom-house is worth about 182 cents per pound. The outside railing of the custom-house is worth about eight cents per pound ; and the desk stands the same price. JOHN M. WINANT. Having read the examination of Mr. J. M. Winant, and examined the work at the custom-house, I fully concur in the statements contained in his testimony. J. C. ROBERTSON. FF. Letter of Edward Curtis to the Secretary of the Treasury preferred to in the import of Geo. Poindexter and Wm. .2. Bradley. Collector's Office, New York, March 14, 1842. Sir : An inquiry has been made, respecting the causes which have pro- duced the great increase in the expense of collecting the revenue in this district. In selecting two periods between which to make a comparison, I take the last, year as being one, during part of which the office of collector was held by me, and 1829, as being sufficiently remote to include in the interval the various circumstances which it will be necessary for me to detail. The total amount of duties collected at this port in 1829 was ------- #13,052,676 36 Ditto in 1841 ------ 10,802,119 94 Excess of 1829 above 1841 - 2.250,556 42 The expenses incurred in collecting in 1S41 were - #598,435 61 Ditto in 1829 ------ 212,531 07 Excess oi 1S41 above 1829 - 385,904 54 The question, then, is, why it cost #385,904 54 more in 1841 to collect duties #2,250,556 42 less than 1829 ? The great increase of business at this port since the year 1829 has caused more than a corresponding increase in the expense of collecting the revenue. The number of importing merchants has more than doubled, and the in- creased facilities of commerce and correspondence offered by steam navi- gation have induced them to increase the number and diminish the extent of their orders — so that the merchandise, which formerly came in invoices of * from 20 to 50 packages, now comes in invoices of from 2 to 10, thereby Rep. No. 669. 259 increasing largely the number of entries for the same quantity of goods, and producing more labor and more cost in every department of the reve- nue system. I have ascertained, from actual examination, that the total number of entries during the year 1841 was - 42,324 Ditto in 1S29 ------- 19,559 Excess in 1841 - 22,765 But it should be noted, that on the 1st of July, 1841, an alteration was made in the system of entries, by which free and dutiable goods, and owners and agents' goods, were allowed to be included in the same entry, instead of separate entries being required for each of these classes. The effect of this alteration has been to reduce the number of entries to one-half of what they would have been under the former system. If, then, we sup- pose the business of the year to have been equally distributed through its four quarters, the fair mode of stating the number of entries for the pur- pose of this comparison would be, 1.4,108 for each of the two quarters be- j tween January 1 and July 1, and 7,054 for each of the subsequent qnar- I ters, and 14.108 must be added to 42,324, the actual number of entries — I making the amount of business indicated thereby nearly three times as great as it was in 1S29. The tonnage of vessels entering this port in 1841 - - 549,279 The tonnage of vessels entering this port in 1S29 - - 281,511 Excess in 1841 - 267,76S This is a very important item in the account of increased expenditure. Each vessel must be placed under the charge of at least one inspector; ?nd, in the case of packets and steamships, two or more are frequently required. And, in addition, each requires the services of a weigher, gauger, or meas- urer, or all three of these officers, if the cargo includes articles to be weighed* gauged, or measured ; and each vessel arriving at night must be placed un- der the care of another officer, called a night inspector. In proof that the expenditure is not regulated by the amount of duties collected, but by the number of persons from whom it is collected, by the frequency of their entries, and by the number of arrivals, I presume that these statements may be deemed conclusive. But the character of the tariff at these respective periods is an important element in the inquiry. Of ad valorem goods, I take a single item as a specimen. In 1829, cloths and cassimeres paid 40 per cent, before and 45 per cent, after June, 1S30; in 1S41, they paid 38 per cent. Of goods paying specific duties, and imported largely, I select a few, as being sufficient for my purpose, and state the value imported of each in 1840, by the annuaL statement of the Treasury: 5 280 Rep. No. 669. * Articles. Va'ue T")ntv in 1 ft2Q Thilv in 1 ftd 1 u u i v in ion. lVlOldooro - - $9 Qnn nnn ,yuu,uuu Sugar, brown - 4,740,000 3 cents 2£ cents. Sugar, white 830,000 4 cents 3§ cents. Bar iron, rolled - 1,707,649 $37 $30. Bar iron, not rolled l,6S9,S3l #1 12 90 cents. Salt 1,015,426 20 cents 1 cents. And it must be recollected that this deficiency in the duties of 1841, as compared with those of 1829, was increased by the operation of the com- promise act, which took off four-tenths of the difference between 20 per cent, ad valorem and the specific duty. But this comparison is peculiarly important, when applied to the class of free goods. By the following table it appears that, in 1S40, seven classes of merchandise, valued at $32,850,000, were imported freeof duty, which in 1829 would have paid duties amount- ing to $17,165,000; and on that same valuation the duties of 1829 upon other articles, free in 1840, would have raised the result to the enormous sum of $20,000,000. Table of seven classes of merchandise exempted from duty in 1840, with the value of the imports of the same article in 1840, [taken from the Treasury report, rejecting the fractional parts of $10,000,) the rate of duty in 1829, and the amount of revenue which would have been collected in 1840, if the tariff of that year had been the same as 1829. Articles. Value. Pounds. Kate. Revenue. Teas - Coffees - - - Fruit - Spices - - - - Silk and silk and worsted goods Worsted stuff goods Jitnens and other manufactures of Iiemp and flax - $5,410,000 8,540,000 1,200,000 550,000 10,000,000 2,380,000 4,770,000 19,981,476 94,996,095 22,809,704 8,464,795 35 cents* 5 cent* ^ Different rates 20 per cent. - 25 per cent. - 25 per cent. - $6,993,500 4,749,800 C 886,200 I 748,000 2,000,000 595,000 1,192,500 32,850,000 17,165,000 * In 1829 teas paid as follows : Teas. In American vessels. In foreign ves- sels. Remark. Bohea ----- Souchong, &c. - - - - Imperial, Sic. - - - - Hyson, &c. - - - - Hyson skin - 12 cents 25 cents 50 cents 40 cents 28 cents 14 cents 34 cents 68 cents 56 cents 38 cents [35 cents is probablj j under the average. J Rep. No. 669. 261 Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the value of the respective im- ports in 1841 was the same as that of 1840, and that the proportion of the whole amount which was imported into this district in each year was the same — -that of 184 ) being 56 millions out of 107, or say one-half — the ef- fect upon the relative duties collected in 1829 and 1841 would be thus: Actual collection of duties in 1841 - - - $10,S02,119 94 Add one-half of the additional amount which would have been collected if all the dutiable goods of 1829 had re- mained dutiable in 1841 - 10,000,000 00 Actual collection of duties in 1829 ... 13,052,676 36 Excess of 1S41 above 1829 .... 7,749,443 58 If to this excess were added that which results from the diminished du- ties iu the ad valorem and specific classes, the duties of 1S41 would be found to be nearly double those of 1S29. I will add, as a curious fact in connexion with this inquiry, that the whole number of arrivals from Canton in 18^9 was six, paying $880,608 duties ; fin 1S41, was fourteen, paying $38,718 duties; and that vessels from Can- Iton in 1829, paying duties of $100,000 to $200,000, having few owners, and of course requiring but few entries, demanded but little labor, and oc- cupied [no] more than one folio of the import book ; whereas a packet from England or France, in 1841, paying duties of $40,000 or $50,000, will sometimes require seven folios. But the increase of value is not, in itself, a sufficient criterion for the de- cision of this question. The law requires one package out of every invoice, and at least one package out of every twenty, to be sent to the appraisers' store for examination. From the causes already mentioned, the importa- tions, although greater in amount, are smaller in detail, and, consequently, the number of invoices has increased in a disproportionate degree. This adds largely to the labor required, makes a demand for increased vigil- ance, and requires a greater numerical force in every department of the I custom-house. The cost of cartage of goods to the public stores, and of labor done after they are received, is now paid by the United States, and swells the charge of collecting the revenue. This was not the case in 1829. At that time these charges were paid by the importer ; but as it was in protection of the interest of the Government that goods were sent to the public store, and as the merchants complained of the exaction, the Secretary of the Treasury directed that they should be paid out of the receipts of the customs. But even if it should appear that the amount paid for salaries, &c, had increased to a degree more than corresponding with the increase of busi- ness, it would be accounted for [by] the following circumstances : It was ascertained, some years since, that the sums annually received by the clerks were inadequate to their comfortable support, under the enhanced rates at- tached to all the necessaries of life ; and that they were under the tempta- tions offered by pecuniary rewards from the merchant, for exhibiting pref- erences in the despatch of business. To remedy this evil, the salaries were moderately increased, and imperative orders issued that no compensation should be received from the merchant, for the rendering of any services con- nected with the regular business of the custom-house. I have been vigil- ant in efforts to detect any violation of these orders ; and am convinced that none of the clerks receive any private compensation. The amount of clerk hire and the general expenses of the establishment 262 Rep. No. 669. have also been increased by the extention of the number of light-houses. In lS29,only twelve were under the superintendence of the collector of this district. In 1S41 the number had been increased to twenty ; and these in- volved a large amount of labor, and required a multiplicity of accounts. Previously to my term of office, there was no department in the custom- house for the examining of the calculations and extensions of the invoices. These were uniformly taken as correct, ; but the evils and dangers of this course having been suggested to me at an early date, I made the requisite arrangements for a close scrutiny of every invoice which has been present- ed for entry. These arrangements have been sanctioned by the Secretary of the Treasury. Seven clerks have been continually employed in this duty for several months; numerous errors in favor of and against the revenue have been detected ; and the fact that such examination is made cannot fail to secure greater accuracy on the part of shippers and importers. -Another cause for the increased expense of collecting the revenue is found in the circumstance that the existing tariff, as modified by the com- promise act, differs in its character from that of 1S29, in the complexity of the details requisite for ascertaining its results. We are now obliged to keep and render separate accounts and abstracts for plain glass, cut glass, wine, wool, and woollen yarn, a labor which was formerly unknown. Be- sides, the calculating the duties on an entry, which was formerly a simple process, is now complicated by the necessity of deducting so many tenths from the excess over 20 per cent. ; which more than doubles the number of figures employed in each calculation ; and the necessity of exhibiting the re- sults of the gradual reductions in the import books adds at least one-third to the complexity and labor of the duty performed by those who keep them. In estimating the expenses, relatively, of 1S29 and 1841, it should be recollected that, during the first period, the Government owned the build- ing in which the revenue was collected, and paid a very small rent for stores ; while, in IS41, the necessities of the service required that various buildings should be hired, at a rent of $25,000 ; and that in 1841 there was an extra expenditure of about $16,000 more than in 1S40, in the item of " revenue cutters," for a complete repairing and refitting of the schooner Jackson, with the intention, as was supposed, of equipping her as an arm- ed vessel for a distant cruise. In connexion with this inquiry, I would suggest that in England the charges for collecting the customs for the year ending January 5, 1833, ■were as follows : Civil department jes64,S37 Harbor vessels - 5,420 Cruisers - 145,774 Preventive service - 341,978 Land guard 1S,352 1,376,361 And the official value of imports for the same year was £43,237,417. The expense of collection, therefore, is within a fraction of 3± per cent, on the value of imports; while the value of imports at New York, in 1S40, was $56,845,924, and the expense of collecting $560,201 02, or a fraction less than 1 per cent. In England, the civil department alone costs 2 per cent, upon the value. Kep. JNo. (569. 263 The total value of importations into the United States in 1840 was $107,000,000 ; the total expense of collecting $1,800,000, or nearly 1$ per cent. ; while the expenses of collecting in the same year $57,000,000 at this port, was a little less than 1 per cent. I should have mentioned, in connexion with the statement of tonnage entering this port in 1829 and 1841, that the arrivals from foreign ports were, in 1S41 - 2,125 And in 1829 - 1,199 Excess in 1841 ------- 926 The principal differences between the expenses of 1S29 and 1841 will :be found in the following items : Object of expenditure. In 1829. In 1841. Inspectors, &c. - Appraisers - Revenue boats - Revenue cutters - Rent, &c, of custom-house* $140,987 98 10,197 S5 5,888 40 19,801 OS $323,053 48 87,669 83 12,2S4 75 40,433 27 13,544 73 176,875 31 476,986 06 In 1829 no night inspectors were appointed. There are now 81, each receiving $545 per annum. I am convinced that the security of the rev- enue requires that they should be retained. The increase of the number of vessels arriving at night, together with the enlargement of the district within which business is transacted, render me unwilling to recommend the discontinuing of the employment of this class of officers. The various circumstances which I have stated to illustrate the great increase of the business of this port since 1829 appear to arford a satisfac- tory explanation of the increase, to the amount of $300,000, in the items just quoted; and the same circumstances, together with the advance in the rates paid to the clerks, respectively, and the necessary increase in their numbers, will account for the remaining $S5,000 of excess. I respectfully submit these facts and observations, in proof of the cor- rectness of my opinion, that there is no propriety in adopting the amount of revenue collected as a criterion for determining the cost of collecting it I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient, servant, EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. • Being the amount of rent, exclusive of the stores occupied by the appraisers ; the rent of them being included in the second item. 264 Hep. No. 669. CORRESPONDENCE. Governor Poin dexter to Walter Forward. Philabelphia, October 23, 1841. Sir : The interview which I had with the President on Wednesday- evening last, in your presence, related more particularly to the organiza- tion of a new hoard of commissioners, to continue the investigations, here- tofore authorized, into the affairs of the New York custom-house. That matter being settled, we withdrew from the room before I had an opportu- tunity of a full conversation respecting the restoration of Joseph R. Bleecker to the office of assistant cashier in the custom-house, who was removed to make room for the brother-in-law of Mr. Kelley, one of the commissioners. My opinion of this act of the collector, and of the causes which produced it, has been made known in ex te?iso, both to the President and yourself. I need not now repeat that opinion. But having been left in doubt, by the very brief remarks of the President, as to the course which is to be taken on the subject of restoring Mr. Bleecker, I deem it proper to inquire of you,, in advance of my arrival in New York, whether this individual, so un- justly removed from office, under circumstances, to say the least, of doubt- ful integrity and purity of motive on the part of the collector, is to be re- stored to his former office or not ? I ought to have made this explicit inquiry before I left Washington, and should have done so, but for the clear impression which rested on my mind, from repeated conversations previously had with the President and yourself, that this act of the collector would be rebuked by replacing Mr. Bleecker in the office from which he had been expelled without cause. This is a matter involving considerations paramount to the personal mer- its of tha officer removed or of the present incumbent. On that branch of the subject, I might rely on the testimonials already furnished to the Presi- dent, and on file in your Department; but I leave it entirely out of the case, and shall regard the question as one of official responsibility, disrobed of all extraneous considerations. I gave my official pledge to Mr. Bleecker,. and to the other officers of the customs, that in case he or they testified fully and honestly, before the commissioners, as to the conduct of the sev- eral collectors under whom they had served, each officer so testifying should be protected from removal. I was authorized to give this pledge by Presi- dent Tyler. Mr. Bleecker gave important testimony, and was removed very soon thereafter, with a certificate of good behavior ! I made an offi- cial communication of the facts, as they were known to me, (and I certainly would state none on doubtful authority,) respecting this extraordinary ex- ercise of power by the collector, to the President. The same facts have been since repeated to him in conversation, on several occasions, as I sup- posed, with effect. But it seems that my official letters have been traversed, and the collector, on whose conduct I reported under my commission, ha& been appealed to, to admit or deny their verity. I understand the President to say that he (Curtis) charged the removal. Rep. No. 669. 265 of Bleecker and the appointment of Wells on Mr. Ewing and Mr. Kelley, and promised further explanations, which he alleged would be satisfactory. His own letter of removal to Mr. Bleecker is a direct contradiction to the whole of this statement. You can readily refer to the copy of that letter in your possession, and you will find that the reason given by Curtis for the removal is, that he desires to have his own friends near to his person in the offices connected with the custom-house. He says nothing about any or- der from the Secretary of the Treasury or Mr. Kelley. But although I have abundant proof of the corruption which entered into this transaction, I deem it wholly inconsistent with my official relations with the President and the Treasury Depart ment to make up an issue of fact on this or any other subject with the collector whose conduct it became my official duty to investigate, as one of the commissioners, and on which I am required to make a faithful report. If the accuracy of any statement of fact made in mv official letters is doubted, I am an unfit person to hold the parchment of the Executive one single moment. But, above all, it may be regarded as clearly inadmissible to ask the guilty party whether his judge has present- ed an impartial statement of facts. If my official reports, made within the powers granted by my commission, are to be thrown back before the de- linquent officers, to test their truth or falsehood, I must say I do not envy such employment. You will readily perceive that the future inquiries of the commissioners - must depend very much on the evidence of the custom-house officers. If they can implicate the collector, will they do it at the hazard of incarring- his displeasure and removal from office? In some mode or other he will hold up this terror before them. If I should, by authority, pledge the Government for their protection, what will be the conclusions at which they must arrive ? Why, you promised to protect Mr. Bleecker. He has been removed, and is not reinstated. We may share the same fate if we rely on your assurances. I will add only one other reflection, which strikes my mind on this sub- ject. Should the collector and other officers of the customs be induced to believe that my representations are not treated with respect at Washing- ton, and acted on accordingly, I can be of no service as a commissioner in New Fork. If Bleecker is not restored, what other conclusion can they draw ? I take no interest in these individuals, so far as they are personally con- cerned; but the case is strongly impregnated with official corruption, and deeply concerns me, as one of the commissioners, from the course which it has taken. I therefore most respectfully ask an early answer to the in- quiry, Will Joseph R. Bleecker be restored to the office of assistant cashier in the New York custom-house, from which he was removed by Edward Curtis, collector of that port ? I shall proceed to New York to-morrow, and await with anxiety your reply to this communication. To renewed assurances of my high personal regard for President Tyler, and my sincere wish for the success and glory of his administration, I beg leave to add the great respect and consideration with which I am your friend and obedient servant. GEORGE POI^DEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward. • 266 Rep. No. 669. Secretary of the Treasury to Governor Poindexter. Washington, October 25, 1841. Dear Sir: Your letter, dated at Philadelphia, on the 23d instant, has just reached me. The Secretary of the Treasury has power to prescribe the number and compensation of clerks in the custom-houses, but possesses no authority to negative their appointment by the collectors. Acts of oppression, favorit- ism, corruption in the exercise of the appointing power, by collectors, may furnish grounds for removing them from office ; but that is a matter with which 1 have legally no concern, falling, as it does, within the proper ju- risdiction of the Executive. 1 thought proper to mention the case of Mr. Bleecker to him, and to advert to what was understood to be an assurance of protection to the clerks who would appear and testify before the com- missioners. His answer was substantially the same as that given to you at our late interview with him. [ will again call his attention to the sub- ject, and make known your views as to the necessity of restoring Mr. Bleecker without delay. In the mean time, I beg you, my dear sir, to give us the benefit of your talents and weight of character in a careful inquisition into the transac- tions of the custom-house. My confidence in the President is such as to preclude every doubt of his purpose to do justice to Mr. Bleecker and all others who may think them- selves aggrieved. He was, as you know, pressed every hour of the day by matters of urgent business, or the importunities of persons seeking pub- lic employment. He probably supposed that the case of Mr. Bleecker, however apparently clear, ought not to be decided without affording an opportunity to the collector of showing that his power had not been im- properly used. The delay in attending to the matter may be accounted for by the circumstances just mentioned, or perhaps by the fact that the President did not suppose that immediate action in the case was of much importance. But however it may have been, I am certain that his course will be such as you yourself will approve, because it will be honest and fearless. I am, dear sir, with the greatest respect, your friend and obedient ser- vant, WALTER FORWARD. Gov. Poindexter. George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, November 12, 1841. Sir: I had hoped the pleasure of a short conversation with you on your transit through New York from Boston, but the very limited time which you allowed yourself to remain here prevented it. I regret to say that all the anticipations contained in my letter to you from Philadelphia have been fully realized, since the commissioners commenced their investiga- tions. The v custom-house officers, it is true, are compelled to attend when summoned before us, but no one can mistake the fears which operate on their minds while giving testimony, or the equivocal manner in which they Rep. No. 669. 267 answer our questions. They are a disciplined corps. I feel no hesitation in saying that Mr. Curtis will, as far as practicable, shield himself from our scrutiny, by holding out the terrors of removal to any officer of the cus- toms who may give evidence against him. On this subject there can be no mistake. Bleeckeris not restored, and the rest look for the same treat- ment. A day or two ago we detected a most shameful intrigue on the part of the collector and his cashier, Mr. Waters, to blacken the character of Mr. Bleecker. by obtaining a certificate from George R. Ives, late an importing merchant, that, while Mr. Bleecker was assistant cashier, he had paid a consideration in money for facilities and services rendered to him at the custom-house by Mr. Bleecker. Mr. Ives was waited on twice by the cashier, to obtain the desired certificate, but not finding Mr. Ives at home, he left a message with the clerk at his counting-house, desiring his attendance at the custom-house immediately on his return. At that inter- view, which took place as requested, Mr. Waters, the cashier, swears that Mr. Ives stated, both to him and Mr. Curtis, that he had rewarded Mr. Bleecker, by advances of money, for holding back his checks, which were received at the custom-house as cash, in payment of duty bonds. Mr. Waters denied, on oath, having invited Mr. Ives for any such purpose, which is expressly contradicted by the clerk, Mr. Abbot, to whom Mr. Ives communicated the fact that he had gone to the custom-house on the business of preventing the reappointment of Mr. Bleecker. The same Mr. Ives, in August last, testified before the commissioners, in his record- ed evidence, that he never, at any time, advanced one cent to Mr. Bleecker for facilities in the discharge of his official duties. This attempt was made to fortify Mr. Curtis at Washington for the act of removing Mr. Bleecker and appointing the brother-in-law of Mr. Kelley. It has utterly failed, and the parties concerned in it stand in a worse condition than the party assailed. I may take occasion hereafter to enclose you extracts of the testimony taken in this matter. I deem it to be my duty, in addressing you officially, to do so with frankness and candor, withholding nothing and asserting nothing which cannot be demonstrated by proof. On our arrival in this city, it very soon became evident that we were unwelcome visiters to Mr. Curtis. The objects of the new commission were ridiculed in a print supposed to be friendly to the administration of President Ty- ler, which has been followed up by other articles abusive of the commis- sioners. These articles bear the ear mark of Edward Curtis ; and the facts and circumstances referred to in them could have been known only to the collector, or some one attached to the commission. It appeared somewhat strange that a commission, instituted by the President, should be ridiculed and abused by the Herald, while it professes to enter heartily into the sup- port of President Tyler. There is an incongruity in the circumstance, which can be accounted for only by tracing it to the influence and solicita- tion of the collector himself, who manifested great uneasiness as to his own position, if our investigations were pushed into his own conduct as collect- or. His first effort was made against a gentleman who has been extreme- ly useful to us, both in the former and present commission. He brought all his friends to operate on Mr. Bradley, to get this gentleman removed from the commissioners' room. Any attempt on me was deemed hopeless, as 1 had witnessed the value of Mr. Dwight's services, the person alluded to ; and similar attempts had been made, during the past summer, to pre- judice me against him, without effect. The fact is, Mr. Dwight knows too 268 Rep. No. 669. much about the custom-house and its officers not to be dreaded by the present collector. He brought the subject distinctly before the commis- sioners, who sustained Mr. Dwight in the position he occupied with the commissioners. It became necessary that he should, in some form oil other, operate on you, and procure the removal of Mr. Dvvight from the commissioners' room, either by your express order or by denying him a reasonable compensation for his services. What steps he may have taken to produce this result, which he so much desires, you are better informed than myself ; but, on yesterday, he wrote a note to the commissioners, in-! forming them that the allowance, by the former board, of Mr. Dwight's ac- count had been rejected at the Treasury. If this be a fact, I am sure it must have been done without full information of the acts of the former commissioners, and of the authority on which they acted. Mr. Kelley in- formed me that Mr. Ewing had particularly requested him to seek out Mr. D wight immediately on his arrival in New York, and, if possible, engage his services in some form or other, to aid the commissioners in their in- vestigations. Accordingly, Mr. Kelley, without consulting me, sent for Mr. Dvvight and employed him. I had no knowledge, at that time, of this gen- tleman, nor of the extensive information he possessed in custom house matters. I, however, very soon found that his services could not well be dispensed with ; in fact, the commissioners would have been entirely afc fault in searching out evidence of frauds and malpractices in the custom- house, but for the aid which they received from Mr. Dvvight. I was there- fore highly gratified that Mr. Kelley, in complying with the wishes of the late Secretary of the Treasury, had engaged him to give us his valuable assistance in the discharge of our duties. When we adjour ned, Mr. D wight applied to me to sanction his account ; which I refused, on theground that he had been employed by Mr. Kelley without my participation, and that Mr. Kelley was the proper person to settle his compensation. This was* done by an interview between Mr. Dvvight, Mr. Kelley, and the collect- or, and I then gave my signature of approval to his account, which wa» promptly paid by the collector, as a part of our contingent expenses. This allowance was approved by Mr. Ewing, and does not appear to me to be< an open question ; nor has Mr. Dwight any connexion, individually, with the collector or the Treasury Department. This charge was made against the commissioners, for services which they acknowledged, and its payment by the collector would seem to close the transaction. I make this statement that you may clearly understand the matter, and act on it according to your sense of justice and of official duty. I be# leave to add one single remark further. If Mr. Curtis succeeds in expel- ling Mr. Dwight from the commissioners' room, he will have effected alii that he desires for his own security, and it will be in his power to baffle the commissioners at every step of their investigations into his acts as col- lector. He would be glad to dissolve the commission if in his power, but he would certainly be greatly relieved if, in any manner, he could dissolve the connexion between Mr. Dwight and the board. I suggest, for your consideration, the propriety of corresponding direct- ly with the commissioners on subjects relating to their duties, or the limi- tation which you may deem it proper to place on their expenditures. The collector is under our examination, and, to answer his own purposes, he may make representations to you, for your government, which, when dis- closed, would by no means correspond with the views of the commission- Uep. No. 669. 269 ers. Permit me to say, that I have the fullest confidence that, when pro- perly informed, you will faithfully discharge your duties to the commis- sioners, to the Government, and to the country. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, GEO. POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward, ^ Secretary oj the Treasury. George Poindexter to the President. New York, November 13, 1841. My Dear Sir: I should have done myself the honorof addressing you,, at Williamsburg, on the subject of our investigations into the affairs of this custom-house, but I feared my communications might draw your attention to matters of minor consideration, while you were employed in the more important concerns of the nation over whose destinies you preside. Under- standing you were to reach Washington on yesterday, I deem it proper to put you in possession of the progr ess which the commissioners have made, and are making, in the discharge of the objects of their commission. I informed Mr. Forward, by a letter from Philadelphia, of the probable difficulties which might arise in obtaining the testimony of custom-house officers, if they were not fully assured that they would be piotected Irom removal by the collector All the anticipations expressed in that letter have been fully seen and felt, and, I fear, will prevent a satisfactory de- velopment of the action of Mr. Curtis, who manifests great anxiety to get rid of the commission, and so dicipline the officers under his control as to prevent any disclosures which might implicate the purity of his official conduct. I give it to you as my decided opinion, that the official letters of Mr. Curtis to the Treasury Department cannot be relied on, and ought not to be made the foundation of any action at that Department, so far as this commission is concerned, until the commissioners are consulted and their views taken in relation to such communications. Immediately on our arrival in this city, certain articles appeared in a newspaper, regarded as friendly to your administration, evidently written or dictated by Mr. Curtis, deprecating the return of the commissioners, and endeavoring to throw into ridicule the efforts which we might make to elicit testimony in relation to the fraudulent practices which have existed, and which do now exist, in the custom-house. Mr. Curtis exhibits great uneasiness for his own safety, whether with or without cause we are not yet sufficiently in- formed, but it is evident that he dreads a full and fair investigation into his own conduct as collector. He is particularly anxious to deprive us of the aid and assistance of Mr. George A. Dwight, whom he dreads, be- cause he has a more accurate knowledge of the sources from which testi- mony may be drawn, and of the secret movements of the collector and his adjuncts, than any other man in the city of New York ; and I candidly ad- mit that, without his assistance, the commission would make but poor progress in their investigations. He tried it with the commissioners, and failed. He then enlisted the influence of Mr. Webster, which was to be used on the Secretary of the Treasury in his transit through this city ; but the Secretary did not remain long enough with us to be assailed from. 270 Eep. IS T o. 669. that quarter. I understood that, to accomplish his object by secret means, he has written to some officer in the Department, but to whom I am yet uninformed, to disallow the compensation paid to Mr. Dwight for his ser- vices by the former board of commissioners, and to deny him any com- pensation for the services he is now rendering to the commission, and which cannot be dispensed with. I am informed, though I do not know the fact, that he has succeeded in carrying out his views in relation to Mr. Dwight, and has received instructions according to his wishes from Wash- ington. If this be a fact, I regret it, because it will at once baffle all our efforts to expose any errors which he may have committed, or any frauds he may have practised since he became collector of this port. I draw your attention to this matter as one deeply affecting the success of our in- vestigations. We have to contend against the arts and intrigues of the collector, who has under his control a disciplined corps of officers, who are in terror of his power, if they should testify against him. Some of these officers, and those who possess the best means and opportunities of the most accurate knowledge of the official acts of Mr. Curtis, are among the most corrupt old officers employed by Jesse Hoyt, the late collector, who are now continued in office, notwithstanding the collector admits they have been guilty of acts of corruption, of which we have proof in the jour- nal of evidence taken by us. We know that witnesses ate advised that we have no power to coerce their attendance, and many of them have refused to attend and give testimony. Others w r ho belong to the custom- house dare not refuse to attend, but in giving their testimony it is almost impossible to get the truth out of them. Thus situated, we need the sup- port of your power, through the Treasury Department, to enable us to proceed in the discharge of our duties with any sort of effect. I have given you this candid statement, that you may either bring the commission to a close, or leave the commissioners at full liberty to conduct the inves- tigation according to their own convictions of what is necessary to be done for the public interests. If we are interfered with by the Treasury De- partment, at *the instance of Mr. Curtis, it would be infinitely better to dissolve the commission. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant GEO. POINDEXTER. To the President. Secretary of the Treasury to George Poindexter. Washington, November 15, 1841. My Dear Sir: The leading inducement to my late journey was fresh air and exercise. The confinement, and most vexatious cares, to which I had been subjected for six weeks, made it necessary to indulge in a short respite. On my arrival in New York I sent for Mr. Curtis, and requested him to afford every facility to the commissioners in their researches, which he assured me would be done. It was my intention to remain a day or two in New York on my return homewards ; but the weather was threatening. I had been tossed on the sound till I was sick, and having no business, and knowing the pressure Rep. No. 669. 271 here, I hurried to my duties. 'My detention at New York would have an- swered no valuable purpose, and might have involved me in troublesome difficulties, among the conflicting parties. I had, moreover, entire confi- dence in the commissioners, and entertained no doubt they would prose- cute their trust impartially and firmly. This confidence has no abatement. The course of the Department in relation to Mr. Dwight's account has been misunderstood. There were obvious reasons, which will strike you at once, lor making the second commission a real extension of the first, and bringing its regulations, prescribed by the late Secretay. The charge of Mr. D wight was not embraced in the terms of that regulation; and, be- ing myself ignorant of the nature ol the services rendered, it was sus- pended for further inquiry. Finding it to be one of those incidental ex- penses necessarily incurred in the execution of the commission, Mr. Cur- tis has been since advised that it would be allowed. A like charge, in- curred in carrying out the investigation now in progress, will be deemed proper. 1 beg you to be assured that no doubt is entertained by me of the judgment or discretion of the commissioners in this regard. A complainthas been made, that Mr. Cuttis had been, or would be, de- nied the privilege of confronting and cross-examining the witnesses brought to impeach his official conduct. My wish and expectation is, that the in- vestigation should, as far as practicable, take the shape of a judicial in- quiry, and that the usual privilege should be afforded to the parties whose conduct may be brought in question. In saying this, I do not mean to im- ply that you are supposed by me to be disinclined to this course, but to apprize you of the fears of Mr. Curtis. Any attempts, by him or others in the public service, to deter clerks in the custom-house from disclosing malpractices, or rendering all proper assistance in bringing them to light, will meet the proper animadversion from the President ; and with regard to their fears of being removed by the collector, for acting uprightly and frankly in their intercourse with the commissioners, the President will as- suredly protect them from any tyranny of that sort. The facts communi- cated to the President, in the case of Mr. Bleecker, are not distinctly know r n to me ; but he has reasons for deferring any action upon it at pres- ent, which are satisfactory to himself, and would probably be so to you, if known. It is proper that I should mention to you that, in the opinion of the Pres- dent, the object of the commission is to explore the transactions of the custom-house under former collectors, and, if abuses existed, to ascertain what steps have been taken to correct them ; that, should any wrong spring up under the present collector, it can be examined hereafter. The President is very desirous that the labors of the commission should be brought to a close as soon as can well be done, in order that we may have an opportunity of looking into their report, before the meeting of Congress. I am, with great respect, yours, &c. WALTER FORWARD. George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. City Hotel, New York, November 20, 1841. Dear Sir: Your communication dated at Washington. 15th instant, is received. Rep. No. 669. I was under the impression that one of tfye chief objects to be attained by the renewed examination into the affairs oi the custom-house was to discover what modifications, if any , had been made by the present collect - or in the former practices, as they existed under Hoyt and Swartwout, and, by comparing the present with the past, to arrive at proper conclu- sions in respect to the reforms deemed necessary for the collection, dis- bursement, and security of the public revenue collected at this port, fall- in" within the range of the powers vested by law in the Treasury De- partment. But you inform me that, " in the opinion of the President, the object of the commission is, to explore the transactions of the custom- house under former collectors, and, if abuses existed, to ascertain what steps had been taken to correct them ; that, should any errors spring up under (he present collector, they can be examined hereafter." If it is the intention of the President to place this limitation on the action of the commissioners, our investigations will end in nothing more than an expo- sure of past transactions in the custom house, which may, and certainly ought to be, condemned, both by the Government and people of the United States. But the injury which has been inflicted by former collectors on the public interests and the moral character of the country is without remedy ; and therefore, unless we are peimitted to scrutinize the present practices prevailing at the custom-house, and the acts of the present col- lector, so as to compare them with former practices, we cannot reach the evils, or apply the remedy which would correct them. I have already, on several occasions, made known to you my opinions in relation to the influences which would operate to prevent the subordi- nate custom-house officers from giving testimony which might implicate the conduct of the collector. That these influences do operate cannot be doubted. On yesterday, the cashier of the custom-house, in a man- ner the most insulting to the commissioners, refused to answer interroga- tories propounded to him, and made a peremptory demand for copies of papers, which could not have been given him without a violation of our instructions from the late Secretary of the Treasury and of the uniform practice of the board. In fact, we could obtain no evidence from him, where the questions related to the conduct of the collector, or to his own office, as cashier. So the matter rests. Again: in order to facilitate our investigations, we made a request of the collector to furnish us, for our examination, with the original vouchers, covering certain large items in his cash transactions, with which the Gov- ernment is debited. He caused the auditor, Mr. Fleming, to write him a letter, refusing these original vouchers, and assigning his reasons for not complying with the order of the commissioners. In reply to a second order, in which the commissioners refer the collector to the words of the act of 1799, which makes it the duty of the collector to -exhibit to such person or persons as the President may appoint for that purpose all the books papers and accounts of the custom-house, he at- tempts an apology for sending us the letter of the auditor, begs us to re- turn it, and promises, in future, to give us free access to any original docu- ment which we may desire to inspect. It is evident that the letter of the auditor was intended to prevent all similar calls in future, but finding the law imperative on him, he resorts to the expedient of casting the blame on the auditor, acknowledges that the letter ought not to have been sent, and Rep. No. 669. snakes a request that it be returned to him, which request we have de- clined to comply with. I mention these facts to bring to your view the difficulties which we have to encounter in any attempt which we may make to obtain evidence from the custom-house officers, having the slighest bearing on the official conduct of the collector. You inform me, in speaking of these officers, that the " President will assuredly protect them from any tyranny of that sort,"" (removal,) the facts being established to show threats from the collector to prevent u disclosures of malpratices falling within their knowledge." You will at once perceive the impossibility of arriving at any conclu- sion, on a subject in which both the collector and his officers are interested, through any other channel than the cautious manner in which these officers testify before us, and their refusal, as in the case of the cashier, to answer interrogatories when the answers might implicate the collector. Any as- surance which we might give them of protection would not weigh a feather against the terrors of the power which the collector holds over them, with the case of Bleecker before them. If, as you inform me, the President is in possession of reasons for defer- ring any action on this case at present, which are satisfactory to himself, and would probably be so to me, if known, I deeply r egret that the com- missioners are not in possession of the charges which have thus operated to suspend the action of the President, because I take it upon myself to say, from a full knowledge of all the proceedings of the collector in relation to Mr. Bleecker, that all such charges, be they what they may, will turn out to be fabrications utterly unfounded in fact, and so the President will find it in the end. If the charges had been made known to us, we could have elicited the evidence on the subject, and left no doubt, either of their truth or false- hood, and thus place the matter at rest one way or the other. I beg leave to recall to your recollection a former communication of mine, in which I state to you that little or no confidence ought to be placed in any statements made by Mr. Curtis to your Department, in relation to the pro- ceedings of the commissioners. On yesterday, Mr. Curtis sent to us the copy of a letter addressed by him to you, in which is the following sentence : " I learned yesterday, before the arrival of Mr. Bradley, that a witness, P. V. Remsen, a clerk, whom I dismissed in the month of July last, had been called before the commissioners. I called upon the commissioners, and found that he had testified to a copy of a letter produced to him by Governor Poindexter, the original of which, the witness stated, he had written to Mr. Morehead, of the Senate, in August last, whilst my nomi- nation before the Senate was pending." The object of Mr. Curtis in making this statement to you was to make tne impression that I had called this witness to testify to the copy of a let- ter referred to in my possession, which I 11 produced" to the witness to verify the charge contained in it. He knew this statement to be false at the time he made it, because he had examined the testimony of the wit- ness, in which he states explicitly that he handed in the paper Jiimself to the commissioners. The facts involved in this communication of Mr. Curtis are singular beyond any thing of the kind which I have ever wit- nsesed. On the 16th of November, a witness testifies before the commissioners 274 Rep. No. 669. on a subject implicating the moral character of the collector. On the same day Mr. Curtis, before the witness had departed, carefully examined his testimony, in which is contained an answer setting forth that the paper presented by the witness was a true copy of an original letter written by him to Mr. Morehead, of the Senate, and that it contained the truth, the whole truth, and all he knew on the subject to which it related. On the day following, (the 17th of November,) Mr. Curtis informs you that I had "produced" this copy of the letter to the witness, to which he testified. On the day following, Mr. Curtis presented himself for examination, in relation to this same letter, and testifies, under oath, that the copy of the letter was furnished to the commissioners by Mr. Remsen himself. Com- ment on such perversions of the truth, by a high and responsible officer of the Government, would be superfluous. He writes on one day what he swears to be false on another, and which he knew to be false at the time he wrote it. If such a man is worthy of the confidence of the Govern- ment to collect two-thirds of its revenue, then I can only say that we may look out for another Swartwout or Hoyt concern. 1 annex an extract from the testimony of Mr. Curtis, in which he states explicitly that the copy of the letter was furnished to the commissioners by Remsen himself. Extract from the testimony of Edward Curtis, sivcrn to Nov. 18, 1841. u I had been previously furnished with a copy of Mr. Remsen's letter, by Mr. Remsen himself. That copy is now in my possession, but does not agree exactly with the copy furnished to the commissioners by him." The commissioners will, in all probability, communicate to you the whole of these proceedings in a few days. We have discovered, in the course of our investigations, that the extrav- agant bills for stationery, books, and pens, are the same under Mr. Curtis as they were under Hoyt, except in the departments of the custom-house over which he has no control. On the subject of the iron railing, and other iron work done in the new custom-house, we called lor information of the contract or contracts, and the items of these expenditures, more than ten days past, but no report has been made to us by Mr. Curtis. Whether we shall receive one or not before our adjournment is uncertain. If it is the desire of the President that we should adjourn without ex- amining strictly into the errors of Mr. Curtis, we shall probably close our examination on Saturday next. And my report on the past and present commission will be made as early as practicable after the meeting of Con- gress in December next. To make it at an earlier day would-be to do injustice both to myself and the President, who has confided this delicate and disagreeable duty to me. I have the honor to be your most obedient servant, GEO. POINDEXTER. Treasury Department, November 20, 1841. Gentlemen: After considering the subject of your letter of the 17th Rep. No. 669. 275 instant, with all the concern that is due to the interests of the Government, I am unable to persuade myself that the request of Mr. Curtis, to which you refer, is, in the main, unreasonable. With regard to his claim to be formally advised, beforehand, of the charges to be inquired into, if such be the purport of what I find in his letter to you, it does not strike me as en- titled to much weight ; nor can there be any objection to receiving com- plaints against him in his absence, whether supported by affidavits or not. It maybe further observed, that the disclosure of trivial delinquencies, that do not seriously affect his reputation as an officer, ought not to be consid- ered a ground for arresting the examination of witnesses until he can be sent for "and appear. But when charges are made, or facts brought unex- pectedly to light by witnesses, which, if true, would justify his removal from office, I think it but fair that he should be afforded the opportunity of being present, and have the privilege of cross-examination. The re- marks submitted are meant, of course, to apply exclusively to the instan- ces last mentioned. Now, it is true that the inquiry has been directed for the information of the Government, and with a view to a reform in the business and prac- tice of the custom-house. In this respect Mr. Curtis may be said to be a stranger to the proceedings. But when the investigation is made to bear upon his character as a man and an officer, he is necessarily a party to it, for the plain leasons that the reform, if any, that is expected to follow, will be his expulsion from office. Charges of suspicion, gross negligence, corruption, or any thing else, which, if veiified by proof, would lead to this result, cannot, in my opinion, be treated as matters in which he would have no just claim to be heard. If he had ceased to be an officer, and the effect of the investigation were limited to the correction of abuses in the custom-house, without in- flicting a heavy personal grievance upon himself, a less indulgent course might be proper. But he is in office. The real question at issue in the in- quiry may turn out to be, whether he shall be allowed to remain there, or give place to some one else. Tn this aspect of the matter, and under the limitations mentioned, it would seem to me that it comports with the equity as well as the credit of the Government to grant his request. The exercise of the privilege claimed will be under the authority and supervision of the commissioners; and it is not perceived that the evils likely to result from it are such as to recom- mend its denial. I am, gentlemen, with great respect, your obedient servant, W. FORWARD. Hon. Geo. Poindexter, Wm. M. Steuart, Esq., Wm. A. Bradley, Esq. From George Poindexter to the President. New York, November 22, 184K My Dear Sir : The instructions communicated by the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of the 20th instant, extending the privilege to Mr. Curtis to be present at our examinations of witnesses touching his official 6* Hep. No. 669. conduct, and cross-examine the witnesses, imposes on me the disagreeable necessity of requesting that if, in your opinion, a third commissioner is required in the future investigations of the board, you will make the ap- pointment as soon as your convenience will permit. I shall retire from the board from and after this day. It will require a week to make out a report of the evidence heretofore taken, and close my connexion with this unpleasant investigation. I might add many facts and circumstances relating to the means employed, both here and at Wash- ington, to embarrass our proceedings, from the moment we reached this city; but it would result in nothing useful to yourself or to the country at this time. This right, allowed to one custom-house officer, which has been denied by authority to all others, would effectually nullify all our antecedent proceedings, and subject the commission to ridicule, by those who would have an equal claim to that indulgence, to which no sufficient answer could be given. There are numerous custom-house officers whose conduct we have had occasion to investigate ; they have asked, and in some instances demanded, to be present and cross-examine the witnesses. They have been told that our instructions, and the nature of our commission, forbid a compliance with such a request or demand. If a new rule is to be estab- lished, it must be carried out by a new agent, so far as I am concerned. Having no personal interest or feeling on the subjects embraced in this commission, whatever may be my opinion of the interest which the Gov- ern merit and people have in its results, I make no complaint of this change in the manner of conducting our investigations, but desire only to be re- lieved from a participation in both systems, which are incompatible with each other. So soon as my report is completed, I shall return and deliver it to the Secretary of the Treasury. With my best wishes for your successful administration of the Govern- ment, I remain, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant. GEO. POINDEXTER. George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. City Hotel, New York, November 24, 1841. Sir: On the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, I had no alter- native left me but to withdraw from the commissioners' room. This step was not taken from any objection to receive and obey instructions from your Department, because it is my duty to do so under my commission, nor from the slightest disrespect, either to the Department or the President ; but I had acted on the former commission under special instructions of the late Secretary, and had taken a volume of testimony implicating the con- duct of officers of the customs of every grade, as well those who had formerly been in office as those holding office at the time, none of whom had been permitted to appear before the commissioners and cross- examine the witnesses, which was positively prohibited in our corres- pondence with Mr. Ewing, on file in your office. On the testimony so taken, I had commenced my report, and was continuing to close my duties as a commissioner with that document, when I am instructed, in respect to a single officer in the custom-house, to extend to him the privilege of Bep. No. 669. 277 appearing in person before us and cross-examine any witness who might testify to any fact relating to his official conduct. Had this been the original rule prescribed to the commissioners, I certainly could have had no possible objection to its execution, but it must at once strike you that I could not, with any degree of consistency, condemn officers in my re- port, against whose official acts we had taken testimony, such officers hav- ing been denied the privilege of cross-examination, and then turn round and say to another officer of the customs, you, sir, shall be made an ex- ception to the rule ; and thereby furnish to the officers who have been re- moved in consequence of our previous investigations, and such as remain in office, whose conduct I shall be compelled to censure, the strong ground of objection to our proceedings, that they had been condemned unheard, while a more highly favored officer had been allowed the very privilege which they had demanded, and which had been uniformly de- nied to them. I enclose to you a copy of the letter of Mr. Kelley and myself to Mr. Ewing, dated the 25th of May last, in which we explicitly ask instruc- tions on this very point of rebutting testimonj T and cross-examinations. The reply of the Secretary was full on that subject, but it has been ab- stracted from our files by some person having access to them, which obliges me to ask the favor of you to forward a copy to me with as little delay as practicable. The course taken by Mr. Curtis in regard tcmyself, which was wholly unprovoked by me, for on all occasions, whatever may be my opinion of his official integrity or moral honesty, has been impartial and cautious > leaves me no ground to doubt that his communications, both to yourself and to the President, will convey information wholly unfounded in fact, plausible but deceptive ; and, unless proper caution is observed in the estimate which may be placed on these communications, I may have reason to repent that I ever consented to return and complete the exam- inations in which I participated under the former commission. From the moment of our arrival in this city we were assailed in no measured terms by the New York Herald, and circumstances referred to which could be known only to the collector and those persons who were attached to the commission. My information is, that Mr. Curtis made use of a young man who was secretary to the former board, then in this city, to cause these articles to be inserted, so as to protect himself from the direct imputation of having given them to the editor himself. I told Mr. Curtis my belief, as 1 have communicated it to you, on this subject; headmitted the fact that the information had been given to the editor by our late secretary, but shielded himself by a denial of having requested him to do so. He has exhibited symptoms of great uneasiness from the time the commissioners reassembled. His object has evidently been to delay our investigations until we should be compelled to give them up or to destroy the commission altogether ; and, if this could not be done, to embarrass our proceedings, so as to protect his own conduct from a full examination. I give you these things in perfect candor, without caring, individually, whether Mr. Curtis be sustained at Washington or not. 1 am aware of the strong support which Mr. Curtis relies on, from a high public functionary near the person of the President ; perhaps I know the foundation of the anxiety felt in that quarter to sustain the col- lector ; but of this it does not become me to speak at present. 278 Bep. No. 669. If I may be allowed the privilege of a prophecy, I venture to predict that whenever Mr. Curtis leaves the office of collector of this port, he will leave it a public defaulter, if that should happen to-morrow ; and I cannot de- ny the evidence of my own senses when the fact is so obvious to me, that the same corruption, limited at present to be sure, which existed under the col lector ship of Hoyt, is to be seen in full practice in the custom-house at this time. It has been kept in check by the commission, and by a more rigid system of instructions from your Department, but so soon as these restraints are withdrawn or forgotten, it will resume its wonted vigor. These are my opinions, candidly expressed, without fear, favor, or affec- tion, and I desire only that they may be taken for what they are worth. Your remarks respecting the effect of testimony implicating Mr. Cur- tis, " for oppression, gross negligence, corruption, or any other thing which, if verified by proof, would lead to his expulsion from office," are perfectly just; but then it cannot be denied that the same result would fol- low, if like proof has been given concerning any other officer of the cus- toms ; and even-handed justice would require, if a new rule is to be adopt- ed in respect to Mr. Curtis, that all who have been implicated by the tes- timony heretofore taken, and who have suffered in their official and moral character, should have the privilege of calling before us the wit- nesses who have testified against them, for the purpose of cross-examina- tion. We ought not to make u fish of one and flesh of another." This is my sole objection to the rule, save only the vast accumulation of unim- portant testimony it would occasion, and the protracted period to which our labors must have been extended by these numerous cross-examina- tions, criminating on the one side, and recrimination on the other. Had it been, as I have said, the original mode of examination prescribed at the Treasury Department, there could exist no possible objection on the part of the commissioners, or any one of them, to your instructions in respect to a single officer of the customs. But he is made an exception to all others, and therein lies difficulty. I have already frequently given you my opinion that this officer would be sufficiently protected by the sys- tem which we had adopted of furnishing him with full copies of ail testi- mony charging him with official malpractices, and putting to any such witness or witnesses the questions which he might draw out in writing and hand to us, to be propounded. 1 regret that, at the close of this tedious and troublesome business, any thing should have occurred to in- terrupt its harmonious conclusion. The collector has now free access to our room, and to all the papers on our files. The Boston Press, devoted to the interests of Mr. Webster, and professedly of the President, is well informed of all that occurs in the office of the commissioners, and is excessively abusive of us, but more especially of myself. Whence this information has been derived it would be folly to doubt. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, GEO. POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward. Rep. No. 669. 279 George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, November 30, 1841. Mr. Poindexter presents his respects to the Hon. Mr. Forward, Secre- tary of the Treasury, and has the honor to return to him the letter of Mr. Young, enclosed to Mr. P. in an envelope, under the frank of Mr. F. The letter of Mr. Young refers to a correspondence of which Mr. P. has no knowledge, and which the records of Mr. Young's office will show could not have existed. On the 25th of May Mr. Steuart was not a mem- ber of the commission, and did not become a member of the board for nearly one month thereafter. The paper desired in the communication of Mr. P. was a copy of an official answer of Mr. Ewing, late Secretary oi the Treasury, to an official letter, addressed to him by Messrs. Poindexter and Kelley, on the 25th May, a copy of which was enclosed to Mr. F. If Mr. Ewing kept no record of his official letters, then it will be impossible to show the real character of his instructions to the commissioners, prescribing the mode in which they should conduct their examination of witnesses. The next best evidence which can be resorted to is the correspondence of the commissioners, referring to these instructions, addressed to every person who applied for the privilege of being present to cross-examine witnesses. These are abundant, and clearly demonstrate the character of the instructions received from Mr. Ewing. Mr. Poindexter renews to Mr. Forward assurances of his high respect and consideration. George Poindexter to the President. New York, December 12, 1841. My Dear Sir : I have been detained in this city for the last four or iive days by indisposition, which rendered exposure to the weather dan- gerous to my health. But I have not been idle; having, with the assist- ance of a friend, made considerable progress in preparing my report to be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury on my arrival in Washing- ton. It has also been useful for one of the commissioners to remain and receive depositions on interrogatories which had been sent out and not re- turned. I forbear at present to make any comment on the proceedings of the •new commissioners, who, according to the express letter of their appoint- ment, were required to examine into the affairs of the custom-house, " past and present." Every thing relating to this subject is in writing, and no one can be misled as to facts by garbled or interested statements. From the moment of my anival here, in October last, 1 have been assailed by the press recognised by public opinion as the organ of your administra- tion, to a certain extent ; and occasionally the whole commission have re- ceived its denunciation. The privilege allowed to the collector to be present at our sittings has enabled him, among other things, to furnish certain papers, here and at Boston, with an account of what transpires from day to day in the com- 280 Rep. No. 669. missioned 1 office, having the semblance of truth, but tortured and mis- represented so as to answer his purposes, and bring certain members of the board, whom he cannot influence, into contempt and derision; and all this is effected through the press of that administration under whose ap- pointment we have acted ; and if our labors result in any thing of value to the country, they will, to that extent, illustrate your fame and the char- acter of your administration. This may, and no doubt would, surprise any one not well acquainted with the secret springs by which this ma- chinery is moved. But, for the present, I will add nothing more on this branch of the history of this commission. I think I have a right to credit the sincerity of the friendship which has so long subsisted between you and myself; at least, consulting the pulsa- tions of my own heart, and knowing that my friendship for you has never faltered, under any and every circumstance, I should do you, I am sure, great injustice, to doubt, for a moment, your ready response to the feelings which occupy my own bosom. It has been my custom, and I see no pro- priety in departing from it on the present occasion, to speak on all sub- jects to you with perfect frankness and candor. I have repeatedly said to you thac whensoever I might discover any thing in your conduct calculat- ed to weaken my confidence in you, either in public or private life, you should be the first person to whom I would communicate the fact. I shall never depart from this rule of action ; and so long as I remain silent, I hope and trust you will rest satisfied that I stand towards you precisely as I have heretofore done. I make these remarks, not to deprecate even your displeasure, while I am conscious that it is not merited ; but my purpose is to apprize you that I know perfectly well the workings and dark intrigues of a clique^ who will employ all the secret engines of perfidy and deception, not to enlighten your mind by a candid representation of facts, but, by u falsehood most foul," and smiles most deceitful, to lead you into the grossest errors, for their own individual benefit, even though it should lead to your inevitable downfall. This clique will assail me in the public journals, and you will be cautioned against reposing confidence in one of your most steadfast, unyielding, and enduring friends. 1 know the men — I know their cor- rupt motives — 1 know the means they intend to employ to save themselves and to destroy me. I am armed at all points, and ready to open the war whensoever they may think proper, provided it is done openly, and not un- der the protection of official confidence. I have addressed to you these remarks, that, at a future day, I may re- cur to them, if it should become necessary, in my own vindication. But it is the farthest thing in the world from my intention to intimate a belief that you could, under any influences which might be brought to bear upon your mind, lend a listening ear to any evil minded counsellor who might secretly seek to make an impression by means which he would not dare publicly to avow. 1 enclose you a slip from the New York Herald, a paper of which it is not necessary to express any opinion, but which is regarded here as en- joying the favor of the President. I am wholly unacquainted with the editor, and have never communicated any matter for publication in his journal. I can, therefore, have no possible feeling of hostility towards him, nor can he entertain such feelings towards me, having given him no cause to do so. The slip which I have cut out of his paper this morning Rep. No. 669. 281 is not his production ; it is a continuation of the communications made through that channel, by Mr. Curtis, your collector at this port, to bring into disrepute in the eyes of the American people, your commission, in- stituted to investigate his official conduct. The paragraph is the offspring of the head of the New York^custom-house, and does not contain one word of truth, except in that part which refers to Col. Steuart as having become the voluntary bearer of despatches, records, books, and pa- pers, from the commissioners' office to the Department of the Treasury. In all this there is nothing very remarkable, except the secrecy observed towards the other commissioners in this movement, and the snow storm which sprung up, to the great annoyance of all travellers by night. When I became informed of the departuie of Colonel Steuart, and his purpose. I at once accorded my approbation to the transfer of these books of cor- respondence to a place of security out of the jurisdiction of the State of New York; but, had I been consulted, I should have thought it best to place these volumes within reach of the commissioners until your pleasure should have been known in relation to them. But I make no complaint of their immediate transfer to the Treasury Department, and am happy to learn through this paragraph that it meets your approbation. Beyond this particular fact, noticed in the slip, there is not a single sentence having even the semblance of truth. The collector, Curtis, in furnishing this statement to the Herald, dis- played his usual cunning, by attempting to conceal himself under a mis- statement of the number of volumes taken to Washington by Colonel Steuart. u The commissioners (says he) got possession of some five vol- umes of correspondence of Jesse Hoyt." Now, the fact was well known to Mr. Curtis, that fifteen volumes were sent by him to the commissioners' room, and he makes this false statement to elude observation, as every one acquainted with the transaction is well aware that he knew the pre- cise number of volumes in the possession of the commissioners. The veil is too flimsy to conceal him, especially as I know that he furnished the material for this paragraph. There can be no mistake about it ; and this 1 am ready to verify. The idea that Mr. Steuart, in a few hours, read fifteen volumes of evi- dence is amusing enough. But let that pass. Our attention had been drawn to these volumes of correspondence during our sittings under the first commission. We then believed them to be important to our investigations, and seeing many of the official letters of Mr. Hoyt, and the replies to them, published in a newspaper of this city, we, on the 28th June, addressed a letter to Mr. Curtis respecting the manner in which this correspondence found its way into the newspapers, who replied to us, on the same day, that he was informed and believed that Mr. Hoyt retained the u most of his correspondence with the various Departments of the Government and it is worthy of remark that, at the very time Mr. Curtis wrote this reply, the fifteen volumes of correspond- ence, which are now safely deposited in the Treasury Department, were in his own office, or in an adjoining office, and most probably in the room occupied by Curtis himself. It appears by an official correspondence now before me, obtained by the commissioners from the custom-house, that, in a very few days after Mr. Curtis had denied that there was any official correspondence of Jesse Hoyt in his possession, (to wit, on the 7th July, 1841,) he addressed a letter, as collector, to Jesse Hoyt, late collector, in 282 Rep. No. 669. which he alleges, by the authority of Mr. Gillelan, that Mr. Hoyt retained in his possession his official correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury, a miscellaneous official correspondence of the collector, and his correspondence with the law officers of the United States during his official term. To this allegation Mr. Hoyt replied, u that Mr. Gillelan is entirely mistaken. It is true several of these volumes are in the auditor's office, and I believe go regularly down to the vault every night, and they are now in the box in which they go up and down to that vault daily He further says " that Mr. Hone, a deputy collector, called on me for one of the volumes, and seemed to consider it as my property, and offered to return it. I told him they were not mine, but belonged to the office ; and so I have always considered." Again : Mr. Fleming, the auditor of the custom-house, testifies, under oath, that these fifteen volumes of correspond- ence have been constantly in the possession of the collector. It remains to be explained how Mr. Curtis, who fills a high and respon- sible office, which he holds at the pleasure of the President, can justify himself to the Government, and to the moral feeling of the American people, for having, on the 28th June, 1841, officially communicated to the commissioners that Mr. Hoyt, when he left the office of collector, had taken with him the whole, or nearly the whole, of his official correspond- ence, and, on the 7th July following charges that apart only of this cor- respondence was in the possession of Mr. Hoyt, who promptly responds that he has not, and never has had, any part of his official correspondence ; that the whole of it is in the collector's office, or in that of the auditor, immediately adjoining ; and that he had set up no claim to it as his private property, nor did he intend to make any such claim : and, more fully to de- monstrate, if it were necessary, the falsehood contained in the letter of Mr. Curtis of the 28th June, Mr. Fleming, the auditor, was called on, who proves, in the most explicit terms, that these books of correspondence had been at all times in the possession of Mr. Curtis, and at no time ab- sent. It is my deliberate opinion that the recent demand made by Mr. Hoyt, since these books were put into the possession of the commissioners, was a plan concerted between Hoyt and Curtis, the collector, to furnish the latter with some pretext on which to found an apology for the naked falsehood contained in his letter to the commissioners, in which he asserts that Mr. Hoyt left no official correspondence in the office at the time he withdrew from it. I would not, with the lights before me, undertake to assert positively that this whole secret movement, respecting the transfer of the fifteen vol- umes of correspondence to the Treasury Department, was concerted be- tween Curtis and the commissioner who took them to Washington, but I will state that such is my belief, which I have strong reasons for enter- taining, and that the whole farce was played off for no other purpose than to whitewash the collector, if possible, and thereby secure his continuance in office. Why did Mr. Hoyt make a formal demand of correspondence, the title to which he had explicitly renounced in his letter of the 8th July to the collector? Why did Mr. Curtis deny, on the 28th June, that any such correspondence was in his possession ? These transactions carry on their face strong features of collusion and fraud, and I will here take occasion to add, that, if these volumes of cor- respondence had been supplied to the commissioners during their session last summer, it would have saved the Government thousands of dollars Rep. No. 669. 283 and the commissioners great labor, in searching out evidence, which would at once have appeared in the official letters of Mr. Hoyt. But the fact is undeniable, that a close intimacy has existed between Hoyt and Curtis since the induction of the latter into office ; and that they have continually played into each other's hands is too notorious in New York to admit of the slightest doubt. On the contrary, with professions of a sincere desire to promote the investigations of the commissioners, I aver that Mr. Curtis has, from the beginning, smothered up every thing in his power, and thrown every difficulty in the way of our obtaining testimony. In this he was sustained throughout by Mr. Kelley, for causes of which you have been long since informed. 1 forbear to speak of recent events at present, because it is my wish to close this commission in peace ; but there are facts which I shall not hesi- tate to disclose at a future day, should I find it necessary, to place my own conduct in a clear light before the public. Mr. Curtis stands convicted of falsehood on the journals of the com- missioners. Under his own oath, he gives the lie direct to a statement on the same subject made to the Secretary of the Treasury. The evidence is in the hands of Mr. Forward, and can be shown to you if desired. There are numerous other instances which I could mention, and which, perhaps, I may mention hereafter, of the grossest falsehood of this officer of the Government, in his correspondence with the Department at Wash- ington. I may possibly call your attention to this subject on my return to the seat of Government. I shall have it in my power to be more explicit, in reference to the of- ficial acts of Mr. Curtis, in the report which I am preparing for the Secre- tary of the Treasury ; but I could not forbear, as I had taken up my pen, to give you the foregoing plain summary of facts, which do not depend on my word, but on the official records of the New York custom-house, and are therefore beyond the reach of controversy. It is, perhaps, due to candor to state, in conclusion, my firm conviction, drawn from premises too imposing to be lightly treated, that if, under any circumstances, you should be induced to maintain Edward Curtis in the office of collector in the port of New York, it will result in affixing a dark spot on the tablet of your administration. I hope in this, I may be mista- ken ; but it would be treachery and deceit on my part to withhold from i you my clear conviction that you will ultimately find it true to the letter. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. Extract from the New York Herald. " Blown and Flown. — We mentioned a day or two since that the custom-house commissioners had left for Washington. President Tyler thought they had been here too long, and had the same intimated to his ex-excellency Governor Poins and his associates. It seems that, about a week since, the commissioners got possession of some five volumes of cor- respondence of Jesse Hoyt, from the custom-house. Mr Hoyt, in a letter written to the commissioners, demanded their restoration as private prop- erty ; to which a majority of the board were about to accede. Mr. Steu- art, who had examined them, seeing the importance they were to the Gov- 284 Rep. No. 669. ernment, and fearing they might be replevined, with great promptitude immediately departed with the books for Washington, and deposited them in the Treasury Department, where they properly belonged. The Pres- ident and Secretary both approved of this course of Mr. Steuart, and re- quested him, on his return, to close the commission. " These are the material facts, as far as they have come to our know- ledge. " We believe it is in contemplation to reward ex-counsellor Dwight for bis important services with a special embassy to the Fegee islands." George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New toRK, December 14, 1841. Sir: It becomes my duty to acquaint you of the fact that, in the early part of the past week, I suffered under the effects of a severe cold, accompa- nied by nervous headache and fever, which rendered it dangerous to my health to leave my room, as any exposure to the weather would have increased my illness, and thereby prevent altogether my attention to busi- ness. I have kept in-doors, and occupied myself as far as practicable in preparing my report on the evidence taken by the commissioners in their investigation into the affairs, past and present, of the New York custom- house. I have made considerable progress in this report, which will be completed with as little delay as the importance of the subjects to be touched, and the voluminous papers to be examined, will permit. My im- mediate return to Washington without having closed this last duty, de- volving on me as one of the commissioners, would be productive of still further delays, and of confusion in the chain of thought which is indis- pensable to a clear understanding of my views, and of accurate reference to testimony; all of which is highly important in a document which is in- intended for the use of your Department, and for the information of Con- gress and the country. I hope, therefore, that you will concur with me in the opinion that the public interests will be promoted, and the termination of this long-protracted investigation hastened, by pursuing my analysis of the evidence to its conclusion without interruption, before 1 proceed from this city to Washington. I would remark that the subjects which will be brought to the view of the National Legislature by the report are connect- ed with vaiious modifications of the existing revenue laws, which will be suggested by the evils which have in a measure sprung up under the pres- ent system, and therefore will, in all probability, not be acted on by Con- gress earlier than the next spring. It is certainly more to be desired that the report should be accurate in all its details, and well matured, than that it should be hastened to gratify public curiosity. I beg you to be as- sured that whatever can be effected by untiring industry and vigilance shall be done to bring the onerous duties with which I have been charged to a final, and, I hope, satisfactory termination. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant. GEORGE POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 285 George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, December 17, 1841. Sir : You will perceive, by the enclosed note from Mr. Thruston, sec- retary of the commission, that the answers to interrogatories put by the commissioners to E B. Huntington, an assistant appraiser, appointed by your predecessor, were handed by him to Col. Steuart before he left this city for Washington. These answers not being on file, the secretary called on Mr. Huntington for a copy of them, in order to enable him to make up his record. The copy being furnished, I deemed the answers to be unsatisfactory and evasive ; and therefore caused them to be returned to the witness, for more perfect answers. It becomes my duty, therefore, to enclose you a copy of the letter of Mr. Thruston to Mr. Huntington, and his reply, declining to give more full and complete answers. I make no comment on the character of this reply, because you cannot mistake either its arrogance or the insulting manner in which he gratui- tously refers to me in the conclusion of his note. I anticipated, before I reached this city, that it would be impossible to obtain any evidence from the custom-house officers, under the control of Mr. Curtis, without adequate authority from Washington to coerce them. My reasons for entertaining this opinion have already been fully made known to you, and my predictions have been more than verified. To this instance of the insolence of the subordinates of Mr. Curtis, I will add that, finding it necessary, in making out a comparative statement of the expenditures of books and stationery made under Mr. Hoyt, and those recently made by Mr. Curtis, I caused the secretary to apply to the auditor, Mr. Fleming, for a statement of the prices paid by him for blank and printed books, and the number of each purchased since Mr. Curtis came into office. | He replied that he would not furnish the information desired, alleging, as a reason, that he did not recognise my authority to call for it. You will find, by casting your eye over my first commission, to which the second refers, that the commissioners are authorized to proceed in the execution of their commission "jointly or separately." The collect- or, under whose orders Mr. Fleming has acted in this matter, is in possession of a copy of my commission, and therefore could not be ig- norant of my right to call for this information. One of the objects to be accomplished by my remaining in New York was to perfect the testimony already begun by interrogatories which had not been answered before my colleagues returned to Washington. Several depositions have been sent in and delivered to the secretary, and more are expected in a few days, to complete the examination of witnesses commenced, while all the members of the board were present. A call was made on Mr. Curtis, by an order of the board, for samples of the books purchased for the use of the custom-house since he came into office, which he did not answer in a full and satisfactory manner ; and for that reason 1 thought it my duty to call again for the information, which has been denied to me by this subordinate officer of the custom-house. I chronicle these events for your information, and for future reference,, if it shall become necessary, without intimating any opinion as to the course which ought to be taken towards these officers. I have no wishes 1 286 Rep. No. 669. distinct from the performance of my duties to the Government — no feelings of a personal character to gratify — but in all things am perfectly content to leave every matter, connected with the conduct of the officers of the cus- toms, to the judgment of these to whom they are responsible. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary to Gov. Poindexter. Treasury Department, December 23, 1841. Sir: Your letter of the 14th instant, on the necessity of remaining in New York on account of ill health, &c, was duly received. Any course which you may think most conducive to the public interest, under the cir- cumstances mentioned, in regard to the preparation of the report of the commission, will meet with my entire approval. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, *W. FORWARD, Secretary of the Treasury. Hon. George Poindexter, Neiv York. George Poindexter to the President. New York, December 26, 1841. My Dear Sir : It is due to my own honor and sense of propriety, as well as to the very high respect which I entertain for you, to notice another of the unprovoked attacks made on me through the Herald newspaper of -this city, purporting to be a letter from the correspondent of that paper at Washington city. The letter was written either by the collector or some one employed by him for the purpose, or the materiel furnished from that quarter to the letter writer in Washington. I will simply say, in general terms, that there is not one single word of truth in the letter, so far as it relates to myself. The object of the collector from the beginning has been to break up the •commission or shorten its labors, so that his conduct might not be fully ex- posed. But if this could not be effected, ( in which he has, however, suc- ceeded to a certain extent,) his next object was to provoke a personal altercation with myself, and thereby weaken the report, which I shall feel bound to make to the Treasury Department, in relation to the moral turpi- tude and malconduct of that officer of the customs. On one occasion, after I had become informed of a gross falsehood written by him officially to Mr. Forward, which contradicted his own testimony given before the commis- sioners under oath, he made his appearance, as he always did, without ceremony, in our office, early the next morning. He offered, in a very bland manner, to speak to me. I rejected his hand, and being provoked by some remark of his, I was induced, in a moment of excitement, to use very strong language to him personally, and ordered him never to offer to speak to me again. This I regretted, not because he did not deserve it, but because, on reflection, 1 perceived at once his purpose in assailing my Rep. No. 669. feelings to be, what I have before referred to, first, to raise a personal difficulty with me, and then refer to it to weaken the force of my report , on his conduct. He has the same object in view in the use he makes of the Herald to annoy my feelings and excite me to take some notice of the miserable falsehoods which he causes to be published concerning me. It is not my intention to take any notice whatever of these vulgar and unwarrantable attacks, but to go on and perform my duty, as I always have done, faithfully and impartially. My purpose in remaining in New York has been two fold : first to com- plete the record of the testimony which the Secretary was ordered to do by a resolution of the board, and to receive outstanding depositions which had not been returned when the other commissioners left here ; secondly, to facilitate the completion of my report, which, you may rest assured, is not the work of a day — having to explore several volumes of testimony, and prepare statistics, which required both time and labor to render accurate, and place all my views in strict accordance with the evi- dence in all respects, so that I might not be subjected to corrections at a 1 future day. To accomplish these purposes 1 remain here, and shall con- tinue without intermission to draw out my report, so as to make it accord, in every particular, with the evidence as it is recorded. But if the suggestions repeatedly made through the Herald, concerning your wishes, coming, as they profess to do, from Washington, should be correct, there can be no difficulty in transmitting the evidence to Congress, as the originals are with the commissioners at the Treasury Department, and my report will be handed in when it is completed, in a manner satis- factory to myself, and, I hope, when it is seen, to you and to the country. You are well enough acquainted with me to know that I can never con- i sent to pass any thing from my hands in an imperfect state, always deem- ■ ing it more important to discharge my duties laithfully than to number the : moments which it requires to do so. I will add one word as to the reasons which influence me to remain here, rather than proceed to Washington and attempt to finish my report there. At this place, I have a private room, entirely undisturbed by the presence of any other person than my amanuensis; and every opportunity is afforded me of quiet and careful examination of all the subjects on which I have to report. In Washington, the room assigned to the commission- ers in the Treasury Department would be continually occupied by all the commissioners and their clerks, which would utterly defeat all my efforts s in perfecting the report with that care and caution which is essential to render it of any value. These considerations have brought my mind to the conclusion that the public interests would be promoted by remaining in New York until my report is finished, which I hope will not occupy many days, as the most difficult parts of it have been nearly completed. But if my presence at Washington can be of any avail, 1 am perfectly willing to return and do the best I can to close my views of the testimony in that city. The expense would be the same here and at Washington ; and consid- ering the facts before stated, together with the impossibility of obtaining a private apartment at Washington, either in the Treasury building or at the Capitol, where the committee rooms are all occupied, I shall, unless 288 Rep. No. 669. otherwise directed by you, remain where I am until my duties are ended as far as practicable. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. His Excellency John Tyler. Geo. Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, December 27, 1841. Sir : I have had the honor to receive your letter under date of the 23d inst. It is very evident that my labors can be closed more speedily, and with greater accuracy, in this city than at Washington. I could not, in the commission room, surrounded by five or six persons, dictate a report to my amanuensis ; nor could I give to the testimony that critical examina- tion which is essential to a proper exposition of its nature and character. My purpose is to serve the Government and country ; and I may truly say that I entertain no selfish views, having undertaken this most unpleasant duty by the particular desire of the President, at the sacrifice of my own private pecuniary interests, and of that peace of mind, arising out of a faith- ful discharge of my duty, which at my time of life is very precious. I find my- self abused, misrepresented, and calumniated, in the most scandalous manner, in certain prints which profess to sustain the administration of President Tyler, while I am laboring with untiring assiduity to fulfil the task assigned me by that administration, and if possible to correct evils which have heretofore existed, and which still exist, in the custom-house of this great emporium of commerce, and thereby protect the public revenue, and illustrate the fame of our most excellent Chief Magistrate, This is a strange state of things, brought about, in a great measure, as I know, by the intrigues of the collector of this port, and certain adjuncts, who desire to shield his conduct from strict investigation, and maintain him in his present position. I shall, never theless, fearlessly and faithfully meet the difficulties which surround me, and unfold to the Government and people of the United States the truth as it is recorded in the evidence taken by the commissioners. I can perceive no necessity for continuing the commis- sion a moment longer ; no new testimony will be taken, and the report of the commission, or any member of it, can be handed in when it is com- pleted, so that the whole may be ready to answer a call of Congress im- mediately after the holidays. The small compensation which I receive, as a commissioner, forms no part of the consideration which impels me to devote my whole time to the discharge of the trust which 1 have undertaken ; and I should be better satisfied to remain here, at my own expense, until I am ready to report, than to subject myself to the miserable imputation cast at me by dema- gogues, and a venal press, that pecuniary reward or the crumbs of ofhce are the causes of the unavoidable delay which must take place before these duties can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I thank you for the confidence which you are pleased to repose in ray Rep. No. 669. 289 idelity to the public interest. I beg you to be assured that it is duly appre- ;iated, and no effort of mine shall be wanting to fulfil your just expectations. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary to Geo. Poind exter. Treasury Department, January 6, 1842. Sir : You will receive herewith ten volumes of the correspondence of J. Hoyt, belonging to the custom house of New York. These books were received from Colonel Steuart, one of the commis- sioners, together with four other volumes, which will be returned in a few days; and having been obtained by the commissioners for the custom- bouse, it is thought proper to forward them to you, in order that they may be returned to the possession of the collector. With great respect, your obedient servant, W. FORWARD, Secret ary of the Treasury. Hon. Geo. Poindexter. The Secretary to the Hon. George Poindexter. Treasury Department, January 7, 1842. Sir : The President is exceedingly desirous that the report of the com- missioners should be prepared and submitled as soon as possible, and Messrs. Steuart and Bradley being now in Washington, he has instruct- ed me to request you to return here, for the purpose of conferring with them and completing the report. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, W. FORWARD, Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. Geo. Poindexter, New York. Geo. Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, January 8, 1842. Sir : I have been delayed in perfecting my report for the past week, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Dwight, who was compelled to visit Washington to obtain the originals or copies of the official cor- respondence of Mr. Hoyt, which had been removed, without my know- ledge or consent, by one of the commissioners. I still entertain the opinion that the volumes of correspondence sent by the collector to the commissioners were transferred to Washington by a concerted plan of operations between the collector and Hoyt ; and that one great object was to prevent my having the use of them. They might have been placed out of the reach of the process of re- 290 Rep. No. 669. plevin, and still have been accessible to the commissioners ; but no one believed that a State law could, under any circumstances, operate to de- prive the Government, lor a single moment, of the possession of the archives properly belonging to any department thereof. The books, how- ever, have been removed, without consultation, and without the order of the commissioners. Will they be returned, so that 1 can use them ? My information is, that the commissioner who removed them made an effort to retain them ; but, failing in this, he still keeps possession of four volumes, which, he is well aware, contain the correspondence which will be useful to me. He has had ample opportunity to explore this corres- pondence, and take memoranda of every material part of it, or even to have had copies made ; and 1 doubt very much whether, in point of fact, he is making any use of it at all, the object being to prevent its falling into my hands. Jn this state of things, your interposition, by a positive order, is indispensable, if it be intended to afford me an opportunity of illustrating facts already proved before the commissioners, by a reference to the official letters of Mr. Hoyt corresponding with these facts, and tracing the transactions of the collector to the real motive in which they originated. If such an order is not given, I have reason to doubt whether the com- missioner who has the four volumes will deliver them ; and even with such an order it might be doubted, as that individual, who had locked up in his private trunk most of the valuable documents belonging to the former commission, said, in presence of all the persons attached to the commission, after our return to New York, that, " if the Secretary of the Treasury had ordered him to deliver up these papers, he would not have obeyed it." I draw your attention to this subject particularly, to show you the many embarrassments which have been thrown in the way to protract the con- clusion of my duties as one member of the commission, and respectfully to ask that they may be removed, so far as it relates to the correspondence of Mr. Hoyt. I could make a very satisfactoiy report from the evidence, without the aid of the disclosures made by Mr. Hoyt himself; but it is evident that these disclosures, connected with the evidence, would render the whole subject more clear and conclusive. I have understood, though I have received no such communication officially, that the expense attending the commission was closed by your order some days past. This step I had the honor to recommend soon after Mr. Bradley and Col. Steuart left this city, for reasons then and and since made known to you. If the order is to be enforced in respect to all the commissioners, 1 should be glad to be informed of it. Mr. Dwight is expected to-morrow', and if possible I will complete my report in the coming week, and forthwith return to Washington. i have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, GEO. POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 291 George Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, January 11, 1S42. Sir : Your letter of the 7th instant was received on yesterday. I do not wonder that the President should desire the report of the commissioners to be prepared and submitted as soon as possible ; and whatever may be his anxiety on this subject, it cannot surpass my own ; for, to say the truth, I am heartily sick of this business. The lenor of your letter, however, leads me to infer that the President is not informed of the multiplied embarrassments thrown in my way, to delay the completion of my report ; although some of them, of no small im- port, were in progress at the date of your letter, and were not overcome without great difficulty. I beg you to assure the President, if he needs any assurance to that effect, that I shall neither trifle frith my own duty to the Government and country, nor with the confidence which he has reposed in me ; but I must be permitted to execute the trust according to my best judgment, and to hasten my labors to a conclusion as speedily as untoward circumstances and a just regard to the public interest and my own honor will enable me. Is the President acquainted with the fact that I am incurring heavy ex- penses, out of my own private purse, by remaining in New York to pre- pare my report ; and that, in doing so, I am actuated by no other motive than to give a clear exposition of the condition of this custom-house, "past and present/' so that he may stand justified in the eyes of the American people for having instituted this commission, and more especially for its renewal after the first investigation had closed ? What selfish motive can possibly be ascribed to me in spending my own time and money in fulfilling a task so unpleasant and thankless as the ex- posure of individual frauds on the Treasury and the malpractices of men in office, whose influence overshadows my own ? I shall indeed rejoice when the last word in my report is written : and now that I am put in possession, for the first time, of Hoyt's correspond- ence with the Treasury Department, which was so improperly removed from the room of the commissioners, I shall lose not a moment in bring- ing my labors to a close. I have been delayed ten days by the absence of this correspondence. As to conferring with Colonel Steuart, I have had enough of that. Mr. Bradley has had no connexion with the investigation until the return of the commissioners, and, so far as his knowledge on the subject extends, I have no doubt that he would candidly impart to me his views, without re- gard to personal considerations. I shall submit my report to him, before I offer it at the Treasury Department. Without entering further into this matter, I will add only an earnest re- quest, that, before any steps may be taken by the President in relation to this investigation, he will seek information from some other quarter than the New York custom-house or the pledged advocates of the present col- lector. It would give me great pain, after all the sacrifices I have made in the performance of this duty, by the particular desire of the President, to be brought, by the insidious intrigues of others, into collision with my old friend President Tyler, to serve whom, both in public and in private life, there is no sacrifice which I have not at all times been prepared to make. 7* 292 Rep. No. 669. But of one thing you may assure the President, that I shall fearlessly and faithfully perform my duty, without regard to consequences. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTEK. Hon. Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury. G forge Poindexter to the Secretary of the Treasury. New York, January 23, 1842. My Dear Sir: Your favor, post-marked January 21st, is this moment received. The books to which you refer were delivered to me by Mr. D wight, and are now in my possession. The delay which has taken place in the preparation of my report was in a great measure occasioned by the act of Col. Steuart, in taking these books to Washington, on his own re- sponsibility. They have been useful to me, and perhaps the use I make of them may enlighten the Government on some of the abominable corrup- tions committed by Hoyt at this custom-house, with the knowledge and ap- probation of Mr. Woodbury and the whole Government at Washington. I do not think that it is at all incumbent on you to pay the least atten- tion to the letter of Mr. Hoyt, on this or any other subject, as h'e is regard- ed on all sides as the most degraded man in New York — a peculator of the worst description. Under what color of right can he open a correspond- ence with you on the subject of these books, when he has, more than six months since, expressly stated to the collector of this port (Mr. Curtis) that he had no claim to them, and only desired occasionally to look into them for particular letters. There are some curious facts, showing collusion be- tween Curtis and Hoyt about these books, which will be noticed in my report. We shall keep them only a few days longer, and then they will be delivered to Mr. Curtis, which is about the same thing as if they were delivered to Mr. Hoyt. I take occasion, while answering your letter, to say to you that some small expenses have been incurred by myself, acting separately from the other commissioners, in clerk hire, stationery, &c, and you will greatly oblige me by sending me your authority to approve the bills (separately) for payment at the custom-house. I expect to return in the course of this week, even if I should not have entirely finished my report. While it is copying, I can complete any views which may remain unfinished. At all events, I shall return to Washing- ton on or before Saturday next. I should suppose it somewhat irregular to send into Congress a partial report from the commissioners, when the whole will be ready in so short a time. Col. Steuart seems to be very restless to have his war with Judge Betts promulgated in the shape of an official manifesto. He may be gratified in oue week more, if he will have patience. It is about an equal fight, and I take very little interest in the result. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant. GEORGE POINDEXTER. Rep. No. 669. 293 George Poindexter to the President. Washington, February 5, 1842. My Dear Sir : Understanding from the Secretary of the Treasury that my presence was very much desired in Washington, I determined to leave New York before my report was fully completed; but I have advanced so far that, in a few days, the whole of my views, or a condensed analysis of the testimony, will be ready for delivery. The original testimony has been deposited at the Treasury Department some time since. I have made two or three efforts to pay my respects to you in person without success, and feel some diffidence in obtruding myself upon you without a special appointment, when I may be assured of an audience without intrusion, and without interruption to your more important duties. Can you, in some form or other, let me know when I may wait on you ? I shall be most happy to present and read to you, if you shall have leisure for that purpose, my report, so far as it has gone, and the residue when it may be completed, and I shall be still more gratified if these views shall meet your approval. The public anxiety, both in and out of Congress, to have this report pub- lished, appears to be very great, arising partly from curiosity and partly from a deep solicitude, which has been repeatedly expressed to me, to ob- tain my exposition of the affairs, past and present, of the New York custom-house. I fear that the expectations which have been in some manner created, of the value of this document, may be disappointed ; but I promise you, and all others who may take an interest in these matters, that in all things I shall represent the evidence given before the commissioners honestly, candidly, and fairly; and, so far as the officers of the customs may have been implicated, 1 shall " nothing extenuate, or set down aught in malice. 99 Accept assurances of my best wishes and friendly salutations. GEORGE POINDEXTER. His Excellency John Tyler, President of the United States. r Vhe President to George Poindexter. Washington, February 8, 1842. Dear Sir : Your letter of the 5th is before me, and I can but express my regret that I should have been denied the pleasure of seeing you upon your last call ; but my time at the moment was occupied by consultations with some of the members of the Cabinet. As to your report, I anticipate much pleasure and information in perus- ing it, when it shall be finished. I fear, however, that 1 cannot give time in the day to its examination, as every moment I have during the day is occupied ; but I will take it with me to my chamber at night. The Congress are in motion, and have been for some time, in relation to your investigations ; and I have before me this morning a resolution adopt- ed by the House upon that subject. I am pleased, therefore, to learn from you that the report will be completed in the course of two or three days. Accept assurances of regard. JOHN TYLER. Governor Poindexter. 294 Rep. No. 669. George Poindexter to the President. Washington, February 9, 1842, My Dear Sir : I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 8th, in reply to mine of the 5th instant. Your regret at. the failure of my effort to obtain an interview with you immediately after my return from New York cannot be greater than my own. I could have explained to you more fully the causes which have intervened to delay the comple- tion of my report in a personal interview than in a hasty correspondence, You do not speak of such an interview as a matter desired by you at this time ; and your silence on that subject leaves me to infer that you do not consider it necessaiy on your own part ; but, if I am mistaken in this infer- ence, I should be most happy to be corrected. You are pleased to express the auticpation of "much pleasure and infor- mation in perusing my report, when it shall be finished but your time is so continually occupied during the day, that you suggest the idea of taking it with you in your chamber at night. I hope you may not be disappoint- ed in the estimate you place on the value of this document ; it will cover the whole ground of our examinations into the frauds and malpractices which have prevailed and do still prevail at the New York custom-house,, and which, in my judgment, ought to be reformed. But I cannot flatter myself that the benefits resulting from these labors will correspond with the hopes which I entertained in the commencement. Causes have sprung up, well calculated to dampen my expectations when I undertook the arduous and delicate duties of investigating the official conduct of the officers of the customs at the port of New York ; but what- ever can be done to bring these matters fairly before the Government and people of this country shall be fearlessly and faithfully attempted, in clos- ing my connexion with the commission which you instituted for the pur- pose. These causes I would greatly prefer explaining to you privately, rather than to be compelled to bring them before the public gaze. The alter- native is under your control, and will be conformed to your wishes, when made known. You inform me that 44 Congress are in motion, and have been for some time, in relation to your [my] investigations;" and that a resolution is be- fore you, adopted by the House of Representatives, on that subject, and therefore are pleased to learn that my report will be completed in two or three days. The resolution of which you speak has no relation to my pro- ceedings, or of the other commissioners, as no call is made for the evidence, but simply for the power under which the commission was created, and the expenses attending it, and the fund out of which they have been paid. The answer to this resolution must of course be confined to the call, and will not embrace my report or that of my colleagues, or the evidence taken by the commissioners ; when these shall be called for, I am ready to furnish my opinions on all the subjects brought before the commission at any moment. I am aware that misrepresentations, intentionally made to mislead you, have emanated from the guilty custom-house officers and their accomplices, and fear that, to a certain extent, they have been successful. This I deeply regret, because harmony between the appointing power and the agent is indispensable to give effect to the investigations, when they shall be commu- nicated to Congress, and through that body to the public. Kep. No. 669. 295 You must be sensible that, without union of action, no beneficial results can be expected from any disclosures, made under the commission, of cor- ruption in the collection of, and peculation on, the public revenue received at the custom-house in New York, where two-thirds of the imposts of the country are collected. You cannot expect that those who hold office, and whose conduct forms the subject of investigation, will deal candidly with you in their representations of that conduct, or speak favorably of any com- missioner whom they cannot bend to their own purposes. Fidelity in the agent to examine into their official acts is the worst crime, in their estima- tion, which such agent could commit. But however it may be in their power to bring to their aid influences which overshadow my own, I can- not be deterred from the independent attitude which I have occupied, and shall continue to occupy, in placing their conduct in bold relief before the Government and country, whatever may be the responsibility or personal injury I may incur in the performance of this high duty. The idea that I have unnecessarily delayed a report to the Secretary of the Treasury, by any one of the commissioners, is utterly fallacious and unfounded, which I am ready to verify, and shall verify, when it may be- come proper to do so. I find in a letter written from this city by a corres- pondent of a newspaper in New York, who is not unknown to you, the following paragraph : " Old Pains is expected here in a day or two, and then we shall learn something abjut the custom-house investigation. Mr. Steuart has been anxious to make his report, but Mr. Poindexter has the books and papers in New York." This statement is utterly false, come from what quarter it may. I have never, at any time since the commission opened in New York, had possession of a single original paper appertain- ing to the proceedings of the board for one single moment, otherwise than as I had a right of access to them in the hands of the secretary of the board. I enclose you a copy of an order made by the commissioners, before Messrs. Steuart and Bradley left New York, which placed all the books, pa- pers, and records of the commission in the custody of T. L. Thruston and George Wood, secretaries, to be delivered at the Treasury Department to the commissioners. This order was executed, and the only books or pa- pers in my possession at New York were copies of originals, which were safely delivered at the Department. The paragraph of the letter above quoted is a wanton violation of truth, and is of a character corresponding with every thing else which has appeared in that print, coming through the same channel. I have had no other object in view, from the commence- ment of this investigation down to the present time, than the public inter- ests and your fame as the Chief Magistrate of the nation. I have made great personal sacrifices, both of feeling and interest, in the discharge of my duties. The compensation has fallen short of my actual expenditures, and my business in the West has suffered to an extent which I cannot now estimate with any degree of accuracy. But all this I should set down as nothing, if my labors should result in purifying that kennel of corruption and fraud, the New York custom house. To accomplish this object tnoroughly, the Government would be gainer if it were done at the cost of a half million of dollars. But I confess, looking at past events, my mind despairs of reaching a consummation so devoutly to be wished. It is not my intention to press this correspondence further, by asking any reply to this communication. I should not have written a line to you on the subject, had you invited me to a personal conference in relation to it. Rep. No. 669. It is, however, due to myself and to you that your mind should, in some form or other, be disabused of the volume of premeditated falsehood which I know has been communicated to you, to withdraw from me that confi- dence which has so long subsisted between us, and thereby defeat the great ends for which you caused the commission of investigation to be instituted. I will add, because it is strictly true, that there is not in existence a man more sincerely and disinterestedly your friend than myself. I do not deal in de- ceitful flattery to recommend myself to any favor in your gift, for I seek none, and have sought none, at your hands ; but when all the devices put in requisition by such men as Curtis and Webster, to destroy me in your estimation, shall be detected and exposed, you will find that there is more value in unpleasant truths than in deceptions practised under the guise of friendship, which never fail to end in cruel disappointment. Accept assurances of my high respect and consideration. GEORGE POINDEXTER. The President to George Poindexter Washington, February 11, 1842. Dear Sir : I must express my surprise at some of the remarks contained in yours of yesterday; more especially the apprehensions you express that official harmony between the appointing power and the agent (myself and you) may have suffered interruption through representations made to me by " guilty custom-house officers and their accomplices." I leave the re- mark without comment. Nor can I do less than express my regret that you have found it necessa- ry to couple the name of Mr. Webster with a conspiracy " to destroy you iu my estimation a procedure which, if it have existence in any quarter, has not come to my knowledge. Certain it is, that Mr. Webster has never uttered one word of disparagement of you to me, nor am I aware of his having been in the slightest degree connected with any matter to your pre- judice ; and I submit if it be not a poor compliment to myself to suppose me easily deceived by any cabal, or conspiracy of " guilty custom-house officers," or any others, even if one existed. Be perfectly assured that there exists no cabal at this end of the avenue, of which I am cognizant, of any sort or description. The commission on which, at my own request, you and others consented to serve, was instituted, and the report of the commissioners is now wanted by me, fur my own information. I do not doubt but that it will contain many suggestions with regard to the custom-houses and the mode of transacting business, most worthy to be recommended by me to Congress. And should it bring to my knowledge any facts implicating those now in office to an extent or upon grounds requir- ing the executive action in regard to them, I shall, without any prompting by Congress, who have rightfully nothing to do with it, discharge my duty to the country without fear. That I have for a considerable time most anxiously desired the report to be made, I will not deny. Whether, when made, I shall deem it best to communicate the entire report to Congress, or otherwise make it public, or content myself with - adopting its recom- i Rep. No. 669. 297 mendations, and urging them upon the deliberations of Congress, will be for my own decision, as also will be the time and occasion for making it. I take leave, in conclusion, to say that the paragraph extracted from a New York newspaper is, for the first time, brought under my eye by your letter. Had I seen it earlier, it would scarcely have arrested my attention. I do not suffer myself to be disturbed, or my opinion to be formed, by any thing appearing in the newspapers. I am, dear sir, very respectfully, yours, JOHN TYLER. GOV. PoiNDEXTER. George Po index ter to the Secretary of the Treasury. Washington, March 23, 1842. Sir : The commissioners, at their late sitting in New York, made an order that the original papers of the commission should be given into the custody of Thomas L. Thruston and George Wood, secretaries of the board, to be by them safely kept and delivered to the commissioners, at the city of Washington, subject to the inspection of each commissioner, from time to time. It appears that the papers of the first commission were returned by Messrs. Kelley and Steuart to the Treasury Department. The papers and records of the second commission were brought on by the secretaries to whom they were intrusted, and remained in the custody of Mr. Thruston until some time past, when they were taken possession of by Mr. Steuart, a member of the board, and are now at his own room. I requested the secretary to call on Mr. Steuart for the record sent in by the clerk of the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, since Mr. Steuart and Mr. Bradley left that city. Mr. D wight handed the record to Mr. Steuart, for his use and information, supposing that at all times it would be accessible to the other commissioners. I am informed by Mr. Thruston that he made application to Mr. Steuart, as I had re- quested him, for this paper, which was refused : and the application [has been] renewed two or three times since, with the like result. Having some days past reached that part of my report which required an examination of the costs and fees of the district attorney, paid out of the public Treasury, as well as such as were taxed on the defendants, I am in particular want of the document above mentioned, and shall be delayed until I receive it. There being no probability that, it will be delivered to the Secretary with- out your authority, I respectfully request that you will give an order to Mr. Thruston to receive it. The paper will be returned to the original file as soon as I have looked into some of its details. I have the honor to be, respectfully, &c. GEORGE POINDEXTER. Hon. Walter Forward. 298 Rep. No. 669. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEORGE POINDEXTER WILLIAM A. BRADLEY, AND WILLIAM M. STEUART. Office of the Commission, Washington, December 13, 1841. Dear Sir : The commission was opened here, according to the resolution of adjournment, on Wednesday last, and the undersigned have been at their post to the present time, but have not been able to do any business of material importance, owing to the absence of our books and papers. Your presence here at an early day is greatly desired ; but, if you are detained by indisposition, we have to request that you will immediately forward to us the books and papers by Mr. Thruston, retaining the originals or copies of such as you may have occasion for. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, WILLIAM M. STEUART. WILLIAM A. BRADLEY. Hon. George Poindexter. New York, December 15, 1841. Gentlemen: In reply to your communication of the 13th instant, I have the honor to enclose you copies of se eral orders made by the board ; which, as I hold them to be binding on me until they are revoked, deprive me altogether of the custody of the evidence and other papers appertaining to the former commission as well as that of which we are now members. I am making all possible progress in the completion of my report, in which I can advance with more speed and accuracy here than at Wash- ington. The order to complete the record of testimony taken by the former board of commissioners, made some time since, has not yet been fully complied with by the Secretary and his assistants. They have been engaged in this work, and are now occupied in completing it. When this is done, there can be no objection to the transfer of the papers to Washington, reserving copies for my own use, which will be delivered with the report. I take this occasion to state that the correspondence obtained from the Solicitor of the Treasury, by Mr. Kelley and myself, soon after we opened the commission, relative to seizures and compromises, to which it will be necessary for me to refer, is not among the papers directed by your order to be delivered to the Secretary ; as also the deposition of Mr. Huntington, and the recent correspondence of Ogden Hoffman, and also that of the col- lector Hoyt and late district attorney, relative to the cases of De Casse & Miege and La Chaise & Fouche, are missing. If these papers, or any of them, can be furnished to me from Washington, you will not only oblige me, but enable the secretary to fulfil the order made on him by the com- missioners, which without them he cannot do. Hoping to meet you in a few days, I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. Messrs. Steuart and Bradley, Commissioners, #c. Rep. No. 669. 299 Commissioners' Office, Washington, December IS, 1841. Dear Sir: We had this morning the pleasure to receive your favor of the lbth instant. As you give us reason to expect the pleasure to see you here within a few days, we deem it unnecessary to send you any papers in our possession, as they would probably cross you on the road. All the correspondence relating to seizures and compromises, obtained from the Solicitor of the Treasury by Mr. Kelley and yourself, were left in New York with the secretary. We know nothing of the papers relating to the cases of De Casse & Miege and La Chaise & Fouche, unless they were left with the correspondence relating to seizures, &c. By a copy of one of the " orders" you sent us, it appears that the papers belonging to the commission were to be delivered to the commissioners, upon their meeting at the Treasury Department in Washington. This -order has not been complied with, and we have to request, if you are likely to be detained in New York after Monday next, that you will send us by Mr. Thruston all the original papers belonging to the commission. Your most obedient servants, WILLIAM M. STEUART. WILLIAM A. BRADLEY. Hon. George Poindexter. George Poindexter to Messrs. Steuart and Bradley. New York, December 20, 1841. Your letter of the 18th instant informs me that, as you expected my re- turn in a few days, you deemed it unnecessary to send me any papers in your possession, as they would probably cross me on the road. In the next paragraph of your letter you inform me that all the papers enume- rated in my former letter as not being on the files of the Secretary were left in New York, or, in other words, that they are not in your possession, and that you have no knowledge of them, except the deposition of Hun- tington, of which you say nothing. I am unable, therefore, to understand what papers you allude to, which, for the reasons assigned, you have "deem- ed it unnecessary to send me." In your reference to the order respecting the records and papers of the commission, you state that "they were to be delivered to the commissioners upon their meeting at the Treasury Department in Washington;" and, further, that "this order has not been complied with." I presume you do not mean to say that I was to deliver those papers and records to you at the Treasury Department, although the sentence in your letter might well bear that construction. I enclose you, again, a copy of that order, which, acting separately, I had no power to control, by which it will be seen that you have omitted, in your reference to it, the most material parts, relating to the custody and delivery of these papers and records. First : They were " to be handed over to Thomas L. Thruston and George Wood, secretaries to the commissioners, or one of them, who shall be responsible for the safe delivery of said evidence and 8* 300 Sep. No. 669. other papers to the commissioners, upon their meeting at the Treasury Department in the city of Washington." I take occasion to repeat, what I stated to you in my former letter, that, acting alone* I have no power over these papers and records, unless a ma- jority of the board shall revoke the order above referred to ; and to add, that I have not been in the commissioners' room, on business, since I left it, on the receipt of new instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, changing the mode of examining witnesses ; that I have not touched one single paper belonging to the commission, and that the secretary has been occupied in the discharge of his official duties, required of him by the order of the board, without the slightest interruption from me. I do not stand in need of the presence of the secretary or the papers, and I am informed that he is now arranging his affairs so as to leave here forthwith. The sooner the better for me. On the arrival of Mr. Thruston, I beg that you will not delay one moment in closing the commission on my account, as my views of the testimony, being my own, will not require your revision; and whenever you conclude to adjourn sine die, you have my vote in fa- vor of it. I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. George Poindexter to William A. Bradley. New York, December 19, 1841. Dear Sir : Since the date of my letter to yourself and Colonel Steuart. in answer to yours respecting the records and papers of the commissioners, I have advised Mr. Thruston to proceed with such papers as were placed in his possession to Washington, and he will probably leave here to-morrow. When the order transferring to the secretaries all these papers, whether connected with the last or present commission, was passed, I am informed by the two secretaries, Mr. Thruston and Mr. Wood, that they made appli- cation to Colonel Steuart for such as might be in his possession, in order to enable them to make out a schedule, as they were required to do by the order. They state that Colonel Steuart assured them that he had not a single paper in his possession appertaining to either commission, since which it has been discovered that depositions and correspondence on various interesting subjects are not to be found on the files, and both copies and originals have by some means been taken away. Relying on the statement of the secretaries, in respect to the assurance given to them by Colonel Steuart, I cannot presume that he is in possession of them. I cannot proceed in my report without them, not having a clear recollection of their contents; but if, by some mistake, they have been taken to Washington, it would afford me an opportunity to be more accurate in my reference to them, if Mr. Wood could be authorized to make copies and forward them to me in a day or two. I am making considerable progress in my report, and shall be enabled to present it at the Treasury Department long before it will be wanted by Congress. By remaining here I have incurred no additional expense which would not have been incurred at Washington, and the facilities of hasten- ing my report are much greater than I could have had at the seat of Gov- ernment. I presume the great object of the President must be accuracy Doc. No. 669. 301 rather than haste in presenting the various topics which we have investi- gated to the Government. The labor is very great, but I shall overcome all difficulties, and I trust satisfy boih the President and Secretary of the Treasury with the analysis which 1 shall make of the testimony, and the conclusions which I may draw from that testimony. Mr. Curtis, the collector, has refused to pay the contingent expenses, as certified by the whole commission, and a correspondence has arisen be- tween himself and Mr. Thruston, the secretary, a copy of which will be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. The commission under which we acted, and the instructions of the Sec- retary of the Treasury, constitute us the sole judges of those contingent expenses ; they are not subject in any manner to the revision of the collector. But his conduct on this occasion betray j a confidence in his security at Washington, whatever he may think proper to do, whether with or with- out reason I cannot say. Each commissioner is authorized to act jointly or separately in the execution of the commission. Being here alone, it is necessary that that power should be explicitly recognised by the Secretary of the Treasury, to prevent unpleasant collisions with the collector. Inde- pendent of my duties in preparing a report, I have received answers to interrogatories handed out to witnesses, and not returned prior to your leaving this city. In some instances also, witnesses who had heretofore testified have appeared before me, and enlarged their testimony on points, when their evidence was not full or not well understood at the time they were first examined. In short, a great deal was left to be done after your departure, to complete the testimony, and comply with the order of the board for bringing up the record and completing the copies. I wish you would state these things to the Secretary, as Mr. Curtis is very uneasy at my presence here, and will no doubt, as usual, make many misrepresentations to the Department, and through Mr. Webster to the President, to dissatisfy them with my remaining to complete my report. In a few days I hope to follow Mr. Thruston, and relieve myself from this most unpleasant commission. I am, respectfully, your friend and obedient servant, GEORGE POINDEXTER. HOYT'S CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO DE CASSE, MIEGE, & CO., AND LA CHAISE & FOUCHE. Custom-House, New York, May 12, 1838. Sir : From the investigation taken place in this office, I have been sat- isfied that Messrs. La Chaise & Fouche have practised such frauds upon the revenue as that it becomes my duty to proceed to the extremity of the law. I therefore request you to take the following proceedings, viz : 1. To cause Mr. La Chaise to be arrested for perjury, in making false en- tries, he being the person who swore to them. 302 Doc. No. 669. 2. In order to recover the duties upon goods which they have caused to be entered and passed as free, and which amount to about §1,700, I desire 'to hold on to what goods we have in possession, not all perhaps liable to seizure, and which amount to about 48,000 francs ; and also to sue in the proper action to recover the duties due to the United States. 3. I wish suits to be brought on the following penal bonds signed by the firm, for goods in the following vessels : Ville de Lyons, penalty ... - - §9,000 Charlemagne, penalty - 14,000 Rhone, penalty - - - - - 14,000 and all dated the 20th April, 183S. 4. The house, but which partner I do not know, gave bribes to the per- sons formerly connected with this office, the names of whom you already know. Both partners, no doubt, m judgment of law, are parties to the trans- action, and are equally culpable. Mr, La Chaise signs his name A. La Chaise in all cases ; and I enclose you a power of attorney which will instruct you how his name should be used in the proceedings I request you to institute, which please to preserve care- fully, and return to this office. The names are Jacques Arrnand La Chaise and Victor Fouche. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, May 18, 1838. Sir: I herewith hand you an invoice of De Casse, Miege, & Co., with the entry of that house, and also a permit for certain goods imported by them in the ship Charlemagne. It is very apparent that the invoice and permit have been altered in a manner that amounts to forgery at common law, and punishable under the act of Congress. It is supposed that Mr. De Casse is the individual who has perpetrated the crime. I wish you to take all legal measures to bring him to justice. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, May 18, 1838. Sir : You are authorized to suspend the criminal proceedings against De Casse, Miege, & Co., until 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. Hep. No. 669. 303 Custom-House, New York, May 26, 1838. Sir : In obedience to the requirements of the 4th section of the act enti- tled "An act to provide for the appointment of a Solicitor of the Treasury," I have the honor to state that the following seizures have been made at this port, under my direction, viz : 8 cases woollens of C. W. Dayton, valued by him, 26th May, at £2,065 105. sterling. 7 cases containing 51 pieces, of C.W.Dayton, valued by him on 26th of May, at £1,930 Ss. 259 pieces of woollens, from James Bottomly, jr.'s store, not yet appraised. 15 cases woollens, in public store, belonging to same, ap- praised at £1,403 1 4s. §\d. 2 cases pistols and one case guns, ol L. Strasser, invoiced at 6,1 9 3 T 4 ^g- francs, appraised at 10,185-jy^ francs. 4 cases hardware ; Edward Leon & Co.; entered at £127 13s. 9d. sterling. I took from the store of De Casse, Miege, & Co., 26 packages of goods ; and I retained 5 cases, sent to public store, for appraisement; making, together, 31 packages of French goods. We took 24 cases of French goods from store of La Chaise & Fouche. We retained 5 packages sent to appraiser's office, and 1 package in addition, making 30 packages. We took from the store of La Chaise & Fouche 61 packages of goods — part of packages not full. From same, 35 packages — part not full. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Henry D. Gilpin, Esq., Solid lor of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York. May 30, 1838. Sir: I send to you the following list of seizures, which I wish acted upon with as little delay as practicable. No 1. A memorandum of 32 cases of goods taken from the store of La Chaise & Fouche, No. 39 Beaver street, found in the cellar and first floor, on the 15th May, under circumstances partially staled at the foot of the memorandum. No. 2. A like memorandum of 58 cases, taken from the upper lofts of the same store on the 14th of May last. No. 3. I send the following papers in the case of L. Strasser, on the entry of 3 cases pistols, marked L. S., which I have also seized. 1. The sworn entry for pistols. 2. The invoice for 6,1 93 T 4 ^ francs. 304 Eep. No. 669. 3. The appraisement, showing 2 cases of pistols and 1 of guns to the value of 10,1S5tJo francs. No. 4. The following pfepers in case of an invoice of hardware, also seized, viz : 1. The sworn entry of P. A. Meyer, showing the entry of £127 13s. 9d. 2. The invoice for same amount. 3. The appraisement for £191 lis. Id. 4. The papers attached to the appraisement. No. 5. The following papers in case of a case of watches, entered Sands, Turner, Fox, & Co., the 10th May inst. 1. The invoice, £374 lis. 6d. 2. The appraisement of United States appraisers, showing value, £546 4s. 6d. 3 The appraisement of Mr. Tobias, £555 Is. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, July 26, 1838. Sir : In the cases of La Chaise & Fouche, I send you the following pa- pers : 1. A penal bond for $9,000, for the importation by the Ville de Lyons. 2. A like bond for $1 4,000, by the Charlemagne. 3. A like bond for $ 14,000, by the Rhine. 4. An entry by the Charlemagne, and invoice, together with sample of the goods, by which you will see the goods do not correspond with the entry or invoice. . 5. The like papers by the Rhine, and the same results. 6. The like by Burgundy, except invoice, of which we could never get possession. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. United States District Attorney's Office, New York, October 10, 1838. Sir: Will you furnish me with a particular description of the goods now under seizure, for a violation of the revenue laws imported by De Casse, Miege, & Co. and La Chaise & Fouche, respectively, together with causes of forfeiture, and such other information as may conduce to their confiscation. The description of goods and causes of forfeiture are now sought, that I may proceed to file informations, the difficulty which has hitherto been % • Kep. No. 669. 305 depending before the court, in the case of James Bottomly jr.'s, goods, having at length been removed. I am, &c. WM. M. PRICE, United States Attorney. J. Hoyt, Collector. Custom-House, New York, October 11, 1S38. Sir : I have your favor of this day, asking for the description of the goods of Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., and La Chaise & Fouche, under seizure, and also the cause of seizure. In relation to the matter, I send a .statement similar to that sent you last May, of the kind of goods seized ; and they are marked. No. 1. 32 cases taken from the store 39 Beaver street, on the 14th May, on the first floor and cellar, and appraised at 94,887.03 francs, or $16,779.87. No. 2. Taken from same place, on 15th May, and comprising 58 cases appraised at 61,921.6S francs, or $9,601 65 ; the latter was taken from the upper stories. You will observe that on some of the cases the marks were taken oft, and therefore cannot be identified by original marks. The con- tents of the packages are all dutiable, and we believe, and have no doubt of the fact, were all smuggled through the custom-house, by means of which you have already been acquainted. It is believed they were all entered under a false name. Goods entered as silk velvet and ribbons turned out to be cotton goods, or dutiable articles. As to the goods taken from the first floor and cellar, they denied ail know- ledge of or oVnership in them when they were taken. I will address you at another time in relation to De Casse, Miege, & Co. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney.- Custom-House, New York, October 20, 1838. Sir: I have your letter of October 19, in relation to the statement of Mr. Cutting, concerning an agreement with me, touching the case of De Casse, Miege, & Co., and La Chaise & Fouche. Upon its receipt, I addressed a note to Mr. Cutting, requesting him to call and see me, and he did so ; and although Mr. Cutting was under the impression, from a conversation he had with me, that an arrangement referred to did exist, yet I satisfied him that he was under an erroneous impression, and we parted with the understanding that no such agreement existed. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, October 22, 183S. Sir : I had a conversation with Mr. Hamilton, your assistant, to-day, on the subject of the seizure in the case of La Chaise & Fouche. i 306 Rep. No. 669. . The seizures alluded to were made on the 14th and 15th of May last The one on the 14th was of 5S cases at the store No. 39 Beaver street, in- the upper lofts, and that on the 15th May was of 32 cases in the cellar and on the first floor. He stated that he had received instructions from you to file separate in- formations for each importation, or, in other words, that you could not include in one information importations by different and distinct vessels. We also had some conversation in relation to the form of the information, as applicable to the circumstances of the case. I now beg leave to state my views in relation to this matter. 1. The seizure in this case was one made upon land, and the prosecution takes place on the exchequer side of the court, and the form of the infor- mation does not require that you set forth the vessel in which the goods were imported ; and, consequently, you may include in one information goods imported in one hundred different vessels. The "gist of the proceed- ings is a fraud in getting possession of the goods, either by a false entry or without permit from the collector. " The ship or vessel is as yet unknown to the said attorney," is the form. 2. The goods seized are to be so described as to give reasonable notice to the world of the proceedings, to the end that the rightful owner may come in and claim property, and have the right of defence secured to him; and for this purpose the best description in the power of the prosecution is to be set forth, but the marks and numbers of packages need not be given, especially in a case like the present, where the marks and numbers were erased by the importers, as a better means of escaping detection. I find this form of the libel in Dunlap's Admiralty Practice, page 379 ; see, also, the Merino, 9 Wheaton, 391, 401. As to the form of the information, I would have one as in the precedent I refer to, that the goods were landed without permit. Such is the fact. 1. Because no permit was given for the goods in question. The permit was given for free goods. 2. Upon this allegation we make a prima facie case, and throw the onus upon the claimants. (See " Proof," Dunlap, 277, 278.) 3. I would have another count upon the 67th section of the act of 1799. The goods have been examined in pursuance of the provisions of that section. (See 6 Wheaton, 1S7.) (3.) For greater precaution, a count could be added under the 14th. section of the act of July 14, 1832. The evidence of fraud upon the general question is : 1. Testimony of Campbell and Davis. 2. Mr. Wetmore, the storekeeper, saw the clerk of La Chaise and Fouche in the act of erasing the marks and numbers from the packages in the store. 3. The goods taken from the cellar and first door were under the follow- ing circumstances : 1. They denied all knowledge of or ownemship in the goods, and that Brown & Hone had the key of the apartment. 2. After this declaration, they took the key and gave it to Mr. Brown, from whom we procured it the next morning. If, under these circumstances, they put in a claim for the goods, they must swear to the ownership ; in answer to which, we can show by Mr. Rep. No. 669. 307 Wetmore that Mr. La Chaise said he had no interest in the goods — he acted as agent. If the claim is put in by any other person, then La Chaise & Fouche are competent witnesses to prove the fraud, and they would not perjure them- selves in open in court, and in the face of the whole community. But all the entries show they took the owner's oath, as to all goods entered by them. Again : we have the power of attorney, showing they acted as the agents of Billiet Landers & Fils, of Lyons ; which I now send you — one a copy, the original recorded, and the other is the original. As to the goods taken on the 14th May, from the upper lofts of the store, we can show : 1. That many of the goods were concealed in the garret of the building under filthy rubbish. 2. As to all the goods, they had not entered any of the description in question, which throws the proof upon them, to account for the possession of them, and of whom they procured them. 3. I have no doubt we can show, by various merchants, that they had bought dutiable goods of them, and indeed we know we can show by Townsend & Brothers that they purchased goods of them of the same marks and numbers, which they entered as free. Under such an accumulation of circumstances, I think the language of Mr. Justice Livingston, in the case of Robert Edwards, (6 Wheaton, 190,) is appropriate : "Although such proof may generally be desirable, we are not to shut our eyes on circumstances, which sometimes carry with them a conviction, which the most positive testimony will sometimes fail la produce." We took a case of papers from the store, which was sealed up, and is now in our vault, and has not been opened. Mr. Hamilton thinks we have a right to open them. I wish you to consider that question. In addition to the circumstances already detailed, I will state that Campbell spent two hours at the counting-room of La Chaise & Fouche, the Saturday before he left the custom-house. I will also refer to the correspondence with them, or rather the letters I wrote them, which they never answered, but which I now send you, and which may be necessary to use on the trial of the causes on the penal bonds. 1. A letter to them under date of April 26, 183S, marked No. h 2. A notice from the appraisers, under the 8th section of the act of July .14, 1832, of which they took no notice, marked No. 2. 3. A letter to them under date of May 21, 1838, marked No. 3. 4. A letter under same date as last, marked No. 4. 5. A certificate from Mr. Ogden, invoice clerk, as to demand of invoice, marked No. 5. To none of which was any answer made ; and the inference is most certainly unfavorable to the fairness of the transactions of the house in< question. As it regards the penal bond suits, if you will inform me whether you have the invoices or not on which the bonds are predicated, I will endeavor to supply them if you have not got them, or I will refer to the appraisers' book, and see what memorandum I can find on the subject. I differ with Mr. Hamilton in relation to the form of the information in a respect not before alluded to. 308 Rep. No. 669. He left with me yesterday papers marked Nos. 1 and 2, which I now return to you, for the purpose of having a designation put thereon, (which he will explain to you,) as to the materials of which " barage and velvet" are composed — he being of opinion that we must set forth in the informa- tion that it is silk or worsted, or some other material which is free ; and I am of opinion that if it sets forth that the article is free, it is quite sufficient. We could do as Mr. Hamilton wishes but for the sickness of Mr. Bleecker, who is not able to talk upon the matter; and he is the only one that could answer the question. If I am right, of w hich I have no doubt, then Mr.. Bleecker need not be troubled with it. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, October 23, 1S3S. Sir : I enclose you a correspondence I have had with Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., which will enable you to understand, to some extent, the points in controversy between them and the United States, growing out of their transactions at the custom-house ; and it relates as well to the suits you have commenced on their penal bonds, and the suits to recover the amount of duties claimed from them, as the informations I now propose to request you to file for goods seized by me, purporting to have been imported by them. I shall refer, in the narration I give, to the correspondence, which, in my judgment, may bear upon the several points raised by me in support of the views I take. It is attached, and marked No. 1 on outside, and the letter and papers are marked inside from 1 to 13. The narration is substantially thus : About the 24th April, 183S, / suspected Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co. of doing an unfair business at the custom-house. I asked for the invoice by the Charlemagne, and it was not produced; and after sending for it several times, and receiving prevaricating answers, (see my letter of May 4, mark- ed 5|2,) I directed Mr. G. A. Wasson, an inspector and storekeeper, to go to their store and bring all the goods he could find of a particular mark to the public store ; and he accordingly went and brought the folio wing-de- scribed packages, viz : c 569, 570, 597, 569,569, 571,571, 571,570, 570, 458, 553, 169, 572, 572, 572— in all 16 cases : that is, 3 No. 569, 3 No. 570, 3 No. 571, 3 No. 572, 1 No. 597, 1 No. 45S, 1 No. 553, 1 No. 169. I then addressed them a letter, under date of April 26, marked in the corres- pondence No. 1. I should here remark, that all the packages imported by them were mark- ed on the outside wrapper, and by that mark they were entered at the custom-house, and sometimes the mark on the cases under the wrap- per would correspond with the mark on the wrapper, but in most instances it would not ; and therefore it was difficult to trace their goods, for as soon Kep. No. 669. 309 as they were entered at the custom-house, and permitted, they were taken to their store and the outside wrapper taken off and destroyed. To my letter of 26th April, they answered, under date of 26th, 27th., and 30th April, all received by me on the 3d May, and are. numbered in the correspondence 3, 4, and 5. I remark here, that the letter of the 27th April (No. 3) admits of the opening of the packages not sent to public store, and also that some of them were sold. This, then, amounts to a forfeiture of the penal bond under the second count in your declaration. The goods sent to the public store, imported in the Charlemagne, were — B D Wrapper mark 679, mark on cases under wrapper q 4S5 Do. 6S9, do. do. 599 Do. 67S, do. do. 154 Do. 690, do. do. 600 Do. 665, no mark on case.- The invoice and permit, as to the last case, were altered from 666 to 665, as you have already been informed, and for which a presentment was ten- dered to the grand jury. The facts are thus : cases 678, 689, and 690, were entered as dutiable ; cases 679 and 666 were on free entry, and the whole five ordered to public store, and the number 666 was altered on , invoice and permit to 665 by De Casse, as we allege. By reason of these transactions, I contend — 1. That the penal bond, by Charlemagne, is forfeited beyond doubt ; but, moreover, after the return was made on the invoice, and before the expi- ration of the 10 days, and on the 19th May, I required them, in writing, to produce the remainder of the goods in the invoice. (See letter of that date, in correspondence No. 13, the last document in paper No. 1.) But see their letter of May 5, (marked No. 6,) in which they enclose invoice by Charlemagne and Utica, and admit sales of the goods ; but the goods by Charlemagne had not then regularly passed the custom-house, as I state in my letter of May 9, (marked No. 7,) and in which I gave them notice in substance of the forfeiture of the bond. 2. That we can condemn the case 666, though we never had possession of it, by reason of the alteration; but the case 665, which was substituted by fraud, we can condemn, though it be in fact free goods. 3. That case 689 was entered by wrong description, see their letter, and the remarks hereafter. I repeat, the 5 cases sent to public store from the Charlemagne were — Nos. on wrapper, by which they were entered, 67S, 6S9, and 690, on dutiable entry, invoiced at 66.44 francs; 679 and 666, on free entry, in- voiced at 4,732.75 francs. On examination, the contents of cases were as follows : 678, cotton hose. 689, colored linen and cotton, entered as galloons. (See letter.) 690, suspenders, (gum elastic and cotton,) all of which were dutiable at 25 per cent. The two cases on free entry turned out thus : 679, bombazines, a free article. 666 was abducted, and its contents we know not; but 665, its fraud l- lent substitute, contained 20 pieces satins. 310 Rep. No. 669. The letter of De Casse, Miege, & Co., under date of 30th April, (marked No. 5,) purports to give an account of the 16 cases taken from their store. You will observe, in the numbers I gave you in the early part of this communication, there were triplicates of the numbers 569, 570, 571, and 572, making, of course, 12 packages. The outside wrappers had been ta- and 571, as stated in the letter, and by these numbers they were entered as free, by the Burgundy, on 29th March, 1838. On examination, it turned out that these 4 or 12 cases were dutiable goods, at the rate of 25 per cent., being India rubber covered with cotton. The remaining 4 cases of the 16 were 169, 45S, 553, 597, containing as follows, viz : 169, 20 pieces lustrings; 458, 50 dozen silk hose, and so entered ; 553, 20 dozen suspenders, silk, chief value ; 597, silk galloons. All the contents of these 4 cases were free goods at the time they were entered. It follows, then, that we could forfeit, of the goods referred to, under the several duty acts, as follows, viz: the 12 cases India rubber colored linen and cotton, entered as galloons. But I contend we can forfeit all, under the proceedings taken by the appraisers, founded on the 8th section of the act of 14th July, 1S32, which provides, if the importer or agent shall perjure himself in any examination taken by virtue of that section, the goods shall be forfeited, without refer- ence to the question of free or dutiable goods. In the correspondence I send you will find a copy of the notice from the appraisers under the act, and also copy of the examination of Mr. De Casse, (marked 12.) That he perjured himself in that examination I have no doubt, and no one can doubt from the answer he made; and if this be so, I think all the goods are forfeited. I desire, then, that you file an information, with averments suited to the case, under all the circumstances detailed. Another question there is, whether you will again lay the case before the grand jury, for the forgery and bribery ; and, also, a further complaint for perjury, in the following cases : 1. The case of package 666. 2. The case under the 8th section of the act of 1S32. In the latter case, the right to call before the grand jury the clerks of the house, and also Mr. Miege, to show the perjury in the matter of the keeping the books and the accounts. I recommend this course, for reasons which I will communicate to you verbally. It is now a long time since this affair has been in the condition it now is, and I am anxious to get it disposed of, and therefore I am thus particular in its details. I send, herewith, a schedule of the goods (the 21 packages) as they turn- ed out to be on examination, (marked A;) and also Mr. Wasson's return to me, when he seized the 16 packages, (marked B.) The paper marked A is a description of the 5 packages sent to public store from the Charle- magne, as well as the 16 packages seized by Mr. Wasson. ken off, and the 12 cases corresponded with the marks balls, numbered in entry 569, 570, 571, 572, case 666 or 665, case Rep. No. 669. 311 As to the suits upon the penal bonds, other than by the Charlemagne, I will advise further, if you shall require me to do so ; and I will now only remark, that I have no doubt it is perfectly susceptible of proof that the packages were sold or opened before the expiration of the 10 days after the goods had passed the custom-house. In relation to the suits for the recovery of the duties unpaid and unse- cured, you have already the statements of the supposed amounts, and I wish timely notice of the trial of the causes, when I will endeavor to fur- nish proof. Respectful!}', I. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, December 21, 1S3S. Sir : On the 14th May last, the inspectors whom I sent to seize the goods in the store of La Chaise & Fouche found a case of papers, from which they took an invoice that explained, in some degree, the roguery of the arlair. They accordingly seized the box of papers, and sealed it up, and it is now in our vault unopened. The question I wish you to consider is, whether we have the right to open the box and use the papers, as the case may require. They are a part of the papers which belong to the goods, and the oaths which were taken when the goods were opened. Yours, J. HOYT. B. F. Butler, Esq., V. S. Attorney. Custom-House, New York, August 10, 1839. Sir : I have your favor of the 9th instant. It is amusing to suppose there is an informer in Philadelphia, in relation to the three packages of goods of De Casse, Miege, & Co. I wrote you tn the 27th of April, 1838, the day after the goods were discharged from the ship here, and the day after they were shipped to your city, to have them seized. On the 28th April, I despatched Mr. Wasson, a special deputy, to look after the matter ; soon after I wrote you and the marshal on the same subject, and also despatched Mr. Thomas, one of our assistant appraisers, to examine the goods. I would be glad to know the name of the informer. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, September 7, 1839. Sir: I noticed some few days ago an advertisement in the Philadelphia newspapers, signed by the marshal, of a sale of three packages of goods, 312 Rep. No. 669. seized by my direction, in Philadelphia, in May, 1838, imported into this district by De Casse, Miege, & Co.; which sale was to take place on the 29th of August last. By the 90th section of the act of 2d March, 1799, you are to receive the proceeds of said sale, and pay the same over to the collector of the district in which such seizure or forfeiture has taken place. You then have the option to pay it over to the collector of Philadelphia, where the seizure was made, or to the collector of New York, where the forfeiture took place. The 71st section of the same act directs the collector receiving the forfeit- ure from you, as the clerk, to pay it to the collector of the district where the same forfeiture shall have been incurred. I take the occasion to ap- prize you that I claim that the proceeds of the forfeiture be paid to me, as collector of the district where the said forfeiture occurred. I apprize you, the collector, and district attorney of Philadelphia, of the claim, to the end that you will take notice of my rights in the premises. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. To the Clerk of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Custom-House, New York, Collector's Office, May 25, 1839. Gentlemen: Referring to a conversation I had with you this morning, in relation to the affairs of Messrs. La Chaise & Fouche with this office, the naval officer observed that he had seen Mr. Davis, the former clerk in the appraisers' office, and from whom we expected important testimony, and that he would decline testifying to any thing that would implicate himself ; and as the transactions complained of, as they relate to La Chaise & Fouche, would directly implicate Mr. Davis, we should therefore be deprived of his testimony. The same result would follow our expectations from the testimony of Mr. Campbell, the former deputy, if we are to judge from the course he took on the trial of Bottomly's goods; and that would, of course, leave the United States without such testimony as would be necessary to have to ensure a condemnation of the goods or a recovery on the penal bonds. An overture is made, on the part of the house in question, to compro- mise the claim by paying the costs, and something over $45,000 — say $45,500 ; and, under the advice of the district attorney, upon the difficul- ties of the case, I am in favor of accepting the proposition ; and if it meets your approbation, I will take the responsibility of closing the matter. I would thank you for an early reply. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. To William S. Coe, Naval Officer, and Hector Craig, Surveyor of the port of New York. We agree to the proposition above stated, and recommend its adoption.. WILLIAM S. COE, Naval Officer. HECTOR CRAIG, Surveyor. Rep. No. 669. 313 Custom-House, New York, September 30, 1839. Sir: I have your letter of the 20th instant, in answer to mine of the 16th, in relation to the proceeds of the forfeiture in the case of De Casse,Miege, & Co., in which you refer "to other parties who claim distributive shares" in that forfeiture. I am in this res'pect situated as you are, and " other parties 5 ' look to me for the vindication and protection of their rights, to the same extent, that you are looked to ; and, by God's grace, their rights shall not surfer by any neglect of mine. In any difference of opinion that may exist between co-ordinate orflcers of the Government, there can surely be an appropriate mode of adjusting it, without an open legal warfare ; and, in behalf of those whom I represent, I propose to submit the question, amicably, to the decision of the respective district attorneys of your district and mine, together with the Solicitor of the Treasury, whose decision I will stipulate shall be final and conclusive. Mr. Gilpin, having for many years been district attorney, is more famil- iar, probably, with the revenue laws than most lawyers and judges, and for that reason I name him ; and if one of large and enlightened views could be influenced by any considerations qjher than those of truth and jus- tice, the bias of his mind would naturally lean in favor of the officers of the district with whom he had been associated; and 1 think, therefore, you can- not take exceptions to the persons whose judgments I am content to abide by. You state that " the persons who feel themselves interested in the pro- ceeds of the goods forfeited believe your distribution to be so novel and so unprecedented, that they cannot (unimportant as the sum in controversy may be in amount) consent to yield to the collector of New York the right to distribute the proceeds of forfeitures which accrue in the port of Phila- delphia, and which right, they believe, resides in the collector of Philadel- phia alone." I have no answer to make to your remarks upon the novel and unpre- cedented character of my claim, for these remarks neither make nor unsettle the law under which that claim is put forward. But I beg leave to dis- claim, on behalf of myself and those whom I represent, any and all idea for the claim of or the proceeds of forfeitures which accrue in the port of Philadelphia. Whatever the law awards to the capable and efficient officers of that port, I will in no manner interfere with, no sooner than I will permit them to interfere with what the law awards to the officers of the port of New York. The rights and obligations of the officers of both ports the law de- fines ; and, upon diligent search, I have not been able to find any provision of law applicable to the facts of this case, which describes the manner and mode of distributing the proceeds of "fines, penalties, and forfeitures," ex- cept the 91st section of the act of 2d March, 1799, which declares that they are to be distributed to the officers (named) in the district " where the same shall have been incurred," and not, as you seem to suppose, where they "accrued." There may be no difference in the legal signification of the words "incurred" and "accrued," but the former is the one used, though the latter is applied to " that part of the forfeiture which ' accrues' to the United States," after the sale, &c. I have not searched my office for any precedents, but I beg to differ with you in relation to the policy of the law, as I understand it to be; but, as I 314 Rep. No. 669. cannot anticipate that any benefits would result from a discussion of that question, I shall not go into it ; but I wish particularly to note the following paragraph in your letter : " Believing, (you say,) that every principle of equity and justice demand such a distribution, and that Congress never contemplated any other, es- pecially where, as in this case, the seizing was made by the deputy collector of this port, on the information of a citizen of Philadelphia unconnected with the customs, and in the absence of any directions emanating from the collector of New York, or any one acting under his authority. " I infer from this that you consider the fact of some importance, by whose direction, suggestion, or intimation, the seizure was made. I will not at this moment assent or dissent to that proposition, because the facts of the case do not require that I should ; but it is quite extraordinary that the col- lector at New York has remained in error in relation to this matter so long. He has always supposed that the very day after the goods were entered, and before they reached Philadelphia, he directed the district attorney to cause them to be seized. A long correspondence passed between that col- lector and the marshal of your district, and the latter sent a special mes- senger, that reached me in the night, on that and other subjects, and by whom I sent a letter to the marshal. That collector also sent an assistant appraiser and an inspector from this port to Philadelphia on the matter, and also corresponded with the district attorney, from the time of the seizure to the condemnation of the goods ; and yet, that none of these transactions came to your knowledge is singu- lar. I will now give you the best evidence I can* of the reason on which I founded the supposition that I had really something to do with the matter. On the 26th day of April, 1S38, my suspicions of the integrity of the house of De Casse, Miege, & Co., arose ; on the same day they had sent, di- rect from the ship Charlemagne, a quantity of goods to Philadelphia. On the 27th of that month I wrote a letter to John M. Read, Esq., district at- torney, in the following words and figures : "Custom-House, New York, Jlpril 27, 1S38. "Sir : I have your favor of yesterday. I understand Messrs. Stevens & Co., or some other auction house in your city, sold on Tuesday last a large amount of goods of Bottomly's. If so, I would seize the goods, if the purchasers have not in fact paid for «them. French goods were shipped yesterday by the steamboat Swan. The wrapper is marked ^/^- and the inside mark is B ^ or I wish all these with either of these marks seized and dealt with according to law. The French goods were consign- ed to Davies, Stevenson, & Co. If Bottomly is in your city, arrest him and hold him to bail for $10,000. I will send you an affidavit of belief that he is justly indebted to the United States in that sum/ if your practice re- quires this form. " Respectfully, « J. HOYT, Collector. " John M. Read, Esq., U. S. Attorney i Philadelphia. Rep. No. 069. 315 U N. B. If the wrapper marked is taken off, you must be careful to preserve it, as it forms a part of the proof. J. H." On the 28th of April, I appointed George A. Wasson a special deputy to proceed to Philadelphia, in reference to the goods in question as well as other goods. On the same day, I wrote to the marshal, as follows : " Custom-House, New York, Jlpril 28, 1838. "Sir : Mr. George A. Wasson, a special deputy, will proceed to Philadel- phia, to take charge of the matter referred to in your letter of yesterday. He is acquainted with the circumstances, and will detail them all. " Yours, respectfully, « J. HOYT, Collector. u Samuel D. Patterson, U. S\ Marsha/, Philadelphia" I wrote a similar letter to Mr Read, the district attorney, and gave the following letter of instructions to Mr. Wasson : "Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1838'. "Sir : I herewith hand yon a commission to seize in my name the wool- len goods that passed through this custom-house by James Bottomly, jr., and also the French goods passed by Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., and La Chaise & Fouche. " I refer you to J. M. Read, the United States attorney, and Samuel D. Patterson, marshal, Philadelphia, for any aid you may want. The goods are supposed to be in the possession of Davies, Stevenson, & Co., or P. & J. Ford, or S. C. & J. Ford. I wish you to remain in Philadelphia till the mail that leaves here to- morrow reaches there, by which I will write ; and it may be necessary for you to proceed as far as Baltimore ; and if you should learn any thing in Philadelphia that induces you to believe it is fit and proper for you to pro- ceed to Baltimore without further instructions, you will do so, and call on Nathaniel Williams, Esq., United States attorney at that place, for any aid you may require. It is said that Mr. Bottomly has a large amount of goods in the hands of Hoffman & Co., auctioneers. " These instructions are not to be held as a countermand to any that may have been given to the United States attorney at either place, unless in your judgment it is proper to do so. I desire this letter to be considered as giving you full power. t " Yours, respectfully, "J. HOYT, Collector. "Mr. George A. Wasson, Neiu York." On the 7th of May I received a letter from the marshal, apprizing me of the seizure, in the following words : " Marshal's Office, Philadelphia, May 5, 1S38. " Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that three packages ©f French goods? supposed to belong to those referred to in your recent letter, were this 9* 316 Rep. No. 669. morning seized at the auction store of Messrs. Meyers & Claghan, 43 Mar- ket street. " The cases are marked as follows : q ' and the numbers are 126, 1146, and 1175. « Respectfully, &c. "SAMUEL I). PATTERSON, Marshal Eastern District Penn. "Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc." On the same day 1 wrote the marshal a letter, of which the following is a copy : " Custom-House, New York, May 7, 1S38. " Sir : Your favor of the 5th instant, informing me me of the seizure of 4 packages of goods marked , and numbered 126, 1146, and 1175, was received this day. " I have an examination now going on, that will enable me to give you further instructions in the matter. " Yours, &c. "J. HOYT, Collector. " S. D. Patterson, Esq., Marshal, Philadelphia" On the 15th of May, I received a letter from Mr. Read, the district at- torney, in the words following : "Philadelphia, May 14, 1S38. " Sir : In order for further proceedings against the packages seized here under your directions, it will be necessary to furnish me with the name of the vessel in which they were imported, the name of the master, and the date of the importation ; also, in what manner they were introduced, and what kind of goods, with the names of the importers or consignees, and such other information as you may deem material. " Our court sits next Monday. " 1 am, sir, &c. "J. M. READ, U. S. Attorney. "Jesse Hoyt, Collector" On the 4th of June, I gave Mr. Read particular instructions, which it is not necessary to encumber this letter with a copy of. Under the state of things developed in this correspondence, I cannot con- sent to the correctness of your statement, that there was "absence of any directions emanating from the collector of New York, or any one acting by his authority." . That a citizen of Philadelphia did inform your deputy in what particular store the goods were, I admit ; but that he derived the information from my action in the matter is quite certain; but whether he got it from the orficer I sent, or from the marshal or the district attorney, or the officers, I know not, nor do I care; for I am perfectly willing that he should stand in the attitude of an informer, and take all the benefits thereby that the law al- lows him, whether he be connected or "unconnected with the customs." Nor do I mean to interfere with, or in any manner disturb, any practice that may have hitherto prevailed in your district with reference to the rights Rep. No. 669. 317 growing out of custom with any prosecuting officers ; nor is it worth while for us to play off any diplomacy in this affair. I think we understand each other, though neither of us have alluded to it before in this correspondence. The question in this case is the law ; one that will arise in the recent seizure in your city ; and I am quite willing to meet it now in any form that you may suggest. An amicable manner, of course, would be prefer- red ; but it has to be met, and we cannot do with it as we please, because others stand behind each of us, whose rights are to be respected ; and I am not aware of any rightful authority that belongs to us to disregard their in- terests. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. George Wolf, Esq., Collector. Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, October 30, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 2Sth instant, touching a discrepancy be- tween the reports from this office and that of the district attorney, concern- ing the property seized in the store of La Chaise & Fouche in May, 1S3S. That discrepancy arose in this way : The goods were seized on the 14th and 15th of May, in the store, and many of the packages were broken ones ; and, when they were appraised, they corresponded with the report sent to the district attorney ; but I did not advert to the difference in my letter of the 31st May. It is highly creditable to the diligence of your office that these things are noticed, and that an explanation is required. I will be more particular hereafter in making my reports. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor, $c. Custom-House, New York, November 28, 1839. Sir : On the 19th of May, 183S, I requested your predecessor in office to commence a suit 'against Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., to recover duties unpaid and unsecured on goods imported by them. They were, arrested and held to bail; but by an act of Congress in relation to imprisonment for debt, since passed, it is possible that bail would not be held liable in case of recovery, if the principals should remove from the jurisdiction of the court. I believe no step has been taken in the cause. In the case of Samuel R. Wood, you will recollect the form of the action,, as commenced by your predecessor. Under a misapprehension of my in- structions to him, great difficulty was experienced in establishing the amount we were entitled to recover ; and other difficulties were also inter- posed, which have not yet been removed. I suggest, therefore, under this view of the matter, whether it would not be well to discontinue the suit against De Casse, Miege, & Co., before referred to, and commence another under the 66th section of the act of 1799, for the forfeiture. The advantages in this proceeding are three-fold : 1st. The defendants can be held to bail ; and, as they are foreigners, it 318 Rep- No. 6G9. is quite probable they would leave this country to avoid the payment of so- large a debt, if it were their interest to do so. 2d. The facilities for recovery I consider much greater, for reasons which have frequently been a matter of conversation between us. 3d. The house having become insolvent, we have but a little chance of getting any thing for the claim, except by some arrangement in the nature of a compromise. The grand jury having refused to find bills of indict- ment against them for the frauds, and Congress having exempted them from imprisonment for debt, as they suppose, they would not probably make so liberal an offer* by way of compromise, as they would do if they had an intimation of the efficiency of the 66th section, in the form of a legal proceeding under it. I make these suggestions for your serious consideration. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, February 7, 1840. Sir : I see, by the enclosed copy of a bond, that the declaration in the case of De Casse, Miege, & Co., sets it out correctly ; but it may be doubted whether the form of the bond is right. It was drawn by James Hamilton and Mr. Ferguson, the former district attorney and naval officer. It occurs to me there may be a difficulty in re- covering a verdict. Would it not be best, under these circumstances, to discontinue the suits on the bonds, and flee to the protection of the 66th section. Will you reflect on this. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, June 6, 1S40. Sir : From the situation in which the suits upon the penal bonds from Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., are placed, I think it expedient that pro- ceedings should be taken under the 66th section of the act of 1799, to recover a forfeiture. I have, therefore, to request that you commence a suit under that section, and hold the parties to bail in the sum of $20,000. As there has been some negotiation between F. B. Cutting, Esq., and my- self, in reference to arranging the controversy, it is proper, perhaps, that you should apprize him of the instructions before issuing the writ. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Rep. No. 669. 319 Custo:-.i-House, New York, July 28, 1S40. Sir : I enclose you a schedule of nineteen free entries of Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., commencing January 31, 1S37, and ending March 16, 1S3S, •amounting in all to 1,476,374.02 francs, equal to about $295,374, a great portion of which were no doubt dutiable goods. I wish you to declare them forfeited, under the 66th section of the act of 1799, as soon as you conveniently can. I also send you the entries. The entries were ail sworn to before D. S. Lyon, then a deputy in this •office. You will find on the back of each entry, in pencil mark, the number of packages in each entry ; and in all cases where the number of packages •ordered to the appraisers' store for examination is not set down, there was .but one case sent, except in one entry of two packages, where none were ^ordered, all of which will appear in the schedule now sent. You are aware that the law requires that one package at least out of every invoice, and one out of every twenty packages, should be sent to the ^public store for examination. You will therefore observe how the requirements of the law have been in these instances overlooked and disregarded. You have already some entries in your office of the same firm, which you can include in the declarations if you think proper. Respectfullv, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United Slates District Attorney. P. S. The entry by the Utica, of August S, 1S37, is a copy. The original is in my possession. J. H. 320 Rep. No. 669. A. Schedule of entries of De Casse, Miege, <$* Co. No. ordered Date of entry. Name of vessel. No. of pack- ages. Amount of invoice. for exami- nation. 1837. January 31 Charlemagne 2S 78,105.30 frs. 1 January 31 Charles Carroll 45 120,345.40 1 January- 31 Henry IV - 20 69,197.50 1 February 7 Sully 55 137,933.52 March 10 Formosa - ' - 24 S6,319.00 1 March JO Erie 17 47,805.65 March 1 6 Sylvie de Grasse 26 59,034,50 1 March 1 7 Poland 11 3S,006.52 1 March 25 Albany 14 60,838.00 April 1 Havre 31 48,500.00 July 18 Baltimore - 28 69,728.00 1 July 29 Louis Phillippe 27 86,343.18 August 8 Utica 69 160,075.00 August IS Burgundy - 30 65,01800 I October IS Erie 20 20,7SS.00 1 o Jo. January 9 Feb'ry 12 Ville de Lyons 28 1,S51.70 none Svlvie de Grasse 31 92,738.70 Feb'ry 20 Erie 36 94,618.45 2 March 16 Albany 21 47,202.60 1 March 1 6 Louis Phillippe 41 91,472.00 o 1,476,871.02 Custom-House, New York, Sept ember 2S, 1840. Sir: I have your letter of the 26th instant, in relation to the claim of the informer on the proceeds of some goods which were seized in your port, as having been imported by De Casse, Miege, & Co., into this port. I hereby consent that the share of the informer be paid to him; and I will sign any formal consent, to carry this into effect, that may be required. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., United States Dis'tJltt'y, Philadelphia. Rep. No. 669. 321 HOYT'S CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO J. BOTTOMLY, JR.'S GOODS. Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1838. Sir : I enclose you a schedule of packages of goods now in the public store at No. 17 Nassau street, to the number of 15, which I wish you to proceed against with all despatch, as forfeited to the United States. The same were imported by James Bottomly, jr., whose store is at No. 97 Pearl street. The goods were entered at the custom-house of the value of £904 17s. Id., and the entry made 30th March last, and were imported in ship Roscoe, as we suppose ; but-, as the entry has been abstracted from this office as well as the naval office, we are without accurate knowledge on the subject, but it appears from the appraisers' books that the gross invoice was the amount last stated. The duties have not been paid. The appraised value, as you will see by the enclosed, is £1,403 14s. 6d. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1838. Sir : You were present when a disclosure was made to me last evening, touching some fraudulent transactions of James Bottomly, jr., at the custom- house. I wish you to take all legal measures to bring the offender to justice. I have caused to be seized a quantity of cloths in his store at 97 Pearl street, and which have been received at the public store, a particular ac- count of which I will send you hereafter. I desire proceedings to be insti- tuted to forfeit these goods. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., , United States District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 25, 1S3S. Sir : Mr. James Bottomly, jr. [was] recently a large importer of woollen goods in this city. He fled the city yesterday, and he may be with you. His agents may be ascertained by inquiring of Crosdale, Hazlehurst, & Co., corner of Chesnut and First streets. Kis packages were marked B, and numbered from 830 to 1,300, and contained cloths and cassimeres. I wish a trusty officer to be employed to make the examination, and if any goods are found to answer the descrip- tion, I wish measures taken to forfeit them to the United States. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., United States Attorney, Philadelphia. 322 Rep. No. 669. Philadelphia, April 26, 1S33. Sir : Upon the receipt of your favor of yesterday, I requested the dep- uty collector to send an experienced oilicer, with the marshal of this dis- trict, to make the proper search for the packages mentioned in your letter. The result of the joint inquiry is contained in a letter of the marshal's, just written, {2\ P. M.,) a copy of which I send you. I should be happy to know how these goods became liable to forfeiture, and under what act of Congress. Bottomly, I presume, will be off to-da]'. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JOHN M. READ, United States Attorney. Jesse Hovt, Esq., Collector, New York. Copy of the marshal's letter to John M. Read, Esq. Your directions relative to packages of goods marked B, and numbered from S30 to 1,300, supposed to have been sent to this city by James Bot- tomly, jr., of New York, have been attended to. Upon diligent search, made in company with Mr. Reefe, of the custom-house, I have been un- able to discover any packages corresponding either in letter or number with those designated. An examination made at the office of the Union Trans- portation Company satisfies me, however, that four cases, marked W 1 & 4, were shipped by James Bottomly, jr., and sent or consigned to Uavies, Stevenson, & Co., auctioneers, of this city, about the 19th instant, as an entry to that effect is contained on the way or freight bill of said line for that date. There is good reason for believing that Mr. Bottomly was in this city at the time the examination was going on this morning. Custom-House, New York, April 25, 1833, Sir: Mr. James Bottomly, jr., a large importer of woollens, late of this city, has been practising extensive frauds on the revenue of this city, as we have every reason to believe. He is supposed to have fled the city, and I should not be surprised if he was with you. Mr. Hoffman, the auctioneer, and William Taylor & Co., of your city, are his agents, and it is supposed he has a large amouut of goods in their hands. The packages are marked B, and numbered from S30 to 1,300. I wish you to employ some trusty officer to make an examination into the premises, and if you find any thing that looks suspicious I desire you to take meas- ures to forfeit the goods. They are cloths and cassimeres. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel W illiams, United States Attorney, Baltimore. Rep. Ts T o. 669. 323 Custom-House, New York, ApHl 26, 1S3S. Sir : I addressed you yesterday, on the subject of James Bottomly jr. I have since understood that he has from $50,000 to #f00j000 worth of goods in the possession of S. C. & J. Ford, of your city. Will you make inquiries upon the subject, and proceed if there are any of the packages described in my letter of yesterday. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, April 27, 1S3S. Sir: I have your favor of yesterday. I understand Messrs. Stevens & Co. or some other auction house in your city, sold on Tuesday last a large amount of goods of Bottomly's. If so, I would seize the goods, if the pur- chasers have not in fact paid for them. French goods were shipped yester- day by the steamboat Swan. The wrapper is marked and the inside B D T) B mark is ^ or ^ I wish all these with either of these marks seized, and dealt with according to law. The French goods were consigned to Davies, Stevenson, & Co. If Bottomly is in your city, arrest him and hold him to bail for $10,000. I will send you an affidavit of " belief that he is justly indebted to the United States in that sum," if your practice requires this form. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, U. S. Attorney, Philadelphia. N. B. If the wrapper marked is taken off, you must be careful to preserve it, as it forms a part of the proof. J. H. Custom-House, New York, April 27, 1838. Sir : I think Mr. Bottomly is now in your city ; if so, I wish you to hold him to bail for $10,000, and I will send you an affidavit for this purpose, that " I believe him to be indebted to the United States in that sum." He has, in the course of the week, in all human probability, sold the goods in your city, at auction; if they have not been paid for by the pur- chasers, I Avish them seized. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, Esq., U. A'. Attorney, Baltimore. Rep. No. 650. Marshal's Office, Philadelphia, April 27, 1838. Dear Sir : I have been requested by Mr. Read, (U. S. attorney,) who is too much engaged professionally to write himself, to drop you a line, and in- form you that Davies, Stevenson, & Co., auctioneers, of this city, have ad- vertised a peremptory sale of 400 pieces imported cloths, cassimeres, &c, to be held to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock. As it is an ascertained fact that this house received, by the Union Transportation Line, from New York, on the 19th instant, some bales of merchandise from James Bottomly, jr., Mr. Read thinks it probable that the cloths, &c, advertised for sale are a part of the goods referred to in your letter of the 25th, and he suggests the propriety of your sending on, express, some individual through whose agency they may be identified, if such a thing is practicable. Respectfully, &c. SAMUEL D. PATTERSON, Marshal E. D. Pennsylvania. Jesse Hoyt, Esq. New York, April 27, 183S — Friday eve'g, 11 o'clock. Dear Sir : Your letter of this morning has this moment been put into my hands. I wrote Mr. Read by mail this afternoon, which I trust lie will receive early to-morrow morning, stating that I had understood the Messrs. Stevenson & Co. had sold, on Tuesday, a large amount of goods belonging to Bottomly. The goods adverted to in your letter belong, no doubt, to the same person, and have been fraudulently entered at the custom-house in this city. I think, if my letter should not fall into the hands of Mr. Read before the sale takes place, that you will get this before they shall have been delivered to the purchasers ; then I would desire they should be seized, and I have no doubt they can be. The boxes or bales in which they were sent to your city should be care- fully preserved. The marks are B, and numbered from 830 to 1,300. ' I will, on being informed of their seizure, send some person on to identify them. The enclosed paragraph, from the " American'' of this evening, gives you a tolerably correct idea of the manner by which this fraud has been perpetrated, though I know not how it came to the knowledge of the editor. I have not time to take a copy of this letter, and I have to request that you will be so good as to send me a copy of it by return mail, or as soon as your leisure will permit you to make a copy for that purpose. I wrote to Baltimore by the mail of to-day, and if you should make any discovery that will tend to visit the power of the law upon the individual referred to, I desire that you will write to the marshal or district attorney at Baltimore, and, if Bottomly can be found, arrest him, and hold him to bail in the sum of $10,000, and 1 will forward an affidavit for that purpose. I [sent] the cutter in search for him in the bay, but I am inclined to be- lieve he is in your city or Baltimore. It is a fraud of such a character as requires the utmost vigilance of the officers of Government to bring the offender to justice. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Samuel D. Patterson, Esq. Kep. No. 669. 325 Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1838. Sir: I have positive information that Bottomly has a large amount of goods in Hoffman & Co.'s auction store, and that no advance has been made upon them. I wish them seized in my name forthwith. Messrs. Hoffman & Co. will give you all facility. The original packages, with the marks, whether empty or not, to the end that we will prove that certain goods came from certain packages. I trust to your vigilance for ail parties concerned. Yours, respectfully, J. 1I0YT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, Esq., United Stales Attorney, Baltimore. Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1838. Sir : Mr. George A. Wasson, a special deputy for this purpose appoint- ed, leaves this afternoon in the mail line, and will be in your city early to-morrow morning, to look after the affairs concerning which I have written you for the last few days. I beg you will afford all possible energy in the matter referred to. Yours, respectfully, J.'HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., United Stutis Attorney, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1838 Sir : Mr. George A. Wasson, a special deputy, will proceed to Philadel phia to take charge of the matters referred to in your letter of yesterday. He is acquainted with the circumstances, and will detail them all. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Samuel D. Patterson, Esq., United States Marshal, Philadelphia. Marshal's Office, Philadelphia, April 28, 1S38. Dear Sir : Your letter of last night was received at 1 P. M. to-day. I had, however, prior to its receipt, proceeded, in company with Mr. Kern, the deputy collector of this port, to make further search for the goods supposed to have been forwarded to this city by Bottomly. On visiting the auction house of Davies, Stevenson, & Co., I was again assured that they had on hand no goods or property belonging to Bot- tomly, and they also declared that all the goods they have received on consignment from him had been sold, delivered, and paid for. Further diligent examination was also made in other quarters, but I regret to say, that I have been uable to fall in with any property that circumstances would justify me in believing belonged to Bottomly. 326 Eep. No. 669. The clerk at the transportation office of the line with which the steam- boat is connected made careful examination of his freight list, but we Avere unable to ascertain that Davies, Stevenson, & Co., or any other auction house of this city, had received any consignment bearing the marks referred to in your letter of yesterday to Mr. Read. Writs were this morning placed in my hands for the arrest of Mr. Bot- tomly. The individual bearing that name, who was here at the time our examinations commenced, appears to have been a brother of the one you desire to have arrested. He left this city some time yesterday, as I learn, on his return to New York. Regretting that I have no information of a more satisfactory character to communicate, I remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, SAMUEL D. PATTERSON, Marshal E. D. Pennsylvania. Jesse Hoyt, Esq.. Collector, <$•£., New York. Sir : I duly received yours of the 26th instant yesterday, and yours of yesterday this morning, and communicated them to the marshal, who, accompanied by our deputy collector, made the proper inquiries. The result you have above. I am, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, JOHN M. READ, United States Attorney. District Attorney's Office, Baltimore, April 30, 1838. Dear Sir : I have received your three letters of the 25th, 27th, and 28th instant, relative to James Bottomly, jr., and have lost no time in inquir- ing after him and the merchandise fraudulently entered. I can find neither him nor any of his importations, nor, except between $300 and $400, any funds of his in this city. Mr. Wasson, your agent, and I, visited the three establishments where alone his property was likely to be. We were forced to conclude that he really had no goods here. Mr. Wasson went in the morning, with my son, to Messrs Hoffman & Co.'s, and I accompanied him again in the evening. We had full conversations with these gentlemen. Their last sales for Bottomly were on the 17th instant, and they now owe him nothing. I should, but for the advice of Mr. Wasson, and our renewed inquiries,have made seizures of such broadcloths, &c, as they had in store. Mr. Wasson will detail to you the result of our inquiries and examinations. I thought of sending you a form of an affidavit, preparatory to issuing attachments, and laying them in the hands of Hoffman and others ; but at present there is no encouragement for even this proceeding, which incurs but slight costs and no risks of damages. Process is still out against J. Bottomly ; Mr. Bep. No. 669. 327 WassoM is pretty sure that he is not in Baltimore. His brother, Wrn. Bottoml y, is, or was on Saturday, here. Very trulv, yours, NATHANIEL WILLIAMS. J. Hoyt, Esq. P. S. Any further suggestions or instructions of yours will be attended to promptly. Custom-House, New York, June 11, 1S38. Sir : Mr. Miller, the counsel of Mr. Bottomly, showed me a copy of an order made by the district court in the case of the United States against a certain quantity of woollen goods claimed by Mr. Bottomly, to the effect that the goods should be delivered to Mm on giving bond for the appraised value thereof. It would appear that the order had been entered by consent. I will give immediate direction to have the appraisement. There are two parcels of goods under seizure, claimed by Mr. Bottomly; the one parcel consists of 259 pieces taken from his store, and which have not been examined or appraised further than to ascertain that they had been fraudulently entered ; and the other parcel, consisting of 15 packages, were examined by one of the appraisers, for the purpose of ascertaining, not what their value was here, but for the purpose of seeing at how much less than their actual cost they had been enteied by the importer, Mr. Bottomly. He contrived, through means which I explained to you on a former occasion, to abstract the entry and the invoice from the custom-house. It' the goods are to be bonded, we must ascertain the value here, and to that end I will have them appraised at once, under the 67th section of the act of 1799, and will send you the result, so that there shall be no delay in giving possession of the goods to the claimant, if the requisition of the act is complied with. I enclose you the correspondence with Mr. Bottomly, on the subject of the entry and invoice. The entry was seen last in his hands at the custom-house. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. United States District Attorney's Office, New York, June )2, 183S. Sir : The proctor for the claimant of 3 packages of cassimeres, marked and numbered B || 12S3, 12S4, 1296, and 12 packages of cloths, B|| 1285, 12S6, 1287, 12SS, 12S9, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1297, import- ed by James Bottomly, jr., has given notice of a motion that the goods be appraised under the rules of the district court, and upon filing a bond stip- ulation, and complying with the rule in other respects, be restored to the claimant. 328 Hep. No. 669. Apprehensive that the true value would not be ascertained, if the ap- praisement was confided to the persons designated by the rule, I proposed to the proctor (who had acquiesced) that the bond should be given in the amount of the custom-house appraisement, which I supposed had already I been made. The claimant will apply this day to have the goods appraised under the direction of the 43d rule of the district court. I again urge upon you the indispensable necessity of having all the Bottornly goods examined forthwith and without delay, under the 67th section of the act of 1799. Let Mr. Wasson attend the examination, take samples, and see that they are connected with the result of the examination, so as to enable him distinctly to identify it on the trial. This ought to be done this day. I beg you to select two intelligent merchants, whose testimony will be per- fectly clear. Useful evidence may also be obtained by tracing the goods, after they are delivered to Bottornly, into the hands of purchasers, by whom the prices may be shown. I again request the strict observance of the within suggestions. I am, &c. WM. M. PRICE, U. S. District Attorney. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, August 6, 1S3S. Sir : We are beginning to reap the benefits from the discovery we made of the frauds practised at this office. We began on the 6th of April to send all woollens to the public store for examination. After this, many persons suffered their goods to go to the public store, from the ship, on general or- der — that is, m fifteen days after the entry of the vessel in which they came. They are now beginning to be claimed ; and to-day an entry was made for 15 packages, of the value of £2,120 3s. 2d. We got possession of the cockets from the ship on her arrival, by which it appears that their value was sworn to at Liverpool, on the 30th of April, at £995, and that they paid there an ad valorem duty accordingly, by which he defrauded his own Government out of £5 15.9., and designed to defraud ours out of $2,74S. The same party makes another entry to-day with about the same results. Tiie concern have entered within the last fifteen months 600 pack- ages, on which we have been defrauded about $250 a package — making, in all, about $1 50,000, as we estimate ; and I do not know that we have any redress. The goods were originally shipped to order, and James Bottornly was in the habit of presenting bills of lading endorsed to him. We ar- rested him for fraud, and he gave bail and fled. His bonds have been for- feited, and he was indicted at the last term of the court, (last week.) His brother (William Bottornly) now presents bills of lading endorsed to him, and he enters the goods. 1 do not see that we have any redress. Leech & Harrison enter the goods there for exportation. I do not know whether the comity of nations does or not require this Government to communicate the evidence of the fraud upon the British Government, to that Govern- ment. I submit the case for your consideration. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Eep. No. 669. 329 Treasury Department, August 9, 183S. Sir : I beg leave to return you my thanks for the information commu- nicated in your letter of the 6th instant. I would recommend you to pursue all frauds, of the nature referred to, to the utmost extent of the law ; and any aid or advice you may stand in need of will be cheerfully rendered you by the district attorney and Soli- citor of the Treasury ; and, if found necessary, the opinion of the Attorney General, upon any doubtful points, can be taken through the Department. I would especially recommend you to keep a vigilant eye on all those persons who may be connected in any way with the detected offenders. I think it might be well for you to write to the collector at Liverpool, or to our consul at that port, in reference to the fraud practised there, to which you allude : it may be a means of obtaining good services in return for the protection of our own revenue. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq. Custom-House, New York, September 22, 1S38. ' Sir : I have not yet received an answer to my communication of the 15th instant ; and I now beg to call your attention to the facts of the case, and ask for your especial action thereon. In the month of April I made two affidavits in the case of James Bottomly, jr. ; one alleging that he had been guilty of bribery, and the other of perjury at the custom-house. On these affidavits warrants were issued, and he was arrested. Subsequently it wa's understood that he had absconded. The marshal having made the arrest, he must either be liable for an escape, or must produce the security he took on permitting him to go. I find, by examination of the minutes of the circuit court of the United States, that, on the 2d of August last, "the pris- oner was called and did not appear, and that his recognizance was for- feited." This would show that a recognizance was taken, else it could not have been forfeited. If this be so, I ask you to prosecute that recogni- zance, or in some way to account for it. If the marshal has received it, let it be paid over to some one, and surely the law must designate the person to whom it should be paid. If paid into court, the clerk will know what to do with it ; and if paid to the district attorney, I think he would inform himself as to the proper destination, if he does not already know. I under- take to say that there is no act in relation to " flues, penalties, and forfeit- ures," that authorizes the marshal to hold the money for one moment. The law constitutes the collector the general recipient for the money in such, cases, and he is responsible to the Government for its share, as well as for the share belonging to the officers of the customs, if any such share there be. I instruct you, therefore, as the legal officer of the United States in this district, to take such steps as may be necessary to vindicate the laws and the rights of the parties interested in the case. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. \ 330 Hep. -No. 689. Custom-House, New Ygrk, October 25, 183S. Sir : In addition to my previous communications, and particularly (hose of June Hth, 19th, and 25th, and of July 2Gth, in relation to the case of seizure of the goods of James Bottomly, jr., I have now the honor to state that you will observe that the 15 cases under seizure were marked from 1283*to 1297. About the time of the seizure, the same parties had goods arriving, and were on the manifest to order, as most of the goods are, shipped under sim- ilar circumstances. I now annex a schedule of goods that came in the same way, with the names of the vessels, and the time they were put in public store : Ships. Marks and Nos. of Cases. Sent to public store on general packages. order. Hibernia B 129S to 1316 19 April 21 and 24, 1S3S. Sheffield B 1317 to 1335 17 April 26, 27, and May 2, 3. Columbus B 1334 to 1345 12 April 2, 3. Sheridan B 1346 to 1355 10 May 2. George Washington B 1356 to 1369 14 May 4, 7. These goods were not entered till August, and then by William Bottomly. Before, the seizure, they were in the habit of entering these goods at an average of £65 a package ; after tjie seizure, they found it necessary to send 'to England for new invoices, and they appear to be sworn to on the 18th July, before the consul at Liverpool. The goods were entered in August, at from £109 to £145. I have the cocketsby the Hibernia and the Sheridan, by which it will be seen at what value the goods were entered at Liverpool for exportation ; and you will observe they are entered here, in most instances, at more than one hundred per cent, more than they are entered at for exportation. I think this may be gone into as a part of the 6i res gesta" as a distin- guished judicial used to say. I now send you the following papers: 1. The cocket by the Hibernia. , 2. The like by the Sheffield. 3. The entries by the Hibernia, George Washington, endorsed the 9th August, 1S3S; by Sheffield, 6th August; by the Columbus and Sheridan, 11th August, 1838. 4. The invoices by all these vessels. I have nothing further to add on the subject of Mr. Bottomly. ^Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Rep. No. 669. 331 Custom-House, New York, December 1, 1838. Sir : I have your communication of the 27th instant, presented by Gen.. McNeil, in relation to the case of Bottomly. I regret to say that we have not yet tried any of the cases of goods seized by my orders, and which have been claimed by him. He was indicted at the July term of the circuit court of the United States, for perjury and bribery. He did not appear, and his bonds were forfeited. The cases in rem have not yet been tried ; and, as I am not responsible for that, I will not attempt to assign any reason for it. As to the question of fraud, and that too of the most glaring character, I have no doubt ; but the difficulty is in establishing it by competent proof. In relation to the unbroken packages, of which I have 15 under seizure, we cannot fail in succeeding ; but we have also under seizure 259 pieces of cloth, taken from his store, which we have no means of identifying with the entries, because the original numbers or " tags 7 ' have been taken off, and others substituted in their place ; and hence it is utterly impossible to identify them. Such, I apprehend, is the case with those under seizure in your port. The practice of this individual was to take the goods to his own store as soon as he got possession of them, af- ter going through the forms of the custom-house, to open the packa- ges, take off the original numbers on the pieces and substitute others, and put on the shelves for sale, destroy the original packages in which they were imported, or obliterate the marks and numbers upon them, and thereby destroy all traces of identity. As to the packages that are unbroken, which I have under seizure, they had not the opportunity to go through with the modus operandi, for they never left the public store ; so that I can identify them. I explained the matter more fully in a personal conversation with General McNeil than I have here given it to you • but, from what I have written, you will be able to appreciate the difficulty you will have in con- demning the goods you have under seizure. You may, however, be able to succeed better in your district than ice can here ; for our court is very much of a mercantile court, and the juries,, as a matter of course, always go against the Government, and will con- tinue to do so as long as it is the fashion of the day to consider the Gov- ernment as opposed to the merchants. In other words, when the merchants are the jurors and witnesses, God help the Government ! Verv respectful! v, &c. J. HOYT. G. Bancroft, Esq., Collector, Boston. District Attorney's Office ? Baltimore, May 4, 1838. Dear Sir : I am mortified that f wc have not been able to effect any dis- closures here relative to Bottomly's goods. Have you not possession of any of his books or papers, whereby his transactions in this city may be traced ? Would it not be worth while to lay attachments in the hands of those with whom he has recently had dealings? They would be required to answer on oath. The Hoffmans admit the small sum of between $300 and $ 100, which is in a note to become due. 10* 332 Rep. No. 669. I was in hopes you had possession of some papers or correspondence of Bottomiy's. Respectfully, yours, NATH. WILLIAMS. J. Hoyt, Esq. Custom-House, New York. May 29, 1839. Sir : You have a large quantity of papers in your office in relation to Bottomiy's case. Such as belong to this office I would be obliged if you would select and return them. Respectfully, &c. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney. J. HOYT, Collector. Custom-House, New York, May 31, 1839. Sir: On the 26th May, 1838, I reported to you ten cases of seizures, made by me at various times between the 21st April and the 15th May of that year. On the 19th of the same month of May, I wrote to you, ex- plaining why I had not reported such seizures before that time, and promis- ing to do it at the earliest moment possible, which promise I complied with, as before stated, on the 26th of that month. From a cursory perusal of my letter book, I am not able to say that I have fully reported the dispo- sition of those cases, which I now propose to do, in the order in which they appear in my letter of the 26th May. 1st. The 15 cases of woollen goods taken from Dayton's store were con- demned and sold, and the accounts furnished in my general accounts for 4th quarter of the year 1838. 2d. The 259 pieces of cloth taken' from the store of Bottomly were de- livered to his agent on the 23d of May instant, as will be hereafter stated. 3d. The 15 cases of woollens of Bottomly were tried in January last, and were condemned by the court on the verdict of the jury, having been long before bonded under the act of 1799, when the duties were paid, amount- ing to $2,870. The counsel for the claimants took a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court on some points of law raised, but which was aban- doned a few days since, on the condition that we should relinquish the 259 pieces of cloth. ^Ve were glad to make the arrangement, for this reason: that we had no proof to condemn them, and quite, a scanty pattern on which to claim from the court a certificate of probable cause; and, under the ad- vice of the district attorney, the officers of the Government interested in the seizure agreed to abandon the 259 pieces on the terms stated ; and accordingly the bond given by the claimants for the 15 cases was paid, and the money was this day distributed, and'the sum of $4,721 05 was paid into this office, to the credit of the United States, for its share of forfeiture. 4th. The pistols and guns of Lewis Strasser, have not yet been tried, but will be in the June term of the district court. 5th. The 4 cases of hardware of E. Leon & Co. were tried at the Jan- uary term of the district court, and acquitted. 6th. The goods (viz : the 26 packages taken from the store of De Casse, Rep. No. 669. 333 Miege, & Co.) have not yet been tried, but will be as soon as the district attorney can prepare them for trial. 7th. The cases of La Chaise & Fouche are disposed of, viz : 30 pack- ages, 61 packages, and 35 packages. The dutiable portion of the goods were appraised at over $27,000 here, which of course included the duty; they were bonded thus, viz: for $21,000, duties paid $6,300, making- $27,300 in three separate appraisements ; and three separate libels or in- formations were filed, all of which amounted to the sum above stated, viz: $27,300, the reports of which, and the money therefor, I received yesterday from the clerk of the court, and which were in due form dis- tributed to-day; the share of the United States to which (viz: $13,650) I this day passed to their credit on the books of this office. In addition, to the goods of this house, the possession of which I took on the seizure, I gave notice to them on the 26th of April, 1S38, and at subsequent periods, to produce and lodge at the appraisers' store other goods referred to in the penal bonds, taken under the act, for the forthcoming of such goods on the demand of the collector. They, not having complied with, such demands, forfeited those penal bonds, and suits were commenced against them on the same. We had also a claim upon them, as I contend- ed, for duties unpaid and unsecured, upon goods fraudulently entered as free, when they should have paid a duty, and to recover which duty I directed the district attorney to bring a suit. To settle these latter claims, they proposed to pay a certain sum, which was finally, by a computation, made to be $18,354 93, which I agreed to accept, under the advice of the district attorney ; and it was accordingly paid to the district attorney, and by him paid to me on the 27th instant, and was this day distributed ; and the share of the United States to the same (say $.9,177 47) was passed in the books of this office to the credit of the United States this day ; which said certain sums, as heretofore stated, having been passed to the credit of the United States, amount to $27,548 51. Very respectfully, &c. J. H0YT, Collector. Henry D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor, <§-c. Custom-House, July 22, 1839. Dear Sir : I have your favor of the 19th instant, in relation to the trial of the Bottomly case. You need not be apprehensive of any collusion be- tween Campbell and the claimant of the cloths you are about to try. He will avoid intermeddling on either side, if he can avoid it. By a perusal of his testimony on the trial here, you will readily perceive that he is ready to make any statement to serve himself, ivithout reference to the truth of the case ; but he would not dare to colleague with the other side ; for, in that event, he would have violated the understanding (in a much greater extent than he had already done) had with the district attorney and myself, when his confession was reduced to writing by me. Mr. Butler is now out of town, and will not be back in time for me to ascertain whether the confession taken by Mr. Hamilton could with pro- priety be used on the present occasion. I will therefore leave it for you to decide, as the case may seem to require, with the statement I now make 1st. It was understood, when the confession was made, in April, 1838,. 334 Rep. No. 669. (which you now have in my handwriting.) that Mr. Campbell was not to be prosecuted for taking the bribe, provided, on the trial of the cases, he tes- tified the truth, if called upon by us, as a witness. 2d. When the cause was about to be tried, in January last, he was ex- amined by Mr. Hamilton, preparatory to his being called as a witness, and he stated the truth, probably, as far as he went ; but, when put to the stand, he would not testify fully, and what he did state was not the truth. 3d. Under this state of the case, we oive Mr. Campbell no protection, in my judgment ; yet I would not consent, as a public officer or as an individ- ual, to do any thing in this matter which could, by any possibility, be con- strued into a violation of good faith, because others have violated theirs. Under this view of the subject, I leave you to act as circumstances may require, with the further remark, that, if you do not feel yourself compelled to adopt the course pointed out in your letter, I prefer you should not ; but, if it becomes necessary to sustain your case, I think you should do it. I sent yon Saturday, just as the mail was about to close, copies from the clerk's office of the record of indictment of James Bottomly, jr. I did not look at it particularly ; but it occurred to me, after the mail had left, that it was not properly verified, so as you would be enabled to introduce it in evi- dence. If so, you may have discovered it before this, and in time to send it back, and the verification. In haste, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Sidney Bartlett, Esq., Counsellor at Law, Boston. Custom-House, New York, August 22, 1S39. Sir : I have your letter of the 20th instant, which did not reach me till this morning. I think your judge is very unreasonable to require me to swear to that which I cannot by possibility know except from the information of others. We did not see vessel, captain, or passengers, in this port ; and how can I swear that I did ? I cannot find the person who knows this fact ; but I presume it can be proved, on the trial of the cause, under a com- mission; and whether he is held to bail or not is immaterial. J return you the affidavit. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. J. M. Read, Esq., U. S. Attorney , Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, August 23, 1839. Sir : I have yours of yesterday. Messrs. Cairns and Wasson went on this morning to take a further look at those matters, and no doubt are with you by this time. I would thank you to keep me advised of the proceed- ings therein. I shall not make you a visit till my officers return, when I will see you, and advise fully in the matter. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. J. M. Read, Esq., U. S. Jitlorney, Philadelphia. Rep. No. 669. 335 Custom-House, New York, September 30, 1839. Sir : In reference to the application of Mr. Bottomly to bond the goods under seizure claimed by him, I have to say : 1. That, in a case of this kind, I would recommend that all the forms of law should be complied with. The 89th section (and not the 79th) of the act of 1799 states, that "upon the prayer of any claimant to the court,'' which seems to require a formal petition, to be verified by oath, &c. 2. There may be circumstances attending a case which will justify the court in refusing to permit the goods to be bonded. Such are the circum- stances in the case of Attorney General vs. Laragudy, 2d Price, 166. 3. Can we not, on this motive, take the ground of the appraisement having been already had, which, under the circumstances of the case, is conclusive, and at the same time consent that the goods may be bonded, upon the value established by that appraisement ? 4. The act declares that it shall be lawful for the court to appoint three proper persons to appraise, &c. How imperative are the words here used upon the court to make that appointment ? If thero is any discretion left, I would be glad to make a case that would prevent another appraisement. I throw out these suggestions for your consideration. As to the indi- viduals named in the notice, there are objections. Mr. Robinson is not impartial, as he has himself goods under seizure, and has been in the habit, for a long while, of receiving goods undervalued ; and therefore his stand- ard of value cannot be a correct one. I do not think that Mr. March ever imported a piece of goods, and therefore knows nothing of foreign value. Mr. Oakey, the partner of Mr. Robinson, is in Europe. I return you the notice sent me. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney. Consulate of the United States, Liverpool, October 17, 1839. Sir : I have this day received and forwarded the letter you enclosed to me for Messrs. Humphreys, Cunliffe, & Co., who are among the solicitors I employ in Manchester to administer oaths for the verification of invoices. They are men of respectability, and, if permitted to attend at the examina- tion, may be some restraint on the commissioners. In a case of the kind, however, which was sent me some six or eight years ago, they refused to let any counsel in behalf of the United States be present ; in consequence of which, I requested that, in all future commissions, my name should be inserted at the head of the list, if possible, but at any rate to act as one of the commissioners. By this means, I have been able to have the examina- tion conducted fairly ; and, should there be any appearance of collusion, it would be in my power to detect and even prevent it. Chancery commis- sions in this country are conducted in private ; and, if such instructions be given by the judge, (which is frequently the case,) those from abroad will also be executed without any person being present but the commissioners, their clerk, (who is sworn not to divulge the testimony,) and the witnesses separately. The truth is much more likely to be obtained in this manner y 336 Sep. -No. 669. but no compulsory process can be had to bring the witnesses forward : it would therefore always be well, after their names are enumerated in the commission, to have a clause inserted like the following : " and such others as the commissioners may summon before them." The defendants in the United States of course name only such men as they know will swear in their favor: it is therefore of consequence that I should have it in my power to introduce others, if possible, to invalidate their testimony. I feel quite persuaded that with such powers I should be able to ferret out the truth. I also made another suggestion in a former case, which it would be very important in any future ones to have attended to; namely, to attach to the commission, by seal of the court, good large samples of the cloth under seizure. This will afford the opportunity of investigating, with great nicety, the true value of the articles. Let each piece of cloth be of the same size with the piece of pape'r on which the commission is written r which they will serve as a wrapper to. I beg to refer you to my letters of the 10th and 25th of September, and I beg to add, that I have since received information which convinces me that you have not altogether broken up the system. I would call your at- tention particularly to shipments made to a man named William Broadbent, a Yorkshireman, residing in New York, who received consignments of goods that I am positively informed are undervalued. The suggestions I have made above being attended to, my name, above all, being at the head of the commission, and powers granted in general clause to introduce witnesses not named in it, will, I am quite sure, enable me to obtain correct testimony, and, in consequence, ensure a verdict for the United States ; for the thing is openly acknowledged and boasted of by the fellows who have been successful. I should think my information of the 31st of May, 1838, if it was instru- mental in procuring a judgment in the Bottomly case, and others of the kind, would entitle me to a participation in the seizures; at any rate, the Wood case appears a clear one, and you may rely on my vigilance in fu- ture, both in giving notice and in the establishment of the facts by irrefrag- able testimony, whenever it is necessary to resort to a commission for that purpose. I am, dear sir, &c. FRANCIS B. OGDEN. Jesse Hott, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, June 15, 1840. Sir : Understanding that the circuit court of the United States for your district has affirmed the decree of the district court, forfeiting a quantity of cloths imported into the district of New York by James Bottomly, jr., it becomes my duty to inform you what are deemed to be the rights of the collector, naval officer, and surveyor of the port and district of New York ? in relation to that forfeiture. The officers last named are advised that, by the provisions of the 91st section of the act of 2d March, 1799, chapter 128, the moiety of the pro- ceeds of that forfeiture belongs to them, as the officers of the district and port wherein the forfeiture was incurred. If the clerk of the court, to whom the proceeds of the forfeiture is to be Rep. No. 669. 337 paid, in pursuance of the provisions, &c., the 90th section of the same act elects to pay to you, as the collector of the district where the seizure was made, you will have the goodness to take notice that I claim the moiety herein- before referred to should be paid to me, to be distributed according to law. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Esq., Collector, Boston. CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PROTEST FUND. Custom-House, New York, September 23, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the 14th July last, in answer to mine of the 11th of that month, and also yours of the 13th instant, relating to the money under protest, I have not replied to before now, for the following reasons : i 1st. In reference to the former letter, it was intimated therein that you ntended to ask again the advice of the Attorney General, as soon as he returned to the seat, of Government, which I presumed would be before any great lapse of time, and, probably, as soon as I then supposed an ar- rangement would be made with any bank, to hold the money on as good terms as it w r as now held by the Bank of the State of Ne\v York. 2d. It has been communicated to you that the latter bank paid sevek per cent, interest for the fund, on the ground that my account with the bank was of support; when, to justify them in allowing that rate of interest, though without that amount no such rate of interest would be given. 3d. The condition of the money, which was such at that time that it was deemed by me, and others with whom I consulted, unwise to attempt an arrangement with any of the banks for a change of the place of deposite, lest it might have a tendency to throw a distrust, when none ought to have been cast. 4th. I did not feel myself at liberty, without being especially directed, to negotiate with any bank which had heretofore held the public money ; and although I might have construed your letter into an intimation that you would have preferred that the fund should have been deposited in the Bank of America, yet I had no reason to satisfy me that the former, a more recent transaction of that bank with the Government, gave any espe- cial claim to the confidence of the Government or its officers. 5th. But what has more than any thing influenced me to omit an an- swer to your letter, was the fact of official engagements of much more im- portance, as I have had occasion before to state to you, than that of decid- ing what disposition should be made of the fund in question, from the brief period of the absence of the Attorney General trom the seat of Government; knowing, as I did, that it could no where be placed to derive so large an income for it; and that it was contrary to the theory of the administration to imagine it unsafe in my hands, when ten times the amount, was occa- sionally left, without any apparent uneasiness on the part of the Treasury Department. 6th. In reference to your letter of the 13th instant, I am very glad to hear that you have again called the attention of the Attorney General to the 338 Rep. No. 669. question. I think he will agree with me that the late act of Congress does not touch the question. Upon general common law principles, no agent is bound to pay over money he has received with direclions not to pay over without indemnity, and that indemnity is not given by the law ; and the Treasury Department, if it has authority to give that indemnity, has never offered it. It is a matter in which you nor I can in any way be responsi- ble for, if the whole money is lost. You have called the attention of Con- gress to the question, and it has failed to provide for it, and with it the re- sponsibility rests. Respectfullv. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary, <§• Rep. No. 669. 341 to defend in the suits now pending against you in the State courts, I would remark, that the third section of the act of 3d of March last, making ap- propriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government, pro- hibits any allowance being made by the Department to the United States district attorneys for the payment of any extra services, unless authorized by law. It is probable that Congress will modify the provision of the law re- ferred to before the suits will be ail disposed of, as district attorneys have never been considered bound, ex officio, to attend to business in the State courts; and yet their services there may be more useful to the Govern- ment than those of any other counsel. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector, 8?c. Custom-House, New York, November 19, 1S39. Sir: I received, yesterday, your letter of the 16th insiant, in relation to the defence of the suits brought against me, individually, by persons who paid duties under protest. I sent a copy of that letter to B. F. Butler, Esq., and in reply he wrote me this day, a copy of which reply I now hand you. I desire to avoid all difficulty hereafter in the statement of my accounts,, and I therefore desire that the principle of every change I am to make, in cases where doubts could arise, be settled as I go along. Upon a liberal construction. I have already an authority to pay all costs that I may be put to ; but, as I was not sure the Department so understood it, I wrote you the letter of the 11th instant, referred to by you in that of the 16th ; and it seems that I was right in taking the precaution of asking your understanding of the subject. With great respect, I submit that the section of the act of the 3d of March, 1839, referred to by you, has no bearing on the question. I em- ploy the district attorney, not as district attorney, but as a gentleman of the profession, in whose skill and ability I have the utmost confidence. I have a brother in the same profession in this city, and I might employ him as well as Mr. Butler, if I had the same confidence in the one as I have in the other; and the expenses of the litigation the United States must pay,, or I will permit the suits to go by default. It is unjust that I should be put in jeopardy for the expense of the litigation, when I act in obedience- to the orders of my superiors ; and I know of no law that compels the district attorney, as such, to take charge of the suits. I recollect an in- stance, when I was at trie bar, where a distinguished counsel was em- ployed to assist a former district attorney in defending a cause against a former collector, involving the interest of the United States, and he re- ceived a fee of $250. I venture to say that no one would charge less than Mr. Butler; and it is wholly indifferent to me whether he or any one else is employed, or whether any one is employed at all, so far as I am con- cerned personally. All I contend for is, that the United States are to pay the expenses, and not I. I have this day received from the Bank of the State of New York the 342 Rep. No. 669. sum of $2,108 42, being the balance of interest due on the protest fund lately held by that institution, and which I do not think I would be justi- fied in paying over to the United States until I receive some further indem- nity or instructions in relation to the suits referred to. I was in hopes that I should never be compelled to refer to this unpleas- ant subject of the protest fund again; but I will, if it be necessary, go back to my former position, and say that I will not pay over this interest till I am protected in the matters referred to. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, November 23, 1839. Sir: Your letter of the 19th instant, enclosing a copy of one addressed to you by B. F. Butler, Esq., on the subject of the cost of defending suits brought against you, has been received. In answer, I have to observe, that you appear entirely to misapprehend the views of the Department as to the allowance of reasonable costs in the suits in the State courts. The only difficulty arises in paying any extra compensation to the district attorney under the act of the 3d of March last, as construed by the Attorney General. But no difficulty exists in paying a suitable compensation to any other counsel, and and all other reasonable costs, and none has been intend- ed to be raised. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, December 21, 1839. Sir : By the enclosed newspaper you will perceive that a calumny, yes- terday put before the public, and promptly refuted by me, has been this morning repeated, in a new, and, if possible, still more aggravated form, inasmuch as it imputes to you a breach of official duty not less improper than that charged upon me. Allow me to request, by return mail, a letter, which I may lay before the public, distinctly stating whether I am, or ever have been, a defaulter. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, December 24, 1839. Sir: Yours of the 21st instant has been received, in which you desire trie to state whether you are, or "ever have been, a defaulter." In reply, I would observe, that no fact is known to me, justifying such an imputation against you. The difference of opinion which arose between you and the Rep. No. 669. Department, in respect to the proper disposal of a portion of the money paid under protest, and held to abide the result of suits against you, may have given rise to some unfavorable rumors ; but those differences were determined by the advice of the law officers of the United States, and the money paid over in conformity with their views. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Treasury Department, February 7, 1840. Sir : In reference to the inquiry submitted in your communication of the 4th instant, covering a letter addressed by you to the collector of New York, together with a copy of one from that officer to yourself, dated the 1st instant, I have to observe, that the Department understands the ques- tion submitted to be this : Whether, in cases where duties have been paid on a certain description of merchandise under protest, made at the time by the parties — which duties the State courts have decided to have been erro- neously exacted — as well as in cases where the articles are similar in char- acter, but in which no protest was made when the duties were paid, the Department would deem it proper to direct the duties in such cases to be refunded ? In reply, I would remark, it is understood that some of these decisions will be carried up to the Supreme Court for adjudication; and the subject being, moreover, before Congress, with the view of some declaratory law being passed, showing the intention of that body in reference to the duti- able character of the articles of merchandise in question, as well as of others, it would seem to be proper, under these circumstances, to withhold refund- ing the duties in all such cases. As at present advised, even in cases of a final decision by the United States courts, I doubt my authority, under the existing laws and opinions of these tribunals, to refund duties not paid under protest, without a spe- cial act of Congress. Nor is such repayment deemed equitable in most cases, as the duty has probably been charged by the importer in the price of his goods, when sold, and if refunded to him it becomes a gratuity. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. James N. Barker, Esq., Comptroller. CORRESPONDENCE ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT. Custom-House, New York, January 4, 1839. Sir ; We have been so much pressed in business in the last few days,, and I am so much occupied in getting the accounts closed of the 3d quar- ter, that 1 have not had time to write the letter I promised a few days since. I would write, but I took from the last evening's papers the annexed notice : 344 Kep. No. 669. " Important to importers. "We understand that, from and after the 29th day of December last, manufactures of silk, or of which silk shall be the component material of chief value, coming from this side of the Cape of Good Hope, except sew- ing silk, are and will be admitted free of duty. Silk gloves, silk stockings, silk scarfs, silk shawls, silk any thing but sewing silk, embroidered or not •embroidered, knotted or not knotted, be they silk hosiery, silk millinery, silk mitts, or silk gloves, are and will be, at the Boston custom-house, ad- mitted free of duty. Such is the interpretation of the law given to the col- lector by Judge Story. " The decision of Judge Story, last Saturday, places the office here, in all essential matters, just where it was before the circulars issued by the Comp- troller last August. — Boston Post" It is very apparent we cannot get on and execute the laws as we under- stand them, and as I believe Congress intended we should understand them, short of an appeal to Congress to settle the litigated question. If Congress does not interfere, one-half the duties will be paid under protest ; all which involves the collectors in interminable trouble. As the law now is, no collector can get on with the public business in a manner satisfactory to himself, the public, or the Government. It is exceedingly unpleasant to me to stand in this attitude. I am unwilling to pay over the money received by me under protest to the United States, and trust to the justice of the Government for my pro- tection hereafter. I understand the Government to be the people, acting through their representatives ; and it is but recently that a suit has been ordered by the United States, against the representatives of a former collect- or of this district, one object of which is to compel that collector to lose $15,000, money actually paid by him for witnesses' fees in causes of the United States. When such an outrage upon the rights of an individual is sanctioned by "the Government God forbid that I or my representatives should ever be compelled to rely upon "the justice of that Government" for protection in the discharge of my official duties. This is one view of the case ; but another is, in my judgment, almost as bad ; which is, that there are merchants uncharitable enough to believe I put the construction upon the tariff, that I am directed to do, to compel them to protest, that I may hold the money. It is very desirable that Congress should interfere in this matter, as well for their own interests as for the just protection due to a public officer. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, February 2, 1839. Sir: I have to request that you will deposite the sum of two hundred thousand dollars in the Bank of America, at New York, to the special credit of the Treasurer of the United Statts, and transmit the certificate of deposite to this Department. It is done in order to redeem Treasury notes. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary , fyc. J. IioYT, Esq., Collector. Rep. No. 669. 345 Custom House, New York, February 5, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the 2d instant did not reach me till after business hours of yesterday. By this letter you " request me to deposite the sum of $200,000 in the Bank of America, to the special credit of the Treas- urer of the United States." You omit to state to me out of what fund this deposite is to be made. By previous instructions, I was directed to transfer, on Saturday of each week, to the separate credit of the Treasurer, all the moneys in my hands, to be applied to the drafts of that office. I have continued to do so from the receipt of those instructions. I accord- ingly transferred, on Saturday last, $130,000, which, by my weekly re- turns transmitted yesterday, you will perceive, left in my hands the sum of $8,291 85 to the credit of the United States, to be accounted for in the next returns, part of which had been actually disbursed for the benefit of the United States, and charged in my cash book to suspense account, the regular vouchers for the expenditure not having been received. You may have intended this deposite of $200,000 to be applied to the money received by me under protest, and for deposites for unascertained, duties prior to 1st January last. If that be your intention, 1 have to ob- serve — 1. It will appear, by the weekly returns transmitted yester- day, that the fund under protest amounted to - • $124,443 95 2. That the deposite by the same return amounted to the sum of - - - - - - - 54,906 40 Making, together, the sum of - 179,350 35" 3. My nett receipts yesterday were - $23,013 94 4. Balance on hand yesterday - - S,296 85 31,310 79 210,661 14 The sum of $31,310 79 is the only sum in my hands to the credit, of the United States for the general balance of receipts for the customs. But in relation to the first two items, amounting to $179,350 35, 1 have to say — 1. Concerning the money received under protest, I wrote you, on the 19th of October last, that I had made an arrangement with the Bank of the State of New York, (in which bank I kept an account,) to receive 7 per cent, interest on that fund. I sent you a copy of my correspondence with that bank, as evidence of the agreement ; which you have not, as I believe, dissented from, except by inference, from the fact that you for- warded me a copy of an opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, in a communication under date of December 22d, which attempted to show that I was bound to pay over that fund to the credit of the United States. On the receipt of which opinion, I availed myself of the first leisure moment (on the 4th of January) to dissent from it, and gave you to understand that I would not consent, under any circumstances, to be bound by it, for the reason that the Supreme Court had decided that I was not bound to pay over money under such circumstances. Subsequent to this, I noticed an article in the Globe of January 23d, taking the same ground that I took, in an essay in vindication of the Department for neg- lecting to call on Mr. Swartwout to pay. over the money which he had re- 346 Eep. No. 669. ceived under protest, and which article alluded to the decision of the Su- preme Court of the United States, to which I also referred. 2. I wrote to the Comptroller on the first instant, in answer to his in- structions under date of the 29th of January, that I peremptorily refused to pay over the money, for the reasons assigned in my previous commu- nications to the Department. 3. Under this state of things, and especially as the United States was deriving on the fund a larger interest than it was paying for the money it borrowed on Treasury notes, and, in my judgment, was securely placed, beyond a possibility of doubt, I did not think the Department would draw for it, though I had frequently written that it might, provided it was done in such a manner as to afford me protection. 4. In regard to the deposite for unascertained duties, although I have, since the first of January, passed the money immediately to the credit of the United States, yet I have serious doubts whether I ought to do so; and I have serious doubts, also, whether I will continue to do so after the pres- ent quarter, unless Congress legislate upon the subject. Recent investiga- tions and developments admonish me of the importance of assuming no more responsibilities than are thrown upon me by positive enactments of law. The receipt I give for deposites for unascertained duties makes me personally responsible for the difference between the duties actually accru- ing and the sum deposited, and the whole sum deposited I immediately pass to the credit of the United States, without any possible guarantee that the United States will refund the difference in discharge of my personal liability. 1 go into the discussion now for the purpose of suggesting the expedi- ency of your asking the Committee of Ways and Means to embrace this question as a kindred one to the protest subject, and that a section should be introduced to obviate difficulty on this as well as the protest question. I have given you now the substance of the pecuniary condition of my affairs. I have deposited the $200,000, as you request. If the Treasurer draws for all that stands to his credit, I may be compelled to annul the agreement with the State Bank, without your direct authority, uniess you intended to anticipate the receipts of all this week, the probable amount of which I have not had the leisure to ascertain from investigation. Our cash duties yesterday were short of $10,000, which is a falling off. We have been somewhat busy since the committee have been here, as you may well imagine, and it has been with difficulty I have been able to get off my ordinary returns. The auditor has been before it most of the time for the last ten days. In your future directions for the deposite of money, I would be glad of a designation of the fund from which the deposite is to be made. I desire only to have matters of this kind distinctly understood. I en- deavor to give you from time to time such minute details of our business at this port as to keep you well informed on the subject ; and I do not fail to object in time to any proposed arrangement which strikes me to be ob- jectionable, and to this end I have made this communication. I have apprized the Treasurer of the deposite, and sent him duplicate receipts. I am, sir, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 347 Treasury Department, February 7, 1839. Sir : In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I would state that the .deposite requested to be made in mine of the 2d instant was expected to be made from the sum returned as held by you to the credit of the Treas- urer. The same will be expected in like cases hereafter, unless special direc- tions of a different kind are given. In regard to the subject of duties not ascertained I supposed the difficul- ty all settled, and heisce the bill reported by the committee extends only to duties paid under protest. I trust you will continue to deposite the duties not ascertained, as no difficulty can arise from doing it. On the subject of the money held under protest, I have made a new proposal, which, before this, has doubtless reached you, that will cure all difficulty, and render all parties secure until Congress legislates. I regret that so numerous and great labor and responsibilities are de- volved on us both at this crisis ; but hope that, by perseverance and an accommodating disposition, we shall both overcome them. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, LEVI WOODBURY. J. Hoyt, Esq., fyc. Custom-House, New York, February 11, 1839. Sir : I have not till this moment read your letter of the 7th instant, in relation to the funds out of which we are to deposite to the credit of the Treasurer in the Bank of America. On Saturday, for instance, I transferred -all the money we had to the separate credit of the Treasurer, and this morning I deposited $140,000 to Ills credit in the Bank of America. It confuses the cash book in the cash- ier's office. Would it not, therefore, be better for the Treasurer to draw in favor of the Bank of America ? and then it goes regularly through my books, and preserves the harmony of my accounts. I suggest this for con- sideration. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, • Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, February 12, 1839. Sir : In reply to your letter of the 7th instant, in relation to the money under protest, and for unascertained duties, I cannot but indulge the hope that Congress will do something, before it adjourns, on this subject ; if it does not, I will suggest some mode of meeting the case. I was assured by one of the committee, the other day, that a bill should pass on the protest subject, before the adjournment. As there is left now but about 18 working days, I suggest that we should leave it as it is, and see the result. In the mean time, let all be done that can be to get the neces- sary legislation. I will, if I get the leisure, draw a short bill, distinct 11* 348 Rep. No. 669. from any other proposition, and send it to some gentleman to introduce in one or the other House. It subjects me not only to immense addi- tional labor, but to all sorts of petty scandal which the malignant and unprincipled can invent. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, February 14, 1839. Sir: With reference to the suggestions made in your letter of the 12th instant, in relation to the " money under protest," and for duties not as- certained, I have only to remark that it is hoped you will proceed to have the bank make the arrangement proposed in mine of the 7th instant, and forward it here when completed, as it will prove safe to all con- cerned, and as the probability of speedy legislation by Congress on this subject seems diminishing. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, $c. Custom-House, New York, February 18, 1839. Sir : I have had an interview with the president of the State Bank, in relation to your communication of the 4th instant, concerning the money deposited under protest. Mr. Lawrence stated that a plan could be hit upon to satisfy all parties, and that he would give his attention to the subject; but he suggested (as I did to you the other day) that it might be well to wait to see if Congress did not legislate upon the subject previ- ous to its adjournment. I file with the bank a copy of the return I make to you each Mon- day, and upon that return the interest account is to be made up, which is in pursuance of my original contract of the 19th October. No inter- est has as yet been made up. I intended to have had it made up quarter- ly, but the hurry of business was so great at the time that it escaped my attention ; and since which, I have been so strongly in the faith that Con- gress would interfere, that I have permitted it to run on. As soon as you are through the pressing business incident to the close ©fa session of Congress, I will address you at length on the subject. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, February 19, 1839. Sir : In reference to the subject of your letter of the 18th instant, I would observe that the money held by you to meet the drafts of the Treasurer can- Rep. No. 669. 349 not be paid out on any drafts but his ; but it can be deposited, or any part of it, in any place directed by the head of the Department, and the collector is then discharged for the amount so deposited. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury, Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Treasury Department, February 20, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the ISth instant, respecting your interview with Mr. Lawrence, president of the State Bank, has been received, and, in reply, I have to express the hope that I may be furnished with that gentleman's re- ply to the proposition in regard to the proposed deposite of "protested funds," at an early day as may be found convenient. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. S?c. [Custom-House, New York, March 25, 1S39. Sir : I received, on the 22d instant, a circular from the Comptroller, un- der date of 1 6th instant, in relation to the salaries of the clerks and subor- dinate officers connected with the custom-house. I feel very unwilling to refer to this subject, and I would not, if I did not feel called upon by a sense of justice. I do it the more reluctantly now, from the necessity I am under of reporting to you that I was compelled to dismiss, on Friday last, two of the persons that have been for a long time in the cashier's office. I discovered two causes of complaint against them : 1. They had been in the habit, for the last two months, of permitting one of the largest woollen importers to pay his cash duties, without charging interest from the time of the arrival of the vessel. 2. They were in the habit of receipting for discounts, on payment of du- ties, in the name of importers, without authority ; and they gave me no evi- dence that the money had actually been paid to the importers, while it was deducted from the amount of duties paid. The sums for which such vouchers had been given were small, and, from an examination I have made, it appears the gross sum amounts to $446 87, since the 29th March, 183S, the day I came into office. The amount of interest due from the importer alluded to I have ordered to be made up, and will amount to about $300, and which I shall endeavor to collect; and I shall also see that the merchants get the sums they were re- spectively entitled to for the discounts alluded to. It is almost incredible that the practice alluded to had not been discovered sooner. It had its ori- gin, as I understand, from the circumstance that merchants would some- times leave the cashier's office, and forget to sign the voucher for the dis- count, when the clerks, knowing the money had been paid, would sign the voucher ; and, from this small beginning, a practice so dangerous and rep- 350 Rep. No. 669. Tehensible had crept in. I have now disposed of all the old regime that *was attached to the cashier's office, and, as it was said by a distinguished gentleman on a former occasion, " I think I breathe freer now." But, to go back to compensation, with which I commenced this letter. I beg to say that there are two individuals in the department that are not paid in proportion to the responsibility and labor. 1 mean the storekeeper of the port and the storekeeper of the appraisers' stores. The latter is at the store from sunrise to sundown, and I look to him as the responsible person; for all the goods received and delivered at those stores. The responsibility, you will perceive, is very great, and his pay is but that of inspector. He has a large family, is a most estimable man of business, of education, and in- tegrity, and it is due to such an individual, for the services he renders, that he should have a compensation somewhat adequate to them. He cannot remain, as he tells me, unless his pay is increased, for the plain reason that he cannot support his family. Most that I have said in relation to Mr. "Wasson, the storekeeper of the appraisers' stores, will apply to Mr. Wet- more, the storekeeper of the port. The family of the latter is not as large or expensive as the former. Inasmuch as the law does not allow an inspector to receive any com- pensation but inspector's pay, I know of no way of increasing their com- pensation but by making them deputies. Notwithstanding my entire con- fidence in the integrity of these gentlemen, yet I do [not] hesitate to say that [if] I knew they had a compensation from the United States that would en- able them to live, I should feel there was a better chance of the public busi- ness being rightly done. I think the true interests of Government would he consulted by such a course. In relation to one other officer, I have to say that I prevailed on Mr.. X-ewis M. Thurston, my brother-in-law, to come into the office on the 16th April last, when 1 discovered the task I had to go through with, in refer- ence to the necessary references that were required, at a salary of $1,000, to look after the general affairs of the office, and to keep a separate set of books, by way of " trial balances," on the general accounts of the office ;. and he has accordingly ever since tested the weekly returns, before I sign them. He has kept the protest account, the bank accounts, &c. He came into the office, not from necessity or from choice, but to oblige me. He was about to leave me on the 1st January, to go into the country, but he had made himself so useful that I was unwilling to part with him, and I then told him, if Congress adjourns without making any alteration in the system of receiving and disbursing the public money, I would pay him at the rate of #1,500 if he would remain ; and, if the United States would not allow it, I would pay him myself, rather than he should leave me. He consented to remain, and is still with me, and I shall comply with my promise to him ; and the question is, whether I do it at private or public expense. The expense of the cashier's room, as it now stands, is thus : Mr. Waters, the cashier ------ $3,000 Mr. Bleecker, a former deputy, and still a deputy - - 1,500 Mr. Mitchell, removed from the debenture desk last week - 1,000 -Mr. Tiffany, a new man, whom I brought in to educate as a com- petent person to keep the cash book, in case of the sickness or absence of Mr. Waters - ----- 1,250 6,750 Rep. No. 669. 351 * This is larger than it has ever been before ; but I cannot get along with a less sum. I will not consent to pay in that department a sum less than is adequate to the support of the individual I put in that responsible place. I submit these considerations to you, with the hope that you will agree in the propriety of my suggestions. The gloom in the money market continues to increase. Some shipments of specie in the packets that cleared on Saturday has added to the panic. The apprehension of the unsound condition of the Southwestern banks, and the calls for specie from that quarter, have contributed to this result. It is also apprehended that the Maine affair willcreate such a sensation in Eng- land that American credits will be cut off, and stocks returned to large amounts, which will bring a heavy pressure upon us here, and especially so if the holders of cotton do not sell. There is a large amount of cotton; in this city, which has been drawn for, and not yet sent forward, so that bills cn England can be predicated upon it, which necessarily increases the demand for money. The importations are heavy and the sales light, which also gives cause for apprehensions. All which has induced me to be more particular in the names I take on bonds. Some of our people (but I think, they are wrong) go so far as to whisper that we shall have another sus- pension of specie payments. I think not ; but, to allay the great apprehen- tions that prevail on the subject of our relations with Great Britain, which is the great cause of the depression in the minds of our business men, I would suggest, that if the Government have any information on that subject of a. favorable nature, not known to the public, that it cause an article to be written for the Globe, (not official,) ihat would be calculated to have the desired effect. It might be in the shape of some reason that influences the President in not sending, at once, a special minister. An explanation on the subject would probably do good. I throw this out for your con- sideration ; for I understand there is a great panic to-day in Wall street, though I have not been there to inquire. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, March 26, 1S39. Sir : I have this moment received the enclosed letter from Mr. Fleming, the auditor, which I beg you to consider. I have the most perfect confidence in the integrity of this gentleman, and his ability for the station he now holds cannot be questioned. I would not be willing to trust myself in this office without him. I am perfectly certain that his accounts are kept right, and his knowledge of the details is such, that his services are indispensable to the safety of the collector. I am now* satisfied with the internal regulations of the office. I cannot retain the cashier short of his present compensation ; that Mr. Fleming is entitled to be put on a par with him, I think must be admitted. I have had no conversation with him on the subject, now or at any other time ; but I was not surprised at receiving the letter. I am perfectly satis- fied that it is a miserable economy in the Government, at a point like this, when so much can be saved by diligence and accuracy, to stint the peronss 352 Eep. No. 669. having charge of the business too much in salary. The expenses of living in this city are so enormous, men cannot live at the compensation allowed. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, March 28, 1839. Sir : Your letters of the 25th and 26th instant have been received. In reference to your suggestion, that the two storekeepers at your port should be constituted deputy collectors, with the view of augmenting their compensation, so as to make the same an adequate remuneration for their services, I would remark, that I should be pleased to sanction the arrange- ment if there were any means at my disposal by which they could be paid ; but as this can only be done, under the existing laws, out of the emolu- ments of the collector's office, which, judging from past years, will not prove sufficient, I cannot see how the arrangement can be carried into effect, un- less the present number of your clerks be diminished, so as to leave your addition to such as reward. The same difficulties arise in regard to the increase of the pay of the au- ditor, as well as Mr. Thurston, the additional clerk spoken of in your first- mentioned letter. The Department considers that it possesses power, under the 2d section, of the act of the 2d March, 1799, to authorize the payment, to the extent of two dollars per day, (whilst actually employed,) of persons necessarily employed by collectors in aid of the revenue, other than inspectors. That is the limit of its present authority. All other pay must come from, fees, emoluments, or special laws. If you can suggest any legal mode of overcoming the difficulties before stated, so as to accomplish the objects you desire, I should be pleased if yon "will point it out, as the Department is anxious to afford all needful facilities for a prompt and faithful discharge of the important public business at your port which it is in its power to render. 1 am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, May 1, 1839. Sir: I have your letter of the 29th ultimo, in relation to the salaries of certain officers in this department. The fees of office for the last month are about $1,000 more than they generally have been since I have been in office, and over $500 more than they were in the month of March ; and therefore it is that I hope we shall not be compelled to make so large a call upon the revenue proper as was contemplated, for the compensation to clerks, &c. I am exceedingly anx- ious that Mr. Wasson and Mr. Wetmore should be compensated somewhat in proportion to their services and responsibilities but I am also desirous Rep. No. 669. 353 not to swell up the deficiency in the emolument account, if it can be avoid- ed; and therefore I have one more suggestion to make, which is, that both, of those gentlemen belong properly, or their business relates more espe- cially, to the appraisers' department, the whole expense of which is charge- able to the revenue. The salaries for the subordinates in that department have heretofore been regulated by the nature and importance of the ser- vices performed. This was the rule as long back as the time of Collector Thompson. I think you would do but an act of justice to individuals, as •well as to promote the interests of the public service, if you were to con- sider the gentlemen named as chief clerks in the appraisers' department, with a salary of $1,500, and assign them to the duties they now perform. Mr. Wasson formerly performed the duties, under Mr. Secretary Ingham, as an out-door measurer, and he has rendered me essential services on va- rious occasions, as a judge of goods, and in watching the business of sus- pected persons. I am grieved that a gentleman of his high character and sterling integrity should be compelled to toil so incessantly for a compensa- tion so wholly inadequate as that which he has heretofore received. Mr. Wetmore is equally meritorious, but in a different line. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, May 3, 1839. Sir : In regard to the proposition made in your letter of the 1st instant, to constitute Messrs. Wasson and Wetmore clerks in the appraisers' office, whose present duties you consider as properly belonging to that branch of the public service, I would observe, that the power to appoint clerks in that office is by the 6th section of the act of the 28th of May, 1830, con- ferred on the principal appraisers, and not on me or the collector. If, therefore, the appraisers consider their services needed in their office, and will recommend their employment, and at the same time suggest the rate of compensation proposed to allow them, I shall be happy to give the subject due consideration, as the compensation is to be fixed here. 1 am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, May S, 1839. Sir : I have the honor to enclose you the opinion of Mr. Price, the district attorney, on the question of the appointment of " markers" or "deputy in- spectors'* of this port. The hasty view I gave you yesterday, in justifica- tion of the course I had taken, did not permit me to advert critically to the act of March 3, 1791, for the reason, among other things, that this act, in all essential particulars, was repealed by the act of 1799 ; but it may have been proper to have adverted to it, for the purpose of arriving at the origin of the idea that such an office existed under the duty acts as " deputy 354 Sep. No. 669. inspector" of the revenue. By the last section of the act of 1799, all other acts relating to the subject, so far as the present question is concern- ed, are repealed, " except as to the continuance of the officers appointed in pursuance of the said act," &c. It must be conceded that the act of 1799 remodelled the whole subject, and that the public interest was placed upon the footing which was re- quired by the lapse of eight years of experience and the rapid progress of improvement in trade and business of the country, and the sources from which a revenue was to be derived for the support of the Government ; and that nothing operative was intended to be left of the old act, but such, portion of the powers conferred upon the officers then in being as was deemed necessary to execute the provisions contained in the new one. That this is so is apparent from the fact that the provision of the act of 1791 is confined exclusively to "distilled spirits," while the act of 1799 embraces that matter as is extended, su far as the office of deputy inspector is concerned, to wines and teas also ; and the same services necessary to be performed as to the one must be performed as to the other by the same officer, though it nowhere expressly appears that an inspector has the power to appoint a deputy, except as will hereafter be alluded to. But to revert to the act of 1791, for the powers claimed by the sur- veyor of this port : let us see what they are, as gathered from the provis- ions of that act, without reference to further legislation. The 4th section makes the following provisions as to the creation of officers to execute the powers concerning "the duties laid upon distilled spirits," &c, "and also upon spirits distilled within the United States 1. For the collection of duties, it divides the United States into 14 dis- tricts, subject to alteration by the President. 2. The districts can be subdivided by the President into surveys of in- spection, with power to alter the same. 3. The President and Senate have power to appoint a supervisor to each district, and as many inspectors to each survey as he shall judge necessary, placing the inspectors under the direction of the supervisor. 4. Making it lawful for the President and Senate to appoint such and so many officers of the custoins to be inspectors in any survey of inspec- tion as he shall deem advisable to employ in the execution of the act. 5. That when, in the judgment of the President, a supervisor can dis- charge the duties of that office, and also that of inspector, he may direct the same. 6. That if the appointment of inspectors of surveys, or any of them, was* not made during the then session of Congress, the President had pow- er to make the appointment during the recess, to expire at the end of the next session of Congress. By this section the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had the power to create three sets of officers : 1. Supervisors to each district. 2. As many inspectors to each survey as the President should deem ne- cessary. 3. Officers of the customs to be inspectors in any survey of inspection. And the President had also the power to unite the office of supervisor with that of inspector ; but that this union did not take place prior to the 3d March, 1803, is quite evident, or the act of that day would not have been passed. But, it will be observed, there is no authority to unite Rep. No. 669. 355 ihe office of inspector with that of surveyor, by either act, though the duties of supervisor may be transferred by the terms of both acts. The office of surveyor had been created and its duties defined prior to the passage of either of these acts, and the * districts of surveys" were in no manner attached to the duties of the office of surveyor by the act of 1791, one of the leading objects of which was to provide for the collection of duties upon distilled spirits within the United States. (See 14th section to the end of the act.) The performance of many of the services connect- ed with these provisions was subsequently devolved upon the collector of internal revenue. By the general tenor of this act of 1791, it is apparent the "supervisor" was the great officer of the revenue, for the objects specified in the act, and the inspector was subordinate to him. The classification in the mode and manner of appointments, and the duties directed to be performed to and by him as prescribed in the 12th section of the act, is sufficient proof of this. It is admitted that this " supervisor" had the power to make certain ap- pointments enumerated in the following sections : By the 18th section, he was authorized to appoint certain officers, to have charge and survey of the distilleries within his district. By the 23d section, it was provided that the duties on stills shall be col- lected under the management of the supervisor, who shall appoint and assign proper officers for the surveys of the said stills, and the admeasure- ment thereof, and the collection of the duties thereupon. By the 26th section, they are authorized to visit and inspect, or cause to be visited and inspected, by some proper officer or officers of inspection, <5*c, and shall mark, or cause to be marked, fyc. By the 35th section, there is a similar phraseology. By the 50th section, the ''supervisors of the revenue, or any of them, or their lawful deputy, are authorized to administer an oath, in every case in which an oath or affirmation is required," by virtue of this act. By the 52d section, provision is made for exportation of distilled spirits, whose return is to be given to the "proper officer of inspection," where- upon it shall be the duty of " said officer" to inspect by " himself or depu- ty" the casks, &c. By the 58th section, provision is made for the payment of the said supervisors' inspections, and to the deputies and officers by them to be em- ployed, to be paid out of the product of the duties arising from the spirits distilled within the United States. The deputies authorized by these provisions, to be appointed by the supervisors, are not general deputies, but special ones, to perform cer- tain specified acts, relating alone to the manufacture of distilled spirits, and to no other acts ; and the authority of these supervisors, in the appointment of deputies, could not extend beyond the powers delegated to them, and consequently the deputies to be appointed by them had but limited powers, and any acts done exceeding those powers would be wholly void. The office of supervisor was not abolished by the act of 1799, as will appear by the 41st and 42d sections of that act ; and I am inclined to be- lieve that this officer was "the chief officer of inspection" alluded to in that act. The form of the certificate, in the 41st section, affords some reasons for this conclusion. But it will be remarked that the powers of that officer are not in that act enlarged so far as concerns his authority for the appointment of deputies, nor, indeed, is the name of deputy inspector or deputy supervisor in any manner mentioned ; and the inspector of the 356 Kep. No. 669. port now has no authority for the appointment of a " deputy inspector of the revenue," without its being derived from the following sources : 1. Unless the President, under the act of 1803, "attached the duties" of the office of supervisor to the office of inspector or surveyor. 2. Unless the words " attach the duties" should be held to carry with them the powers belonging to the office of supervisor. 3. Unless it should be held that the power in the supervisor to appoint a deputy to do a particular act should be considered a sufficient power to* do all acts. As to the first proposition, I am wholly, but, assuming that the Presi- dent did so "attach the duties," I cannot bring my mind to believe that all the powers conferred upon the supervisor could have been transferred by the authority given to the President. The supervisors had the power of appointing deputies for certain limited purposes ; but he was not obliged to appoint them, and therefore the power of appointment was not one of the duties attached, which could be transferred by the President to an of- ficer subordinate in the law to the officer on whom the power was originally conferred. But if I am not correct in this, then it is very certain that no larger powers than the supervisor possessed could be transferred by the President to any other "officer of the Government," and the power did not reside in the supervisor to appoint a general deputy. If the President had the power to "attach the duties," he had not the power to authorize the inspector of the revenue to appoint deputy supervisors ; and he had not the power before, and the President could not give it, to appoint deputy in- spectors of the revenue. The large powers conferred upon the President, by the 4th section of the act of 1791, " to appoint such and so many officers of the customs to be in- spectors, in any survey of inspection,^ he shall deem advisable to employ in the execution of this act," would seem to forbid the idea that it was the- intention of the Legislature to clothe a subordinate with the like power, or a power as effectual to that end as was conferred upon " the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ;" and hence it is but fair to conclude that the office of supervisor was to have no power by implication, but only such as was especially set down to him in that behalf. If these were not the views of the Legislature, why should it, by the 12th section of the act of the 5th of June, 1794, while legislating upon the same subject, have declared that it was lawful for the supervisors and inspectors of the revenue, "at their own expense, to appoint deputies to aid them in the execution of the duties, in cases of occasional and necessary absence or of sickness, and not otherwise. 71 This is the same provision incorporated in the 22d section of the act of 1799, in relation to collectors, naval officers, and surveyors, appointing deputies ; and but for an enlargement, by the act of 1817, confined to the action of the collector only, I could have no deputy but for the occasion last referred to. The act of 1794 creates no new office, but gives to the President and Senate, (see section 1,) the power to appoint supervisors, inspectors of sur- veys, and inspectors of ports ; and it must, therefore, control the act of 1791, and especially so as it extends (see section 14) in some respects to wines and teas, as well as distilled spirits, so far as relates to the duties and powers of "supervisors or inspectors of the revenue." From these considerations, I am forced to continue my belief that I was Rep. No. 669. 357 correct in exercising the prerogative of nominating the "markers" or "deputy inspectors of the revenue." I made the nominations in perfect good faith, without in the slightest de- gree intending to trespass upon the rights or wounding the dignity of the surveyor. I found their names on the printed list I obtained at the sur- veyor's office, under the " title of deputy inspectors." I could not find any such officer named in the act of 1799 ; and as they were, in common par- lance, as well as by the laws of 1836 and 1837, called markers, I filled up the warrant in that way, but afterwards added the words " deputy inspect- ors," more with a view of adopting the name that Mr. Craig's list assign- ed them, than from a belief that they were truly designated. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, Collector's Office, New York, July 10, 1S39. Gentlemen : The business in the woollens loft in your department, I am satisfied, from information I have received, will be heavy this season, and it has indeed already commenced, and I am satisfied that the labors in that loft will be greater than ought to be imposed upon Mr. Lounsberry and Mr. Tripler. I would therefore respectfully request that Mr. Cairns should be placed in that loft, to aid the other gentlemen already there. It you will adopt this course, I will confer with you in supplying his place in the loft he is now in. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. To the Principal Appraisers of the port of New York. Postscript of a letter to B. F. Butler, Esq., United States District At- torney. * Custom-House, New York, Jlugust 9, 1839. P. S. It is proper to remark, that the person entering is bound by the entry, and not the invoice, though the invoice ought to be a copy of the entry. You Avill notice that the merchants always appraise higher than the public appraisers ; and therefore, when you show the entry, and call the merchants who have appraised, the onus is then on the other side. I would avoid calling our own appraisers when you can avoid it. J. H0Y T T. Extract from a letter of Jesse Hoyt, Collector, to B. F. Butler, District Attorney, dated August 12, 1S39. I send you a statistical table, showing the difference between the several appraisements: and if a defence is made in the case, you can select such of the appraisements to go upon as you may think best. 558 Kep. No. 669. I do not desire to bring our appraisers before the public in the attitude they would stand in differing so widely with the ?nerchants. It would tend to destroy public confidence in them. Custom-House, New York, September 4, 1839. Sir : I received your letter of the 2d instant. In reply, I have to say that Joseph Priestly is a manufacturer in England, and is in the habit of sending cloths direct to our auctioneers. We have now some under seizure, where they were raised from 13$ to 19 per cent. I adopt this rule in regard to goods sent out by manufac- turers, that if they are raised 15 per cent, to sieze them. We arrive at value by examination, and allow that there may be a dif- ference of 5 per cent, in purchases, and that 10 per cent, is a large import- ing profit ; and therefore it is safe to seize when the appraisers put up goods 15 per cent. This is a liberal rule to adopt with reference to manu- facturers. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William Frick, Esq., Collector, Baltimore. Treasury Department, September 7, 1839. Sir : Yours of the 5th instant, in explanation of the large increase in the number of custom-house officers at New York since 1836, has been re- ceived. In the great mass of business imposed on you, I suppose that it might have escaped your notice, that the proportion of officers has been so much increased, and had been a matter of complaint by others. But the De- partment has never entertained any doubts that you considered the ad- ditional numbers necessary and proper, and that they were so, or it would not have approved your recommendations. The only wish of the Depart- ment now is, that, in the pressure of other engagements, it may not be overlooked that the increase over, in J 836, was proposed as temporary, as will be seen by the records and files ; and that the increase since also should be dispensed with at the earliest day the public interest and the due ac- commodation of the importers will permit. But, of course, it is not desired lo be done so ever. In respect to the comparisons of imports and duties in 1836 and 1839, one circumstance appears to have escaped attention, which may or may not affect the result. The duties paid in the calendar years of lb36 and 1839 are not those accruing on the importations of the calendar years of 1836 and 1839, except in part. But, as you will remember, they are only the cash duties, chiefly accruing on importations in those years, and the credit duties on importations for the two first quarters, and half of the third quarter of those years, and the credit duties accruing in the fourth quarter of the previous calendar year, and half of those accruing in the third quarter of the preceding calendar year. Eep. No. 669. 359 I am not certain how much this would vary the result, as I have insti- tuted no examination ; but it may, in fact, vary it largely either way. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, Custom-House, New York, September 24, 1839. Sir : In reply to your letter of this date, I have to inform you that yoi* Tiave received from this office seventy-one bonds of Post, Gibson, & Post, for suit, which is the entire number, as you admit, on the statement of the* custom-house, furnished to Mr. Jonathan W. Post. Seven bonds were deliv- ered to you, at maturity, in the first quarter 1839. Forty-four bonds were delivered at one time, during the second quarter 1839 ; and afterwards, in the same quarter, two additional bonds, as they came to maturity, were sent to you. Eighteen bonds were delivered on the 20th August, 1839, in this present (third) quarter. These, together, you will see, make up the whole number, seventy-one. Respectfully, J. PIOYT, Collector.. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney. [extract.] Custom-House, New York, October 1, 1839. In reference to the expenses of this port, I beg leave to say that, during the last quarter we sent to the appraisers' store, for examination, 18,175 loads of goods, each of which loads cost us two shillings and six pence, be- sides those we send to the sample office ; and for this item of cartage alone ■\ve expended, in the last quarter, about $6,000, and nearly an equal amount for labor in the same period. I hope these things may not be for- gotten, in summing up at the end of the year. The steamer made the effort to sail to-day, but I understood her machin- ery got out of order, and the story was very current that I had stopped her ; but this was without foundation, and I have not had the time to ascertain -whether she has actually gone or not. She takes, I think, about $800,000 in specie, $600,000 only of which is yet manifested ; the balance will be in the morning. There has been about a million shipped in the various ves<- sels that sail for Europe to-day. I have not had the leisure to go into Wall street, to learn the state of things there : but I am induced to believe there is more confidence than there was a fortnight since. 1 hope to get off the accounts of the second quarter in the course of the week. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 360 Rep. No. 669. HOYT'S CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO JOHN TAYLOR, JR., AND OTHERS. Wednesday Morning, September 18, 1839. Sir : Cannot John Taylor, jr., be permitted to return and settle up his business, on some conditions, without being subject to such heavy bail as would have been required had his person been taken previous to his leaving ? It was that which alarmed him. Finding that he could not obtain security for such an amount, he preferred his freedom away to an incarce- ration at here. I know nothing of Mr. Taylor's business, as connected with the custom- house; it may have been very bad, or not; but this I know — he has been a sincere and faithful friend to 7ne, through evil and through good report ; and, as such, if I could be the humble instrument in bringing about so desirable a result, both in satisfaction to you and himself, I "should feel as if I had given some small return for the many favors I have received at his hands. Therefore, if you think the subject worthy of consideration, the proposition is, distinctly, on what terms, if any, may John Taylor, jr., be permitted to return to the city of New York, and remain one year, for the purpose of settling up his business, without attempting to do any, free from arrest by you or the Government for what has already taken place. I make this proposition more on my account than his, as I cannot bear to see one who has been so good to me banished from the place where all who knew him loved him. He has his errors undoubtedly, but he possesses many noble and generous qualities, kind to all, and his money employed to assist individuals (often to my knowledge) that had no claims, nor where he ever expected to be the least tempted. With the above remarks, I repeat, if any thing can be done, it would be gratifying; if not, I have done ; you know best. For your favor to me the other day I thank you kindly. Faithfully yours, C. W. DAYTON. Jesse Hoyt, Esq. If you feel disposed to enter into an arrangement, I should like to hear from you to-morrow. C. W. DAYTON. New York, September 22, 1S39. Respected Sir : If you would have no objection to repeat what you said to me the day before yesterday (respecting the protection you would give to John Taylor, jr., should he comply with your request) in the presence of T. Blackburne, I will leave this afternoon for Montreal, in order to bring him back with me. The reasons for the above request are: 1st. I may have misunderstood you. 2d. It will be a much stronger inducement for him to avail himself of that course to come to some satisfactory arrangement of the pending difficulties, of whatever kind or character they may be. Please say yes or no, on a slip of paper, which will be quite sufficient for me. Yours, &c. CHARLES W. DAYTON. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Rep. No. 669. 361 Custom-House, New York, November 19, 1839. Sir: On the 5th of August last I wrote to you, among other things, that I directed suits to be commenced against John Taylor, jr., George Shaw, and many others, for transactions alleged to be fraudulent, at the custom- house in this city. I have settled the suits against Taylor and Shaw, receiving from the former $25,000, and from the latter $15,000. The .share of the United States was placed to their credit this day, on the books of this office. I now send a copy of a letter addressed by me to the district attorney, under date of the 3d October, explaining the reason why I thought the suits should be settled on the terms proposed. A like reason exists in the case of Shaw. Several of the persons referred to in my letter to you are now negotiating for settlement, for similar reasons; and I shall probably close with them, if the district attorney, as he did in the two cases referred to, recommend that course. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, December 12, 1S39. Sir : Your letter of the 9th instant, to me and Mr. Wasson, has been received ; and I have now to say, in answer — 1st. That it is, perhaps, as well to let the cases go off till March, if the other side request it. We do not desire it. 2d. We think you ought to take the goods from the possession of the HorTmans, for our people are unwilling to go into the store to examine them. We do not intend to throw the least suspicion over the character or the fairness of the house in that matter; but we are equally fair as they are, and we do not mean to put ourselves in the power of any persons ; and therefore it is that we desire to be upon our own ground, (that is, under the roof of the United States,) and not that of the importers or their agents. We are sworn officers, and we do not mean to examine goods, and testify to that examination, when the goods are to be left in a position that would enable others to take such measures as would give them the power of prov- ing us in error by means that we could not control. The claimants have the right to bond them under the 89th section of the act of 1799 ; and, if they decline to do that, the goods are in the custody of the law, and the marshal or the collector is bound to take and keep possession of them until the judgment of the court surrenders them to the claimants. When we have information that the goods now in Hoffmans' store are in the possession of the officers of the United States, Messrs. Cairns and fVas- *son will go on to look at them. 3d. In relation to Bottomry's goods, we have to say, in addition to what was stated in my letter of the 4th instant, we have compared the invoices on file in this office with the memorandum sent to us by Mr. Frick, on the 4th of September, purporting to be copies of invoices sent by Bottomly to HorTmans, on the 9th, 10th, and 20th of August, to see how the goods are identified with the invoices in our office, as compared with those sent to the Hoflmans by the importer, and we do not find a single piece to corres- / 362 Eep. No. 669. pond in number of the pieces or of the yards, and hence it throws upon? the claimants the onus to prove how, where, and when the goods were imported. They have, in their notice, stated, and they mean to prove, the goods were imported in the ships named ; and, by a comparison of the invoices by these ships, it turns out they were not so imported. This is- another reason why the goods should be placed under the control of our own officers forthwith. This, we think, disposes of Mr. Bottomly. As to Mr. Taylor's goods. — In reference to this, we have to say — 1st. In a letter from Mr. Frick, under date of September 21, a list of the goods is sent, and it is said none of the numbers correspond with the goods seized. 2d. It is also said that Readell & Co. substituted numbers of their own in room of the original, and that the owner should not be prejudiced thereby. In answer to this, we have to remark — 1st. We have got up the invoices and entries of the goods by the ships named in the memorandum furnished by Messrs. Readell, and it appears that the invoices by the ships Columbus, George Washington, (three in- voices,) Sheffield, and Garrick, were all examined by Edward Tripler, a clerk in the appraisers' office, and are therefore subject to the same criti- cism made on this subject, in my letter of the 4th of December, in refer- ence to the goods of Bottomly, and to which letter I refer for this purpose. 2d. Package (by the Columbus) R 178 was the examined package, and •the number of yards represented on Readell's memorandum as the original number corresponds with the number of yards on the invoice in our pos- session. Package F 240 (by the George Washington) corresponds, but it ■was not an examined package, (that is, the package was not examined in the appraisers' store.) Package F 319 (by the Garrick) was examined in the appraisers' store, and corresponds in the yards. Package F 223 (by the Sheffield) was not examined, but it corresponds ; and the other pack- ages also correspond, viz : H 206 and 127, (by the George Washington.) The latter was examined, and the former was not. The case then stands upon the question— 1st. As to the fact of alteration of the numbers by Readell, and theiF motive moving thereto. * 2d. As to the fact of undervaluation, which is for us to show ; and the latter question must be the controlling one in the result of the case; and, therefore, we are to give a rigid scrutiny to the question. We have no other lists of claimants furnished, and therefore we cannot speak at this time of any of the goods other than Bottomly's and Taylor's; and you have now our views upon them, and we wait for further advices. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. N. Williams, Esq., Untied Slates Attorney, Baltimore. Custom-Hotjse, New York, May 25, 1840. Sir : I was this moment served with a subpoena from the district court in your district, on the behalf of the defendant in the case of the Unitek States against 88 pieces of goods ; John Taylor, claimant. Rep. No. 669. 363 I would most cheerfully attend, if it were possible for me to do so ; but as the distance is too far for the action of a subpcena, I beg you to inform. Mr. Taylor's counsel (whose name does not appear on the subpoena) that I will attend before any commissioner in this city, and give testimony in the case, or I will furnish any papers or documents on file in this office that may be called for ; and I again repeat, if my official duties would permit me to attend in Baltimore, I would most cheerfully do so. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. N. Williams, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Baltimore. Custom-House, New York, January 22, 1840. Dear Sir : Messrs. Cairns and Wasson will be with you on Satur day or Sunday, and I wish you to make all readiness for them, so that they need not be detained longer than is required by the exigency of the occa- sion. // is entirely i?iadmissible that Mr. Bottomly, or his agent, stand by present at the examination or appraisement. They have no more right to be present than you have to a seat alongside Chief Justice Taney, on the bench, in trying the cases wherein you are interested. I want the collector to swear the appraisers before they proceed to the work, so as that the act of 1830 may be complied with. I notice what you say in your postscript. I do not know how I stand in these affairs. Yours, truly, J. HOYT, Collector. N. Williams, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Baltimore. Custom-House, New York, October 7, 1840. Sir : I send you the following papers of William Bottomly, viz : Letter and oath of William Bottomly, dated 31st December, 1S39, rela- tive to goods per ship Republic, marked N T 26S to 279. Invoice of same. Entry of same. Appraisement of same by R. B. Brown and William C. Langley. Appraisement of same by United States appraisers. Entry of William Bottomly per ship Roscoe, 12th February, 1840, N V 124 to 138. Invoice of same. Appraisement of same. Entry of William Bottomly per ship South America, 22d April, 1840, P L of s 673 to 6S2, with appraisement attached. Invoice of same. Entry of William Bottomly per ship Star, 7th April, 1840, of N T 67 to 82, with appraisement attached. Invoice of same. 12* t 364 Rep. No. 669. You will see, by the entry by the Republic, that an appeal was taker from the United States appraisers, and the usual affidavit was made, anc Messrs. Brown and Langley were appointed; and their appraisement wa: j£S3 2s. Id. less than the United States appraisers, and £245 3s. 3d. ove; the invoice. I permitted the entry to be made on the appraisement of the merchants So in the case of the entry by the Roscoe. Messrs. Lounsberry anc Cairns differed, and I permitted the entry to be made by the invoice, anc waived the appraisement which appears on the papers. It would, then seem that I have not been cruel or oppressive on Mr. Bottomly, and that in case he appealed, he had the benefit of it ; and therefore there was no apology for his not appealing, if he felt himself aggrieved. I also send a memorandum (in pencil mark) of Mr. Wasson, which is connected with the copy of papers I gave you to-day. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector.. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney. HOYT'S CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. Custom-House, New York, February 22, 1S40. Sir: I have your letter of the 19th instant, in which you say that " drafts Nos. 1,485 and 1,486, charged in my return ot the 15th instant, are endorsed, P. J. Bujac, by Peter E. Frevall, attorney. As the accounting officers ob- ject to such endorsements without evidence of attorneyship, you ask me to forward such as may satisfy them." The first named draft is for $243 54, and the second for $23 37. Out of the 1,800 drafts, amounting to nearly $20,000,000, that I have paid since I have been in office, such a question, I think, has not been raised before; and it may therefore be taken as sure token that "the accounting officers" have a fresh inoculation of zeal for the public safety. Mr. Frevall has acted as attorney for Mr. Bujac, in this city, for only about ten years, and has had, during that time, a power of attorney on file in this office, as evi- dence of his authority to act as such attorney. But, whether this be so or not, the question is very prematurely raised by the accounting officers. It would be soon enough for them to ask for this authority when the Gov- ernment are called upon by Mr. Bujac to pay the debt over again ; and, if I could not then show a competent legal authority to bind him in the pay- I ment alleged to have been made, I would be responsible to the Govern- ment for the amount they might have to repay ; and the accounting officers would then have a right to charge such payment to my account, to balance a credit they had before given me. It was a saying of a distinguished philosopher, (Sam Patch.) "that some people knew some things as well as other people ;" and, with great re- spect, I would suggest to the aforesaid "accounting officers," that, if they would indulge but very slightly in the philosophical reflection, I think they would lose nothing in dignity or importance. I do not ask them to imagine ; Rep. No. 669. 365 for a moment that the collector of the port of New York has any know- ledge of the appropriate forms of business, or that he would take any pains to protect the rights of the Government or himself against frauds or forge- ries in the endorsement of drafts. 1 had occasion to write the Treasurer, in connexion with this subject, on the 14th of October last, which I supposed would have satisfied you that the collector was not wholly indifferent to the matter. The "accounting officers" have even called on me for proof of hand- writing of the payee, endorser, or endorsee of the draft. And how do they know that the signatures are true ? They do not personally know it, and they must rely upon one or two considerations : 1. Upon my vigilance in the matter; or, 2 Upon the fact that no claim is made subsequently by the person re- ally entitled to the money, which is evidence of a correct appropriation of the fund. The principle is precisely the same with reference to an endorsement by a person purporting to act as attorney as by one acting in his own person. It is a question in both cases whether the party's signature is to the in- strument ; and with the same propriety a verification of the fact can be called for in the one case as the other. You are in the habit of drawing drafts on me, in favor of corporations, by name, and of a great variety of persons in a representative character, such as presidents, cashiers, assignees, agents, and attorneys ; all of which drafts I pay, and take what I deem a proper endorsement. I have never been called upon for any evidence of the correctness of such endorsement; and why am I now called upon, when there is no difference in principle, and especially so in cases where the drafts have been drawn in favor of corporations ? For instance, I have had my drafts drawn on me in favor of the Bank of America and the Manhattan Company, which I have paid on the endorsement of the president or cashier of these banks, and no ex- ception has been taken. Have the accounting officers a resolution of the board of directors of either of said banks, showing who is cashier or who is president? or have they intuitive knowledge on the subject? or do they rely upon my knowledge of the fact, or upon general information as to the authority of these officers to endorse the drafts drawn in favor of the banks ? And if upon that point they are satisfied, how are they satisfied the signa- tures are genuine, and that they are not forged ? I had always supposed that I took the risk of forgery of endorsements, and the competency of the authority of the person to receive the payment of the draft presented for payment ; but if the accounting officers will sat- isfy me of the power they have to absolve me from that risk, and will ab- solve me accordingly, then I will surrender up to them the evidence in my possession that the payments have been made conformably to legal rules ; and, until that is done, I shall take the liberty to retain the proper papers in my possession. You may consider this a very tedious exposition of my views in this matter, and, for aught I know, very unsatisfactory; but it strikes me to be so plain a case, that I cannot treat it in any other way than I have, which I hope and trust will be entirely conclusive, in the opinions of the account- ing officers. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. The Treasurer of the United Sates. 366 Kep. No. 669. Treasury of the United States, February 24, 1840. Sir : Your letter of the 22d instant, which reads a lecture, over my shoulders, to the accounting officers of the Department, upon the principles of evidence, has been referred to them, and first in order to the First Audi- tor. It is proper, however, that I should, in modern phrase, " define our po- sition," in this matter, which I will endeavor to do in a few words: The Treasurer is required to pay warrants on him, "out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated ;" so run the terms of the ap- propriation acts. But the moneys in your hands are not moneys in the Treasury ; and no portion of them are so considered until you have paid them on the Treasurer's drafts, or deposited them in bank to his credit. In drawing on collectors and receivers, then, the Treasurer works by in- verting the mode used with legalized depositories ; and, consequently, he cannot acknowledge to have received into the Treasury, as a payment by a collector, the amount of any draft, until he is in possession of such evi- dence, on the face of the draft or otherwise, as secures to him a credit with the accounting officers, for the payment of the warrant on which the draft was issued. The allowance of credit, then, to a collector, for paying money into the Treasury, other than his deposites in bank, is dependent upon the allowance of credit to the Treasurer for paying that same money out of the Treasury. Hence the necessity for the security of vouchers in this of- fice, that they may be made to correspond with such principles of evidence as are known to be acted on by the accounting officers, at the earliest pe- riod, rather than have the difficulty increased by delay until the settlement of the Treasurer's accounts. I do not say that a collector may not be en- titled to a credit for a payment to the Treasury, when the accounting offi- cers object to the evidence, but that the Treasurer will not knowingly ac- knowledge such payment to him, unless at the same time he is allowed credit for said payment by him. In such cases he acts only in self-defence, lander the discretion implied in the 4th section of the act of 2d September, 1789. I beg that you will not for a moment consider me as supposing the col- lector of the customs at New York to be wholly, or at all, indifferent to the faithful and proper discharge of his official duties, for the reverse is the fact ; but I confess I was somewhat surprised to find, by your letter of the 14th October, 1839, that a draft in favor of Elias Kane, navy agent, was refused, because of the omission of his official title to his endorsement, when in your return of 19th October, the same week, I found a draft No. 850, in favor of Col. H. Stanton, assistant quartermaster general, and No. 857 in favor of Captain H. Brewerton, corps of engineers, paid upon the simple endorsment of" Henry Stanton" and "H. Brewerton," thus verifying an- other saying of a "distinguished philosopher," " that some things could be done as well as others." Very respectfully, &c. WM. B. RANDOLPH, •Acting Treasurer U. S. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, Rep. No. 669. 361 Custom-House, New York, February 28, 1840. Sir : I have not the leisure to refer to your letter of the 24th instant un- til now, and although it does not especially require an answer, yet I desire that my superiors should be in the possession of my reasons for all my of- ficial acts. I had supposed that, under the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 9th June, 1837, all money in the hands of a "sub-treasurer" was, in fact as well as fiction, as much in the Treasury as it formerly was when in any of the deposite banks ; and although newspapers, stump orators, &c, may have repeatedly inquired where the thing called the Treasury was to be found, 1 imagine that it was all for effect, and that whether the money was in or out of banks, if it was under the control of the Treasurer, it was the same as if in his manual possession ; and therefore I did not expect to hear from the officer bearing the name of Treasurer of the United States, that moneys in the hands of the collector, to the separate credit of that Treasurer, could not be considered in the Treasury, until that collector had " paid them on the Treasurer's drafts, or deposited them in bank to his credit." Here you will perceive two distinct propositions are laid down: 1. That when the money is in bank, to the credit of the Treasurer, it is considered in the Treasury. 2. That when it is paid out by a collector, on the draft of the Treas- urer, it is then also in the Treasury. I am not going to dispute the last proposition, but only to remark, that I was not aware that the forms of office perverted the substance of things to such an extent. I had supposed that the Treasurer could not draw his draft to pay an appropriation or a debt of the Government, unless upon moneys in the Treasury, and that the money I report to him weekly, as standing to his separate credit on my books, was charged to me in his, and that the money I from time to time deposite to his credit in bank was debited to such bank, and credited to me also on his books; and that, in this respect, there was no difference between natural and artificial persons, and that, in the one case as well as the other, the money was equally in the Treasury, according to the understanding of the law makers and law executors. And I also supposed, that when I had paid the Treasurer's draft on me, the money went into circulation, and not into the Treasury, but that it was taken out, by means of that draft, in satisfaction of some claim upon the Government ; otherwise it might appear, upon the books of the Treasurer, that more claims had been paid than the Treasurer had the means of paying. He must debit somebody, in something, for the draft he draws on me; and for all the payments thus made for one week, the time taken for the draft to get back to you as paid, it would seem there was no money in the Treasury to meet, because it is not considered in the Treasury until it is put in circulation, and the evidence of that fact, in the shape of a receipt, or the draft, is returned to his office. But to come to the difficulties you state ; they are these : 1. The Treasurer cannot acknowledge to have received into the Treas- ury, as a payment by a collector, the amount of any draft, until he is in possession of such evidence, on the face of the drafts or otherwise, as will secure to him a credit with the accounting officers for the payment of the warrant on which the draft was issued. 2. The allowance of credit, then, to a collector, for money paid into the 358 Eep. No. 669. Treasury, other than his deposites in bank, is dependent upon the allowance of credit to the Treasurer for paying the same money out of the Treasury. I understand, by this, that it is the duty of the collector and Treasurer to satisfy the "accounting officers" that the money is not in the Treasury, in order to prevail upon them to admit that it is ; in other words, that when the draft on me is paid, which puts the money in circulation, and they have proof of this fact, then it is to be considered it is in the Treasury. In reference to a supposed inconsistency on my part in paying drafts after the 14th of October, which you refer to, after having referred to the per- sonal endorsement of Mr. Kane, on a draft in his official favor, I have to say that none of the drafts came under my notice. I do not, person- ally, do all the business that is transacted in this office, and, necessarily, many things escape my observation; but it is, nevertheless, very certain that the endorsement of a draft drawn in favor of " Colonel H. Stanton, assistant quartermaster general," by H. Stanton, docs not pass the title of that draft to an endorsee ; and therefore, if I paid the draft referred to, I did a very silly thing, and the accounting officers had no right to credit me with the payment. Such is my understanding of the legal rule. Bat in some cases, where drafts have been receipted for here, by responsible banks, I have, from my repugnance to giving trouble, paid the drafts, though not strictly "in rule;" but, in the case of Mr. Kane, the drafts came here when great distress prevailed in reference to all business mat- ters. It came from a recently suspended bank in Baltimore to a very weak bank here, and it might have so happened that the Government would not get what it supposed it had for such draft, and the responsibility might have fallen back upon me. I will not disguise the fact that I have no respect for the technicalities of the " accounting officers," and no confidence in the obscure and worse than ridiculous system of keeping accounts in the Treasury Department ; and hence I have been in a constant war with them, which I do not see any prospect of terminating short of the aid of the " bloodhounds." Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William B. Randolph, Esq., •Acting Treasurer. Treasury Department, February 26, 1840. Sir: I transmit, herewith, a letter signed " A Democrat," complaining of the conduct of some of your officers in reference to the disposition made of the goods saved from the public store recently destroyed by fire in your port. I have to request that you will inquire into the subject complained of, and report the result to the Department. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Rep. No. 669. 369 Custom-House, New York, March 2, 1840. 13ir : I have your letter of the 26th February, enclosing to me a com- munication dated the 24th February, and signed " A Democrat," in rela- tion to the manner of selling the goods saved from the public store, 26 L Front street. The history of the business is simply this: The morning after the fire, I went in person, attended by some of the best officers in the Department, to adopt a course in our judgments best •calculated to preserve the interest of all parties concerned. The under- writers were very shy of taking any responsibility or incurring any ex- pense in the matter, and the owners did not make their appearance. I employed a few engines to play a sufficient quantity of water on the ruins to cool them, so that the men could work, and I detailed a sufficient number of officers to gather from the ruins all that could be saved. The goods were in such a condition that we could not even put them in any store, lest some fire might remain in them sufficient to ignite again, and were therefore compelled to put them in an open yard, with a watch, over them. They were afterwards put in piles or lots in the yard, and were appraised by the public appraisers, and were sold at auction by W. H. L. Van Wyck, one of our most respectable auction houses. They were sold at two different periods, and brought about the apprais- ed value. The principal purchasers were Jews and pedlars; some got very good bargains, I have no doubt, and some very poor ones. All the lots that were sold at the first sale were not called for, because they were bid off at more than they were worth ; and they were accordingly resold, and brought a less sum. At the first sale there was some little complaint that the people had not a sufficient opportunity to examine the goods; and, in order to inform my- self of the justice of the complaint, I went to see in what manner the lots were made up for the second sale, and to inquire how it was done at the first, and I am entirely satisfied that it was all fair ; though, at the second sale, a Mr. Phillips, one of the " Old Testament" people, came and com- plained, when I ascertained that his friend had hired the second story of the house on the opposite side of the yard, where the goods were, and con- stantly remained there with spy glass in their hands, to see the manner in which the men selected the goods; and I have since understood that he and his friend offered $20 to one of the inspectors for information as to the manner the goods were assorted. I called upon Mr. Van Wyck, and he satisfied me the complaint was groundless. Having failed in that effort, we are inclined to suppose that this " Democrat" is no other than a disappointed speculator by the name of Phillips. On the receipt of your letter, I addressed Mr. Van Wyck on the sub- ject. A copy of my note to him I send, and also his reply. He ought to have the best means of information of any one ^ and his testimony on the subject I refer to with confidence. The writer who has addressed you, like many others professing the same name, is not, I think, what he represents himself to be. I return you the letter. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 370 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, May 7, 1840. Sir: In the case of Wood, Johnson, & Burritt, against the under- signed, the question is, whether twilled sacking is an article used for cottom bagging, and therefore subject to the duty of 3£ cents the square yard. It is claimed that it is free, as an unbleached linen. We charge the duty as above, by order of the Department. The names of the witnesses handed to me by Mr. Mead are as follows : W. Cairns, John Townsend, Stuart Mollan, John H. Tallman, Henry Coit, Kimberly, and T. Phillips. Mr. Mead suggests, however, that it is very probable they will be against us ; and that we had better trust to the plaintiff's witnesses and Messrs^ Cairns and Townsend. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector.. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney. New York, June 20, 1840. My Dear Sir: I have yours of yesterday. I am disappointed in the* decision of Judge Heath, but yet 1 think we can beat them before the jury. You will have seen Wasson before now, and fixed all matters with him,, so far as you are concerned. I could not get the copy of Bottomly's deposition to-day, and therefore it will remain over till Monday. In great haste, very truly, J. HOYT. John Cadwalader, Esq. Custom-House, New York, July 2, 1840. Sir: From present appearances, I should judge the bill for the better protection of the revenue, which had passed the House of Representa- tives, will pass the Senate, and probably will become a law. In this bill provision is made for the appointment of an additional principal appraiser for this port. The enclosed application of Mr. William Cairns has been left with me, "with a request that I would forward it to you, with an expression of my own as to the fitness of the applicant for the place. 1 do not know how far it may be proper for me to interfere in the ap- pointments of persons to be associated with me in the performance of duties connected with this department ; but if there is no objection on this ground, I beg to say that I do not think a better or more judicious selec- tion could be made. I am, sir, &c. J. HOYT. To the President of the United States. Custom-House, New York, August 29, 1840. Sir : I have a controversy with the accounting officers of the Treasury, in relation to my forfeiture account, which ought not to remain as it does. Rep. No. 669. 371 I have this day replied to the last adjustment of the account, and the matter is within so small a compass, that I feel that a reasonable effort has not been made to arrive at the legal difficulties that seem to be in the way of a right understanding, on the part of the officers of the Treasury. The question is, whether the duties on goods seized form a part of the forfeit- ure; and that question is mixed up with the true construction of the 89th section of the act of 2d March, 1799, in relation to the bonding of goods. It is held by the First Auditor, and confirmed by the Comptroller, that it is the duty of the appraisers appointed by the court, under that section, to appraise goods about to be bonded, at the value here, and not at the place of exportation. I have submitted various arguments on the point, and have referred to that part of the section which imposes upon the collector and naval officer the duty of certifying that the duties had been paid or secured, the same as though the goods had been legally entered, which, according to the law as it now is, and will be until 1S42, makes "goods legally entered/' if en- tered at the value at the place of exportation. I have urged, as I believe, with an unanswerable force, that the rights of the revenue officers in the United States are not to be abridged or en- larged by the fact of the goods being bonded, which they would be if the Government took the duties, and then a " moiety" of the bond, which is given for the appraised value. The seizing officers having the possession of the goods, and if not bonded would receive one-half of the nett proceeds of the sales here, which would include value abroad and duties here. But Judge Betts decided, only a few days since, that the value which the appraisers must fix upon the goods appraised was the value at the place of exportation, which decision must receive as much consideration as the decision of the accounting officers, unless they can refer to a judicial au- thority higher or as high as that of Judge Betts. The amount now under discussion is about $1 1,500 ; but there are other amounts pending upon the same question, and therefore it is desirable, for many reasons, to have the principle finally settled. The decision of the Comptroller in matters of account, I am informed, is conclusive ; but. on a question purely one of a legal character, it seems to- me there must be some right of appeal to some tribunal or other. In view of this, I beg to submit these remarks. Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, September 7, 1840. Sir : I return you the calendar for September term, which you sent me this morning. I have a great many suggestions to make, but which must be done verbally ; but I would now remark, that Mr. Cairns is obliged to go to Baltimore on Saturday next, and will be absent several days. Some of the papers we shall want on the trial of Clifton are in Baltimore, and will be wanted there ; so that you will observe that this cause, as well as 372 Rep. No. 669. those in which Mr. Cairns is a witness, should be arranged on the calendar •so as to meet these contingencies. Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States District Attorney. Treasury Department, September 14, 1840. Sir : Your letter of the 12th instant, in reference to the furniture required for the new custom-house, has been received. In regard to the room assigned for the accommodation of the receiver general, it is to be observed that he has already been authorized to pro- cure some furniture for the rooms he now occupies in the Bank of America, which it is presumed will answer for his new quarters ; but any further ■articles of the kind which may be needed he can procure, on first advising the Department of what is required, to be paid out of the appropriation .contained in the Independent Treasury act of the 4th of July last. The expense of the vault, or any other permanent fixture placed in his room, should be charged to the appropriation for construction of the custom-house building. With respect to the furniture required for the other portions of the build- ing, no expense can be incurred without a special appropriation having first been made by Congress for the purpose, or unless the officers who occupy the rooms should think proper to defray such expenses out of their emoluments. It will, in any other event, become necessary to use the old furniture now in the custom-house. The appropriation made towards the erection of the building, it is thought, could not legally be appropriated, or any any portion of it, (whilst the building itself is unfinished,) for the object mentioned. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq. CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO GOODS DESTROYED BY FIRE. Custom-House, New York, January 12, 1S41. Sir : A derangement of the mails kept back your letter of the 9th until this day. The copy of the memorial of certain merchants, enclosed in it, is before me, which presents two propositions : 1st. That they will be permitted to enter the goods saved from the fire ^without paying duties on the portion destroyed. 2d. That the proceeds of the goods saved, after paying duties, be divided among the owners or importers, in proportion to their respective claims. In my letter of the 28th of January, I stated to you the efforts I was making to ascertain the names of the owners of the goods destroyed, but Rep. No. 669. 373 these efforts wholly failed. The underwriters have managed exceedingly adroitly to conceal themselves ; and the owners, in this respect, have kept pace with them. Some of the goods that were saved were, I helieve, sold to-day, under the nine months' sale ; and I suppose claims will hereafter be interposed for the surplus on bills of lading endorsed to some third party, and I do not see how we are to avoid it. You are probably under the impression, from the tenor of the memorial, that all the signers had goods at 261 Front street; but this cannot be so, as there fire names of those to it who have never in their lives imported at all ; others who had goods in what was called " Smith's large store," which adjoined 261. The object of the memorial, I think, is to procure a law to return the duties on all the goods destroyed by that fire, though such is not its special prayer. The great bulk of the goods were in Smith's store. For instance : Messrs. Grinnell, Minturn, & Co., had. a large quantity of olive oil in that store, on which duties had been paid. Messrs. Goodhue & Co., I believe, had a large quantity of hemp, on which duties had also been paid ; and the same thing with many others whose names appear, but who had nothing in the public store. Congress, in the act of 7th July, 183S, in relation to the great fire, recog- nised the principle of returning the duties on goods destroyed by fire ; but that was an extraordinary case, and ought not to form a precedent for other cases, or else the Government would stand as insurers. Some years ago a public store was burnt down in Washington street ; and, if the first propo- sition of the memorial should be adopted, there would be no reason why we should not return duties on the goods that were burnt in the Washington street store, if there were any in the store that had paid duties. It is well settled, that duties accrue on the importation ; and I see no good reason for a change in the law in this respect. The present instance is very different from that of the great fire. There was a calamity that swept down all insurance offices, and a calamity so appalling in its effects that relief seemed to be called for ; but, in an ordinary case, I think it would not be judicious to interfere with the present law. But whether we shall be able to collect any of the duties on the goods burnt is another question. I understand none were collected on the goods burnt in the Washington street store ; and, in the present case, I do not recognise a single name on the memorial whom I suspected of having goods in the store in Front street. The second proposition in the memorial, in principle, is very like the first, and is also subject to other objections, some of which occur to me at this moment, and which I will briefly state : 1st. The importers who claim this benefit know that they were in law liable for the duties on the importation of the goods. They have not as yet come forward and avowed themselves as owners, and paid, or offered to pay, a debt for which they were and are now legally liable ; and there- fore they do not precisely place themselves in a condition to claim a favor at the hands of the Government : the rule being, that one must do equity before he asks it ; and it would have been but equitable to h&ve acknow- ledged ownership before this time. 2d. Many of the parties, if not most of them, were insured, and collected the insurance ; and the broad grounds of the proposition would inure to the benefit of underwriters, whom Congress have uniformly refused to give re- lief to. 374 Rep. No. 669. 3d. Most of the goods being consigned to order, and all identity of marks, numbers, &c, being destroyed, it would be quite impossible to get in all owners, if the proposition should be adopted, so that injustice might be done- in the division, if the principle was right. I think, however, under the circumstances of this case, that the principle should not be adopted. I will retain the copy of the memorial sent me, for the purpose of pre- serving the names. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, January 16, 1841. Sir : I have your letter of the 10th instant, in relation to the seizure cases- that are to go to Washington. I have been put to vast expense in the trial of the causes at Baltimore and Philadelphia ; and we have therefore made up our minds not to pay any counsel fee attending the Supreme Court. I am satisfied, if the record is made up correctly, that we must succeed. The experience of the Attorney General in cases of this kind, to say noth- ing of his general ability, will enable him to get the merits of the cases be- fore the court, which is all that can be required. If you will have the goodness to send me a copy of the record as soon as prepared or printed, I will make some notes for the Attorney General, which might facilitate him; and no doubt you or General Howard would do the same. Very truly, J. HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, Esq , United States Jlttorney , Baltimore. Treasury Department, February 1, 1841. Sir : Yours of the 27th ultimo, in reply to my inquiry as to the amount in dispute as to fees and emoluments, has been received. I shall submit it to the Comptroller, for his reply and explanations, and then take the President's directions in the matter, of which you will be duly informed. You labor under a mistake in supposing that I have made any decision' on the point of doubt, since, by law, I have no power over the settlement of such accounts ; nor am I aware that, in the case of money held under protest, to which you allude, or in any other instance, I have made any decision, in respect to your business, which has been overruled either byr the law officers or Congress. But if I have, it would afford me great pleasure to see them reverse- any decision which appeared to be wrong, and to allow you every thing, which the law may seem to require. Rep. No. 639. 375 I am more anxious to do justice to the public interests, mnd to avoid difficulty and injustice, than to jorm any character for infallibility, or a near approach to it, in either my opinions or acts, which, being often, necessarily hasty, must at times be erroneous, however well intended. I claim, too, no special merit for such a course, as I believe that other persons, generally, and yourself in particular, are actuated by similar motives. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Custom-House, New York, February 17,1841. Sir : In reply to your letter of the 12th instant, enclosing an article from the New York Herald, in regard to, an alleged robbing of one of the public stores of this city, I have lo state that, on the 2d of January last, I re- ceived a report from two of the night watch, of which the following is a copy : January 2, 1841. Half-past six o'clock, trying locks of store 274 Front street ; heard a noise inside, and saw a person coming out of side door ; and, seizing him, found on him a dark lantern, a chisel, and piece of iron, and then brought him up to the corner store, and went for officer Parker, a few doors below, and left the man in charge of my partner ; but he slipped out of his hands, and went into a side door leading into the next store ; and a person in the store said we should not search it. We found one box of cloth broken open, in third story. Officer Parker came, and we searched the store, but could find nothing of him. The thief must have been locked up in the store, as no locks are broken. ROBERT O'DONNELL. JOHN HENRATTY. On the receipt of this report, I directed the storekeeper of the port to make an immediate investigation. We had not heard of the loss of any goods, except one piece of cloth from 230 Cherry street ; and we doubted whether the loss did not, in fact, occur before the package reached the public store. Such is the opinion of the storekeeper, as you will gather from the letter to me; a -copy I send herewith. A storehouse kept by Mr. Merle, in the neighborhood of 270 Water street, had been robbed of some coffee and other articles ; and he, in con- junction with me, put the matter into the hands of the police to investigate, and to arrest such persons as should be suspected. I had a private inter- view with two of the police officers, when I stated to them I had not lost any goods of any moment ; to which they replied, that they were satisfied that robberies had been committed, much more extensively than I had any idea of. I then offered them a reward if they would find the goods, or ar- rest and convict the offenders. Some arrests were made, but no goods found. Among others arrested were two colored persons, one of whom was a porter in the store 274 Front street, and the other a man occasionally em- ployed as a laborer in the latter store. They were arrested on a charge 376 Rep. No. 669. preferred by the person whom the night watch found in the store 274 From street. They are still in prison, but have not been examined. All tht officers connected with the particular charge of the stores referred to, a* well as the principal storekeeper of the port, believe in the innocence of the two colored persons referred to. From the representation made tc me by these officers, I am of the same opinion. I send you copy of z letter from the officers having charge of ti e Front and Water street stores by which you will see, as I have stated, that they express an opinion favorable to the integrity of the colored persons arrested. The storekeepei of the port is confined to his house by indisposition, and I therefore cannot get a report from him. I have had no conversation with any committee or other persons on this subject, but my own officers and the police officers. One of the latter officers I saw to-day, and he could give me no information other than that derived from the declarations of the man caught by the night watch ; and, in the absence of the loss of any goods of any moment, and the loss of those, even, not satisfactorily fixed as happening when the goods were in our custody, I should be slow to believe the accusation, especially as it comes from the man who has been promised legal absolution from his crimes if he would implicate others. Notwithstanding the opinion I at present entertain, 1 shall leave no ef- fort untried to get at the truth of the matter. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, February, 22, 184k Sir: On the 27th of January last, you called my attention to a corres- pondence that had been going on between the Comptroller and myself irt J relation to certain disputed items in my account, and more especially to> what is called the emolument account ; and you asked whether I had de- posited, as required by the Comptroller, the sum claimed by him to belong to the United States, but which I insisted belonged to me, with the receiver general ; and, if not so deposited, that I should state the reasons for omitting to do it. On the 29th of that month I stated to you that I had not made that de- posits, and I assigned at length my reasons for omitting to do so ; and among these reasons I forwarded to you a copy of a letter I addressed to] the Comptroller on the 30th of December last, which, to my mind, was conclusive of the correctness of the position I had assumed, and which lat- ter letter it was apparent, from your communication, had not been seen by i you. On the 1st of February you admitted the receipt of the 29th of January,, when you stated that you " should submit it to the Comptroller, for his re- ply and explanations, and then take the President's directions iu the maU ter, of which you (I) would be duly informed.' ' You also stated, in the same letter, that yon were "more anxious to do justice to the public interests, and to avoid difficulty and injustice, than to form any character for infallibility, or a near approach to it, in either Kep. No. 669. 377 my (your) opinion or acts, which being often necessarily hasty, must at times be erroneous, however well intended." I had a right, as I supposed, from this communication, to expect the "reply and explanations of the Comptroller would have been conveyed to me in the ordinary manner, with the result of your own judgment, formed without the " necessary haste" with which you are at times " compelled to act;" but, instead of realizing what I cannot but believe were my just ex- pectations, I was informed of the "reply and explanations" of the Comp- troller on the 20th instant, through the offices of the district attorney and marshal, and not in the manner you indicated to me that I should be in- formed. In other words, you directed a suit to be commenced against me and my sureties, to recover the amount of the disputed items. Some of the amounts had been disbursed under the authority of your own letters, and others under the decisions of the accounting officers of the Department. This proceeding has created such a change in my relations to the De- partment, and is likely to be so injurious to me, that I think it due to my- self to resign the office I hold. I will communicate that resignation to the President by this day's mail,, with a copy of this letter. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Hep. A T o, 669. 379 APPENDIX 4 . PART 1L CORRESPONDENCE OF COLLECTOR, LAW OFFICERS, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, AND MISCELLANEOUS. Custom-House, New York, April 5, 1S38. Sir : Colonel Ogden, the assistant collector of this port, residing at Jersey City, called at this office to-day, and stated the necessity of being provided with a barge, for the purpose of boarding vessels that drop in occasionally near the Jersey shore. He thinks there is a species of craft that are engag- ed in an improper manner, to the prejudice of the revenue, and which can- not be detected without the facility of a boat. I am of opinion that a boat should be furnished with the leiefet possible delay. It is not proposed to have a permanent set of bargemen, but to employ men for the especial occasion, and as often as required. Colonel Ogden also suggests that he should be furnished with a secret inspector, whose name should not be placed upon the books of the Treasury, but known only to him and myself. If you should approve of it, I will adopt the course, from a conviction of its utility. I am, sir, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, April 10, 1838. Sir : In reference to the suggestions alluded to in your letter of the 5th instant, made by the assistant collector, residing in Jersey City, to be allow- ed a boat and a secret inspector of the customs, I have to state, that it is not deemed expedient at this time to incur the expense incident to the adop- tion of Colonel Ogden's suggestions, unless it should clearly appear that the interests of the revenue require it, and the case is urgent. I am. sir, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, April 7, 1S3S. Sir : My attention has been called by my predecessor in office to the condition of the custom-house, in regard to its monetary affairs. It is said to be very doubtful whether the bill fixing the compensation of the officers of the customs will be passed the present session of Congress. It is therefore very important that some appropriation should be made for their compensation for the present vear, 13* 380 Rep. -No. 669. The general appropriation act for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government has, for several years past, contained provision for the payment of the officers of the customs. But the bill of the present year, 1 understand, contains no provision for the payment of the officers of the cus- toms. It is, by our last accounts, yet before the Senate. I would most respectfully suggest that it should be so amended as to embrace the object referred to. Should this bill become a law without containing- provision for the payment of the officers of the customs, and no other oncibe passed for their benefit, it will place many of these men in sad distress. I have thought it, proper to bring the subject to your mind, which the va- rious and arduous duties of your office might otherwise cause you to over- , look, and in order that no disappointment may result to those who would most sensibly feel the loss. 1 am, sir, &c. ' J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House^New York, April IS, 1838. Gentlemen : The loss of so many papers that belong to the files of this office requires that a new system should be adopted in relation to them. After the entry of goods in this office, the original invoice becomes a paper belonging to the files of the office ; it is, however, intrusted to the importer to take to the naval office when it is ready for your department, and. should forthwith be deposited there. When it is so deposited, I consider it, in ef- fect, in the custody of the collector ; and therefore I desire that you will not hereafter part with any such invoice, but will, as soon as you are done with it, cause it to be sent by one of your clerks or messengers to this office* where it in fact belongs. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. To the Principal Appraisers cf the Port of New York. Custom-House, New York, Jipril 18, 1838. Sir : Your letter of 21st March, directing me to inquire whether, in con- sequence of the depressed slate of commerce, a number of the officers at- tached to this department could not be dispensed with, has received my anxious consideration, and I am of opinion that we are in want of all the effective force now under the control of the collector of this port. The " depression/' I apprehend, is not as great as has been represented by a portion of our fellow-citizens, who had oYvjects to accomplish other than consulting the business interests of the community. We have, it is to be admitted, about a dozen inspectors of the customs at this port, who render but little service now. and receive full pay. They have rendered services her* tofore, for which I think there is a sn ail balance due them. I cannot consent to lake the responsibility ofleavirg them out of the list of appoint- Hep. No.' 669. 381 merits which T intend to send for approval in a few days ; but if you direct them to be left off, I shall, of course, obey your instructions. I allude to those who performed valuable revolutionary services, not " bloodless." I have been compelled, upon the request of the auditor, to furnish four addi- tional clerks in his department, the necessity of which grows out of the labor it requires to cancel and record the Treasury notes we are daily in the receipt of, and to make out the papers and entries for a return of duties on gloves, silk goods, &c. I desire, also, to appoint two additional clerks in the room I especially superintend. I have good reason to believe that invoices, made out abroad, are very often erroneous in extensions and additions, which makes a mate- rial difference in the amount of duties to be charged. It is impossible for the entry clerks proper to attend to the examinations in this particular, and : I am advised it will require at least two additional clerks for this service, I have no doubt of the importance of the object, but I am unwilling to in- cur the expense, under the present system of making provision for paying the expenses of the establishment under my charge. I had the honor to address you on the subject some days since, and your reply I have, and I now ask for your advice in the matter. When coming into this office, I was not satisfied with the form and manner in which the business was con- ducted, and I have attempted some reforms, which it is my purpose to carry out, and the result of which I am perfectly satisfied will greatly ex- ceed any additional expense of clerk hire that I shall incur ; and it may turn; out that I shall stand in need of more assistance than I have already ad- verted to, in the shape of additional clerks. You will perceive by the news- papers that there are a good many goods coming in, and I have no doubt that we shall have a flourishing falPs business ; and I should wish, so far as this office is concerned, to be prepared to do it with promptness and correctness, but which cannot be done without competent aid. I am, sir, &c. * J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, Custom-House, New York, April 20, 1838. Sir : I have come to the conclusion that the offices of weigher, gaugerv measurer, marker, and inspector of the customs of this port, by operation of law, became vacant on the expiration of the commission of the late collector, In this opinion lam confirmed by Mr. Price, the district attorney. Since I came into office, I have devoted all the time I could command from its pressing business to an investigation of the character and fitness of the various applicants for appointment, and it was not until this moment that I could complete the list, which I herewith transmit, for your approval, I do not propose to reduce the number I found in office when I took pos- session, for the reasons assigned in the communication I had the honor to address you on the 18th instant. May i solicit as early action on this subject as may be consistent with other c laims upon your attention ? Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, 1 382 Rep. Mo. 669. Treasury Department, April 20, 1838. Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 1 8th instant, in regard to your subordinate officers. I should like to be informed whether you cannot employ some of the most inefficient inspectors in the capacity of clerks. It may be proper to suggest that the Department does not construe the law as requiring new nominations of old officers, after a change of col- lector ; but it holds that those officers continue until others are appointed in their stead. It further holds that the collector is able, and ought to make new nominations, in the place of the old ones, where he thinks the public interest requires it. In such case, however, the collector must, according to the circular of the 20th of July, 1S29, submit his reasons for the change, though they be assigned confidentially, or in person, or otherwise, as may "be most convenient and agreeable. I am, respectfully, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of tfie Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, April 22, 1838. Sir: I am in receipt of your communication of the 20th instant, in which you desire to' be informed whether I cannot employ some of the inefficient inspectors in the capacity of clerks. I am not at present prepared to answer that question, but will give it hereafter my attention. There are already in the Department several -very old gentlemen, acting as clerks, and who get through with the duties assigned them, as I am informed by the auditor, in whose room they are, ■with reasonable accuracy and despatch; but such men are wholly unfit for the active business which falls more immediately under my supervision. An occurrence which I have been privately investigating, and brought to a point yesterday, satisfies me of this. I have entertained a suspicion for several days that very fraudulent transactions had taken place in the cus- tom-house here, by collusion with officers in the department. I satisfied myself of the fact yesterday afternoon, when I ordered a seizure of twelve packages of woollens to be made ; and to-morrow I shall have a thorough investigation as to the number of persons implicated, who belong now to the office: and, as the result shall appear, it will be my duty to make re- movals accordingly. I have a confirmed belief that the Government; has, in the last few years, been defrauded to a large extent; and the fair mer- chants been prejudiced in the like proportion. It is my design to correct this abuse. Your communication goes on to state — 1. "That the Department does not construe the law as requiring new nominations of old officers after a change of collector." 2. "That it (the Department) holds that these . officers continue until others arc appointed in their stead." 3. "That the collector is able, and ought to make new nominations, in the places of the old ones, when he thinks the public interests require it." 4. That "in such case, however, the collector must, according to the cir- cular of the 20th of July, 1S29, submit his reasons for the change, though Rep. No. 669. 383 they be assigned confidentially, or in person, or otherwise, as may be most convenient and agreeable.'-* In relation to these matters, you will have found, by my communication of the 20th instant, that I construe the law as it has been construed by the circuit court of the United States, in the New Hampshire district, and by a committee of the House of Representatives, in July, 1837, (if I recollect the date right,) and by the same committee a few days since, by the introduction of a bill to render it unnecessary, upon a new collector coming into office, to renew the appointments. In addition to this, I submitted the question, as you will perceive by my letter just referred to, to Mr. Price, the district attorney, who agreed with me in opinion. I most respectfully, therefore, submit, whether all this does not justify the course I have taken in relation to the appointments I forwarded for your approval. I have no confidential communications to make to the Department on the subject. It is my purpose to discharge my official duties as publicly as I shall do it fearlessly. I have not seen the circular of the 20th of July, 1S29, and it would not apply to the case, as I have construed the law. do not consider that I make any "change," and therefore I did not send you a list of the old officers whom I nominated; but I will state the general grounds upon which I made the selection of the names I forwarded. 1. That the revolutionary men I found in office I renominated, for the reasons that they were capable of performing a certain kind of service, though not a full one; and that it would be considered unjust to with- hold from them the small pittance necessary for their support in their old age. In all other cases, I believed the persons renominated "honest, capable, and friendly to the Constitution.' 7 I have taken the same oath to support the Constitution and the laws that my superiors have taken ; and if the Department will not allow me to select the persons to aid in the execution of those laws which I am especially charged to see executed, without a formality that implies a want of sense or integrity, I cannot consent to undertake the execution of them. If there is any other law for the Secretary of the Treasury to call upon the collector for reasons in such a case, than there is in the Senate to call on the President under like circumstances, I have not been able to find it, and I would be greatly obliged for the reference. Respectfully vours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. N. B. A Liverpool packet, arrived to-day, brought a million of specie. J. H., Collector. Custom-House, April 23, 1838. Sir : The investigation referred to in my letter of yesterday resulted in the resignation of my principal deputy last night. I have a statement, in writing, taken in the presence of the district at- torney. In consideration of making the disclosures, the collector and district attorney gave their personal and official pledge that no prosecution should 384 Kep. No. 669. be instituted against the party disclosing. The disclosure led also to the dismissal of a clerk s in the naval office. I directed a seizure of fifteen packages of woollens in the public stores, and also a large number of pieces in the store of the importer. I also directed a prosecution to be in- stituted against him, under the statute for bribery on officers of the customs. As all the most important entries have been abstracted from this office, we may have some difficulty in proceeding under the act for making the false entry. I have stated the whole case to the district attorney, with general directions to take all measures to bring the offender to justice. Respectfully, &c J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, April 23, 1838. ^ Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, enclosing a list of subordinate officers for confirmation. I have to inform you, in reply, that it is not necessary, according to the usage of the Department, (as advised in my letter of the 20th instant,) to nominate the old officers intended to be continued in the service, but only the new appointments. As to the new ones proposed, I want further explanation, confidential or otherwise, required by the same usage, and a statement of the' names of those in whose stead the new ones are appointed. The list is herewith returned, in order that the names of the old officers proposed to be removed may be placed opposite to those recommended in their places. All the old ones renominated are of course approved to be retained. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1838. Sir : I enclose you a report of Inspector Fitch, of goods seized in the store of C. W. Dayton. Will you be so good as to institute proceedings to forfeit the same to the United States? Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1838. Sir: I enclose you a schedule of packages of goods now in the public store at No. 17 Nassau street, to the number of fifteen, which I wish you Eep. No. 669. 385 to proceed against with all despatch, as forfeited to the United States-; the same were imported by James Bottomly, jr., whose store is at No. 97 Pearl street. The goods were entered at the custom-house, of the vakie of j6904 17«s. Id., and the entry made 30th March last, and were imported in ship Briscoe, as we suppose ; but as the entry has been abstracted from this office, as well as the naval office, we are without accurate knowledge on the subject, but it appears from the appraisers' books that the gross in- voice was the amount last stated. The duties have not been paid. The appraised value, as you will see by the enclosed, is £ 1,403 14s. 6d. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1838. Sir : You was present when a disclosure was made to me, last evening, touching some fraudulent transactions of James Bottomly, jr., at the cus- tom-house. I wish you to take all legal measures to bring the offender to justice. I have caused to be seized a quantity of cloths in his store at 97 Pearl street, and which have have been received at the public store, a particular account of which I will send you hereafter. I desire proceedings to be instituted to forfeit these goods. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 25, 1838. Sir : I send you, herewith, a schedule of the goods taken from the store of C. W. Dayton this day. Will you be so good as to institute proceedings to forfeit the same to the United States ? Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, April 25, 1833. Sir: Mr. James Bottomly, jr., recently a large importer of woollen goods in this city, fled the city yesterday, and he may be with you. His agents may be ascertained by inquiry of Crosdale, Hazlehurst, &Co., cor- . ner of Chestnut and First streets. 386 Rep. No. 669. His packages were marked B, and numbered from 830 to 1,300, and: contained cloths and cassimeres. I wish a trusty officer to be employed to make the examination, and if any goods are found to answer the description, I wish measures taken to- forfeit them to the United States. ' Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., U. S. District Attorney, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, April 25, 1838. Sir : Mr. James Bottomly, jr., a large importer of woollens, late of this city, has been practising extensive frauds on the revenue of this city, as we have every reason to believe. He is supposed to have fled the city, and I should not be surprised if he was with you. Mr. Hoffman, the auctioneer, and William Taylor & Co. ? of your city, are his agents, and it is supposed he has a large amount of goods in their hands. The packages are marked B,and numbered from 830 to 1,300. I wish you to employ some trusty officer to make an examination into the premi- ses ; and if you find any thing that looks suspicious, I desire you to take- measures to forfeit the goods. They are cloths and cassimeres. Yours, respectfully, JESSE HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Baltimore. Treasury Department, April 25, 1838. Sir : Yours of the 22d has been received. In regard to the subject of clerks, I will be happy to communicate further, after you have made fuller and satisfactory inquiries as to the less active inspectors. On the subject of the supposed fraud in the collection of the revenue, I am happy that your vigilance has been crowned with success. The ut- most aid in my power will be cheerfully afforded to detect and punish, in. an exemplary manner, any designed violations of the laws. With respect to your nominations, it will be seen that all reappointments of former officers, though it is not considered necessary to renominate them, have been confirmed. The decision in Wood's case, to which you refer, did not accord with the practice of this Department, either before or since 1820; but some doubt having arisen whether that decision, though made in the circuit, and not carried to the Supreme Court, ought not to govern the practice, one of my predecessors, in 1S31, took the opinion of the Attorney General on that point ; the latter advised and showed very clear- ly that the decision was erroneous. Hence, from 1799 till now, the prac- tice has been to hold that the subordinates remain in office till formally removed by the collector, with the approbation of this Department. The Committee on Commerce reported the bill to which you refer a few Eep. No. 669. 387 days ago, merely with a view, on my suggestion, to remove all doubts of the correctness of this construction — as a different one, adopted now, and without new legislation guarding against such a result, would not only- change the usages of a third of a century, but render void all the acts of your own subordinates since the 29th of March^and of most others in the United States for many years. The other point you mention as questionable, whether a collector is bound to assign reasons for his proposed removals, has never, to my know- ledge, been considered by any Attorney General. Our records having been mostly destroyed, I cannot trace the origin of the practice to require such, reasons; but a circular, in 1829, before mentioned in a former letter, di- rected them to be given, and it has never since been modified or repealed. A copy of it is enclosed for your information, though it was sent at the time to New York and all the principal ports in the United States, and has since been complied with generally, and in particular whenever the changes proposed were numerous, objected to, or from any cause peculiar. The Department has, however, felt disposed to leave all the responsibilty for removals on the collectors which it could, and at the same time enforce duly the duty of supervision. But it may be that such duty does not, by law, belong to it, in respect to the removals, and that, as you suggest, it is confined to the new appointments, in place of those removed. It would be very gratifying to the Department to find that the present laws ought to- be so construed, or, if not, that Congress is willing to alter them. Consequently, I will at once take the opinion of the Attorney General on this question, and, if he should hold that the Department is relieved from any responsibility as to the removals, will be happy to dispense with any inquiry, in any form, confidential or otherwise, into the reasons for them, and then proceed to act on the new nominations. Soon as his reply is received, I will communicate with you further; and in the mean time remain, respectfully, yours, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, §c. Custom-House, New York, April r 26, 1S38. Gentlemen : The undersigned demand that you produce, forthwith, and lodge at the public store No. 17 Nassau street, the goods referred to. in your entries at the custom-house, by the ships Rhone, Ville de Lyon,, Charlemagne, and Utica, to the end that they may be examined. J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. La Chaise & Fouche. Custom-House, New York, April 26, 1S3S. Sir : I addressed you yesterday on the subject of James Bottomly, jr. I have since understood that he has from $50,000 to $100,000 worth of goods in the possession of S. C. & J. Ford, of your city. Will you make in- quiries upon the subject, and proceed, if there are any of the packages described in my letter of yesterday ? Yours, kc. J. HOYT, Collector. . John M. Read, Esq., Philadelphia. 388 Eep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, April 21, 133S. Sir : I have your favor of yesterday. I understand Messrs. Stevens & Co., or some other auction house in your city, sold, on Tuesday last, a 1 large amount of goods of Bottomly's; if so, I would seize the goods if the merchants have not in fact paid for them. French goods were shipped : yesterday by the steamboat Swan; the wrapper is marked , and the ' inside mark is or . I wish all with either of these marks seized and dealt with according to law. The French goods were consigned to Davis, Stevenson, & Co. If Bot- lomly is in your city, arrest him, and hold him to bail for $10,000. I will send you an affidavit of "belief that he is justly indebted to the United States in that sum," if your practice requires this form. Respectfully, your obedient servant, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., U. S. Attorney ', Philadelphia. N. B. If the wrapper marked is taken off, you must be careful to preserve it, as it forms a part of the proof. J. H. Custom-House, New York, April 21, 183S. Sir : I think Mr. Bottomly is now in your city ; if so, I wish you to hold him to bail for $10,000, and I will send you an affidavit for this pur- pose, that " I believe him indebted to the United States in that sum." He has, in the course of the week, in all human probability, sold the goods in your city at auction. If they have not been paid for by the pur- chasers, I wish them seized. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Baltimore. Custom-House, New York, April 21, 1S38. Sir : I am in receipt of your communication of the 25th, and I have others from the Department that require my attention, but 1 have been so much oppressed by the investigations I have been conducting, that I have not had the opportunity to devote sufficient attention to the subjects to write understandingly. I shall succeed in effectually breaking up a system that has prevailed here, very seriously affecting the revenue, and almost driving the fair merchant out from business. I am informed that many ar- ticles of merchandise have advanced in price in this market very considera- bly since my action on this subject. I have given directions to the district attorneys of Philadelphia and Baltimore to act in the premises, but I have not the leisure to make a detailed report to the Department, but will do so in a few days, for the use of other officers. I will give the ?twdus operandi by which these transactions have been conducted. In relation to the offi- cers, I have only to say that, under the advice of the district attorney, I em- Bep. No. 669. 389 ployed those only to perform the special duties I have required to be per- formed whom I found in office, and whom I proposed to retain ; but I swore them anew, because I was so well satisfied of the construction I have given to the act, that i would not subject them or myself to private actions for seizing goods without competent authority. My desire to have that con- struction sanctioned, I will freely admit, arises from a disposition to have the law, rather than the collector, remove those whom I think the public require should not be retained. I am aware that you will hear many com- plaints, and I am to receive reproaches ; but of this I shall take no note, as long as I feel conscious of discharging my duties faithfully. I have pre- pared new commissions, to be delivered, and oaths to be taken, on the 1st of May, for the whole list I sent you. If I employ officers to perform duties, not clothed with legal authority, I make myself and them personally re- sponsible, and we are to be turned over to Congress for protection. I am unwilling to be placed in this position, unless there is a very grave necessity for it. I will not shrink from any responsibility the law imposes ; beyond that I am sure it is not your desire to have me act. The " usage of the Department" can never, in my judgment, ripen into an enactment of law, so as to have a controlling influence upon a judicial construction; and I must confess I would have as much confidence in Mr. Justice Story's judi- cial opinion on the subject as I would in the opinion of the Attorney General. If there is no prominent objection to my swearing in the old as well as the new officers on the 1st of May, I should feel much more secure in my position. The experience I have had the last three weeks teaches me of the necessity of placing around the Government and myself every possible guard, and I should be glad of permission to take the course I have indicat- ed. I have to go through a severe trial in placing matters here as I think they should be, and, to do this, I want efficient aid. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1838. Sir : I have positive information that Mr. Bottomiy has a large amount of goods in Hoffman & Co.'s auction store, and that no advance has been made on them. I wish them seized, in my name, forthwith. Messrs. Hoff- man & Co. will give you every facility. Seize the original packages, with the marks, whether empty or not, to the end that we will prove that certain goods came from certain packages. I trust to your vigilance for the pro - tection of all parties concerned. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Nathaniel Williams, U. S. Attorney, Baltimore. 390 Sep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, April 28, 183S. Sir : Mr. George A. Wasson, a special deputy for this purpose appoint ed, leaves this afternoon in the mail line, and will be in your city early to morrow morning, to look after the affairs concerning which I have writte you for the last few days. I beg you will afford all possible energy in the matter referred to. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John M. Read, Esq., U. S. Attorney, Philadelphia. g Custom-House, New York, April 28, 1S38. Sir : Mr. George A. Wasson, a special deputy, w ill proceed to Philadel- phia, to take charge of the matters referred to in your letter of yesterday. He is acquainted with the circumstances, and will detail them all. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Samuel D. Patterson, U. S. Maashal, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, May 1, 1838. Sir : I noticed, by a paragraph in our papers, taken from the Boston Transcript of Saturday last, stating, in substance, that the collector of the port of Boston, upon information from New York, had seized, that day, a large amount of English woollens, for an alleged violation of the revenue laws at the port of New York. Will you be so good as to inform me as to the truth of the statement, and upon what information from New York the seizure was made, and from whence the information was derived ? Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Esq., Collector, Boston. Treasury Department, May 1, 1838. Sir : I have received your letter of the 29th ultimo. I beg leave to en- close a copy of Judge Berrien's opinion, heretofore referred to, by which you will perceive that the expression in the appointment (to wit : " during the pleasure of the collector") means the collector for the time being. This construction corresponds with the forms of all the commissions granted by the President. I therefore see no reason for change and innovations in any forms which have been adopted and sanctioned for nearly one -third of a century. The list you sent here was returned, in order that you might designate who were new officers, and in whose places appointed. Otherwise, we can Eep. No. 689. 391 keep no correct list here, for reference and periodical publication. When it is returned, ana! the opinion of the Attorney General received in reference to the power to remove subordinate officers of the customs, without the pre- vious approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, as presented in Mr. Ingham's circular, I will be happy to act finally on the whole subject. I am, very respectfullv, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Treasury Department, May 2, 1833. Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ulti- mo, transmitting your return of moneys received and paid the week pre- ceding. When the funds on hand, at anyone time, in money, are larger in amount than you will need, I wish you to apprize us of the excess, and state that it is held subject to the Treasurer's draft, in order that the Department may draw for it as occasion may require. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, May 3, 1S3S. Sir : I return you the list of officers heretofore transmitted you for ap- proval, with the correction of some spelling in names, and also striking out the name of Abraham T. Hillyer, who declined the appointment of inspect- or. This, then, leaves two vacancies, which I shall claim the privilege of filling hereafter, for reasons of a strong character. I also send you a print- ed list I obtained from the surveyor's office, with the names erased whom I did not renominate, and the names in manuscript whom I report as fit persons to put in their places. The Attorney General, on my request, and for my government, favored me with the perusal of the draught of his opinion which he sent you on the 30th ultimo. When Mr. Thompson succeeded Mr. Gelston, he called in all the old warrants, and issued new ones, and of course administered the oaths anew; and that precedent, for many reasons which I have before adverted to, was more satisfactory for me to follow than the one adopted by Mr. Swartwout when he came in ; and I accordingly swore into office, on the first instant, all the old officers retained, as well as the new ones. I could not get along in any other way. Under your letter of the 23d, and the At- torney General's opinion, I thought this course would not be deemed by you objectionable. If, however, it is, I am content to abide the consequences. I have read Judge Berrien's opinion, which, in my judgment, does not touch the question, or at least it does not satisfy my mind upon the subject. Several people have to die or- resign before the Government is without a Jiead, and therefore the officers holding under the President and Senate do 392 Rep." No. 669. not, of necessity, go out upon the retirement of the person holding the office' of President. I have nothing further to add, than if I am instructed to undo what I have done, it is a task that must be done by other hands. My labors in this respect have been too great to be again endured by me. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. N. B. The night inspectors are all in manuscript ; the first ten are new ones, and the others are old ones, which 1 forgot to state at the proper place. J. H., Collector. Treasury Department, May 3, 1S3S. Sir : I transmit for your consideration a letter and accompanying papers, received from the surveyor of your port, in behalf of certain subordinate officers of the customs at New York. The surveyor has been informed of this reference, and also of the opinion of the Attorney General, that you have full and exclusive power, under the law, in regard to the removal of subordinates. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, Boston, May 4, 1838. Sir : This morning I received a letter, without signature, bearing date Custom-House, New York, May 1, 1838, and making inquiries respecting certain seizures in this place. It is true that some seizures have been made, but I do not think the interest of the Government will at this time be pro- moted by pointing out the source of the information which led to them, nor do I consider myself authorized to give names. To one case I will call your attention : five bales of kerseys, marked and numbered W 1 to 5, were seized at the depot of the Boston and Provi- dence railroad on Monday last. 1 enclose a copy of a letter from Piatt & Duncan respecting them. They should have sent a certificate from you that the duties were paid. Their letter seems to be equivocal. They do not say that they were the importers. There is good ground for suspecting they were not. I should not have troubled you with this affair but for the letter, appa- rently from you, received this morning, but should simply have required a production of the proper certificates. Yours, &c. ' GEORGE BANCROFT, Collector. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Rep. No. 669. 393 Treasury Department, May 5, 1838. Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, I with its enclosed list of nominations. I I find, on examining the list, that the whole number of the oflicers have been increased to the extent of three on the list of inspectors, including the two vacancies to which you refer. Presuming that this was done under your statement on the 18th ultimo, that no more would be nominated than the wants of the public service re- quired, I approve of the old number as permanent officers, with the excep- tion of the four " deputy inspectors or markers," which, being " deputy in- spectors of th'e revenue" and not of the customs, are nominated by the sur- veyor. But the additional inspector, being the last on the list of inspectors of the customs, is to be viewed as temporary till a diminution in the press of business will enable you to discontinue him or others. In respect to the individuals nominated, I know of no objection to their qualifications, and, presuming that you have exercised due care in present- ing proper persons, I confirm their nominations, with the exception before named. This is done without any reference to the propriety or reasons for the re- movals or changes made, as the Attorney General has decided that those changes are, by law, exclusively devolved on you, as well as the responsi- bility for their correctness. In regard to the appointing and swearing of the old officers anew, as I be- fore communicated to you, the Department considers it unnecessary, but does not perceive that it can do any harm. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. fc Marshal's Office, Philadelphia, May 5, 183S. Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that three packages of French goods, supposed to belong to those referred to in your recent letter, were this morn- ing seized at the auction store of Myers & Clagham, 43 Market street. The cases are marked as follows : B D ^ and the numbers are: 126, 1146, 1175. Respectfully, yours, &c. SAMUEL D. PATTERSON, Marshal Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector,^. Custom-Hotxse, New York, May 7, 1838. Sir : I am in receipt of yours of the 5th instant, and beg permission to present my views in regard to the power I exercised in nominating for your approval the " markers" for this port. Iam fatigued, as no doubt you must be,' with this unpleasant subject ; but I owe it to myself, as well as the public service, to have a right understanding in regard to these mat- 394 Rep. No. 669. ters. I have examined the law from 1789 to the present time, and I ven- ture to say there is an entire absence of authority in the surveyor to ap- point a deputy of any kind, or for any purpose, except that referred to in the 22d section of the act of 1799. By the act of 1S17, the collector may appoint deputies ; but this right is no where enlarged beyond the act of 1799, to the surveyor. His duties are pointed out by the 21st section of the last-mentioned act ; and as well has he the right to appoint "deputies" to assist him in the performance of these various duties, referred to there, .as in the performance of duties relating to the " inspector" of distilled spirits, &c. The phrase so often used in the 35th section of the act, with a slight change of words, "surveyor, or officer acting as inspector of the revenue for the port," had its origin, I think, in the Sth section of the act of 1789, Where provision is made for the collector, in case there is no surveyor, to appoint a person to execute the duties, who shall have the compensation and the power of an inspector. (See Story's edition, vol. 1, page 17 ; and a similar provision is contained in the 21st section of the act of 1799.) The 38th section of the last act carries out this idea, and provides that the landing shall be had under the inspection of the surveyor, "or other officer acting as inspector of the revenue for the port." And it goes on to add, "and such of the inspectoi*s of the customs as shall be deputed by him for that purpose." This is confined to the "landing," which gives the right to " depute" an inspector of my appointing; and the provision to that sec- tion explains the construction to be given to the body of the section. The authority to the collector in the 21st section is general to appoint " inspect- ors" of the port, and not inspectors of the customs, as they are called in subsequent sections. The power is general to appoint all " inspectors" -connected with " the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," for this is the title of the act. The term " surveyor" is not synonymous with the words " officer acting as inspector of the revenue." The provisions of law for the appointment of the two officers is distinct, and I cannot find any au- thority for uniting them. In some cases provision is made that the collect- or acts as surveyor, and even naval officer ; but there is no provision, that I have been able to find, combining the two offices of surveyor and inspect- or of the revenue, in the sense you suppose. It is true the surveyor ascer- tains the proof of spirits, and the qualities of tea, &c. ; but this does no: necessarily make him an inspector of the revenue, within the meaning of the act, any more than his authority to examine weights and measures, or goods entered for exportation, would make him such inspector ; nor does the authority to do either of these things invest him with power to ap- point "deputies" to perform the act for him. The collector, in fact, is the chief officer of inspection of the port ; and all others, connected with the collection of duties at the port, are his subordinates. I find no authority in the surveyor, except as before stated as growing out of the 21st section, or in any inspector of the revenue, " to appoint" any person to represent him, except in the single case of the teas, referred to in the 62d section of the act, where it is provided that one of the keys may be kept " by such other person as he shall depute or appoint in his behalf." There is power given in the act of March 3, 1S03, to the President, to transfer the duties of the office of " supervisor" to some other person ; but I find no authority to invest the surveyor with the office of " inspector of the revenue," any further than belongs to the collector, or naval officer, or surveyor, in virtue of the general powers with which they are invested, to look after the rights of Sep. ?So. 669. the Government. The act of 1 SI 3 (1st section) continues the phraseology- found in the older act, of " surveyor or officer of inspection of the reve- nue ;" and the same necessity exists now as in 1789 for the distinction ; for there are many places where there are no surveyors, and the collector acts as such, or deputes some other person. I am strengthened in the conclusion I come to by the act of 1820, uniting the term of certain offices. The sur- veyor is there called, what he always in fact has been, " surveyor of the customs," and as an officer, in my judgment, wholly separate and distinct from an "inspector of the revenue." The commission of all officers employed in levying or collecting the pub- lic revenue, " not required to be recorded in the Treasury Department, and under the seal of that Department," emanates from the head of the port or place where the business is to be done, with the exception of the "deputies" authorized by the 21st section of the act of 1799 ; and hence the naval officer or surveyor are not, as the collector is, bound to submit the nominations for your approval, because they have not the power of appointing any deputies but such as are last referred to, and them only as temporary. And it was the intention of the framers of the law, " that the principal officer of the Treasury Department" should have the power to pass upon the appointment of all persons holding responsible stations in the collection of the revenue; and the collector is accordingly, by the law, required to pay all such persons for their services; and he always has paid the markers or deputy inspectors. The naval officer and surveyor both pay the clerks and deputies proper, but not the "markers;" and, as he does not pay them, he has no power to create them. It is true the act of 1822 (sec. 15) alludes to the compensation of a deputy surveyor; but as that is a deputy authorized by the act of 1799, at least in the absence of any authority to appoint any other deputies, it must be held to apply only to that act; but I can find no authority, or even al- dusion to authority, for the appointment of "a deputy inspector of the rev- enue." The term "marker" has not crept into the statute book before 1836. In the 3d section of the appropriation act of July 4, of that year, he is called upon, by the name of marker, to account to the collector for certain fees, as the weighers, gaugers, and measurers are ; and so again in the 2d section of the act of March 3, 1S37, the same provision is con- tained. I have stated the word "marker" was not used until 1S26; but the term "mark" is used for the first time in the act of 1799, in section 39. In the act of 2d March, 1799, chapter 129, fixing the compensation of the "officers," &c, section 2d, the weighers, gaugers, and measurers, have a compensation for marking, "in double characters," certain things; and it is the same "double character" that the 39th section alludes to. Fees, by this 2d section, are allowed to "surveyor or inspector of the revenue for ports," and "to the deputies of the inspectors aforesaid, for casks, &c, by them marked, and returned to their respective principals." The markers make the same returns to the collector that the weighers or measurers make ; and, as I pay both of them, I am the principal. Bnt this is the only instance where deputy inspectors are named; and there is no more author- ity to create such an office, except the general provision conferred on the collector to appoint inspectors, than there is for me, as collector, to create the office of auditor and pashier of the custom-house. Such officers are unknown to the law, but we nevertheless call them by that name. It is arbitrary and unauthorized. 396 Rep. No. 669. These are some of the reasons to induce me to believe that I am right* and the surveyor wrong. They are reasons drawn up in the hours of business, in the course of the morning, and must, of course, be very crude and immethodical. I was promised a written opinion from Mr. Price to- day, and, in the absence of that, I send this. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, May 7, 183S. Sir : Your favor of the 5th instant, informing me of the seizure of four packages of goods marked , and numbered 126, 1146, and 1175, was received this day. I have an examination now going on that will enable me to give you further instructions in the matter. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. S. D. Patterson, Esq., Marshal, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, May 8, 183S. Sir : I am in receipt of your favor of the 4th instant. The object oi my inquiry was to ascertain whether any violations of duty had been prac- tised by the clerks in my office. I supposed, from the position we occupied, that the inquiry was a proper one to be made, and equally proper for you to have responded to ; and the more especially so, as it was represented that the fraud was practised in this office. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Esq., Collector, Boston. Marshal's Office, Philadelphia, May 9, 1S3S. Dear Sir : Enclosed I forward, agreeably to request, a copy of your letter of the 27th ultimo. I also append, as desired, a memorandum of ex- penses incurred in the examinations, &c, made in the case of Bottomly, and in the search for goods supposed to be in the city. Very respectfully, &c. SAMUEL D. PATTERSON, Marshal Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Jesse Hovt, Esq., Collector, New York. Expenses of a special messenger sent to New York - - $12 00 Six days' employment of a deputy in going to New York, making examinations, &c, at $2 per day - - - - 12, 00 #24 00 Bep. No. 669. 397 Treasury Department, May 14, 1838. Sir : The Department concurring in the suggestions contained in the ac- companying report from the Comptroller of the Treasury, in regard to the subject referred to in your letter of the 1st instant, of refunding duties on " brown linens," it is transmitted for your government. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office. May 12, 183S. Sir : Upon mature consideration of the views presented in the accom- panying letter from the collector at New York, dated the 1st instant, which has been referred to me, I have the honor to report that in my opinion it would be the more advisable course to confer on the collector, jointly with the appraisers, a discretion to refund the duty on all linens alleged to be unbleached, similar to those which have been the subject of judicial inves- tigation and decision, in the cases referred to by the district attorney, or ad- mit them to a free entry, as the case may be ; and that in regard to those in which the appraisers contemplate a more favorable issue, one of the im- portations be designated for trial, to settle the question, pursuing their sug- gestions, with the understanding that the other importations await the is- sue, which will be considered applicable to them. The expediency of further legislation appears to me to be so manifest and urgent, as well in relation to linens as to worsted goods, that I propose submitting my views to your consideration in a separate report at the ear- liest convenient moment; but, as it would not be retrospective in its effect, and anxious to disembarrass the collector at New York, it would not seem productive of any beneficial result to postpone the action which may be proper on the suggestions I submit for that purpose. I am, &c. J. N. BARKER, Comptroller. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Philadelphia, May 14, 1838. Sir : In order for further proceedings against the packages seized here under your directions, it will be necessary to furnish me with the name of the vessel in which they were imported, the name of the master, and the date of the importation ; also, in what manner they were introduced, and what kind of goods, with the names of the importers or consignees, and smh other information as you may deem material. Our court sits next Monday. I am, &c. JOHN M. READ, United Statu Attorney. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. §c. 398 Rep. No. 669. Appraisers' Office, New York, May 16, 1838. The collector of the port of New York having on the 26th April last, and again on the 14th and 15th days of May instant, taken from the store of Messrs. La Chaise & Fouche a certain quantity of goods, for the purpose of examining and determining whether the owners, agents, or consignees of said goods had paid or secured, or caused to be paid or se- cured, the duties imposed thereon by law, and the said collector having re- quested the undersigned, appraisers of the port of New York, to examine and appraise said goods, you are therefore required, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, to appear before us, at our office, No. 17 Nassau street, on Thursday the 17th day of May instant, at ten o'clock, A. M., to the end that you may be examined under oath touching any or all matters or things relating to said goods ; and you are also here- by required, on oath, to deposite with the collector of the port of New York all letters, accounts, and invoices, relating to said goods. A. B. MEAD. A. B. VANDERPOEL. JEROMUS JOHNSON. Messrs. La Chaise & Fouche. Custom-House, New York, May 16. 1838. Sir : I am* in receipt of your favor of the 9th instant, and I regret that I should have been so little understood as it seems I must have been, by the following extract from your letter : " There is no reason to suppose that there has been any delinquency on the part of the clerks in this office." It was not my desire to assume the right to inquire into the manner in which the clerks in your office discharged their duties ; I have no cognizance of that matter, but I was apprehensive that some one in my own office bad given information to others, and withheld it from me, but I have since be- come satisfied that this was not the case. I The extent of the frauds here is enormous, and it has been quite as ex- tended in French as in English goods. I have seized this week 90 pack- ages of French goods, which is only about a tenth part of those which have been improperly passed at the custom-house at this port. I hope hereafter that I shall make myself better understood in my com- munications to you, or at least that the letters shall be signed. Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Esq., Collector, Boston. Treasury Department, May 17, 1S38. Sir : Enclosed, herewith, you have a letter to the honorable Samuel Cushman,from William F. Salter, Esq., presenting his views as to the most practicable guards against frauds on the revenue, which you will please to look over and return to this Department. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Horr, Esq., Collector, Rep. No. 669. 399 Custom-House, New York, May 19, 1838. Sir : It was not until a few evenings since I discovered the provisions of the 4th section of the act of May 29, 1830, entitled " An act to provide for the appointment of Solicitor of the Treasury." I had intended to have complied with these provisions before this, but, as there have been at this port many more seizures than there ought to have been, with reference to the honor of our commercial community, I have not had the leisure to give you a detail of them, but I will cause it to be done as soon as I can have such detail prepared. With great respect, I am your obedient servant, J. HOYT, Collector. Henry D. Gilpin, Esq., Solid I or of the Treasury. [Private.] Custom-House, New York, May 21, 1S38. Sir : I owe you an apology for not having replied to your favor of the 14th instant, but I have been so excessively engaged in ferreting out the frauds that have been practised here, that I have not had the leisure to in- struct you as to the course I wished to have adopted. I have a warrant out for forgery as well as perjury against one of the houses alluded to ; and I must beg your indulgence for a few days longer on this subject. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, May 29, 1S3S. Sir : Our quarantine regulations commence on the first of June, when some portion of the shipping go to Brooklyn. I have been on the point of asking permission, for some time, to appoint four or five night inspectors for that place, because I believed in the necessity and importance of such an arrangement. My short experience satisfies me that vigilance is much needed for a fair protection to the Government. I am reminded of what I intended to have done before now by the receipt of a letter from Colonel Manning, one of our best inspectors, which I now enclose you. It was written upon his own suggestion, and, as far as I can judge, without any other motive than a desire to promote the ends of justice. From the lib- erties taken with the Government, I have become a convert to the opinion of Colonel Ogden, the surveyor at Jersey City, as to the necessity of his having a barge under his control, about which I wrote you on the 5th of April. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 400 Hep. No. 660. Treasury Department, May 31, 1S38- Sir : 1 have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th in- stant, asking permission to employ four or five night inspectors, to be sta- tioned at Brooklyn. Permission is granted to employ the number proposed temporarily, to be discontinued as soon as the public interests will permit, and to be allowed the usual compensation for such services. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY. Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Collector. Custom -House, New York, June 5, 1S33 Sir : The first case of seizure under my administration was tried to-day, and woollens appraised at $21,300 were condemned. Yours, kc. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, June 7, 183S. Sir : The circular from the Treasury Department, under date of the 26th May last, in relation to the registry of Treasury notes, was received at this office yesterday. I laid it before the auditor, who sent me the en- closed memorandum, which I send to you, for the purpose of showing why it is that we are compelled to keep so large a numerical force in this es- tablishment, and contributing in that respect to its expenses. I am also informed, by the auditor, that the return duties on linens, &c, will require additional clerks ; and, what is more, he thinks the duties on linens, if they are returned down to the passing of the law of 1833, will take not much less than half a million of dollars from the Treasury. I take this occasion to say, that on the first day of July the quarter's salary will be due to the clerks in this department. The funds appropri- ated by law to this object are insufficient to answer the end, and I shall not feel myself at liberty to take any of the public moneys in my hands to pay the salaries, and many of the gentlemen to whom the money will be due will be put to great inconvenience if they are disappointed in the re- ceipt of it. While on the subject of the expenses of this office, I fnight re- fer to the expenses of procuring books to comply with the circular from your Department of the 24th April. It is estimated that the books which it will be necessary to put into the hands of the various officers will cost one thousand dollars. I presume it was your intention that the duties on " bleached and un- bleached linens" should be refunded, whether paid under protest or not. I am. &c. J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Eep. No. 869. 401 Note. — I think duties should not be returned on linens for a term be- yond which the parties would have been entitled to export for benefit of drawback* which is three years, unless a protest had been made at the time of paying the duties. J. H., Collector. Treasury Department, June 12, 183S. Sir : Your letter of the 7th instant has been received. In regard to the increased labor anticipated in consequence of the Comptroller's circular of the 26,th ultimo, I have to observe, that it is not expected that many Treas- ury notes of the new issue will be paid into the custom-house for duties. Should the contrary, however, prove to be the case, and the present cler- ical force employed on this duty be inadequate for a prompt discharge of it, the addition necessary must be made to it. With respect to the return duties on linens, &c, I have to remark, that it is understood that the instructions given you by the Comptroller on this subject do not authorize them to be refunded in any cases where the du- ties do not appear to have been paid under protest at the time ; the courts having directed this formality to be necessary to render the collector liable under a suit. This class of cases, it is presumed, is not large. In other cases, the parties must look to Congress for relief — the Department not considering itself authorized to go further than is necessary to protect the collector in those cases where he has, under the decisions of the courts, become personally liable for duties erroneously exacted under its instruc- tions. Under this view of the case, it is confidently expected that no ad- ditional clerks will be required for this branch of the business of your of- fice, as you seem to anticipate in a different result. In reference to the cost of books to furnish the information called for by the resolutions of the Senate, the Department would like to be fur- nished with more specific data upon the subject. It is not considered es- sential that the memoranda should be entered in books. If made on sheets of paper stitched together, it is thought it will be all sufficient, and may be brief. Respecting the payment of your clerks, I have only to remark, that the views presented by you on the subject are deemed correct. As the relief section in the general appropriation act of the 3d of March, 1S37, is not now in force, no payments can consequently be made under its provisions. The Department has called the attention of the appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress to the matter, and urged upon them the impe- rious necessity of early legislation upon the subject. The duties refunded under the old protests will, it is hoped, be paid by your predecessor, out of the money he retains for his indemnity. Respectfully, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. 402 Eep. No. 669. U. S. District Attorney's Office, New York, June 12, 1838. Sir : The proctor for the claimants of three packages of ca^simeres ? marked and numbered "B*, 1,2S3, 1,284, and 1,296/' and twelve packages of cloths, "B*, 1,285, 1,286, 1,287, 1,288, 1,289, 1,290, 1,291,1,292, 1,293, 1,294, 1,295, and 1, 297," imported by James Bottomly, jr., has given notice of a motion that the goods be appraised under the rules of the district court, and, upon filing a bond, stipulating and complying with the rule in other respects, be restored to the claimant. Apprehensive that the true value would not be ascertained if the appraisement was confided to the persons designated by the rule, I proposed to the proctor (who had acquiesced) that the bond should be given in the amount of the custom-house ap- praisement, which I supposed had already been made. The claimant will apply this day to have the goods appraised under the direction of the 43d rule of the district court. I again urge upon you the indispensable necessity of having all the Bottomly goods examined forthwith, and ivit fl- out delay, under the 67th section of the act of 1799. Let Mr. IVasson attend the examination, take samples, and see that they are connected with the result of the examination, so as to enable [him] distinctly to identify it on the trial. This ought to be done this day. I beg of you to select two intelligent merchants, whose testimony will- be perfectly clear. Useful evidence may also be obtained, by tracing the goods, after they are delivered to Bottomly, into the hands of purchasers^. by whom the prices may be shown. I again request the strict observance of the within suggestions. I am, &c. WILLIAM M. PRICE, U. S. District Attorney. J. Hoyt, Collector. Treasury Department, First Auditor's Office, June 16, 1838. Sir : I have this day addressed a letter to Samuel Swartwout, your predecessor, in relation to an error committed by him, in adjusting the ac- counts of the weighers, gaugers, and measurers, for compensation and ex- penses, from which I have thought proper to furnish the following ex- tracts, to guard you against being led into a similar error. "It would appear from your letter, and the accounts which have been ren- dered for the expenses of the weighers, gaugers, and measurers, that you re- gard the appropriation acts as securing to all these officers their maximum compensation and expenses in all cases. This, I apprehend, is an error. So far as the compensation of any of them has been curtailed by the act of the 14th of July, 1S32, they are entitled to credit on account of their com- pensation and expenses ; but if, in any case, the fees on the free goods, in ad- dition to the actual fees received, do not make up the maximum compen- sation and expenses, they must fall short of the amount. As to the meas- urers and gaugers, it appears that their fees are not affected by the act of the 14th of July, 1S32 ; and they therefore stand upon the same ground now that they did prior to the passage of that act, except that their com- pensation is limited to $ 1,500 per annum, since 1S34. It follows, therefore^ Eep. No. 669. 403 that they cannot be allowed anything beyond the amount of accruing fees to meet all their expenses and compensation. 7 ' In order to adjust the accounts of the weighers and markers under the appropriation act, a statement should be furnished, showing that the ad- ditional fees they would have received, if the act of the 14th of July, 1832, had not gone into effect, would cover their compensation and ex- penses. I am, &.c. J. MILLER. Jesse Hoyt, Collector. Treasury of the United States, June 18, 1S3S. Sir : In iej ly to your letter of the 15th instant, I beg leave to state that the object of the account you are to keep with the Treasurer, and the week- ly transcript thereof, is, that we may always know to what extent we can draw on you, without the risk of overdrawing ; and to that end you should credit nett receipts only, and charge our drafts only, taking care not to al- low any items of your general account, as many have done, by. charging disbursements, &c. In your weekly statements to the Secretary, it is proper to note the amount: placed to the Treasurer's credft in the week ;-but you must bear in mind that these weekly statements are merely for the purpose of informing the Secretary of the general state of your office, and are not taken into view in the settlement of your quarterly accounts of customs. On these last you will receive credit by covering warrant for the amount of discredited drafts on banks taken in payment of duties during the quar- ter, which are to be recorded in the columns of account current headed " drafts. 7 ' In like manner you will receive credit for the amount of our drafts on you which are paid in the quarter. You will also receive credit for amount of Treasury notes taken in the quarter by a warrant counter to the one which is issued for the reimburse- ment of said notes. When you come to settle your quarterly accounts of customs, you will, of course, claim credits as above indicated. It is here only that you are held accountable for your transactions of debit or credit, while, in the mean time, your account with this office is the machinery by which we make use of your nett receipts of money for general disbursement of the Government. The "enlarged discretion" to which you refer is necessarily incident to your office, and cannot be limited under present circumstances, or while you are constrained to retain possession of your receipts till we can draw for them. Nevertheless, it should be so exercised as to place under the Treasurer's control all that can be spared, under a due regard for the cur- rent disbursements of your office. You will perceive that the manner of using the discretion is made appa- rent to the Secretary by your weekly statements to him, and this is the only check known to our forms. Your No. 2 is the right form for us, but the sum is in the wrong column > Your clerks must be familiar with the use of the column " drafts," as thou- 404 Kep. No. 669. sands have been sent to us noted therein, and you cannot now be at any loss how to have the other two. I am, &e. WILLIAM B. RANDOLPH, Acting Treasurer of the United States. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, June 18, 1838. Sir : I have your communication of the 12th instant, in which you refer to the cost of books to furnish the information called for by the resolution of the Senate, and expressing a wish to be furnished with more specific data upon the subject. You observe : " It is not considered essential that the mem- oranda should be entered in books. If made on sheets of paper, stitched to- gether, it is thought it will be sufficient, and may be brief." I cannot flatr- ter myself that any public benefits are to grow out of the adoption of the resolution referred to ; but, as this is not a question proper to be raised by those whose duty it is to comply with them, I felt as though there was no course for me to adopt than to treat them as I would any other matter of business, and that, too, without looking to the expense to be incurred, any further than to see that economy was used in the expenditure ; and, for that purpose, I made a separate bargain for paper, printing, and binding. I send you, by the mail that takes this, two copies of the book — one for clerks, and the other for officers generally. As the resolution requires a return to be made, I could not consent to let it go in a form that would imply a want of business capacity in the head of this office, who is charged with seeing that the resolution is complied with, so far as relates to that portion of the " officers employed in the collection of the customs" under the immediate control of the collector of this port. I consider every person who receives " compensation" for a regular " em- ployment" in the custom-house in this city as an officer, within the mean- ing of the resolutions. The third resolution will be complied with in a separate abstract, embrac- ing all the required information. We shall place in the hands of each officer a copy of the circular, as the best instructer for them. You have the estimate, by the auditor, of the expense annexed. This includes the expense of the collector's and the appraisers' offices. Estimate of 1,500 copies of the book referred to : 90 reams of paper, at $4 ----- $3fi0 Ruling, &c. ------- 90 Binding 1,500 copies, at 25 cents each - - - 375 Printing ------- 300 1,125 We are required to report for one year, which comprises four quarters. We have of — Day and night inspectors ----- 250 Weighers - - - - - - -17 Measurers - - - - - - -17 Hep. No. 669. 405 •Gaugers 12, markers 4 - - - - - I6 f ■Collector's clerks, &o. - - - - - 7:3 373 Making the number of 375 for each quarter, which amounts to 1,500 copies required. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, June 19, 1838. Sir : In the case of the 15 packages of woollens claimed by James Bot- tomly, jr., I have to state — 1st. That they were entered at this office as of the value of £904 lis. IcL sterling. 2d. The appraisers put a value upon them of £1,403 14.?. 6id. sterling. That valuation I now send you, marked No. 1. 3d. The goods have since been appraised under the 67th section of the act of 1799, at the sum of $10,435 67, which appraisement I now send you, marked No. 2. Respectfully. J. HOYT, Collector, William M. Price, Esq., U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, June 29, 1838. Sir : I received your letter of this day, and also the one you refer to. I did not answer the letter, for I was in hopes the present Congress would have settled the question for us, and left every thing free from doubt. I have examined the law, and am satisfied that my officers must do the business in Jersey City. I pay Colonel Ogden his salary, as I understand, and of course it must be considered in my district. It is very apparent that the Secretary of the Treasury was mistaken in his letter to you of the 25th November, 1834, and the mistake, no doubt, arose from his want of knowledge of the localities referred to in the 9th section of the act of June, 1834. I am. &c. I J. HOYT, Collector. A. Gifford, Esq., Collector, Newark, New Jersey. Custom-House, New Y'ork, July 5, 1838. Sir : On the receipt of the opinion of the Attorney General, accompanied by the communication of the Comptroller, under date of 28th June last, in 406 Rep. No. 669. relation to the markers for this port, I appointed the same individuals wftom I had before designated as " markers," inspectors of the customs, (viz : Marcus Sears, Robert Gourlay, G. H. Richards, and Allen M. SnirTen,) all of whom the surveyor signified he would designate as " markers," and which he accordingly has done, and it now only wants your approval to make it in all respects legal, as I now understand the case. I do not con- sider these gentlemen will be entitled to compensation in both capacities of markers and inspectors, but they would probably be entitled to make the election in which of the two capacities they would receive compensation. On the 20th of April I nominated 211 day inspectors; since which, I have received the resignations of the following persons, viz : Abraham T. Hillyer, John Johnson, and Robert Walker. To supply the vacancies oc- casioned thereby, I nominate William E. Cruger, Frederick Groshon, and Daniel McGrath, for whom I respectfully solicit a confirmation. In pursuance of a former arrangement with you, I assigned Mr. Henry ^Sands, one of the out-door inspectors, to the appraisers' office, to assist in the appraisement of hardware. He is very competent to that duty, in the opinion of the appraisers and a large majority of the merchants in that trade. He is to have the same compensation as he received as an out-door inspect- or. I could not have procured the same talent and information in that branch of business in any other way, at so small an expense. I desire to fill up the vacancy thus made in an out-door office by the appointment of Francis Ogsbury, whom I now nominate for that purpose, and respectfully request from you a confirmation. I did not originally nominate for your approval as many inspectors into one as I found attached to the office when 1 came in. If I am correct in the views I have heretofore given you in relation to the business we are to do at this port for the remainder of the year, of which I am the more confirm- ed, I shall want the services of full as many persons as have ever been at- tached to the office, and probably more, for the reason that the additional vigilance that has recently been exacted can only be carried out, to any beneficial results, by a corresponding increase of labor. In your communication of the 31st I was authorized to appoint some night inspectors for Brooklyn. We have a coast there of over two miles, which requires watching, and which ought to be divided into three districts. Upon consultation with individuals in whose judgment I have confidence, it is stated that there should be at least six persons designated for that place. I have selected the following persons for that duty, viz : Andrew Van Or- den, jr., James G. Yates, Michael Colgan, Andrew J. F. Tombs, Samuel Doxey, and William Whittely, and I solicit your confirmation of them. It had not been the practice, when I came into office, to keep a night watch about the buildings in which the principal offices were kept. I soon discovered that there were circumstances existing here which might make it as desirable to procure a destruction of the custom-house as it was the Treasury building. I therefore directed that a night watch should be kept about our buildings, which took four men from the list of night inspectors heretofore appointed. I desire the privilege of supplying their places by the addition of four men to the original list of those officers, and for that purpose I nominate the following persons, viz : Stephen Harris, Philip Doyle, Lawrence Langton, and James Moncrief. I have received communications from the storekeeper and boarding offi- cer of Staten Island, that, in consequence of the rumor of sickness at the Rep. No. 669. 407 Havana, the quarantine laws will be very rigidly enforced, and that it will require two additional night watch there to prevent the landing of property on the Long Island and Jersey shores. A requisition was made upon me for this purpose, and I appointed Alpha Palmer and Israel Disos- way for that service, and I ask for a confirmation of them. William Jordan, one of the night inspectors originally nominated to you. died on the 5th of May, before he took up his warrant. I renominated in his place Frederick Roome. I do not find by my letter book that I submitted the nomination for your approval ; if I did not, I beg now to do so. I send, enclosed, a recapitulation. Respectfully, &c. . J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, July 9, 1838. Sir: The following nominations, submitted in your letter of the 5th t instant, of certain persons for appointment in the customs, are affirmed, > to wit : Marcus Sears, G. W. Richards, Robert Gourlay, and Allen M. P SnirTen, as inspectors of the revenue, or markers. These officers can only be allowed compensation in the nature of fees, according to the rates pre- scribed by law, for the special duties discharged by them. As inspectors of the customs, to supply certain vacancies and changes referred to in your letter, viz : William E. Cruger, Frederick Groshon, Daniel McGrath, and Francis Ogsbury. The following are affirmed as night watch, or inspectors, to wit : for Brooklyn, Andrew Van Orden, jr., Andrew J. F. Tombs, James G. Yates, Michael Colgan, and William Whittely. For the custom-house buildings in New York : Stephen Harris, Philip Doyle, Lawrence Langton,and James Moncrief. Night watch, Staten Island : Alpha Palmer, Israel 0. Disos- way, and Frederick Roome, in the place of William Jordan, deceased. The last enumerated officers wiil be allowed the same rate of compen- sation now paid to those holding similar situations at your port. I have to add my earnest hope, that so soon as the public interests will permit the services of any of them to be dispensed with, in the present depressed state of commerce, it may be done. I am, -Sec. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, July 26, 1838. Sir : In the case of James Bottomly, jr., I send you the following papers : 1. A memorandum, (copy,) the original of which is in the handwriting of Mr. Bleecker, the deputy collector. 2. His entry by ship Virginia, April 3, 1S38. 3. The like by same ship, same date. 408 Bep. No. 669. 4. The like by ship Siddons, March 30, 1S38. 5. The like by ship Birmingham, April 5, 1S38. ] have no invoices, but we can refer to appraisers' book for some account of them. The entry for the 15 packages he abducted from the office. Yours, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., U. S. Attorney. Custom-House, New York, August 6, 1838. Sir : Since I wrote you this morning, in relation to Mr. Bottomly, I have understood the rule in England to be different on this subject from what I supposed it was. 1 understand the exporter there enters the goods for exportation at his peril, without oath ; and if the Government is not satisfied with the valuation, they take the property at the valuation, and there is no other penalty attached to the transaction. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, August 15, 1S3S. Sir : You may have heard, before this reaches you, that wo have de- tected at this office some extensive frauds upon the revenue by the im- porters of British woollens, as well as goods from other countries. I am induced to believe that frauds are also practised upon the revenue of Great Britain, in the export of goods. 1 will give you some examples that have within a few days come under my observation. In April last we discov- ered the frauds alluded to, the information in relation to which did not reach England until after that time. In that month a large quantity of woollens were exported from Liverpool, owned by William Bottomly ; and on their arrival here were x not claimed, as the invoices were made out with the view, no doubt, of continuing the false entries ; they were therefore sent to the public store under a general order, no one appearing to claim them. 1 have the cockets by the Hibernia, of the 10th of March, 1S3S, the Sheffield, of the 7th of March, and the Orpheus, of the 30th of April. On the 3d of March, Leech & Harrison entered at your port for exportation by the Hibernia 19 cases of woollens, valued at £1.205, and the cocket numbered by Comptroller 4,402 ; on the 8th instant these were entered at this office at £2.356 4s. Id. On the 8th of March the same house entered for exportation, by the Sheffield, 34 boxes, 1 truss, and 2 cases of woollens, at the value of £1,392, number of cocket 4,657 ; on the 6th of August instant 16 of the boxes were entered (Nos. 1,317 to 1,333) here, at £2,192 16s. 6d. On the 30th of April the same house entered for exportation by the Orpheus 15 boxes of woollens, at the value of £975, the cocket number by Comptroller 2,465 ; on the 6th instant they were entered at this office at £2,120 2s. 2d., / Rep. No. 669. 409 AH the entries here are in the name of William Bottomly. I reported the cases to the Secretary of the Treasury, who suggests that I should inform you of the facts, to the end that you may make the com- munication to the collector at Liverpool, if you should deem it proper and advisable ; believing it for the interest of both Governments to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector, F. B. Ogden, U. S. Consul, Liverpool. Custom-House, New York, September 5, 1838. Sir : Application has been made to me by the counsel of Messrs. Leon & Co. for the privilege of examining four ca ss of goods under seizure, to the end that he may be prepared for trial. I think the request a reasonable one, and I give my consent to it, and Mr. Price advises me to grant the privilege. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. To the Storekeeper, 17 Nassau Street. New York, September 5, 1S38. Sir : At a meeting of merchants, held on the 31st of August, respecting the change in the rate of duties recently made on imported articles, the undersigned were appointed a committee to attend to the subject. We learn that duties are now demanded on the following articles, viz : Silk veils, Silk laces, Silk gloves, Silk Italian cravats, Silk hosiery, Silk scarfs, Silk galloons, Silk fancy handkerchiefs, Silk bindings, Silk braids, Linen shirtkigs, Linen Russia shirtings, Russia linen diaper, Twilled sacking. You will oblige us by informing us by what law these new rates of duty are demanded, and whether you have received any circular from the Treasury Department, directing you to demand said duties; and if yon have received any such circular or instructions, that you will favor us with a copy or copies of the same at your earliest convenience. We are, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants, ROBERT JAFFRAY. C. SWAN. CHARLES BRUGIERE. JOHN A. UNDERWOOD. A. WHITNEY. THOMAS DENNY. A. PAILLET. J. GRAVILLON. Jesse IIoyt, Esq., Collector of the Port of New York. 410 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, Collector's Office, September 6, 18:38. Gentlemen : I received your communication of the 5th instant at a few- minutes after three o'clock in the afternoon, and I had not therefore the opportunity to reply to it till this morning. You inquire, in substance, what the rate of duties are on certain articles named. If you will have the goodness to send me your invoices, and the sample of your goods, I will refer them to the appraisers, who are by the law made the judges of the fact in such cases ; and, upon the coming in of their report, I will apply the law to the facts, and if I am wrong in the ap- plication you have various mocres of redress. You can, in the first place, appeal to my superiors in office, for the correction of any errors I may com- mit. You can, in the like manner, 'have recourse to the courts of law, which are always open to you ; and, lastly, you can apply to Congress, who are supposed, on all occasions, to be willing to dispense justice to the high- est and the humblest individual of the land. When I inform you that I will pronounce the law upon . the facts report- ed by the appraisers, I mean to be understood as sayiug that I consider the law as paramount to all " circulars,'' and by that I shall govern myself. Under this view of your rights and my duties, I hold that it is as im- proper for you to ask for copies of my instructions as it would be for me to ask for the examination of your books of correspondence; for, in the re- quest you make, it is implied that I am acting without authority. I have now replied to such parts of your letter as I am called upon to reply to ; but I do not choose to stop here. It is well that we should under- stand our relative positions and our respective rights and obligations. I am instructed, and without instructions it would be my duty, as a public servant, and no less a duty than it is my pride and happiness, to give all possible facili- ties to the fair trader in the transaction of his business at this office ; but I am nevertheless entitled to be treated fairly and honestly by those with whom I am brought in contact, and especially while in the office appropriated to the transaction of the public business, and that those who come there to do business should not violate the common decencies and proprieties of life. This violation has been committed by one of your number, Mr. John A. Underwood. He has also, instead of seeking the redress 1 have pointed out, made his appeal through a violent party newspaper, and has been the cause of having published a statement affecting my official conduct, utterly untrue, which he has repeatedly promised to have corrected, but has omit- ted to do it. By your association with such an individual, I might assume that you sanction his course, though* from my personal acquaintance with most of you, and from the estimation in which I have hitherto, and perhaps ought now, to hold you, I shall not do vou the injustice even to assume that you give this sanction. I will not spare time or labor in my endeavors to promote the interest and facilitate the business of the merchants of this city, in which I feel a a just pride, and with which my own interests are so deeply involved. A vast majority of you have entered goods at the custom-house within the last ten days, and know as well as I do the rate of duties charged on the articles referred to by you ; and you also know upon what reasons, and upon what authority, these duties have been charged. Rep. No. 669. 411 Your letter must therefore have been written for some unexplained ob- ject. I am led to think this, as you do not express any wish to found an entry of goods on any information that I may give you ; and as a personal application at the custom-house is the proper place to seek information on such a subject, I decline making any other written answer to your appli- cation than here stated. Respectfullv, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. Robert Jaffray, C. Swan, Charles Brugier, John A. Underwood, A. Whitney, H. Paillet, J. Gravillon, and Thomas Denny. New York, September 11, 1838. Dear Sir : Will you have the goodness to inform me what disposition has been made of the bond forfeited by James Bottomly, or whether you: have received the whole or any part of the amount of said bond. If not, what measures would you advise in this matter, to have the business brought to a settlement ? Your compliance will greatly oblige yours, truly, W. S. COE. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, September 22, 183S. Sir : I have not received an answer to my communication of the 15th instant, and I now beg to call your attention to the facts of the case, and ask for your special action thereon. In the month of April I made two affidavits in the case of James Bottomly, jr., one alleging that he had been guilty of bribery, and the other of perjury, at the custom-house. On the affidavits warrants were issued, and he was arrested. Subsequently it was understood that he had absconded. The marshal having made the arrest, he must either be liable for an escape, or must produce the security he took on permitting him to go. * I find, by examination of the numbers of the circuit court of the United States, that on the 2d of August last " the prisoner was called and did not appear, and that his recognizance was forfeited." This would show that r recognizance was taken, else it could not have been forfeited. If this be so, I ask you to prosecute that recognizance, or in some way to account for it. If the marshal has received it, let it be paid over to some one, and sure- ly the law must designate the person to whom it should be paid. If paid . into court, the clerk will know what to do with it ; and if paid to the dis- trict attorney, I think he would inform himself as to the proper destination, if he does not already know. I undertake to say that there is no act in re- 15* 412 Rep. No. 669. lation " to fines, penalties, and forfeitures," that authorizes the marshal to hold the money for one moment. The law constitutes the collector the general recipient for the money in such cases, and he is responsible to the Government for its share, as well as the share belonging to the officers of the customs, if any such share there be. I instruct you, therefore, as the legal officer of the United States in this district, to take such steps as may be necessary to vindicate the laws and the rights of the parties interested in this case. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT. Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, September 26, 183S. Sir : I wrote you some time since in relation to the cutter Alert; I now enclose you a letter addressed to me under date of the 22d instant, from the lieutenants of that vessel. I showed it to Captain Nicoll, who tells me it is all true. I am very much dissatisfied with the conduct of Captain Bicker in relation to orders 1 have lately given him. The light ship stationed off Sandy Hook parted her moorings in the late gale, and lost the whole of them, which are worth $4,000, and cannot be replaced in this country. I thought they could be recovered, and detached Lieutenant Frazer, of the Alert, and Mr. Taylor, the pilot, to take two small vessels and go in search of the moorings ; the former volunteering to go, and as • suring me that he could recover them. The vessels went as far as the Hook, and I ordered the cutter down to assist. Captain Bicker sent back the ships, and in a day or two came back himself with the cutter. I direct- ed him to report, in writing, which he did, and I now send you the report, but it isnot satisfactory to me. I wrote to New Haven, and directed the cutter Rush to come down and go upon the same ground. After I had done this, and after I had directed a report, in writing, I received the en- closed note from Captain Bicker, under date of the 24th instant. The weather has since been so bad that I could not expect them to do much, if any thing, in the object I directed them to pursue. The truth is, the cutter service, as at present organized, is of no use, and every day's experience satisfies me of the fact; and I am especially induced at this moment to say so, from a fact stated to me to-day by a gentleman who accompanied you yesterday to Amboy. I had a verbal conversation on this subject with you, when you passed through the city for the East. I have directed Captain Nicoll to make an estimate, or to procure one to be made, of the relative expenses of supporting a steam cutter, when compared with those now in service. He states to me that the schooner Active, recently sold by the Govern- ment at a low price, would make a fine cutter. I have directed him to in- quire at what price she can now be bought. As to these points I will inform you in a day or two. Respectfullv, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodrury, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 413 Custom-House, New York, October 1, 1838. Sir : I received this morning the enclosed report and request from Capt. Bicker, of the cutter Alert, and I submit it for your direction. I expected, ere this, a report from Captain Nicoll in regard to the schooner Active, re- cently sold by the Government, and also in relation to the steamboat for cutter service. I have not yet received a report from him. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 1, 1S38. . Sir : The enclosed is a copy of a letter [ received this morning from the appraisers' office. I should not hesitate, and indeed I agreed to raise the salaries before I ascertained that the power was with you, under the 6th section of the act of 1S30. I have no doubt of the policy and justice of the measure. I exact further labors and duties than heretofore bestowed, by reason of what I conceive to be an improved form of doing business at the apprais- ers' store. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 4, 1838. Sir : I have your favor of the 1st instant, in relation to the course adopt- ed by the marshal concerning the money he has collected on the recogni- zance of James Bottomly, jr. As the representative of the United States in this collection district, I thought it my duty to see that the laws are executed, and that, too, with as little delay and expense as the nature of the case would justify; and therefore, when there is no necessity or propriety in the moneys collected by the marshal in this district passing through the hands of every person attached to the United States court, all and each of whom clip off a re- spectable proportion, I will object to it. I have never till now had a doubt suggested that "all fines, penalties, and forfeitures, recovered by virtue of this act," as referred to in the 91st section of the act of 1799, embraced a case like the one now under con- sideration. It is not intimated that the fund is "otherwise appropriated." There is nothing in that section that requires the money to pass through the court; and the word "recovered" has a different signification from the same word in the 89th section : in the latter it is used in connexion with the word "prosecuted." You seem to suppose that the court will "make the proper distribution, and direct the payment of the share, to all the parties." The court, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the 414 Rep. No. 669. distribution. The law does this through the collector, and not the court through its officers. It is quite a novel thing in this part of the country for the marshal to make application to the court in a case of this kind, as he has given me notice he should do. We thought it the duty of the district attorney, as the law officer of the Government in this district, to see that this fund reached the destination pointed out by the law ; and if it was to pass through the court, and the marshal did not pay it over to the clerk, that he must either rule him to return the process under which the money was collected, or to take the proper proceedings for an attachment against him, to compel him to deposite it with the clerk. If it was not to go through the court, then it might be his duty to com- mence a suit to recover the money, or to report him to the Executive de- partment as a defaulter. I am thus particular in giving my views as to the duties of the district attorney, for I have directed him to take the proper measures to have the question settled before the marshal wrote to yon upon the subject. I do not think the United States or the collector are as great favorites with the courts as its own officers are; and I had determined to have the question settled with the least possible delay, having no doubt it was the duty of the marshal to pay over the money to the collector. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. H. D. Gilpin, Esq. Custom-House, New York, October 5, 1838. Gentlemen : You are requested to attend a meeting to-morrow morn- ing at the collector's office, at half past nine o'clock, of the appraisers and collector, who are authorized to adjudicate on linen cases. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. John Graham & Co., New York. Custom-House, New York, October 9, 1838. Sir: I have this moment heard that it is the intention of Mr. James Campbell, a former deputy in this office, to go to Europe in the Garrick, which is to sail on the 24th instant. I would suggest that you put him under heavy bonds immediately. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, Collector's Office, New York, October 9, 1838. Sir : Your letter of the 7th instant I received this morning. I take checks at this office upon all the banks in this city, and ninety-nine Rep. No. 669. 415 hundredths of our receipts are in checks. I am not able to tell you how many or what of our city banks have " issued or paid bills" under the denomination of $5 since the 1st day of October. I understood that most of them contemplated not to issue or pay out such bills. We take no bills of banks out of this city. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William H. Ellis, Esq., Collector, New Haven. Custom-House, New York, October 11, 1838. Sir : I wish you to commence another suit against Samuel R. Wood, and hold him to bail in the sum of $5,000. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, October 17, 1838. Dear Sir : I have your favor of the 20th ultimo, and I thank you for the information given. I had, however, before its receipt, received an intima- tion of the character of the transactions alluded to, and had arrested Mr. S. R. Wood, and held him to bail in the sum of $5,000. There are many others who have done business in a similar way, and they are all known at this office, and will be hereafter narrowly watched. You will see by the papers that Whigery in this country is very much done up. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. F. B. Ogden, Esq., U. S. Consul, Liverpool. Custom-House, New York, October 17, 1838. Sir: I have your communication of this day, in relation to Mr. S.R.Wood. On the 25th of September, I sent you the papers on which the first suit Was commenced, and when I directed the other one to be commenced. I took it for granted the law officer of the Government would obey the in- structions, and put the responsibility where it belongs. I am not sure that you can now arrest him, but if you will do so, I will be much obliged to you ; and 1 think we can recover in both cases : 1. Because we had no knowledge of the extent of the indebtedness when the first suit was commenced. 2. Because it arises out of ditferent transactions. If I hold two notes against you, I have two cases of action, and am not obliged to include them both in one suit. So in the present case, indebtedness arises out of 416 Rep. No. 669. fifteen different entries, made at the custom-house on different invoices, goods, ships, &.C. I am sure I am right; but if not, I will take the responsibility. If you choose, however, you may discontinue, and include the whole in one suit; but a discontinuance is not necessary, until pleaded; and there- fore do not discontinue the one until he is arrested on the other. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William M. Price, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, October 20, 1S38. Sir: I enclose you a letter, invoice, &c, from Messrs. Gebhard & Co., asking for permission to enter the goods referred to, without consular cer- tificate to the invoice. I do not forward the usual certificate, but I send you a letter I received from the consul at Antwerp, referring to the case. The persons there know the law as well as we do; and if they do not comply with it, the prima facie evidence is, that fraud was intended. I cannot give the accustomed certificate. Be pleased to return me the letter of the consul. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, October 24, 1S38. Sir: Upon examination of the case, presented in your letter of the 20th instant, respecting the invoices of window glass consigned to Messrs. Geb- hard & Co., of your port, the cost of which is not verified by a consular certificate, I have to observe that, as window glass pays a specific duty of so much per hundred square feet, the fact of the cost not being sworn to could not, it is thought, of itself raise a suspicion of fraud. But should there seem to be, upon inspection, a difference between the quantity con- tained in the boxes and that described in the invoices, then the suspicion would attach of an intended fraud. If, therefore, no other objection than the one before stated exists in these cases, the entries may be made upon taking the usual bonds to produce, hereafter, consular certificates in reference to the cost of the articles in question. The invoices transmitted, together with the letter from the American consul at Antwerp, are herewith returned. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector of the Port of New York. Rep. No. 669. 41? Washington, November 15, 1838. Dear Sir : 1 have received your several letters in respect to the defal- cation of your predecessor, and an official report on a part of the transac- tion, made by the Solicitor of the Treasury. They reflect great credit on your vigilance. At this moment, I have but one suggestion to make in respect to the matter, which may be useful to the public as well as yourself. If any of the clerks or other officers, still employed at the custom-house, knew of Mr. Swartwout's false returns and speculations, and yet did not communicate the facts to this Department, ought they not to beat once re- moved? Can any justification exist, however amiable and competent they may be, to confide your own or the public interests to them hereafter? Excuse me for inciting attention to this point early, and believe "me re- spectfully, &c. ,^EVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury, Jesse Hoyt, Esq. New York, November 17, 1838. Sir : As I am about to enter into some business in this city, I beg leave to tender you my resignation as clerk in your office. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, HENRY OGDEN. J. Hoyt, Collector. Custom-House, New York, November 17, 1838. Sir: Your letter of the 15th instant, stating that you had received an official report from the Solicitor of the Treasury on a part of the transac- tions concerning a defalcation of my predecessor in office, and suggesting that if any of the clerks or other officers, still employed in this department, knew the fact, and the false returns made by Mr. Swartwout, that they ought to be removed, was received by me this morning. The investigation was closed last evening, so far as examinations in this office extend, by the Comptroller and Solicitor of the Treasury, aided by Mr. Underwood, a clerk in the First Auditor's office; but the exact na- ture of their report I am not informed of, though I lost no time, after the closing of the investigation, to ask their opinions as to the persons now in this office who seemed to be implicated in the affair, and took immediate measures to carry out your anticipated suggestions, and these measures will be completed at the earliest moment. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 418 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, November 17, 1S38. Gentlemen : It appears, by the proceedings published in the New Era of this morning, that you were actors in a meeting held on Wednesday evening last, at the Vauxhall garden, " in favor of Canadian reform." You cannot be ignorant that the Government of this country has given every assurance to that of Great Britain of its disposition and determina- tion to pursue its neutral relations in the contest which has been going on between a certain portion of the subjects of Great Britain, in the Canadian provinces, and the mother country. The sincerity of the Government of the United States, in these assurances, has not been questioned by those who are disposed to do it justice ; and it is alike important and proper that nothing should occur to give reason for making it in the least doubt- ful, and therefore it is that I request you, as persons holding office on my nomination under the Government of the United States, to say to me, in writing, whether the report of the proceedings of that meeting, so far as your names are concerned, be correct. It is perhaps proper for me to suggest, as it may not have occurred to you, that, if officers of the Gov- ernment take active parts in proceedings of that character, grounds will be afforded for unjust imputations upon the administration of the Govern- ment, and the unfounded inference may be drawn that the administration sanctions those proceedings. Under such circumstances, without feeling any desire to control in the slightest degree your sympathies or opinions on this or any other subject, I must request you, if it is true that you have taken any part in the pro- ceedings referred to, to desist in future from connecting yourselves with them, in any manner, so long as yon maintain your present relations to me as a public officer. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. Thomas P. Walworth,) Alex. Ming, Jr., and V U. S. Gangers. Henry E. Riell, 3 Joseph Hopkins, U. S. Measurer. New York, November 17, 1838. Sir : I herewith resign my situation as clerk in your office, with my best wishes for your health and prosperity. I remain, &c. J. PHILLIPS. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. en Custom-House, New York, November 17, 1838. Sir: You were for many years deputy naval officer of this port. Will you be so good as to inform me, in writing, the manner in which ac- counts were kept in that office, so as to operate as a check upon the fiscal Rep. Iso. 669. 419 accounts of the collector, with such other suggestions as your experience in that office will enable you to offer? Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. John T. Ferguson, Deputy Collector. Custom-House, New York, November 19, 1838. Sir : I this day sent to certain persons who hold office under the Gov- ernment of the United States, on my nomination, a letter, of which I en- close you a copy. It is my intention to send a copy of the letter to Mr- Stevenson, at London, by the Great Western, which will sail on Thursday, in exculpation of my own conduct. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. John Forsyth, Secretary of State of the United States. Custom-House, New York, November 19, 1838. Sir : So much anxiety is felt here for the safety of the steamer Liver- pool, I have felt it my duty to endeavor to send our revenue cutter to sea, as quickly as she can be got ready, to cruise between this and the banks, on the chance of finding said steamer contending against the winds, with- out fuel remaining. The cutter will have an extra quantity of provisions, and will assist, in every possible way, if she should happily fall in with the steamer. It may suggest itself to you that the cutter in your port might be well employed, if not otherwise wanting, on a similar errand. The Liverpool, I understand, has a very valuable cargo on board, as well as nearly sixty passengers ; and among other passengers are Mr. John Van Buren, the second son of the President, and the oldest son of Mr. Butler, the late Attorney General of the United States. Yours, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Esq., Collector of Boston. New York, November 21, 1838. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th in- stant, requesting me, as one of " your nominated officers of the Govern- ment of the United States, to state to you, in writing, whether the report of the proceedings of a meeting held on Wednesday evening last, at Vauxhall garden, in favor of Canadian reform, as -published in the New Era, so far as my name was concerned, be correct to which I have the honor to reply, that I was not at, and did not take any part in that meet- ing, nor did I authorize it ; but, on the contrary, unequivocally declined signing the call for such meeting. 420 Rep. No. 669. My private opinion, or sympathy, not having been called in question on this subject, I shall not intrude upon your attention the deep interest I feel for the general success of those who strike for freedom. I am, &c. JOSEPH HOPKINS. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, November 21, 1S38. Sir : I send you the Evening Post, which announces the changes in the cashier's department in this office. Mr. Waters is a man of high character, and for many years was comptroller of this city, and enjoyed, to an unlim- ited extent, public confidence. I could not command such character and capacity without paying for it. He left a place where he was receiving a salary of $3,000 ; and I was compelled to agree to give him the same compensation, which I trust you will ratify, from public considerations, as well as from what is due to me, whose responsibilities are so large. The appointment meets with the approbation of your prominent friends in this city, as well as the friends of the administration. He is a republican, and enjoys the confidence of all parties. The gentleman (Mr. Bleecker) I announce as assistant cashier I have made no arrangement with, for it did not occur to me to select him until 12 o'clock to-day; and, as he was sick and at home, I contented myself by sending to him what I should do. I was so anxious to make the whole announcement at this moment, that I took the course I have ; and if I am compelled to change it, I can do it in a quiet way. Respectfullv, &c. j. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary, fyc. P. S. I did not get the whole affair settled in time to get the notice in the whole edition of the paper. J. H. Treasury Department, November 22, 1838. Sir: In regard to the inquiry made in your letter of the 21st instant, respect- ing the salary of a clerk to perform the duties of cashier in the custom- house, 1 have to remark, that the first proviso contained in the appropria- tion act of the 7th of July last (3d section) prohibits any officer receiving, under that act, a '•' greater salary or compensation than was paid to such officer for the year 1S32." If, therefore, the emoluments of your office, during the year, will prove adequate to compensate your officers without having resort to the relief afforded by the act of July last, the compensa- tion you allude to can be allowed, but not otherwise. It is hoped, how- ever, that a suitable person can be obtained at a less compensation than £3,000. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury, Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Rep. No. 669. 421 [Private.] Custom-House, Collector's Office, New York, November 21, 1838. Sir : You are, no doubt, aware that, by virtue of the office I hold, I have the power to nominate, for approval by the Secretary of the Treas- ury, the gaugers, measurers, and certain other revenue officers, for the port of New York. I have exercised that power, and nominated various individuals for these stations, which the Secretary, more than six months since, approved of, as he has, from the foundation of the Government, been in the habit of doing. Among these individuals are to be found three or four persons who it is alleged have taken part in certain proceedings in this city, purporting to be in favor of what is called " Canadian reform." The proceedings alluded to appeared for the first time, so far as I know, in a newspaper, published in this city, called the " New Era," on the morning of the 17th instant, a copy of which paper I send you herewith. When I received that paper, I addressed to such of the persons belonging to this office as appeared by those proceedings to have taken a part therein a letter, a copy of which I also send you, by which you will perceive that I very plainly intimate to them, that if they do not desist in future from all association with the individuals who are engaged in " the Canadian reform," as it is called, I shall be under the necessity of removing them from the offices they hold. I am induced to make to you this statement, for the reason that it may net come to you in any other form, from the fact that the occurrence is of so recent an origin that you may not be advised of it from any other source ; and for the further reason, that the opposition to the administration of the Government is of that character that even the conduct of so humble an individual as myself may be so misrepresented as to create a belief in certain quarters, contrary to the truth of the case, that the administration takes no measures to prevent its subordinate officers from interfering in matters with which they have no right to meddle, to the prejudice of the friendly relations which this Government holds in the mat- ters referred to, and which it is most anxious to make manifest. I am iurther prompted to make this communication, from remarks that have ap- peared in certain opposition newspapers in this city on the subject alluded to, which are entirely false, but exhibit a design to make the administration responsible for my acts, and for the acts of those still more subordinate, concerning whom a thousand absurd stories were propagated during the heated election which has just terminated, and which would probably not have been stated on any other occasion, and only now for a paltry political effect. I was informed a day or two since, by Mr. Matthew L. Davis, whom you know by reputation, if not personally, and who writes the letters from this country for the London Times, under the signature of a " General Traveller," that he should write to London by the Great Western, (which takes this,) that the administration were not sincere in their profession on the subject of the revolt in Canada ; and, as a proof of it, he cited the case of the three or four persons in the custom-house to whom I addressed the letter. The authority of such an individual you know how to estimate; and, from the statement I make, you can judge of the soundness of the premises from which he draws such important conclusions. I write this, as you will readily perceive, to put you in possession of facts that it may 422 Rep. No. 669. be well for yon to know, but without the sanction or authority of any ont I send with this a few of the latest papers. I have the honor to remain, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. His Excellency Andrew Stevenson, Minister, §c, London, New York, November 22, 1838. ■Sir : In compliance with the request, which you make in your letter ad dressed to us on the 17th instant, that " we will say, in writing, whether thai published report of the proceedings of the meeting held at Vauxhall gar- den, in favor of Canadian reform, be correct, so far as our names are con-i cemed," we return a written answer in the affirmative. But upon the reason you assign for making this request, namely, " thall the sincerity of the Government of the United States, in its assurances to that of Great Britain of its disposition and determination to preserve its neutral relations in the Canadian contest, has never been questioned by, those who are disposed to do it justice, and that it is alike important and proper that nothing should occur to give reason for making it in the least doubtful, " we respectfully remark that we should be extremely sorry to discover that any act of ours has had the slightest tendency to such result. If our official duties to the Government were such as in any way to en- dow us with authority and ability to preserve its neutral relations with a foreign Power, we trust that our sincerity will not be doubted when we say that they would be faithfully and zealously devoted to that object. But our official duties being limited to the gauging and measuring of cer- tain articles of merchandise, we do not conceive that they impose any greater restriction upon our acts, opinions, or feelings, in relation to other matters, than they do upon those of any other class of citizens. If we faithfully perform those duties which the Government assigns to us, we presume that we discharge our official obligations, and stand free in refer- ence to all others, as a part of the people at large. The right of the people of this republic to express their opinions and feelings on all subjects whatsoever we hold sacred with regard to ourselves ; and when you say that you feel no desire to control this right in the slight- est degree, we consider that you do but justice to yourself as a republican citizen. When, therefore, you add a request that we will hereafter desist from taking any part in proceedings like those to which you refer, so long as we maintain our present relations to you as public officers, we can only recognise it as an appeal to our courtesy and friendship toward you per- sonally, and as such we assure you that we deem it entitled to our con- sideration. We are, sir. &c. THOMAS P. WALWORTH, ALEXANDER MING, Jr., HENRY E. RIELL, United States Gangers. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Kep. No. 669. 423 New York, November 23, 1838. Sir : I enclose you a copy of a private letter I sent this day by the Great Western to Mr. Stevenson, at London. It may be deemed an act of superer- ogation in me to write to that gentleman on a subject of the kind alluded to ; but the reason for doing so you will see stated in the letter. I may farther remark to you, that all sorts of fabrications have been written to Europe by this vessel on that subject, to say nothing of the infamous pub- lications that have been issued by the opposition press, all of which will reach the eyes and the ears of the British ministry through distorted chan- nels, for no higher or purer motives than to make mischief. I had great doubts as to the propriety of sending the letter to Mr. Sieven- son, lest it might be considered by you and the President an unwarrantable interference on my part with matters that belonged exclusively to the Ex- ecutive. In my doubts upon it, I submitted the letter last evening to Mr. Price, and we concluded, as it was but a private letter, and inasmuch as it DUt Mr. Stevenson in possession of facts that might be useful, and no harm*' :ould grow out of it, the better course was to send it, and especially as there kvas not time to hear from you in answer to rny letter of the 19th instant before the sailing of the Great Western. If I have committed an error, you will do me the justice to attribute it to \ he right motives. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT. M : Hon. John Forsyth, Secretary of State. tl- • Custom-House, Collector's Office, New York, November 26, 1838. Sir : As you will leave here in a few days for your seat in Congress, I ; ieg the favor that you will call at this office before you leave, and make an xamination into the forms of transacting the public business in this de- : ; . tartment. To enable you to make that examination with facility, I will state the >rder in which the business is done, so far as it relates to the securing the luties of the United States on the importation of merchandise. When the inporter comes to the office to enter his goods, he brings with him, in or- linary cases, the following papers : jjj 1. His bills of lading, showing the shipment of the goods and the own- r ship. 2. His invoice of the goods. V. 3. His entry, prepared before he comes to this office. These papers he presents — 1. To the entry clerk, who sees that the person claiming to enter the ;oods shows the right to make the entry and to acquire the possession of the ►roperty, which is commonly established through the bill of lading and in- oice ; and if he shows that right, the clerk compares the invoice and entry, o see if the goods are correctly arranged on the entry, and if so, attaches he proper oath, filled up, to the entry, on which he puts his initials, and nakes out a free or dutiable permit, puts the custom-house stamp on the nvoice, with the name of the vessel thereon written, and computes the du~ 424 Rep. No. 669. ties on the entry at the proper rate, as the case may require, and hands th permit, with all the papers presented to him, to the importer again, wh. J then goes — 2. To the collector or deputy collector, and presents all the papers to hirr : who then examines them, and requires the importer to sign the oath fillei I up by the clerk, and he then administers the oath to the importer, whj 1 swears to the truth of the entry, &c. He then designates the package or packages to be sent to the appraisers store for examination, and that designation is made on the back of the oatlf J and on the invoice, and also on the permit. i ! 3. r flie importer then takes the permit, the invoice, and entry, to th* naval officer, where he deposites a duplicate of the entry, and procures th( invoice to be checked and the permit to be signed, and returns and depos ites the original entry and permit with what is called the order clerk ir tjie collector's office, which order clerk makes an order to send the desig-i nated packages to the appraisers' store for examination. The order is taken by the merchant on board the vessel, and delivered tc the inspector onboard, who sends the packages to the appraisers' store, i This statement applies to the case of a person taking only the goods which 1 | are sent for examination ; but if the merchant wants all the goods in the] j invoice at his own store, for immediate sale, he gives, under the act of Con-! <| gress, a penal bond, and takes to his own store the goods not sent to the 1 ! public store. In the latter case, the proceedings are thus, viz : After leaving the naval office, he goes to the bond clerk, and executes,]! with his surety, a penal bond, under the 4th section of the act of 1830, when- 1 the bond clerk puts his check on the permit ; and if it be a cash duty, them merchant then takes the permit and entry to the cashier's office, and pays the 1 j duty, and gets the cashier's check on the entry and permit,and the entry is leftjf in the cashier's possession ; but, if the duty is to be secured by bond, the mer-jr chant executes a bond for the duty at the same time he executes the penal j|" bond, and the entry is checked by the bond clerk, and retained byhim,and he : | checks the permit, and hands it to the merchant, who then goes to the collector J I or deputy collector, and gets the permit signed, and then the merchant takes the permit on board the vessel, and delivers it to the inspector on board, and takes such of the goods to his own store as are not designated for the ap- : praisers' store, and those which are designated on the permit for the ap- \ praiser's store are then sent, and the inspector keeps the permit as his re- • ceipt, which he files in the surveyor's office with his account of the dis* : charge of the cargo. 4. When the designated packages reach the appraisers' store, the mer- chant deposites his invoice there, and they are accordingly examined, and the result of that examination endorsed by the appraisers on the invoice, and it is then sent by one of their own messengers to the entry clerk of the collector, who then compares the return with the invoice, and if they agree, the invoice is handed to the order clerk, who makes an order on the store- keeper of the port for the examined packages in the appraisers' store ; and when that order is checked by the bond clerk or cashier, as the case may be, it is taken to the collector or deputy to sign, and, after being signed, it is taken to the storekeeper of the port, who retains the same, and causes another order to be made on the storekeeper at the appraisers' store for the said examined packages. The invoice is retained by the collector's invoice clerk. Rep. No. 669. 425 I By the preceding statement, you will perceive that the merchant has his goods, and the Government have the duties in cash, or are secured by bond ; and I will now continue the history upon other points, including the col- lection of the bonds. The bonds are taken in books containing 200 bonds each, and, in the first . instance, are generally filled up for a nominal amount. To ascertain the amount due on each bond, the entries of the vessel are collected together, and the calculations of the duties on each entry are re- ceived in the collector's office, and then sent to the nava) office for exam- ination, together with the manifest, and if found to agree with the collect- or's computation, he signs the manifest of the vessel, on which manifest the separate amounts of each entry are recorded, and returns it, with the en- tries, to the collector's office. The whole we then send to the auditor's room, for the purpose of inserting the exact amount of duties in each bond given for the importation of that vessel. When the whole importations of any one month of bonded duties are completed, and the true amounts in- serted therein, they are cut from the bqok,and have been, since I have been in office, retained by the auditor, and they are then recorded in what is |'< called the. notice book, or register of bonds payable, and from that book the notices are prepared for each bond, and left at the place of business of the i principal in the bond ; which notice is generally served about fifteen days before the bond is at maturity. On the day the bond falls due, a person calls with the notice at the : cashier's room, and presents his notice, and the money is received by the |, cashier, who puts his check or memorandum on the notice, as evidence of ) payment, and enters the money in the cash book as received for such a 4, bond, when the notice is taken back from the cashier, by the person who I; presented the same, and by him carried to the auditor, who delivers the I: bond, and marks upon the register as paid. At the close of business of Ijthe day, the cashier balances his cash with his cash book, and early on the ■ .following morning the cash book is taken to the auditor's room, where it Lis transcribed, and the entry of the payment of bonds is carefully com- ■ pared with the register of bonds in the auditor's office, to see if all the [ , bonds which he has parted with on the preceding day are accounted for \ ;on the cash book. If any bonds remain unpaid, it is the duty of the col- lector " forthwith and without delay" to send them to the district attor- i iney, and, for that purpose, the auditor, when any bonds remain unpaid on SJ.anv given day, is directed by the collector to select the same, and charge them in a book, for that purpose prepared, to the district attorney, and, be- fore he delivers the same to the district attorney, to require the person au- r ithorizedby the district attorney to receive the same to sign an acknow- ledgment in the said book for such bond ; which person then takes them, and in a short time thereafter returns triplicate receipts, signed by the dis- trict attorney, for such bond ; and thereupon the collector forwards to the Solicitor of the Treasury an account of said bonds, so delivered to the dis- trict attorney, with one of the receipts so taken from the district attorney. From this mode of collecting the bonds, it will readily appear that no fraud could be practised in relation to their collection, or the entry of the same, unless by a collusion, running through two branches of the depart- ment, which must embrace at least the four persons in the cashier's office and the three persons in the auditor's room, through all of whose hands 426 Rep. No. 669. the bonds or moneys in some or other of the various stages of the transac- tions, one or the other, must pass. I ought to have remarked, in a former part of this letter, that it takes a period of six weeks, in ordinary cases, from the time the bond is given, to make up the accounts, so as to ascertain the exact amount of duties se- cured by said bond. You will perceive, by this time, I have received the money for the bonds, and I will now inform you in what that money consists, and what I do with it. The great amount of my receipts since the banks resumed specie pay- ments has been in merchant's checks on the banks in this city, and the re- mainder is in Treasury notes. I have no authority from the Government to keep the money in any bank, and I did not deem it safe to keep it in the custom-house. I therefore proposed to the bank of the State of New York and the City Bank, if each of them would give me a written engage- ment to consider all my deposites as specie, and that my drafts on them should be paid in specie when required, I would employ them as my agents, to keep the money, as I employed the cashier to collect it ; and, as I had no authority to keep my money in bank, I did it on my own respon- sibility, and must, of necessity, keep the account in my own name. These respective banks consented to that arrangement, and I accordingly opened an account in each of said banks, and all Treasury circulars I have since received in relation to the moneyed affairs of this office I have given copies to each of said banks, as I did to the cashier of my own office, and re- quested them to comply with the requirements of such circulars. In relation to making up my collections for deposite, I require the cashier at two o'clock of each day to prepare a list of each check, and the amount, of bank bills that are to be deposited, and hand over the same to Mr. Thurston, my brother-in-law, who keeps a separate account of the moneyed transactions of the office, apart from the general books, and, as a check upon them, copies that list, and examines the statement handed by the cashier; and, if found correct, he takes his own copy to the bank, where he leaves it with his deposite, and files away the one made by the cashier. Thus much for the safe keeping of the money collected by me. I will now detail the mode of disbursing it, and the responsibility I assume, and for which no compensation is allowed me. On Saturday, of each week, I transfer to the separate credit of the Treas- urer of the United States such of the collections of that week as will not be required for other purposes. A return of the sum thus transferred I forward the same day to the Treasurer, and generally at the same time I apprize the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount so transferred, which is subject to the drafts of the Treasurer. This amount, of course, is kept on the general books of the office; but, in addition to this, I require Mr.. Thurston to keep a separate account, in what I call "the book of trial bal- ance." When I receive notice of a draft drawn by the Treasurer, Mr. Thurston first enters it on his book ; he then sends it to the auditor's room, where it is entered and filed away. When the draft appears, the person presenting it goes to the auditor's room, where it is compared and found correct, and the endorsements are in rule; it is audited, receipted for, and the auditor charges it to the Treasurer, and draws a check on me; upon which check I require him to place the number of the Treasury draft it answers to ; that check comes to Mr. Thurston, who fills up a check on the Hep. No. 669. 427 bank, which I assign and give to the person presenting the draft; Mr. Thurs- ton then marks the number of the Treasury draft as paid, and charges on his books to the Treasurer the amount paid. . On Monday morning of each week, the auditor makes up the Treasurer's account for the preceding week, or what we call a weekly return, which he compares with Mr. Thurston's books, and if found to agree, I sign the account ; and if they do not agree, the error is sought for, and the account or return is not signed till the error is detected. By this you will perceive that a responsibility is thrown upon me of disbursing the public moneys ; for, if I pay upon a wrong endorsement, or to the wrong individual, by means of forgery or other felony, I am still responsible to the rightful owner; and to that exposure I am subject, not- withstanding all my diligence. It frequently happens, from the operations of the railroad between this and Washington, the drafts come to me at two o'clock of the day, when the notice of its being drawn does not reach me till the next; and in one in- stance a draft of $ 103,000 came under such circumstances, when I was -obliged to take the responsibility of paying it, or permitting it to be pro- tested, when my reputation would suffer as badly as it did a short time since, when the Mechanics' Bank lost my check for $28,000. To protect myself against error, by accident or design, I have required, from the day I went into office, from the cashier, a daily abstract of the cash transactions of the office to be inserted in a book provided for that purpose, which is handed to Mr. Thurston, as a private muniment in my own possession, and which has been carefully placed in a tin box every night, and put in the vault ; so that in case of fire, or other accident, I shall at all times have it in my power to give some account of the transactions for which I am responsible. In addition to which, I have required, for the like time, at the closing of the business on each clay, the amount of Treas- ury notes redeemed and cancelled for that day to be given to me on paper, which I cause to be immediately entered on the book kept by Mr. Thurs- ton, before referred to; which book is also placed in the vault at night, after being put in the same tin box; and on each Monday, when 1 make the weekly return, not before referred to, the various statements I take from day to day are compared with the accounts made up from the books of the office; and if these returns agree with such statements, I sign them; and if not, the accounts are examined and re-examined till the discrep- ancy is detected, before I sign or forward the ordinary weekly return, in the same manner as the Treasurer's account is examined. Since, (the period I will not particularly designate,) the tin box containing the private books referred to has been put in the vault of the Bank of the State of New York. I have now given you a brief detail of the various modes by which I perform the duties of the office of collector of this port, in order that you may be the better prepared to legislate, as no doubt you will be called upon to do, at the session of Congress about to commence. I have written this communication in a hurried maimer at my table dur- ing the business hours of the day, and which will account for Its lengthy for I had not time to abridge or condense. I remain, &c. J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. C. C. Cambreling. 1G* 428 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, November 30, 1838. Sir : The Treasury notes past due begin to show themselves at this of- fice in small sums, under the . idea that I have the power to redeem them- I have redeemed some of them in an indirect way — that is to say, the persons have left them, and I have handed them to some one who had a bond or cash duty to pay, and they receipt for them in the auditor's room. I do not like this form of doing it, unless by your sanction. It is very inconvenient, at times, for the owners to send them to Washington, besides the risk of transmission. From your former letters to me on this subject, I inferred that you were desirous to get in the notes that are past due, which has induced me, tc* some extent, to deal with them in the way I have stated. 1 would be glad to hear from you on this subject. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. New York, December 1, IS 38. Dear Sir : On the 26th of November last, I wrote a letter to the Hon. C. C. Cambreling, member of the House of Representatives, and I now beg to transmit you a copy ; and for the same reason I addressed it to him I furnish you with a copy. Very respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Silas Wright, Jr. New York, December 1, 183S. Dear Sir : I send you a copy of the letter to Mr. Cambreling. I give Mr. Wright a copy also. I do not know how proper it may be for me to give out copies of a letter to a gentleman ; but it is a public matter, upon which every legislator has a right to be informed. Respectfully, J. HOYT. Hon. E. Curtis, M. C, $c. Custom-House, New York, December 1, 1838. I transfer to the credit of the Treasurer, to-day, only Si 30,000. It is the smallest transfer I have made since I have been sub -Treasurer, and since the banks resinned, except one week, when it was only $125,000. I paid to-day, however, the officers, to the amount of $30,000. I have, in the deposite account, not yet to the credit of the Government, $107,000, out of which I am in advance to the naval officer, and to the contingent expense account, for clerk hire, &c, a large sum, which exact amount I Rep. No. 669. 429 cannot tell, as my book is locked up and gone to the bank, and the clerks here ali left the office, except my copy clerk. Respectfully, &c. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. J. HOYT, Collector. [Private.] New York, December 6, 1S38. Dear Price : Unless there is a necessity of your going to Washington, I beg you will not go till you have done at least two things: 1. Take measures to have the question of custody, between the mar- shal and myself, settled in some form or other. It is now six months since you received directions from the Solicitor to act in the matter. 2. File the information in the case of the seizures, so as to have them tried in January. Mr. Coe and Mr. Craig complain bitterly, and, I think, with great justice, at the delay, and especially in the case of De Casse, Miege, & Co., and La Chaise & Fouche. It is a reproach to the admin- istration of justice that this matter has been permitted to rest for such a length of time. I have repeatedly expressed the opinion to you, that neither of these firms would make any defence. In the first question stated, I have appealed to you, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Solicitor ; and if I am not righted in this matter, I will next appeal to the Executive; and if he will not see that I have the benefit of the law of the land, I will go to Congress. If I cannot have the aid of the officers of the Government in executing the laws, the re- sponsibility in relation to which is thrown upon me, it is time the repre- sentatives of the people were apprized of it. Yours, truly. J. HOYT. Wm. M. Price, Esq. [Not sent.' See letter to the President of the United States, of this date, in private letter-book.] Custom-House, New York, December 7, 1S38. Sir: I have made a full report to the President, in relation to Mr. Price, the late district attorney ; and a want of time has prevented me from making a report to you. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, December 8, IS3S. Sir : I transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer, to-day, for the receipts of the week, $145,000. The cash duties have been small and the bonds light. The money market is in rather an unsettled state. 430 Kep. No. 669„ Mr. Biddle's bank has been drawing specie, and doing divers other un- necessary things, and, as many suppose, with a view of creating some em- barrassment at this particular time. I am inclined to think, what some attribute to design proceeds rather from necessity. I have written a fur- ther letter to the President to-day, on the subject of the affairs of Mr. Price, but nothing of moment has transpired further in relation to them. The most unfavorable inferences are, of course, to be drawn. I think his defalcations, in his own name, with this office, cannot exceed $40,000 ; and of this the United States owe him something, and probably a consid - erable amount, for professional services. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury , Custom-House, New York, December 11, 1838. Sir : From a communication 1 received to-day from the President, I in- fer that my private letters, addressed to him on the 6th and 7th instant, will go on the files of the department — I know not whether in your office or the Secretary's ; but, wherever it may be, I beg to remark, in refer- ence to the letter of the 2d of August, written to Mr. Price — a copy of which forms a part of my report to the President, under date of the" 7th instant — that I made inquiries about it of Mr, Kingsland yesterday, and he informs me that he never saw the letter, but Mr. Price told him, about that time, that, when he paid money over to me, he must add the interest up to the day preceding that in which it was paid over. This, of course, got rid of the difficulty I interposed by that letter, and threw me off any further degree of watchfulness in relation to it. 1 say this to you, because there are those, in this community, who still profess to believe that Mr. Price could not have left the country without my knowledge of his in- tention to do so. There are many absurd stories in relation to it, and one is, that I was seen with him at a late hour the evening before, he left. The last unofficial or official letter either I now enclose to you ; and it is dated "Tuesday," which was the 4th instant. I did not accept of his in- vitation to dinner, because I did not get through my correspondence that day in time for his dinner hour. I, however, stopped at his house, on my way to my own house to dinner, to say to him that I should call at ten o'clock in the evening, and go with him to the post office, and wait for the President's message. 1 did call, and we went to the post office, first stopping on the way for Mr. J. Oakley; and we waited at the post-office till a quarter past eleven, when the message came, and I read it aloud to these gentlemen and to the postmaster; and, after that, we all went away together, and stopped at our respective residences. The next evening I was not out of my house after five in the afternoon ; and Mr. Price came np at half past seven, and remained till nine o'clock, and left me as usual, but under the impression he was going to Washington as soon as court was over. The result you have been informed of. Please return Mr. P.'s letter. Respectfully, J, HOYT, CoUeclor. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor^ fyc* Rep. No. 669., 431 Custom-House, New York, December 12, 1838. Sir : We are under an enormous rent for the stores we now occupy, the leases of which expire on the 1st of May. The time for letting is the 1st of February ; and as I intend to reduce the rent, I wish to commence an. early negotiation with the owners of the property, to the end that we may not be exposed to a heavier rent than the nature of the case requires. After the great fire, you are aware that rents of stores advanced very much, and Mr. Swartwout was compelled, I presume, to pay as others did. The burnt district having now been rebuilt, and a great many stores in addition, rents must fall. We occupy as follows : 2 stores on Pine street, at $4,000 each - - - $8,000 2 stores on Cedar street, at $4,000 each - 8,000 These are the buildings in which the collector, naval officer, and surveyor, do their business. We also occupy another store on Cedar street, for accom- modation of appraisers' store - 4,000 The appraisers occupy three stores in Nassau street, for which we pay ~ - - - - - 1 3,000 Making in all - $33,000 If we keep all the stores, i think I can reduce the rent $8,000; but this may depend, in some degree, as to the length of time we propose to take them for. As to those now occupied by the appraisers, we shall want them as long as the present system is continued. Their contiguity to the new building is about the same as to the ones now occupied by the col- lector and naval officer. In relation to the latter stores, and the time we shall want them, I am unable to speak. I went to the new custom-house to-day, and I was shown a draught of a report to you for additional ap- propriations, and among the items was 2\ years' labor. I do not know that I shall be asked to sign the report ; but I certainly shall not, if I am. 1 cannot abide the idea that we are to be that length of time in completing a building which has already occupied a much longer time in its erection than was first contemplated. 1 mentioned to you, when here, that we wanted the 14 feet of ground on the east side, for the benefit of the light ; of this there now remains no doubt. There is a very large pillar placed before each window in the east room, on Pine street, which interferes very much with the light that might otherwise find its way inside. The property can be bought, I un- derstand, for $25,000; but the appropriation asked for the completion of the building is so large, that I am frightened at the idea of asking for this in- crease ; and yet the room referred to will be almost useless without more light. I would thank you for your views, in relation to the time we had better take the stores for, at your earliest convenience. Respectful] v. $lc. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 432 Rep. No. 669. [Private.] New York. December 12, 1838. My Dear Sir : 1 have your private letter of the 9th. I believe I have complied with all that you require, but I am not certain ; if not, be pleased to let me know. I have written so much in relation to Price's affairs, that I have not time to resort to my books, and I certainly cannot recollect. Moreover, my book of " correspondence with the law officers" is up at Mr. Butler's house, who took the oath of office to-day. He wanted to postpone it till to-morrow, but I pushed him to the work to-day. I now feel greatly relieved. 1 have had an awful time of it since J have been in office. Send me a copy of the Secretary's report on Swartwout's affairs, as soon as published. Will Congress now see the necessity of legislation ? In haste, &.c. J. HOYT. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor, fyc. [Prhate.] New York, Saturday Evening, December 15, 1S3S. Dear Sir : In one of your letters, a few days since, you mentioned that I had not sent you the form of the monition used in this district. I have not had the leisure before this evening to look at my book of correspondence, to see in what communication to you I had supposed I Lad forwarded it. I am inclined to think you may not have got my letters of the 16th and 17th of November, in the latter of which I sent the moni- tion, and also a book on admiralty practice, recently published by Judge Betts, of this district. Neither of these letters have you referred to in any of your communications since that time, and both of which related to the question between the marshal and myself. Mr. Butler has cursorily looked at the question, but he has so many things to look at in the present crisis, that he has scarcely leisure to consider any one of them in all the bearings belonging to it. He agrees with Judge Story's views, as laid down by him in Burke vs. Trivett, 1st Mason ; but, as the marshal will in no form consent to any course to arrive at a judicial construction of the court here, he has not fully made up his mind how to proceed. I am anxious to get the question settled, for another reason ; which is, I had a case of condemnation last July, in which I received about Si 4,000. The marshal charges about $800 custody fees, (as near as I recollect, the papers are not now before me,) when the goods were not out of the public stores at all till they went to the auction room, about four days before the sale. I have not yet passed the share of the United States to the credit of the Government in the books of this office, because I have been hoping weekly to get this question settled, that I might move for a relaxation of the mar- shal's costs, and compel him to pay over the balance which he had no right to retain. I have distributed, the shares to the other officers, but Mr. Fleming thought I had better have the other matter settled first, before he audited the accounts, as, when audited, he sent the vouchers to Washing- ton, when I should have parted with the papers on which to make the motion ; but I shall audit the account before the close of this quarter, settlement or no settlement of the litigated question, for I will not stand in the attitude of having money in my possession not passed to the credifi Eep. No. 669. 433 of the Government. This is the only case of seizure, since I. have been in office, which Mr. Price prosecuted to judgment ; and this was the case of C. W. Dayton, where there was no defence, and understood from the be- ginning that there would be none. I will state another incident connected with this, to illustrate the character of Mr. Price. There was a claim put in for a portion of the fund I have referred to, by one of my deputies, in the capacity of an informer ; the question was referred to Mr. Price, and he wrote a labored opinion to prove the informer was entitled to his share. This opinion was erroneous, not only in my judgment, but in that of Mr. Duer, the former district attorney, and the question is yet unsettled. So in the case of the forfeiture of the recognizance of Rottomley, about which I wrote you, as did also the marshal. That question was argued at the present term of the circuit court, and the last cause that Mr. Price argued. Mr. Butler argued for me and the other officers, and Mr. Price for the United States. He made a good brief, and argued the cause well, and the court decided with him, and he seemed to be as much gratified as though he had accomplished a matter that was to be of the greatest moment to him. I scolded at him so much about his negligence of business, that he never missed any opportunity he could get of triumphing over me in those particulars. Will you have the goodness to say whether you received my letters of the 16th and 17th of November, referred to? And if you could make any suggestions in regard to the questions referred to in these letters to Mr. Butler, it might have the tendency to strengthen him in the course he will "be compelled to take with the marshal, who is excessively obdurate in the matter, and who I think is secretly backed by Judge Betts. Truly, vours, &c. J. HOYT. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor, fyc. Custom-House, New York, December* 17, 183S. -********** " I have taken all takeable exceptions, but the proof as to the articles be- ing hosiery was so utterly overwhelming that it would have been utterly ridiculous to urge that it was not so. Even Mr. William Cairns told me that the articles were certainly known under the general denomination of hosiery. I sent for Jonathan Thompson, and I stood alone with him and E. H. Nichols, as to custom-house usage only, opposed by nine witnesses — manufacturers, merchant tailors — all positively swearing that the articles were hosiery, and there is no doubt they are so. " Yours, &c. "WM. M. PRICE.'' But when the witness returned and stated that he had not been called to prove the fact that the money had been paid over by me, and also to prove the course of business in the custom-house. I was exceedingly provoked at the course of the district attorney, and wrote him a letter in these words : " Custom-House, New York, November 28, 1838. " Sir : I cannot conceal from you my dissatisfaction at the manner o . trying the case of Hadden & Co., if it be reported right to me. Mr. Phir- 434 Rep. No. 669. lips was in court all the morning, and was not called to prove the fact that the money was paid over to the Government without any knowledge on my part that a protest had been made ; and he tells me that it was not ad- ( mitted, and, of course, the facts are not all in the case. His testimony, inJ other respects, as to the form of doing business here, was important to con- tradict Mr. Had den. " I protest now against this mode of being driven out of court, and I will renew the protest when your bill comes in. I will protest at the right time. If you choose to excuse Mr. Hadden from doing it, the responsibility is with you. * " Yours, &c. " J. HOYT, Collector. < k Wm. M. Price, << U. S. District Attorney:" I wrote this letter, I confess, under some excitement, and retained it till the next morning for reflection. 1 concluded in the morning I would not send it to him, but to Mr. Gilpin, the Solicitor, as evidence of my complaints against the manner of Mr. Price's conducting the trial of causes in which the Government were interested. But I supposed, from Mr. Price's letter to me, that there were exceptions taken, till the costs were sent to me, and the amount of the verdict and costs demanded, by which time Mr. Price had disappeared ; and upon investigation and consultation with Mr. Butler, the present district attorney, it was exceedingly doubtful — 1st. Whether any exception was taken as to the validity of the protest so far as to affect me. 2d. It was manifest that the fact of the money having been paid over was not in proof. 3d. Mr. Butler was of opinion that we could not take the question to the Supreme Court, for the reason that the amount was not sufficiently large. 4th. And as we could not do this, it was of very little use to incur the expense of arguing the cause in the court below, and he therefore advised me to pay the judgment, which I did on Saturday, out of your funds, and I now ask permission to charge it to the United States. I paid verdict - $264 74 Costs - - - - - - S2 42 For which I had in hand, as paid to me on the 3d of Sep- tember, under protest - - - Leaving a balance of this sum - 347 16 189 42 157 74 Which I ask for permission to charge to the United States. I shall report the facts decided by the jury to the Comptroller, for his con- sideration, in reference to the duties hereafter to be charged on the articles.. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 435 Attorney General's Office, December 19, 1838. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge yours of the 7th instant, in which you state that " it frequently happens, especially at the larger ports of en- try, on the importation of some particular descriptions of goods, that the importer disputes the duty to which the collector, acting under the instruc- tions of the Comptroller, decides the articles in question to be liable, under the tariff laws; but, with the view of getting possession of his goods, the importer pays, under protest, the amount of duty demanded by the collect- or, and at the same time gives that officer notice not to pay over the money to the Government, and immediately institutes a suit against the collector to recover back the amount so paid. " Under these circumstances, the following question arises, viz : Can a collector legally retain in his hands, beyond the control of the Department^ and distinct from his other funds arising from duties, moneys so received ?' ? In answer to this question, I would say, that, under the laws of Congress in relation to duties on imported articles, it is the duty of the collector to carry into execution the instructions of the Treasury Department, and to conform his acts to them. If, in doing this, he shall collect more money than the judiciary shall afterwards, in an action against the collector by the importer, adjudge to have been due to the Government, there can be no doubt that it is the duty of the Government to save the collector from in- jury. But the question you present is of a very different character. It is, whether the collector has a legal right to retain the money so received in his own hands, beyond the control of the Department, &c. My opinion is, that no such right exists, and that the collector should, notwithstanding such protest and suit by the importer, pay over to the Treasury all moneys by him received under such circumstances, as though no protest had been made or suit commenced. I am aware that it may be said that this course would expose the collector to inconvenience and loss. The force of this suggestion is not perceived. Now the collector keeps the money in his pos- session until the controversy is decided by the judiciary, and then pays over to ihe Government what may be in his hands — that is, the whole collected by him, if the importer has failed in his action, or, if the importer has suc- ceeded, the balance which may be in his hands, after deducting ^ie amount of the recovery against him. My impression is, that the law never intend- ed that money collected for public purposes should be held by individuals, to await the event of iaw suits. If the money be paid into the Treasury, and a judgment be fairly obtained against a collector for an overcharge of duties, it would be the duty of the Government promptly to discharge such judgment, and release the collector from its consequences. You say a similar point arises, under the following circumstances : " On an importation of goods liable to cash duties, some time unavoidably must elapse before the duties thereon can be calculated, and the exact amount payable ascertained. It appears to be the practice in such cases to receive from the importer a sum of money deemed sufficient to cover the amount, when ascertained ; and any deficiency is afterwards made up, or the sur- plus refunded by the collector, as the case may be. These funds the col- lector designates as money taken and held for unascertained duties. " The same question, therefore, as the foregoing is presented in this case." It seems to me that the intention of those who originally framed our rev- enue laws was, that the duties should be ascertained and paid, where casa 436 Rep. No. 669. duties are imposed, before the goods are delivered to the owner. But it j understood that in some ports this is wholly impracticable, and, thereto:! a departure in practice from the idea which I have suggested is indispenJ ble. This state of things could not have been foreseen by those who o( p ginally passed the act of Congress under which the revenue is still collecte The vast increase of the commerce of the United States, and its concentrjl tion at particular ports, render that impracticable which, at an early perio:: could easily be effected. If the law cannot be executed according to i| letter and probable intention, on account of the altered condition of the a| fairs of the country. Congress alone can supply the proper remedy. In tM mean time, however, until Congress shall act, such Treasury regulatioi should be adopted and enforced as will best secure the objects of the lav It could never have been the intention of Congress that a collector shou< receive money for duties, under a private arrangement with the importe and keep the money in his hands until it was convenient for him to cause th amount of duties to be ascertained. If such a practice were tolerated, might be the interest of the collector to postpone the ascertainment of tn duties, as, in the mean time, he would have the uncontrolled use of tli money. It would also increase the danger of faithlessness in the collecto by permitting large amounts of money to remain with him, and under hi individual control, instead of being in the Treasury of the United State: The tenor and spirit of all our revenue laws seem to inculcate the idea tha the intention of Congress has at all times been, that money collected for re venue purposes should be promptly placed in the Treasury, and not be pei mitted to remain in the hands of the collectors; therefore, in any regulc tions you may make upon this subject, that object should be constantly kef in view. I am. sir, &c. FELIX GRUNDY. Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. The papers are returned. Extract from a letter of J. Hoyt, collector of New York, to H. D. Gilpin. Solicitor of the Treasury. Custom-House. New York, December 19, 1838. Mr. Fleming informs me that he only heard of the seizures by accident, and he knew nothing of them till the returns came from the clerk of the court, into whose hands the judge is prone to be careful to have the money paid, so that his brother (the clerk) would get his fees and commissions ; and this operated as an additional check on the attorney in all such cases. Mr. Fleming has debited Mr. Swartwout's account with all he knows of Mr. Swartwout's having received for penalties and forfeitures. Custom-House, New York, December 21, 1S38. Sir : I enclose you the following reports, made to me by the storekeep- ers, of property taken from my custody by the marshal of this district, as I Rep. No. G69. 437 ;ay, without any competent authority, and I request your early action on ;he matter : 1. A report from G. A. Wasson, 2d November 2. The like from H. Ricketson, 1st November. 3. Report from G. A. Wasson, 8th November. J 4. A report from same, 24th November. J 5. Also from same, of Brooklyn store, 2d November, ill I also send you a letter from James Hall, the importer of one of the cases preferred to in these reports, under date of 17th November last. It does no: Interfere with the views I have on the subject. Yours, J. HOYT, Collector, 1 B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Treasury Department, December 22, 1838. \ Sir: As heretofore intimated to you, the opinion of the Attorney Gene- ral has been taken upon the subject presented in your letter of the 17th Oc- tober last, a copy of which is herewith transmitted for your information. \ In view of this opinion, I would suggest that the moneys held by you on iccount of duties paid under protest by the parties, as also those received >n account of cash duties not ascertained at the time, should be placed to he credit of the Treasurer, so that they can be drawn for as needed ; but it the bottom of each weekly return the amount held for each of these ob- ects may be enumerated. By this course, no difficulty will arise till Congress legislate on the sub- ect, as they have been requested to do, because the accruing duties will ilways be enough to refund from, and the Comptroller or myself will give )roper directions in all cases presented for refunding duties which have been )aid under protest. So, in regard to duties not ascertained, any excess or deficiency can be •egulated afterwards, when the duties shall have been actually ascertained, intil some legal provision is made by Congress. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, <$r. Philadelphia, December 27, 1S38. Sir: Your favor of the 17th instant was duly received on the 18th in- stant, but no district court has been held since the 19$h, owing to the ab- ;ence of the judge, who adjourned his court until Monday, the 31st instant. [ have referred to all your letters relating both to this case and also to that )f Bottomly and the woollen goods, and I do not find that all the necessary nquiries were distinctly answered. This you will perceive by reference to ,ny letters of the 26th April and 14th May. In addition, therefore, to the ..nformation contained in your favors of the 4th June and 17th instant, I would request you to inform me as to what goods the three packages were 43S Rep. No. 669. imported by Messrs. De Casse, Miege, & Co., and under what provisions the acts of Congress does the district attorney for your district propose proceed in similar cases. I have filed no information, but propose to do so next week. You are familiar with all the duties as perhaps not to be aware that all we kn here is derived from your communications. The marshal has been and is now at Harrisburg on official business. ( his return, I will communicate your polite message to him. I am, &c. JOHN M. READ, U. S. Attorney, Philadelphia. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, &c. Custom-House, New York, January 8, 1S39. Sir : I enclose you a memorandum of Mr. J. R. Bleecker, deputy, in lation to Bottomly's case, which shows the necessity of having Joseph Gi man and James Campbell subpoenaed. The first was an entry clerk, and the latter a deputy. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Treasury Department, January 9, 1839. .Sir : In regard to the claim transmitted in your letter of the 27th ulti presented by Joseph Hopkins, late an inspector of the customs at your po for expenses incurred in defending himself in a certain suit instituted aga~" him in one of the courts of the State of New York for an assault and b tery, alleged to have been committed in the performance of his official dut on Long island, in the winter of 1836, I have to state that, there being precedent known to me in which claims of this character have been pa' out of the revenue, I do not feel justified in making the allowance in the ca under consideration. It appears to be one in which Congress alone afford relief. The papers transmitted are herewith returned. I am, kc. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, January 10, 1839. Sir : The account of the customs for the 3d quarter 1838 are computet and ready for transmission to the Treasury, as far as this office is concern ed, but I fear a delay will be occasioned, unless you otherwise direct, inas much as the deputy naval officer, who is now acting in chief, during the absence of his father, by sickness, refuses to certify the abstracts of bond* taken and bonds paid. Rep. No. 669. 439 The naval officer, as you well know, keeps no bond account, and thei I shall fall off in my pro rata estimate for this month. Business generally has very much revived since the arrival of the Great Western, and ouii people are in good spirits. Sales of goods are large and at good prices. The cotton begins to go forward, and the money market is of course reliev- ed to a great extent. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, April 29, 1839. Sir : The following nominations, submitted in your letter of the 26th instant, are approved, to wit : Charles P. Clinch, as deputy collector, in the place of Joseph R. Bleecker, assigned to duties in the cashier's department in the custom-house ; William E. Cruger, as weigher, in the room of Joseph Stevens, deceased ; Alfred G. Stevens, as measurer, in the place of Wil- liam E. Cruger, appointed weigher ; John McGloin, as inspector of the customs, in the room of C. P. Clinch, appointed deputy collector, (the three last appointments to take effect on the first proximo;) Charles K. Smith, as night inspector in the place of John Calvin, resigned, to re- ceive the same rate of compensation allowed to his predecessor. For the reasons stated, you are authorized to appoint an inspector to reside at " Riker's island," and also a night inspector, to be stationed at ** Williamsburg, on Long island," to be employed temporarily ; and you will be pleased to nominate suitable persons for these situations. I am gratified to learn the measures you have adopted in regard to woollen goods, and trust that every precaution will be taken to prevent any frauds being practised on the revenue in respect to these or any other goods. In regard to the proposed increase of the compensations of Mr. Flem- ing, the auditor, and Mr. Thurston, one of your clerks recently employed, 1 have only to reiterate the substance of what was stated in my letter of 28th March last, that if they can be remunerated out of the emoluments arising from commissions and fees in the collector's office, the pay pro- posed can be allowed. If this should not prove to be the case, there is no fund at the disposal of the Department to which resort can be had for such purpose. In reference to the two inspectors mentioned, who are acting as public storekeepers, and whom you propose to appoint deputy collectors with the view of giving them higher compensations, it is to be observed, that, if this arrangement should be sanctioned, they must be paid out of the "4 Hep. No. 669. 455 emoluments as before stated, and no portion of it could be allowed out of the revenue, as the 14th section of the act of the 7th May, 1822, prohib- ,( its (in certain ports therein mentioned, of which New York is one) any person holding any other office in the collection of (he customs from being an inspector. Of course, should Messrs. Wetmore and Wasson be con- stituted deputy collectors, they could not hold the situation of inspectors or be paid in that capacity. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. 3l " Jesse FIoyt, Esq., Collector, New York. Custom- House, New York, May 7, 1839. Sir : I am in receipt of yours of the 5th instant, and beg permission to present my views in regard to the power I exercised in nominating for your approval the " markers 55 for this port. I am fatigued, as no doubt you must be, with this unpleasant subject ; but I owe it to myself, as well as to the public service, to have a right understanding upon these matters. I have examined the law from '89 to the present time, and venture to say, there is an entire absence of authority in the surveyor to appoint a deputy of any kind or for any purpose, except that referred to in the twenty- second section of the act of 5 99. By the act of 1817, the collector may appoint deputies ; but this act is nowhere enlarged beyond the act of '99, to the surveyor. His duties are pointed out by the twenty-first section of the last-mentioned act; and as well has he the right to appoint "dep- uties'''' to assist him in the performance of these various duties, referred to there, as in the performance of the duties relating to the " inspection ' of distilled spirits, &c. The phrase so often used in the thirty-fifth sec- tion of the act, with a slight change of words, " surveyor or officer acting as inspector of the revenue for the port," had its oiigin, I think, in the eighth section of the act of '89, where provision is made for the collector, in case there is no surveyor, to appoint a person to execute the duties, who shall have the compensation and the power of an inspector, (see Story edit. vol. I, p. 17;) and a similar provision is contained in the twenty- first section of the act of 5 99. The thirty-eighth section of the last act carries out this idea, and provides that the landing shall be had under the inspection of the surveyor "or other officer acting as inspector ol the revenue for the port; 55 and it goes on to add, "and such of the inspectors of the customs as shall be deputed by him for that purpose. V) This is confined to the u landing," which gives the right to "-depute" ah inspector of my appointing; and the proviso to that section explains the construction to be given to the body of the section. The authority to the collector, in the twenty-first section, is general, to appoint "inspectors" of the port, and not inspectors of the customs, as they are called in subse- quent sections. The power is general to appoint all " inspectors" con- nected with "the collection of the duties on imports and tonnage, 55 for this is the title of the act. The term "surveyor 55 is not synonymous with the words "'officer aci- 456 Rep. No. 669, ing as inspector of the revenue." The provision of law for the appoin ment of the two officers is distinct, and I cannot find any authority ft uniting them. In some cases provision is made that the collector act a surveyor, and even naval officer; but there is no provision, that I hav been able to rind, combining the two offices of surveyor and inspector J the revenue in the sense you suppose. It is true the surveyor ascertain the proof of spirits and the qualities of teas, &c, but this does not necej sarily make him an inspector of the revenue, within the meaning of th 1 act, any more than his authority to examine weights and measures, o' goods entered for export, would make him such inspector; nor does th authority to do either of these things invest him with the power to ap' point 44 deputies" to perform the act for him. The collector, in fact, is th{ chief officer of inspection of the port, and all others connected with Ch< collection of duties at the port are his subordinates. 1 find no authority in the surveyor, except as before stated, as growing out of the twenty'' first section, or in any inspector of the revenue " to appoint" any persoi to represent him, except in the single case of. the teas referred to in th<' sixty-second section of the act where it is provided that one of (lie key, may be kept " bv such other person as he shall depute or appoint in hi: behalf." There is power given in the act of March 3, 1803, to the President tc ; transfer the duties of the office of " supervisor" to some other person but I find no authority to invest the surveyor with the office of 44 inspec- tor of the revenue" any further than belongs to the collector or naval officer or surveyor, in virtue of the general powers with which they art] invested to look after the rights of the Government. The act of 18IJ (first section) continues the phraseology, found in the acts, of "surveyor or office of inspector of the revenue;" and the same necessity exists now as in '89 for the distinction, for there are man)' places where there is no surveyor, and the collector acts as such or deputes some other person. F' am strengthened in the conclusion I come to by the act of 1820, limiting the term of certain offices. The surveyor is there called, what he alwaj i in fact has been, " surveyor of the customs," and as an officer, in my judg- ment, wholly separate and distinct from an "inspector of the revenue." The commission of all officers employed in levying or collecting (be public revenue 44 not required to be recorded in the Treasury Department under the seal of that Department" emanates from the port or place where the business is to be done, with the exception of the 44 deputies" authorized by the twenty-first section of the act of '99 ; and hence the naval officer or surveyor are not, as the collector is, bound to submit the nominations for your approval, because they have not the power of op- pointing any deputies but such as are last referred to, and then only as temporary. It was the intention of the framers of the law 44 that (he principal officer of the Treasury Department" should have the power (o pass upon the appointments of all the persons holding responsible stations in the collection of the revenue; and the collector is accordingly, by the law, required to pay all such persons for their services, and he always has paid the markers or deputy inspectors. The naval officer and surveyor both pay their clerks and deputies proper, but not the 41 markers and §p he does not pay them, he has no power to create them. It is true the act of 1822 (section 15) alludes to the compensation of a deputy surveyor, but that is a deputy authorized by the act of '99 — at Bep. No. 669. 457 least, in the absence of any authority to appoint any other deputies, it must be held to apply only to that act. But I can find no authority for the appointment of a u deputy inspector of the revenue." The term "marker" has not crept into the statute book before 1836. In the third section of the appropriation act of July 4 of that year, he is called upon, by the name ot marker, to account to the collector for certain fees, as the weighers, gaugers, and measurers are ; and so again, by the second section of the act of March 3, 1837, the same provision is continued. 1 have stated that the word "marker" was not used until 1836, but the term "mark" is used for the first time in the act of '99, in section 39. In the act of 2d March, '99, chap. 129, fixing the compensation of the u officers," &c, section 2, the weighers, gaugers, and measurers have a compensation for marking a in durable characters" certain things ; and it is the same "durable characters" that the 39th section alludes to. Fees, by the second section, are allowed to surveyor or inspectors of the revenue for ports, and to the deputies of the inspectors aforesaid " for casks," &c, by them marked and returned to their respective principals. The markers make the same returns to the collector that the weighers or measurers make ; and, as I pay both of them, I am the principal. But this is the only instance where deputy inspectors are named ; and there is no more authority to create such an office, except the general power conferred on the collector to appoint inspectors, than there is for me, as collector, to create the office of auditor and cashier of the custom- house. Such officers are unknown to the law, but we nevertheless call them by that name. It is arbitrary and unauthorized. These are some of the reasons to induce me to believe that 1 am right and the surveyor wrong. They are reasons drawn up in the hurry of business in the course of the morning, and must, of course, be very crude and unmethodical. I was promised a written opinion from Mi. Price to- day, and in the absence of that I send this. I am, sir, very respectfully vour obedient servant, J. HOVT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House, New York, May 13, 1839. Sir : I have had the pistols of Strasser again appraised. I now send you both appraisements, by which you will see the difference is slight. I a?so send you an invoice of Mr. Boker from the same house, made out about two months after Strasser's shaving the price charged Mr. Boker for the same article. 1 think these papers make the case plain. Mr. Boker can be called a3 a witness. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. 8. F. Butler, Esq,, U. S. District Attorney. Custom-House, New York, May 18, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 16th instant, informing me that you had 458 Sep. No. 669. " formally selected the Bank of America as a special depositor} 7 , an taken security for the performance of the fiscal duties," &c, and ask ing lor my "suggestions of the convenience which would ensue both tj the merchants and myself by the deposite and collection of duty funds b that bank," and also stating that you would have no objection to my con suiting with Mr. Newbold on the subject. In all matters touching the convenience of transacting business in tin office, I, of course, consult the officers engaged in aiding me in the per formance of my duties ; and, in pursuance of my practice in this respect I laid your letter before Mr. Fleming, the auditor, who is charged witl the custody of the bonds, and the lesponsibility of seeing that correc records of them are kept in this office, and I now send you his letter t< me on the subject. I concur in his views of the matter, and 1 state, in ad dition, that I have now made myself, as I think, thoroughly acquaintec with the details of the business of this office, according to the forms here to fore directed to be pursued, and I have therefore no interest in i c hange, when it is to give me additional trouble and renders it necessary for me to learn a new system. I would prefer not to have any communications with Mr. Newbold or the subject, but have each of us to pursue the instructions we ma) respectively receive, according to our respective understandings of the same. If \ had my own way in the matter, I would not deposite a dollar of tht jHibtic moneys in any bank which was a deposite bank prior to May, 1837 : and if the new custom-house were done, I could get on with ease and safety without the aid of any bank or its officers, but, as it is now, I would not consent to be responsible, without the liberty of depositing the money in bank. I would greatly prefer depositing the money daily in the Bank of America, or any where else that you please, to parting with the pos- session of the bonds, for the reasons stated by Mr. Fleming. I am, &e. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury. Custom-House, New York, Auditor's Office, May 18, 1839. Sir: In regard to the collection of bonds by the Bank of America, as suggested in the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury dated the lUtb instant, referred by you to me, I have respectfully to state, that no advan- tage can result to this office from such arrangement, or any facilities be afforded to the merchant. On the contrary, it will give additional labor and increase the trouble already attendant upon this important branch of oar business. The bonds are now delivered to the merchants immediately upon their payment to the cashier. There could be no difference in the proceeding, if paid at the counter of the bank, and consequently no facility afforded by a change. The merchants are, for the most part, in daily attendance at the custom-house, on divers kinds of business ; and, by having the oppor- tunity of paying their bonds here, all their custom-house businesses trans- Rep. No. 669. 459 acted at the same time and in the same place. If any question arises upon a bond, as is frequently the case, the merchant has means of refer- ence for immediate investigation. Hardly a day passes where some per- son does not have occasion to refer from the cashier to the bond register, to ascertain a particular in relation to a bond. The same duties in re- gard to preparing the account will still have to be performed at the cus- tom-house, even if the bonds are deposited in bank for collection ; and, in addition to these duties, accounts will have to be made out for the book accompanying every deposite of bonds — these given at stated periods, and receipts required for the same. At the expiration of every period, the accounts will be required here for examination. Every bond that is not paid on the day of maturity must be refunded to the custom-house, and the collector will then be required to obtain its payment, or deliver it to the District Attorney for prosecution. I do not, therefore, perceive any advantage to result to this office from depositing the bonds in bank, but an increase of labor and difficulty. In the event of t such an arrangement, new accounts will be required with the custom-house and bank, and transfers be made weekly, from the moneys passed to the credit of the collector, to the account and credit of the Treasurer of the United States, requiring much additional labor from the cashier of the custom-house. 1 have had much experience in the mode of collecting bonds, and have found no facilities to be afforded by it, and can well testify to the accumulation of labor and trouble occa- sioned in its performance, without its adding any additional safeguard to the public treasure. The bond accounts must be rendered, as usual, by us, quarterly to the Treasury, no matter where the money is collected ; and as, from the imper- fection of human nature, errors cannot be avoided, it is much easier to discover our own than those of others. In regard to the deposite of the money in the bank, it may be advan- tageous, and would materially relieve us, if the bank should place that money to the credit of the Treasury, and the Treasurer make his drafts upon the bank, and not on the collector, as was the case before the sus- pension of specie payments and discontinuance of the use of banks by the Government. In that event, the troublesome account here kept with the Treasurer might be abolished. * 1 am, &c. J. A. FLEMING, Auditor. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector , 8?c. Treasury Department, May 21, 1S39-. Sir: I have received your letter of the ISth instant, with that of Mr. Fleming enclosed. From the explanations given, I am inclined to concur in your opinion, that the convenience of your establishment as well as of the merchants may be best promoted by continuing to receive payment of duties at the custom-house — at least until further evidence or experi- ence shall indicate the propriety of a change. As to the deposite of the balances of public money in your hands daily or weekly in the selected banks, and putting drafts on that, which you 18* 460 Kep. No. 669. seem to regard as important under existing circumstances for your own. security, the subject is under consideration, and you wilt be advised of the result in a lew days if practicable. In the mean time, 1 shall be glad to be favored with such further views and suggestions on this point as may occur to you as important in coming to a judicious decision upon this practice, and, in some views, important question. I am, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury, J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector, $c. Custom-House, New York, May 22, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 20th instant, asking my opinion as to the necessity of having an inspector appointed at Albany. I am very anxious, as 1 have repeatedly stated, to do every thing prac- ticable to satisfy the community that there is no lack of vigilance on the part of the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in their efforts to detect frauds upon the revenue, and by that means to protect the honest trader. To this end, I am satisfied the appointment of an addi- tional inspector at Albany would be useful and important. I therefore recommend Barnum Whipple for the appointment of such inspector. The Department can at any time revoke the appointment, if it should be deemed that it is not necessary to have an inspector at that place. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, May 27, 1830. Sir : Herewith you will receive the return of moneys received and paid at this office during the last week, and also a duplicate account of Treasury drafts paid during the same period. You will also receive an account of moneys held by me under protest and on deposite,yet undisposed of. I have heretofore written you that I was in hopes of speedily winding up the old deposite account, but it has proved difficult to get the merchants to call and attend to it. I have issued a circular, a copy of which 1 send you, in the hope that 1 shall be able before the close of the present quar- ter to have the account entirely written up and balanced to the credit of the United States. The suits that have been tried this term of the circuit court have sub- stantially been decided against us, though the parties have not yet called for the money ; yet the protest fund is fast falling off under the late cir- culars and instructions. Several suits have recently been commenced, and the whole fund is in a fair way of vanishing, but in relation to which 1 will make you a separate communication in a few days, or at least the first leisure moment 1 get. Eep. No. 669. 461 I enclose you a copy of a letter I addressed on the 25th instant to the naval officer and surveyor of this port, in relation to an adjustment of the affairs of Lachaise & Fauche at this office. You will perceive the reasons of my desire on that subject, and also that the surveyor and naval officer approved of the course, as did the district attorney, who will, if I wish, write me a letter to that effect. He also consulted, as he tells me, the district judge, who advised the arrangement, and accordingly I settled the affair, on their paying the appraised value of the goods under seizure into court, and all the costs of the civil proceedings, and $18,354 93 on the penal bonds and claims for duties unpaid and unsecured, making together $45,654 93 for the United States and its officers, to be distributed accord- ing to law — a part of which was this day paid, and the remainder will probably be paid over by the clerk of the court to-morrow. I have also received to-day, for the forfeiture in the case of Bottomly's woollens, between nine and ten thousand dollars, which will be distribut- ed as soon as the papers come from court — say to-morrow. I have heretofore written you on the subject of a difficulty 1 had with the marshal, in regard to the custody of goods after seizure, which was before the Supreme Court last winter, and substantially decided that the marshal had the right to take them into his custody, upon the process issuing from the court. That power was abused soon after the decision, and I wrote to the Solicitor that 1 believed he had the right, under his supervising power over marshals, &c, to give him directions on the sub- ject, and to require him to leave the goods in the public stores, where they could be taken care of. The Solicitor declined interfering. I had a practical illustration of the danger I am subject to in this respect to-day. hi the case of Lachaise & Fauche which I have arranged as above stated, the goods seized were all fine French goods. The marshal took them from my custody on the monition issuing from the court; and when the goods were to-day discharged by the order of the court, the parties called on me and informed me they found the goods in a cellar in Cedar street, and whether they were ruined or not they could not tell until they had examined. This is one abuse that calls loudly for a remedy. An action had already been commenced against me in the sum of $50,000 lor the seizure. Suppose the goods had been acquitted and a verdict found against me lor the amount, and i had been compelled to look to the goods for indemnity, and they had become destroyed. The surety of the mar- shal to the United States would not have been liable to me for his negli- gence, and I might, if it was official negligence, have not been able to have procured rediess; and, besides, if his surety was liable, the bond i3 not large enough to cover such a case. .Moreover, the expenses were increased by the removal of the goods about $150 — the one-half of which is a loss to the United States. If this evil cannot be redressed or reformed or in some way modified, then the Executive power of the Government is not as potent as I took it to be. That it requires the correcting hand of some one, does not admit 4>f doubt. I am, &e. J. HOYT, Co/lector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of (he Treasury. 462 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, May 28, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the 23d instant, accompanied by a copy of one from Mr. Aaron Rea, of this city, came duly to hand, and was referred by me to the appraisers, and I now enclose a letter from Mr. Mead in re- lation to the subject. There is great truth in what Mr. Mead states, and we have often ex- perienced it in the trial of Government causes in this district. I have frequently called in merchants to assist the appraisers, and I have paid them for their services at the customary rate of $5 a day. I charged this sum (I refer now to my accounts of the 3d quarter, 1838) in my accounts to the United States, and it was unceremoniously struck out by the Auditor, without inquiring into the circumstances or any thing about it. I assumed that the items would be restored after my explana- tion was received, and it has had no influence and will have none in the vigilance due from me to the public service, for I hold it to be impossi- ble that such a policy could be sanctioned or adopted by the head of the Department. I have done already a good deal towards reforming the mode of doing business in the appraisers' department, and I have other reforms in con- templation. I do not wish to be understood as adopting the phraseology of Mr. Mead, though in spirit his views are correct. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, May 28, 1839. Sir : 1 enclose you a letter from Mr. George A. Wassqn, in relation to a claim of his and Mr. Bleecker to a part of the forfeiture, as informers to the 32 packages of goods, taken on 15th May from La Chaise and Fauche. I ask for your official opinion. I object to the allowance of the claim because — h It is admitted that I ordered them, as public offiers, to go to the store of La Chaise and Fauche to seize the goods. 2. That their action in the matter was but a continuation of their in- structions, and therefore there can be no distinction between those taken on the 14th and 15th May in the respect referred to. 3. Their relation to the laws and their superior officer, from whom they hold their appointments, forbids their acting in the capacity of informers. The policy of the law is adverse to any construction that would entitle them to a share of an informer, for the reason that it would open the door to frauds upon the naval officer and surveyor by a combination between the collector and his officers, to deprive the naval officer and surveyor of the legitimate shate awarded to them by the act of Congress. 1 would thank you for your views upon this subject at your earliest convenience, as the fund cannot be distributed till this question is settled, Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., U. S. Attorney, #c. Be]*. No. 669. 463 Custom-House, New York, May 31, 1839. In, consideration of Jesse Hoyt's paying us our respective portions of the seizures above referred to, we respectively covenant and agree to re- fund the same to said Jesse Hoyt, if he is compelled to pay the amount. H. CRAIG, Surveyor. WILLIAM S. COE, Naval Officer. Witness : J. A. Fleming. Custom-House, New York, June 8, 1839. Sir : On the 23d day of April last, I reported to you the seizure of 6 cases of German silver, marked 27C 30, 33 and 36. This cause was tried on the 6th instant, and the goods were acquitted. Very respectfully, JESSE HOYT, Collector. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, June 12, 1839. Si«{ : In the case of Samuel R. Wood, about which you wrote me last season, I ordered a suit to be commenced against him to recover*the dif- ference on duties between the sum paid and that which ought to have been paid ; and the jury brought in a verdict this day, in favor of the United States, for $12,278 76. This is only one of the many cases of the same kind, which no doubt has been perpetrated by the traders on your side of the water. The newspapers in this country, and especially those in the interest of the manufacturers, are very clamorous on the subject ; and it is our duty, as public officers, to make use of our best exertions to detect the system of frauds which have been so extensively committed upon the revenue and other great interests of the country. I send you an article I took from the Journal of Commerce of this city, in which paper it was copied from the National Gazette. It appears to me that the consuls of the United States, at Leeds and other manufacturing towns, might employ some one to give us information as to those persons who are in the habit of invoicing goods at less than cost for entry at the various ports in this country. It could be made a source of profit to any one who would give the in- formation, as by our laws he would be entitled to a fourth part of the amount of the forfeiture. I wrote you, on a former occasion, that the same frauds were practised upon the British Government as on ours, but not to the same extent. I have no doubt there are many persons conversant of the system in Liver- pool, from whom information could be obtained ; but of this I, of course, can know nothing other than what I have been informed. The public mind is somewhat excited on the subject at this time, and I am therefore the more anxious to devise some method of reaching the evil. 464 Eep. No. 669. The case of Wood will be fully reported in the newspaper, and I will send you a copy as soon as it is published and perhaps by the steamer to- morrow. 4 I would thank you if you would write Mr. Davy, the consul at Leeds, a note on this subject, and see if he can suggest any thing by which I can bring offenders to justice. I am, 6;e. J. HOYT, Collector. Francis B. Oghex, Esq., Consul United States, Liverpool. Custom-House, New York, June 19, 1 839. Gentlemen : I am in receipt of your letter of the loth instant, but I have not had the leisure to answer it till this moment. 1 believe your agents have gone through vsith the entry of the indigo by the Samson. 1 gave directions a few days since to the appraisers upon the subject. I have no authority to refund the duty on the importation by the Gladiator in December last, and it would be against the rule of the Department to refund if application should be made to it ; but as they have decided in my opinion very wrong in the indigo cases so far. there is the chance of their continuing wrong, and they might therefore refund! on application, though I think they would not. We llhve a difficulty with the article of kt mohair coatings." The im- porters contend it is all w goat's hair,'' and therefore free. I have again called the attention of the appraisers to the question, and we will endeavor to get at the right of the matter. We have been beaten by the couits and jurors in all our efforts to cany out what we thought the true inter- pretation of the tariff. I send you two copies of the Courier and Enquirer, which contain the report of the trial of the case of Wood. Respectfullv, See; J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. W. & S. Lawrence & Stone. Custom-House, New York, June 26, 1S09. Gentlemen : In pursuance of the provisions of an act of Congress of the United States, I hereby request \ou and each of you to appear at the appraisers' store, No. 17 Nassau street, on the 27th instant, at 10 o'clock^ A. M., to appraise a certain quantity of woollen cloths imported into this port in the ship Shakspeare, and consigned to Messrs. Wood, Johnston, & Burr; and in default thereof, the penalty of the said act will be enforced Respectfullv, J. HOYT, Collector. Messrs. William H. Russell, ) A - Tr . ~ a > New I ork. G or n eli us Ravage, ) Messrs. William H. Russell, with his brother, Charles Russell. J. H. Rep. No. 669. * 465 Custom-House, New York, June 29, 1839, Sir: For reasons I mentioned on the 23d instant, and which met with vour approval, I make no transfer to the credit of the Treasurer to-day. I stated some time since that we were engaged in writing up the deposite account for unascertained duties prior to the 1st of January last, and that we should have it closed by the end of the present quarter. It is now closed, and the money is passed to the credit of the United States ; and hence my returns of this fund, as a separate fund, will cease. You have expressed the hope, recently, that the moneys held by me un- der protest w6uld be placed to the credit of the United States. That fund at one time had reached to the amount of $150,000. It is now re- duced to about the sum of $75,000, (the exact amount appears in the re- turns.) Whether the amount be small or large, it does not alter the prin- ciple. The same motive that actuated me in refusing to pass the first $100 I received under protest to the credit of the United States has equal force now as then, and nothing has transpired to induce me to yield to your repeated suggestions on this subject ; but, on the contrary, many circumstances have fallen under my observation to weaken my faith in the justice of Government, and to admonish me of the impolicy of placing myself in a situation to be compelled to resort to that justice for protec- tion. To give a partial illustration of the reasons that have forced me to this conclusion, I attach a copy of a letter 1 felt it my duty to address the First Comptroller of the Treasury, on the 9th day of May last, in rela- tion to some objections that had been raised to my accounts. In this state of things I can discover, as any prudent man would discover, abundant reasons for avoiding all contingencies that would place me in the condi- tion of a supplicant to the justice of the Government. In addition to the natural inference to be drawn from the issue made by the letter last referred to, I have further experience of a similar charac- ter. As long since as December last, a judgment was recovered against me by D. Hadden & Co., for money paid into the Treasury, (wrongfully recovered I admit,) but which I was compelled to pay, and I charged it to the United States, and reported it to the Department ; but I have not yet been informed whether that amount has been passed to my account or not. There are now many suits pending against me, and many others threat- ened j and if I should pay the money held under protest into the Trea- sury, and judgments were recovered against me, and if 1 should pay these judgments and charge it to the United States, what security have I that such charges would be allowed, with the evidence I have already before me of the cruel, and as 1 contend unlawful, objections taken to some items in my accounts already furnished ? This question of protest was before Congress at the last session, and the injustice was perpetrated of passing a law to compel collectors to pay over money received under protest, without instructing the Department to hold such collectors harmless for the act against which the parties pro- test. If the immediate representatives of the people could sanction such legislation to gratify personal spleen or to administer to the biddings of party, or if it is deemed the result of deliberate judgment, there may be a time when Executive officers may be actuated by similar motives, or adopt this system as one that is correct. If unhappily such a time should arrive, 1 do not choose to be made a victim. I deny the moral right of the De- 466 Rep. No. 6G9. partment (o set me up as a target between the importers and the Govern- ment, to be shot at, without providing me with the proper balm to heal the wounds that may be inflicted. It is a very perplexing business, and much more so to me than to you. For instance, about $25,000 of the $75,000 under protest, is for bonds paid. These bonds stand charged to me in the accounts of revenue, for which 1 am responsible on the face of the accounts, the protests not hav- ing been made at the time of entry ; and, of course, the amount of the entry has gone to my debit. I am then held doubly, once to the Government and once to the merchant, to meet one liability. I hold the money. I shall, at the first leisure moment, go through the papers in the protest account, and see exactly its situation ; and 1 will then determine what course ought to be taken with reference to what is alike due to my own safety and my obligations as a public officer. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. P. S. This letter bears date the day it was written. It was not sent till 3d July. J. HOYT. Treasury Department, July 5, 1839. Sir: Yours of the 29th ultimo, informing me that you had not yet de- posited to the credit of the Treasurer, nor set apart for his drafts, the balance of money held under protest previous to the 4th of March last, has been received with regret. As you express a determination, however, to make another communica- tion to me on this subject at the first leisure moment, I shall defer, for a few days, taking any final steps in respect to the matter, except to keep the President advised of the unexpected condition in which it remains. Respectfully, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, July 5, 1839. Sir : With reference to the seizure of cloth consigned to Messrs. Wood, Johnston, & Burritt, I have to state that one bale out of the in- voice (say No. 100) had been sold before the whole invoice was ordered to the appraisers' store, under the penal bond. The enclosed, from Gid- eon Wells, Esq., of Hartford, will inform you what that bale sold for per yard, viz: $2 40, which is one-half of a statute pound sterling — say 10 shillings. They were invoiced, as you will see by examining it, at three- fourths. If you add 41 per cent, duty, it makes them cost here four-ninths ; so that 100 per cent, profit was obtained. The usual profit, under the like circumstances, is from li to 12 per cent. Eep. No. 669. 467 All this is proof to my mind that the appraisers' valuation was much too ' low. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, Collectors' Office, July 5, 1839. Gentlemen : I learn from the captain of one of the packets, recently arrived from Europe, that he has a large and very valuable cargo oi dry goods, and principally, as he believes, on manufacturers' account. It is no doubt the practice of many of these individuals to make out in- voices of goods sent to this country for sale on their own account, at prices embracing only the cost of the raw material and the labor actually bestowed in manufacturing the article, as the value at which the goods are to be entered at the custom-house, having no reference to the interest of the capital embarked in the business, and the personal labor and time in the superintendence by the owners of that capital. This is not the legal or just rule by which we are to test the invoices made upon such a basis, but we are to inquire as to the fair market value at the place of exportation. Any other principle is alike subversive of the interest of our own Government, manufacturers, and merchants. I therefore beg to call your attention to the subject. I am induced to believe that the recent facilities of intercourse with Europe, by means of steam vessels, is to lay the foundation of a new sys- tem of doing business, that will materially prejudice the great interest al- luded to, if the utmost scrutiny is not exercised in your department; and therefore it is that I feel it my duty, under the general directions of the Secretary of the Treasury, to solicit at your hands all the energy in the discharge of your duties that the framers of the law under which you are organized could have anticipated. The remarks will apply as well to English as French packets. Respectfully, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. To the Principal and Assistant Appraisers of the port oj New York. Custom-House, New York, July 13, 1839. Sir : In the case of T. Schivann & Co.'s cloth under seizure, I wish you to call one of the firm of H. W. & T. Mali, or all of them, to prove that the manufacturers are in the habit of invoicing their Swiss or German cloths at what it costs to make them. I wish you also to write to W. & S. Lawrence & Stone, of Boston, for the name of some of their merchants who have been there to purchase them, and could not purchase for the reason that the manufacturers sent them all here to enter at their mode of invoicing them. The Messrs. Lawrence will procure such persons to come here and testify. 468 Eep. No. 669. I write you these matters now, under the impression that you file th letters away with the papers in the case, and that, when you are abot to prepare tor the trial of the case, you will be reminded of it, and thai if I did not do this, I might forget it ; and if 1 make a memorandum of th facts, it may never reach you in the case of my death or resignation, nei ther of which I have any ambition to see carried out. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States attorney. Custom-House, New York, July 20, 1839. Sir : I have this day transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer for the receipts of this week, the sum of $225,000, in which was include $24,031 77 paid over by me from a part of the fund held under protest The bonds collected this week have been rather light, the cash dutie have been respectable. We are kept very busy. More than 200 packa ges have been received at the appraisers' store for examination to-day, be fore 12 o'clock. Several of our people have been subpoenaed to Boston on a seizur case of woollens, which will leave us very short-handed for the nex week ; and I shall not probably have the leisure to write any other tha formal letters. No steamer as yet; but before Monday we undoubtedly shall have on with very late intelligence from Europe. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, July 29, 1S39. Sib : I have received your letter of the 25th instant, relative to the case of Joseph Dupre, in which you state that you reported it on the 29th June as a forfeiture under the 66th section of the act of 2d March, 1799. No such report appears to have been received. By reference to the re- cords of this office, I find that, on the 1st instant, the district attorney reported that he had instituted against Joseph Dupre "an action of debt" to recover "short duties;" and, on the 2d instant, you reported that you had directed the district attorney to bring suit against Joseph Dupre, under the act of 2d March, 1799, the goods imported by him having been entered below their value. On the 18th instant, the district attor- ney wrote to this office, recommending, with your concurrence, for the reasons stated by him, a discontinuance of the suit on such terms as might be thought just. Of this letter, I enclose you \ copy, la reply, I told the district attorney that, under the circumstances of the case, 1 could not authorize a discontinuance unless all the duties were paid that would have Eep. No. 669. 469 iccrued had the goods been regularly entered under the second invoice, ind also all costs, but if these payments were made, he might discontinue egal proceedings. On the 26th instant, he reported to this office that Mr. Dupre had paid the full amount of duties that were short, being $56 28, md that therefore the suit against him was discontinued, and the amount paid over to collector. In reply to your inquiry, as to the distribution of the money thus re- covered, 1 have to say that the payment of money recovered on suit, in re- venue cases, whether as duties or as fines, penalties, or forfeitures, being made in all cases to the collector, the distribution or payment into the Treasury by him is not a question within the regulations of this office, but must be decided by the accounting officers in the adjustment of the collector's accounts. As the point may be of some consequence, I would recommend your submitting it to the Comptroller. Very respectfully, H. D. GILPIN, Solicitor of the Treasury. , Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. United States District Attorney's Office, New York, July 30, 1839. Sir : In the bills of costs this day rendered to you, in the cases of Jesse Hoyt ads. Hughes and Guynot, and the same ads. S. V. Dorr and others, I have charged a counsel fee of $25 in each cause ; and, in reference to a letter you have recently received from the Comptroller of the Treasury, on the subject of charges of this nature, and to the extiacts of an opinion of the Attorney General of the United States communicated with that letter, I take the liberty to say that, had the whole opinion been furnish- ed to you, it would have been found that the extract referred to is only applicable to those attorneys who receive salaries, (which is not the case with the attorney of this district,) and to causes in which the attorney brings and prosecutes a suit for the benefit of the United States. In the cases above named, the suit was against the collector in his personal ca- pacity ; and it was no part of the district attorney's regular official duty to defend the suits, although the fact that the construction of the tariff laws was involved in them made it very proper that he should do so. The \ charges foi counsel fees, in these cases, stand therefor e on the same grounds as if the person who defended you had been merely a private attorney and counsel. But the extract from the opinion of Judge Hopkinson, also en- closed to you, and to the correctness of which I entirely accede, does un- doubtedly apply ; and if you have not already had, or shall not hereafter : obtain, the approbation of the accounting officers and of the Department to the employment of counsel to defend you in the suits, you will be : obliged to resort to Congress for your indemnification, unless, indeed, you ; have some other means of indemnification. I do not know w T hether you have obtained the approbation referred to; and if you have not, then, strictly speaking, these bills of costs should not be charged to you as collector, but as an individual. I presume, how- ever, if the Department has not already sanctioned the defence in these ) 470 Rep. No. 669. causes, it will do so on a suitable representation being made nunc p tunc ; and as the bills have been made out on the assumption that tl would be or had been done, 1 do not think it necessary to alter them. Yours, &c. B. F. BUTLER, United States Attorney. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom- House, New York, August 23, 1839. Sir : I have transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer $155, as the receipts of the week ending this day. I stated, a few days since, that I had no doubt the present state of th money market would put upon us a great many Treasury notes; and m prediction will no doubt be verified. We have taken to day $26,0S2 5 You will see, by the specie returns made to-day, that the newspape have got down a larger amount as having been exported this week ths has been manifested. We have to France, by the Baltimore ... $205,98 We have to England, by the Great Western - - 428,2 We have to England, by the British Queen - - 145,0 Making ....... 779,301 I have not time by this mail to enlarge. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. P. S. You will see, by the Post of this evening, that my brother Ban- croft has succeeded in his seizure case. My people all return to-day. J. HOYT. Custom-House, New York, August 6, 1839. Sir : 1 enclose you an open letter for the Solicitor, covering a return of goods seized, by which you will see what we are doing in the woollen way. 1 shall hereafter give you a more detailed report. Be pleased to seal the letter and send it to the Solicitor's office. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, August 6, 1839. Sir : Your letter of the 29th instant, in relation to the case of Dupre, came duly to hand ; but I have not, until this moment, had the opportune- 1 Rep. No. 669. 471 y to make the investigation, so as to place the matter before you as it ppears from the files of this office. And while I take upon myself the rouble to do this, I must admit the magnitude of the particular case vould not justify me in consuming my own and taking up your time ; but ny experience with the Department admonishes me of the importance of ettling principles as soon and as fast as any case arises, about which there •ould be any doubt as to the manner in which it should be disposed of. n my letter to you of the 25th July, I mistook the date of my report of he case to the district attorney for my report to you. I reported the case o you on the 2d July, and to the district attorney the 27th June, a copy >f the latter report I now send you. The form which you have pre- scribed for my reports of the cases sent to the district attorney for penal- ies and forfeitures is so exceedingly awkward, that 1 am compelled to itate, very briefly, the ground of the supposed forfeiture, or the incurring )f the penalty, or else I should be compelled to extend the report some- what in the form of the information or declaration which the district at- om ey files as the foundation of his proceedings, 11 I am to be bound, so ;*ar as concerns my legal rights, by the hurried reports 1 make to you of ■tuts directed to be brought, with the view of giving you a general rather e other person than him to act as commissioner. I therefore name George Humphreys, Esq., solicitor, Manchester, of the firm of Dennison, Humphreys, and Curbit, Esqs., solicitors. Manchester is about 10 miles from Saddle worth, and the gentlemen 1 name will attend to it. Let me know when the papers go out, and I will write an especial missive myself. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Consulate of the United States, Liverpool, September 10, 1839. Dear Sir : Your letter announcing the success of the United States 4 To Bep. No. 669. in their suit against certain defrauders of the revenue of woollen goods, of whose practices I gave you information, was duly received ; and I am much gratified at the result. My being entitled to a portion of the forfeiture, although not anticipa- ted at the time, is nevertheless a very pleasing piece of news ; and 1 trust, my dear sir, that you will protect my interest in this affair as well as if any others 1 may have the good fortune to bring to light. You may rely on my vigilance and co-operation with you in the detection of these frauds ; and in the course of future proceedings, should it be necessary to issue commissions for testimony, it would be well that my name should be placed at the head of it, as in that way I shall be the better able to ferret out the truth. I am, dear sir, &c. FRANCIS B. OGDEN. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collect or of the port of New York. Custom- House, New York, September 13, 1839. Sir: I have seized the following goods, imported by Francis Black- burn, viz : i F 143 and 150, eight cases cloths, per ship Roscoe, from Liver- pool. 300, 308, and 9, " " " Virginian. I send you the following papers: 1. The entry sworn to before deputy Clinch, for this 17th August. 2. The two invoices. The invoice I Roscoe, amounts to £1,338 12s. Ad, The one per Virginian, to £1,741 15s. 9d. 3. The appraisers amounting, for I Roscoe, to £1,458 12s. 1 of., and, lor the Virginian, to £2,033 3s. \\d. The appraisers are signed by John Woodhead and Francis Tryon. I also send you a copy of the examination of Mr. Blackburn, under the 8th section of the act of 1 1th July, 1832, which will require a count or counts in the information to meet the case. You will notice that, on the invoice by the Roscoe, the public appraisers have passed the invoice, deducting 5 percent, measurement, (that is, not allowing the measurement,) which, of course, was an advance of the invoice 5 per cent. The invoice by the Virginian they passed as correct. I appealed from their decision, and the result is the appraisement by the merchants, which I send you. I proceed upon the ground that their appraisement is conclusive, and we are to look only to the entry and appraisement. The parties importing are not bound by the invoice, nor is the Government, i would like a personal conference with you as early as would meet your ■convenience. Respectfully , J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Rep. No. 669. 479 Custom- House, New York, September 14, 1839. Sir: I have received your letter of the 1 2th instant, relative to a cir- cular from the Treasury Department, and, in answer, have to say, that you need not pay any attention to it, as the persons employed at your city will be included in the returns from this office, as they are paid here. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. William Sevmour, Esq., Deputy Collector^ Albany New York. Custom- House, New York, September 14, 1839. Sir : I have this day transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer of the United States, for the receipts of the week ending this day, the sum of $250,000. There has been some excitement in Wall street to-day. The stock of the Bank of the United States fell down to par and a little under, which was a fall of over 5 per cent., and was in consequence as it is said of a u nevv batch" of post notes appearing in the market, which it is supposed were issued on their own account — that is, to raise funds to meet their own engagements. There was also another cause of excitement, owing to the fact that the city banks, who under an arrangement were redeeming the notes of the country banks, stopped that redemption, as to several of the banks. It is said, however, that some arrangement is in progress to continue to re- deem them. If this is not done, I anticipate great trouble in business affairs. In addition to this, if the news from the other side by the Queen, (which may be expected on Monday) is unfavorable, I dare not say .how bad i apprehend the state of things will be. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House, New York, Sptember 16, 1839. Sir : We had a fleet of ships in yesterday, and most of them with large cargoes. I have been compelled to take another store to-day for the use of the appraisers, but 1 have only taken it by the month. We took in over 1,000 packages, on Saturday, into the appraisers' store for ex- amination, and to-day before 1 o'clock we had over 600 more ; and we were forced to adopt the necessity of taking the store alluded to. If the merchants took their goods out as fast as they were examined, we might possibly have got along, but as it is there was no other way. We shall not keep the store one day longer than is necessary. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Sepretary of the Treasury. 180 Rep. No. 669. Custom- House, New York, September 17, 1839. Sir: I have to state that arrangements have been made for the circu- lation of the redemption of the notes of the country banks. The Bank of America agreed to advance $30,000, and the Manhattan Company $20,000, towards that object. You will, of course, consider it very absurd that such banks should have hesitated to advance such trifling sums, when so great an object was to be accomplished. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, Philadelphia, September 20, 1839. Sir : As there are other parties who claim distributive shares of the nett proceeds of the three packages of goods, recently condemned as for- feited by the district court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, to which it is presumed your letter of the 16th refers, and who claim to hold me responsible for the amount of their shares respectively, you will at once perceive the necessity which compels me to decline your friendly invitation to say what form shall be adopted before paying over the money to you for distribution. The persons who feel themselves in- terested in the proceeds of the goods forfeited believe your claim to the distribution to be of a character so novel, and so entirely unprecedented, that they cannot, unimportant as the sum in controversy may be in amount, consent to yield to the collector of New York the right to distribute the proceeds of forfeitures which accrue in the port of Philadelphia alone. It is considered here, and all the precedents to be found in this office show conclusively, that the nett proceeds of forfeitures prosecuted to judgment in this post, no matter where the goods were landed, were uniformly distributed by the collector of Philadelphia, and the portion accruing to the officers of the customs was divided between the collector, naval officer, and surveyor of the port, in which the condemnation took place. Believing that every principle of equity and justice demand such a distribution, and that Congress never contemplated any other — especially where, as in this case, the seizure was made by direction of the deputy collector of this port, on the information of a citizen of Philadelphia un- connected with the customs — and in the absence of any directions, emana- ting from the collector of New York or any one acting by his authority, I must beg to be excused from taking any [Manuscript defective.] Custom-House, New York, September 20, 1839. Sir: I handed you some time since a memorandum for $92 13, which you were to collect and hand over to me, as a payment made in error. I would be much obliged if you would give it your immediate attention. Mr. Waters, the cashier, has shown me your memorandum for $543 59 of surplus moneys belonging to the office, which you did not account to him for when you left. I would be glad if you would hand this, over to Rep. No. 669. 481 him. It is the balance of what is called the error fund, which should have been left to indemnify me for any errors the other way, which, of eourse, I should have to lose irt case the error could not be detected^ and therefore it should have been accounted for by you. Respectfully, . J. HOYT, Collector. Joshua Phillips, New York. Custom- House, New York, September 25, 1839, Sir : I received to-day your letter of the 24th instant, in answer to mine of the 7th instant ; and although it may not seem to require an answer, it is but just to all parties concerned that one should be given. I wrote the letter of the 7th to you, because I could not present my complaints in this matter through any other channel than the district attorney's office. In the case of seizures, the clerk of the district court, as you know, according to the prescribed forms of law, accounts to the collector for the proceeds arising therefrom, and yet the collector has no official connexion with him, except to receipt to him for what he pays over, or to pay bills he may present growing out of the proceedings, when the avails are not adequate to pay the expenses. In the particular case referred to, of the seizure of four cases of china, the clerk, so far from paying over any thing for the use of the United States and the seizing officer, brought the United States in debt about $2 35, and the deputy clerk, who presented the account, insisted upon the payment of that sum, which 1 refused to pay in any other form than protesting to you against proceedings resulting as those did. That your practice since you have been in the office has been liberal in cases of this sort, as well towards the seizing officers as the Government, I am bound to admit, and more especially so, as you had judicial authority, in the decision of Judge Van Ness, for making the business much more profitable than you have made it. When you came into office, you found a letter on file from me to your predecessor, under date of the 22d of Oc- tober last, on the subject of this very matter; and, from the communication of your official action as district attorney, you expressed your dissatis- faction with the opinion of Judge Van Ness, and informed me that you would not adopt it in any case not required by the interests of the Uni- ted States and the manifest convenience of the proceedings, and I am not aware that you have done so in any case but that of the china, and then, no doubt, owing to the fact of my not calling your attention to it. I made you the communication, in these cases, in great haste on Satur- day, the 29th of June, for the purpose of putting in your hands all the cases in which the late surveyor (who went out of office on that day) was interested. I make these explanations in relation to my letter of the 7th instant as an act of justice to you. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. 482 Kep. No. 669. Custom- House, New York, September 30, 1S39. Sir: Your letter of the 26th instant reached me on the 28th, but the pressure cf my engagements were such that I had not the opportunity ta answer it before the mail of this day. In my letter to Mr. Miller, to which you refer, I supposed I had placed die matter in its true lighf, and I am happy to find, as 1 do by your letter, that you can concur with me in the course 1 had adopted ; and hence you will perceive that I am found to assume, that the collector of Phila- delphia has no goods under seizure that answer the description referred to by you, or else he, instead of you, would have made an application similar to the one you have made. I do not feel myself at liberty to act as a volunteer in this matter any further than I have already done — by which I mean that I have already obligated myself to furnish to the col- lector of Philadelphia any papers on file in this office appertaining to the matters you inquire about ; and beyond that 1 do not think that 1 have a right to volunteer my services, especially as by legal process you have the power to cornel me to testify in the controversy, and give the proof which you call upon me to furnish in anticipation of that controversy. I cannot for one moment suppose that the collector of Philadelphia is in- sensible to the rights of the individuals you represent, and therefore, if he had any goods in his possession, under seizure, answering the description of those you seem to suppose have regularly passed the custom-house of the port of New York, that he would have called upon me for the evi- dence of the fact you allege to exist ; and hence I am forced to the con- clusion, that, in the absence of such call, he has not in fact any such goods in his possession. You stated that the parties will furnish any proof that may be desired that these goods have been removed to the stoies of the Philadelphia custom-house — by which 1 understand that you ask me to decide upon the law and the facts, in a matter which you assume to be in issue between your clients and the collector of Philadelphia. I must respectfully decline to accept that office, and 1 am quite sure that you will not complain of me for this, as your request is predicated upon my letter to Mr. Miller, which you have already approved of, and in which 1 distinctly stated the proper course 1 felt it my duty to adopt. I return you the paper you enclosed me by the name of the " invoice," which, if it be correctly named by you, may be of service to you. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. J. R. Ingersoll, Esq., Philadelphia, Custom-House, New York, October S, 1839. Sir: In consequence of the calamitous fires which occurred in this city on the night of the 5th instant, and which happened at all most the same time in different parts of the city, I was induced to believe they were by design ; and, the United States public stores being at present very full of merchandise, the most of which is well covered by insuiance, and in these times might prove a good sale to the underwriters, if destroyed by fire, it was suggested that I ought more rigidly protect them from the acts of in- cendiaries, as well as from accident incident to such occasions, by the ap- Rep. No. 669. 483 pointment of an additional number of night watch. I accordingly ap- pointed and put on duty last night the following persons, viz : John J. Moffit, James Morrison, Daniel Chambers, John C. Attstant, William Brown, Michael Orsburn, Robert O'Donnell, John Hanrathy, John S. Magnus, and William D. Traphagan, for which I respectfully ask for your approval. I shall of course discontinue them as soon as the public inter- est will admit. I also nominate Samuel Vunck as night watch at Brooklyn, in place of Michael Colgan, deceased. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House. New York, October 9, 1839. Sir: We have had a great deal of excitement here to-day, in conse- quence of the protest for nonpayment of some post notes of the Bank of the United States, which were due this day and payable in this city. It of course follows that this bank has stopped payment. We now appre- hend that it may desire companions in misery, and therefore what power it may have left will be thrown into this city to harrass, and, so far as pos- sible, oppress our banks. The latter are no doubt in a condition such as- would be termed strong, and the officers connected with them say they are out of danger ; but I apprehend that there is not sufficient strength to withhold the effect of a general loss of confidence in our banking institu- tions, and therefore it is that I should not be surprised if we should have to yield to the crisis. In saying this, I do not mean to express an opin- ion that the course of the Government should at present be changed in its business with them, but, on the contrary, that, so far as the law wilt sanction, it is our duty to give them its confidence and countenance. We have large amounts falling due, which could not be met promptly if our banks should falter. I would not express the opinion I do in any other quarter ; but as I have on all occasions written you my honest convictions on this and kindred subjects, I think I should do so now. I am reassured again, to-day, by the banks that have my deposites, that, in any event, they shall be paid in specie. It is quite probable that all the drafts on me, especially from the South, will have to be paid in specie by the banks on which 1 draw ; and hence the importance of relieving them as much as possible. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 10, 1839. Sir: I wrote you yesterday in relation to the suspension of the Bank of the United States, and the effect it might produce on the banks in this city. 484 Rep. No. 669. I was apprehensive, for the reasons stated, that the latter banks migb be forced to yield to the crisis. I am now satisfied that there is ever probability that such will not be the case. There was a meeting of th< officers of the principal banks last evening, when their respective condi tions were made known to each other; and the conclusion they came t< was, that the banks in this city could, under any and all circumstances, b« sustained. I believe there is good reason to suppose that this is true*! k There has been no excitement to-day and no run upon any of the banks A great many bonds have been paid in advance, and some not due til December; and this, of course, was upon the idea that the banks wouk i suspend when it would be necessary to pay them in specie. This may bc j taken as an indication of the opinion of the persons paying; but still the' I majority of our people believe that our banks can go on, and also most 01 j ; the New England banks, though we anticipate that all South of this will! i suspend. It becomes important to the Government and the character ol J the nation that we should in this city preserve our integrity ; and, to that]!, end, it is desirable that all the strength should be thrown in this city that 1 can be, in order the better to effect so desirable an object. You will see by the evening papers that the steamer Liverpool arrived j this morning. She brings bad advices for our commercial people. The]! accounts are various as to the condition of the credit of the Bank of then United States in Europe. I have not seen the version the evening papers]! give to the affair; but the truth I understand to be, that Messrs. Hotten-I geur &: Co. refused acceptance of about 7,000,000 francs, and that Mr.| Jaudon repaired to Paris and induced Messrs. Rothschild to accept, fori which he was to give security in London, but the security it is said was! not deemed very satisfactory. You will no doubt see the rumors that the Bank of England is again to resort to one pound notes, with the view of a currency. It is stated by Mr. Wild, of London, who came passenger in the steamer, on being told the amount of specie that had been sent from this country to England, (the news of which had not reached London when he left,) with that which had been sent from Mexico and South America, would probably be sufficient to avoid a resort to the issue of small notes, and that the Bank of England would avoid it as long as possible. I think the latter information is that this bank will not suspend, or issue small bills, which is the very next step to suspending. The President reached here this morning, and designs to leave on Sat- urday. Respectfullv, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 11, 1839. Sir: Our business affairs stand very much as they did yesterday. There has been no press or run on the banks to-day ; and the news from Boston is, that the banks there will stand by, and that the impression is, they have the ability to weather the storm. Rep. No. 669. 485 ' I repeat the remark I made yesterday, that it is very important the jovernment throw all the strength here, in the emergency, that it can. We have a very large fleet of vessels in to-day from Europe, but I have lot had' the opportunity to sec what sort of cargoes they have. Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 12, 1839. | 1 Sir : I have this day transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer ||of the United States, for the receipts of the week ending this day, the V sum of S3 10,000. if We have received to-day the entry of 31 vessels from foreign ports, (among which are 8 packet ships, and most of them full freighted, which lis by no means a desirable picture at the present crisis. A large amount ri of woollens have been entered to-day for export. Every thing has gone J on quietly to-day in reference to the banks. You will see, by the specie er [notes I make to-day, that about $470,000 goes out to-day in the various ''Vessels for Europe, and it is said more will be manifested on Monday ; but Ijj I do not learn that much of it has been drawn from the banks. ^ ' We had payable to-day about $175,000 of bonds — that is, including those i due to-day and to-morrow. A large portion of those due to-morrow have ] been paid to-day, and most of them due to-day have also been paid. The news is unfavorable for Rhode Island, and we fear the bank there may suspend; but from Boston the accounts are encouraging, and we hope to be sustained from the latter section. Our confidence is still firm that [we can get through. I enclose a copy of a circular issued to-day by the State Bank to the country banks of this State. This bank is one in which I deposite, and (one that has nobly sustained our country banks when most others of our [city banks were unwilling to lend any aid. You will see with what a store of confidence this bank speaks of being able to sustain itself, and also of its determination to make " sacrifices" to meet the crisis. I again request what I have asked in my former letters, and which I am urged to re- peat by the friends of the Government, that all aid be furnished us that is possible for the Government to offer. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodrury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 16, 1839. Sir: I have your letter of the 14th instant, directing me to deposite one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in the Manhattan Bank to the special credit of the Treasurer, which amount I have this day deposited, and charged to his account, and transmitted the usual receipt to him. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi W'oodrury, Secretary of the Treasury. 486 Rep. No. 669. Custom- House, New York, October 16, 1839. Sir: In a casual conversation with you to-day, 1 understood you to re maik that my account with your bank was more injurious than beneficial and that it put the bank in such jeopardy that you were unwilling to con tinue it. I subsequently inquired whether I was to understand from those re*] marks that you did not wish me to make the usual deposite to day. fl answer to which inquiry, I understood you to say, in substance, that yoi would receive the deposites, to the end that I might have the opportunity to make a satisfactory arrangement in relation to the matter elsewhere. Under this state of the case, as understood by me, it is due to youi bfenk, as well as to myself and the interest of others entrusted to me, t( have it perfectly full understood on what grounds the discontinuance o our relations take place ; and therefore I address you this communicatior for the purpose of knowing whether I understand correctly. I take the occasion to say, that my confidence in your institution anc the integrity of its officers has in no manner abated, and that 1 am en-' tirely satisfied with the manner in which you have per formed your obliga- tions to me and to those whose funds I control, and I have also entire and perfect faith that you would continue to perform those obligations in the like manner; but as I am wholly unwilling to be a burden in times like these to any bank, or to put it in the power of any hank to reproach- me or the Government, whose interest I have in charge, with being a: source of inconvenience to it, I think it proper, before I take any steps towards a new arrangement, that I ask you to say to me, in writing, whether I understood your verbal communication correctly, and to ask| you to inform me what your present wish is on the subject referred to. Very respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. C. W. Lawrence, Esq., President of the Bank of the State, New York. Custom-House, New York, October 17, 1839. Sir : Business affairs have gone on very well to-day. Bills on Eng- land for the steamer have been sold to such an amount as will stop specie, as we verily believe. The insurance officers have raised the premium of insurance i per cent, which of course increases the expenses of shipping and adds much to the value of bills. In that you will perceive the effort that is making on alt sides to sustain our banks for the crisis. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, October 18, 1839. Sir: Yours of the 1 1th and 12th instant came safe to hand. I thank you for the information they communicate as to the condition Eep. No. 669. 487 of business generally as well as in the custom-house, and am happy to learn in relation to the banks in your city and further east that they are likely to be successful in their efforts to continue specie payments. In one of those letters you remark u that it is very important the Gov- ernment throw all the strength here in the emergency it can," and in the other you say u I am urged to repeat, by the friends of the Government, , that it is of the greatest importance that all aid be furnished us that it is possible for the Government to afford." If these expressions relate to the exertions of the Government to provide for meeting with promptitude, and in a legal currency, all the numerous and heavy expenses imposed I on it in New York, and to grant every indulgence, in the great collections [ of duties, which the difficulties of the crisis demand and the Executive 'Is authority extends to, I can assure you with sincere pleasure of the in- J clination, and it is hoped the means, of this Department to meet your most If sanguine wishes; but if they relate to extraneous "aid" to be furnished j to the banks by the Government, in sustaining specie payments, it is ira- h portant that the position, the power, and the disposition of the Treasury jj on that subject should not be misunderstood. I shall, therefore, proceed briefly to explain them. 1st, The balance now in the Treasury is very limited, and especially on the seaboard. It has been the policy of Congress, since 1836, to keep it small ; and the redemption of Treasury notes, with the current expen- ses, has left on the whole of the Atlantic coast less than two millions of dollars. Most of that is already in your city, arising from duties and loans there on Treasury notes; and none has been transferred there ex- cept what has been employed there in redeeming the latter. The tw T o banks in which 1 deposite (here have now more Treasury notes on hand, issued to them for money credited to us, than the whole amount of the public money in their vaults or credited to us on their books. 2d. The future collections and transfers must be employed there in the same operations before named ; and 1 am expressly forbidden, by the de- posite act of 1836, to order any transfer of money with a view to sustain banks. 3d. The suspension of specie payments in several cities south of New York will require me to place in New York a large proportion of drafts in order to meet our large engagements legally; and hence our depositee there will probably decrease rather than increase, though J shall be happy to draw on your city, as on others, only when rendered proper by the pub- lic interest. But, under our present system, all the funds there of a pub- lic character, whether in banks or with public officers, are to be held con- stantly ready to meet public demands. 4th. You thus perceive, that, though uniting with the citizens of New York in ardent wish that they may prove successful in their efforts to sustain specie payments, the position and power of this Department on that subject are very limited, and can only incidentally promote its favor- able disposition towards the banks, while in the faithful discharge of its direct fiscal duties. The crisis is, I am aware, a trying one to the merchants and banks; and they deserve the sympathy and assistance, as well as the commendations of all good citizens in such laudable exertions to preserve a sound cur- rency and meet their obligations with punctuality and fidelity. But the 488 Rep. No. 669. funds of this Department being under the control of express laws, ar its officers being bound to enforce those laws, I am conscious th neither you nor your friends can desire those funds to be employed I any manner not consistent with public duty. Nor do I suppose that, in the expressions referred to in your late le ters, any desire was entertained by you for any step to be adopted whit was improper. But, in order that you and others might be aware of th general facts and considerations which exist, and which govern the D( partment on this subject, and which are necessary to be known to prevei misconception as to its course, I have made these hasty suggestions, an trust they will prove satisfactory. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. J. Hoyt, Esq., Collector. Custom-House, New York, October 19, 1839. Sir: The steamer left to-day, and took with her £79,995 — equal t< $324,008, in specie, whieh is quite as large an amount as was anticipates yesterday; $153,000 of which I judge to belong to the United Stater Bank, from the name of the person who cleared it. A similar amoun; was shipped by a house in this eity, who had negotiated the bills of thai bank, and the object was to protect the bills on the other side to save the damage ; and the remainder was shipped by several underwriters in the ordinary course of trade. 1 have never seen so much distress for money before ; and yet it is very remarkable that all the bonds due {o-day except one are paid, and all that are due to-morrow (Sunday) are also paid, except two, amount- ing in all to about $2,500; and the whole sum due in the two days was about $51,000 — all of which tends to lessen the liabilities of bank6 to de- positors, for the bonds are paid out of deposites and not of discounts. If the banks do not feel themselves able to extend their discounts to the merchants in the course of next week, I dread the consequences. It is a trying crisis. The banks are determined to go through, and they will at all hazards ; but the merchants will have to suspend. I see no other couise left them, and to what extent the receipts of this office may be affected i cannot say. I hope for the best, Verv respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. lion. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, October 19, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 17th instant, in relation to your draft on me, which had been returned for irregularity of endorsement. The draft Rep. No. 669. 489 came back this morning, and was paid before nine o'clock at the request of the person presenting it, by a check dated yesterday, so that it could be sent in with the bank exchanges to-day. The course of business in the office is, for persons presenting drafts to call at the auditor's office, where the regularity of the endorsement is 1 examined ; bu(, in the present instance, the draft happened to be first pre- sented t® me. I asked the auditor if he had been in the habit of audit- t ling drafts so endorsed, and he answered in the negative, and advised ijne not to pay it. I asked the advice of Robert White, of the Manhattan iBank, G. A. Worth, of the City Bank, and R. Wethers, of the State Bank, all of whom concurred in opinion that it ought n6t to be paid. 1 did ask the Bank of America, and the president expressed the opin- ion that he should pay it ; but I am not in the habit of considering that i| bank as orthodox on all subjects, as some persons are, and therefore its opin- k ion did not control the opinions of three otker equally intelligent bwik [ officers and the uniform rule of my own office, as represented to me by ' the auditor. If it produces a bad effect on the public mind in reference to a public ,( officer who does his business correctly, what would be the effect in rela- tion to one who does it incorrectly, as I distinctly state you bave done in 'if the present instance ? And if you have no better excuse for addressing me I in the tone you have in relation to this matter, I recommend that you € spare yourself the trouble of writing at all. Ther e is no such affidavit as ityou refer to. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, V Elias Kane, Esq., Navy Agent, Washington City, D. C. New York, October 20, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 18th instant, in reply to mine of the 11th and 12th instant, in which you quote short paragraphs from both concern- ing the condition of money and business affairs in this city. The pecuniary interest of the Government, in the great struggle now going on here in reference to a preservation of the currency in this sec- tion of the country, is infinitely more extensive than that of any individ- ual or corporation, apart from any interest it may have in the character of the country at home and abroad. There were about three millions of dollars to receive in this port be- tween the periods of the suspension of the banks of the United States and the first of January, and, in the event of a suspeniion of the banks in this city, that amount could be received only in specie or Treasury notes ; and whether the banks do or do not suspend affects, in my judgment, materially the amount of our collections. It is also tery important, with reference to those collections, that the banks have the power to make loans to those who have payment to make to the Government ; and hence I recommended M that the Government should throw all the strength here in the emergency that it could.' 5 It is an act of justice to those who are struggling to maintain their commercial integrity, as well as a matter of policy with reference to its own interests. I intended, by the recommen- 490 Bep. No. 669. elation, to suggest to you, that if you had found out " new specie"-paM ing places, you exhaust those before drawing upon us here, which woul in effect be "throwing strength" into this city. Every draft drawn on u here in favor of the East (that is, beyond Providence) we expect to g€ back through the ordinary operations of trade, provided they do not sus pend there, and I think they will not ; but that which goes South we can; not get back. This week will no doubt be a trying one, but 1 have a;i abiding faith that the banks will survive. The payments at the custom-house are small. We have only abou $150,000 due in bonds for all the week, which makes it favorable to thi merchants. The papers from Boston to-day speak confidently of the banks goin^ on, and that the money market is easier. I have not seen any letters. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Consulate of the United States, Liverpool, October 22, 1839. Dear Sir: I have this morning conversed with a person who is well acquainted with ail the woollen frauds, from whom I have deiived some valuable information. There is an article manufactured at Leeds, in imi- tation of French merino, and which is uniformly entered in the United States under the denomination of worsteds ; whereas they are strictly woollens, the proof of which is easily obtained. He says any commis- sion sent out, as the one you lately advised me of, will inevitably be re- turned with every thins; the defendants desire. Thev will swear through thick and thin. He agrees with me, that the only mode of getting at the truth is the one I have suggested, and says it had better be executed in Liverpool, where lespeetahlc witnesses will attend that would not like the publicity of doing so on the spot, and thinks wherever commissions have been sent on the part of the defendants, others should be applied for on the part of the plaintiffs — that a yard or halt a yard at least of the cloth should be attached, of each piece, when the value could be clearly estab- lished to within 6c/. or \s. a yard. If so large a piece is not sent, let the exact width be given, as that is necessary to establish the value for any thing from Huddersfield or the neighborhood. Let the names of John Brooke and Mallinson be inserted as witnesses — for Leeds, James Hargreaves, James Robinson, and David Cooper, merchants. From these men I shall be able to get at the bottom of the affair, and you may depend upon it I will spaie no pains. The Bottomleys boast openly that they 9. 491 Extract of a letter from A. B. Mead to B. F. Butler, Esq., dated New York, Appraisers 1 office, October 24, 1839. Mr. Roosevelt will urge (and I think the trade will pretty generally lean towards him) that all glass used for windows is window glass, and that the "H use to which it is to be applied, and not its distinctive character, shall 1 form the rule for its classification. The usages of trade, the commercial terms, and the ordinary sense in which the terms are used and understood, must, after all, determine the character of the article ; and 1 am of opinion that it will not be difficult ! to satisfy a jury that plate glass has never been known as window glass, although for some vears back it has been used by the richer classes of ' society lor that purpose. Whatever questions you may propound to those who are brought upon the stand, you will find that, whenever the answer required to be given (and which in the presence of the court and jury they dare not evade) j militates against their interest, they* will continue to explain, until a different meaning from the only true one is to be induced. This is peculiarly the fact with most of the traders of the present day, ami Jesuits are more plentiful now than when the order was in existence. Respectfully, A. B. MEAD. Custom-House, Philadelphia, October 24, 1839. Sir : Since the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, the moiety of the nett proceeds of the forfeiture of the goods therein referred to has been placed to the credit of the Treasurer of the United Siates, by ihe i direction of the First Comptroller. The other moiety is retained subject to judicial investigation and decision, if you deem them expedient, in rela- tion to the respective rights of those claiming an interest in the same. Very respectfully, GEO. WOLF. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collect or ) 8{C. Custom-House, New York, October 24, 1839. Sir: You will see in the papers some accounts of a meeting that has been held for the two last evenings by the merchants, on the subject of our business affairs. The banks will not change their course, and cannot be broken. The merchants, to a great extent, 1 am afraid, must suspend. We had but about $1,300 due to the custom-house to-day, and there- fore I have not seen many persons, to ascertain how seveie the pressure has been ; but it is undoubtedly severe. 1 have not yet heard of any failures to-day that can be vouched for, though it is said some French houses have faltered and their fate is to be decided by what may grow out of the meeting this evening. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary oj the Treasury. 20* 492 Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, October 25, 1839. Sir: You will see by the papers the proceedings of the meeting of merchants last evening, and some things seem to have been said that ought to have been omitted; but I do not think that any essential harm can result from it. The banks, agreeably to the request of the meeting, held a convention this afternoon,' to respond on their part. The banks will not move from their ground, and it is not in the power of any one to break them ; but it is very desirable that the merchants should be assisted in this crisis, if there is power to do it, and 1 verily believe the banks can extend with safety, and that they gradually will. The bonds due to-day were all paid but two, and they will be in the morning. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, October 25, 1839. Sir : I have to request that, out of the funds in your hands to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, you will place $80,000 with the Manhattan Company, in special deposite to the credit of the Treasurer, and transmit the certificate of the cashier of that institution showing the de- posite has been made. This is required to be done for the purpose of aid in redeeming Trea- sury notes. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Esq. Collector. New York, October 27, 1839. Sir : The meeting of merchants went off very well last evening. A disposition was exhibited on the part of some agitators to enlarge the ex- citement, but it did not succeed. In the hurry of getting off my letters yesterday, 1 omitted to state to you that I thought, in making your arrangements and estimates for means to meet the calls upon the Treasury, you should take into consideration the great probability of veiy large exports of goods for drawbacks. In addition to the goods on which duty has been paid, the public stores are full; and if the season for sales was not principally over, the general ab- sence of confidence and the difficulty of raising money would tend to stop all sales, and therefore vast amounts will be exposed as a means of rais- ing money, as well as affording a small profit in the transaction, if the im- portation of the same article is again made, by reason of the reduction that takes place on the 3lst of December next. From present appearances, and from what I have heard, I am inclined to think that this course will be adopted to a considerable extent, and it may affect materially the means of the Department to meet its engage- Rep. No. 669. 493 loents; and it might, therefore, be expedient to postpone the redemption of Treasury notes to the longest period practicable. I send you the Sunday Morning News, giving an account of the pro- ceedings of the meeting of last evening. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House New York, October 29, 1339. Sir: We received to-day another $10,000 Treasury note, payable to Phoenix Bank of Hartford. Tbey had the precaution (certainly a very commendable prudence) to endorse it without recourse. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary oj the Treasury. P. S. We have taken no more of these notes. We have in all $35,000 this week, which exhausts your available funds. J. HOYT. . Treasury Department, October 31, 1839. Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th in- stant, as to the payment of a Treasury note ($10,000) issued to the Phce- uix Bank of Hartford. I have remonstrated with that bank on the subject of parting with the Treasury notes issued under an express stipulation to hold them, but it seems without effect. They have not many more. Neither this bank nor its assignees deserve any peculiar facilities in carrying out this violation of a positive agreement. I a-m, &c. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of Ihe Treasury, j. Hoyt, Collector. Custom- House, New York, October 31, 1839. Sir : The Secretary of the Treasury having given me the indemnity 1 required for paying the protest fund into the Treasury, I have to inform you of the same, and that 1 consider the interest on the amount appear- ing on the statement filed with your bank on the 20th instant ceases this day. The interest due you can compute at your leisure, and adjust the same, Respectfully, • J. HOYT. K. Withers, Esq., Cashier, fyc. New York. Rep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, November 4, 1839. Sir: I have received a letter from the deputy naval officer, in answer to a communication I addressed you this morning on the subject of a per- mit tor the passengers' baggage by the Great Western. It is not deemed satisfactory ; and, to the end that the public business may be transacted as it should be done, I will take occasion to lay the matter befoie the Sec- retary of the Treasury for his action thereon. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. S. Coe, Esq., Naval Officer. Custom-House, New York, November 4, 1S30. Sip: The enclosed permit has been returned to this office by the a£e:,c of the Great Western, stating that you had refused your signature to it. I have to request that I may be informed, in writing, the reason of your withholding such signature. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Wm. S. Coe, Esq., Naval Officer. Custom-House, New York, November 4, 1839. Sir : I have heretofore informed you that I was not in the habit of for- mally reporting to you the small seizures made by the night watch, but when enough was collected to justify a proceeding, so as not to bring the United States in debt, I sent them to the district attorney, and had them si[ included in one information, fn pursuance of this practice, I reported t<9 the district attorney, on the 6th of August, a case of the kind; a copy •of the letter I now send you. The first two bales I reported to you, with other seizures on the same day. It turned out afterwards that a defence was to be made to these bales, and therefore they were not included in the information ieferred £o. And it also afterwards turned out that the cases H. W. 62 i and 622 were not forfeited, and they were released for causes stated in a letter from the district attorney — a copy of which I now send you, under date of (he 18th of September last. Upon this statement of the case, it so happened, I am very sorry to say, there was not enough left to be covered by the information to pay ex- penses, as appears by the amounts this day rendered by the clerk of the court, and I was therefore compelled to pay a portion of the costs, which E did this day. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. H. D. Gilpin, Esq., Solicitor of the Treasury. Rep. No. 669. 495 Custom-House, New York, November 5, 1S39. Sir: i send you a copy of a letter I addressed to George Wolf, the collector at your city, under date of 30th September last, and also a copy of a letter from George Wolf to me, under date of 24th October, by which you will understand that we are at variance on a matter of law, which it is desirable to adjust in the most amicable and friendly manner the notice of the case will admit of, with reference to the rights and in- terests of those we respectfully represent. I therefore desire the benefit of your professional services in the premises. 1 do not know the amount in controversy, but the Governor will inform you. It is the principle that must be settled; the amount in controversy is of no moment. The action must be in such a form and in such a tribunal as will enable us to get the case to the Supreme Court of the United States at as early a day as may be practicable. I presume the suit must be commenced in my name, but the amount I think is not large enough — that is, the portionbelonging to me — to be able to take it up to the Supreme Court of the United States; and, as consent ■will not give jurisdiction, you can only, as I see, make a case, and state the claim at a sufficiently large sum to effect the object. I will, at this stage of the case, omit to go more at large. You will let'me know the appropriate fee to be sent to you, when it will be forwarded. I would be glad to hear from you. Yours, respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. John K. Kane, Esq., Counsellor at Law, Philadelphia. Custom-House, New York, November 6, 1839. Sir : We have had a very heavy day to-day, and, considering the times., the bonds have been very well met. There are twenty-six lying over, but every one of them will be paid no doubt in the morning. The num- ber payable were 306. Among others, was one oil bond — that is, a bond i^iven lor- duties on oil — which is to be refunded under the circular issued by you some time ago. The papers are now in a course of preparation tc obtain the remission; and I did not think, under these circumstances, con- sidering the great pressure for money, that I had the moral right to re- quire the payment of it, or to put it in suit. Though the Treasury is poor, the commissioners under the u fire law r! are endeavoring to aid the merchants all they can, by getting through with as many cases as the}' can, though the commissioners have but very little time to devote to that duty. We shall, undoubtedly, dispose of a good many cases in the course of the season, and, in your financial arrangements, no doubt you will bear it in mind. I do not hear- of any failures to-day. 1 am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. 496 Eep. No. 669. Treasury Department, Office of the Solicitor, November 6, 1839. Sir: I had the horror to receive your letter of the 4th instant, encios- i ing that of the collector of JNew York, dated the 1st instant, and 1 have JI consulted with the Attorney General in relation to it. In our letter of the 28th October, stating that the amount ascertained, j on a final judgment in the cases therein referred to ought to be refunded, 1 it was intended to include the costs incurred by and payable to the plain* tiff and taxed by the court — ihey being considered as part of the judgment, I As to the costs and expenses incurred by the collector in defending such suits, it is proper that they should be allowed in the settlement of his | accounts, in the same manner as in other suits connected with the revenue and paid by the collector. Should it be deemed advisable at any time to employ any other counsel than the district attorney, or should any com- ; pensation other than the fees and allowances specifically provided by raw be thought proper, it will be the duty of the collector to submit it to ihe Secretary of the Treasury for his approbation; and, in that and all similar i cases, that approbation must be his voucher for its payment. The letter of • the collector is herewith returned. Respectfully, H. D. GILPIN, Solicitor of the Treasury. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, November 6, 1839. Sir : I have your several letters of the 10th and 25th September and 17th October last. In reference to your claim in the case of S. R. Wood, alluded to in your letter of the 10th September, I have to state that there is an informer on this side the water. The suit against Wood was commenced early in Sep- tember, 1838, and your letter referring to the case bears date the 20th o that month, and was received by me the 16th of October, by which you will perceive that the person on this side has a prior right over you. I wrote you on the 20th of October last, say 1838, that we had many other persons situated as Mr. Wood was; and Mr. Broadbent, the person named in your letter of the 17th of October last, is one of the persons. We have some of his goods under seizure, and have had writs out against him for a long time. He left this city last June, in the Great Western, the day after the trial of Wood was completed. Mr. Bottomley's goods, referred to by you, were seized on the 23d of April, 1838; and, consequently, the information in your letter of the 31st of May, 1838, did not contain the information on which our proceedings were predicated, and, moreover, there was a person claimed to be an informer on this side. In your letter of the 25th of September, which reached me yesterday, you state a circumstance which undoubtedly was connected with an in- tended fraud on the revenue — I allude to the presentation of invoices by John Bradbury, William Piatt, Francis f. Buckley, William K. Sehofield; Rep. No. 669. 49? tout you omitted one important particular — that is, the marks and numbers of the cases represented by the invoices. If you can ascertain this, we can find the goods, and with them no doubt the evidence of the fraud. The fact is, no doubt, that the goods have been in store for some time; but they dare not enter them on the invoices which came out with them, and therefore they send back and get fresh invoices. This was the case with Bottomley, as I wrote you August 15, 1838. 1 hope you will be able to send me the marks and numbers, or the ship by which the goods came ; if so, it is a case for you I have no doubt. 1 notice particularly what* you say in relation to commissions. I have sent a copy of your letter to the district attorney, and requested him to make the arrangement. We have now notices for several commissions which will go out by the Great Western, and I shall make the effort to get your name in the com- mission. I shall write you by that vessel. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Francis B. Ogden, U. S. Consul, Liverpool. Custom-House, New York, November 6, 1839. Sir : On the other side 1 hand you a memorandum of the United States district attorney, in relation to the goods referred to in your letter of the 18th ultimo, by which you will be enabled to get at the information re- quired in your letter. I thank you for this renewed proof of your vigilance in protecting the interests of the United States. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Thomas Dennison, Esq., Consul of the United States, Bristol. Custom- House, New York, November 8, 1839. Sir : Do not fail to put the case of Harvey & Slagg in a position for a new trial. Several merchants have been to me, who are perfectly out- rageous at such a violation of all law and sense. I think I could safely swear to newly discovered testimony, so as to get a new trial on that ground. Mr. Russel has stated some facts to me that 4ire new. Think of this point. I am so mortified and upset at the result. I will leave no stone unturn- ed to punish the party who would attempt to overturn all law and morals. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom- House, New York, November 8, 1839. Sir : It seems to me we never can get along with the public business, so as to carry out the intentions of Congress, without an act explanatory of the 4th section of the act of 1833. 498 Rep. No. 669. I am aware that it is a troublesome question to touch; but such is the I absurdity, or something worse, of the decisions of the judges and jurors, 1 that we have nothing but one scene of confusion, and a constant effort on the part of the designing to evade what we suppose to be the plain im- port of the act of Congress. A case of this kind was tried yesterday. \ Messrs. Harvey & Slagg, on the 4th of June, entered four packages of 1 goods which they called " Orleans cloth," " worsted free." It appeared, on examination, that they were cotton and worsted; and they were seized . as forfeited by the 14th section of the act of 14th July, 1832. The mer- chants who have fairly paid duty on that species of goods had made com- plaints that a vast amount of cotton and worsted goods were entered free r and were by some means got through the custom-house undiscovered; and 3 considered the best way to break up the practice was to make an ex- ample and seize the goods. The cause was tried yesterday, and the goods were acquitted. The trial was published in the morning papers, and a claim has been made this morning to enter the like goods free. They were acquitted not upon proof, but upon the judge's charge and the liberal feeling of a jury who seem to have paid the same regard to their oaths that the importer in question did to his, when he swore that he was the owner of the goods while in fact they were consigned to him for sale. In reference to the jury, I have had occasion heretofore, if I recollect aright, to speak of the manner in which jurors are summoned in the courts of the United States, in this district. They are picked up by the marshal without any one to control him. I have now before me the panel of the present term of the district couit; and I do not think that there can, by any possibility, be selected twelve men from it who would, under any cir- cumstances, render a verdict for the United States. We tried another cause to-day with a like result. I cannot conscientiously change my course of action in these matters, and therefore shall not; and the consequence must necessarily be that the United States will have large bills of costs to pay, in each of which, whether the goods are condemned or acquitted, the fees are about the same. Considering the immense litigation we have at various ports, and the contrariety of decisions, I confess I cannot see how you are to avoid, in your annual report, asking for an explanatory law. It is alike due to the fair merchant, the revenue, and the officers of the Government whose duty it is to execute the law. The accumulation of suits against me, and the difficulty the Department has in giving me the proper indemnity, forms another reason for taking measures to avoid the difficulty. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Treasury Department, November 7, 1839. Sir: Your letter of the 1st instant was duly received, respecting the payment of the costs and expenses in the suits pending against you for the recovery of the excess of duties charged on merchandise, and was re- ferred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, with instructions to advise with Rep. No. 669. 499 the Attorney General, and report to me their views and recommendations on the subject. I now enclose a copy of the Solicitor's report, and have to remark that I shall be happy to conform to his recommendation in the matter stated therein. Respectfully, LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. Jesse Hoyt, Collector. Custom- House, New York, November 9, 1839. Sir: I return you the notice of Morton's for commission in the case o-f 7 bales and 9 bales woollens claimed by Samuel Bradbury. It would not answer at all to have Giles Shaw, or any other man by that name, to act as commissioner. I would take Whitehead as the man, though I have no particular choice as to the three names mentioned in your letter of the 5th instant. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. B. F. Butler, Esq., United States Attorney. Custom-House, New York, November 15, 1839. Sir: I enclose duplicate bills of the clerk of the district couit, in the case of Bottomley, which I have paid for you, ($14 85.) Please hand them to your marshal, and receive the amount from him. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. George Bancroft, Collector, Boston. P. S. Please to pay commissioner for closing the accounts of the Boston Free Press Company $7 for me, for subscription to Advocate to 1st Jan- uary, 1839. Custom -House, New York, November 16, 1839. Sir : I have this day transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer of the United States, for the receipts of this week, ending this day, the sum of $320,000. This includes the protest fund which was paid over this week, and accounts for the amount being so large. We have had large amounts paid to-day on bonds, and they have been uncommonly well met, considering the state of the money market. The steamer sail- ed to-day. but took no specie. Bills advanced about 2 per cent., and left off as 1 understood at 8 per cent, premium, but the transactions were not very large. We expect the British Queen to-morrow. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Trcusuri;. £00 Hep. No. 669. Custom-House, New York, November 23, 1839- il Sir : I have this day transferred to the separate credit of the Treasurer* of the United States, for the receipts of the week ending this day, tWij sum of $200,000. We have had rather a dull week, which we are no\ \ sorry to see, for it gives us the opportunity to review a little what we have heretofore done, and to correct errors that must necessarily be made in the amount of business we have done this year. Our business community stood much better than could have been anti-J cipated. The banks are strong, and in fact have more specie than is want- 1 ed for safety or profit, and they are gradually enlarging the time of dis- counts; and I think they will be able to continue this course, as the new« crop that will go forward in all due time will afford as much, in the shape of remittance, as will be required for the payment of goods, and the in- terest and the principal of the State debt held abroad is in the course of being paid off by the newspapers in a certain interest. The Queen is not yet arrived, and the speculations are various as to the cause therefor. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, November 25, 1839. Sir: I have your letter of the 22d instant, directing me to deposite $80,000 in the Manhattan Company to the special credit of the Trea- surer, which amount I have this day deposited, and charged to his ac- count, and transmitted the usual receipt to him. I am, &c. J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House, New York, November 26, 1839. Sir : I have your letter of the 23d instant, in relation to the counsel fee in the case against me personally for the recovery back of duties paid under protest, in which you say that " no difficulty exists in paying a suit- able compensation to any other counsel, and all other reasonable costs." This is all very proper, as no one ever supposed that any " compensation or costs" other than those which were " suitable and reasonable" would be charged. If they had been,«»y approbation would not have been given to them. Under this understanding of the matter, I have passed to the credit of the United States this day, on the books of this office, the sum of $2,108 42, the same sum received from the Bank of the State of New York for in- terest on the protest fund, which makes the sum of $5,511 98 for interest, which the United States have received on this fund, which I think is more Rep. No. 669. 501 than the litigation will cost ; but whether it is or not, I trust the First Au- ditor will not consider that I am to lose it. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Custom- House, New York, November 23, 1839. Sir: Mr. George A. Wasson, an officer in this department, has shown me a note, received from you this morning, concerning some goods taken by him, by my directions, from the store of Henry Dixon, No. 49 Cedar street. These goods were taken from the public store on the 21st instant, upon an entry sworn to by a person who had no competent authority to repre- sent Mr. Dixon, the alleged owner, and upon papers that wore a suspi- cious appearance. The invoice, or the paper called an invoice, purports to be dated at Morley the same day that the bill of lading bears date at Liverpool; and there are other circumstances attending the affair equally suspicious. After I had ordered the goods back to the store, I sent for the person who purported to act as the attorney for Mr. Dixon, to ask of him some explanation, with the view of saving any trouble or expense in the mat- ter; and he returned such a message as tended to increase my suspicions of the integrity of the transaction, and I therefore directed Mr. Wasson to go and take the goods, to the end that all of them 'might be examined. They have been so examined and found to be correct, and 1 have direct- ed Mr. Wasson to send them back to the store from which they were taken. I address you this letter in answer to one from you to Mr. Was- son. Respectfully, Jon. Miller, Esq., Counsellor at Law. J. HOYT, Collector. Custom- House, New York, Auditor's Office, November 30, 1839. Sir: The letter of E. & C. G. Feter, on the subject of certain bonds of theirs, having been by you referred to me, I have respectfully to re- port that, upon examination of the books of this office, I find that the bonds in question, to wit : Bond due December 8,1837 .... $1,179 Bond due December 10, 1837 Bond due December 19, 1837 516 - - - - 1,495 are standing open as unpaid. It appears, further, that these bonds form part of the large amount of missing bonds charged to Mr. Swartwout, upon the closing of his accounts, after his retirement from office. They are not, however, contained in Mr. Phillips's list, which was sent to the Treasury at the time of the in- 502 Rep. No. 669. vestigation of Mr. Swartwout's accounts by the Comptroller and the So- licitor. After the final accounts of Mr. Swartwout had been made up and trans- mitted to the Treasury, agreeably to the direction of those officers, Mr. Underwood, of the First Auditor's Office, who had come from Washing- ton with those gentlemen, recommended that a supplemental account of all missing bonds be made out and forwarded to the First Auditor, as a means n of aiding his office in the examination of Mr. Swartwout's bond account. This was accordingly done, and in that account will be found the three 1 bonds in que;>tion. I remain, &c. J. A. FLEMING, Auditor. Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector, fyc. Extract of a letter from J. Hoyt to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated Custom- House, New York, December 2, 1839. In my estimate for the receipts of next year, forwarded on the 4th of! November, I estimated that we should take in that month $500,000 in bonds, by which you will perceive that I fall short of the estimate $112,500, which 1 must admit is a bad beginning for the accuracy of myj views; but, on a revision of the estimate lor next year, 1 am unwilling to reduce it. I stated, in my letter giving the estimate, that but few orders had gone out for goods; and while the merchants all tell this, some of them quietly send out a partner to look after the matter, and probably to purchase, and in this way the attempt is made to humbug (to use a classical expression) each other, and give impressions to me not warranted by the true state of the case. Several persons of this kind go out to-day in the steamer and packets, which 1 should not have now known if the passports had not passed through my hands. 1 am, for these and other reasons, inclined to believe that we shall have rather larger importations than is generally believed. The country is able to consume, and there is no very large stock of goods on hand. Wi shall have larger importations from France, in proportion, than from Eng- land. Many of the artisans, educated in the latter country, are retreating to the former, with their manufacturing establishments, because living is so much cheaper in France, and latterly capital also; and the impression is fast gaining ground that England has seen her best days, and hence the continued complaints that there is no demand for yarns for the continent. Our merchants, who are watching for favorable opportunities to go into operations in cotton, are looking with great interest on this view of the case, materially affecting the value of the raw material in England ; but whether manufactured in France or England, it does not alter the revenue for us, if all proper diligence is exercised to counteract the superior inge- nuity of the French in concealing the material of which the manufacture is made. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Hep. No. 669. 503 Custom-House, New York, December 2, 1S39. Gentlemen : 1 received in due course your letter of the 29th of Oc- tober, and notice what you say in relation to the execution of commissions from this country . Annexed is a list of commissions, from No. 1 to No. 12 inclusive, that Baltimore. . C Howard Lsqs., ) Custom-House, 3&ew York, January 21, 1841. Sir : Enclosed I hand you a narrative at suit of George Willison, in the superior court, which was served on me this day, and request that you will take charge of the defence of the same. Respectfully, J. HOYT, Collector, B. F. Butler, Esq., New York. Kep. "No. 669. 551 Custom-House, New York, January 22, 1841. Sir : I enclose you, herewith, a copy of a circular from the Comptrol- er, under date of the 19th instant, exempting gunny clolh or bags and worsted plush from duty. You will perceive, on reference to the circular, that your opinion is re- quisite in the matter; and, as 1 am called on to refund, 1 would be obliged o you for that opinion at your earliest convenience. We had no trial in eference to the duty on gunny cloth in this district, but the worsted plush :ase you have tried twice, and it is lor you to say whether we can vary he result on that article if tried again. Respect fully, E. F. Butler, Esq., United States District Attorney. IiOYT, Collector, Custom-House, New York, January 23, 1841. Sir : I deposited this morning with the receiver general, to the credit )f the United States, the sum of $.35,000. The Treasury notes taken aie as follows, viz: January 20th . - - - 8511, 196 12 January 21st - - - - - 3,251 56 Knuary 22d .... - C,359 63 30,807,31 1 taf voi A gentleman had to pay about $ 1 ,300 of bonds to-day, and he had Treasury notes for $3,100. To exhaust the amount, he bought tUe notes vfi Ive had given out to other persons of bonds payable to-day, and proposed o take up his neighbors' bonds also. 1 decided that 1 could not permi! s 05 l.his; that I had no right to deliver the bonds of one person to a third m jarty who had no connexion with it ; and that he had a right to sell his Treasury notes to his friends who could come and take up their own bonds with them. He replied, that he should, in that case, be compelled o lose upon them. This did not alter the case in my opinion, and I hereiore adhered to that decision. 1 state it to you lest you may see '"•oniething said in the newspapers on the subject, as this is the me- dium through which complaints are very apt to be made, and also that feu may have the opportunity to revoke the decision if you think it should be changed. The commercial news by the Boston steamer is (as he phrase runs) u a shade belter." 1 learn that the Liverpool packet that sailed on the 1st instant has a freight list ol £1,700, which is the largest of the season. Very respectfully, j: HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secre/aru of the Treasury. Custom-House, New York, January 29, 1841. Sip. : 1 have your letter of the 27th instant, covering a copy of one Rep. No. 669. from the First Comptroller to you under date of 25th instant, in relation to the suspended items in the account current of the 30th September, 2840. That officer says that " the three first items were finally acted upon and rejected by this office on the 23d of December, and of which the collector was advised by letter bearing that date, and which, it is pre- sumed, must have reached the collector on or before the 31st of Decem- ber." There was no need for indulging any presumption on the subject. I received the letter referred to by him on the 26th of December, and I prepared, as soon as I could obtain the leisure time, an answer to it, which I transmitted under date of the 30th of that month — a copy of which I now send you. As 1 am apprehensive that you may not have been put in possession of all that has passed on this subject between the account- ing officers and myself, I beg to give a history of the controversy from its origin to the present tin e, without troubling you with copies of the voluminous correspondence, which may be found, no doubt, on file in the Comptroller's office. 1st. In November, 1838, when Mr. Underwood, from the First Audi- tor's office, came to this city to examine the accounts of my predecessor in office, I was about preparing my accounts to transmit to the office he represented on this occasion ; and, in the course of a casual conversation in reference to my accounts, he referred to a case decided by Judge Story, wherein Pearce and the United States were parties, which had been adopted by the Treasury Department as a rule for its government, and which allowed a collector a year's compensation from the fund appropriated to his pay- ment, though such collector might not have been in office the whole year. 2d. I assumed that this information was correct, and I caused my ac- counts of fees and emoluments to be made out for that year within 40 days from the 31st December, upon the basis of what I supposed was the law of the Department, without looking to the decision referred to with any special attention. The accounts were audited in due course, and a statement from the Department was sent back, which repudiated the prin- ciple I had understood to be the true one upon the authority of the deci- sion referred to. 3d. This led me to an investigation of the subject, when I was satisfied that the emolument account, as it is commonly called, was made out upon a wrong view of the law applicable to the subject. I accordingly address- ed a fetter to the Comptroller, under date of the 14th November, 1839, requesting him to return me the account, to enable me to amend it in con- formity to what I considered to be the law. He replied, that I might send a supplemental account, indicating my views. I sent that supple- mental account on the 21st day of that month, having given in my letter of the 14th full explanation of my understanding of the law upon which the correctness of that supplemental account depended. 4th. I forwarded the account of the same name for the year 1839, made out upon substantially the same principle as that of ln38, to the First Auditor, on the 1st day of February, 1840, verified according to the provisions of the act of 2d March. 1799. 5th. Having received no reply in relation to this matter, I caused en- tries to be made on the books of this office in the beginning of April, 1840, of the transaction, so as to introduce the subject into the regular accounts of the customs, to the end that it might receive such aciion as to place the rights of those interested in the proper form of adjustment. Eep. No. 669, 553 6th. On the 10th of August, 1840, I received a communication from the Department on the subject, to which I immediately replied, where the affair rested till I received the letter from the Comptroller, before re- ferred to, under date of 23d of December last. The preceding is a brief history of the case, and from which you will see, whatever may be the result, that I came into the conflict from an im- pression, founded on good evidence, that the rule of the Department had been changed in my case as the first one, since the decision of Judge Story in 1837, and that the present condition of my accounts, in this re- spect, is owing to a mature investigation into the right of the First Audi- tor to alter the first emolument account I presented to him. You will also see that this is not a new question raised to answer a temporary ob- ject, but that the facts stated carry in themselves evidence of the sincer- ity of my belief in the soundness of my position. It has been my misfor- tune to differ with you, in reference to our respective rights and duties, under the laws which we are alike bound to obey, from my first entrance into office, commencing with the power of appointing to office, and end- ing with the question of a bond under the act of July 4, 1840. In most of the cases my views have been sustained, and I have the satisfaction of believing that I have been right in all of them. With these preliminary remarks, I will answer inquiries, which were : " 1st. Whether I have deposited the amount referred to with the re- ceiver general ? "2d. If not, state my reasons for not doing so ?" To the 1st question, I answer in the negative. To the second I have to say — 1st. That I entertained no shadow of doubt as to my legal right to the fund in question. If it is not manifest, on the argument which 1 have already submitted, additional strength may be added to my views of the construction of the law by reference to the act of 1789 and of 1790, to which may be traced, the first oiigin of the distinction between "fees and per centage " — in other acts, " fees and commissions," the latter word having by subsequent laws settled down into the term "emolument." 2d. The question at issue is not one of new accounts. There is no dispute about items or amounts. These have been furnished, asd that under oath, (the only accounts required to be furnished under oath;) and the question and the only question involved is a legal one, and that is to whom does the fund belong. I have supposed, and still suppose, that, if the item is taken out of the general account current, and the money paid over as required, this would be an end of the question, and that it could not thereafter be raised ; and I had also supposed that the Comptroller had appreciated the justice and importance of this view of the case, as present- ed by me in the letter to him of the 30th December, before referred to, and that the idea of moving for execution before trial, especially as competent bail had already been put in, was, from these considerations, abandoned. 3d. I did consider, and continue to consider, it to be my duty to adhere tenaciously to all my legal rights, from the position in which the account- ing officers have put me in another respect. I will explain this. In my accounts of the 4th quarter of 1838, I presented, among other accounts, that of "fines, penalties, and forfeitures, made up upon the principle on which such accounts have been made up, as I understand and believe, from the adoption of the Constitution and the first revenue act under it. 554 Rep. No. 669. I had distributed the funds appertaining to that account in conformity to that principle, and the same was regularly audited and passed by the ac- counting officers. Further distributions were made upon the same prin- ciple, and in the next quarter's account the officers alluded to changed the principles. I remonstrated against that change, amd cited their own acts as a proof of the correctness of my accounts, and, as a convenient mode of disposing of that argument, they went back to the accounts of 1838, and altered it to conform to the new light which had broke in upon them, and I was left to get back the money 1 had paid out on the faith of- their decisions the best way I could, which I have not been able to do; and, not content with this, 1 was called on, by letter from the Comptroller, on the 23d of December last, to deposite an amount exceeding $11,000, which I had so deposited with the receiver general. Under such a sys- tem of accountability, as well as responsibility, it is, I repeat, a duty 1 owe to myself, as well as those who are bound for me, to adhere to all the rights the law awards to me. It would thus appear, that, while the ac- counting officers do not hesitate to change a rule which has existed for their government from 1789 till it was changed by them in 1839 to my prejudice, they meet the argument on which 1 found my claims chiefly by the suggestion that it is contrary to the usage in the accounting offices, though such usage would seem to be of a much more recent date. 1 do not contend, bu^ on the contrary deny, that the usage of the Department makes laws, or even furnishes controlling evidence of what the law iV> against me, who choose to question the legality of the usage. 1 advert to it only for the purpose of showing what a convenient virtue it has, as dealt with by the accounting officers. These are briefly my reasons for not having complied with the direc- tions of the Comptroller in his letter of the 23d of December, and to my mind they are just and satisfactory. I think they should be so to ffeo Department. At the same time, I can appreciate the embarrassment the accounting officers "must be under, in admitting that in point of law 1 am right in the views 1 have presented ; but this in no wise ought to interfere with the sound legal construction of the various acts out of which the question arises. 1 intended in another place to have given you the following extract of a letter 1 addressed the Comptroller on the subject, as early as the 14th of November, 1839, for the purpose of showing you the serious aspect in which 1 viewed the matter from the beginning: " 1 am induced to go into this discussion now,, as it is very probable Congress may legislate at the next session on this subject, when it will be proper for it to declare whether I have rightly interpreted its mean- ing. That I have given the subject a strict legal interpretation, i have no doubt, unless 1 have omitted in my searches to find the act under which the Department seems to have been heretofore governed. M You will here perceive I refer the Department to Congress. I did the same thing in our controversy respecting the protest fund, when legisla- tion was had, as it might be had in the present instance for future cases, though it might not settle the law for the present one. Respectfully^ J. HOYT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury. Rep, No. 669, 555 Custom- Mouse, New York, January 30, 1841. Sir : I deposited this morning with the receiver general, to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, the sum of $25,000, (say twenty- five thousand dollars.) Treasury notes taken are follows, viz ; January 27 - $15,721 40 January 28 9,216 50 January 29 955 03 25,893 02 You will perceive a great falling off in amount of Treasury notes yes- terday. There was only one hond due yesterday, and that for $1,100, and the weather was had, which limited the amount of husiness. Your letter of the 27th instant, calling my attention to the last weekly return, is before me, and you seem to suppose that I can anticipate the probable amount of receipts on Saturday of each week. We know the amount of bonds payable to be sure, but whether they will be paid in Treasury notes or money, we cannot tell ; nor can we at all tell the amount of cash duties in advance — for some days in this month they have been over §30,000, and then as low as $4,000. It so happen- ed, on Saturday, they were larger, in consequence of the efforts to get to auction the damaged goods by the Gar rick ; but we can never, till the entry is brought to the cashier's office, know what time the duty is to be paid. The petty tricks that are constantly played off upon us lenders the diffi- culty of forming an accurate estimate of the amount of available funds in any day ahead greater than usual. For instance, our rule is to send bonds that lie to the district attorney at one o'clock of the day after they are due. We have had cases where a merchant would let his bond lie over and call next morning to pay it with a Treasury note, by which he sought to gain an additional day's interest on the note. Since Treasury notes have been under par, operations of this kind have been performed. A person having a bond to pay calls in the morning and pays in Treasury notes. At one or two o'clock a debenture certificate is presented, and payment, called for, by which operation he (legally to be sure, but rather unjustly) makes the amount of the discount on the Treasury note out of the United States, the effect of which is to deprive us of that amount of available funds. Several large houses are in the constant habit of doing this. When the bond is paid, the debenture is due ; and rich houses, who have plenty of funds, could not use them better than to take up bonds in anticipation, by the process alluded to. I cannot refuse to take the pay of bonds in ad- vance, nor can I refuse to take such pay in Treasury notes, or refuse the payment of a debenture when the bond is paid. I would be glad to know, then, how 1 can tell, under these circum- stances, very accurately — 1st. What the receipts are to be ; or 2d. What the payments are to be. I wrote you, on the 25th instant, that we had no bonds due that day, and gave you some account of the large payments ; and I have frequent- ly told you that the balance appearing on the weekly return was not the actual cash balance. For instance, we count all the vouchers for sums re- funded for surplus deposites as cash, till I get back from Washington, the 24* 556 Rep. No. 669. draft which is monthly sent to me; and, in fine, for all disbursements (of which there are many) which cannot for some reason or other be debited in regular account to the United States, are counted as cash, so far as the weekly return is concerned. At this season of the yeai, we cannot avoid making advances to officers who have families to support, intermediate the month when they are paid ; but this is not charged to the United States till the end of the month. We have advanced to the light-house at the Highlands the amounts in relation to which we cannot charge till the work is finished, as we were compelled to the job by days' work, and to purchase the materials ourselves. Very respectfully, &c. J. 110 YT, Collector. Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury* Custom -House, New York, February 2, 1841. Sir ; Your letter of the 30th instant^ addressed to Walter Bowne and Jesse Hoyt, commissioners of the new custom-house, is before me. You request from us a joint report on the subject of a communication, under date of the 16th January last, addressed to the Department by Mr. Frazee-, late superintendent and architect of the building referred to, The sub stance of the communication I understand, from your letter, to be as fol- lows : 1st. Mr. Frazee complains of being discharged from the superintend dence while there was work to be done, and he states that there were then 35 men employed in the building, 2d. Mr. Frazee protests against the course pursued by Mr. Bowne, and states he is destroying the appearance of the building, and, as proof of this, refers to the wooden casements and fly doors at the entrance, &c. 3d. Mr. Frazee also object3 to Mr. Bowne's manner of arranging the furniture, &e. 4th. He also objects to the iron work being painted white, and argues in favor of bronzing, &e. Mr. Bowne submitted to me, to-day, a letter which he had himself sign- ed, and requested me to sign ii also, which I would not do, for the reason that I differ with him entirely in relation to the whole matter, and there- fore a joint report cannot be made. The following are my opinions in re- lation to the subject, so far as you have requested a joint report, in the order in which Mr. Frazee represents it to you, and as I have abbreviated it in the preceding abstract. 1st. As to the discharge of Mr. Frazee. 1 was not consulted in relation to his discharge, and could not have con sented to it, if I had been consulted, for the following reasons : i 1st. It would have been in violation of the spirit of the contract by which he was employed, as the architect and superintendent of the build * mg, to have dismissed him, except for cause, before the building was com* pleted; and that it was not completed when he was dismissed is perfectly certain, unless mechanics of all sorts and laborers of all descriptions have been since engaged in doing upon the building that which was useless and unnecessary, and which, if the building had been completed, could only Rep. No. 669. 557 have been performed for the purpose of undoing what has already been done. It is not now completed upon any other idea than the one la3t stated. I was in the building less than 15 minutes since, and I left four stone cutters, four masons, and four laborers very hard at work inside the building, in the basement story; in addition to which, blacksmiths were going in and out in reference to the work. I say nothing of those at work outside the building, for this does not affect the question of completion so far as occupancy is concerned, though it may affect the question so far as Mr. Frazee's rights are concerned. I have no reason to doubt, though I do not know the fact, that the number of men stated by Mr. Frazee to have been employed at work on the building is correct. 2d. It has already been contended by Mr. Bowne, until within a very short time, that he had nothing to do with finishing the building, and I had therefore no one on whom I could rely but Mr. Frazee, for making the proper arrangement in this respect. His services I deemed, in a mat- ter of this kind, for the short period they might be required, of an impor- tance greatly beyond the expenses of commanding them. 3d. I therefore considered it unwise and inexpedient to dismiss Mr. Frazee, and I think great delay will arise in the occupancy of the build- ing from that cause. In giving this opinion, I will not conceal another opinion I entertain as honestly as that already expressed, that there has been a consumption of time in the construction of the buildings which to me is wholly unaccountable, and, I would add, if my knowledge of such subjects would justify it, wholly inexcusable; but I cannot look upon these circumstances as a sufficient justification, at this juncture, for neglecting matters the due observance of which can alone secure the benefits con- templated from previous expenditures. It seems to be quite preposterous to arouse, at this late day, from the lethargy of years. Hence, the effort to satisfy the Department that the building is completed, when in fact it is not, has not and will not receive my countenance. As to the 2d proposition of Mr. Frazee, viz : u The destroying the ap- pearance of the building,' 5 &c. In reference to this, I have to say that, in my judgment, the wooden casements and doors painted green, as they are outside the iron door, is in very bad keeping with the building, and certainly disfigures it. About the beginning of January, if I remember right, I urged upon Mr. Bowne the necessity of having "fly doors'' in- side the iron doors, and pointed out the manner I thought they should be arranged. He subsequently came to the office, with a carpenter, to see me on the subject, when I referred to my former conversation, and stated that my view remained the same. They left me under an impression, on my part, that they were to be inside, and that the iron doors were not to. be concealed. When I first saw the manner in which they were being put up, I went to the carpenter and objected to it, and also to Mr. Swan, the clerk of the commissioners, who promised to speak to Mr. Bowne on the subject. But the work went on, and I made up my mind that my sug- gestions had no influence with Mr. Bowne, as evinced from the course he had taken, and therefore it was not expedient for me to interfere, but leave the responsibility with him. But as you have called upon me to report, I must say that, in addition to their appearance, they do not answer the pur- poses designed. The object was two fold : 1st To avoid the necessity of opening so massive a door as the iron ; and 55 8 Rep, No. Stifl. 2d. To prevent a current of air passing in and through the building when the door was open. To avoid the latter, the door should have been inside and not outside the building, and of the iron door. On opening the fly door, and permit- ting it to fall back by its own weight, a reverberation is made, by a report at ting upon the ear with about the same sensation as would the discharge of a cannon of 24 pound calibre, at (lie distance of a quarter of a mile. Such is the descriplion and simile made to me by two gentlemen whom 1 re- quested to make the experiment. With six or seven hundred persons go- ing in and out of the building a day, at two entrances, similarly situated, would render it impossible, in consequence of the noise, to transact busi- ness. This must be remedied, and fly doors must be put up inside also, to prevent a circulation of air. 3d. The arrangement of the furniture, &c. I am not certain that I un- derstand this part of the communication of Mr. Frazee, but what 1 know of this branch of the subject is simply this : Some time after I had forward- ed the estimate 1 procured according to your directions through Mr. Fra- zee, Mr. Bowne called upon me to say that he thought Mr. Frazee's plan, which 1 had sanctioned, was not the best one for the arrangement of the rotundo, commonly called the " collector's 1 room." He requested me to meet him at the building at an hour agreed upon, which I did on the 12th of January, for the purpose of reconsidering the subject. I did meet him, when he exhibited a drawing he had procured of his own views. Upon examining it, I agreed with him as to the shape of the counter that should be put up in that room. 1 thought the plan he proposed would give us more room than the plan of Mr. Frazee. 1 wrote him a letter, on that day, to that effect — a copy of which 1 send you. That counter is now in the progress of completion, and 1 have but one remark to make in relation to it, which is, that I do not think that there could be found a respectable farmer in New Hampshire, or any other State in the Union where fine timber is reasonably plenty, that would not hesitate in putting such in- terior boards in a barn yard fence as is worked into the counter alluded to ; and this opinion I expressed to Mr. Bowne to-day, and his only reply was, that I must wait for the paint to be put on. In addition to the coun- ter which Mr. Bowne has ordered to be put up, he has, J- learn, ordered four desks to be made of similar materials; to all which I make no sort of objections, but only state the facts as I understand them. The propriety of the arrangement belongs to the decision of others. I know of no other proceeding, in relation to furniture, with which Mr. Bowne has any con- nexion ; and how far it is entitled to be dignified with the appellation of an arrangement in relation to furniture for the new custom-house, 1 will not undertake to say. 4th. In relation to painting the iron work, I have to remark — 1st. I do not profess to know, of my own knowledge or experience, any thing in relation to this subject; but I have frequently been spoken to by others, in tones of astonishment, that we painted the iron work white. My answer has invariably been, that we wanted all light we could get, and that white paint would give us greater benefits, in this respect, than any other color. In passing through the building to-day with a gentle- man whose attention had not been called to the subject, he remarked to what an extent the paint had become soiled, and that bronze was a better color for the reason that, in a building of that kind, there was at all times Rep. No. 669. 559 more or less moisture, and the dust that settled upon the white paint would adhere and discolor it, when such would not be the case with bionze. This seems to be reasonable. The white paint is now very much soiled, and I think we have no additional light for it. I am therefore inclined to believe that bronze would be better. 1 have gone through, 1 believe, all the points of inquiry in your letter, and with more details, probably, than will be interesting; to you, and cer- tainly much more at length than was agreeable to me; but there is mystery in this affair which 1 have not been able to and cannot now solve. Prior to the 27th of October, Mr. Bowne reported, as you informed me, t hat the building was finished, ready for the reception of the officers of the customs. 1 have seen to-day a certificate in these words, viz : "No workmen have been employed or required in the new custom- house since Christmas last. " WILLIAM SWAN, on the subject of fees - 177 terrified at the iniquity of the age" - 177 amount of fees received by - - 178 his lees in the compromise cases - 178 fakes fees contrary to law - « - 179 Bottomiy, case of compromise with ----- 98 Hoyt violates his stipulation with - - - - 114 seizure of goods of, by Hoyt - - - ** - 1 15 Bank of the State of New York, Hoyt's account with - - - 120 Bradley, \V. A., his letter to Walter Forward - - - 194 his letter to John Tyler - - - - 194 British Government defrauded of five pounds fifteen shillings : - ' ' - 328 a Cartage, expense of- - - - - = - 6 frauds in- - - - - - - 5 price of- - - - - - - 6 amount of, in three years ----- 6 fraud in- - - ~ - - - 6 no charge made in payment of, by Curtis 71 amount received by Wasson for - - = - = 142 Carts privileged = = - 5 Cairns, W., instrument of Collector Hoyt = 8 ii INDEX. Cairns, W., placed in (he woollens loft - objects to going there without additional pay arrangements with, by Hoyt - hopes Van Buren will be elected - gets control of the woollens loft - raises the standard of value - witnesses in relation to - Hoyt refuses to let his appraisements be disturbed his mode of appraisement - standing witness, of Hoyt - calendar of court arranged to meet his convenience his conduct towards Labron & Ives his conduct generally - contradicts his own oath - objects of, in his appointment to woollens loft dismissed by Edward Curtis - swears falsely - despatched to seize goods in Philadelphia nature of his oath - Curtis, E., no abuses corrected by removes Cairns from offiee - removes Wasson - - - - - privy to Wasson' s fraud in cartage - keeps Wasson and Cairns in office as instruments - his administration of custom-house - motives for appointment - retains Cairns and Wasson - his appointment urged by American manufactures - testimony of A. H. Smith relative to his appointment urged by Eastern manufacturers testimony of Thatcher Tucker, relative to his appointment conditions of his appointment - machinery of, to break down commerce - appointed by the influence of domestic manufactures letter to, relative to official documents published in the Standard his answer - denied having books of official correspondence of Hoyt expenditure of pays Wasson large amount of cartage - his stationery bills - extravagance of - adds a statement in copy of letter not in the original stationery, account of, continued - appoints commissioners to examine his cash account instigates a call for this account - overpays measurers' fees - illegality of payment - bargains with Riall for office - arrangements with Riall to hold office - questions to, as to sale of offices, and answers denies any improper motives - increases expense at New York custom house exceeds all previous collectors in expenses employs more officers - removes officers who testify - sells an office to John Whitaker ... his letter to the Secretary of the Treasury explaining increase of charged with corruption attempts to get Dwight removed from commissioner's room prevents the officers from testifying - guilty of false swearing . . _ _ contradicts his own oath - Cashier how to be appointed - subject to control of collector - (Phillips) receives money - expenses Page. 54 61 62 63 63 64 65 65 66 66 66 67 68 69 81 70 80 78 80 17 70 70 71 St 133 133 133 134 134 134 134 135 13C 137 138 138 138 142 142 .147 147 148 149 150 152 153 153 156 158 159 159 169 172 173 176 255 259 265 267 268 273 274 40 120 131 INDEX. iii Page. Cashier, (Bleecker) removed from office by Curtis, after testifying - - 156 (Waters) refuses to answer questions of commissioners - - 176 should be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury - - 185 Cox, W. 8., his statement of interference by domestic manufacturers - - 45 Combination of manufacturers to destroy the importation of goods - 51 mode of proceeding - - 52 Campbell, James, his confessions - 51 agreement of, with Hoyt to testify - - ' - 106 nature of testimony to be given by - - - - 106 letter of Hoyt relative to - 333 character of, by Hoyt, as a witness ... 333 not to be prosecuted if he testifies to the truth - - 334 refuses to testify when put on the stand - 334 Commissions charged by Hoyt ------ 130 Compromises, history of - - - - - 96 names of persons who agreed to 98 amounts paid on - - - - - - 98 further of - - - - 98, 99 settlement of - - - - - 100 history of, as to La Chaise & Fouche - 105 Correspondence between commissioners and E. Curtis, relative to publication in the 4 ' New York Standard" - 138 statements relative to Hoyt's books of - * - 139, 140 retention of Hoyt's books of, delays report of commissioners - 143 Congress, pa- s a law as to the mode of selecting juries - - 95 D. Decas^-e and Miege, history of the case of - - - - - 113 Hoyt's motives for prosecution of - - - 113 letters concerning. (See Letters) - * - - 301, 320 Defalcation of Jesse Hoyt - - - - - -119 Deposites of collector Hoyt in bank, made in his own name - 120 "Debenture laws, sources of fraud - 182 Dwight, G. A.j attempts of Curtis to procure his removal - 267 his compensation - 268 employed by Commissioner Kelly, by direction of Mr. Ewing - ' 268 payment to - - ' - - 268 Poindexter's letter to John Tyler relative to - - 269 efforts of Curtis to procure his removal - - - 269 his account allowed by the Secretary of the Treasury - 271 E. Exports, amount of, in 1839 and 1840 - 119 Edgar, A., (storekeeper,) his reforms - - - - 144 Expenditures in the New York custom-house - 170 comparative table of - - - - 171 increased under E. Curtis ----- 172 amount of gradual increase since 1825 - 174 causes assigned for increase of 1 74 these alleged causes fallacious - - - 174 F. Felt, David, testimony of - - - - - 15, 16 Fleming, (Auditor,) his conduct iu auditing accounts 22 orders of, for stationery 22 is contradicted by other witnesses - - - 23 his veracity and integrity questioned - - - 23 Fire in Front street ------- 32 statement of goods saved from, and sold 32 history of - - - - - - -32 frauds committed by officers at - - - - - 33 public sale of goods saved from ----- 33 iv- INDEX Page. Frauds, how to preterit - 39 in the sale of goods at the fire in Front street 31 none committted by importers - - - 41 on the frontiers - 42 mode of detecting - - 43 by false invoices, not proved - - - 43 in debentures - 182 mode of committing - - - - - - 183 Furniture of New York custom-house, account of - 1S1> 165 letters relating to - - 253, 254 letters of Woodbury to Hoyt relative to - - 373 Fees taken by B. F. Butler, illegal and unusual " - 179 extra, received by custom-house officers - - 182 Forward, W., letter of George Poindexter to, for the restoration of Bleecker - 265 letter from, to G. Poinde*tcr relative to Bleecker - 266 letter of to G. Poindexter - - - - - 271 directs, by order of the President, that the officers of the present col- lector shali not be examined - - 271 his letter to G. Poindexter, as to the mode of examination - 275 reply of G. Poindexter to - - - - - 277 letters of G. Poindexter to - - - - - 276, 279 his letter to G. Poindexter, authorizing him to remain in New York - 286 % to G. Poindexter, returning the books of correspondence of Hoyt - 289 his letter to G. Poindexter, requesting him to return to Washington - 289 G. Goods unclaimed in public store Fraud in the charges in the mode of sale of mode of advertising - mode of sale of bought by custom-house officers purchased by G. A. Wasson seized by Hoyt, acquitted Gilpin, the Solicitor, endeavors to prevent Hoyt'a rapacity Great Britain appealed to for redress IL Hoyt, Jesse, official corruption of frauds of, in storage collects money after his resignation of office refuses to interfere in the fraudulent sale in Front street refuses to suffer goods to be entered by appraisement injury inflicted on commerce by his charges on goods unclaimed his bargain with the manufacturers his mode of raising the standard of value sets aside the appraisement of Lounsbury denounces the merchants - his letter to Lawrence & Stone - arranges to make large seizures in fall of 1839 violates the law - suffers goods of Labron & Ives to be entered receives checks as cash -- begins seizures on a large scale superintends the woollens loft person all y defeated in suits - becomes disheartened - informs Lawrence & Stone of his failure - , his correspondence with Lawrence & 8ton« as to procuring witnesses complains of courts and juries - seizes goods after they had passed the custom-house hie letter to L. Woodbury quoted - 37 38 38 38 38 60 101 104 29 30 35 36 37 37 55 56 60 50 61 63 63 67 68 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 76 76 INDEX. v Page. Hoyf, Jesse, his expedients to embarrass importers - 95 commences prosecutions - 96 denounces Yorkshire men, and recommends them to flee - 96 has no confidence in Waddels, juries, or Judge Betts 09 contradicts B. F. Butler - 100 compromises with the Yorkshire men - - - - 101 is called to account by W. W. Stono - 101 apologizes to Stone, that the parties paid the fiddler 101 admits his frauds on the importers - - 102 gives his reasons for the suits - - 102 informs the Solicitor that he has no invoices of importers - 103 honor of the country implicated by - 104 violates his stipulations with importers - 104 admits he had no proof to condemn Bottomly's good;? 1 15 defalcation of - - - - 119. refuses commissioners permission to examine his bank account, unless they would approve all his official acts except his accounts - - 120 allowed by commissioners to introduce testimony - - - 121 deals in stocks - - - - - -121 his transactions in stocks, history of - - - 121 broker's testimony relative to ----- 123, 124 his income f- - - - - 126 required to give new bond - - - - - 127 refuses, and gives reasons ----- 128, 129 objects to depositing in bank - - • - - - 129 prefers to pay the Treasurer of United States - - - 129 charges commission for such payments - - - - 129 his insolence to Secretary of Treasury - - - 130 demands letter books of commissioners -.; 141 demands letter books of Secretary of Treasury - - - 141 his fears relative to B. F. Butler - - - - 177 promises to lecture B. F. Butler - 17? discovers that the British Government have been defrauded out of five pounds fifteen shillings, and asks Secretary of Treasury whether the comity of nations requires our Government to communicate this fraud 328 assigns his reason for not depositing " protest money" in bank - 337 says "it is contrary to the theory of the Government to consider money unsafe in my hands" - - - - - 337 says he has no doubt that Mr, Woodbury ♦•'will write such a letter as I suggest" ...... 333 his theory of Government - - - - = 344 Hams, John, his testimony as to fire in Front street - - = = 36 his testimony as to fire in Front street - 97 his estimate of the injury to commerce by Hoyt - =117 i. . ' Imports, amount of- - - - - - -25 falling off, in consequence of Hoyt's conduct - - - 118 diminution of, principally in goods paying ad valorem duty and subject to seizure - - - - - =118 amount of, at the port of New York - - - 170 amounts of, under Adams, Jackson, and Tyler = - 171 remarks on - - - - '191 Importers oiFer to pledge their goods for bail — refused by Hoyt - =96 some, go to Montreal - - - _ - 97 Inspectors, night, number of, to be reduced - - 185 of revenue, duties of - - - - - 184 increase of pay of, recommended - - 184 Iron work of custom-house, prices of - - - '- - 160 account of - 161 statement of expense of - - - - - - 167, 168 prices of - 257 examination of Winant and Robinson relative to - - 257 vi INDEX. Ives, G. R., offers of money to } to watch the woollens interest, made bv Samuel Law- rence - - - , _ _ _ 53 mentions the subject to custom-house officers 54 offers Lounsbury money "to work" for the manufacturers - - ' 54 is the standing witness of Jesse Hoy t - - " - 66 charged with false swearing 73 is favored at the custom-house 67 his character as as a witness - - - - -72 his testimony contradicted ----- 73 J. Tones, A. T., supplies his father with stationery - 1.8 Jones, clerk in surveyor's office, supplies stationery - - - - {g •Juric.-, merchants to be excluded fiom - - - - 92 ordered to be drawn from such classes as to render verdicts to the United States certain - - - - _ -92 farmers and mechanics to be preferred for - - - 93 special law of Congress as to - - _ _ 95 K. Kent, chancellor, his opinion as to the legality of seizures 87 Kelly, his conduct in the appointment of his relative - - - - 156 Lane, Josiah, his testimony — testimony of, quoted - - - 42 Lawrence, 8., his interview with Hoyt - - - 40 thinks the standard of value too low - 47 knows of no frauds 47 complains and causes Bottomly's goods to be seized - 47 believes frauds have been practised 48 his effort at the New York custom-house - - 48 offers to advance money, in Baltimore, to counsel - - 52 his attempts to find an appraiser - 53 offers G. R. Ives money to act as spy on importers - - 53 facts stated in relation to - - - - 55 wishes " the standard of value" to be raised to protect American manu- facturers - - - - - 5/ his disappointment on account of Hoyt's compromises - - 101 Lawrence, Abbot, his correspondence with G. A. Wasson - 137 his control at the New York custom-house - 137 letter to, from G. A. Wasson, aking his kind offices - - 251 referred to by W. Cairns, for character - - - 250 La Chaise, A., his testimony quoted - - - - =108 La Chaise & Fouche, account of the seizure of the goods of - - 105 Laws for appraisements - - . - - 85 Laws, special, as to juries in Pennsylvania - - 95 Legality of seizures in Baltimore and Philadelphia 84 Lounsbury, J., offers to, by G. R. Ives, to induce him to seize goods - - 54 authorized by Samuel Lawrence - - - - 54 his testimony as to the effect on commerce occasioned by the seizures of Hoyt - - - - - 11 V Letters—Wasson to Hoyt, is unsuccessful in finding Bottomly's goods - - 195 Wasson to Hoyt, says he and J. M. Read could find no goods - 195 Wasson to Hoyt, visits Baltimore and sees letter from Lawrence, of Boston, recommending the seizure of all the goods of the Yorkshireraen - 195 Hoyt to the Secretary of the Treasury, giving an account of his seizures, says he is not supported by the press , - - - 199 Gives list of seizures ------ 202 Hoyt to Woodbury, giving notice as to woollens - 204 Hoyt to Woodbury, mention's the arrival of the Tirginia with large cargo of woollens, aud recommending Cairns - 204 INDEX. vii Pase. Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to an increase of officers - 205 Hoyt to Woodbury, mentioning the absence of officers at Boston, and makes reforms in the appraiser;;' department - 205 Hoyt to Butler, tells him to call on Lawrence & Stone to procure the attend- ance of Kendall - - - - - 20G Hoyt to Butler, "in logic, two negatives make an affirmative, and, by a parity of reasoning, a combination of two free articles make a dutiable one" 206 Hoyt to Butler, " Cairns will explain the case as we understand it" - 207 Hoyt to Birchard, on the subject of seizures - 207 Hoyt to Birchard, announcing his defeat in a trial of a seizure case, of four pieces ------- 208 Birchard to Hoyt, requesting information as to the mode of procedure in seizing, with a fair prospect of success - 2Q8 Hoyt to Birchard, pointing out the mode of selecting juries ; objects to jurors from the mercantile classes ; and asks that instructions may be given on the other subjects referred to - - - - - 209 M. Birchard to A. J. Bleecker, directing him how to pack juries - - 210, 21 1 Butler to Hoyt, on an illegal seizure made by him ; gives up the goods, but makes claimant pay cost - - - - -212 Poindexter and Kelly to Ewing, relative to compromises - - 213 C. Penrose, Solicitor, to T. Ewing, giving particulars of compromises - 213 Hoyt to Gilpin, giving notice of discontinuance of suits and compromises ~ 215 Gilpin to Butler, calling for the particulars in each case of compromise - SIC Butler's reply to the same - - - - - 217 Hoyt to Gilpin, announcing settlement of suits against Henry Dixon, James Bottomley, and John Taylor, jr. - 218 Hoyt to Gilpin, announcing the settlement as " picking so much literally out of the fire" ------ 219 Butler to Gilpin, giving an account of the compromises - - 220 Gilpin to Butler, directing no more compromises without the sanction of the Department - - - - - -221 Gilpin to Butler, asking for a full history of the compromise cases - 223 Hoyt to Gilpin, furnishing a full account of the compromise cases; reasons for compromising ; makes provision for officers of the Government ; received more money " out of court than he could in ; " " distrusts judicial adjust- ments" - - - - - - 223 sundry, of Hoyt to Butler, directing arrests - 226, 227 Hoyt to Gilpin, reporting progress of settlement in compromise cases - 229 Butler to Gilpin, giving account of the suit against Lachaise & Fouehe - 332 J. Hoyt, Decasse, Miege, & Co., and others, on the subject of goods seized in their store ----- 233 to 241 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of a bond under the sub-Treasury act; bond recited — Hoyt's objections to ; new bond required, but not in addi- tion ; Hoyt thinks a new bond of him is contrary to public expectation, but the measure is proper, for the receiver general is afraid the " just expectations of the people will be disappointed," if receivers general are confounded with collectors - 241 and argument of Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of carrying out the sub- Treasury act ------ - 245 Gilpin to Woodbury, deciding against Hoyt's opinion, and requiring a new bond - - - - - - 249 Hoyt, enclosing Mr. Fleming's letter as to mode of keeping accounts - 250 Woodbury to Hoyt, expressing regret that Hoyt cannot allow him to draw for balance of money on hand - 250 Cairns, William, to T. Ewing, requesting to be appointed appraiser, and enclosing recommendation of merchants - - - - 251 Wasson to Hon. Abbott Lawrence, on the subject of appraisements - 251 Hoyt to Woodbury, asking out of what fund the furniture of the new custom- house should be paid - 253 Hoyt, on the same subject, suggesting to ask an appropriation of Congress - 253 Woodbury to Hoyt, requesting a detailed statement to be laid before the committee - - - - 254 Hoyt to Woodbury, enclosing letter of Horspool - - 254 E. Curtis to W, Forward, relative to increased expenses of New York cus- tom-house - 255 viii INDEX, Page. Letter of George Poindexter to the President, (see George Poindexter) - - 264 to 297 the President to George Poindexter, (see President) - 292 to 297 Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury, to George Poindexter, (see Walter Forward) - 266 to 289 Jesse Hoyt, William M. Price, J. M. Read, and Samuel D. Patterson, rela- tive to the seizure of the goods of Decasse, Miege, <& Co. - - 301 to 320 same and the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to Bottomly's goods - 321 to 336 F. B. Ogden, relative to the examination of witnesses in England - 337 Hoyt to Bancroft, demanding the proceeds of Bottomly's goods - - 337 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to the "protest fund," assigning reasons for not leplying earlier ; says it is "contrary to the theory of the Government to consider money unsafe in his hands - 337 Woodbury to Hoyt, sending him a copy of Solicitor's reply in relation to the "protest fund" - - - - - - 338 Hoyt to Woodbury, promising to write a forma! letter suggesting the reply Mr. Woodbuty is to make ; and has " no doubt you will write such a let- ter as I shall suggest" - 339 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to the expenses of prosecution against him for money paid under protest - 339 Hoyt to Woodbury, giving notice that he has employed B. F. Butler to de- fend these suits ; asks permission to pay him counsel fee out of the public funds - - - - - - 341 Woodbury to Hoyt, says there is no appropriation to pay counsel fees to Mr. Butler, but thinks Congress will modify the law to meet the case - 341 Hoyt to Woodbury, says if the Government does not pay, he will let the suits go by default ; thinks no one will charge less than Mr. Butler - 341 Woodbury to Hoyt, allows him to pay any other counsel, but not Mr. Butler 342 Hoyt to Woodbury, enclosing a newspaper containing a calumny as to his being a defaulter - - - - - 312 Woodbury to Hoyt, stating that he knows of no fact justifying the suspicion that he is a defaulter - 343 Woodbury to Hoyt, relative to refunding duties not paid under protest - 343 Hoyt to Woodbury, cannot execute the laws as he understands them ; his view of Government defined — " the people acting through their representatives ;" thinks the merchants uncharitable to believe that he put a certain con- struction on the tariff that he may hold the money in his own hands paid under protest ------ 344 Woodbury to Hoyt, directing him todeposite §200,000 in the Bank of Araeri- ica - - - - - 344 Hoyt to Woodbury, in reply, on the same subject - ~ 345 Hoyt to Woodbury, and Woodbury to Hoyt, on the subject of the protest fund - - - - - - - 346 to 349 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of increased pay to some of his officers ; wishes an article published in the Globe - 349 Hoyt to Woodbury, wishes the pay of Mr. Fleming increased • - 351 Woodbury to Hoyt, in answer to the foregoing - - y 353 Hoyt to W r oodbury, recommending increased pay to Wasson and Wetmore - Wasson renders important services in watching suspected persons - 353 Woodbury to Hoyt, relative to appointing Wasson and Wetmore clerks in the appraisers' department - 353 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to the appointment of measurers - . - 353 Hoyt to Woodbury, recommending the appointment of Cairns - - 357 Hoyt to Butler, cautioning him against calling the regular appraisers when he can avoid it - - - - 357 Hoyt to Butler, on the same subject - - . - 357 Woodbury to Hoyt, relative to the increase of custom-house offices - 358 Hoyt to Butler, on the subject of bonds of Gibson, Post, & Gibson - 359 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to the expenses at the port of New York - 359 C. W. Dayton to Jesse Hoyt, on the subject of the return of John Taylor, jr. 360 Hoyt to Woodbury, giving reasons why suit with John Taylor, jr., should be settled - - - - - - 361 Hoyt to N. Williams, on the subject of seizures in Baltimore ; Cairns and Wasson will go on and look after them - - = 361 Hoyt to N. Williams, on the subject of John Taylor's goods - - 363 INDEX. ix Fage. Letter of Hoyt to N. Williams, directing bun not to allow William Bottomly to be present at an appraisement - - - - 363 J. Hoyt to the Treasurer of the United States - 365 Wm. B. Randolph to Jesse Hoyt - 366 Hoyt to Wm. B. Randolph ... 366 Woodbury to Hoyt, enclosing a letter from a f Democrat," on the subject of the sale of goods damaged by fire - 368 Hoyt to Woodbury, in answer to the foregoing, giving an account of the fire in answer to a " Democrat" ----- 369 Hoyt to B. F. Butler, relative to the case of Wood, Johnson, & Burritt - 370 Hoyt to J. Cadwalader, disappointed in the decision of Judge Heath - 370 Hoyt to the President of the United States, relative to the appointment of Cairns as appraiser - - - - - ( 370 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of his forfeiture account - - 37L Hoyt, relative to Cairns going to Baltimore, suggesting that the calendar of the court should be arranged to meet this contingency - - 372 Woodbury to Hoyt, informing him that no expense can be incurred in fur- nishing the New York custom-house without an appropriation - 373 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to the goods saved from the fire in Front street - 373 Hoyt to N. Williams, relative to seizure cases before the Supreme Court - 376 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to thefts of goods in the public store - - 375 Hoyt to Woodbury, resigning his office . _ . _ 377 M. Manufacturers, domestic; understanding between them and Hoyt - - 44 their control over commerce - - - - 44 their standard of value ----- 44. their interference illegal ----- 45 their proceedings in 1829 - - • - - 45 cease to interfere for a time - 46 combination of - - - - - - 51 their statement of facts as to their attempts to procure an appraiser - 55 Mead, A. B., principal appraiser; his testimony as to Cairns - ' - 67 his testimony as to frauds in woollens - - 89 Merchants uncharitable towards Mr. Hoyt ----- - 343 North American Trust and Banking Company, Hoyt's speculations in stock of - 121 ' 'o. . ■ ~\\ , ■ ■ . c 'it Oakley, J. M., custom house officer, offers goods saved from fire in Front street for sale 34 Officer^ of the customs taxed for election purposes - - - - 16 number of, in New York from 1829 to 1842 25 frauds committed by, in the sale of goods. - - 34 subject to Hoyt - - - - 39 number of, employed from 1825 to 1841 - - 170 Ogden, F. B letter of, to Jesse Hoyt relative to examinations in England 336 Potndexter, G., reports as chairman 4 does not concur with Kelly & Stewart - 4 receives instructions relative to examining the acts of E. Curtis - 160 his letter to Secretary of Treasury, transmitting report - - 194 letter of, on the same subject, to the President - - - 194 letter of, to Secretary of Treasury, on removal of Bleecker - 264 letter of, to Walter Forward, on the subject of Bleecker's removal and employment of Dwight ----- 266 letter of, to John Tyler, relative to G. A. Dwight - - 269 letter of W. Forward to, directing commissioners not to examine the affairs of the present collector, (Curtis) - 271 letter of, to Secretary of Treasury - 273 retires from the commission - 276 2 X INDEX. Page Poindexter, G., his reasons for retiring ----- 276 letter of, to John Tyler, on the subject of Hoyt's correspondence - 282 charges E. Curtis with falsehood - 283 letter of, to Secretary of Treasury - 284 letter of, to John Tyler ----- 286 letter of, to Secretary of Treasury - 288 his letter to Secretary of Treasury - 288 his letter to Secretary of Treasury, on the subject of Hoyt's books - 389 to Secretary of Treasury, declining to confer with Colonel Stone - 291 to the same, acknowledging the receipt of books - - 292 to John Tyler, announcing his return - - - 293 letter of, to the President - - - - 294 to the same ------ 296 to Secretary of Treasury, relative to papers of commissioners - 207 Phillips, J. D., testifies as to fire in Front street 34 as to sale of goods in "nine months' sale" 39 Piatt, J., is recommended by Hoyt to run away, and refuses to go - - 96 President of the U. S. gives guaranty that officers shall not be removed for testifying - 176 letter to, from G. Poindexter, relative to the conduct of E. Curtis, and the employment of G. A. Dwight - 269 directs the commissioners not to examine the affairs of the present collector - 271 letter of G. Poindexter to - - ... 275 G. Poindexter to, on the subject of Hoyt's correspondence - - 282 his letter to Poindexter - - - - - 293 letter from Poindexter to 295 letter of, to G.' Poindexter, denying Congress any right to the report - 296 letter to, from Poindexter, relative to report - 291 letter from Poindexter, in reply to - 296 R. Revenue, amount of, collected from 1829 to 1810 - - 25 expense of collecting ------ 25, 26 decrease of, caused by Collector Hoyt - - - - 119 collection of - - - - - 169 increased expense in collecting of, by Curtis - - - 169 table of amount of - 170 expense in collecting of, under Thompson, Swartwout, and Curtis - 172 . excess of expense of collecting, under Curtis - - - 172 Remscn, P. V., bargains with G. Curtis to hold his office - - - 158 Riell, H. E., required by E. Curtis to pay note as a condition of remaining in office - 156 his bargain with Curtis - - - 156 letter of - - - - - 157 Robinson, J., appraises the cargo of the Independence 58 finds no evidence of fraud - - • - 58 his character - - - - • 60 s. Stanly, Hon. E., reports from committee ----- 1 Solicitor of the Treasury orders juries to be packed - - - 93 his correspondence with Hoyt on subject of compromises - - 98 Secretary of Treasury called on to send report 1 directs collector to furnish aid to commissioners - - - J 38 advises E. Curtis as to mode of purchasing stationery - - - 148 Stationery, tabular statement of frauds in - - - - - 9 of whom purchased - - - - - 10 comparative prices of - - - - 1 1 apportioned among different officers - - - - 12 table of, under Collectors Hoyt and Curtis - . - 13 table of, for one quarter - - - - - 14 expenditures for, from 1829 to 1811 - - - - 24 E. Curtis i his bills of - - - - 144 bills of T. and J. Waite - - - - 141 INDEX. xi Page. Stationery, statement of David Felt relative to - - - 145 comparative prices of - - - - 145 Steel pens, qualities and prices of 1 5 Staten island, frauds in stationery supplied at - - - - 19 1 Stores, public, hired by Jesse Hoyt, on his own account, illegally - - 27 laws on the subject of - - - - 27 in Nassau street, rent of - - - 28 other, expense of 29 Storage, laws relative to - - - - 27 frauds of Hoyt in - - - . - 30 on goods in Front ftreet ----- 32 " Standard of value" for goods - 44 Sale of offices; case of H. E. Riell - - - - 156 of office* to P. V. Remsen - - - - 158 Curtis denies any improper motive in such - 159 of office to J. Whitaker, and the price of - - 255 Schenck, P. H., his interference with the custom-house 45 is silenced - - - - - - 46 Stone, W. W., testimony of, quoted - - - - - 47 knows of no frauds ----- 43 pays expenses of Wasson and Bleecker 50 calls Hoyt to account for the compromises - - - 101 Hoyt apologizes to - 101 his interview with Hoyt at Astor House - - - 101 prefers Curtis as collector - - - - 134 his visit to Washington - - - - 135 his interview with Cairns - - - - - 135 urges the retaining of Cairns and Wasson in office - - 135 his motives - - - - - - 136 Seizure of Bottomly's goods at Boston ----- 49 history of trial of - - - - - 50 Seizures, amount of, by Hoyt, in one month 73 in 1839 prove abortive - - " - 63 in Philadelphia and Baltimore - - - 77 history of - - - - - - 75 of different character of goods ----- 79 indiscriminately made ------ 70 legality of, questionable 82 Chancellor Kent's opinion of the legality of - - - - 87 effect of - - - - - 118 how to be made ------ 186 Stocks, transactions of J. Hoyt - - - 121 transactions of J. Warren in, on account of Hoyt - 120 transactions of W. G. Buckner and others in - 121 Sub-Treasury act, its effect on Collector Hoyt - - - 127 Swartwout, testimony of - - - - - 131 settlement of his accounts recommended by commissioners - - 132 Smith, A. H., his testimony ^quoted - - - - - 134 Supreme Court of U. S., decision of, destructive of commerce - - ' - JS9 case in, cited - - - - - -190 T. Taylor, J. J., jr. ; his testimony quoted - - - - - ^ 36 Teackle, St. G. W., his statement of trials in Baltimore - - - 52 Tariff of duties, suggestions relative to - - - - 187 Theory of Government expounded by J. Hoyt - 337 Valuation, home, difficulties of - - - - - 192 Xll INDEX. W. Fage. Wasson, G. A., (storekeeper ,) his fraud* in cartage and labor; factotum of J. Hoyt 6 used by Hoyt to seize goods y compensation paid to, therefor y fraud committed by, in stealing goods from public store 8 informs Mr. Curtis of his frauds 9 his stationery account ----- 29 his connexion with Samuel Lawrence 48 .his conduct in seizing goods, and salary increased - - 61 his crusades to other cities to seize goods - - - 61 standing witness of Hoyt 66 removed by Curtis - . - - yo Wetmore, S., (deputy collector;) his testimony quoted - * 23 Woollens consumed in Front street _____ 33 amount of consumption of - - - - - 36 charges and expenses on goods saved - 35 seized in Philadelphia reappraised 88 Warehousing system recommended - - - - 183 to be extended to the Northern frontier- _ - - 184 Wood, S. R. ; his case - - - - - - -71 Witnesses to be furnished by Lawrence & Stone - - _ y5 Wells, G. W., appointed by Ewing & Kelly - - - - 265 Wrigley, J. ; his case stated - - - - - 79 Woodbury, L. ; his letter to J. Hoyt, (see Letters,) calling on him to furnish a list of moneys paid under protest - - - - - 33s Waite, J. and T. G., bills of stationery of - - - - - 146 Wilson, L., examination of, relative to sale of offices in New York custom-house - 254 Whitaker, J., buys an office of Geo. Curtis, in New York custom-house - - 255 Webster, Daniel ; his influence exerted with Secretary of Treasury - - 269 Winant, J. M., examination of, relative to iron work - 257 Y. Yorkshire men threatened by Hoyt - 96 recommended by Hoyt (0 run away 96 » INDEX TO APPENDIX. Rep. No. 669. Part 11. Page, Letter of J- Hoyt to Secretary of the Treasury, relative to a barge at Jersey City and a secret inspector ------ 379 L. Woodbury, in reply, declining - 379 Hoyt, requesting an appropriation for custom-house officers - - 380 Hoyt to the appraisers, requesting them to send the invoices to him - 380 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to dismissing a number of officers, and asking power to appoint additional ones - - - - 381 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of weights and gauges - - 381 Woodbury to Hoyt, on the subject of the employment of inspectors, and giving views of the law of appointment ; requiring Hoyt to give his reasons for removals - - - - - 382 Hoyt, in reply, declining to make any confidential communication on the sub- ject, and threatening to resign if he is obliged to give reasons ; the Secre- tary has no more right to ask them than the Senate have to ask the Pres- ident ------- 383 Hoyt to Woodbury, advising him of certain seizures * - 384 Hoyt to Price, on the same subject - - 384, 385 Hoyt to J. M. Read, Philadelphia, and N. Williams, of Baltimore, requesting them to search for Bottomry's goods - 386 Woodbury to Hoyt, relative to appointments - 387 Hoyt to La Chaise & Fouche - 387 Hoyt to John M. Read, on the subject of seizures - 387 J. M. Read and N. Williams, on the same subject - 387, 388 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to appointments - 389 Hoyt to N. Williams, on seizures - 390 Hoyt to J. M. Read and S. D. Patterson, on seizures - - - 390 Hoyt to George Bancroft, asking upon whose information certain goods in Boston were seized - 390 Woodbury to Hoyt, relative to appointments - 390 Hoyt to Woodbury, in reply - - - - - 392 George Bancroft to Hoyt, declining to give information respecting seizures - 392 Woodbury to Hoyt, on seizures ----- 393 S. I). Patterson, noticing certain seizures - 393 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the power of appointment - - - 394 Hoyt to S. D. Patterson, on the subject of seizures - - - 396 Hoyt to George Bancroft, on the subject of the propriety of his letter asking certain information - 396 L. Woodbury, enclosing J. N. Barker's decision on the subject of the duties on linen - - - - - 397 John M. Read to J. Hoyt, asking information as to the names of vessel, mas- ter, importer, &c, after he had seized certain goods - - 397 the appraisers to La Chaise & Fouche, requiring them to send certain goods to the public store ------ 398 Hoyt to Bancroft, relative to the conduct of clerks - 398 Hoyt to H. D. Gilpin, on seizures and the honor of the mercantile com- munity ------- 399 Hoyt to Woodbury; subject, return duties on linens, payment of clerks - 400 Woodbury, in reply to the foregoing - - - - 401 Wm. M. Price, on the appraisement of Bottomly's goods - - 402 Jesse Miller ; subject, weighers' and gaugers' fees - 402 Wm. B. Randolph to Hoyt, on the mode of keeping accounts - - 403 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the blank books ordered by Congress - - 404 Hoyt to Price, on the seizure of Bottomly's goods - 405 3 xiv INDEX. Page. Letter of Hoyt to the collector at Newark, N. J., claiming jurisdiction over Jersey City 405 Hoyt to Woodbury, on appointments - 405 Woodbury, in reply, suggesting reductions - 407 Hoyt to Price, enclosing papers in Bottomly's case - 407 Hoyt to P. B. Ogden, Liverpool, on the subject of frauds, written with a view "to preserve the commercial integrity of both Great Britain and the United States" - ... . 409 Hoyt to the storekeeper, consenting to the examination of Leon's goods - 409 Letter and answer to certain merchants on the duties on silks - - - 411 Letter of Wm. S. Coe to J. Hoyt, on the subject of Bottomly's bond - - 411 Hoyt to Price, on the same subject - - - - 411 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of the revenue cutter service - - 412 J. Hoyt, raising the salaries of certain officers, without asking the authority of the Secretary 413 Hoyt to H. D. Gilpin, Bottomly's bond - 413 Hoyt to Price, directing the arrest of James Campbell - 414 Hoyt to W T m. H. Ellis, on bank bills - 415 Hoyt to Price, directing another suit against S. R. Wood - - 414 Hoyt to F. B. Ogden, announcing " that VVhiggery in this country was very much done up" - - - - - - 415 Hoyt to Price, suit against S. K. Wood - - - 416 Hoyt to Woodbury, Gebband & Co. 's goods - 416 Woodbury to Hoyt, complimenting his vigilance, and suggesting the dis- missal of such clerks as were privy to Swartwout's affairs — frauds, &c. - 417 Hoyt to Ming, liiell, and others, Canadian meeting in the Bowery - 418 J. Phillips, resigning his situation as cashier - - - 418 Hoyt to Ferguson, on accounts in the naval office - 419 Hoyt to John Forsyth, enclosing a copy of his letter to Ming, Riell, and others, on the Canadian meeting - - - - 419 Hoyt to George Bancroft, sends a revenue cutter to sea to protect John Van Buren, " second son of Martin Van Buren" - 419 J. Hopkins, in answer, stating he had nothing to do with the Canadian meeting - - - - - - 419 Hoyt to Woodbury, announcing the appointment of Mr. Waters as cashier, and the answer - 420 Hoyt to Andrew Stevenson, on the subject of the tc Canadian reform meeting" 421 Walworth, Ming, and Riell, on their attendance at the Canadian reform meeting, to Hoyt, informing him that their official duties "are limited to gauging and measuring certain articles of merchandise," and their opinions are their own - 422 Hoyt to Forsyth, enclosing copy of letter to Mr. Stevenson - - 423 Hoyt to C. C. Cambreling, on the subject of the mode of doing business, keeping accounts, &c, in the custom-house - 423 Hoyt to S. Wright, jr., and E. Curtis, enclosing copies of the foregoing - 428 Hoyt to Woodbu y, places $145,000 to credit of Treasury - - 428 Hoyt to William M. Price, Coe & Craig complain of delav in case of La Chaise & Fouche ------ 429 Hoyt to Woodbury, relating to Price, late district attorney - - 429 Hoyt, further as to Price, puts $145,000 to credit of Treasury - - 429 Hoyt to Gilpin, further as to Price - 430 Hoyt to Woodbury, rent of public stores - - - 431 Hoyt to Gilpin, more as to Price - 432 Hoyt to Gilpin, relating to seizures - 432 Hoyt to Woobury, cases of seizure, complains of Price - - 433 Grundy, Attorney General, to Woodbury, his opinion on points submitted - 436 Hoyt to Gilpin, money from seizures ... - 436 Hoyt to Butler, sends reports of Wasson and others - - 436 Woodbury to Hoyt, sends copy of opinion of Attorney General - - 437 Read, John M., of Philadelphia, to Hoyt, cases of Bottomly and others - 437 Hoyt to Butler, Bottomly's case, sends memorandum of Bleecker - 438 Woodbury to Hoyt, case of Joseph Hopkins, late inspector of the customs - 438 Fleming to Hoyt, accounts of 3d quarter, 1838, readv for transmission to Treasury ------ 438 Hoyt to Jesse Miller, transmits accounts - - - - 439 INDEX. xv Pagf. Letter of Hoyt to Butler, Bleeckers claim - - - - 439 Hoyt to Woodbury, reports divers appointments in the custom house - 440 Woodbury to Hoyt, confirms the above appointments - 441 Woodbury to Hoyt, inquires as to money on hand - 441 Hoyt to Woodbury, makes certain deposites to credit of Treasury - 441 Woodbury to Hoyt, apprehended frauds on the revenue - - 442 Hoyt to Woodbury, same subject - 442 Hoyt to Woodbury, European news generally — has not read Price's letter, because he is tired of '* the rogues and roguery" - 443 Woodbury to Hoyt, the matter of David S. Lyon - 443 Hoyt to Woodbury, David S. Lyon was excluded from custom-house becau.-e he was corrupt ------ 443 Hoyt to Woodbury, receipts for January, 1839, and other matters - 445 Hoyt to Woodbury, has received Treasury circular of March 4, 1839 - 445 Hoyt to Woodbury, transmits return of moneys received and paid, general matters of account - - - - - -446 J. Miller, Auditor, to Hoyt, returns list of bonds for signature of naval officer - - - - - 447 Hoyt to Woodbury, places $200,000 to credit of Treasury, thinks the stand- ard of value of woollens too low - 448 Hoyt to Woodbury, has found the bag of specie supposed to be taken by D. Si Lyon - - - - - 449 Hoyt to George Bancroft, sends sample of silk goods - 449 Hoyt to Woodbury, accounts with the Treasury - - - 449 Hoyt to Woodbury, custom-house accounts - - - 450 Hoyt to Woodbury, marker's fees" - - - - 451 Woodbury to Hoyt, hopes receipts will continue to be liberal - - 451 Hoyt to Woodbury, custom-house receipts - 452 Hoyt to Woodbury, marker's fees - 452 Hoyt to Butler, hardware of Louis & Meir seized - 452 Hoyt to Woodbury, custom-house nominations - - - 453 Woodbury to Hoyt, approval of nominations, concurs in proposed increase of pay 454 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the power of appointing inspectors, claims that he i< right and the surveyor wrong ----- 455 ^ Hoyt to Butler, appraisement of Strasser's pistols - 457 Hoyt to Woodbury, enclosing letter of J. A. Fleming, auditor, in relation lo the collection of bonds by the Bank of North America - - 458 Woodbury to Hoyt, concurs in the opinion of the auditor - - 459 Hoyt to Woodbury, recommends Barnum Whipple as inspector at Albany - 460 Hoyt to Woodbury, protest fund, custody of goods, difficulty with the mar- shal - 460 Hoyt to Woodbury, appraisers' fees - 462 Hoyt to Butler, La Chaise & Fouche - 462 Craig & Coe, stipulation to repay certain moneys - 463 Hoyt to Gilpin, announcing the acquittal of six cases of German silver - 46H Hoyt to F. B. Ogden, Wood's case, thinks consuls might do a profitable business by informing against goods - 463 Hoyt to Lawrence & Stone, "we have been beaten by the courts and jurors in all our efforts to carry out what we thought the true interpretation of the tariff" ------ 464 Hoyt to Russell & Savage, summons as appraisers - - - 464 Hoyt to Woodbury, protest fund - 465 Woodbury to Hoyt, in reply ----- 466 Hoyt to Butler, Wood, Johnson, & Burrit's case - 466 Hoyt to the appraisers, exhorting to vigilance - - - 467 Hoyt to Butler, Malis's case — " the Messrs. Lawrence will procure sucn persons to come here and testify" - - - - 467 Hoyt to Woodbury, pays over part of the protest fund - - 468 H. D. Gilpin, Dupiee's case - 469 Butler to Hoyt, relative to fees ----- 470 Hoyt to Woodbury, exports of specie, "Brother Bancroft has succeeded in his seizure case" ------ 479 Hoyt to Woodbury, u we are doing well in the woollens way" - - 470 XVI INDEX, Page Letter of Hoyt to Gilpin, asking his opinion on law question — "may have said that the principle of the GGth section of the act of 1799 might be of doubtful policy" - - - - - - - 470 Hoyt to Gilpin, does an unprofitable business in seizures - - 472 Gilpin to Hoyt, " penalties and forfeitures" - 472 Butler to Hoyt, wishes him not to cull the regular appraisers " when he can avoid it" - 472 Hoyt to Woodbury, Navoit & Badois, Wilson, Hawksworth, & Moss's case 473 Hoyt to Butler, "if it would not be inoffensive to the feelings of the United States officers," put 19 cases into one suit ... 473 Barker to Woodbury, relative to false oaths - 474 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the remission of the proceeds of Strasser's pistols 475 Hoyt to Butler, Blackburn's case - 475 Hoyt to Butler, "Wilson, Hawksworth, & Moss's" case - - 176 Woodbury to Hoyt, Wood's case, thanks Hoyt for his vigilance in detecting frauds ------- 477 Hoyt to Butler, protests in the name of the people of the United States against extravagant costs - - 477 Hoyt to Butler, objects to S. H. Aimly as commissioner, and nominates Geo, Humphreys, of Manchester ----- 477 F.B. Ogden to Jesse Hoyt, expressing his gratification for being informed that he is entitled to a certain portion of the seized goods, although unex- pected ------- 478 Hoyt to Butler, Blackburn's case ----- 478 Hoyt to William Seymour, deputy collector at Albany, informing him that he may disregard the circular from the Treasury Department - - 479 Hoyt to Woodbury, Bank of United States, anticipates great troubles - 479 Hoyt to Woodbury, takes another store - 479 Hoyt to Woodbury, country banks, Bank of America, Manhattan Company 480 collector of Philadelphia to Hoyt, on the claim to the proceeds of forfeited ' goods ------ 480 Hoyt to Phillips, demanding the balance of "error fund" - - 480 Hoyt to Butler, seizure of China ware; costs are more than proceeds; re- fuses to pay his portion except by protesting against such results - 481 Hoyt to J. Miller, declining to furnish information _ - - 482 Hoyt to Woodbury, appointing more night officers - 483 Hoyt to Woodbury, United States Bank and city banks - - 483 Hoyt to Woodbury, U. S. Bank ; importance to New York to preserve its integrity ; Mr. Biddle's opinion - 484 Hoyt to Woodbury, Boston banks; "Government should throw all their strength in New York that it can" - 485 Hoyt to Woodbury, exports of specie ; Boston banks ; wishes " that all the aid may be furnished that can be" - 485 Hoyt to Woodbury, deposites $100,000 in the Manhattan Bank - - 485 Hoyt to C. W. Lawrence, asking an explanation in writing with respect to a verbal communication on his bank account - - - 486 Woodbury to Hoyt, banks of New York and Eastern banks, specie pay- ments, &c. ------ 486 Hoyt to Woodbury, shipments of specie ; distress in the market - 488 Hoyt to E. Kane, navy agent at Washington, refusing to pay draft - 489 Hoyt to Woodbury, currency ; duty of the Government - 490 F. B. Ogden to Hoyt, on woollen frauds - - - 490 A. B. Mead to B. F. Butler, on the testimony in the glass cases 491 George Wolfe to Hoyt, on the distribution of proceeds of certain seized goods - - - - - - -491 I. Hoyt to Levi Woodbury, meeting of citizens in relation to the banks - 491 Hoyt to Woodbury on the same subject - 492 Woodbury, directing deposites in the Manhattan Company - 492 Hoyt to Woodbury, Phcenix Bank, Hartford, endorse Treasury note without recourse ------- 493 Woodbury to Hoyt, remonstrates with the bank for their conduct - 493 Hoyt to K. Withers, interest on the protest fund ceases - - 493 Hoyt to Wm. S. Coe, landing of the baggage of steam ships - - 494 Hoyt to Woodbury, on small seizures - - - - 494 Hoyt to J. K. Kane, distribution of proceeds of seized goods - - 495 INDEX. xvn Page. Letter of Hoyt to Woodbury, advising of bonds paid, and the state of financial affairs 495 Gilpin to Woodbury, relative to payment of judgment and costs against Hoyt 496 F. B. Ogden, consul at Liverpool, on the seizures of goods and shipments from Liverpool - - - - - 496 Hoyt to Thomas H. Denison, consul at Liverpool, enclosing memorandum of goods - 497 Hoyt to Butler, Harvey & Slagg's case; is mortified at the result - 497 Hoyt to Woodbury, complaining of juries, and the mode of selection - 498 Woodbury to Hoyt, on the costs of suits against the latter - - 499 Hoyt to Butler, no man by the name of Shaw is a good witness - - 499 Hoyt to Woodbury, transfers money to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States 499 Hoyt to Woodbury, same subject - 499 Hoyt to Woodbury, advising further deposites in the Manhattan Company - 500 Hoyt to Woodbury, costs and fees for actions against the former, and interest on protest fund - - - - - 501 Hoyt to J. Miller, sending back H. Dixon's goods - 501 John A. Fleming to J. Hoyt, E. & C. G. Feter's bond - - 501 Hoyt to the Secretary of the Treasury, admitting erroneous estimates • - 502 Hoyt to Humphreys, Cunliffe, & Chasburn, on the subject of executing com- missions in England, containing a list of the 11 Yorkshire men" - 503 Hoyt to Butler, Decasse, Miege, & Co. - 504 Hoyt to Butler, John Piatt's case - 504 Hoyt to the appraisers, French blankets - 505 Hoyt to Woodbury, depositing money in the Manhattan Company - 505 Hoyt to Butler, inquiring of him whether he has ever been accused of being a defaulter - - - - - 505 Butler to Hoyt, in reply to the foregoing, stating that he has no instructions to commence suit against him as a defaulter - 506 Hoyt to the appraisers, on the subject of appraisement - - 1 506 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the same subject - - - 506 J. Hoyt and Fleming, on the subject of naval office, and the mode of ac- counts - - - - - -' 507 John Taylor, jr., to J. Hoyt, enclosing invoice - - - 508 Hoyt to O. Titus, on the subject of duty on worsted goods - - 508 J. Hoyt to John Tayior, jr., in reply — (see page 508) - - 509 J. Hoyt to R. B. Rhett; merchants, as jurors and witnesses, make the laws?, and not Congress - 509 Hoyt to Butler, Riddell's cases ----- 509 Hoyt to Woodbury, public stores, and appropriations for new custom-house 510 Hoyt to Birchard, seizure of a piano - - - 511 Hoyt to Butler, Masters, Markoe, & Co.'s case ; treatment of the Government officers in the jury room - - - - 511 Hoyt to Levi Woodbury, on the subject of the fire in Front street - 512 Hoyt to E. Lord, on security for his bonds - 513 Hoyt to Levi Woodbury, Dorr & Co.'s case ; combinations amongst im- porters - . - - - - - 513 Hoyt to W r oodbury, estimate of importations - - - 514 Woodbury to Hoyt, refunding duties - 514 Hoyt to Woodbury, enclosing bill for Congress, usually known as the "bill of abominations" - - - - 514 Hoyt to Woodbury, adding a section to his bill - - - 515 Hoyt to Woodbury, respecting the cutter "Rush" and the light-house service ------ 516 Woodbury to Hoyt, on the additional section to his bill * - - 517 Woodbury to Hoyt, enclosing a confidential letter relative to a shipment of linens, exhorting to vigilance in detecting frauds - 517 Hoyt, in reply, is puzzled to know what frauds can be committed in linens, as they are free goods - - - - - 517 Butler to Hoyt, mentioning the receipt of a letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury, on the subject of uniting several bonds in one suit - - 518 Hoyt to Samuel Lawrence, enclosing sample of goods - - - 518 Hoyt to Woodbury, urging the passage of his bill with "little discussion" - 518 Hoyt to R. B. Brown, respecting his going to Philadelphia - - 519 Hoyt to the collector of Philadelphia, subjects certain papers - - 519 xviii INDEX, Page Letter of James Cooke to Hoyt, respecting samples sent to Samuel Lawrence - 519 Hoyt to Woodbury, is unwilling to go on with suits when the court says he has no defence ------ 520 Hoyt to Woodbury, trial of cloths in Philadelphia ; hopes to get a verdict be- fore Mr. Adams's bill is called up 520 Hoyt to Walter Bowne, in relation to the new custom-house ; cannot discover any power by which he can overrule the Secretary of the Treasury ; is dis- gusted with the extravagant and useless expenditure in the whole affair - 521 Hoyt to Woodbury, Consul Davy, at Leeds; Walker a witness; letter from Judge Hopkinson, wishing to have his opinion in the cloth case printed ; thinks the Judge is proud of the performance - - - 521 Hoyt to Judge Hopkinson, on the same subject - - - 521 Hoyt to Davy, consul at Leeds ; Walker a witness ; the seized goods in Phil- adelphia - - - - - 622 Hoyt to Thomas Dennison, consul at Bristol ; Masters, Markoe, & Co.'s case 523 Hoyt to F. B. Ogden, stating that he drew Mr. Adams's bill of abominations 523 Hoyt to JV. Williams, Baltimore ; seizures in that city - 523 Hoyt to Hon. James Monroe, on Mr. Adams's bill - 524 John M. Reed, relative to Samuel Shaw's seized goods - - 525 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the same subject - 526 Hoyt to Williams, of Baltimore ; does not know on what grounds the goods are to be tried which he has seized ... - 527 Hoyt to Cadwalader, on Shaw's case - 527 Hoyt to Butler, advising of suits against hiin in the cases of Dorr & Co. and McCall & Co. - - - - - 627 Hoyt to N. William?, advising the departure of Wasson ; says it will not do to have goods appraised by the New York custom-house officers - 528 Hoyt to Woodbury, advising of suits brought against hiin - - 528 Woodbury to Hoyt, and answer in Telation to the call of tbe Committee on Expenditures in relation to seizures - 529 Hoyt to Cadwalader, on seizures of Shaw's goods - - - 529 Hoyt to Bancroft, enclosing Judge Hopkinson's opinion - - 530 Hoyt to Silas Wright, Adams's bill - - - 530 Hoyt to Butler, Bowen & Adams's case - 531 Woodbury to Hoyt, marker's pay - - - - 531 Hoyt to Woodbury, enclosing Mead's letter - - - - 532 Hoyt to Bancroft, claiming half the proceeds of forfeited goods - - 532 Hoyt to George Davis, despatching him to Boston, to obtain papers used at Bottomly's trial - - - - - 533 Hoyt to collector at Boston, and others, on the same subject - - 533 Hoyt to Silas Wright, "the present lariffhas been made by merchants, and not by Congress" ------ 534 Woodbury, directing him to pay over the money;- in his hands to the receiver general - - - - - - 535 Hoyt to John M. Reed, enclosing papers relating to the seizure of goods, Oakeys & Robinson, claimants - 535 • Hoyt to John M. Reed, on commissions to take testimony in England - 536 Hoyt to Butler, wishes him to tax, in his bill of costs, moneys expended in England ------- 536 Hoyt to A. Davy, consul at Leeds, on the subject of verifying invoices - 537 Hoyt to George Bancroft, collector at Boston, on the distribution of proceeds of Bottomly's goods - 537 Hoyt to Woodbury, announcing the payment, to the receiver general, of the balance of moneys standing to the credit of the Treasurer - - o38 Hoyt to B. F. Butler, Walker's case of seizure - 539 Hoyt to Butler, Blackburn's case - 539 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the subject of the large balance of money in his hands 539 Hoyt to Woodbury, mode o» keeping accounts - - - 540 Hoyt to Davy, Walker's case ; thinks Van Buren will be elected - - 541 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the dismissal of John Frazee - - - 542 Woodbury to Hoyt, communicating resolution of Congress as to the kind of money received at the custom-house - 542 Hoyt to Woodbury, relative to furnishing the New York custom-house - 542 Hoyt to Woodbury, communicating answer as to the kind of money received in payment at the New York custom-house ... 544 INDEX. xix Page. Letter of Hoyt to Butler, Levy's case; is for making an example of our "brother Christian" ...... 547 Hoyt to Butler, suit of Armstrong, duties on wool - - - 547 Hoyt to Walter Bowne, furnishing new custom-house - - 548 Hoyt to Woodbury, certified checks, Treasury notes ... 549 Hoyt to Humphreys, Cunliffe, Chalwood, & Berg, remitting still further for services in England ------ 550 Hoyt to N. Williams and B. C. Howard, refuses to pay any more expenses in the case of Wood ----- 550 Hoyt to Butler, gunny bags - 551 Hoyt to Woodbury, Treasury notes and custom-house bonds - - 551 Hoyt to Woodbury, on the state of his accounts ; discovers that the law relat- ing to emoluments has been misunderstood — that he is entitled to more than he has previously charged ; refers the Department to Congress, as he has done before - - - - - -551 Hoyt to Woodbury, complains of merchants making discount on Treasury notes ; cannot estimate weekly receipts and payments - - 555 Hoyt to Woodbury, in relation to Mr. Fratee - -. • - 556 Hoyt to Woodbury, about eccentric figures from naval office - - 560 Woodbury to Hoyt, reported depredation on goods in public stores - 560 Hoyt to Woodbury, conflagration of public store ; " utterly impossible for col- lector to have any accurate knowledge of the mass of accounts" - 560 Hoyt to President, resigning his office in conformity to suggestion of Secre- tary of the Treasury - - - - 561 Hoyt to William Elliott Lee, replying to inquiry concerning Mr.. Savage - 561 \