GOODRICH 
 
 Exposition of the J. D. 
 Williams Fraud. 
 
 M, 
 
 HJ 
 
 6720 
 A6 
 1866
 
 EXPOSITION 
 
 J. D. & M. WILLIAMS FRAUD, 
 
 ' 
 
 OF ITS SETTLEMENT; 
 
 THE CHENERY & CO. FRAUD, 
 
 REMOVAL OF TIMOTHY B. DIX, AND HON.. SAMUEL HOOPER'S 
 EXTRAORDINARY REPORT THEREON; 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 MATTERS AT THE BOSTON CUSTOM HOUSE. 
 
 BY J. Z. GOODRICH, 
 
 WHO SUBMITS THE WHOLE AS AX ANSWER TO ALL SPECIFIC CHARGES 
 
 AGAINST HIM, AND A VINDICATION OF HIS GENERAL CONDUCT 
 
 AND POLICY AS COLLECTOR. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 ROCKWELL AND ROLLINS, PRINTERS, 
 
 122 WASHINGTON STREET. 
 
 1866.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 
 Baggage smuggling by respectable and wealthy Views of Secre- 
 tary and Mr. Hooper on 
 
 Borate Case or duties improperly refunded on Exportation . . 39 
 
 Chase, S. P. Letter 21 
 
 Chenery & Co. Attempt to defraud 18, 2G 
 
 Dix, Timothy B. Removed for aiding Chenery & Co. . . . 18, 25 
 " " Removal approved by Secretary Chase . . 28 
 Dix, General John A. Appeals to Fessenden and McCullock to re- 
 instate his brother T. B. Dix . 29 
 
 Grand Jury Investigate before 16 
 
 Hooper Samuel Report by on Chenery and Dix case ... 21 
 
 " " His law , 27 
 
 Lucrative office 45 
 
 Suspicions and rumors 
 
 Secretary McCulloch Confidential Correspondence with Messrs. 
 
 Williams 16 
 
 Secretary McCulloch Correspondence in regard to reinstating Dix 29 
 " " Interview with by Goodrich . . . 31, 44 
 
 Testimonials 46 
 
 The thirty-two thousand dollars 17 
 
 Tuck Amos His letter 15 
 
 Mary Samuel A. Extract from his letter 6 
 
 William, J, D. and M. Evidence of the Fraud .... 6 
 
 " " Settlement, facts in regard to ... 11 
 
 Williams Moses B. Testimony ... ... 5
 
 UCSB L 
 
 ' R P " * v 
 'o liHRY' 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 That somebody, properly or improperly, has attempted to impress 
 the public with the belief that I was guilty of gross official misconduct 
 during the latter part of my term of office as Collector of this Port, 
 scarcely any one, I suppose, is ignorant. The complaint against me 
 began earlier in certain quarters, by denying that I had the " com- 
 mercial experience" required for the proper performance of the du- 
 ties of Collector. Representations like these were made at Wash- 
 ington as well as here, and so much credit had been given to them 
 here, that it was said, about the time of my removal, even by those 
 who accorded to me the " highest integrity," that " for the want of 
 commercial experience (my) administration at the Custom House 
 had been marked by errors which made (me) unpopular." That there 
 had long been a growing unpopularity on my part with a certain class 
 of importers and a certain public man, though I could very easily 
 have made myself their special favorite, I know very well. I also 
 know that I can point to all these so called " errors," and state pre- 
 cisely what they were. But whether they could have been " corrected " 
 satisfactorily to the parties, by any amount of " commercial experi- 
 ence " without the aid of certain " mercantile usages " outside the 
 range of commercial integrity, every reader will judge for himself. 
 The class referred to quite too often confounded so called " errors," 
 which resulted from the want of commercial integrity, with what they 
 called " mercantile usage," and it was in that way, I think it will be 
 found, that there came to be so many "marked" errors in my ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 But at length the assault upon me assumed the form, either by 
 insinuation, rumor, or direct charge, of gross official misconduct, and 
 so much has been said to impeach not merely the correctness, but the 
 integrity of my "administration at the Custom House," that I deem 
 it my duty to myself and the public to submit such a statement as 
 will present matters in their true light, which I now proceed to do. 
 
 SUSPICIONS AND RUMORS. 
 
 The following appeared in the Boston Journal of the 27th of No- 
 vember, as part of a despatch from its Washington correspondent 
 "Perley": 
 
 " Some of the officials of the Treasury Department here are anxious to know 
 the result of certain investigations now being made at Boston into the distri- 
 bution of a heavy penalty collected from an importer of French wines." 
 
 Mark the language of this . despatch : "into the distribution of a 
 heavy penalty collected" The implication is that the amount collected 
 had not been properly distributed or accounted for, and that that was 
 the reason the Department had ordered an investigation. Its officials 
 spoke freely to newspaper correspondents of the investigation, and
 
 doubtless with the expectation that the matter would through them be 
 brought to the notice of the Boston public. It may therefore be 
 regarded as a semi-official despatch, which everybody understood to 
 refer to the J. D. & M. Williams fraud ; to me as the accounting oili- 
 ccr ; and to an investigation before the Grand Jury. 
 
 The Boston Traveller of the 1st of December, said on the same 
 subject : 
 
 " It is well known that a wealthy firm in this city, engaged in the wine and 
 spirit business, was detected in defrauding the Government by false invoices. 
 In order to settle the claims made upon it, the firm at different times puid 
 $ 157,000, but of this sum the Government received only $ 127,000, leaving 
 $ 30,000 to be amounted for. 
 
 " Now the question is, what became of this sum ? As the reputation of certain 
 parties has been implicated, we understand the subject has been brought before 
 the Grand Jury, with a view of having it legally investigated. It is alleged 
 that the $ 30,000 was pocketed by high officials." 
 
 Every merchant knows that if any money was paid in the settlement 
 referred to, which should have been accounted for, but was not, it was 
 paid to me as Collector, or with my knowledge and consent paid to 
 somebody else. Of course I am, if not the only party, a party whose 
 " reputation " is directly " implicated." 
 
 The Boston Commonwealth of the 2d December, says : 
 
 " For some time past there have been rumors throughout the commercial 
 community of this city to the effect that a considerable portion of a fine paid 
 by a leading wine-importing house for a violation of the revenue laws had 
 not been accounted for ; and there have been grave suspicions whispered that 
 the missing money had found its way into the hands of the late Collector, Hon. 
 John Z. Goodrich, or some of his associates. * * This rumor in time found 
 its way to Washington, and in some minds was associated with the recent 
 change of incumbents in the responsible position of Collector. * * That 
 Mr. Goodrich has been deeply injured by this rumor even in circles where it 
 should be otherwise, we apprehend, from what we have heard, to be without 
 doubt." The same paper further speaks of it as " the unfavorable rumor so 
 generally associated with the name of Mr. Goodrich. * * The Grand Jury of 
 this District is now giving it close attention." 
 
 Here the rumor or charge is that a considerable portion of a fine 
 paid by a leading wine-importing house had not been accounted for, 
 and that it was gravely suspected that the missing money had found 
 its way into my pocket. 
 
 I do not understand any of these papers as intending to vouch 
 for the truth of the statements they publish, but as merely repeating 
 what had become common rumor. The charge had been made and 
 repeated in conversations much earlier, and there would be no diffi- 
 culty, if that were my present purpose, in tracing it to a responsible 
 author. It found its way, according to one of the quoted extracts, 
 to Washington, and was associated in some minds with the recent 
 change in the office of Collector ; that is, that it was the cause 
 of my removal. And it may not be improper for me to state, what I 
 learned from two or three members of Congress, that in August, 1865, a 
 short time before my removal, Hon. Samuel Hooper stated at an in- 
 formal meeting of several members of the Massachusetts delegation, 
 that he had received a letter from Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the 
 Treasury, informing him that a removal of the Collector had been de-
 
 cidcd on, and requested a recommendation by the delegation of another 
 man for the office. The letter was not shown, it being, as Mr. Hooper 
 stated, a private and confidential one to him. The other members ad- 
 vised, and some of them very strongly, against a removal, but Mr. 
 Hooper said they had not been requested to express an opinion on that 
 question, and added that Mr. Goodrich did not stand well at the Depart- 
 ment, and, referring to the settlement of the J. D. & M. Williams fraud, 
 said the Department thought there was something wrong about it. This 
 was the idea conveyed. Other remarks were made by Mr. Hooper in 
 reference to my connection with said settlement, which I do not here 
 repeat. One of the delegation, as he informed me, made this reply : 
 " This cannot be so. Mr. Goodrich has not taken money which he 
 has not accounted for ; he is honest, and incapable of doing anything 
 of the kind, and if it were otherwise, he is not such a fool as to take 
 it in a case where it could be so easily found out." This I should not 
 repeat, if it did not indicate so unmistakably the tenor of the statement 
 to Avhich it was a reply. This Williams matter was discussed at this 
 conference, and it was understood, as some of the delegation informed 
 me, to be a cause of removal. No other, as I understood them, was 
 assigned. 
 
 The following are extracts from the testimony of Mr. Moses B. 
 Williams, one of the firm of J. D. &. M. Williams : 
 
 "A claim was made upon our firm during the year 18G5 in behalf of the IT. 
 S. Government, for sums alleged to be due on account of previous importa- 
 tions of wine by our firm. There were two claims made, both of which were 
 settled. Receipts were given by the Collector, or the Deputy Collector, to us 
 for the money paid to the Government. The first receipt I cannot find, but 
 the amount receipted for was $25,224, paid I think in the afternoon of March 
 28, 1865. The second receipt I here produce, dated May 8, 1865, for one hun- 
 dred thousand dollars. We paid the money in the settlement of both the 
 claims to Mr. Samuel A. Way. Mr. Way acted as our agent, and represented 
 our firm in what he did. We paid Mr. Way not varying far from $ 157,000. 
 We paid first $29,224, and got a receipt for $ 25,244. A portion of the $ 157,000 
 was paid between these dates I mean the dates of the two receipts and the 
 balance at the time of settlement. We paid 7,000 to Mr. Way on the 2d of 
 May, 1865. I did understand at the time said payments were made that 
 $125,244 was all that was received by the Collector in settlement of said claims 
 with the Government, and I have never made any statements to the contrary. 
 It was not represented to me, nor did I understand that any portion of the 
 excess over $ 125,244 was to be paid to Mr. Goodrich, the Collector. I am the 
 member of the firm by whom said negotiations were conducted and settlements 
 made. Not a particle of this money, nor any money, so far as I understood, 
 was paid to Mr. Way by us for his services in the matter. 
 
 " We had a correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury in reference 
 to the settlement of said claims. I should decline to produce it without the 
 permission of the Secretary of the Treasury. (Adjourned for one day.) Hav- 
 ing thought the matter over since yesterday, I have come to the conclusion to 
 decline to produce the correspondence asked for. (On being told by the mag- 
 istrate that it was his duty to produce it, adjourned again at request of Mr. 
 Williams to enable him to consult counsel.) The date of the letter we received 
 from the Secretary of the Treasury was the 5th of June, 1865. My answer 
 was dated on the 12th of the same month. It was in the name of my firm. The 
 correspondence was a confidential one, and I must still decline to produce it." 
 (The matter was not pressed further.) 
 
 Extract of a letter from Mr. Samuel A. Way, dated December 
 19th, 1865:
 
 6 
 
 ' It is simple justice to Mr. Goodrieh for me to say that I iiovcr paid him, 
 or know of his being paid, one dollar, either directly or indirectly; and I am 
 confident he never received from Messrs. Williams & Co., or any one else, 
 any sum of money on account of settlement or anything connected therewith. 
 
 " I write this without the knowledge of Mr. Goodrich or any of his friends." 
 
 Next I owe it to myself and the public to exhibit the 
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE FRAUD. 
 
 The history of the origin and practice of this great fraud upon the 
 revenue of the United States, by a firm that has for so many decades 
 taken first rank among the most respectable houses of Boston, will form 
 an instructive, and in some sense an interesting chapter in the com- 
 mercial annals of the country ; a chapter which I would willingly have 
 allowed to remain unwritten, had not the Messrs. Williams themselves 
 raised an issue which can be met in no other way. They have sought, 
 and I believe still seek, though convicted by their own tacit confes- 
 sion of their guilt, to blind the eyes of a credulous public by the 
 plausible pretext that they have been made the victims of persecution. 
 It is not long since one of the largest capitalists in State Street re- 
 marked to me that he thought the treatment they had received from 
 the Government was all wrong, as it would have been if the informa- 
 tion he had derived from them direct, or through others, had been cor- 
 rect. And it was only a few weeks ago that Mr. Williams, senior, 
 protested to one of the most intelligent and respectable merchants of 
 Boston that they were innocent, and said he could convince him that 
 they were, adding, that not they, but those who had taken their money, 
 were in the wrong. They have taken great pains to create the impres- 
 sion that they paid a large sum in settlement, not because they had 
 really defrauded the Government, but to avoid a long and vexatious 
 lawsuit, which would have been especially annoying to the senior in 
 the firm. 
 
 As a full and complete answer to all this, I invite public attention 
 to the following facts, first premising that the information which led 
 to the discovery and proof of the fraud, was furnished by Mr. W. B. 
 Farwell, of San Francisco, who had been to France as the special 
 agent of the Department. The proof was mainly derived from the 
 books of the Messrs. Williams themselves, obtained by warrant from 
 the District Judge on application from the Collector. 
 
 FACTS. 
 
 Prior to 1846, for several years Messrs. J. D. & M. Williams had 
 regularly received from L. Roederer, the manufacturer, at Reims in 
 France, shipments of champagne wine, familiarly known in Boston as 
 the " Schreider brand." This wine was obtained by purchase from 
 Roederer under a contract entered into in 1841. The price paid was 
 $ 9 per dozen for quarts, and $ 10 for pints, deducting therefrom the 
 costs of importation, such as freight, &c., and remitting the net 
 amount so arrived at to Roederer on the receipt of each invoice or 
 shipment. 
 
 In July, 1846, Congress enacted a new tariff which changed the duty 
 on champagne from forty cents per gallon, specific, to forty per cent. 
 ad valorem, which act took effect the following December. Prior to
 
 this, all the champagne thus imported by the Messrs. "Williams was 
 invoiced at $ 9 and $ 10, as the actual foreign market value. The 
 duty being then specific, no reason existed for any other than the 
 correct market value being named in the invoices. 
 
 From this date the story is best told from the letter books of the 
 Messrs. Williams themselves. I quote from page 404 of letter book 
 E. Under date of Boston, July 31st, 1846, they wrote Roederer as 
 follows : 
 
 "The proposed tariff bill, which we named in our last, has passed the Sen- 
 ate and will become a law, taking effect on and after December first next. The 
 new duty on champagne wine is forty per cent, ad valorem, instead of the 
 present specific duty of 40 cents per gallon, and 25 cents per dozen for bottles, 
 which is about $ 1.15 to $ 1.25 per basket for whole bottles, and $ 1.40 to $1.50 
 for pint bottles, depending whether the dozen is estimated to contain 2J gals, 
 or 2 gals. Messrs. Piper & Co. have invoiced their wines at f. 2.50 (2i francs) 
 or f. 30 (30 francs) per basket on board, both for whole and half bottles, and 
 have sent a consular certificate to that effect ; if you should do the same the 
 new duty would be forty per cent, on f. 30 (30 francs), say 12 francs, or about 
 double the present duty. The law has passed the present week, and we havenot 
 been able to see it. We will write to you again on the subject by the next 
 steamer. . . . Your next shipment had better be accompanied by a con- 
 sular certificate, you swearing to the invoice, which is to be made at as low a 
 rate as your conscience will allow. That there may be a uniform course pursued 
 by your houses at Reims, you had better consult with Piper & Co. and some 
 of the other houses who ship much to this country, that there may be some 
 uniform invoice price adopted by them on wine which is shipped here on their 
 own account. Your own discretion will however tell you if this is advisable." 
 
 Again on the 15th of August, 1846, they wrote to Roederer, as 
 appears by their letter book E, page 413, as follows : 
 
 "The new tariff fixes the duty on all wines at forty per cent, ad valorem ; on 
 bottles, corks, and baskets at thirty per cent, ad valorem. We hope that the 
 order which we gave you on the 15th of July for twelve hundred and fifty bas- 
 kets of wine, will be executed and arrive here previous to December 1st, at 
 which date the new duties take effect. But, in order to be prepared for any 
 accident, you had better invoice this shipment at as low a rate as your conscience 
 will allow yon to swear to it, because it must be accompanied by a consular cer- 
 tificate. We named in our last that Piper & Co. invoiced their wines at thirty 
 francs per basket, on board at Havre. The principal houses at Reims had 
 better adopt some system of invoicing ; we mean those houses who ship much 
 to New York and Boston, but you and Piper ship much more than any other 
 houses. If you conclude to invoice the wine at thirty francs per basket on 
 board, you must make the invoice in the following manner : 
 
 " Invoice of baskets of Champagne wine, shipped per ship , 
 
 for account of myself, and consigned to John D. & M. Williams and Edward 
 Codman & Co., for sale, or for their acceptance. 
 
 " C & W No. to No. , 1250 baskets Champagne wine, viz. : the wine at 
 23f. each; the bottles, corks, and baskets at 7f., 30 francs per basket on 
 board at Havre, f. 37,500. 
 
 " The duties will then be cast on the wine valued at 23 francs, at forty per 
 cent., and the bottles, corks, and baskets at 7 francs, thirty per cent." 
 
 Up to this time all wines received by Messrs. J. D. & M. Williams 
 had been forwarded as regular purchases, as per invoices in the Cus- 
 tom House. From the form of invoice given in the last letter, it will 
 be seen that to aid in covering up the fraud, Roederer was instructed 
 to make his invoices as consignments, although, as shown, they were 
 actually purchased.
 
 8 
 
 On the 15th of September, 1846, they wrote to Koederer, as ap- 
 appears by their letter book E, page 431, as follows : 
 
 " We hope that our last order for wine may be executed and forwarded im- 
 mediately, so as to arrive before the first of December, when the new duties 
 take efl'ect. 
 
 " We shall soon be wanting more wine, and we would like to know if vou 
 can make any discount from the net amount which you now receive for the 
 same quality of wine, after the new tariff takes effect. We ask this question 
 because we are confident that we shall not be able to obtain an advance price 
 equivalent to the increase of duty after December 1st, next-" 
 
 To this letter, under date of October 4th, 1846, Koederer responded 
 as follows : 
 
 " It is well understood that the accident of new duties falls to your charge, 
 if unfortunately the ship should be retained and not arrive before the 1st of 
 December next. This is in all justice and equity, and you have promised it in 
 one of your last letters, 
 
 " Your question relative to a diminution of price is consequently answered 
 in advance, and I refer again upon this subject to my former letters, viz. : that 
 of 29th of August, &c. Since that letter, a vintage of excellent quality but of 
 little product and of an exorbitantly dear price, has made it more impossible 
 than ever for me to make the smallest concession, and I regret it infinitely, 
 gentlemen, for I have always the liveliest desire to be agreeable to you, and 
 to contribute as much as possible to the [greatest extension of my relations 
 with your honorable house. 
 
 "But if you wish that I continue to send you that excellent quality that I 
 have been in the habit of furnishing, and which still distinguishes my ship- 
 ment of to-day, it is absolutely necessary that you add to the price of $9 for 
 the bottles, and $10 for the half bottles, the augmentation of the duties of the 
 new tariff', and it will be necessary to take for a base the price named in the ficti- 
 tious invoice which accompanies the wines, that is to say, 35 francs per basket, 
 on board at Havre." ****** 
 
 Mr. Roederer being thus fixed in his prices, Messrs. Williams and 
 Codman continued to receive the wine upon the old conditions, with 
 the advantage of the reduced price in the false invoice for each ship- 
 ment for use at the Custom House, At first Roederer decided that 
 he could not put the price in the false invoice at 30 francs, as they 
 had requested, and proposed to make it 35 francs, but finally acceded 
 to this request, and made up his false invoices for the Custom House 
 at 30 francs, which was $5.58 per basket, instead of $9 and $10, the 
 price actually paid, less charges. 
 
 In various other letters the Messrs. Williams instruct Roederer 
 how to invoice his wine, and the latter responds as follows : 
 
 " With this you will find the invoice of the 1567 baskets which are going to 
 leave Havre the 20th inst. ( ) on board the Versailles. Have the kind- 
 
 ness to credit me with this shipment for $14,570, payable as usual. M. Ludin 
 the shipping agent at Havre will join to this letter (which will leave by 
 the Versailles) an invoice legalized by the American consul ; a fictitious in- 
 voice which I have made according to your instructions, and in accord with 
 Messrs. Piper & Co., in French, as is their custom to do. I hope this will 
 satisfy you in all respects." 
 
 This, however, did not quite satisfy the Messrs. Williams " in all 
 respects," for under date of April 30th, 1847 (letter book F, page 44), 
 they replied as follows :
 
 9 
 
 " The form of the invoice as directed in ours of the 81st of March, we be- 
 lieve to be the best that you can adopt until we find some reason to change it, 
 but ice want you to swear to the invoice instead of Mr. Ludin, You can swear 
 to it before a magistrate in your own place, and the American consul must 
 certify that due credit is to be given to such magistrate." 
 
 In a spirit of reciprocal accommodation Mr. Roederer, from this 
 time on up to the spring of 1865, complied with this request, and 
 throughout 1847 he wrote, with every shipment, letters in which ap- 
 pear such expressions as these : 
 
 Under date of January 6th, 1847 : 
 
 "Here is the invoice, and the fictitious invoice, of the 1170 baskets. The 
 genuine invoice amounts to 10,700, which you will please carry to my 
 credit upon the old conditions." 
 
 Another letter : 
 
 " To-day I have the pleasure to remit to you the invoice of the 483 baskets, 
 which are going to leave the 15th inst. (July, 1847), on board the Win. God- 
 dard. Will you credit me with this shipment for $4,430, upon the ordinary 
 conditions ? A fictitious invoice you will be provided with at the same time through 
 Mr. Lridin." 
 
 Under date of October llth, 1847 : 
 
 " I have herewith the honor to send the invoice of -the 527 baskets ordered 
 the 14th of August, amounting to 4,850, and payable upon the ordinary con- 
 ditions. A fictitious invoice, conveniently legalized, you will receive through Mr. 
 Ludin." 
 
 The Messrs. Williams, on the 14th of August, 1847, wrote Mr. 
 Roederer (letter book F, page 102,) as follows : 
 
 " We would like some wine, but should be glad to have it come direct to 
 Boston. We get along better with the Custom House here in Boston than in New 
 York. * * * Let the invoice and all the verifications be the same as 
 those by the Versailles. You can make no improvement in these forms." 
 
 Again, later, they say : 
 
 " We hope that you may be able to ship us some by the Moselle, particularly 
 the half bottles, which are passed by us in Boston at twenty cents per basket less 
 than in New York. There are also some other advantages in having the wine 
 come directly into Boston." 
 
 On the subject of double invoices, the Messrs. "Williams finally 
 wrote Roederer on the 15th of November, 1847, as appears by their 
 letter book>F, page .162, as follows : 
 
 " In your future shipments, we think it best that you should send only the invoice 
 for the Custom House, and make no reference in your letters to any other price, 
 but simply say in your letters that you inclose to us the invoice of the wine, with 
 consular certificates, &c., shipped on your account according to existing agree- 
 ment." 
 
 To this, Roederer responded as follows : 
 
 " My next will remit to yon the legalized invoice for the Custom House, 
 and, folio wing- your wishes, I will make no reference to any other invoice." 
 
 From that time to 1865, no other invoice than the fictitious one 
 made for use at the Custom House, was sent. For nearly nineteen 
 years the system of fraud thus inauguarated ran smoothly. Long 
 2
 
 10 
 
 and successful habit had so sanctioned the practice, that doubtless it 
 entered as much into the basis upon which business was done by this 
 house, as any other element of its commercial ethics. It came down, 
 literally, from father to son. 
 
 The following is an extract from the oath that was taken in each 
 importation by one of the firm : 
 
 I do solemnly and truly swear that the invoice now produced 
 
 by me to the Collector, is the true and only invoice received ; * * that I do 
 not know or believe in the existence of any other invoice of the said goods, 
 wares, and merchandise ; that the entry now delivered to the Collector con- 
 tains a just and true account of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, ac- 
 cording to the said invoice ; that nothing has been, on my part, nor to my 
 knowfedge on the part of any other person, concealed or suppressed, whereby 
 the IJnited States may be defrauded of any part of the duty lawfully due. : 
 And I do further solemnly swear, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 
 the invoice now produced by me exhibits the actual cost or fair market value 
 at , of the said goods, wares, and merchandise." 
 
 SHERRY WINES. 
 
 This house also imported, and entered at fraudulent prices, the 
 well known Sherry wines, as their books showed, and as they them- 
 selves confessed, by the prompt payment of $25,224, being the amount 
 of three invoices, viz. : 
 
 One October, 1863 $8,808 
 
 One January, 1864 4,156 
 
 One April, 1864 12,260 
 
 ** $25,224 
 
 There were double invoices in each case one for the Custom 
 House and one to settle by. This was discovered very soon after 
 entering upon an examination of their books. They requested an 
 interview, "and Mr. Williams, senior, Moses B. Williams, and Mr. 
 Corey, met the Collector, Naval Officer, and others, at the Custom 
 House after the close of business hours the 27th of March, 1865. Mr. 
 Williams, senior's, first excuse was that they were consignees. But it 
 soon appeared from answers to two or three questions, that they were 
 purchasers, and paid no attention to the invoice price in making re- 
 mittances for their wines. They then proposed to pay the amount of 
 these invoices, and deposited the same afternoon United States 7 3-10 
 bonds sufficient to cover the amount, and redeemed them by paying 
 the money on the opening of the Banks the next day, which was 
 March 28th. 
 
 Most of the facts in regard to the Champagne were discovered after 
 this, and a word more remains to be said on this head. Official in- 
 vestigations, set on foot within the previous two years, showed that 
 Champagne wines were being imported at fraudulent prices. Seizures 
 were made at San Francisco and New York. These alarmed Mr. 
 Roederer, who, in a letter to the Messrs. Williams, under date of 
 Reims, June 1, 1864, wrote to them as follows : 
 
 " In remitting herewith a copy of my last letter, I believe that I ought to ask 
 if the seizures which have been made in New York, of wines which the Custom 
 House pretends are invoiced too low, renders necessary any change whatever 
 in the prices in the invoices which I shall address to you in the future. 
 
 * If, according to custom, you address me an order for a shipment direct,
 
 11 
 
 which will probably take place about the first of July, have the kindness to 
 add your instructions upon this subject, for I desire that your interests shall 
 be protected, and you know better than I under what circumstances the seiz- 
 ures in question have been made." 
 
 This elicited no reply ; and on the 21st of December, 1864, Roederer 
 again wrote : 
 
 " I had hoped to receive from you new instructions upon the subject of the 
 value which it is necessary to indicate in my invoices for the wines which you 
 order. 
 
 " The seizures which the Custom House has made render necessary the 
 greatest precautions, and as the shipment is always made at your risks and 
 perils, I cannot put the wines en route and make the invoices at the old price, 
 for fear of exposing you to trouble." 
 
 To this the Messrs. Williams replied as follows : 
 
 " It may be well to add two francs to the prices of each wines. * * * * 
 We think we should have had no difficulty with the old way of invoicing, but as 
 the other houses are troubled, and as they are all making their invoices higher, 
 you had better make the change which we propose, as a matter of consistency 
 with others." 
 
 Thus stood the matter when this long practised fraud was brought 
 to light. The amount of Champagne wines alone, entered at the 
 Custom House between 1846 and 1865, by this old and wealthy house, 
 at a fraudulent undervaluation, was over two million and two hun- 
 dred thousand dollars, as shown by their own books. 
 
 THE SETTLEMENT. 
 
 Hon. Alpheus Hardy, at the request of Mr. Williams, senior, as he 
 said, called at the Custom House to confer with me upon the subject 
 of the alleged fraud, and the probable terms upon which it might be 
 settled. Mr. Samuel A. Way had before offered, by authority, as he 
 said, $100,000, which no one then proposed to entertain or even con- 
 sider. Mr. Hardy was strongly impressed with a belief of Mr. Wil- 
 liams's innocence, from explanations he had made to him the previous 
 evening. I presented the case and the correspondence to him very 
 much as detailed above, and he reported to Mr. Williams, and saw 
 me again two or three times on the subject. The sums named within 
 which a settlement might possibly be made were $300,000 to $500,000, 
 but I told him I had no authority to determine the amount. It was 
 then supposed they were liable for the whole amount of the invoices, 
 ascertained then to be about $1,500,000, but soon afterwards to ex- 
 ceed $2,200,000. About this time Mr. Hardy retired, and Mr. Way 
 again appeared as the friend of the Messrs. Williams, and was per- 
 sistent and active in their behalf, and repeated the offer of $100,000. 
 As I had no authority to settle or compromise, I deemed it my duty 
 to present the question to the Secretary, and did so. Soon after Mr. 
 Jordon, the Solicitor of the Treasury, visited Boston to advise in the 
 matter. After laying before him all the facts, the question arose, 
 what sum should be accepted of the Messrs. Williams in settlement. 
 A conference on the subject was had between the Solicitor, Mr. Far- 
 well, who had aided the Government in the investigation, Mr. Tuck, 
 the Naval Officer, and myself. I stated in substance that I would 
 not oppose a settlement, but my opinion was that a thorough exami-
 
 12 
 
 nation before a court and jury would do more to prevent similar frauds, 
 in the future, than any amount of money that could be obtained by 
 compromise. Others thought it would be decidedly better for the 
 Government to adjust the matter by compromise, but no one named 
 less than $300,000^ Finally, the sum of $850,000 was agreed upon 
 as the lowest that should be offered in settlement. I concurred 
 in a settlement on this basis, though I had favored a larger sum. 
 The Solicitor then had an interview with the Messrs. Williams at 
 their counting room, and offered to accept $350,000 and discharge the 
 claim. The offer was declined. I was then authorized to compro- 
 mise for that sum, and, if not paid, directed to report the case to the 
 District Attorney for prosecution, and the Solicitor returned to Wash- 
 ington, supposing all the statutes of limitations had been repealed, 
 and that the Williamses were liable for the whole amount of the im- 
 portations back to 1846. The negotiation proceeded upon the idea 
 that they were thus liable, they offering $100,000, and the Govern- 
 ment asking $350,000. At length it was discovered that by mistake 
 one of the statutes of limitations had not been repealed, and that 
 consequently there could be no claim on importations which had been 
 made more than five years. The importations within five years 
 amounted to about $550,000. The claim of the Government was thus 
 reduced from over $2,200,000 to that sum. This I did not regald as a 
 reason why it should be settled for less than the sum before named, viz., 
 $350,000. But Mr. Farwell and Mr. Tuck thought otherwise. :md 
 favored a reduction at first to about $200,000 or $250,000. Mr. Way 
 was untiring in his efforts to induce an acceptance of $100,000 in 
 settlement, and at length Mr. Farwell and Mr. Tuck deemed it best 
 to accept that sum, and proposed that Mr. F. should go to Washing- 
 ton and present to the Secretary and Solicitor the reasons which had 
 induced them finally to favor a compromise for $100,000, and obtain 
 the Secretary's authority to accept that sum if he should concur in 
 their views. Prominent among these reasons were those given by 
 Mr. Tuck in his published letter, viz., " I fully believed," to quote 
 his own words, " though the facts showed a larger amount due, that 
 the sums paid, being in the aggregate $125,224, were the maximum 
 which the Government could recover, without protracted litigation, 
 and without the delays and hazards to success which wealth and in- 
 fluence can always command." I did not give the weight to these 
 views which they did, but was willing Mr. Farwell should present the 
 whole case to the Secretary. He then prepared a paper addressed to 
 the Secretary, designed for my signature, Mr. Tuck's, and his own, 
 recommending a compromise for $100,000. This I declined to sign 
 in the form of a recommendation, as I did not wish to express an 
 opinion that it ought to be so settled, for my views were clear that it 
 ought not to be ; but I was willing to concur in a reference of the 
 matter to the Department, and to express my acquiescence in the 
 proposition to accept $100,000 if it should deem a settlement on those 
 terms advisable. Mr. Farwell then altered the paper so as to ex- 
 press substantially that idea, and I signed it. But on further reflec- 
 tion, and before Mr. Farwell had reached Washington, I decided to 
 telegraph the Department and advise against the terms proposed, and 
 did so, and then expressed very decidedly the same opinion by letter. 
 On the morning of the 6th of May Mr. Farwell returned, and informed
 
 13 
 
 me that the Secretary had decided to accept the 0100,000, and the 
 next day the mail brought a letter from the Solicitor^ of which the 
 following is a copy : 
 
 " TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ? 
 "Solicitor's Office, May 6, 1865. ) 
 
 " Sir, I have submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury the facts and pa- 
 per* relative to the frauds committed by J. D. & M. Williams aiid Edward 
 Codman & Co., iu the importation at Boston of wines and other merchandise 
 for a series of years past, and the proposal of the parties implicated to pay the 
 sum of one hundred thousand dollars, in satisfaction of all claims which the 
 United States may have, for duties, fines, penalties, and forfeitures arising 
 upon said importations or incurred by reason of the frauds therein, or other 
 improper conduct in relation thereto, and the Secretary having examined the 
 subject, directs me to instruct you to accept the compromise proposed. I 
 have therefore to say that you are hereby authorized and directed to uccept 
 and receive from the parties in question, the sum of one hundred thousand 
 dollars in United States legal tender notes, in full satisfaction and discharge 
 of all claims of the United States arising out of the importations referred to, 
 or out of the acts of any and all the parties interested* therein, or in relation 
 thereto ; and that you will dispose of said sum according to law. 
 "Very respectfully, 
 
 "EDWARD JORDON, Solicitor. 
 
 " J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Collector of Customs, Boston." 
 
 I still hesitated, and on this, to me, very strong ground, viz., that 
 it was not half the amount of the duties that had been unlawfully 
 withheld, with the interest. During the progress of the negotiation, 
 occupying some five weeks, Mr. Farwell, at my request, had computed 
 the amount that the Messrs. "Williams had saved in duties on the 
 Champagne alone, and found that it was just about $150,000 
 
 Anmial interest, for say nine and a half years, half the time, 
 
 would be about $11 1,000; he called it . . . 100,000 
 
 Showing that they had made and the Government had lost 
 
 at least $250,000 
 
 Mr. Way had also made a computation, and had frequently admitted 
 that the amount of duties withheld was $100,000 ; he claimed that 
 it would not exceed that, $100,000 
 
 Upon which the interest, computed in the same way, would 
 
 amount to about 74,000 
 
 $174,000 
 
 The average of the two sums was $212,000 
 
 Mr. Way had also frequently admitted, when the Government 
 asked $350,000, that as a matter of common honesty the Messrs. 
 Williams should pay the amount they had actually saved and the 
 Government had lost, and I determined to make an effort to secure 
 at least this sum. Accordingly on Mr. FarwelPs return I stated to 
 him my determination to decline a settlement for less than the Wil- 
 liamses had actually made by the fraud, including the interest. I 
 therefore, when Mr. Way called at the Custom House the next morn- 
 ing, presented the matter to him in this way : I stated that he had 
 often admitted that as a matter of common honesty the Messrs. Wil- 
 liams should pay to the Government the amount it had actually lost 
 by their fraudulent undervaluation of the wines. He replied, " Yes, 
 and I say so now." I then proposed that he and Mr. Farwell should
 
 14 
 
 ascertain the amount of duty that had been withheld on all the impor- 
 tations sincej.846, and offered to take the responsibility of discharg- 
 ing the claim upon the payment of that amount, whatever it might be, 
 with the interest. His reply to this was that he and Mr. Far well 
 would not agree, and at once began to show him, or try to, that they 
 could not. I answered that if they took up each importation and 
 compared the amount in the entry and false invoice at the Custom 
 House with the actual value and the amount actually remitted Mr. 
 Roederer by the Messrs. Williams, as shown by their own books, 
 and it was all so shown, I did not see how they could fail to come 
 to substantially the same result. He responded, " We sha'n't agree, 
 we sha'n't agree." I repeated that I did not see why, as it was sim- 
 ply a matter of computation ; that the loss to the Government in du- 
 ties ascertained on one importation, would furnish the rule or rate on 
 the aggregate amount, as the price paid was the same, and the under- 
 valuation in the false invoices was the same through the whole period. 
 " No," said Mr. Way, " we sha'n't agree upon the principle ; " and 
 began again with great earnestness, I might almost say an excited or 
 nervous earnestness, to point out to Mr. Farwell wherein they should 
 differ, and added that Mr. Hardy would agree that his mode of ascer- 
 taining the amount of duties withheld was correct. " Very well," said 
 I, " I am willing if you and Mr. Farwell cannot agree, that Mr. Hardy 
 should decide which is right, and will settle upon the payment of the 
 amount thus ascertained." Mr. Way, not liking this proposition, re- 
 plied as before, " We eha'n't agree, I know we sha'n't, and there is no 
 use in trying," continuing his efforts at the same time to convince 
 Mr. Farwell that they should certainly differ. The discussion at 
 times quite earnest run on in this way for a long time, Mr. Way 
 admitting that the Messrs. Williams ought at least to restore all they 
 had taken from the Government, but declining my proposition for no 
 other reason than that he and Mr. Farwell and Mr. Hardy could not 
 agree as to the amount. He finally said the sum would be less than 
 $100,000. " Very well," said I, " then I will settle for less than $100,- 
 000," and insisted that they ought at least to try, but he refused even to 
 try. Whereupon I decided and it was then my fixed purpose 
 that I would not receive the $100,000 and discharge the claim, and so 
 stated to Mr. Way, who then retired, and, as I supposed, reported my 
 decision and proposition to the Messrs. Williams. It should be stated 
 that Mr. Way had learned the decision of the Department through 
 Mr. Farwell before I had presented this proposition. 
 
 Mr. Tuck and Mr. Farwell disapproved decidedly of my action, 
 and remonstrated with me earnestly against it, claiming that the letter 
 of the Solicitor contained not only the authority of the Secretary, but 
 his positive instructions, which it was my duty to carry out. I re- 
 plied by repeating what I had before said in substance, that the 
 $100,000 was not half the amount that had actually been made out of 
 the Government by the fraud, and that a settlement for that sum 
 would operate as a bounty and encouragement to fraud, rather than 
 tend to check or prevent it. I insisted that while small offenders are 
 held to the full penalties of the law, a great fraud like this, so delib- 
 erately and carefully contrived and entered upon, and so systemati- 
 cally and successfully practised for nineteen years, by parties who 
 had evidently counted on their reputation and standing to lift them
 
 15 
 
 above suspicion, and thereby enable them to do unsuspected what 
 otherwise they probably could not have done, when pressed by 
 Roederer to allow the price to be raised for their own safety, after 
 seizures had been made in other places, it was with apparent reluc- 
 tance they consented to an advance of two francs, adding, " We think 
 we should have had no difficulty with the old way of invoicing ; " I 
 say, I insisted that such a fraud, so successfully inaugurated and 
 executed during so long a period by such parties, ought not to be so 
 settled that the perpetrators of it could say that it had after all been 
 a source of great profit to them. t Rather than settle the case with 
 such a result I much preferred to report it to* the District Attorney 
 in the usual way for judicial investigation and determination. This 
 course, I think, and have ever thought, would have been the best for 
 the Government. But Mr. Tuck and Mr. Farwell again urged their 
 views upon me. They insisted that the matter had been referred to 
 the Secretary with the understanding that his decision should be accept- 
 ed as final; that it was my duty to comply with his instructions ; 
 that they believed it would be better for the Government in the end 
 to settle in this way rather than take the hazards and delay of a 
 prosecution, and I finally very reluctantly concluded that under the 
 instructions of the Secretary and all the circumstances, it might be 
 my duty to receive the $100,000 and discharge the claim, and did so. 
 The following is a copy of the discharge : 
 
 " CUSTOM HOUSE, BOSTON, 
 "Collector's Office, May 8, 1865. 
 " $100,000. 
 
 " Received of J. D. & M. Williams and Edward Codman & Co., one hundred 
 thousand dollars, in full satisfaction of all claims which the United States may 
 have for duties, fines, penalties, and forfeitures arising out of the importation 
 of Champagne wines and other merchandise up to this date, or incurred by 
 reason of frauds therein, or other improper conduct in relation thereto, or out 
 of the acts of any and all the parties therein interested. All books and papers 
 of J. D. & M. Williams to be given up. 
 
 (Signed) J. Z. GOODRICH, Collector." 
 
 Let it not be supposed for a moment that it is any part of my pur- 
 pose in the foregoing statement, to contrast what I did with what 
 Mr. Tuck did. "We differed very decidedly and widely in opinion, 
 but I never had a particle of doubt of his incorruptible integrity as a 
 man and officer. My sole purpose is to present as accurately as 
 possible the part I took in the transaction, which I cannot do with- 
 out referring to matters in regard to which we differed. Charged, as 
 I have been, as the responsible officer in ferreting out this great fraud 
 and settling with the perpetrators of it, with having received large 
 sums of money which I have not accounted for, it is my right not 
 only, but my duty to myself and friends, to state to the public pre- 
 cisely what I did. This I have done.* 
 
 * At the request of Mr. Tuck, to place him right before the public^ppon a 
 matter which, between us, was always right, I have consented to insert the 
 following note from him : 
 
 U. S. HOTEL, April 19th, 18GG. 
 Hox. J. Z. GOODRICH : 
 
 Dear Sir, I notice in reading my letter of the 19th of March, that my 
 using the words, " by Mr. Goodrich or any one else," in that clause where I 
 disclaim knowledge of the payment of an amount above a certain sum named,
 
 16 
 
 THE SECRETARY'S CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE 
 WITH THE MESSRS. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Before the confidential letter of the Secretary to the Messrs. Wil- 
 liams, on the 5th of June, had he heard anything unfavorable to my 
 conduct in this matter ? If he had, from whom had he heard it ? 
 Mr. Hooper says he had seen my letters, - seen them at the Depart- 
 ment, of course. I assume that this was before the Secretary's note 
 to the Messrs. Williams ; and that whatever he had heard unfavorable 
 to me, if anything, he learned from Mr. Hooper. 
 
 If the Secretary had .not learned anything unfavorable to me, is it 
 not somewhat singular that he should have opened a confidential 
 correspondence with the Messrs. Williams, who had been, as he knew, 
 regularly and systematically defrauding the Government for nineteen 
 years, without communicating at all with the Collector who had been 
 doing all in his power to expose and stop the fraud ? It is not usual 
 to make confidants .of merchants who have just been detected in 
 gigantic frauds, rather than Collectors against whom there are no 
 suspicions. But as the Secretary did not confer with me on the sub- 
 ject then, and has not at any time since, I infer that somebody had 
 poisoned his mind. I cannot learn what he wrote the Messrs. Wil- 
 liams, nor what they wrote in reply. They say the correspondence 
 related to the money paid in this settlement, but that it was confiden- 
 tial. It may be safely assumed that it contains something not in their 
 testimony, as otherwise they would have produced it. 
 
 THE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Why was it not ordered before instead of after my removal ? The 
 Secretary had been for three months before in confidential corre- 
 spondence with the Messrs. Williams in regard to the " $32,000 un- 
 accounted for." Immediately after removal he directs the District 
 Attorney to inquire into the matter before the Grand Jury. But 
 nothing was said to me about it. Why not? Was I suspected? 
 Why, and upon what evidence ? If not suspected, why has not the 
 Secretary relieved me from suspicion long ago, instead of allowing it 
 to be confirmed by what every now and then comes over the wires 
 from his own Department ? When the District Attorney called me I 
 went before the Grand Jury and told how much money I had received 
 
 a casual reader might infer that I thought it possible a larger sum was receiv- 
 ed by you. I should accuse myself more severely for using language capable 
 of such a construction, if the possible inference from the words used had not 
 escaped your notice as well as my own, when I read my letter to you before 
 publication. I had two objects in view in that clause of my letter, one to 
 make my denial entirely comprehensive; and the other to avoid trespassing 
 upon your defence, officiously vindicating you, in Massachusetts, on your own 
 ground, among your own friends, when I knew you were about attending to 
 that matter yourself. Had I not known your means of defence and your pur- 
 pose to TOC them, I should have made my assertions so broad as to have cov- 
 ered your acts as well as my own, touching the Williams settlement. I should 
 have thought it proper, also, to have stated my own knowledge of your faith- 
 ful course toward the Government on all occasions, and your incapability of 
 any act unworthy of a most generous, patriotic, and honored citizen. 
 I am, with the greatest esteem, 
 
 Yours, AMOS TUCK.
 
 and what I had done with it. His report, not made a few days ago, 
 will present the truth so far as he has been able to learn it. But it 
 must go to the Department, and I have no reason from the past to 
 suppose it will be furnished to me. I do not mean by this to com- 
 plain of the Secretary. He doubtless has reasons quite satisfactory 
 to himself for the course he has pursued. 
 
 THE THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
 
 Moses B. Williams testifies that besides the $125,224 paid to the 
 Government, $32,000 was paid to Mr. Way, but " not a particle " 
 was to be paid to him as compensation for his services. Conse- 
 quently it was all paid for the purpose of being used it is not 
 now pretended to the contrary, I suppose wherever and with 
 whomsoever it would accomplish most in promoting favorable dispo- 
 sitions and securing effective aid and influence in moderating the de- 
 mands of the Government. In other words, it was paid to " grease 
 the wheels." I had not the slightest suspicion at the time that money 
 was used, nor did it once occur to me that it could be had for any 
 such purpose. And I take great pleasure in being able to say that I 
 have no belief whatever that one cent of this $32,000 was paid to any 
 officer connected with the Boston Custom House, including Mr. 
 French, who was acting as Special Deputy in this and a few other 
 cases which arose before he resigned as one of the regular Deputies, 
 the first of April. I have the satisfaction of feeling that it was not 
 deemed best to suggest to me that money could be had, if desired ; at 
 any rate, the suggestion was not made. And I am very sure, if I had 
 had the least suspicion that such means had been used to compass a 
 settlement on easier terms, I should never have signed a receipt dis- 
 charging the claim. 
 
 One word more in this connection. Assailed as I have been, 
 wickedly and cruelly stabbed in the dark, as I have been, I may be 
 allowed to affirm, as I do explicitly and positively, that I performed 
 faithfully the onerous and responsible duty which was thrust upon 
 me by the discovery of this fraud. Others might have performed it 
 better, but no one could have tried harder to discharge his whole duty 
 to the Government and the public, than I did to the extent of my 
 ability and according to my best judgment.
 
 CHE1STERY & CO. AND DIX CASE, AXD 
 MR. HOOPER'S REPORT. 
 
 It is due to the public, if not to myself, that I explain another gross 
 fraud, and the means by which men high in military and civil position 
 have sought to justify it and the parties to it at the Department. The 
 Williams fraud was greater in amount, but the means employed were 
 no worse. Let everyone read the following statement, and judge for 
 himself : 
 
 FACTS. 
 
 On the 24th of July, 1862, Messrs. Chenery & Co. imported a car- 
 go of rum, sugar, and molasses, and on the same day made a ware- 
 house entry of the whole cargo. The Inspector, who superintended 
 the unlading, delivered it all to the Storekeeper for warehousing on 
 the 25th, and took warehouse receipts. The following is a copy of 
 the receipt for the sugar, excepting the marks and numbers : 
 
 " BOSTON, July 25th, 1862. 
 
 " Received in warehouse at C. H. B. [Custom House Block] from on board 
 brig Wm. Moore, Klynn, Master, from St. Croix, twenty-four hhds. and six 
 bbls. sugar, marked and numbered as in margin, and imported by Cheuery & 
 Co. 
 
 " Signed by the Storekeeper." 
 
 Another receipt in the same form was given for the molasses, and 
 a third for the rum. The rum was immediately sent to United States 
 Bonded Warehouse, but the sugar and molasses, at the request of 
 Chenery & Co., was allowed to remain on the wharf, as they expected 
 to sell it the next day, pay the duties and withdraw it, which' they 
 did. It was, however, in the custody and control of the Government, 
 represented by the Storekeeper, who might at any moment have 
 sent it to the store, and was considered as constructively w:i re- 
 housed, according to the well-known custom in such cases. 
 
 On the 26th, the Inspector made the usual return at the Custom 
 House that the vessel had been discharged and the cargo " warehoused 
 or stored on the 25th," and left with his return the Storekeeper's ware- 
 house receipts. 
 
 On the same day the Storekeeper made his return, which was on 
 the back of the order to receive the cargo into store, and was in these 
 words : " The merchandise permitted within was received into store 
 on the 25th day of July, 1862." 
 
 On the same day also, July 26th, Chenery & Co. paid the duty on 
 the sugar and molasses, having sold it as expected, and withdrew it 
 " from warehouse," and received the usuaj order or permit to the 
 Storekeeper to deliver it. This was Saturday, and it suited their 
 convenience to hold the order till Monday, the 28th, when they pre- 
 sented it and received the goods. The Storekeeper then returned the 
 order to the Custom House, and indorsed on it, " Delivered out July 
 28th, 1862." 
 
 The rum remained in bonded warehouse till the 28th of October.
 
 19 
 
 which was three months and four days after it was imported. Chenery 
 & Co. then applied to Mr. Payne, Warehouse Book-keeper, to with- 
 draw it, who informed them that as more than three months had 
 elapsed since it was imported, it was subject to double duty. To this 
 they objected, and presented the question to Mr. Timothy B. Dix, 
 principal Storage Clerk, who stated that as it appeared from the re- 
 turn of the Storekeeper that it had been in warehouse more three 
 months, it could not be withdrawn without paying double duty, or an 
 additional duly of fifty-nine cents a gallon. The time of warehous- 
 inij was no otherwise important than the conclusive evidence it fur- 
 nished that the rum had been imported more than three months, the 
 law being that it was subject to double duty if not withdrawn within 
 three months from importation. How to get over this evidence and 
 that furnished by Chenery & Co.'s oath, made on the original entry, 
 that it was imported on the 24th of July, was the question. They 
 went to the warehouse and endeavored to persuade the Storekeeper 
 that it was not warehoused till the 28th of July, and that his return 
 was wrong. But the Storekeeper, after examining his books, was 
 satisfied he received the rum into warehouse on the 25th of July, and 
 that his return was right. They then requeste'd him to go to the 
 Custom House and confer with Payne and Dix, two old and experi- 
 enced clerks, and see if it could not be arranged in some way, which 
 he did. He first saAV Payne, who went with him to Dix's desk. The 
 Storekeeper stated to Dix and Payne that he received the rum, sugar, 
 and molasses on the 25th of July, and delivered the sugar and mo- 
 lasses out to Chenery & Co. on the 28th, as his return showed. It 
 has never been pretended that he made a different statement, always 
 affirming the correctness of his returns. Mr. Dix then said that 
 "upon the Storekeeper's statement of the facts, in accordance with the 
 usual practice the return should have been dated the 28th of July instead 
 of the '26th, and that it would be proper to alter it" _ Finally, the 
 Storekeeper, by the advice and direction of Mr. Dix, as Mr. Payne 
 and the Storekeeper both say, altered his return, which was, as I have 
 said, on the back of the order to receive into warehouse. As origi- 
 nally made it was as follows : 
 
 " BOSTON, July 26th, 1862. 
 
 " The merchandise [which included the rum, sugar and molasses] permit- 
 ted within, was received into store on the 25th day of July, 1862." 
 
 As altered, it was as follows : 
 
 " BOSTON, July 28th, 1862. 
 
 " The merchandise permitted within was received into store on the 25th and 
 28th day of July, 1862." 
 
 The alteration consisted in inserting in the body of the return after 
 the figures "25" the word and figures "and 28," and by making 
 the figure " 6 " in the date into " 8," so that the date would be 28th 
 instead of 26th. In this way the time of the deposit or warehous- 
 ing of the rum, treating the whole as one transaction, and dating from 
 the deposit of the sugar and molasses, thus fixed by the altered return 
 at the 28th of July, was brought within three months from the 28th 
 of October. But this was not enough, because, while the 28th of Oc- 
 tober might not be more than three months from the time of deposit 
 in warehouse, it might be more than that from the time of im-
 
 20 
 
 portation. It was therefore necessary, under the law existing at that 
 time, to show that the withdrawal on the 28th of October would not 
 exceed three months from importation. This was done by allowing 
 Chenery & Co. to state in their withdrawal entry of the rum on the 
 28th of October, that it was imported on the 28th day of July, and 
 they did so state, although in the original entry on the 24th of July, 
 they had sworn, as the fact teas, that it was imported on the 24th. 
 
 Upon this altered and false return of the Storekeeper, and their own 
 false statement that the rum was imported on the 28th of July, Che- 
 nery & Co. were allowed to pay the single duty of fifty-nine cents 
 a gallon and withdraw it, which they did. The additional duty WHS 
 $2,993.66, and the whole purpose was to relieve them from the pay- 
 ment of this sum. There was no other conceivable motive or necessi- 
 ty for altering the return, or making the false statement as to the 
 time of importation, and Chenery & Co. and Dix were obliged to ad- 
 mit, and did admit, that such was the purpose. 
 
 A letter from the Commissioner of Customs, dated the 20th of the 
 following March (1863), inquiring why a duty of one hundred and 
 eighteen cents instead of fifty-nine had not been collected on the rum, 
 led to the disclosure of the foregoing facts, which was the first infor- 
 mation I or either of my Deputies had on the subject. The rum still 
 remained in warehouse on storage, and I immediately revoked the 
 order to deliver, and gave directions to retain it till the additional 
 duty of $2,993.64 was paid, and payment was made soon after. Mr. 
 Dix was removed (Payne and the Storekeeper resigned) , and his re- 
 moval was approved by the Secretary upon a report of the facts, with 
 copies of all the papers* relating to the case. His brother, General 
 John A. Dix, soon after appealed to the Secretary to direct that he 
 be reinstated, on the ground that injustice had been done him by 
 the removal. The Secretary (Mr. Chase), though he did not claim 
 the right to reinstate after having approved of the removal, was will- 
 ing, as a friend to General Dix, to inquire again and thoroughly into 
 the facts, and do what he properly might. With this view, he wrote 
 to Mr. Hooper on the 28th of July, 1863, and inclosed all the papers 
 which I had forwarded, and asked him to ascertain all the facts and 
 report them with his opinion, and especially/ to report whether he 
 agreed with the Collector. The forepart of August Mr. Hooper 
 called on me at the Custom House, and showed me his letter from the 
 Secretary. I at once made a full explanation of all the facts and the 
 views I entertained, and showed him the Storekeeper's warehouse re- 
 ceipts, dated July 25th, the Inspector's return, dated the 26th, the 
 entry of Chenery & Co., withdrawing the sugar and molasses, on the 
 26/i, and the Storekeeper's altered return, and pointed out what the 
 alteration was. I understood him to express opinions which agreed 
 with my own ; he said nothing to indicate that he differed from me 
 in any important particular. At the close of our interview he said 
 he would prepare his report to the "Secretary, and show it to me be- 
 fore forwarding it. My recollection of this is clear and distinct, and 
 I know I cannot be mistaken in regard to it. 
 
 Thus matters remained till I received an unofficial letter from Mr. 
 Chase, of which the following is a copy :
 
 21 
 
 " TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 12th, 1864. 
 
 " My dear Sir : I inclose an official letter which speaks for itself. Gen- 
 eral Dix feels greatly hurt by the removal of his brother, and wishes that I 
 would examine the matter anew. I cannot do this, and do justice to you at 
 the same time, without conferring with you personally. I therefore desire to 
 see you in Washington. I hope it will not be inconvenient for you to come. 
 There are many subjects I shall be glad to confer with you about. 
 
 " Very truly yours, S. P. CHASE. 
 
 " J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Boston, Mass." 
 
 I went to Washington, as requested, where I found, among the pa- 
 pers in the case, Mr. Hooper's report. This was the first intimation 
 I had that it had been made. It was dated September 15th, 1863, a 
 short time after his interview with me at the Custom House. It 
 closed with the statement that " the Collector declined to confer with 
 me (Mm) on the subject," which I pronounce to be utterly and inex- 
 cusably false. Mr. Hooper knew better. Inclosed with his report I 
 found a letter to him, written, as the report states, at his request, 
 from R. S. S. Andros, Esq., dated September 7th, also the affidavit 
 of Mr. Payne, dated August 22d, and of Mr. T. B. Dix, dated Septem- 
 ber 7th, 1863. I also found a letter from General Dix to the Secre- 
 tary, dated November 20, 1863, in which he spoke of the ordering of 
 an " investigation," and thus referred to Mr. Hooper's report : 
 " The Hon. Mr. Hooper has made his report, and I am told my 
 brother is completely vindicated. I now ask, as an act of justice, 
 that Tie may be placed in the position which he occupied before his 
 unjust removal by Mr. Goodrich. * * Mr. Harrington (Assistant 
 Secretary) assured me that he should not be considered out of place, 
 and that the result of the investigation should be decisive." Perhaps 
 Mr. Hooper had received the same assurance from Mr. Harrington, 
 which may explain why he forgot to show me his report.' Its con- 
 clusions do " completely vindicate " Mr. Dix, and it was doubtless 
 expected Mr. Chase would treat it as decisive without 'explanation 
 from me. But he thought justice to me required a personal confer- 
 ence, and he sought one. 
 
 Mr. Chase said he must see Mr. Hooper and myself together, and 
 proposed to meet us at 10 o'clock the uext morning at his office. We 
 met at the time appointed. Perhaps two hours were spent in verbal 
 statements by Mr. Hooper in explanation and vindication of his re- 
 port, and in replies by me pointing out what seemed to be not errors 
 merely, but perversions both of fact and law, to which Mr. Chase 
 listened. 
 
 MR. HOOPER'S REPORT. 
 
 , It conclusively shows that he knew the cargo was all warehoused 
 on or before the 26th of July. It says : " The entry and order to 
 receive into warehouse, was for rum, sugar, and molasses ; the rum 
 was put into the store on the 25th July ; the next day, being Saturday, 
 the 26th July, Messrs. Chenery & Co. sold the sugar and molasses at 
 auction, and immediately entered it out, paid the duty, and received 
 the delivery permit ; which permit they took to the Storekeeper on 
 the morning of the next business day, which was Monday, the 28th 
 July." 
 
 If the next business day after they received the permit was Mon- 
 day the 28th, of course they received it Saturday the 26th. Mr. 

 
 22 
 
 Hooper admits, then, that Chenery & Co. paid the duties on the 
 sugar and molasses, and " entered it out" of warehouse, or withdrew 
 it from warehouse, on Saturday the 26th, and the same day received 
 a permit or order for it, as was the fact. Consequently he knew it 
 had been previously warehoused, as otherwise it could not have been 
 withdrawn from warehouse. And he states, substantially, the same 
 thing in another passage, as follows : 
 
 " The sugar and molassess, after having been entered for storage, could be 
 obtained for delivery to the purchasers, only by entering it out, as if it was 
 actually in the Avarehouse ; for this purpose only is it, considered constrtu-liri hj 
 in the 'warehouse while on the wharf." 
 
 This admits it was constructively in the warehouse while on the 
 wharf. And if it could be obtained for delivery only by entering it 
 out, and conld be entered out only when constructively (if not actu- 
 ally) in the warehouse, and if it was in the warehouse for this pur- 
 pose, as Mr. Hooper says it was, then it must have been warehoused, 
 as he must have known, BEFORE it was "entered out" on the 26th. 
 Nothing further can be needed on this point. 
 
 And the evidence of the facts presented to Chenery & Co., Dix 
 and Payne at the time the rum was withdrawn on the 28th of Oc- 
 tober, or of what they then knew, agrees perfetly with this admission 
 of Mr. Hooper. This his report sufficiently shows. It says : 
 
 " As it appears by the Storekeeper's return " (agreeing exactly with tne In- 
 spector's return), " that the deposit in the warehouse was made on the 25th Ju- 
 ly, consequently that it had been in the Warehouse more than three months, 
 the warehouse Book-keeper, Mr. H. A. S. D. Payne, decided that the rum" 
 (there was but one return, showing the rum, sugar, and molasses were depos- 
 ited at the same time), " was subject to duty at the rate of one hundred and 
 eighteen cents per gallon under the law of July 14th, 1862." (They knew, it 
 seems, what the law was). * * "On referring" (Cheneiy & Co. referred) 
 " to the principal Storage Clerk, Mr. T. B. Dix, he stated that the return of the 
 Storekeeper must be their guide, and that the rum could not be withdraw 11 
 without paying the duty at the rate of one hundred and eighteen cents per 
 gallon." 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, they all knew the goods were warehoused 
 according to the returns, on the 25th of July, and they knew the with- 
 drawal of the sugar and molasses by Chenery & Co. the next day 
 which the withdrawal entry in the Custom House showed proved 
 the correctness of the returns, as the withdrawal could not have been 
 made if the warehousing had not been previously made. With this 
 proof that the returns were correct, proof by their own withdrawal 
 entry, Chenery & Co. went right to work co get the date of ware- 
 housing altered. 
 
 And this brings me to another part of Mr. Hooper's report, made 
 for another purpose (which will appear as we proceed), in which he 
 pretends, and upon a theory quite new, attempts to show that the 
 sugar and molasses were not warehoused, actually or constructively, 
 till the 28th of July. Portions of this part of his report, taken in 
 connection with the quotations already made, are curiosities. He 
 says : 
 
 " Messrs. Chenery & Co. claimed that the return was erroneous, as the 
 
 date of deposit in the warehouse was the 28th instead of the 25th of July, * * 
 
 Messrs. Chenery & Co. went to the public warehouse, and, after some 
 
 conversation with the Storekeeper who made the return, in regard to the facts
 
 23 
 
 in the case, requested him to go to the Custom House and consult the princi- 
 pal Clerk, Mr. T. B. Dix, and the warehouse Book-keeper, Mr. H. A. S. D. 
 Payne, both of whom had more experience than the Storekeeper in regard to 
 what had been the usual practice in relation to the return of goods deposited 
 in the public warehouse. After hearing the statement of the Storekeeper " 
 (which was that the goods were all warehoused on the 25th July, it has 
 never been pretended that he ever made a different statement), " Mr. Dix ex- 
 pressed the opinion that upon his statement of the facts, in accordance with the 
 usual practice, the return should have been dated the 28th of July instead of the 
 26th also, that it would be right for the /Storekeeper to alter his return so as to 
 make it conform to the facts in the case. The Storekeeper then changed the re- 
 turn by altering the date from the 26th to the 28th July, and in the body of the 
 return so that instead of stating the deposit in warehouse to be on the 25th 
 July, it was stated to have been received on the 25th and 28th July ; thereby 
 naming the first and last days, as had been customary in such returns, viz!, 
 the date of the receipt of the first package in warehouse as the first, and for 
 the other the last day on which any of the goods were received in the ware- 
 house. Messrs. Cheuery & Co. entered the rum on the 28th of October after 
 this correction of the return had been made, and paid the duty at the rate of 
 fifty-nine cents a gallon." 
 
 More uncandid or groundless assumptions than these were never 
 made. The Storekeeper's return was not altered to correct it ; no- 
 body concerned in the transaction could have supposed it was. And 
 Mr. Hooper must have known it conformed exactly to the facts in the 
 case. At any rate, he knew that the sugar and molasses were with- 
 drawn on the 26th, and that they had been warehoused before they 
 were withdrawn. And he knew the rum was warehoused on the 25th, 
 for he so states. Nor was the cargo warehoused on different days, as 
 assumed. Mr. Hooper knew it was all warehoused, if ever, on the 
 same day. This not only the Storekeeper's return, but the Inspec- 
 tor's return showed, both of which were in his hands, or copies. The 
 report proceeds : 
 
 " To arrive at a correct conclusion from the statement of the facts presented 
 in this case, the first question to be considered is whether the 28th of July 
 was the true date that should have been originally returned; and secondly, if 
 it was the true date, whether it was proper to make the alteration in the .re- 
 turn. In answering these questions it seems to me that the iisual practice of 
 the Boston Custom House should be considered, and not what was abstractly 
 the most correct and judicious action in regard to such returns." 
 
 But how does he attempt to prove that the 28th was the true date 
 that should have been returned as the date of deposit in warehouse ? 
 In this way, in his own words : 
 
 " When, after having been entered for warehousing, any portion of the 
 goods specified in the entry is entered out before it ha.8 been sent to the ware- 
 house, as was the case in this transaction of Chenery & .Co., the time when the 
 delivery permit is received by the Storekeeper, is considered the final date of de- 
 posit" (in warehouse). 
 
 This means that when the duties are paid on part of a lot of goods 
 entered for warehousing, and it is withdrawn while it remains in the 
 possession of the Storekeeper on the wharf before being actually sent 
 to the warehouse, and the owners have received an order for it, the 
 time when this order or delivery pennit is presented to the Store- 
 keeper is to be considered the time of final deposit in warehouse, 
 whether one, two, ten, thirty days or months after the withdrawal 
 entry or payment of the duties (in this case two days after). In other
 
 -24 
 
 words, the time of actual delivery out, or the time the Storekeeper 
 " receives " from the owners the order to deliver out, is the time of 
 final deposit in warehouse. Can anything be more absurd ? There 
 is no connection whatever between the two transactions. The order 
 to receive is before the duties are paid. The order, to deliver is after 
 the duties are paid. They are signed by different officers and issued 
 from different departments. Moreover, the order to receive into 
 warehouse must first be executed before the order to deliver can be 
 regularly issued. How, then, can anybody but feel surprised that a 
 mau of Mr. Hooper's intelligence, who has been so many years en- 
 gaged in the importing business, and so long familiar with the. mode 
 of passing goods through the Custom House, should make such a 
 statement as this. That it is wholly unfounded, cannot admit of a 
 doubt. 
 
 Besides, the time when goods are legally withdrawn is, not 
 when the owners receive them from the warehouse, or present an 1 
 order for them, but when the duties are paid on the withdrawal entry. 
 Secretary Chase, doubtless, surprised at Mr. Hooper's pretence of any 
 such custom as he talked about, inquired of the Collector of New York 
 when goods are withdrawn from warehouse, who replied under date 
 of February 2d, 1864, as follows : 
 
 " I regard the payment of the duties on the withdrawal entry, as the actual act 
 of withdrawal from warehouse, no matter when thereafter the order was present- 
 ed to the Storekeeper." 
 
 From the nature of the case it must be so. What has the Govern- 
 ment to do with imported merchandise after the duties are paid? 
 Nothing, of course. Manifestly they should not be warehoused, act- 
 ually or constructively, after that, and as a matter of fact and prac- 
 tice, well known to all importers, they are not. And yet Mr. Hooper 
 tells the Secretary that according to the custom or " usual practice" 
 of the Boston Custom House, they are. 
 
 The position of Mr. Hooper that an importer may keep his order 
 for withdrawn and duty paid goods in his pocket till it suits his con- 
 venience to present it, with the understanding that the time of pre- 
 senting it will fix the date of warehousing goods not withdrawn and 
 duties not paid, and extend the time within which they may be Avith- 
 drawn without additional duty (as in this case on the rum from the 
 25th to the 28th) , is simply preposterous, and it would be an im- 
 peachment of his intelligence to suppose for a moment that he does 
 not know it is. 
 
 But he tries still further to justify this position by saying that the 
 Storekeeper *' could not properly return on the 26th July that he had 
 received the rum, sugar and molasses into the warehouse." Not 
 proper to make the return on the 26th ! How is it possible Mr. 
 Hooper can justify such a statement ? It was not only proper the 
 return should be made when it was, but it was necessary to enable 
 Chenery & Co. to withdraw the sugar and molasses on the 26th. If 
 there had been no return, there would have been no evidence at the 
 Custom House that the sugar and molasses had been warehoused. But 
 the return had been made. The Storekeeper's return stated that the 
 goods had been " received into store on the 25th." The Inspector's 
 return stated that they had been " warehoused or stored on the 25th.'
 
 25 
 
 This was the required evidence to the Collector that the goods were 
 " in the warehouse " and might be withdrawn. The Storekeeper's 
 return, therefore, was properly made before they were withdrawn 
 and the delivery permit issued. Can it be that Mr. Hooper, an old 
 importer, could be ignorant of this ? And it was undoubtedly made 
 early in the day for the very purpose of enabling Chenery & Co., after 
 the auction sale, to make the withdrawal entry and get the delivery 
 permit, and it being property made, it was of course properly dated 
 the 26th, when made. Nothing can show more clearly than this , 
 simple statement of the regular and necessary order of proceeding, 
 the iniquity of the pretence that the goods were not warehoused till 
 the 28th. 
 
 And Mr. Hooper even goes so far, in this part of his report, as to 
 say that " the Storekeeper had no control over the sugar and molas- 
 ses on the wharf." His own words, already quoted, are a sufficient 
 answer to this. He says, " the sugar and molasses, after having 
 been entered for storage, could be obtained for delivery to the pur- 
 chasers only by entering it out." "Why not, if the Storekeeper had no 
 control over it? Why might not Chenery & Co., if this was so, have 
 taken it without paying duty and without a permit ? Could this be 
 done ? Of course it could not. The Storekeeper might at any mo- 
 ment, as Mr. Hooper ought to have known, have sent the sugar and 
 molasses to the store. Suppose Chenery & Co. had changed their 
 minds, and decided not to sell, pay the duties, and withdraw from 
 warehouse for two months, can it be pretended that the Storekeeper 
 could not have controlled it and put it into store ? He not only might 
 have done this, but it would have been his duty to do it. 
 
 TIMOTHY B. DIX. 
 
 Mr. Hooper represents Mr. Dix as saying that " upon the Store- 
 keeper's statement of the facts, in accordance with the usual practice, 
 the return should have been dated the 28th of July instead of the 26th, 
 and that it would be proper to alter it." 
 
 He said this and more. He directed the alteration. But it was 
 wholly immaterial, so far as Mr. Dix was concerned, what the Store- 
 keeper stated. He knew the facts as well as anybody could tell him. 
 He had been in the Custom House, and in that very office, seventeen 
 years, and was perfectly familiar with every paper. He knew the 
 deposit and Storekeeper's return were properly and regularly made 
 before Chenery & Co. withdrew the sugar and molasses, and there- 
 fore that the return could not properly be dated two days after the 
 withdrawal. He must have known there was no such usual practice 
 as he spoke of, and never had been. He knew, or ought to have 
 known, that the Storekeeper's return, if altered, would contradict the 
 Inspector's return, and would be incorrect as soon as altered, and yet he 
 directed the alteration to be made on purpose to aid in carrying out 
 the plan devised to give Chenery & Co. their rum by paying half the 
 lawful duty. Mr. Dix knew the importation was made the 24th of 
 July, because he himself issued the order that very day, after entry 
 and importation, to the Storekeeper to receive the cargo, which order 
 was before him when the alteration in the return was made. In a 
 word, there was not a material fact that he did not know perfectly. 
 1 11 his affidavit there is not a word which relates to the question.
 
 26 
 
 E. S. S. ANDEOS'S LETTEE. 
 
 In his letter to Mr. Hooper, it appears that Mr. Andros understood 
 the facts. He then says : "I entertain no doubt that, under the 
 practice, the 28th was the proper date of deposit." And I entertain 
 no doubt that he ought to be heartily ashamed of having expressed 
 such an opinion. A man who had been as familiar with Custom 
 House matters as he had, ought to have known better. 
 
 CHENEEY & CO.'S LETTEE. 
 
 The official letter inclosed in the Secretary's unofficial note of the 
 12th of February, was Chenery & Co.'s, dated December 31, 1863. 
 It was a request to the Secretary to order a refund of the additional 
 duty, for reasons stated. The following are extracts from it : 
 
 " We respectfully represent that on the 24th of July, 1862, we imported into 
 this District a cargo of merchandise * * and entered the whole cargo for 
 warehousing in one entry. Said cargo, according to the officer's return, and 
 in accordance with the facts in the case, was deposited in warehouse from the 
 25th to the 28th of July, 1862. The whole of the merchandise was immediately 
 withdrawn from warehouse, excepting an invoice of forty-eight puncheons of 
 rum." 
 
 These are extraordinary statements, and wholly at variance with 
 the known facts in the case. That the rum was deposited in ware- 
 house on the 25th there is no dispute. When, therefore, they assert 
 that according to the facts in the case the cargo was deposited in 
 warehouse from the 25th to the 28th, they mean to say that according 
 to the facts the sugar and molasses were deposited on the 28th. And 
 yet they themselves withdrew the " whole" of it from werehouse on 
 the 26th of July, having paid the duties on it, which, of course, they 
 knew. They certainly had the means of knowing it. They could 
 have ascertained from their own books that they paid the duty on the 
 26th ; and the date of their withdrawal entry, which was in the Cus- 
 tom House, would have shown at any time that that also was made 
 on the 26th. And on the same day they received the order for the 
 goods, and they knew they presented it to the Storekeeper on the 
 28th and took them out of warehouse, and did not put them into ware- 
 house. The question of time being the very question to settle, it is 
 not a supposable case that when they proposed to withdraw the rum 
 on the 28th of October, they could have forgotten to ascertain when 
 they paid the duty, made their withdrawal entry, and received the de- 
 livery permit. 
 
 Chenery & Co. are especially inexcusable in persisting in represen- 
 tations so palpably false, eight months after the discovery of the 
 fraud, and there is no way of accounting for it except upon the ex- 
 pectation that the Secretary would adopt the conclusions and recom- 
 mendations of Mr. Hooper's report without much inquiry or examina- 
 tion. They doubtless had been informed of the report, and of Assist- 
 ant Secretary Ilai'rington's assurance to General Dix, that the result 
 of the investigation should be " decisive." 
 
 . The 28th of July, the time they pretend the deposit was made, was 
 two days after the duties on the sugar and molasses had been paid, 
 and nobody knows better than Chenery & Co. that the Government 
 does not receive goods into warehouse, actually or constructively, 
 after the duties are paid.
 
 27 
 
 MR. HOOPER'S LAW. 
 
 But the law of July 14th, 1862, was yet to be got over with the 
 Secretary. This was done by Mr. Hooper in two ways. First, he 
 says, 
 
 " In regard to the law of July 14th, 1862, subjecting goods in public ware- 
 houses to an increase of duty when entered for consumption, after three 
 mouths from the date of importation, it is not clearly established by law in this 
 country, as it is in England, what time constitutes the date of importation." 
 
 He means, if he means anything by this, to say that it was not. 
 clearly established by law in this country that these goods, on the 
 28th of October, (for he is applying it to the present case), had been 
 imported three months. He admits it was three months and four 
 days after Chenery & Co. entered them at the Custom House, yiz., 
 on the 24th of July, and swore that the importation was then made, and 
 three months and three days after the goods had all been landed and 
 the rum actually put into Government store, viz., on the 25th of 
 July, and yet he doubts whether it is clearly established by law in this 
 country he thinks it is in England that all this constitutes an 
 importation, or the date of importation, before the 28th of July. This 
 is the opinion of the member of Congress who claims to have suggest- 
 ed and framed this very change in the law. 
 
 But second, fearing after all that this might constitute an importa- 
 tion, he proceeded to lay before the Secretary his understanding 
 entirely erroneous of the* construction of the law at the Custom 
 House, and the practice under it. He says : 
 
 " I understand that no change was made in the practice at the Custom 
 House in Boston in consequence of this change in the phraseology of the law; 
 that the date of importation was construed to mean the same as the date of de- 
 posit in previous laws." 
 
 What Mr. Hooper understood, of course I cannot say, but nothing 
 could be more erroneous than what he states. The change was made 
 the very day the law went into operation. Mr. Deputy Hanscom's 
 attention was specially called to the alteration ; in fact he was con- 
 sulted in Washington in regard to it just before it was made, and he 
 changed the practice at once. This Mr. Hooper might easily have 
 ascertained, and it was his dut} r to have ascertained it before making 
 such a report to the Secretary. He certainly had no business to make 
 a statement in regard to it contrary to the fact.* 
 
 * CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW YORK, > 
 Collector's Office, May 14, 1866. ) 
 
 Sir : In reply to your letter of the 12th inst. I have to state that I was 
 in Washington in the latter part of June and first of July, 1862, that while at 
 the Treasury Department, Mr. George Wood showed me a proposed tariff bill 
 printed by Congress, and requested me to suggest any alterations which 
 occurred to me. Among other things, I advised that the words ' date of 
 original importation ' where it appears in the 21st section, should be inserted 
 in lieu of the words ' date of deposit in warehouse or public store,' or words 
 to that effect (the exact words I do nqt now remember), similar to the pro- 
 vision in the 5th section of the act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 My suggestions, with the reasons therefor, were reduced to writing at the 
 request of Mr. Wood, a clerk in the Treasury Department. 
 
 As soon as the act reached me after its passage, I examined it to ascer- 
 tain if the suggestion had been acted upon, because it had proved inconven-
 
 28 
 
 " In regard to alterations of returns" (I quote from Mr. Hooper's 
 report) " by officers after they have been handed into the Custom 
 House, I am told that it is constantly occurring in regard to dates, 
 marks, or other details where facts are incorrectly stated." There is 
 not a circumstance to justify the assumption that the facts were incor- 
 rectly stated, and it is embarrassing to know how to characterize it. 
 But even if they had been incorrectly stated, Cheney & Co. should 
 have sought a remedy in another way. But the truth is, a correct 
 return was pretended to be incorrect, and thus a foundation was laid 
 to correct a pretended inaccuracy, and the correction was made for a 
 fraudulent purpose. If this is not to be classed among the gravest of 
 Custom House offences, then I do not know where to class it. Mr. 
 Dix's first excuse, when I called him to an account, was, that nothing 
 was. more common than these alterations, they were made every 
 day. This surprised me, and I asked him to explain what he meant. 
 His explanation was simply and only this : that officers Store- 
 keepers and Inspectors- who make these returns, on discovering in 
 a day or two, on entry, that they have made a mistake in the count 
 and find one or more packages short, or over, as the v case may be, are 
 allowed to correct it. Said I, " Mr. Dix, do you justify the altera- 
 tion of dates that are more than three months' old, and that, too, for 
 the purpose of falsifying a correct date and relieving an importer from 
 half the duty, because corrections such as you have now described are 
 allowed?" He admitted there was- a wide difference in the eases. 
 
 Mr. Hooper says : "Messrs. Chenery & Co. are gentlemen of high 
 character." I do not controvert this, but men of high character, even, 
 have no right to defraud the Government in the way they attempted 
 to. He also speaks of the " high character of Mr. Dix as a faithful 
 officer." In this transaction no man could have been more unfaithful. 
 
 At length, after we had gone over the points and I had read the 
 law to Mr. Chase, he said : " One thing is clear, the law is as Mr. 
 Goodrich states it, and the money paid for the additional duty can- 
 not be refunded to Chenery & Co. As to Mr. Dix, he can be ex- 
 cused, if at all, only on the ground of a custom or ' usual practice ' 
 which Mr. Hooper says existed." I quote his words as near as I can. 
 
 Something then occurred to prevent Mr. Chase from considering 
 the matter further at that time, and he requested us to meet him at 
 the same place at ten the next morning. I met the Secretary at the 
 time appointed, but Mr. Hooper did not appear. After a few minutes 
 conversation upon the alleged custom or " usual practice," in which 
 I stated that no such custom existed, or had ever existed, so far as I 
 knew ; that I never heard of it till I saw Mr. Hooper's report, and 
 that his statements in regard to it were wholly unfounded and errone- 
 ous, Mr. Chase interrupted me by saying: "I am satisfied, Mr. 
 
 ient to keep a correct account of the date of deposit of goods in bonded ware- 
 house, while the date of original importation was a fixed and certain record 
 made on arrival of the vessel. Finding the alteration had been made, as 
 Deputy Collector, having in charge tHe warehouse business at the Custom 
 House, I gave the necessary directions required by the change. 
 I am, very truly, your friend and ob't servant, 
 
 ALBERT HANSCOM. 
 Hon. J. Z. GOODRICH, Boston.
 
 29 
 
 Goodrich, that there was no such custom, and if there had been and 
 you had known it, it would have been good cause for removing you" 
 These, I think, are his very words. I responded simply by saying 
 ' ' Certainly it would," and Mr. Chase immediately dictated, in my 
 hearing, a letter to General Dix announcing the result of his further 
 investigation of his brother's case, which was that "Mr. Goodrich 
 was right in removing him, and he could not interfere in his behalf." 
 TLis was the substance of his letter, which I supposed would be an 
 end of the matter. But it was not. 
 
 GENERAL DIX COMPLAINED TO MR. FESSENDEN. 
 
 Not long after Mr. Fessenden succeeded Mr. Chase as Secretary 
 of the Treasury, General Dix complained to him that his brother had 
 been unjustly removed from office in the Boston Custom House, and 
 demanded that he should be reinstated. Mr. Fessenden, after re- 
 questing the General to call the next day, sent for the clerk who had 
 charge of the papers and was acquainted with the history of the case, 
 and asked him if Mr. Chase's decision was made after a careful in- 
 quiry into the facts ; and upon being assured that it was, he direct- 
 ed him to take the papers back. The Qeneral called the next day, 
 and was told by Mr. Fessenden that he could not reopen a case of re- 
 moval by a Collector which had the approval of his predecessor in the 
 first instance, and his added subsequent approval after a full and care- 
 ful examination upon a re-hearing. Of this I knew nothing at the 
 time, but I have the highest authority for saying the facts are sub- 
 stantially as stated. 
 
 GENERAL DIX APPEALED -TO MR. McCULLOCH. 
 
 At length Mr. Fessenden resigned, and Mr. McCulloch was ap- 
 pointed Secretary, from whom I received a letter of which the follow- 
 ing is a copy : 
 
 " TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 9, 1865. 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have received a communication from General Dix, of New 
 York, in relation to the removal of his brother, Mr. T. B. Dix, from the Cus- 
 tom House in Boston in the year 1861 (1863). 
 
 "From an examination of the papers submitted by General Dix, and a report 
 by Mr. Hooper, member of Congress from your city, upon the charges pre- 
 sented, I am clearly of the opinion that injustice was done to a worthy man in 
 this removal, and I have therefore to ask that Mr. Dix be reinstated in the 
 place from which he was removed. 
 
 " I am very respectfully, 
 
 " H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of Treasury. 
 
 " J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Collector, Boston, Mass." 
 
 " An examination of the papers submitted by General Dix, and a 
 report of Mr. Hooper," but no examination of the reports I had 
 made, so far as appears, nor a word of explanation asked from me. 
 It seemed to me a little remarkable, to say the least, that I should 
 receive so summary a request under all the circumstances of this case, 
 to reinstate Mr. Dix. The following is an extract from my reply, 
 dated June 12th : 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have your favor of the 9th instant. I think I can place my- 
 self right in this matter, without going fully into its merits, which would re- 
 quire a long letter. The removal was approved by your predecessor, Mr. 
 Secretary, now Chief Justice, Chase. Afterwards General Dix claimed that
 
 30 
 
 injustice had been flone his brother, and made, probably, the same statements 
 to Mr. Chase that he has made to you, and requested that the case might be 
 inquired into by the Secretary again, who addressed me a private note desiring 
 that I would go to Washington and make a full explanation to him. I accord- 
 ingly went to Washington, where I saw for the first time the papers furnished 
 by General Dix, and Mr. Hooper's report, * * * Mr. Chase said he must 
 see Mr. Hooper and myself together, * * We met at the time appointed. 
 Mr. Hooper made a full verbal explanation, in addition to his report. I re- 
 plied, and pointed out the facts, &c. * * Mr. Chase remarked that Mr. Dix 
 could only be excused, if at all, on the ground of the custom which Mr. Hooper 
 claimed existed at the Custom House. I remarked that no such custom exist- 
 ed, or ought to exist. Here the interview for that day closed, with the under- 
 standing that we would meet the Secretary again next morning. I according- 
 ly called the next morning, but, if I remember right, Mr. Hooper did not. I 
 explained in regard to the alleged custom, and denied that there was any cus- 
 tom of the kind. Mr. Chase remarked, ' I am satisfied there was no such cus- 
 tom, and if there had been and you had known it, it would have been a good 
 reason for removing you for allowing it.' This ended the interview, and the 
 Secretary at once, in my hearing, dictated a letter to General Dix justifying 
 my course in the removal of his brother, and declining to interfere. 
 
 " I state this as the result to which the then Secretary came after an unusu- 
 ally thorough examination of the case. * * He approved of the appointment of 
 another man in his place, who has performed its duties ever since. What am 
 I to do with him, appointed with the approval of Mr. Chase, if I am to rein- 
 state Mr. Dix? . 
 
 " P. S. I am sure Mr. Chase will confirm the foregoing, in substance." 
 
 My only purpose in this letter was to show that the case had been 
 carefully and thoroughly considered by Mr. Chase. Mr. McCulloch's 
 reply was as follows : 
 
 " TREASURY DPARTMENT, June 16, 1865. 
 
 " Dear Sir : Your favor of the 12th instant is received. General Dix in his 
 communications with this office, charges that his brother was removed, not 
 for improper conduct on his part, but because he failed to obtain for a relative 
 of yours a position in the Custom House at New York. 
 
 " The charge is made without reservation, and a letter from you to General 
 Dix, under date July 11, 1861, is referred to in connection with a letter of Mr. 
 Barney, dated September 7th, '61, as establishing the charge. 
 
 " General Dix urges very strongly, and very plausibly, that the only way in 
 which justice can be done to his brother is by having him reinstated in the 
 office from which he was removed. 
 
 " Unless you are prepared to disprove the charge referred to, it would be no 
 more than simple justice to Mr. Dix that he be reinstated in his former office, 
 although in reinstating him you will be under the necessity of displacing an 
 otlicer who was appointed with the approval of Mr. Chase. 
 " I am very respectfully, 
 "H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 " J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Collector of Customs, Boston, Mass." 
 
 My reply to this very extraordinary letter, was as follows : 
 
 " COLLECTOR'S OFFICE, ) 
 
 " Custom House, Boston, 19th June, 1865. $ 
 
 " Dear Sir : Your favor of the 16th is just received. By it I am informed 
 for the first time, that General Dix charges that his brother was removed, not 
 from improper conduct on his part, but because he failed to obtain for a rela- 
 tive of yours (mine) a position in the Custom House at New York. In this 
 the General is utterly mistaken. * * I never had the slightest feeling 
 against General Dix on the subject, nor against his brother. I always sup- 
 posed he did all he properly could t6 obtain the appointment of my friend. 
 My recollection is that the suggestion was well received by the General ; that 
 he applied to Mr. Barney in my friend's behalf, and I always understood the 
 reason why the appointment was not made was, that Mr. Barney did not see his 
 way clear to appoint a Massachusetts man. He wrote me on the subject, and
 
 31 
 
 assigned that as his reason. Such is now my recollection, though the letters 
 are none of them before me ; indeed, I do not think I preserved them, never 
 expecting to have occasion to refer to them again. 
 
 " Furthermore, the friend alluded to had received an appointment from me 
 nearly a year before Mr. Dix was removed. 
 
 Not long after I was appointed Collector, Mr. Chase, in a private note, at 
 the request, as he said, of General Dix, asked me not to remove his brother. 
 He was as subject to removal on political grounds, having been a Buchanan 
 Democrat, as any one, and his removal was expected undoubtedly certain- 
 ly feared on this ground. When I received Mr. C.'s note I abandoned all 
 thought of removing him, till the facts which I assigned as a reason for doing 
 it finally came to my knowledge. Nor did I do it then without presenting the 
 facts to Mr. Chase and obtaining his opinion, which was done in this way. 
 Mr. Tuck, the Naval Officer, happened to be going to Washington just about 
 that time, and I gave him the original papers which contained the evidence of 
 the impropriety complained of, and asked him to explain the matter to Mr. 
 Chase. Mr. Tuck informed me that Mr. Chase's opinion was that the officers 
 concerned in the transaction should be removed, and that he desired me to 
 send a copy of the papers to the Department. I then made the removal, and 
 forwarded copies of the papers as requested, with my reasons. The removal 
 was at once approved. The case was further investigated by Mr. Chase after 
 this. 
 
 " I am prepared to disprove the charge referred to, and also to convince you 
 that the cause of removal, if you desire to open the question after it was so thor- 
 oughly considered by the then Secretary, was sufficient, and will go to Wash- 
 ington for that purpose if you desire it." 
 
 No reply to this letter was received, nor was I invited to Washing- 
 ton to make explanations. At length, however, I went to Washing- 
 ton, and on the 10th of August saw the Secretary for .the first time 
 at his office. After a few words of introduction, I at once introduced 
 the Dix case. He said he did not wish to hear anything further on 
 the subject. I replied that he had come to the clear opinion from read- 
 ing Mr. Hooper's report that I had done injustice to Mr. Dix. and I 
 thought he should at least hear ^hat I had to say. He replied that 
 he did not wish to go into the matter ; that it was unnecessary, &c. 
 I insisted that after saying what he had in his letter, it was due to 
 me that he listened to my explanations, and told him I had prepared a 
 written statement, which, if he preferred, he could take and read at 
 his convenience, which would not occupy more than fifteen or twenty 
 minutes. He said no, he did not care to read it. I again urged that 
 he owed it to me personally to do as much as this. He said he was 
 disposed to do any thing he could for me personally, but no good 
 could come from a further discussion of that case, and declined even 
 to read what I had prepared. I said if you positively decline, I shall 
 of course be obliged to submit. After some further conversation on 
 the subject, he at length said : "It is unnecessary to go into the 
 question, for I have conferred with Mr. Bailey, who has satisfied me 
 that you are rjght about it." 
 
 And who is Mr. Bailey ? . He is Mr. J. F. Bailey who was special 
 agent of the Department under Mr. Chase and Mr. Fessenden, and 
 under Mr. McCulloch also till a short time before, when he was ap- 
 pointed Collector of Internal Revenue in the city of New York, which 
 office he holds now. 
 
 Some time after Mr. Hooper's report, but before I had seen it or 
 knew it was made, not far from the first of December, 1863, Mr. 
 Bailey, who had spent several weeks in examining other matters in 
 the Boston Custom House, was requested by Mr. Chase, to examine
 
 32 
 
 i 
 
 and report upon the Dix case also. He commenced the examination 
 with a strong personal desire that the matter might be arranged satis- 
 factorily to General Dix, and hoped to find a state of facts that would 
 justify a report exonerating his brother. I laid before him all the 
 facts, and explained them just as I had done to Mr. Hooper.* At 
 the close of his investigation he told me he was sorry to be obliged 
 to say that I could not restore Mr. Dix consistently with my duty as 
 a public officer, nor with my self-respect, and that he should so state 
 to Mr. Chase. I suppose he made a report to that effect, but I never 
 saw it. 
 
 After all this it would seem to be quite time Mr. McCulloch came 
 to the conclusion that I was right about it, or possibly might be. And 
 yet, satisfied of this, as he admitted finally, soon after Mr. Hamlin 
 was appointed Collector, he requested him to put Mr. Dix back into 
 the office from which he was removed. This, I understand, Mr. 
 Hamlin declined to do, but said, in substance, that he would appoint 
 him to another office if the Secretary, after the decisions which had 
 been made by his predecessors, desired it. In this way he threw the 
 responsibility upon the Secretary, and at his request appointed Mr. 
 Dix an additional Aid to the Revenue. In other words, an office was 
 created for Mr. Dix, and it ought to be known that he received it at 
 the request and on the responsibility of the Secretary, and that, too, 
 after he became satisfied that I was right about this case, and of course 
 that his predecessor, Mr. Chase, was right. 
 
 A word should be added in explanation of the request to General 
 Dix to favor an appointment in the New York Custom House from 
 Massachusetts. I wrote him that in accordance with Mr. Chase's re- 
 quest I should retain his brother, but added that I was urged to remove 
 him on the ground, in part, that he came from New York, and was occu- 
 pying a place whieh fairly belonged to some one in Massachusetts. As 
 an answer to this I asked him to request Collector Barney to appoint 
 some one from Massachusetts whom I should recommend. After Mr. 
 Barney wrote me, I thought no more of it. These, with those before 
 stated, are the substantial facts as I remember them, and if General" 
 Dix has any letters from me which prove, or tend to prove his charge, 
 he is at perfect liberty to publish them. J am willing the world 
 should know all I have said or written about this matter. But Gen- 
 eral Dix has no letter of mine which will prove his charge. It is 
 obvious his purpose was to withdraw attention from his brother by 
 getting up a personal issue with me. His charge is utterly false. 
 He has not a particle of excuse for making it. And the attempt to 
 divert attention from the charge against his brother, which Mr. Chase, 
 against every personal wish and desire, had been forced to sustain, 
 by pretending to another Secretaiy that I was influenced.by unworthy 
 personal motives growing out of an affair of no consequence which I 
 
 * Extract of a letter from Mr. Bailey to me, dated May 16, 1866 : 
 
 " The details of the case of Mr. Timothy B. Dix, and of the inquiries made 
 in it by me, under direction of the then Secretary, have in great part passed 
 from my mind, but in reply to your request that I state whether you exhibited 
 all the papers, and showed a disposition to render every facility for a full 
 examination, lam clear that all my impressions as to your own course were to 
 that effect."
 
 33 
 
 
 
 had forgotten,.is especially mean and' cowardly. And the time spent 
 by Mr. McCulloch in this mode of reviewing the decisions of his pre- 
 decessors, it is quite safe to say will be very poorly spent. If he 
 had told General Dix to prove his charge, made without " reserva- 
 tion," before calling on me to "disprove" it, the proceeding would 
 have been much more regular. 
 
 Many will wonder how Mr. Hooper could have expected that Mr. 
 Chase would ever approve such a report as his. The truth undoubt- 
 edly is, he had no expectation Mr. Chase would ever examine his 
 report. If he had, he certainly would have made a different one. His 
 expectation unquestionably was that the matter would be settled by 
 Mr. Harrington, the Assistant Secretary. With him there would 
 have been no difficulty. His assurance had been obtained that the 
 result of the investigation should be "decisive." 
 
 The fact that Mr. Chase requested Mr. Hooper to report upon the 
 case, implied that he had confidence that he would make a fair and 
 true report. He said nothing to me except this: " / am satisfied, 
 Mr. Goodrich, there was no such custom (as Mr. Hooper claimed ex- 
 isted) , and if there had been, and you had known it, it would have been 
 good cause for removing you." This he said, and of course did not 
 rely on Mr. Hooper's statements, doubtless feeling that the confidence 
 he had placed in him had been misplaced. 
 
 MR. HOOPER AND SECRETARY MoCULLOCH 
 OK BAGGAGE-SMUGGLING BY THE RE- 
 SP^CTABLE AND. WEALTHY. 
 
 The law exempts from duty " wearing apparel in actual use," only, 
 " and other personal effects, not merchandise." 
 
 The construction given this law by the Department heretofore 
 has been, that articles that might be admitted free as " wearing ap- 
 parel," were " limited to such as it shall be satisfactorily shown had 
 been in actual use of the person bringing it into the United States." 
 (Treasury Circular, April 12th, 1847.) 
 
 And the meaning of " personal effects " is thus stated : 
 
 " The general description of personal effects, that they are such as are usu- 
 ally carried about the person of a traveller from place to place, is a very good 
 one, and is adopted by this Department. It includes his trunk, his watch, his 
 pen-knife, his pencil or pen, his stationery, his razors, &c., in short, every 
 thing appertaining to his person, not merchandise." (Circular Instructions, 
 September 28th, 1843.) 
 
 A circular was issued by the Department August 6th, 1864, special- 
 ly enjoining it upon Collectors to be vigilant in the execution of this 
 law. The following is an extract from it : 
 
 " The examination of travellers' baggage will, under any circumstances, be 
 a very unpleasant and annoying duty ; nevertheless, it must be performed." 
 
 The following are extracts from another circular of instructions to 
 Collectors from the Department, July 25th, 1865 : 
 
 5
 
 34 
 
 
 
 11 Customs officers seem to entertain great fears, lest they should hurt some 
 one's feelings, or be thought to do their duty too rigidly, and the result is, 
 that they are laughed at behind their backs by immigrants and passcn-zyrs, 
 who very often succeed in getting various dutiable articles through without 
 paying duty, of more or less, sometimes of considerable value. I shall be i^lad 
 to know that you have no such squeamish officers among your subordinates. 
 The Government can dispense with the services of all such. He who has not 
 resolution and high sense of duty enough to overhaul the baggage, even of 
 ladies, who are often smugglers, is unfit for his place." 
 
 Such were the views of the Department, and such its recent instruc- 
 tions in regard to the execution of this law. 
 
 On the 19th of August, 1864, a gentleman and three ladies arrived 
 in the steamer from Europe. The gentleman made a written declara- 
 tion that their trunks contained " clothing for three ladies and one 
 gentleman," which he handed to the officer whose duty it was to re- 
 ceive it. This was done, as was apparent from what followed, with 
 the expectation that the declaration would be accepted and the 
 trunks allowed to pass without examination. The officer inquired 
 whether they contained any dutiable articles, or anything besides 
 clothing in wse, and was told that they did not. The trunks were 
 then passed on to another officer for examination. He soon found 
 articles that were dutiable. The gentleman then said, " Do you ex- 
 amine so particularly as that ? " When informed that the instructions 
 were to examine sufficiently to ascertain whether there were any 
 dutiable articles, he then said there was a " considerable quantity of 
 new goods," and requested that the trunks might be sent to the Ap- 
 praisers and opened there, as he wanted them handled carefully. This 
 request was at once complied with. All this occurred before I heard 
 of the case, and I never saw either the trunks, or the clothing, or the 
 new goods. 
 
 The next morning, before I knew* whether the examination had 
 been made at the Appraisers, Mr. Hooper called on me at the Collect- 
 or's office in a perfect rage of passion. He was very angry. I have 
 rarely seen a man more angry. Coming up to my desk he demanded 
 the trunks of the ladies and gentlemen, naming them. I replied that 
 I knew very little about the circumstances of their detention, and 
 must have more information before I could act in the matter. He 
 walked back and forth, growing more excited, if possible, and said 
 they had been sent to the Appraisers, and repeated his demand. I 
 said again I could give no order till I had more information. This 
 did not satisfy him, and he again demanded the immediate delivery 
 of the trunks. I replied somewhat in earnest by this time myself, 
 that they had been sent to the Appraisers by the Inspector for fur- 
 ther examination, and properly, as it was my duty, to suppose, and 
 that he might rest assured, I should give no order for them till I re- 
 ceived the report of the Appraiser, at the same time assuring him of 
 no disposition to detain them a moment unnecessarily. Soon, while 
 we were yet talking, the Appraiser's report was sent in to me. With- 
 out waiting to read the items I saw that it was made by R. K. Dar- 
 rah, Assistant Appraiser, who certified to $568.85 of dutiable goods 
 at the foreign value, and to $219.79 duties upon them, and told Mr. 
 Hooper that I could not decide upon the case till I had learned all 
 the facts, but was willing to order a delivery of the trunks with all
 
 35 
 
 their contents, if he would 'sign on the back of the appraisement the 
 following, to which he finally agreed : 
 
 " I agree to pay such sums to J. Z. Goodrich, Collector, as may be found to 
 be due from (inserting the name) either as forfeiture, penalty, or duty, for 
 bringing the goods into this port in his baggage which are described within. 
 (Signed) S. HOOPEK. 
 
 " Boston, August 20th, 1864." 
 
 During our interview Mr. Hooper had a great deal to say about 
 the impropriety of presuming to examine the baggage of respectable 
 people who were above suspicion. His repeated demands were based 
 on that impropriety. The law did not mean that people of respecta- 
 bility and character should be annoyed in this way. My reply, in 
 substance, was that the law and my instructions were, neither to 
 annoy or detain anybody unnecessarily, but to examine the baggage 
 of everybody so far as necessary to ascertain whether it contained 
 dutiable goods ; that if respectable people brought dutiable articles in 
 their baggage, there seemed to be no reason why they, especially, 
 should be allowed to pass them without paying the duty. 
 
 Mr. Hooper at length complained to the Secretary in behalf of his 
 friends, and of the manner this law was being executed at the Boston 
 Custom House. This I learned from Mr. French, the late Deputy, 
 who was so informed at the Department. Finally, on the 19th of 
 August, 1865, I wrote the Secretary, and after reciting the principal 
 facts, added : 
 
 " The owners of the baggage, very respectable citizens of Boston, com- 
 plained that the trunks were not allowed to pass without examination, and 
 others, friends of theirs, who are influential citizens, have censured me se- 
 verely for the course that was taken. The case is not disposed of, and I take 
 tlife liberty of presenting it to you, as my orders came from you. I suppose 
 the course pursued by my officers was the course of duty, but for the reasons 
 indicated I shall be glad of the views of the Department." 
 
 The Secretary replied, August 29th, 1865, among other things : 
 
 " You transmit a list of the articles, contained in the trunks in question, 
 which were determined by the Appraisers to be dutiable, and the value, and 
 rate and amount of duty affixed to each article. Excepting a small piece of 
 carpeting, of trifling value, the use of which I do not know, the articles on this 
 list seem to correspond with the declaration made, being ladies' clothing; and 
 the quantity of them does not seem to me unreasonably large for three ladies, 
 such as you represent these, returning from Europe, with the exception, per- 
 haps, that the quantity of gloves and bonnets may be somewhat larger than 
 usual, though not obviously excessive, if, as I conjecture, the persons you re- 
 fer to, are among the wealthiest as well as most respectable citizens of Bos- 
 ton. 
 
 "You say that friends of this party who are influential citizens, have cen- 
 sured you severely for the course that was taken. You do not state why you 
 have been censured, and I do not understand from your letter upon what 
 points in this case you wish the views of the Department, whether in regard 
 to the quantity of the different articles, or otherwise. Please inform me." 
 
 I thought I had made the ground of complaint against me clear, 
 but the Secretary seemed not to understand me, so I wrote him again 
 as follows : 
 
 " The law exempts from duty ' wearing apparel in actual use' only. (See 
 Section 2, Art. March 3d, 1857.) * ' * * * 
 
 " The articles returned by the Appraiser were new, and had just been 
 bought, none of them ever having been in use. It was not pretended that
 
 36 
 
 they had been. No doubt they were by law dutiable. Besides the articles so 
 returned, the baggage contained clothing for three ladies and one geutlciiinn. 
 The officer inquired whether the trunks contained any dutiable articles, or any 
 thing besides clothing in use, and was told that they did not. 
 
 " The baggage was examined by another officer; and upon finding some of 
 the dutiable articles, the owner then requested, not before, that they might be 
 sent to the Appraisers and examined there. 
 
 " None of the dutiable articles were ' mentioned to the Collector,' as re- 
 quired by the Act of 1799. 
 
 " The particular point upon which I desire your views is, Was it the duty of 
 the officers of the Customs to make the examination for the purpose stated, and to 
 detain the trunks so long as might be necessary for that purpose?" 
 
 On the 7th of September the Secretary, in a letter to my successor, 
 Mr. Hamlin, said, 
 
 " I have before me a letter of the late Collector, dated 31st ultimo, in rela- 
 tion to certain baggage of passengers by the Asia. 
 
 " It has never been the practice to demand duties upon wearing apparel 
 which passengers may bring with them into this country in reasonable quan- 
 tities for their own actual use. The term ' wearing apparel in actual use' has 
 not been considered literally to mean what one wears upon the person, but wear- 
 ing apparel for the actual or personal use of the passengers, such as it would 
 be supposed the station in life of the parties in possession would entitle him 
 or her to make actual use of. 
 
 " The case mentioned in the late Collector's letter, the character of the 
 parties seeming to preclude any suspicion of dishonest intentions, does not 
 seem to require any further action." 
 
 Now a word upon this correspondence. I failed utterly to get the 
 Secretary's views upon the only point I particularly asked or desired . 
 them, viz., whether it was the duty of the officers of the Customs to 
 make the examination at all. This, I stated, was the ground of com- 
 plaint and the cause of censure. It necessarily must have been, for 
 that was all that had then been done ; and, indeed, it was all I ever 
 did except afterwards to request the owners by letter to pay the du- 
 ties, but they never paid them, nor replied to my letter. They left 
 the case to be 'managed by Mr. Hooper in Washington. But I did 
 get from the Secretary an extraordinary construction of the law. He 
 says : " Except a small piece of carpeting of little value, the use of 
 which I do not know (as if that could make any difference), the arti- 
 cles in this list seem to correspond with the declaration, being ladies' 
 clothing." The written declaration was " clothing for three ladies 
 and one gentleman," and the added verbal declaration was, that the 
 trunks did not contain any dutiable articles, nor anything besides 
 clothing in use. . But when the examining officer had discovered some 
 dutiable articles, the owner then said there was " a considerable 
 quantity of new goods/' They had been bought just before sailing 
 for this country. What were they ? 
 
 Value. Duty. 
 
 A piece of Carpeting, . . . $9.45 $5.40 
 
 Artificial Flowers, .... 20.00' 10.00 
 
 Four dozen pair Kid Gloves, : . 34.00 17.00 
 
 Seven Silk Bonnets .... 42.00 25.20 
 
 Thirteen Muslin, Silk and Lace Dresses, 355.00 144.25 
 
 Four dozen Linen P. Handkerchiefs, 38.40 13.44 
 
 Two Silk Cloaks, .... 40.00 14.00 
 
 Two Silk Mantillas, . . . 30.00 10.50 
 
 $568.85 $219.79
 
 37 
 
 And yet the Secretary says these " new goods," all dutiable ac- 
 cording to the return of the Appraiser, and according to any con- 
 struction of the law which has ever been given by a predecessor of 
 the Secretary, or any construction which is not a manifest miscon- 
 struction, "correspond with the declaration." He adds: "The 
 quantity does not seem to me unreasonably large for three ladies, 
 such as you represent these returning from Europe, with the excep- 
 tion, perhaps, that the quantity of gloves and bonnets may be some- 
 what larger than usual, though not obviously excessive, if, as I con- 
 jecture, the persons you refer to, are among the wealthiest as well as 
 most respectable citizens of Boston." (I said nothing about wealthy 
 people, and he got this "conjecture" of course, from Mr. Hooper.) 
 This is, to say the least, an unusual reason or rule by which to de- 
 termine the quantity of new articles of clothing and carpeting persons 
 may buy in Paris just before sailing for this country, and enter here 
 without pa} r ing duty. The wealthier the persons the more they may 
 buy and bring tor future use. The Secretary would allow poor people 
 to bring but little. But "quantity" has nothing to do with the 
 question. Any quantity brought into this country as these were, for 
 future use, is an unlawful quantity to admit to free entry, and this I 
 .do not hesitate to say both the Secretary and Mr. Hooper must have 
 known. They certainly ought to have known it. " Wearing apparel 
 in actual use," are the words of the law. And there is no difficulty 
 in determining what the legal sense of the words " in actual use" is. 
 The Secretary did not throw any great light upon their meaning when 
 he said they had " not been* considered literally to mean what was 
 upon the person." Few would have thought so, even if the Secretary 
 had not said that. But they have been considered, and by the De- 
 partment, to mean only such articles " as it shall be satisfactorily 
 shown had been in actual use of the person bringing them into the 
 United States." This was the settled construction of the Department 
 until these letters of the Secretary, and it was the true one. But if 
 the Secretaiy's construction is to be given to the laAV, so that new 
 articles of clothing, and carpeting, too (if what it is to be used for 
 is not known), may be brought. without paying duty, I submit that 
 the poor should be allowed to bring as much as the wealthy ; as much 
 for future use, I mean. Now the wealthy are not allowed to bring 
 more than the poor. Both are allowed to bring without duty all the 
 wearing apparel which had been or ivas in actual use, and no more. 
 If the wealth}' do actually bring more, it is because from their posi- 
 tion and wealth they have larger wardrobes in actual use. And the 
 General Regulations, if correctly quoted, agree perfectly with the 
 Circular of 1847, viz., " Such as it would be supposed the situation 
 in life of the party in possession would entitle or require him or her 
 to make actual use of." Actual use of when ? Certainly not at some 
 indefinite time in the future. The Secretary, in quoting this passage, 
 omitted the word " require." But the passage obviously relates to 
 the quantity which " had been " and was " in actual use," such as 
 it would be supposed the station in life of the party had " required," 
 and not to new articles of merchandise or clothing for use one, two, 
 or five years hence. Persons may bring what their station has en- 
 titled or required them to make actual use of. Any other construe-
 
 tion would be unreasonable and unjust, and the present law does not 
 admit of any other. 
 
 Now apply the law to this case. The persons referred to had been 
 spending some time in Europe. They had the wardrobe " required " 
 for people visiting Europe "conjectured" to be wealthy, and per- 
 haps fashionable. This, though probably large, they had a right to 
 have passed as free baggage. And all this they had besides the " new 
 goods." They had seven trunks, one chest, one bag, and one pack- 
 age. Now suppose they had remained in Europe six months longer, 
 would they have bought these new articles when they did because 
 " required" or needed for actual immediate use? The facts justify 
 me in assuming that they would not. Suppose they had been in this 
 country, would they have bought them when they did because in their 
 station in life they would have required so many new articles for 
 actual immediate use? I assume, again, that they would not. The 
 truth undoubtedly is they would not pretend to the contrary 
 they bought these new articles because they could buy them better 
 there than here, not for immediate, but for future use. At any rate, 
 they had not needed them before they landed at Boston. Before that 
 time their numerous bonnets, dresses, gloves, handkerchiefs, flowers, 
 &c., which had been in actual use within the meaning of the law, had 
 been all-sufficient. They had a right to bring as many new articles 
 for future use as they pleased, but the law required them to " mention 
 all such articles to the Collector," and pay the duties on them. No 
 sensible lawyer can say otherwise, as the law is, and no Secretary but 
 Mr. McCulloch ever did say otherwise, and he is the last man who 
 ought to have said otherwise to me and my officers, who were doing 
 all in oifr power to carry out his positive and repeated instructions. 
 He ought to have said the examining officers were entirely right, and 
 I think he would if he had not allowed Mr. Hooper to advise him 
 otherwise. Under other circumstances, can anybody doubt he would 
 have censured me severely, not merely for transgressing the law, but for 
 violating his positive and pointed instructions, if I had allowed these 
 trunks to pass without examination, or had admitted this list of new 
 goods to free entry after examination. 
 
 Suppose his interpretation of the law is carried out, what will be 
 the practical effect ? Whenever a passenger arrives with his wearing 
 apparel which "had been" in use, and with new articles, more or 
 less, for future use, several qiiestions will at once arise with the 
 examining officers in deciding upon the new articles. (1.) What is 
 the situation in life of the passenger? It may sometimes be difficult 
 to decide this exactly. But ascertained as near as it can be, the next 
 question will be, How many new goods does that station in life en- 
 title him to have passed without duty? And if the officer should 
 " conjecture" the passenger to be one of the " wealthiest citizens of 
 Boston," a third question will arise, viz. : How many more new goods 
 would it be reasonable, in consideration of his great wealth, to allow 
 him to take free of duty ? But, to say nothing of the manifest in- 
 justice of favoring the wealthy in this way, how could you establish 
 a uniform rule? From the necessit % y of the case the question, How 
 much would be reasonable ? would have to be decided by the opinion 
 of the officer, and the consequence would be as many different opin- 
 ions and results as there are different officers. On the whole, I doubt
 
 39 
 
 whether it would be any improvement on the rule, as the law has 
 hitherto been interpreted, of allowing free entry to all wearing ap- 
 parel "in actual use," embracing all that "had been" used, and 
 collecting duty on all the rest, including carpets, whether it was 
 known what they were to be used for or not. 
 
 The Secretary closes his letter to Mr. Hamlin by saying that the 
 case mentioned by the late Collector did not seem to require any 
 further action, the character of the parties seeming to preclude any 
 suspicion of dishonest intentions. Of course nothing dishonest was 
 intended. All they proposed or desired was to pass the goods with- 
 out paying the duties. When they said they had nothing but wear- 
 ing apparel in use, they had some way of making it all appear right 
 and honest in their own mind. And in this regard these passengers 
 are not distinguished from a great many "respectable and wealthy" 
 people. Some, when successful, instead of thinking they had done 
 anything wrong, even congratulate themselves upon their skill, and 
 perhaps, as the Secretary says, " laugh at the officers behind their 
 backs." To such an extent is the public mind demoralized on this 
 subject, I am quite aware the judgment of many will be that a very 
 meritorious act was done by these passengers, and that Mr. Hooper 
 did entirely right in using the influence he happened to have with the 
 present Secretary, to set the law aside in favor of the " wealthiest as 
 well as the most respectable citizens of Boston." For this is what 
 was done. No further action meant, not even the collection of duty, 
 and it has not been collected. The law provides that if " articles 
 subject to duly shall be found in the baggage of any person arriving 
 in the United States, which shall not at the time of entry be mention- 
 ed to the Collector, by the person making the entry, all such articles 
 shall be forfeited, and the person in whose baggage they shall be 
 found, shall moreover forfeit and pay treble the value of such arti- 
 cles." I never asked the forfeiture of the goods, nor the payment of 
 treble in value, but did request, as I have said, a payment of the 
 duty. The parties would have paid the duty in half an hour if Mr. 
 Hooper (whom they will hold responsible for this notice of their case) , 
 had advised it. But he preferred to appeal to the Secretary, and 
 never said anything more to me on the subject after the interview I have 
 related at the Custom House. I don't know but he feels proud of his 
 achievement, but it seems to me he must at times feel that this effort, 
 though successful, to save for his friends $219.79 in duties lawfully 
 due the Government, was, after all, rather small business. 
 
 THE BORATE CASE. 
 
 $12,271.10 IMPROPERLY REFUNDED ON EXPORTATION. 
 
 A letter from Mr. French, dated at Washington on the 22d of 
 June, 1865, says : 
 
 " I met the Secretary to-day, and after some talk about the recent develop- 
 ments of fraud in Boston, he commented with some prejudice, I thought, on 
 the Borate case, and likened the discipline of the Department to that of a 
 general officer. 
 
 " I showed, in brief, how Mr. Fessenden had determined, on a full examirf- 
 ation, that you were not to be interfered with, as on first vieio he had received 
 an erroneous impression of the case."
 
 40 
 
 It seems the Secretary, after I had made every possible effort, 
 without success, to collect a large sum justly and lawfully due the 
 Government as duties, and to prevent a palpable violation of law, 
 and had reluctantly executed the order of the Department for the 
 third time repeated, to refund the duties on the exportation of 1,363 
 bags of Borate of Lime, continued to make my conduct in the matter 
 a subject of criticism. How justly, the facts will show. The follow- 
 ing is a copy of a letter from the Department : 
 
 " TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 9th, 1864. 
 
 " Sir : In a letter to you from this Department of May 31st, last, relative 
 to certain Borate of Lime imported into the Port of Boston, Massachusetts, 
 and seized for an alleged violation of the revenue laws, you were instructed, 
 upon a discontinuance of the suit then pending by the District Attorney, to 
 resume your custody of this merchandise, holding it subject to the further 
 orders of this Department. 
 
 " You are now instructed to cancel the withdrawal entry for consumption 
 made by Wm. Thwing & Co., if they desire it, and permit them to make an 
 entry for exportation as in other cases, as said goods have never been removed 
 from the custody or control of the Government. 
 
 "Kespectfully, W. P. FESSENDEN, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 " J. Z. GOODRICH, Collector, Boston, Mass." 
 
 By " exportation as in other cases," was meant with benefit of 
 drawback, or a return of the duties. The order was signed by Mr. 
 Fessenden because he was informed the " goods had never been re- 
 moved from the custody and control of the Government." Knowing 
 this was a mistake, and that the Secretary had been misinformed, I 
 deemed it my duty to correct him, for the law is, " that no return of 
 duties shall be allowed on the export of any merchandise after it has 
 been removed from the custody of the Government." I therefore ex- 
 plained the facts in a letter dated July 13th, as follows : 
 
 " The merchandise was imported and entered for warehousing on the 28th 
 of August, 1862. Two days after, on the 30th, the importers (Wm. Thwing & 
 Co.) paid the duty and made a withdrawal entry for consumption. Where- 
 upon a permit was immediately issued to the Storekeeper directing him to 
 deliver it to them. It appears from the Storekeeper's return, indorsed on 
 the face of the permit, that the goods were ' delivered September 12th, 1862' 
 to Messrs. Thwing & Co. (they did not present the permit till then). On the 
 llth of October it was ascertained that the duty should have been assessed at 
 5 cents a pound, amounting to $12,271.10, instead of 20 per cent, ad valorem, 
 amounting to $1,103.40, the sum actually paid, and Messrs. Thwing & Co. 
 were called upon to pay the difference, which they refused to do, claiming 
 that the article was ' mineral ore of Borate,' and subject to 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem. On the 21st of October I proposed to send the General Appraiser 
 and two merchants as experts to examine the article, and report to me what 
 it was, in their opinion. Messrs. Thwing & Co. at first forbid an entry upon 
 the premises, claiming that the importation had been delivered to them on a 
 permit duly obtained at the Custom House, which was true. But upon my 
 saying that I should obtain a search warrant to enter their premise, if they 
 persisted in their refusal, they consented. The examination was made, and 
 upon the report of the examiners the property was seized. I only desire to 
 be certain that the facts are understood by the Department." 
 
 It would seem hardly possible to imagine a state of facts more 
 conclusively proving that goods had been removed from the custody 
 fcnd control of the Government to the custody and control of the im- 
 porter and owner, than the foregoing. But it did not satisfy the 
 Assistant Secretaries at the Department.
 
 41 
 
 On the 26th of July, Assistant Secretary Field wrote me acknowl- 
 edging the receipt of mine of the 13th, and said that Messrs. Thwing 
 & Co. stated that " the merchandise remained where it had been 
 ordered to go on the warehouse entry, in a private bonded warehouse, 
 and has never been removed from the same," and desired information 
 from me whether the statement was correct. 
 
 To that I replied on the 29th July that " it (the merchandise) was 
 never in a. 'bonded warehouse, except constructively; never actually, 
 because it remained on board the vessel till it was delivered to 
 Thwing & Co., and on their order it was put into a private ware- 
 house, private in every sense, and bonded in no sense. 
 
 On the 16th of the following August, Assistant Secretary Harring- 
 ton repeated the instructions to " permit an exportation from ware- 
 house without payment of duty as in other cases of warehoused goods, 
 returning the duty to the importers." He did this on the ground 
 that no bond having been taken for re-delivery " the Government 
 would still have control over the goods wherever it might find 
 them.*' 
 
 A more absurd idea probably never was broached. If that be so, 
 goods in such case can never be taken from the custody and control 
 of the Government. These goods, before they were seized, had been 
 in Thwing & Co.'s possession forty days, and feeling sure there must 
 be some mistake or something wrong about it, I still declined to exe- 
 cute the order. 
 
 Soon after this Mr. Fessenden, the Secretary, passed through 
 Boston, and I saw him. Upon explaining the case to him it was ap- 
 parent at once that he had not understood the facts. I told him I was 
 confident exportation could not be allowed with a return of duties, 
 without a plain violation of law, but that I should at once conform to 
 his instructions if I could only be sure he understood the facts. He 
 then asked me to state them to him in a private note, which I did. 
 
 On the 16th of September following I received from Assistant 
 Secretary Harrington the following, among other questions, which he 
 desired me to answer, which I did as follows : 
 
 " If, upon the entry, a warehouse permit was given, and if so, was any 
 bonded warehouse designated upon it, and what one?" 
 
 " I answer that a warehouse permit was given, upon which ' Kidder's 
 bonded warehouse ' was designated as the place of deposit." 
 
 " Was this ' Borate of Lime ' taken to any bonded warehouse in pursuance 
 of the designation on the worehouse permit, and if so, what one ? If not taken 
 on a warehouse permit, was it taken without such permit to a bonded ware- 
 house, and if so. to what one ? " 
 
 " I answer, it was not taken to any bonded warehouse in pursuance of the 
 designation on the warehouse permit, nor was it taken to any bonded ware- 
 house without such permit ; in other words, it was never taken to any bonded 
 warehouse." 
 
 " Was a bond for re-delivery given as required by the Act of May 28th, 1830, 
 and if not, why not ? " 
 
 " I answer, that at the time the Borate of Lime was withdrawn, 6,800 bags 
 of ' Nitrate of Soda,' imported by the same parties, at the same time, were 
 also withdrawn. A re-delivery bond, under the act of 28th May, 1830, was 
 taken in a penal sum of double the estimated value of both articles, but in fill- 
 ing up the conditions of the bond, the Borate of Lime was accidentally omit- 
 ted. Both were delivered to Thwing & Co., direct from the ship, on the per- 
 mit issued when the duties were paid, and neither ever went into warehouse. 
 The bond expired as soon as the 21st September, certainly, for the examina- 
 o
 
 42 
 
 tion of the Appraisers was closed on or before the llth September, as a per- 
 mit was given on that day to release the two examination packages and de- 
 liver them also to Thwing & Co., and they were delivered. The demand for 
 re-delivery under the bond, must have been made, if at all, within ten days 
 from the Appraiser's examination, when the bond expired." 
 
 The idea that this Borate of Lime remained in the custody and 
 control of the Government after it passed into the full, undisputed, 
 actual possession of Thwing & Co., simply because it was not in- 
 serted in the condition of this bond, is, as I have said, absurd. 
 What had the bond to do with the question of custody? and especially 
 could have to do with it after it had expired by its own terms, and 
 was a mere piece of waste paper ? For the Borate was in Thwing & 
 Co.'s warehouse at least thirty days after even the examination 
 package's had been delivered, and the bond had expired long before it 
 was seized. But the bond had nothing to do with the question of 
 custody, either before or after it expired. If there had been any 
 occasion to demand a re-delivery of the goods during the ten days 
 before the [expiration of the bond, this would have beet the 
 consequence. The Government would have had the security of a 
 bond for the re-delivery of the Nitrate of Soda, but no such security 
 for the re-delivery of the Borate of Lime. Not being in the bond, 
 therefore, would seem to make the case, if anything, stronger against 
 the custody of the Government and in favor of that of Thwing & Co. 
 The Government had not even a bond to re-deliver the' Borate. 
 
 I said further in my letter replying to Mr. Harrington's questions, 
 as follows : 
 
 " In the invoice the article is called ' Crude Borax,' while in the entry 
 Thwing & Co. called it ' Mineral Ore of Borate.' On the trial it was proved to 
 the satisfaction of the jury, who rendered a verdict for forfeiture, that Thwing 
 & Co. knew the article was ' Borate of Lime ' and subject to a duty of 5 cents 
 a pound, but they entered it as ' Mineral ore of Borate,' subject to a duty of 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 " The amount of duty paid at 20 per cent, ad valorem Avas $1,103.40. The 
 amount that should have been paid at 5 cents a pound was 812.271.10. The 
 amount unpaid, viz., $11,167.70, it seems to me to be my duty to institute pro- 
 ceedings to collect." 
 
 Such were the facts as I presented them to the Department. A 
 clearer case of fraud has rarely ever been presented to a jury. The 
 evidence was abundant from Thwing & Co.'s own letters. But upon 
 questions of law the case was finally decided in their favor, though 
 the verdict was against them. Under these circumstances I saw no 
 reason why, in violation of a plain and positive provision of law, they 
 should be aided to evade not only the payment of the balance of the 
 duty, but to receive back the amount already paid, and I deemed it 
 my duty to institute proceedings to recover the balance, viz., $11,- 
 1G7.70, and. did so, and obtained security by attaching the property. 
 The dut}' either on Borate of Lime or Crude Borax was five cents a 
 pound, and there could have been no doubt of recovering that amount. 
 
 Some time after I forwarded the facts in a private note to Mr. 
 Fessenden, Mr. Dorrance, the General Appraiser, saw him in Wash- 
 ington. He told Mr. Dorrance that if he had understood the facts 
 he should not have issued the order for exportattion ; that he was satis- 
 fied the Collector was right, and should not interfere further, but 
 allow him to proceed and cojlect the balance of the duty. Mr. Dor-
 
 43 
 
 ranee so reported to me on his return from Washington, and I acted 
 accordingly. Afterwards I saw Mr. Fessenden himself, and he made 
 the same statement to me. From September to the next March, 
 when he left the Department, I had his approval in the prosecution 
 to recover the balance of the dut}-, though the order to allow the ex- 
 port and refund the duty had not been formally revoked. It is hard- 
 ly to be supposed that during all this time the Assistant Secretary 
 hud not learned Mr. Fessenden's views. 
 
 I heard nothing more till I received the following letter : 
 
 " TUEASUUY DEPARTMENT, June 6th, 1865. 
 
 " Sir : My attention has been directed by Wm. Thwing & Co. to the fact 
 that the instructions given you on the 9th of July last in regard to the 1,363 
 bags ' Borate of Lime,' have not been complied with. 
 
 " The question submitted in your letter of the 13th of July, 1864, relative to 
 the continued custody of this lime on the part of the Government, having been 
 duly considered, it is my opinion that no serious violation would be done to 
 the law or regulations, by consideriny this merchandise as having been from the 
 beginning in the custody of the Collector, and therefore subject to withdrawal. 
 
 " You will therefore upon receipt of this, carry into enect the decision of 
 my predecessor of the 9th July, 1864, a copy of which is inclosed. You will 
 also after the ' Borate of Lime ' shall have been exported, return to Wm. 
 Thwing & Co. the money deposited with you as duties thereon ; and you will 
 direct the District Attorney to discontinue the suit now pending for addition- 
 al duties upon this ' Borate of Lime,' upon the payment by them of the costs 
 of said suit. 
 
 " llespectfully, H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of Treasury. 
 
 J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Collector, Boston." 
 
 It is perfectly easy to " consider" things to be true which are not. 
 So it was easy to " consider" this merchandise as having been from 
 the beginning IN THE CUSTODY or THE COLLECTOR, though nothing can 
 be more certain than that it was not. No serious violence ! I hardly 
 know what the Secretary means by serious violence to the law. His 
 language implies that he thought the law was violated, but not 
 seriously. When an importer pays the duties on his goods and takes 
 them into his own possession, and means to do it, and the Govern- 
 ment means to have him ; when he " controls " them by giving di- 
 rections where to store them on his own premises, and they are stored 
 in accordance with his directions, and the Government means they 
 sliall be, as was true in this case, then the custody passes from the 
 Government or Collector to the importer or owner, the goods are 
 " removed from the custody of the Government " to his " custody " 
 within the meaning of the law. If this is not what the law means, 
 then it is unintelligible. And when this is done the importer's right 
 to a refund of duty upon exportation ceases, and every officer, from 
 the President down, is prohibited from allowing it. The goods in 
 James M. Beebe & Co.'s store were no more completely and abso- 
 lutely taken possession of by them and in their custody, than was 
 this Borate of Lime by Thwing & Co., and it would have been just as 
 lawful to have refunded to Beebe & Co. the duties on every dollar of 
 their merchandise if they had exported it, as it was to refund the 
 $1,103.40 to Thwing & Co. on the exportation of the Borate, or rath- 
 er the $12,271.11, for it was practically a refund of the whole amount. 
 
 When I saw Mr. McCulloch I alluded to this "Borate case," but 
 he refused in a veiy few words to hear anything on the subject, say- 
 ing Assistant Secretaries Harrington and Hartley said it was right
 
 44 
 
 I knew the Assistant Secretaries had urged the arguments for expor- 
 tation and refund, and Mr. Hooper had urged the same views upon 
 me at the Custom House, and at Washington also, I had no doubt. 
 Nevertheless, the balance of the duties should bave been collected 
 and paid into the Treasury. "Why there should have been the per- 
 sistent opposition to this course on the part of the Assistant Secre- 
 taries, I never could understand. I did all I could to have the col- 
 lection made, and am willing to take the responsibility of having 
 made the effort. If I erred, it was in finally obeying the order. But 
 when it was repeated the third time, and I knew from the Secretary's 
 reference to my letter of the 13th July, that he understood the facts, 
 I informed him that his predecessor had been satisfied that I was 
 right, and had decided to allow me to collect the balance of the duty, 
 and then, feeling that the responsibility was not on me, I allowed the 
 exportation to be made, and refunded the $1,103.40 of duty already 
 paid. $ 
 
 INTERVIEW WITH THE SECRETARY. 
 
 In the interview I had with the Secretary, already referred to, after 
 he had declined to hear any explanation from me in regard to Mr. 
 Dix's removal, I said if agreeable to him I should like to call his 
 attention for a few moments to the subject of my continuance in 
 office, to which, as I understood, it had often been called by others. 
 He at once said, as near as I can repeat his words: "Probably 
 there will be a change ; there has been no final decision, but that is 
 the expectation. It will be made, however, in a way that Avill in no 
 manner affect you, as you will all go out together" (meaning Collect- 
 or, Naval Officer, and Surveyor), adding "there is nothing in the 
 affair against you" He went on to assign the reasons for the pro- 
 posed change ; said, to use his own words, " it is necessary on 
 party grounds ; the Republican organization cannot be sustained 
 without making changes in offices so lucrative as these." I replied 
 that I should be the last man to complain of a general policy such as 
 he indicated, because in its execution it might reach me, but the diffi- 
 culty was the Administration had no such policy ; it was all the other 
 way, so far as I knew. I referred to the recent re-appointment of the 
 United States Marshal, District Attorney, and Postmaster of Boston. 
 I know, said Mr. McCulloch, that is as you state, but I would not 
 have re-appointed Mr. Palfrey. But did you not, I inquired, only the 
 week before re-appoint Mr. Thomas, of Philadelphia, to the very office 
 in that city which I hold in Boston, and at the same salary ? Yes, 
 he replied, that is true, but it was done with no understanding that 
 it was to continue. I do not know, said I, how long it is to continue, 
 I only know that he has just been re-appointed. I was re-appointed 
 on the 13th of March by Mr. Lincoln, and I hold a renewed commis- 
 sion signed by him and yourself. The question therefore is, does the 
 policy of the Administration and the best interest of the Republican 
 organization for it is on that ground you put it entirely require 
 Mr. Thomas's re-appointment and my removal ? So far as I know 
 there has not been a single removal among those who had been re- 
 appointed by Mr. Lincoln. The rule has been to re-appoint, rather 
 than to remove those who had been re-appointed. It will, therefore, 
 look like singling out and removing me, not to sustain the Rupubli-
 
 45 
 
 can organization, but for some other reason. This is substantially 
 what passed between us on tin's point. 
 
 If this was the reason for my removal, and there was nothing in 
 the office against me, is it not a little singular that the Secretary was 
 not more frank and communicative on other subjects ? It was more 
 than two months after his confidential correspondence with the 
 Messrs. Williams in regard to the rumored missing $32,000, of which 
 I had then heard nothing. If he had any suspicion against me of 
 wrong in that matter, he had no right to tell me there was 
 nothing in the office against me. If he had no such suspicion, why 
 did he not confer with me, as well as with the parties who had paid 
 so much, if not to bribe, at least to improperly influence somebody in 
 the settlement which is the only inference to be drawn from their 
 own testimony. I was the Collector, and the very officer to confer 
 with, if not suspected. And how came the Messrs. Williams to disclose 
 the fact that they had made any such payment at all? for they must 
 have disclosed it. I had heard of their great desire to procure my 
 removal, and of their willingness to contribute liberally towards it, 
 and it may be safely assumed that such was their desire. They cer- 
 tainly would have kept any such pa}'ment to themselves if some 
 strong motive had not impelled them to disclose it. What other 
 motive could have influenced them than the hope that it might in 
 some way be used in accomplishing my removal? Assuming this to 
 have been the motive, and I can think of no other, it shows the 
 instrument the Secretary was wittingly or unwittingly using. How 
 they rst presented the matter in their correspondence with him, I 
 cannot learn. That is confidential. But why should the Secretary 
 treat it as confidential, so far as I was concerned, if there was nothing 
 against me in it? It is known that Mr. Hooper, while talking with 
 other members of the delegation in regard to my removal, said he 
 also had a confidential letter from the Secretary, and that the Depart- 
 ment thought there was something wrong about this Williams settle- 
 ment. This was all before I saw the Secretary, and I inquire 
 again, if he gave the true reason for removing me, and there was 
 no suspicion against me, why did he not say something to me about 
 this matter? If he suspected somebody else and not me, why did he 
 not tell me he proposed to order an investigation before the grand 
 jury ? But if he suspected me, why did he not order an investigation 
 before my removal, and notify me, that I might leave the office exon- 
 erated, or with the suspicion confirmed? Why was I kept in igno- 
 rance, and why, every now and then, were things allowed to come from 
 the Department calculated to excite suspicion against me, if really 
 there was none ? 
 
 In reply to the Secretary's suggestion that the office was a lucrative 
 one, I said I had made nothing by it during my first term, or during 
 the Avar. You don't mean, he inquired, that you have not received a 
 large salary and more or less perquisites. No, sir, I answered, but I 
 gave it all beyond enough for my current expenses, which were not 
 extravant, to the support of the war in some form or other, either 
 through the Government direct, or the various voluntary organiza- 
 tions which grew out of the war and were used indirectly as aids and 
 supports to it. Finding myself in office when the Avar broke out, I 
 determined while it lasted to devote what I made by it to the country
 
 46 
 
 in some way, and did. The Secretary responded, " I know it, Mr. 
 Goodrich, I have learned all this from other sources, and have no 
 doubt it is true ; and I know another thing, I know you well enough 
 to know that if you had not been in office, you would have done just 
 as much for the war." I thanked him, and simply remarked that of 
 course I should have had less to do with. 
 
 The Secretary did, however, finally say that I was unpopular with 
 the merchants. This I admitted was true with a certain class of 
 merchants, and if that unpopularity was deemed to be a sufficient 
 reason for removal, when the cause of it was considered, I had not a 
 word to say. I could not promise a change that would be at all satis- 
 factory to the merchants referred to. I claimed, however, that it 
 was not true with another class of merchants, importers and citizens, 
 who desired an honest, impartial, and faithful administration of the 
 office. As evidence of this I handed the Secretary papers of which 
 the following are copies, furnished without solicitation on my part, 
 which he read. I avail myself of them now not alone because they 
 were part of the case before the President and Secretary, but especially 
 because an attempt has been made to injure me as a man of integrity : 
 
 " To the Hon. H. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 "Sir: Will you permit the undersigned, merchants and citizens of Bos- 
 ton, to give expression to our hearty and entire satisfaction with the course 
 of the Hon. John Z. Goodrich, during the four pears of his Collectorship at 
 this port ; and to testify to the ability, impartiality, fidelity, and general pub- 
 lic approval with which he has performed the various and difficult duties of 
 his ottice. If he has not secured the full approval of the entire business com- 
 munity, we cannot but attribute any dissatisfaction which may exist, to the 
 conscientiousness with which he has administered his trust, and to the de- 
 termination he has continually manifested that the interests of the Govern- 
 ment, so far as confided to him, might be always and fully protected and 
 promoted. 
 
 " We venture, therefore,to express the earnest hope, that for the sake of the 
 commerce of Boston and the benefit of the revenue service of the United States, 
 it will be in accordance with the views and arrangements of the Depart- 
 ment that Mr Goodrich should continue to occupy the position of Collector 
 of Customs at this port, and trust that we may rely on your personal influence 
 to that end. We have the honor to subscribe ourselves, 
 "Yours very truly, 
 
 " BOSTON, July 3d, 1865. 
 
 "J.M.Forbes, Alpheus Hardy & Co., 
 
 Charles G. Loring, W. Ropes & Co., 
 
 Edward. S. Tobey, George C. Richardson, 
 
 James M. Beebe & Co., John M. S. Williams, 
 
 James L. Little, Amos A. Lawrence, 
 
 Charles Stoddard, Samuel H. Walley, 
 
 Samuel R. Payson, Thomas Lamb, 
 
 Jabez C. Howe, Osborn Howes, 
 
 C. F. Hovey & Co., Jas. H. Beal, 
 
 White, Brown & Co., F. Haven, 
 
 J. Wiley Edmands, T.' P. Chandler, 
 
 E. A. Boardman, Daniel Denny, 
 
 Benjamin E. Bates, E. R. Mudge, 
 
 William Claflin, W. D. Forbes, 
 
 Homer Bartlett, J. C. Tyler & Co." 
 William Hilton & Co., 
 
 " BOSTON, July 18th, 1865. 
 
 " Dear Sir: I hear that there is an attempt being made by parties in this 
 city to remove the Hon. J. Z. Goodnch from the office of Collector of this 
 port. Mr. Goodrich has enjoyed, for a long time, the confidence of the sup-
 
 47 
 
 porters of the Government in the State, and received his appointment on the 
 unanimous recommendation of the Delegation. 
 
 " He has always labored earnestly for the success of the Union cause, and 
 contributed most generously of his means for that purpose. 
 
 " No one questions his integrity, or his faithfulness and care of the interests 
 of the Government. He has discharged the duties of his office with general 
 acceptance, and the few complaints that are made are from those whose inter- 
 ests have been antagonistic to the Government, and who have felt themselves 
 aggrieved by his care and vigilance. 
 
 His removal at the present time would encourage those who are ready to 
 defraud the revenue, to persist in their peculations, and' deter honest and 
 faithful officers from active perseverance in ferreting out corruption and 
 fraud. 
 
 " Shall men who have swindled the Government out of hundreds of thou- 
 sands of dollars, seek to obtain their revenge in this manner? 
 
 " I speak plainly, for I believe no good can come by the removal of the 
 present Collector, and that it is mainly sought by those whose sympathies 
 have not been, and are not now with the Government. 
 
 " I will add, that I am under no obligation in any way to the Collector, and 
 that I have no interest in the matter other than to have a capable, faithful, 
 honest man, as he has proved himself, in so important a position as the chief 
 of the Boston Custom House. 
 
 " I am, sir, with the highest respect, yours truly, 
 
 " WILLIAM CLAFLIN, 
 " Chairman of the Republican Committee. 
 
 " To THE PRESIDENT." 
 
 "WORCESTER, (Mass.), July 10, 1865. 
 
 "Sir: I have been informed that some efforts are likely to be made to 
 procure a change in the office of Collector of the port of Boston. 
 
 " I do not know who may be spoken of; but I do know that Mr. Goodrich, 
 who has but recently received a re-appointment, is not only most faithful and 
 able as an officer fully up to the highest standard of requisite qualifications 
 but is in full sympathy and confidence with the Republicans of Massachu- 
 setts and New England. 
 
 " Mr. Goodrich, for the whole term of the existence of the Republican party, 
 has been a generous and laborious friend. He labored in season and out of 
 season as a member of the National Executive Committee, and was regarded, 
 everywhere all over the country, 'as one of the pillars of that organization. 
 His purse and his time have been given alike to the cause. I cannot see any 
 possible reason why he should be relieved of his office. 
 " Very respectfully, 
 
 " ALEXANDER H. BULLOCK, 
 " Speaker Mass. House Representatives. 
 " THE HONORABLE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY." 
 
 The following extract from a letter from J. F. Bailey, Esq., so long 
 Special Agent of the Department, to Secretary McCulloch, dated 
 July 3d, 1865, I did not hand him, but he had received it through the 
 mail : 
 
 " I have known intimately the official character and conduct of Mr. Good- 
 rich, and of all men whom I have so known, there is no one more loyal to 
 public duty, more firm or clear in his political convictions and actions, or 
 more frank and honorable in personal relations. I know of no officer of the 
 Customs service whose conduct has been regulated more completely by the 
 single consideration of duty, than in the case of the present Collector." 
 
 No man conld have had a better opportunity to form a correct opin- 
 ion of my official conduct than Mr. Bailey. It was part of his duty, 
 as special. agent, to inform himself on that very point. 
 
 Let me not be understood as objecting simply because I was removed from 
 office. I never laid the leaving of office to heart a moment, and was glad to 
 be succeeded by so true a man as Mr. Hamlm. In the matter of office holding
 
 48 
 
 nobody has rights, certainly I never claimed any and consequently no one 
 has a right to complain simply because he has been dismissed from the public 
 service. 
 
 I was made Collector the only office I ever held by appointment under the 
 Government, upon the unanimous request of the Massachusetts delegation. 
 I did nothing whatever to obtain the office, and when the subject of my removal 
 began to be agitated, I determined to do nothing to retain it. I however 
 afterwards at the earnest and repeated request of a good many friends, con- 
 sented to take the testimonials which had been voluntarily furnished me, 
 and go to Washington, and present them with my respects to the Secretary, 
 whom I desired to see also on other matters. I told him they represented 
 correctly the general sentiment of Boston and vicinity, as I had been assured 
 and believed, which was all I proposed to say on the subject. What further 
 1 said was in reply to statements made by him of his reasons for the removal. 
 I never thought the Secretary was candid in what he said on that subject. 
 
 Let me rather be understood as only desiring, besides exposing gross frauds 
 and improprieties, to maintain the integrity of my record as collector against 
 any and all who have attempted to impeach it. If nothing had been done but 
 to remove me, I should have been more than content and never made this ex- 
 position and defence. The exposition has sufficiently indicated my conduct 
 and the principles^fnat govern me, to enable every one to decide for himself 
 whether I was right or wrong. That is the question, and the whole of it. Was 
 my course as collector right or wrong? I have no interest in this question 
 which is separate from the public interest. What I did as collector, I did for 
 the public, and if it was right the public must approve it or lower the standard 
 of honesty and morals. I think the standard should be raised rather than 
 lowered. It is just as dishonest to defraud the Government as to defraud an 
 individual, though many do not so regard it. And there are many ways of 
 defrauding the Government. It may be done, and is often done, by a dishonest 
 interpretation or perversion of the law, and this mode of taking mouy from he 
 Treasury is just as fraudulent as any other. 
 
 As to my unpopularity of which so much has been said, I hazard 
 nothing in saying that ninety-nine hundredths of it may be account- 
 ed for by the cases 1 have explained, and others like, are not very 
 unlike them, which may be as satisfactory explained, and shall be if 
 necessary. Some of these are still pending, and cannot now be 
 properly explained. But I should like to see the merchant Avho has 
 been ready to disclose the exact truth, and conform to the require- 
 ments of the law, who has had any difficulty with me. 
 
 Quite too much stress has been laid on the want of commercial 
 experience. How could more commercial experience have aided me in 
 dealing with the Williams and Chenery frauds ? They were simple tiud 
 pure frauds, but no more difficult to comprehend because they occurred 
 in commercial transanctions. Even less of a certain kind of commer- 
 cial experience would have been of decided advantage in the cases 1 
 have related. The truth is, as I intimated at the commencement, the 
 greater want is more commercial integrity. 
 
 The law has been my guide, and I have believed in giving it the 
 same interpretation to-day that was given to it yesterday, and the 
 same also, whether applicable to our class or another. 
 
 TJie Difference. 
 
 My acts under Secretaries Chase and Fessenden were approved, 
 and after a four years' term of service', the lamented Lincoln wrote 
 me and said, " I am not aware of any objection, personal, political. <>/ 
 offiddl to your re-appointment." But under Secretary McCulloch and 
 President Johnson, my acts were disapproved, and in some instances 
 Mr. McCulloch reviewed and reversed the decisions of his predecessors.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482