subject to such forfeiture, or of any absence or concealment of the property, shall not be reckoned within the period of limitation. U. S. v. One Dark Bay Horse, (1904) 130 Fed. 240.

Concealment. — In U. S. v. One Stradivarius Violin, (1911) 188 Fed: 542, it appeared that one H., in January, 1906, purchased a violin in London, to be delivered in New York or Boston free of all expense. It was delivered shortly thereafter without duty being paid thereon. H. thereafter habitually kept it in his drawingroom, where it was used. displayed, and admired by various artists at Sunday afternoon concerts held by H. It was never absent but always present in the house of H., though the revenue officers acquired no information concerning its wrongful importation until July, 1910. It was held that

Vol. II, p. 762, sec. 3095.

Amendment.

such lack of information by government officers, and the fact that H. knew or had reason to believe the instrument had been. imported without paying duty, did not constitute "concealment" so as to bar limitations prescribed by this section.

Five-year statute of limitations. — Section 1047 R. S., 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 100, 4 Fed. Stat. Annot. 865, which provides a five-year statute of limitations for suits for " any penalty or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, accruing under the laws of the United States," does not apply to customs revenue cases, which are subject to the three-year limitation for similar proceedings "accruing under the customs revenue laws of the United States," which is provided in section 22. U. S. v. Wittemann, (1907) 152 Fed. 377, 81 C. C. A. 503.

Vol. II, p. 762, sec. 3097.

Open gasoline launch. — In U. S. v. One Gasoline Launch, (1904) 133 Fed. 42, 66 C. C. A. 148, it was held that an open, clinkerbuilt gasoline launch, about eighteen and a half feet long," arriving at Seattle from a port of British Columbia, and not shown to be a foreign vessel or to contain merchandise, was not required to report to the customs officer of the port, under the provision of R. S. sec. 2774, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 638, requiring

Vol. II, p. 767, sec. 3109.

Open gasoline launch.

vessels from foreign ports generally to report, but was within section 3097, relating to commerce with contiguous countries, which require only vessels carrying dutiable merchandise, arriving at ports on the northern and northwestern frontier adjacent foreign territory to report, nor was she required to report by section 3109, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 767.

Vol. 11, p. 768, sec. 3114.

-

2, p. 624, sec. 14.

Vol. 11, p. 773, sec. 5444.

"Entry."-This section does not refer merely to the act of filing at the custom house the document known as an "entry," but comprises the transaction of entering the goods into the body of the commerce of the country; that is, the whole process of passing the goods through the custom house, which cannot be deemed complete until liquidation has been had. U. S. v. Mescall, (1908) 164 Fed.

584.

164 Fed. 587. "Effects, or aids in effecting."-The exeffects, or aids in effecting," an

pression

Aid in the illegal admission of imports.This section includes aid given both before and after the fact; and where a customs officer aids one who has made wrongful entry, by concealing the falsity of the entry, or by supporting it by false official returns, he is within the prohibition of the section. U. S. v. Mescall, (1908) 164 Fed. 584.

ruptly aids an importer in effecting an entry on payment of less than the legal duty, although his action was in the performance of a duty assigned to him by a superior officer, which he was not obligated to perform, and could not legally perform under the statute. U. S. v. Rosenthal, (1903) 126 Fed. 766, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 1.

Customs weigher. This section, while ordinarily not intended to apply to those individuals customs officers-covered by the preceding section of the law, does not exclude an officer of the service if the facts bring him within the definition of the "person" "at whom this provision is aimed, and may therefore include a customs weigher who aids in the way prohibited. U. S. r. Mescall, (1908) 164 Fed. 587.

Failure of fraudulent entry. The penalty provided for illegally effecting the entry of imports, under this section, cannot be avoided on the theory that the fraud would not have been successful until the release of the goods after payment of the duty, and the participants in the wrongdoing might have repented before that time. U. S. v. Mescall, (1908) 164 Fed. 587.

Defense of irregular practice at custom house. While an importer cannot be subjected to a forfeiture or penalty unless the practice prescribed by statute has been fol

lowed in the custom house, one charged criminally with having effected an entry of goods at less than the true weight, and by payment of less than the legal duty, by means of a false invoice, and by the bribing of the examiner to approve such invoice, cannot take advantage of the fact that the practice of submitting the matter to the examiner, instead of to a surveyor, was irregular and unauthorized, and that the examiner had no legal right, under the statute, to do the things in relation to which he was corruptly influ enced. U. S. r. Rosenthal, (1903) 126 Fed. 766, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 1.

Sufficiency of indictment. An indictment under this section, which charges that defendants, on a day named, "with intent

that the United States should be wrongfully deprived of a portion of the lawful duties due" on certain imported goods, which were specifically dutiable according to weight, effected an entry thereof at less than their true weight and by payment of less than their legal duty, was held to sufficiently charge that the entry was "knowingly effected, and also that the entry was a completed entry, on which the duty was liquidated, and not merely the preliminary entry. U. S. v. Rosenthal, (1903) 126 Fed. 766, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 1.

ported before the date named in the section. Perkins Co. v. U. S., (1910) 180 Fed. 935.

in from the duties imposed by Tariff Act July 24, 1897, ch. 11, 30 Stat. L. 151. M. J. Dalton Co. r. U. S., (1907) 151 Fed. 143; U. S. v. M. J. Dalton Co., (1907) 151 Fed. 144. Compare Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S., (1906) 144 Fed. 563.

Court on appeal from the board. It has been held that this provision applied to cases decided by the board after May 27, 1908, even though prior to that date they had arisen and been submitted to the board for decision. Beer r. U. S., (1910) 181 Fed. 402.

13.

cause, in any tribunal or court, does not exclude a reappraisement previously provided for in the same section. U. S. v. Calhoun, (1911) 184 Fed. 499.

Jurisdiction of collector. Under this and the two following sections and Act of Cong. June 22, 1874, ch. 391, sec. 21, 18 Stat. L. 190, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 760, it is held that where imports have been appraised by an appraiser, the collector has no jurisdiction to

reappraise the same, and though authorized to institute a proceeding within a year to reliquidate the duties, and to examine the importer as a witness for that purpose, he has no jurisdiction in that proceeding to compel the importer to testify with reference to

the value of the goods, and so lay a foundation for reappraisement under the guise of a reliquidation; and this though the original appraisement was induced by fraud. U. S. . Calhoun, (1911) 184 Fed. 499.

it to appear in such proceedings and produce its books of account. U. S. v. Calhoun, (1911) 184 Fed. 499.

Examination of importer by collector. It has been held that since the words "value or classification" include both an appraisal and liquidation, they may also include a reliquidation by the collector by proceedings instituted by him within the year, and hence the collector is entitled within that period to institute reliquidation proceedings, in which the importer may be cited for examination, though there can be no reappraisement by him. U. S. v. Calhoun, (1911) 184 Fed. 499.

Vol. !!, p. 801, sec. 1723.

Liability of surety for overcharge of fees. -The surety on the bond of a consular officer cannot be held liable for the statutory penalty incurred by the principal under this section for charging excessive fees, where

Vol. II, p. 811, sec. 1745.

Official and unofficial services. The President may prescribe a fee, as provided by this section, for the services of a consul in furnishing inspection cards to steerage passengers on vessels destined to the United States,

Vol. II, p. 818, sec. 4080.

Arrest

by marshal. In Dallemagne v. Moisan. (1905) 197 U. S. 169, 25 S. Ct. 422, 49. S. (L. ed.). 709, it was held that only a federal marshal can make an arrest on the requisition of a French consul, charging a Seaman on a French vessel with insubordination, conformably to article 8 of the Treaty with France of Aug. 12, 1853, 10 Stat. L. 992, 996, 7 Fed. Stat. Annot. 551, since this,

Vol. II, p. 818, sec. 4081.

Length of imprisonment.—The imprisonment of an insubordinate seaman on a French vessel, pursuant to article 8 of the Treaty 996, 7 Fed. Stat, Annot. 551, providing that with France of Aug. 12, 1853, 10 Stat. L. 992.

such fees, including the excess, have been charged against him in his account, and paid to the Treasury Department. U. S. v. Ballantine, (C. C. A. 1905) 138 Fed. 312.

as required by the quarantine regulations of April 1, 1903, but he has no authority to declare such a fee unofficial and to permit the consul to retain it as such. (1903) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 672.

being the mode of arrest specified by the Act of Congress of June 11, 1864, 13 Stat. L. 121, ch. 116, enacted to provide for the execution of treaties respecting consular jurisdiction over the crews of foreign vessels in the waters and ports of the United States, and re-enacted in substance in R. S. secs. 4079-4081, must be regarded as the only means proper to be adopted for this purpose.

such persons may be arrested on the written requisition of the consul, "supported by an official extract from the register of the ship or the list of the crew, and shall be held, during the whole time of their stay in the

port, at the disposal of the consuls," need not end with the departure of the vessel from the port at which the seaman was taken from the vessel, but may last until the expiration of the two months, which is the limit prescribed by the Act of June 11, 1864, 13 Stat. L. 121, ch. 116, carried forward in substance as R. S. secs. 4079-4081, enacted to provide for the execution of treaties respecting consular jurisdiction over the crews of foreign vessels in the waters and ports of the United States. Dallemagne r: Moisan, (1905) 197 U. S. 169, 25 S. Ct. 422, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 709.

Validity of arrest by state officer. - In Dallemagne v. Moisan, (1905) 197 U. S. 169,

25 S. Ct. 422, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 709, it was held that an unauthorized arrest by a state official on a requisition of a French consul, charging a seaman on a French vessel with insubordination, conformably to article 8 of the Treaty with France of Aug. 12, 1853, 10 Stat. L. 992, 996, 7 Fed. Stat. Annot. 551, does not entitle the seaman to his discharge on habeas corpus when brought before a federal District Court, since the objection to the irregularity of the arrest is obviated by the action of that court in examining into the case under the authority conferred upon it by the Act of June 11, 1864, carried forward in substance as R. S. secs. 4079-4081.

Vol. II, p. 851, sec. 4.

Appropriations to be controlled and administered by state. This Act and Act Cong. Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 841, 26 Stat. L. 417, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 854, granting certain public lands or land scrip to the several states, provide that the proceeds thereof shall be invested to constitute a perpetual fund for the endowment of at least one college where the leading object shall be instruction in mechanic arts and agriculture, and appropriating money arising from the sales of the public lands to the states for the benefit of such schools constituted a grant to the several states, and not to the colleges competent to receive the same in the states to be received through the state as a mere conduit. State v. Irvine, (1906) 14 Wyo. 318, 84 Pac. 90.

In State v. Bryan, (1905) 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929, it was held that the legislature of Florida has the power to prescribe what college or colleges shall be the recipient or recipients of the interest on the fund derived from the sale of lands donated by this Act for the maintenance of at least one college for instruction in agriculture and mechanic arts, or to bestow it for such purpose upon a university of the state, as it may elect, having also the power to withdraw the interest of this fund from any institution of learning which has been the recipient of it, and found another institution, at any time it may elect so to do, and make it the recipient of said interest for such instruction. It was further held that the legislature has the discretionary power to provide proper educational qualifications for admission to such state college or university, to appoint trustees thereof, subject to change, conferring such powers, not in conflict with some constitutional provision, upon them as it may see fit, or to establish a state board of control, as was done by chapter 5384, Laws Florida, 1905; said trustees or said state board of

control being simply public agents to manage a public property.

Teaching military tactics. - In State v. Bryan, (1905) 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929, it was held that chapter 5384 of the Laws of 1905 of Florida were not unconstitutional or in conflict with this Act, donating to the state a fund for the establishment and maintenance of at least one college as therein specified, because said chapter 5384 provided that the state board of education and the state board of control "shall include military tactics, if the said joint boards deem the same requisite and proper," as one of the branches of education in the University of the State of Florida.

Right to use for other than educational purposes. In Nebraska it has been held that by the terms of this Act, and by the acceptance of the grants by the state, and the pledges contained in the state constitution and statutes with reference thereto, the state became a trustee of the funds derived from such grants, for the sole purpose of applying them to the objects of the grant, and with no power to divert the same to other purposes, or to render them general funds of the state. State v. Brian, (1909) 84 Neb. 30, 120 N. W. 916.

Institutions entitled to grants. — No particular institutions are entitled to the grants and appropriations made respectively by this Act, and by the Act of Aug. 30, 1890, 26 Stat. L. 417, ch. 841, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 854, appropriating annually certain sums to each state and territory for the more complete endowment and maintenance of such colleges, but the states take the property, charged with the duty to devote it to the purposes named. Wyoming v. Irvine, (1907) 206 U. S. 278, 27 S. Ct. 613, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 1063.

Selection of beneficiary-duty of state. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 854, sec. 1.

-

Vol. II, p. 864, sec. 5507.

Constitutionality. The provision in this section for the punishment of individuals who, by means of bribery, prevent persons to whom the right of suffrage is guaranteed by U. S. Const., 15th Amend., from exercising that right, cannot be sustained, as an exercise of the power granted to Congress by such amendment, to prevent the denial of such right by state action. James . Bowman, (1903) 190 U. S. 127, 23 S. Ct. 678, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 979.

Vol. II, p. 864, sec. 5509.

Constitutionality.

-In Rakes v. U. S., (1909) 212 U. S. 55, 29 S. Ct. 244, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 401, it was held that the constitutionality of the provision of this section for such punishment of persons committing any other felony or misdemeanor, when conspiring contrary to the preceding section, as is attached to such felony or misdemeanor by the laws of the state in which the offense is committed, was too well settted to permit the question as to such constitutionality to serve as the basis of a writ of error from the federal Supreme Court to a District Court.

Former jeopardy. An acquittal of murder after a regular trial in a state court having

Limiting operation to sustain validity.The operation of section 5507, which was manifestly enacted to punish the bribery at all elections, state and federal, of persons guaranteed the right to vote by U. S. Const., 15th Amend., cannot be limited by judicial construction, for the purpose of sustaining its constitutionality, to the bribery of voters at elections for federal officers. James v. Bowman, (1903) 190 U. S. 127, 23 S. Ct. 678, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 979.

full jurisdiction in the premises is a bar to so much of an indictment for conspiring criminally in violation of R. S. secs. 5508, 5509, as seeks, by charging defendants with the commission of such murder, to enforce the provision of section 5509, that if, in carrying out such conspiracy, an offense against the state has been committed, the punishment provided for by the state for such offense shall be imposed. U. S. r. Mason, (1909) 213 U. S. 115, 29 S. Ct. 480, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 725.

For another case citing this section see U. S. v. Powell, (1907) 151 Fed. 648, affirmed (1909) 212 U. S. 564, 29 S. Ct. 690, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 653.

Vol. II, p. 897, sec. 3678.

Expenses of railway postal clerks. - This section declares that all suns appropriated for the various branches of expenditures in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no others. Section 3679. 2 Fed.

F. S. A. Supp. — 67