GLEANINGS FROM THE BLUE BOOKS.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 706, 19 January 1853, Page 2

GLEANINGS FROM THE BLUE BOOKS.

CONSTITUTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS: REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE. Committee ordered 1 Qth February, 1852 ; nominated 12 th February, 1852. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Corncwall Lewis, Mr. Goulburne, Mr. Gladstone, Sir John Yardc Buffer, Sir George Clerk, Mr. William Brown, Alderman Thompson, Mr. Forster, Mr. McGregor, Mr, Archibald Haslie, Mr. Alderman tlumpbery, Mr. Moody, Mr. Anderson,Mr. Tennent. —Mr. Mitchell, Chairman. The Committee sal twenty-nine days, between i6lh February and 21st June, inclusive. This paper contains the Report and Proceedings of the Committee. The Evidence is not printed. After shortly nolicing (he petition from the Cily of London and the London and St. Katherine’s Dock Companies, complaining of the Board of Customs, the Committee slate, that “ they confine themselves fo a narrative of such facts as appeared to be established in evidence, with reference to the cases in dispute between (he Customs and the Dock Companies”; being prevented from making fuff inquiries by I he termination of the session, which precluded (hem from taking the evidence of the practical officers concerned in (he investigations and seizures made at the Docks. The London Docks were commenced in 1800, and have now a capital of 5,900,000/. and an area of 91 acres. They received, in 1850, 405,358 tons of shipping ; containing 1,706,801 packages, of the estimated value of 13,518,187/. ex duly; and employed on an average 3183 men. The St. Katherine’s Docks were commenced in 1825, and have an area of 24 acres. Before (he establishment of these docks, the pilferage amounted to 5 per cenl. on goods imported. The annual loss on West India produce alone was 137,055/. The Board of Customs throughout have acquitted the Directors of the Companies of all suspicion of personal know - ledge of the irregularities which have been the subject of inquiry. The Report proceeds to stale the fads as lo such irregularities. The first information as lo the St. Katherine's Docks was given in Sept,. 1849, which led lo a search and seizure of seven casks sugar. Further seizures look place in 1850 : proceedings thereupon were instituted, which were compromised in November 1851, upon payment of a fine of 100/.; the Dock Company admitting that irregularities had occurred, and agreeing to co-operate for preventing the like in future. In the case of the London Dock Company, a search and seizure took place in March 1850. Proceedings were commenced against the Company, which terminated in November 1851, under similar circumstances and conditions to those in the case of the St. Katharine’s Docks. The annual net income of the London Dock Company from sweepings is stated at 5109/.

The penalties sought to be recovered against (he Company were 120,001)/. The cost of legal proceedings to the Company cannot have been less than 10,000/.; Hie cost to the Crown, 4570/. 4s. 7d., including subsistence-money paid to thirty-seven persons in the employ of the Company. The Report (ben details the proceedings in three cases, against parlies servants of the Companies and others, for alleged frauds. One case arose out of a sale of sweepings containing about 22 per cent, of sugar, sold and removed by the Dock Superintendent without payment of duty, and without, as is alleged, the knowledge of Ihe officers of Customs. The Dock Company eventually paid the duly under protest; but the stuff has since been destroyed, as not worth the duly. The second case was that of certain Dock officers taking a cask of molasses marked with the broad arrow, but which the Dock officers allege belonged to a parcel which had paid duty. This was charged against the Dock officers as a felony; and Hie parties were arrested and held to bail. The third case related to a charge of smuggling of pepper by a parish contractor employed! to empty the Dock dust-bins. The parlies were arrested and held to bail; hul the particulars of Hie charge have never been furnished, nor the information tried. The Report sums up by observing, “ that in these three cases, affecting nineteen persons, charges of smuggling and felony, which must he considered of a criminal character, were not tried in due course of law, hut left for a long period hanging over (he heads of Hie parties, and made at last dependent on the termination of civil suits with their employers regarding the liability of goods to duty. The Committee beg to recommend the narrative to the serious consideration of Parliament and the Government.” As to the constitution of the Board of Customs, the Committee urge, that “ the appointments of Commissioners ought to be made with a scrupulous regard to Hie requisite qualifications of ability and experience, and not so much from political or personal considerations as has hitherto been 100 often Ihe case.” They are further of opinion, that (he appointment of a Commissioner selected from (he mercantile body “ would inspire confidence in the mercantile community.” They notice favourably the suggestion of introducing into the Board ‘‘ a superior practical officer.” They decline expressing any opinion as to one of the Commissioners having a seat in Parliament. They consider the present holydays of the Commissioners (from ten to fifteen weeks excessive. They mention complaints of the inaccessibility of Ihe Commissioners, but which are denied by (hem. They slate (he desirableness “ that that denial should become generally known, so as to enable (he public in future to profit by the facility of seeing the Board.” As to the appointment and promotion of officers , they recommend through all classes of officers a gradation of promotion, accompanied by strict examination. As to fines and satisfaction, they recommend, (he adoption of the practice of Ihe Board of Inland Revenue, according to which no part of penalties recovered goes to (he informing officer, but distributions are made according lo merit. As lo ad-valorem duties , they stale the evidence to he conclusive, that “ however good in theory, they operate badly in practice” ; and arc of opinion that the “ number of articles subject to ad-valorern duties may he largely reduced with advantage to trade, and without material loss to Hie revenue. They inslancc the case of lea, sugar, and nutmegs. As lo seizure and stoppages, and adjudications of them, they disapprove of the present practice of merely intimating lo parlies concerned the grounds of stoppage ami Hie decisions of the Board verbally. They recommend a statement in writing of the grounds of proceeding, and a public hearing before a Commissioner sitting daily for the purpose. As to costs and penalties , they state, that in the case of informations for arrears of duly the Crown neither pays nor receives costs. In case of a seizure or return of goods for forfeiture, and subsequent claim by (lie owner on aflidavif. Hie Crown has a right lo demand security : if Hie Crown succeeds, it is entitled lo its costs ; if it fails, it pays none ; but, ou a Judge’s certificate, an action may be brought against the seizing officer. The Committee suggests “that the subject has a right (o be pul on as good a footing as Hie Crown,” and (in cases of less than 100/.) (hey recommend a cheaper tribunal than the Court of Exchequer. As to the transit system, (hey recommend (he utmost facility So be given for (be transit of goods and persons through this country ; that no goods be examined except in cases of suspected fraud. They make particular suggestions for not enforcing the regulations of the Bth and 9lh Vic. c. Go, as to the transit of foreign manufactures with imitation of British marks, or of books possessing a British copyright” ; also, for extending generally (lie system of allowing goods lo be sent by railway without inspection under the charge of an officer of Customs ; also, the partial examination only of goods sent by coasting conveyance from one English port to another for exportation only. “ They see no fiscal reason why the importation of arms of all kinds, whether in transit or for home consum(ion, should be prohibited.” As to fines on shipping , they recommend the discontinuance of Hie practice of detaining the ship or fining Hie owner, except in cases of fraud by Hie captain or chief male, or “ of such extensive preparations for fraud as lo argue great negligence/’ As to the bonding system , they recommend holding the warehouse-keeper liable for duties instead of the importer, with certain specified securities for protecting and limiting the warehouseman’s responsibility. They recommend lo the serious consideration of the Government the necessity of modifying Ihe Warehousing Acts, so as lo meet Hie exigencies of increased trade. As to passengers’ luggage , they sec no reason why luggage should not be examined on board steamers, particularly large ones. Hours of attendance, they think, should he from seven a.m, to five p.rn. out of doors, in summer, and in-doors from eight lo four; a clerk lo reman till eight p.m. to clear out ships. Simplification of entries of free goods. They notice several suggestions for this object, which they think it best “simply lo refer to the consideration of the Commissioners of Customs.” Codification. They slate the law at present lo be comprised under twenty-three Acts of Parliament, and an annual issue by the Commissioners of about one hundred and twenty new rules. They recommend a Consolidation Bill to be brought in early next session, and the rules in force lo he collected in one volume, and annually published. They express a hope that “ no Customs Bill, embodying any material change, will in future be introduced at a late period of the session.” They conclude with noticing a request made from some of the principal outports for establishing Local Boards, consisting of the local heads of department, for deciding cases under 100/.; also a suggestion that the landing officers might have discretionary power “ lo extend credit on post entries to 100/.” They “ recommend these suggestions lo the serious consideration of Hie Treasury.” The Proceedings of the Committee show, that on (he 12lh March resolutions were proposed, to

(he effect, “ That the Commissioners of Customs have abused the powers which the Legislature intrusted to them for the protection of the revenue; and that F. J. Hamel, Esq. ought not to continue to hold the situation of Solicitor to the Board.” The Committee deliberated, and adjourned. On the 15th March, the same resolutions pul, and negatived on a division by 7 votes to 6. On the same day, an amendment was proposed, to (he effect, “ That in the proceedings in the case of the Dock Companies the Board of Customs had shown a want of that due and proper inquiry and calm deliberation which such grave accusations against such highly respectable corporations demanded.” Negatived on a division, by 7 to 6. On the 241h May, resolution proposed, to the effect that a compromise having taken place between the Dock Companies and the Commissioners of Customs the Committee consider that their Report should contain a narrative of (he material facts of the case before them as between the parties and expressly admitted on both sides. Carried on a division, by 7to 6. \ 1 (hj June. —Draft report proposed by the Chairman. Ditto proposed by Mr. Cornewall Lewis. Ditto proposed by Mr. Goulburn. The draft report proposed by the Chairman was agreed to, and amendments made. Expenses of witnesses, 08/.