Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/664

 652 ���FEDERAL REPORTER. ���in the act of 1846, it was made more certain and empTiatic by the act of 1861, which declared that the goods should, after tluee years, be deemed "abandoned to the government," and worked a forfeiture of any surplus. That act was passed amid the exigencies of the war ; and the general purpose of the act to insure the prompt payment of duties is shown by other provisions of the same section of the act, which reduce the time for the payment of duties, without penalty, to three months, and add thereafter an increased penalty of 25 per cent. �The act must, therefore, be held to have been designed to eut off the right of the surety as well as of the principal, which they would have iiad but for some statutory provisions of this kind, to pay the duties and withdraw the goods after the lapse of three years, and at any time before a sale, It has been so construed in the regulations of the department, and such, I think, must be held to be its proper legal effect. Article 141 of 1868, and article 767 of 1874, of the treasury regulations, forbidding such withdrawal, are based upon this view of the statute. To this extent, therefore, the statute of 1861 enters into and forms a part of the implied terms of this bond. It cuts off the Burety's right of payment and subrogation, which, but for some statutory provisions of this character, he would have had. �The statute cannot, therefore, be held to be a merely directory one, like that referred to in the case of [7. S. v. Kirkpatrick, and others of a kindred character, above cited, which is addressed to the oiScers of the government merely for their own guidance in the performance of their duties. It is more than that, beeause it is designed to eut off, and does eut off, the surety's rights of payment and subrogation, whicl^are ordinarily incident to bis very contract of suretyship. It was not designed to provide for a sale of the goods merely for the security of the government, and merely to recover its claims in the particular case of any goods being left over after three years; for the government had that right already without this stat- uts, under the act of 1846 ; and, if that were the only design of the act of 1S61, the provision that the goods "shall be deemed aban- doned to the government" would have been neither necessary nor appropriate, and on such a construction the statute would in effect become mere surplusage, of no use or effect. Its purpose was rather to prevent, so far as possible, any goods being left over at all, by enacting such a policy in regard to them as should induee all im- porters to withdraw their goods within the prescribed period; and for this purpose the power of every person to withdraw the goods upon ��� �