Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/598

 584 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The goods seized were three trunks or cases of silk handkerchiefs. They were found in the boatswain's room, and are claimed by him as his own. They were not entered on the manifest. But there does not appear to have been any attempt to conceal their presence on board from the master or the officers of the customs. The omission to describe the goods in the manifest was not the resuit of mistake or accident. There does not appear to have been any intention to so describe them. They were imported under the idea that the impor- tation was permittted by law, provided the duties were paid on the arrivai of the vessel. The importation was, however, clearly illegal, and the facts of the case bring it directly within the provisions of the section which has been cited. It is claimed, however, that the for- feiture denounceJ by setition 2809 cannot be enforced unless it ap- pear that there was "an actual intention to defraud the United States." Section 16 of the act of June 22, 1874, in substance provides that in all suits to enforce forfeitures, etc., for any violation of the customs revenue laws — �" It shall be the duty of the court to submit to the jury, as a distinct and sepa- rate proposition, whether the alleged aota were done with an actual intention to defraud the United States ; and if the issues are tried by the court without a jury, it shall be the duty of the court to pass upon and decide such proposi- tion as a distinct and separate flnding of fact ; and unless intent to do fraud shall be so found, no forfeiture, etc., shall be imposed." �The laws of the United States regulating commerce and navigation are necessarily rigorous in their exactions, and highly penal. They inflict forfeitures and penalties for the non-observance of tlueir injunc- tions without regard, in general, to the motives of the ofifender. Conk. Treat. 739. Their severity, however, was, from a very early period in the history of our government, tempered by enactments which per- mitted the offending or interested party to cause a summary inquiry into the facts of the case to be instituted by the district judge, by whom the facts so ascertained were to be reported to the secretary of the treasury ; and if, in the opinion of that ofScer, the penalty or for- feiture had been incurred " without wilf ul negligence or any intention to defraud," he was authorized to grant a remission. These provis- ions were supposed, until a comparatively recent period, to afford ample protection against the rigorous application of the laws-to cases of accidentai and innocent violation of their provisions. The power of remission confided to the secretary has been freely and liberally ex- ercised; nor can I recall an instance where a remission has been unreasonably or unjustly withheld. ��� �