terials above referred to may properly be admitted to free entry as belonging to the official equipment and outfit of the commissioners. Commissioners and inspectors of immigration have no power to arrest and detain immigrants once landed, and boards of special inquiries have no jurisdiction over them. [In the matter of the appeal of Selma and Johanna Michelshon.] OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF IMMIGRATION, Dr. J. H. SENNER, Washington, D. C., November 25. 1893. Commissioner of Immigration, Ellis Island, N. Y. SIR: After careful consideration of these cases, it appears that the above parties arrived in the United States on the steamship Gellert on the 17th day of June, 1893, were duly examined at Ellis Island by immigrant inspectors, and discharged and landed. There is nothing in the testimony submitted to show that either of said appellants has subsequently become a public charge within one year after her arrival in the United States from causes existing prior to her landing therein, or that either of them came into the United States in violation of law. Their subsequent life in New York is to be deplored, and should receive censure; but the Bureau of Immigration can not be expected to look after the morals of immigrants landed. The power to arrest immigrants who have passed out of the control of the immigration authorities has not been confided to commissioners of immigration or inspectors, and can not be exercised by them. The boards for conducting special inquiries are created by statute, and have only special defined powers limited to questions arising as to the right of arriving immigrants to land, and their decision ordering the deportation of the said Selma and Johanna Michelshon is ultra vires. This Bureau is of the opinion that said Selma and Johanna Michelshon are not legally detained at Ellis Island, and entertaining this view, it is unnecessary to decide any of the questions raised by the appeal in this case. You will, therefore, discharge the said Selma and Johanna Michelshon from your custody. Respectfully, yours, Approved: J. G. CARLISLE, HERMAN STUMP, Secretary. (14494.) Embroidered handkerchiefs. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 27, 1893. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, in which you request to be instructed whether certified statements shall be prepared and forwarded for the consideration of the Department in cases where petitions have been made to the circuit court for the review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers holding that handkerchiefs embroidered only are dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem. Referring to Department's letter of the 8th of September last, in which it is stated that, in view of the decision of the circuit court of appeals in the William Gribbon case, holding in effect that handkerchiefs embroidered and not also hemstitched are dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 349 of the act of October 1, 1890, and to the decision of the board G. A. 2271, holding to the same effect, I have to state that certified statements should be forwarded for refund of duty exacted in excess of 50 per cent ad valorem on this class of handkerchiefs upon notice received by you from the office of the district attorney of the dismissal by the protestants of the petitions to the circuit court for a review of the decision of the board holding such handkerchiefs to be dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem. Accounts of Midwinter Exposition at San Francisco. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 27, 1893. SIR: Your attention is called to the requirement that all reports, vouchers, entries, and other papers relating to the Midwinter Exposition are to bear the stamp "Midwinter Exposition, San Francisco." The records and accounts of the customs business at the Exposition are to be kept separately from the papers relating to the other customs business at your port, and your reports to the Treasury Department will also be made on special sheets and will bear the stamp above described. Respectfully, yours, (4035 g.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. (14496.) · Custom-house employés not to act as brokers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 28, 1893. SIR: Your letter of the 24th instant, referring the application of Messrs. S. W. Newberger & Co. for a refund of additional duty paid under section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, on certain gloves imported at Louisville, Ky., was duly received. You report that in auditing the account of the former surveyor of customs at the above port it was discovered that no notice had been taken of "packing charges," which should have been added to the entry covering the gloves above mentioned, and that you therefore requested the surveyor, in accordance with the decision G. A. 1810 of the Board of General Appraisers, dated October 28, 1892, to assess the additional duties due. As the failure of the importers to add packing charges in this case carried with it a penal duty for undervaluation, they appear to have paid the same under protest on the ground that they were unfamiliar with customs business, and had availed themselves of the services of the surveyor's son, who was at that time an employé at the custom-house at that port. In reply to your suggestion that this practice of allowing employés in the customs service to act as brokers is also in vogue at other ports, and is not conducive to the best interests of the service, I have to inform you that while the Department does not prohibit customs employés from advising immigrants and others inexperienced in customs business in the entry of their "effects," it has invariably discountenanced the practice of permitting them to act as brokers in cases of regular importations. Respectfully, yours, (4591 g.) To the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, (14497.) Forfeiture of imported goods under section 9 of act of June 10, 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 28, 1893. The following opinion, dated the 21st instant, from the honorable the Attorney-General, to whom was submitted the question whether or not under section 9 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, a loss of duty to the United States is a necessary element of forfeiture or crime, is published for the information of customs officers. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., November 21, 1893. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of November 18, asking me whether under section 9 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, "such cases as are referred to where there has been no loss of duty should be reported to the district attorney for forfeiture or other proceedings." Section 9 of that act, so far as necessary for consideration, is as follows: "That if any owner, importer, consignee, agent or other person shall make or attempt to make any entry of imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, or shall be guilty of any willful act or omission by means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the lawful duties, or any portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise, or any portion thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected by such act or omission, such merchandise, or the value thereof, to be recovered from the person making the entry, shall be forfeited." And the act has made it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. In my opinion, the section down to and including the word "whatsoever" is not conditional upon loss of duty, but the words "by means whereof the United States shall be deprived," etc., qualify only the words "or shall be guilty of any willful act or omission." This being the legal construction of the act, executive officers should govern themselves accordingly. Very respectfully, The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. RICHARD OLNEY, Attorney-General. (14498.) Circular.-Maintenance and deportation of alien immigrants. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C., November 29, 1893. The attention of all concerned is called to the following instructions: RULE 1. All alien immigrants before they are landed shall be inspected and examined, as by law provided, on shipboard or at a suitable place provided for the convenience of the owners of vessels transporting them and the comfort of the immigrant, where they may be temporarily placed whilst undergoing such examination. During such time, and until finally discharged and landed, said immigrants shall be deemed and treated as on shipboard, and the owners, consignee, or master of the vessel transporting them shall be liable for all expenses incurred in lodging, feeding, and caring for them, or said immigrants may be remanded on board ship, or taken on board ship, by the master thereof, who shall be responsible for their safe-keeping. RULE 2. Upon arrival all alien immigrants shall be inspected and examined without unnecessary delay. Those qualified to land shall be promptly discharged. Those detained for special inquiry shall have a speedy hearing and be either discharged or ordered deported. If an appeal is prayed the record of proceedings shall at once be transmitted to the Superintendent of Immigration at Washington. All expenses incurred in lodging, feeding, and maintaining alien immigrants, during the period covered by these proceedings, shall be borne by the steamship company, owners, or master of the vessel transporting them. No appeal shall be received or transmitted which is applied for after the immigrant has been transferred from the immigrant station to be deported. RULE 3. Upon the arrival of an alien immigrant, helpless from sickness, physical disability, or infancy, who is detained for further inquiry, one person only (if necessary) shall be detained to look after and care for such helpless immigrant, the natural guardian or a relative to be selected. The transportation company to be responsible for their maintenance whilst so detained. The remainder of the family (if any) shall proceed on their journey or defray their own expenses. RULE 4. In case of an immigrant not qualified to land, but who would be entitled, upon proof of certain facts, such as the case of a woman who claims to have a husband, father, or brother, residents in this country, able and willing to support her, she may be detained a reasonable time until such husband, father, or brother can be communicated with. The transportation company to be responsible for her maintenance in such and like cases until a final decision is reached. RULE 5. Immigrants qualified to land shall be promptly discharged and landed, and if they desire to wait for friends or remittances they may be permitted to do so upon payment of all costs and expenses, which should not be charged to the transportation company. In cases where an immigrant qualified to land is unable, from accident or unavoidable circumstances, to immediately continue his journey and is without sufficient means to defray the expenses of the enforced delay, the Commissioner of Immigration may, in his discretion, pay said expense, reporting said case to the Bureau of Immigration with reasons for his action, and ask that such expense be paid out of the "immigrant fund." RULE 6. That in case of the arrival of sick and disabled immigrants unable to travel, said immigrants shall be removed to hospitals provided for their care, and shall be maintained at the expense of the owner or master of the vessel transporting them until sufficiently recovered either to be landed or deported, and whilst detained in hospital shall not be |