It is authoritatively stated that only the extreme pressure of time incident to a night-session of the Tariff Conference Committee, almost at the close of the last session of Congress, prevented the bill, proposed by the Tariff Commission, for the establishment of a Customs Court, from becoming a law. However, these decisions have been carefully examined and analyzed, and the results are so stated as to present, as clearly as may be, both the rulings and the principles underlying them. Decisions which have been overruled by later ones or superseded by changes in the law, or are too trivial to be of general interest, or relate purely to questions of fact, have not been referred to, unless for special reasons. Notwithstanding the care exercised in preparing and drafting the new law, it is not free from incongruities. These, so far as observed, are pointed out. Ample time has been taken in the preparation of the work, which it is hoped will prove of permanent value, and be of material assistance in simplifying and elucidating a subject which is usually deemed unsatisfactory, technical and obscure. The author desires to acknowledge the assistance derived from Mr. Heyl's "Import Duties," and from the Digest of the Treasury Decisions recently issued under authority from the department. BOSTON, MASS., June 23, 1883. TABLE OF CONTENTS. GENERAL STATUTE PROVISIONS TABLE OF CASES. Ansbacher v. Arthur, 43., v. Dodge, 34, 42. v. Homer, 77, 78, 95. v. Jacoby, 22. v. Lahey, 78. v. Moller, 93. v. Morrison, 92. v. Rheims, 100. v. Stephani, 63. v. Sussfield, 26. v. Unkart, 92. v. Zimmerman, 73, 103. Bailey v. Goodrich, 59. Kitching v. Arthur, 48. Jones, 119. Sixty-five Terra Cotta Vases, 123. Smythe v. Fiske, 92. Solomon v. Arthur, 92. Swan v. Arthur, 92. Tutton v. Vite, 108. United States v. Ninety Demijohns of Rum, 67. United States v. One Case Stereopticon Slides, 2. United States v. Sixty-five Terra Cotta Vases, 123. United States v. Telegraph Co., 43, 47. United States v. Turnbull, 89. |