Chapter Three.- Provisions common to diplomatic and consular officers. Perjury before consular officer, or forging seal or signature of such officer Embezzlement by consular officer United States v. Hearing, 26 F. R. 744; State v. Kirkpatrick, 32 Ark. 117. Unlawfully cutting timber on public land 3 June, 1878, s. 4; 20 Stat. 90. United States v. Smith, 11 Fed. Rep. 487; United States v. Young, Id. 493; United States v. Williams, 18 Id. 475; United States v. Hacker, 73 Id. 292; Stubbs v. United States, 111 Id. 366; English v. United States, 116 Id. 625, 107 Id. 867; United States v. Blendauer, 122 Id. 703; 16 A. G. Op. 189. Chapter Thirteen. - National forests. Rules concerning the use and occupancy of lation 4 June, 1897; 30 Stat. 35. Dastervignes v. United States, 122 F. R. 30; Dent v. United States, 8 Ariz. 138, 413; 22 A. G. Op. 266. Chapter Fifteen. - Unlawful inclosures. Inclosing public lands without title; ob- 25 Feb., 1885, s. 4; 23 Stat. 322. 10 March, 1908, s.1; 35 Stat. 40. Bircher v. United States, 169 F. R. 589; Potts v. United States, 114 Chapter Twenty. — Public lands in Alaska. TITLE XXIII 2 May, 1890, s. 24; 26 Stat. 92. 11 May, 1898, s. 6; 30 Stat. 410. 24 July, 1897, ss. 25, 26; 30 Stat. 210. Chapter Two. - Qualifications, pay, and duties of officers. Officer failing to keep table of fees posted R. S., s. 2635. 10 June, 1890, s. 26; 26 Stat. 141. Officer demanding or receiving greater fee, etc., than allowed by law R. S., s. 2636. 10 June, 1890, s. 27; 26 Stat. 141. Hedden v. Iselin, 24 Blatch. 455, 460, 31 F. R. 266, 28 Id. 416. Inspector, weigher, gauger, or measurer R. S., s. 2637. R. S., s. 2637. R. S., s. 2638. R. S., s. 2639. accounts and records of of transactions. R. S., s. 2640. Chapter Three. - Revenue-Cutter Service. Chapter Four. - Entry of merchandise. pay duties, etc., at port of entry; master R. S., s. 2764. R. S., s. 2772. The Saratoga, 9 F. R. 322, 324; 25 A. G. Op. 157. Vessel departing from port of arrival before making report of entry; master liable. . R. S., s. 2773. The words "more interior district" mean a district farther within the indentation of the contiguous country. United States v. Bearse, 4 Mason, 192. It is a departure or an attempt to depart, and not an intention to violate the revenue laws, which will justify a seizure. Le Tigre, 3 Wash. C. C. 567, 572. The mere transit through a river which is the boundary between the United States and a foreign State, for the purpose of proceeding to a foreign port, is not to be deemed an arrival within the limits of the United States from a foreign port. The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362, 6 L. ed. 111. See S. T. D. 8280, 8308. Master failing to make report of arrival of R. S., s. 2774. The Strathairly, 124 U. S. 558, 31 L. ed. 580; The Paolina S., 11 F. R. 171; Badger v. Gutherez, 111 U. S. 734, 28 L. ed. 581. Under § 30 of the cited statute of 1799, it was held that the report of arrival must be made at the office of the chief officer of the customs; that a report to an inspector, on board the vessel, or in a shop on shore, did not comply with the act, and that report be made, whether the arrival is voluntary, or by stress of weather, or at another than the intended port of discharge. United States v. Webber, 1 Gall. 392; United States v. Rendell, 1 Curtis, 369; United States v. Galacar, 1 Sprague, 545; United States v. Randall, Id. 546. See also United States v. One Gasoline Launch, 133 F. R. 42; United States v. Legg, 105 Id. 930, 932; Mignano v. MacAndrews, 53 Id. 958; 24 A. G. Op. 27; 20 Id. 677; S. T. D. (1893), pp. 895, 897. Master of vessel failing to make special 19 A. G. Op. 646. Master neglecting to obtain copy of report 25 A. G. Op. 535; S. T. D. (1895), p. 1026. Vessel having more sea stores than in R. S., s. 2775. R. S., s. 2784. R. S., s. 2797. An Ullage Box of Sugar, 1 Ware, 350; 20 A. G. Op. 201. Concealing dutiable articles in baggage R. S., s. 2802. Occurrences subsequent to the accrual of the right of forfeiture cannot waive that right or estop the United States from asserting it. United States v. One Purple Cloth Costume, 158 F. R. 899. A passenger carrying precious stones loose in his pocket must declare them the same as articles in his trunk. United States v. 21812 Carats Loose Emeralds, 153 F. R. 643. The specification of the "trunk" is equivalent to mention of its contents. United States v. One Trunk, 171 F. R. 772. As to an insufficient indictment, see Keck v. United States, 172 U. S. 434, 453, 43 L. ed. 505. Any dutiable article in the baggage which was not at the time of making the entry of such baggage under § 2799 "mentioned to the collector before whom such entry was made by the person making the entry" is subject to forfeiture under this section, without regard to fraudulent intent, but it is a sufficient "mention" of an article to avoid forfeiture if it is called to the attention of the officer, who, as representative of the collector, takes the entry or declaration, although it is not mentioned therein. United States v. One Pearl Necklace, 111 F. R. 164, reversing 105 Id. 357. As to the effect of intention to evade payment, see The Robert Edwards, 6 Wheat. 187, 5 L. ed. 238; 23 A. G. Op. 63. This section does not apply to goods smuggled successfully through the custom-house. United States v. Five Packages of Tapestry, 114 F. R. 496. This section was not affected by the Act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, and where packages entered as personal effects contain also valuable dutiable goods, such goods only, and not the entire packages, are forfeited. 18 A. G. Op. 326. See Friedenstein v. United States, 125 U. S. 224, 31 L. ed. 736; In re Leszynsky, 16 Blatch. 9, 18. Master failing to have correct manifest. . R. S., s. 2809. The omission must be intentional to incur forfeiture. United States v. A Lot of Umbrellas, 12 F. R. 412; United States v. The Stadacona, 4 Am. L. T. 213. It was held that there could be no decree of forfeiture where a practice had long prevailed with the acquiescence of the customs officers to permit officers and crews of vessels to import and pay duties upon merchandise without entering the same upon the vessel's manifest. United States v. Three Trunks, 7 Sawyer, 364, 8 F. R. 583. Also United States v. Hutchinson, 1 Haskell, 146; United States v. The Missouri, 9 Blatch. 433. If the master takes goods without a bill of lading or invoice, intending to |