fact that some other appraisals were going on at the same time with the one in the present case, although it excluded, under the exception of the plaintiffs, testimony as to how many of them there were.

The plaintiffs also. for the purpose of raising the point that the merchant appraiser should have been selected by virtue of the classification of employés in the classified customs service, as certified to by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 882 of the Revised Statutes, being the classification provided for by section 6 of the act of January 16, 1883, c. 27, (22 Stat. 405,) offered such classification in evidence, but it was excluded by the court under the objection of the defendant, as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and the plaintiffs excepted. officials and importers. The local appraisers are expected to do their full duty in ascertaining, estimating, and appraising the true and actual market value or wholesale price of imported merchandise at the time of exportation, and in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported. When appeals are taken from the valuation so found, it is expected that the general appraiser and merchant appraiser selected to act with him will reappraise the merchandise in substantially the same manuer as is pursued on original appraisement. Section 2922 of the Revised Statutes authorizes appraisers to call before them and examine under oath any owner, importer, consignee, or other person, touching anything which they may deem material in ascertaining the true market value or wholesale price of any merchandise imported. It is by this law that appraisers are authorized to summon witnesses, but there is no authority for the public examination of such witnesses, or their cross-examination by importers, or counsel employed by such importers. The appraising officers are entitled to all information obtainable concerning the foreign market value of goods under consideration, but such information is not public property. It is due to merchants and others called to give such information that their statements shall be taken in the presence of official persons only. It must often occur that persons in possession of facts which would be of value to the appraisers in determining market values are deterred from appeating or testifying, by the publicity given to reappraisement proceedings. Article 1416 of the Regulations enjoins appraisers to give courteous and due attention to the explanations and statements of importers, in person or by representative, relating to the subject-matter under investigation, but they are to limit the privilege so accorded to one person in each single case of reappraisement, to receive only statements of fact, and to require all facts to be stated concisely and not argumentatively. This regulation has been so construed that attorneys-at-law and custom-house brokers have appeared and acted as representatives of the importer on reappraisement. Such a construction is erroneous. The representative of the importer in such cases should be his employé or salesman-some person belonging to his house familiar with the facts touching the subject-matter under consideration. There is no office here for the lawyer or custom-house broker, and such persons, as well as all others not officially called before the appraisers, should be excluded. This Department expects that all appraising officers, including the general appraisers, will co-operate in all proper measures for the suppression of undervaluations, and be just and uniform in the appraisement of imported merchandise, to the end that the tariff laws may be strictly enforced, and fair and honorable merchants protected from loss by the dishonest practices of unscrupulous importers."

*

From the instructions of June 10, 1835: "Experts have been employed at several of the foreign consulates, for the purpose of enabling the consul to obtain and transmit to appraisers information as to the cost of producing silks and other merchandise, so that these officers would have the means of ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise for shipment. **The law (section 2902, Revised Statutes) makes it your duty to ascertain, estimate, and appraise the true and actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise at the time of exportation, and in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported into the United States, and when it appears that such true and actual market value cannot be ascertained to your satisfaction, you are to ascertain the cost of production, pursuant to the ninth section of the act of 1883, referred to, and in no case to appraise the goods at less than the cost so ascertained. These statutes are plain, and the appraising officers must comply with and enforce them.”

They also offered to show that the merchant appraiser was not appointed under the civil service rules under the said act of 1883, but the Court excluded the evidence and the plaintiffs excepted.

They also offered in evidence sundry depositions of witnesses taken before the reappraisers in this case, in regard to market value; but they were excluded by the court on the objection of the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted.

They also offered to show by a witness the true and actual market value and wholesale price of the goods in question, and of goods identical with them, in the principal markets of the country from which they were exported, at the time of their exportation, in March, 1886; bat, on the objection of the defendant that the testimony was immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant, it was excluded, and the plaintiffs exrepted.

The court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs for the $10 merchant appraiser's fees. The defendant asked for a direction for a verdict for him except as to such $10. The plaintiffs requested the court to submit to the jury, for their finding, the question whether or not there was any lawful appraisement or reappraisement in the case. The court refused so to do, but directed a verdict for the defendant except as to the $10. to which action of the court the plaintiffs excepted.

The plaintiffs then asked the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed beyond the $10, on the ground that the statute under which the merchant appraiser was appointed was unconstitutional and void, under that provision of article 2, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows: "The Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments," claiming that the merchant appraiser was an inferior officer, within the meaning of that provision, and was not appointed in accordance therewith. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs excepted.

They then requested the court to submit all of the testimony to the jury, with proper instructions as to what constituted an appraisement or a reappraisement, which request was refused, and the plaintiffs excepted.

They also requested the court to submit all of the evidence to the jury touching the value upon which the duty was assessed, and the value declared on entry, on the ground that section 2930 of the Revised Statutes was unconstitutional; that the plaintiffs had the right to have submitted to the jury, under proper instructions, on the evidence, all questions touching the imposition of duty; and that, by withholding the evidence from the jury, by virtue of an unconstitutional statute which declared the conclusions of the reappraisers to be final, the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional right to a trial by jury, in a case where, by the common law, it obtained, under article 7 of the amendments of the Constitution. This request was denied and the plaintiffs excepted.

It is provided, by section 2902 of the Revised Statutes, that it shall be the duty of the appraisers of the United States "and every person who shall act such appraiser," "by all reasonable ways and means in his or their power, to ascertain, estimate, and appraise the true and actual market value and wholesale price" of the merchandise under appraisal, "at the time of exportation, and in the principal markets

of the country whence the same has been imported into the United States;" and by section 2930 it is made the duty of the general appraiser and the merchant appraiser to examine and appraise the goods "agreeably to the foregoing provisions."

While the general appraiser, Mr. Brower, who acted with the merchant appraiser in the present case, was under examination as a witness on the trial, he was asked whether he proceeded on the appraisement in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of the Treas ury of June 9, 1885, and prior thereto, in respect to the method of procedure. This question was objected to by the defendant as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, the court sustained the objection, and the plaintiffs excepted. The exclusion of this evidence is assigned for error. The question was too general, and was incompetent in that respect, because it called upon the witness to institute a comparison between the method pursued and the entire instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, whereas the proper course was for the witness to give the particulars of the method pursued, leaving it to the court and the jury to make the comparison with the instructions which were in evidence. But, inasmuch as the court directed a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiffs properly raise the question as to whether what was done by the appraisers, as shown by the evidence, shows that the reappraisers proceeded "by all reasonable ways and means" to ascertain the value of the goods. In other words, the instructions of the Treasury Department being in evidence, and it being presumed that they were followed, the question is raised, whether those instructions give the importer all the rights to which he is entitled, and whether they are, or are not, repugnant to the provision of the statute which requires the use of "all reasonable ways and means," and whether the proper rights of the importers were accorded to them in this case. The views of the circuit court in regard to this case, as stated at the trial, are set forth in the report of it in 30 Fed. Rep. 360, and are contained also in the record. Mr. Robinson, the agent of the plaintiffs, employed to attend to their custom-house business, and who acted in the present case, gave his testimony as to what took place in regard to the reappraisement, so far as he was cognizant of it. The court commented on his testimony and that of other witnesses, and said: "I do not gather from the testimony, as given here, that the plaintiffs or their agent understood that they were in any way excluded from their goods, which were in the adjoining room. I understand him to say that when his appraisal was going on he was at perfect liberty to be in the room where the goods were, and point them out to the appraisers, but not to the witnesses. I understand him that there was a notice on the door that led into that room that nobody would be allowed in there when the witnesses were examining the goods. When this case was up and the merchant appraiser and the general appraiser were there, if he had wanted to, he could have gone into the room and pointed out any of the goods he had a mind to. He was asked to make his statement and understood that he had the right. He didn't question but that the samples they had were the right ones. He stayed there as long as he wanted to, to do anything about pointing out his goods. I think the importer was entitled to that to be there when the appraisal was made; to point out his goods; to know they were his goods; to illustrate them and exhibit them in any manner he saw fit; and to present to the appraisers any views he had. I think he had that right;

but I am not able to say from this evidence that there was anything tending to show that he was denied that right. There is one other point upon which I am not clear; that is, when this board takes testimony, (and, whether they will take it at all or not, they are to decide themselves,) whether they are bound to let the importer know that they are taking it; or, if they do let the importer know they have taken it, whether they are bound to let him know what it is, so he may answer it. But my impression is that that is discretionary with the board; that they may make inquiry by what they deem to be proper ways and means; and that the importer must rely on their fairness and judgment as to what testimony they do take and the weight they give to it; that the fact that the importer was not informed who the witnesses were, and what they testified to, and given an opportunity to cross-examine them, and an opportunity to meet it, does not constitute a valid objection against the reappraisement."

The contention of the plaintiffs is that, under the instructions of the Treasury Department and the evidence, the question in issue as to the dutiable value of the merchandise could not be reasonably heard at all, on the reappraisement, because (1) the importer or his agent was practically excluded from the reappraisement; (2) was not afforded opportunity to support his oath on entry, or within proper limits to confront the opposing witnesses by testimony in his own behalf; (3) or to sift evidence secretly or openly heard in opposition to him; (4) or to have the aid of counsel, if he desired; and particularly, that the rule of "reasonable ways and means" could not exist in a tribunal which proceeded to examine an issuable matter under a rule which excluded lawyers.

We are of opinion that, under the statute, the question of the dutiable value of the merchandise is not to be tried before the appraisers as if it were an issue in a suit in a judicial tribunal. Such is not the intention of the statute, and the practice has been to the contrary from the earliest history of the government. No government could collect its revenues or perform its necessary functions, if the system contended for by the plaintiffs were to prevail. The regulations prescribed in the instructions from the Treasury Department are reasonable and proper. By section 2949 of the Revised Statutes, the Secretary of the Treasury has power to establish "rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, to secure a just, faithful, and impartial appraisement of all merchandise imported into the United States ;" and by section 2652 it is made "the duty of all officers of the customs to execute and carry into effect all instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the execution of the revenue laws; and in case any difficulty shall arise as to the true construction or meaning of any part of the revenue laws, the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury" is made conclusive and binding.

The proceedings for appraisal must necessarily be to some extent of a summary character. In Cheatham v. United States, (92 U. S. 85, 88,) it was said by this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller: "All governments, in all times, have found it necessary to adopt stringent measures for the collection of taxes and to be rigid in the enforcement of them. These measures are not judicial; nor does the government resort, except in extraordinary cases, to the courts for that purpose. The revenue measures of every civilized government constitute a system which provides for its enforcement by officers commissioned for that purpose. In

this country, this system for each State, or for the Federal government, provides safeguards of its own against mistake, injustice, or oppression, in the administration of its revenue laws. Such appeals are allowed to specified tribunals as the law-makers deem expedient. Such remedies, also, for recovering back taxes illegally exacted, as may seem wise, are provided. In these respects the United States have, as was said by this court in Nichols v. United States (7 Wall. 122), enacted a system of corrective justice, as well as a system of taxation, in both its customs and internal-revenue branches. That system is intended to be complete. In the customs department it permits appeals from appraisers to other appraisers, and in proper cases to the Secretary of the Treasury; and, if dissatisfied with this highest decision of the executive department of the government, the law permits the party, on paying the money required, with a protest embodying the grounds of his objection to the tax, to sue the government through its collector, and test in the courts the validity of the tax." It was said also in that case (p. 89) that the government "has the right to prescribe the conditions on which it will subject itself to the judgment of the courts in the collection of its revenues." One of those conditions is and always has been, that the determination of appraisers as to the dutiable value of goods shall be conclusive and not re-examinable in a suit at law, provided the appraisers are selected in conformity with the statute, and, in appraising, act within the scope of the powers conferred upon them. See, also, State Railroad Tax Cases, (92 U. S. 575, 613;) Snyder v. Marks, (109 U. S. 189, 193, 194;) Hilton v. Merritt, (110 U. S. 97;) Arnson v. Murphy, (115 U. S. 579, 585, 586;) Oelbermann v. Merritt, (123 U. S. 356, 361.)

In Hilton v. Merritt, it was distinctly held that the valuation of merchandise made by the appraisers was, in the absence of fraud, conclusive on the importer; that the right of appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, when duties were alleged to have been illegally or erroneously exacted, and the right to a trial by jury in case of an adverse decision by the Secretary of the Treasury, did not relate to alleged errors in the appraisement of goods, whether by a merchant appraiser or otherwise; and that it was not allowable, in a suit to recover back duties, for the plaintiff to put in evidence the records of the proceedings before the merchant appraiser and the general appraiser, including the testimony and the various documents before the appraisers, or to try before the jury the question as to the actual value of the goods, and whether the appraisers followed the evidence before them or disregarded it. The evidence ruled out in that case was evidence which tended only to show carelessness and irregularity in the discharge of their duties by the appraisers, but not that they had assumed powers not conferred by the statute.

Although by section 29 of the act of June 10, 1890, c. 407, entitled "An act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues,' sections 2902 and 2930 of the Revised Statutes are expressly repealed, section 10 of that act provides that it shall be the duty of the appraisers of the United States, "by all reasonable ways and means," to appraise the actual market value and wholesale price of imported goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same have been imported; and section 13 of that act provides that the decision of the appraiser, or that of the general appraiser in cases of reappraisement, or that of the board of general appraisers on review, shall be final and conclusive as