Opinion of the Court.

"Any merchandise deposited in bond in any public or private bonded warehouse may be withdrawn for consumption within one year from the date of original importation on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law at the time of such withdrawal; and after the expiration of one year from the date of original importation, and until the expiration of three years from said date, any merchandise in bond may be withdrawn for consumption on payment of the duties assessed on the original entry and charges, and an additional duty of ten per centum of the amount of such duties and charges."

In connection with that section must be read the first section of the act of June 10, 1880, c. 190, 21 Stat. 173, as follows:

"That when any merchandise port of New York

imported at the

. . shall appear by the invoice or bill of lading and manifest of the importing vessel to be consigned to and destined for either of the ports specified in the seventh section of this act, the collector at the port of arrival shall allow the said merchandise to be shipped immediately after the entry prescribed in section two of this act has been made."

Section 2 provides that the merchandise shall be examined as far as necessary, but shall not be subject to appraisement and 'liquidation of duties at the port of first arrival, but shall be appraised" at the port of destination."

Section 7 provides "that the privilege of immediate transportation shall extend to the port of Chicago," etc.

Do, then, the words "date of original importation,” as used in section 2970, refer to the exterior port of first arrival or to the interior port of destination? It is urged on behalf of the government that Congress cannot have intended that the period for warehousing should be indefinitely extended beyond a year after actual importation, and that this would be the result of fixing the date of importation at the arrival at the interior port, owing to the delays, sometimes considerable, in transportation.

The case of Hartranft v. Oliver, 125 U. S. 525, 528, is cited,

Opinion of the Court.

as holding that goods in process of transportation, under charge of the customs officers, are in effect already warehoused, within the meaning of the customs laws. That was where the imported article, salad oil, arrived in a vessel at the port of Philadelphia on Saturday, June 30, 1883, and was entered at the custom-house at two o'clock in the afternoon. It was not practicable to remove the goods on that day, and the next day was Sunday. On July 7 the cases were entered in bond at the custom-house, and on the same day the importer made a withdrawal entry for the goods, and offered to pay the collector duty thereon at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem, but the collector exacted a specific duty of 25 cents per gallon, a change of rate of duty having gone into effect on July 1, and the court held, per Mr. Justice Field, that "goods on board of a ship, in charge of a custom-house officer, preliminary to their removal to a public store or a bonded warehouse, and during the time necessary for that purpose, are in like custody, and so are within the spirit and intent of the law subject only to such duties as are leviable when the goods are freed from such custody. So far as the government is concerned, they are in the same position as if technically in a public store or bonded warehouse. When in either of these places, they cannot be removed without a permit from the collector. When on shipboard, in charge of a custom-house inspector, they are in the same condition, and cannot be removed without a like permit.

The act of Congress of March 28, 1854, which is now embraced in § 2971 of the Revised Statutes, in providing for the deposit of goods in public stores and bonded warehouses, declares that any goods remaining in public store or bonded warehouse beyond three years shall be regarded as abandoned to the government;' and in the construction of this clause the Treasury Department has decided that the period limited for their remaining in a public store or a bonded warehouse includes the time on shipboard, after the arrival of the ship in port. Treasury Regulations of 1857, art. 483."

If, then, goods remaining on a vessel after arrival at the port of New York, and when the vessel is in charge of a custom-house officer, are to be regarded, within the customs laws,

Opinion of the Court.

as within the custody of the government in the same sense as if they had been actually discharged into a custom-house or bonded warehouse, it would seem to follow that when goods have arrived at the port of New York, and the arrival of the vessel has been reported at the custom-house, and then the goods, with the consent and allowance of the collector, under the provisions of the 1st and 2d sections of the act of June 10, 1880, have been shipped to Chicago, such goods must be deemed to have been warehoused from the time of the arrival of the ship.

As the language of section 2970 is express and free from ambiguity in specifying that, on payment of the duties and charges, merchandise may be withdrawn within one year from the date of original importation, and that an additional duty of ten per centum shall be assessed against goods after the expiration of one year from the date of original importation, and as the argument that the port of destination is to be regarded as the port of original importation is not based on the language of the act of June 10, 1880, but is inferential only, we think that the natural and safe course is to abide by the words of the statute. In the first section the language is "any merchandise imported at the port of New York," etc., which naturally means that such importation is the original importation. This conclusion is strengthened by the contents of the third section, which provides that the merchandise shall be delivered to and transported by common carriers, to be designated for this purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, and to and by none others; that such carriers shall be responsible to the United States for the safe delivery of such merchandise to the collector at the port of its destination; and that before they shall be permitted to receive and transport any such merchandise such carriers shall become bound to the United States in bonds in such form, amount, and condition as the Secretary of the Treasury shall require. This would seem to bring such carriers within the meaning of the case heretofore cited, Hartranft v. Oliver, and the goods in their charge may well be regarded as in like condition with. goods in a custom-house or bonded warehouse.

Syllabus.

Upon the whole, we conclude that the court below erred in refusing the defendant's request to hold the law to be that the port of New York was the port of original importation, and not the port of Chicago; and as this was a case of a special finding which ascertained all the facts of the case, there is no reason for awarding a new trial. Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 40.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to enter judgment for the original defendant. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented.

STARR v. UNITED STATES.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

No. 1080. Submitted March 5, 1894. - Decided May 14, 1894.

A warrant issued by a commissioner of a court of the United States is not void for the want of a seal, the commissioner having no seal, and not being required by statute to affix one to warrants issued by him. The same result is reached under the laws of Arkansas, which prescribed the form of warrant as attested under hand, but not under seal. The settled rule that where a person having authority to arrest, and using the proper means for that purpose is resisted, he can repel force with force, and, if the party making the resistance is unavoidably killed, the homicide is justifiable, may be invoked by a person who resists and kills the officer if he was ignorant of the fact that he was an officer; and, when such a defence is set up to an indictment for murder, it is error to charge the jury that, if the threatening or violent conduct of the prisoner prevented the officer from giving notice of his official character, he would not be required to give notice.

The possession of a conscience void of offence towards God and man is not an indispensable prerequisite to justification of action in the face of imminent and deadly peril, nor does the intrinsic rightfulness of the occupation or situation of a party, having in itself no bearing upon or connection with an assault, impose a limitation upon the right to repel it. The motive of a person, accused of murdering an officer trying to arrest him, in being where he was at the time of the killing, has nothing to do with the question of his right of self-defence in itself, and his previous

Statement of the Case.

unlawful conduct should form no element in the solution of that question, except as it throws light on his belief that his arrest was sought by the officer.

While it is well settled in Federal courts that the presiding Judge may

sum up the facts to the jury, and express an opinion upon them, he should take care to separate the law from the facts, and leave the latter in unequivocal terms to the judgment of the jury.

The circumstances of this case apparently aroused the indignation of the Judge who presided at the trial of it in an uncommon degree, and that indignation was expressed in terms which were not consistent with due regard to the right and duty of the jury to exercise an independent judgment in the premises, or with the circumspection and caution which should characterize judicial utterances; and this court is constrained to express its disapprobation of this mode of instructing and advising a jury.

HENRY STARR was convicted of the murder of Floyd Wilson, a white man and not an Indian, on December 13, 1892, at the Cherokee Nation in the Indian Territory, and, November 4, 1893, sentenced to be hanged on February 20, 1894, and thereupon sued out this writ of error.

It appeared on the trial that on November 18, 1892, a warrant was issued by a United States commissioner for the Western District of Arkansas for the arrest of Starr and others on a charge of larceny, which was delivered for execution to Henry E. Dickey, a deputy United States marshal; and that the marshal summoned Floyd Wilson, the deceased, as his posse to aid in the execution of the warrant. The evidence tended to show that they proceeded on horseback to the neighborhood of the place where Starr was to be found, and, after visiting several points, came to the house of one Dodge, where they concealed themselves to await his coming; that Starr passed Dodge's house on horseback, whereupon Wilson mounted his horse and pursued him; that the two jumped from their horses and stood facing each other a short time, apparently talking; that it looked as if Starr "was trying to work off away from Wilson," when Wilson mounted his horse again and rode up to within twenty-five or thirty feet of Starr, who made no effort to flee; that Wilson then sprang from his horse, threw his gun to his shoulder and fired at Starr, who was then standing with his gun in both hands holding it down, but, upon Wilson's shooting, returned the