CETTE.

60 bales of almonds..

8,743 60

5 bales of shelled almonds

1,605,000 kilogrammes of salt.

16, 367 10

A general summary of exports from Cette for the year ended September 30,

General summary of the importations at the port of Cette from the United States for the year ended the 30th September, 1863.

LYONS-JAMES LESLEY, Consul.

FEBRUARY 11, 1863.

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your circular No. 29, dated November 20, 1862, received here on the 4th instant.

To the first article, I have to say that I have reason to believe that all the goods exported from this district to the United States are not presented to me for verification. Several commission firms, who purchase largely for the account of American or foreign houses established in the States, and having branch offices in Paris or elsewhere, send the invoices to the branch firm in Paris or elsewhere, and it is there certified to by the consul. Such a practice is not entirely in accordance with the law, but it continues, notwithstanding my frequent adver tisements and publications on the subject. I believe it could be effectually corrected only in New York by the custom-house officers, who well know what goods are produced in Lyons, and who could, if so directed, refuse to pass invoices of Lyons silk goods or St. Etienne ribbons, when verified in Paris or elsewhere. I have also to state, that silk goods imported from Lyons and district, (silk pieces, velvets, ribbons,) are invariably perfected here; and that if sent to Paris and Havre, they receive there no further finish, and are forwarded without any change, (article 4.) This practice has never existed in this consulate to my knowledge.

To avoid the remittance in money by letter of the fee for each invoice coming from St. Etienne and other places, some merchants have requested me to receive in advance an amount sufficient for five or ten legalizations. In exchange, I remit to them a corresponding number of receipts, which are returned to me with the invoices. The certificates of authentication never leave this office in blank; they are filled by me and affixed to the invoices with my official seal. ART. 6. The fee for the magistrate is never paid by me, as shown by my report of fees.

ART. 9. Before receiving this circular, I had, as stated in my despatch No. 26, (No. 3,) addressed questions to the judicial authorities in regard to the validity of oaths administered by me.

I enclose translation of my letter to the president du tribunal civil, and translation of the answer of that magistrate.

As I shall, in a few days, receive other opinions, I abstain for the present from making any remarks, and shall, as soon as possible, make a full report on the subject.

*

[Translation.]

LYONS, January 16, 1863.

SIR: The new tariff laws of the United States require all invoices of goods for the United States to be presented to the United States consul by the exporter, who has to swear that the invoice is correct, and that the goods are invoiced at their real value.

You would oblige me by telling me if, according to French law, an oath administered by a consul, and registered by him, be legal in France, and if a consul could prosecute before the French courts, in the name of his government, any person having sworn a false oath before him. Please also, if the oath administered by a consul be not acknowledged legal in France, to name the French magistrates authorized by your laws to receive oaths.

The PRESIDENT DU TRIBUNAL CIVIL, Lyons.

J. LESLEY.

The President du Tribunal Civil to the Consul of the United States, Lyons. LYONS, February 4, 1863.

I do not think that the oath administered by a consul in conformity with the United States laws you mention would, if proved false, justify a prosecution before French courts. My opinion is based on the fact that no disposition of our penal laws qualifies as crime or delit a false oath sworn under such circumstances. And if it were a crime, no consul, even acting in the name of his government, would be admitted to prosecute under article 1st of the code d'instruction criminelle. No prosecution can be made except by French officers

authorized by our laws.

There are in France several orders of public officers authorized to administer oaths in certain particular cases, but I know none who could administer the oath required by the United States laws. I do not even see the possibility of such an oath being received by a French magistrate, whose only duty is to see to the execution of the French laws. Under the principles of our "droit public," a magistrate cannot recognize the authority of a foreign law, when no international treaty exists for that purpose.

F. FORTOUL.

JUNE 13, 1863.

Report on silk goods and custom-house regulations, being the continuance of a report on the same subject forwarded from this consulate with despatch No. 13, dated Lyons, April 16, 1863.

I have continued to study the subject of duties on silk goods and to gather all accessible information. In my report No. 13 I suggested two different systems for the collection of duties on silk goods:

1. Preserve the ad valorem duties, but introduce some new features in the custom-house regulations, viz:

a. Require for all goods presented for entry an invoice signed and certified to by a party having no interest in the entry of the goods at the United States

custom-house.

For this purpose the existing regulations could have been continued, with a few changes in the form of the certificates, for the invoices of commission merchants or of manufacturers, who forward goods which they have really sold to firms residing in the United States. Such parties would risk too much by making out false invoices for the custom-house, and certifying thereon that they claim nothing for the goods beyond the amount named in the invoice. But all European agents, partners, branch firms, or salaried clerks of firms doing business in the United States, who until now have made out invoices and certified to their truth, would have to procure and produce to the consuls the original invoice of the manufacturer or merchant, (sworn or certified to by him,) from whom said agent, partner or clerk has bought the goods for the account of his firm, and that said manufacturer or merchant has no interest in getting the goods passed through the custom-house at a lower rate of duty.

b. It was further proposed to grant by law to the government the right of taking possession of any goods supposed to be undervalued, against payment of the amount of the invoice of said goods. Further, on evident proof of a gross undervaluation and of an intention to defraud the revenue, a fine could be imposed on the importer.

The second system proposed was to tax the duty on silk goods by the weight. Some samples, annexed to the report, showed the divisions that could be adopted. I have

systems. *

Under these circumstances, the measure as proposed by me would not, perhaps, be quite as effective as I expected. It could, however, I believe, be made to protect the revenue better than the old system, by modifying it as follows: Require, as before stated, in all cases, a certificate or declaration, signed by theseller of the goods, a party having no interest in the entry of the goods at the United States custom-house; such declaration stating that the goods invoiced have been really sold at the prices detailed in the invoice; the date and place where the invoice is due; the conditions of payment; that the seller does not claim any compensation, allowance, or commission for the said goods beyond the amount named in the said invoice; that no other different invoice for the said goods will be furnished to any one; that the seller makes himself liable to all the requisitions and provisions of the United States custom-house laws. The law ought further to contain provisions to the following effect, in addition to those of the act of March 3, 1863, viz:

1st. Give to the custom-house authorities the right to seize, against payment of the amount of the invoice, all goods undervalued or deemed to be so.

2d. Impose a fine upon the person or firm, consignee, or purchaser, who offers for entry goods undervalued more than ten or fifteen per cent.

3d. Seize without any payment all goods undervalued more than fifteen per

centum.

4th. Require all fines or seizures of goods to be published (with the names) in one or several papers at the port of entry, and at the place where the goods have been invoiced.

5th. The triplicate invoices are good; they prevent the correction or alteration of an invoice by the importer; besides, the copy kept by the consul enables him to compare prices and discounts. We shall, in future, require, particularly for the invoices of ribbons, some details which so far have not been put in.

6th. A good result could also be reached, if the consul were authorized, whenever he would think it proper to call in a good judge of silk goods or of ribbons, and to read to him, without mentioning any names, the invoices presented for verification. Gross undervaluations, or attempts at fraud, could frequently be pointed out, and the case being at once reported by the consul to the collector of the port, could be by him thoroughly examined.

7th. Lastly, the differential duty of thirty and forty per centum, according to the cost of a square yard of the goods, ought to be set aside. It is one of the greatest objections to the present law, and a great inducement to fraud. A very large proportion of the goods exported is just about one dollar the square yard; and it is well known that several firms manage to pay only thirty per cent., when the real duty ought to be forty per cent. It is also to be observed that the principal measure (change of the party subscribing the invoice) could not be applied to consigned goods. In such cases, the manufacturer consigning his goods would always continue to be the owner, and therefore have an interest in passing them at low duty. I am persuaded that whatever measures the government may take under the system of ad valorem duty for silk goods, there will always be parties who, (by risking much, perhaps,) will find means to evade a full payment. In my opinion, the most efficient measure for the prevention of frauds would be the adoption of a system of specific duties for all silk goods. It could be urged against the specific duties that the rates could not be so calculated as to be equally divided on all kinds of silk goods. This is in some measure true; some very light goods, those for bonnet and cap trimmings, and others, although very light, are high-priced. They now pay high ad valorem duties; and with the specific system, they would be lightly taxed. Some other goods very heavy, comparatively to their price, would, under the specific duties, pay much higher duties than they do now. But these particular kinds of goods are comparatively of little importance; the quantity imported is very small, and for the great bulk of the importation (plain and small