justly; and that, in passing the tariff of the 19th of May, it was hastily done, and not intended to operate as it did in our case, like an ex post facto law; and, as respects sound policy, we believe our government will be great gainers in its revenue by strictly adhering to the wise policy commenced in the days of Washington, in all the custom houses, viz: In all cases of doubt, lean towards the merchant. So long as that policy governed, was there ever a government that had so little to fear from dishonesty and fraud? We beg that our claim may have another fair consideration.

Very respectfully,

THOMAS H. LEGGETT & CO.

NEW YORK, March 15, 1848.

No. 3.

NEW YORK, 2d month 23d, 1848.

DEAR BROTHER: Thy letter of the 21st is received. In answer to thy first question-When did we order our goods?

Answer.-E. Wooster, my partner, left New York in October or November, 1827, and in the following months of December, January, February, and March, 1828, purchased and contracted for the goods shipped in May. Second question.-When did the law imposing extra duties take effect, and when did it pass?

Answer. It took effect on the 30th June, 1828; it passed the 19th of May, 1828.

Third question.-At what time did it originate in Congress?

Answer. I cannot now tell exactly when. Can thee find out by reference to the minutes?

Fourth question.-Did the goods sell for profit?

Answer. No; but a heavy loss. It would have been great saving to have reshipped the goods, but it was generally supposed that the duty would be refunded, or they would have been reshipped. The change of duty was enormous; on some things from thirty per cant. to two hundred per cent. It was the time of square yard minimum duty.

I suppose it probable that the new tariff may have been spoken of in Congress as early as February, 1828; that would have been too late for us to countermand, as E. W. contracted for the goods, about that time, to be delivered as soon as manufactured, which was in May. Our case is a plain one. C. C. Cambreleng always said it would be refunded, and I presume would have been, if we had kept by ourselves and not united with the great body of merchants-some of whom, in all probability, made claims not like ours. One man in Philadelphia kept by himself, and his claim was allowed in 1836, viz: John F. Lewis.

If peace with Mexico takes place, I hope thy claim will soon be allowed and paid.

AARON LEGGETT.

Affectionately, &c.,

THOMAS H. LEGGETT.

No. 4.

NEW YORK, 3d month 17th, 1848.

DEAR FRIEND: I have a letter from my brother, Aaron Leggett, informing that a memorial which I had last year presented to Congress had been called up by Mr. Maclay, and was now before the Committee on Commerce. Not having been aware of it, I had prepared a new memorial which I sent to my friend, Frederick A. Tallmadge, for presentation.

The particulars of my case are these: At that period of time, year 1828, my partner continued or resided in England for about nine months of the year, in order to purchase our goods. During that winter, say in January and February, he made contracts with manufacturers for blankets, flannels, and bocking baize, to be manufactured and delivered to him in Liverpool in April and May following. At that time he could not and did not know of any change contemplated in our tariff; neither could we know of it here in time to prevent these contracts, even by its being talked of in Congress. Those who were in favor of a tariff for protection I believe did not agitate the subject in time for that. But when the tariff did pass on the 19th of May, it was to take effect on the 30th of June on dry goods, and on hardware not until the 1st of September, thus giving ample time to the hardware merchant to countermand his orders, but not to the dry goods.

Our goods were then in Liverpool ready for shipment; in fact, I think they were then shipped before the 19th May. We had six bales of bocking baize that it would actually have been better to have thrown into the sea than have had them shipped. They cost in England about twelve cents a yard; on arriving here the duty was raised from four and a half cents per yard, to twenty-two and a half cents, and they were only worth twenty-five cents. If the duty had not been raised, we should have made a fair profit at that price; but, as it was, our loss was about fourteen cents per yard, rather more than the cost in England.

The duty on that article was increased so greatly in consequence of the minimum rates then adopted. All articles of that kind which cost twelve cents was considered to cost fifty cents a square yard, and a duty of forty per cent. charged accordingly. On blankets and flannels, the duty was not increased so much in proportion, consequently the loss was not so great, but it was very heavy on them.

John F. Lewis, of Philadelphia, was allowed the duty in 1836. He had but one article, (matting,) which he sold at auction, and made a statement showing the exact amount of his loss. My case in the bocking baize was more unfortunate than his, as we lost more than the first cost of them.Our case was so hard a one, that I believed if we had applied alone, we should have been redressed long ago. One reason why we did not continue the application after 1836, was the general prostration of mercantile affairs, in which we suffered so much, and the Government seemed not in a situation to be appealed to. Death and bankruptcy has swept off most of the applicants. Walter Titus, who applied last winter, died lately in poverty, soliciting from C. W. Lawrence a situation in the custom-house. His claim was only six or seven hundred dollars—a fair and honest one I believe. Now it is too late.

I hope my claim will be considered a fair and just one, and acted upon with despatch. If it should be desired, I would come on and go before the committee.

Very respectfully, thy assured friend,

THOMAS H. LEGGETT.

DUDLEY S. GREGORY, Esq.

No. 5.

NEW YORK, 3d month 20th, 1848.

As one of the Committee on Commerce, I write this, to give particular information concerning the memorial which I have presented for return duties.

The tariff of 1828 was passed on the 19th of May, to take effect on the 30th of June on dry goods, and on hardware the 1st of September, allowing ample time to the hardware merchant, but not to the dry good.

My partner was in England, having left here in October or November, 1827, and during the winter he made contracts with manufacturers for goods, to be made and delivered to him in Liverpool in the spring, as had been our custom for years. In May, before the passage of the tariff, he received blankets, flannels, and bocking baize, which were shipped, and arrived here in July, on which the duties were raised so enormously that we did not obtain cost and charges for any of those articles. On six bales of bocking baize the loss was more than the first cost in England. It would actually have been better, strange as it may seem, to have thrown them in the sea at Liverpool, than to have them come, and pay the new duty. It arose from the minimum rates then adopted. They cost about twelve cents per yard, (six pence sterling.) The duty was raised from four and a half cents to twenty-two and a half cents per yard. Their value was not enhanced by the increased duty. They were worth but twenty-five cents, and brought no more. At that price it would have given us a fair profit, but the new duty made them cost about thirty-nine cents; so that we lost fourteen cents per yard-rather more than they cost in England. They were used chiefly for linings to seamen's clothes. The new duty amounted to prohibition, and I believe they have never been imported

since.

It was argued by some members of Congress, when the merchants petitioned for redress in a body, that it mattered not what duty the merchant paid; that he estimated it in the cost, and would charge the profit. This case proves the fallacy of that argument.

John F. Lewis, of Philadelphia, did not join with the body of merchants, but petitioned by himself; and his case being similar in result, as to loss, with ours, his claim was allowed, and the duty was refunded in 1836. (See Doc. No. 95, 23d Congress, 2d session, H. R.; and Laws of the United States, vol. 9, p. 410, ch. 552.)

If it should be asked, "Why have you left this matter so long?" the truth is, while I was in business I did not mind the loss; and like the generality of merchants, after the general bill failed in 1834-35, I gave it up in despair, and was not disposed to beg. But now it is a matter of some

importance; the money will be of service, and as the claim, in my opinion, is a just one, I hope to obtain it.

All the members of that Congress with whom I conversed said the duty ought to be, and they believed would be refunded, as it was a mistake in not allowing the same time to dry goods as hardware; but at that time the grand object was protection.

The duty on blankets was not increased so much, being ad valorem; it' was from five to thirty-five per cent. But flannels were under the minimum rates; that is, deemed to cost fifty cents the square yard. Being a finer article than the bockings, the duty was not felt in proportion, and the loss was not so heavy; but the duty prohibited their importation afterwards. Excuse my troubling you with this long history; but having, last winter, done nothing more than send my memorial, I think the committee made a report different from what they would have done, had they known the facts of the case.

Respectfully, &c.,

THOMAS H. LEGGETT.

No. 6.

NEW YORK, 3d month 28th, 1848. ESTEEMED FRIEND: In the report made to Congress last winter, the committee said that we do business with the full knowledge that Congress have power to raise or lower the duties at pleasure-meaning, I suppose, at any moment. But is that so? Has Congress ever acted, or justified that principle? On the contrary, has it not always been .considered right and proper that ample time should be given to the merchant, otherwise he might be ruined, as we might have been, if all our importation had been bocking baize. The two invoices on which we claim was for twenty-five bales blankets, eight bales bockings, and eight bales flannel.

Since my last I have calculated the loss on three bales of the flannel, which were all of one kind, low-priced :—

The amount lost on the finer flannels and blankets it would be impossible to say, exactly. The amount we claim is the difference of duty, $3,266.

Our loss on the bockings, and three bales flannel, we know to be over $2,000; and I am sure we lost more than $1,200 on the others. Very few of the importers, probably, had so hard a case. We had been in the practice of importing some very low-priced articles, on which the duty, by the maximum calculation, fell so very heavy; and they were of that description, that no duty enhanced their value in this market. It only prohibited their importation, and answered the protective policy.

John F. Lewis' case was similar in that respect to mine, and he was reimbursed in 1836. It would not be unjust if the interest was added to my claim from that year; and if consistent with rule (I have heard that Congress never allows interest in any case,) I shall be glad.

Excuse my troubling in this manner; but as my brother informs that thou hast kindly manifested some interest for me, I feel anxious that thee should know as much of the case as possible.

With sentiments of respect, I am thy assured friend,
THOMAS H. LEGGETT.

DUDLEY S. GREGORY,

Member of Congress.

No. 7.

Consignee, Importer, or Agent's oath.

I, Joseph L. Frame, do solemnly and truly affirm, that the invoice and bill of lading now produced by me to the collector of New York, are the true and only invoice and bill of lading by me received of all the goods, wares, and merchandise imported in the ship Franklin, whereof Taylor is master, from Liverpool, for account of any person whomsoever for whom I am authorized to enter the same; that the said invoice and bill of lading are in the state in which they were actually received by me, and that I do not know nor believe in the existence of any other invoice or bill of lading of the said goods, wares, and merchandize; that the entry now delivered to the collector contains a just and true account of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, according to said invoice and bill of lading; that nothing has been, on my part, nor to my knowledge, on the part of any other person, concealed or suppressed, whereby the United States may be defrauded of any part of the duty lawfully due on the said goods, wares, and merchandize; and that if, at any time hereafter, I discover any error in said invoice, or in the account now rendered of the said goods, wares, and merchandize, or receive any other invoice of the same, I will immediately make the same known to the collector of this district. And I do further solemnly and truly affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, T. H. Leggett, E. Wooster, and J. L. Frame, of New York, are the owners of the goods, wares, and merchandize mentioned in the annexed entry; that the invoice now produced by me exhibits the actual cost, or fair market value, at Bristol and at Manchester, May 1st and 13th, 1828, of the said goods, wares, and merchandize, all the charges thereon, and no other or different discount, bounty, or drawback, but such as has been actually allowed on

the same.

Affirmed to this July 8, 1828, before me,

JOSEPH L. FRAME.

Deputy Collector.

JNO. KEAMY,