OPINIONS OF HON. WILLIAM H. H. MILLER, OF INDIANA. APPOINTED MARCH 5, 1889. BID MADE UNDER MISTAKE OF FACT. Where an advertisement is made for propositions for installing an electric-light plant, and one of the bids is in the sum of $4,350, but the bidder subsequently asks to recall the bid, claiming it had been made erroneously instead of $9,350, the real bid: Held, that if it were the fact that the bid was made under a mistake of fact it is no bid at all, and ought not to be considered. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, January 14, 1891. SIR: Your communication of January 6 instant, asking an opinion as to your power to allow a recall of the bid of the Western Electric Company of Chicago, Ill., made under an advertisement inviting proposals for installing an electriclight plant at the navy-yard, Brooklyn, N. Y., has received my consideration. The bids under this advertisement were opened on December 16, 1890, and on the following day a telegram was received from the Western Electric Company to the effect that its bid of $4,350, which appears to be the lowest bid, was erroneously made, and an affidavit was subsequently laid before you detailing the circumstances under which the alleged real bid of $9,350 was mistakenly made as above. I do not understand that the bid has been accepted; but if it had been, it would not be binding on the Western Electric Company, being made under a mistake of fact. If, therefore, the fact be that the bid was made under a mistake of fact, it is no bid at all, and ought not to be considered. Very respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF THE Navy. W. H. H. MILLER. 1 Bounties ah Sugar under the Tariff Act of 1890. BOUNTIES. ON SUGAR UNDER THE TARIFF ACT OF 1890. By the tariff act of October 1, 1890, chapter 1244, section 233, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not authorized to issue the licenses provided for by the section for the engaging in the production of sugar prior to April 1, 1891. Sugar produced between March 31, 1891, and July 1, 1891, is not entitled to the bounty given by said act to producers of domestic sugar. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, January 14, 1891. SIR: Your communication of December 18, 1890, asking an opinion on the question whether the tariff act of October 1, 1890, authorizes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to issue the licenses therein provided for prior to April 1, 1891, and pay to manufacturers the bounty on sugar produced between March 31 and July 1, 1891, has received my consid eration. As that part of the act "providing terms for the admission of imported sugars and molasses, and for the payment of bounty on sugars of domestic production" does not take effect until the 1st day of April, 1891 (T. I., 241), I do not see how the provision authorizing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to issue licenses to producers of sugar (T. I., 233) can be said to become operative before April 1, 1891, when the part of the law of which the provision for licenses is a component goes into effect. Certainly the provision for licenses is one of the "terms" for the payment of bounty, and, therefore, comes within the express declaration of the law that it shall not be enforced until April 1, 1891. This brings me to the question whether sugar produced between March 31 and July 1, 1891, is entitled to the bounty given by the law to producers of domestic sugar. The act provides (T. I., 231) that "on and after" July 1, 1891, and until July 1, 1905, a bounty of 2 cents per pound shall be paid to the producer of sugar of a certain standard from beets, sorghum, or sugar cane grown within the United States, or from maple sap produced within the United States, and a bounty of 13 cents per pound on such sugar of a certain other standard, "under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe." Bounties on Sugar under the Tariff Act of 1890. It further provides (T. I., 232) that "The producer of said sugar to be entitled to said bounty shall have first filed prior to July first of each year with the Commissioner of Internal Rever.ue a notice of the place of production, with a general description of the machinery and methods to be employed by him, with an estimate of the amount of sugar proposed to be produced in the current or next ensuing year, including the number of maple trees to be tapped, and an application for a license to so produce, to be accompanied by a bond in a penalty, and with sureties to be approved by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, conditioned that he will faithfully observe all rules and regulations that shall be prescribed for such manufacture and production of sugar." It is next provided (T. I., 233) that "the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, upon receiving the application and bond herein before provided for, shall issue to the applicant a license to produce sugar from sorghum, beets, or sugar cane grown within the United States, or from maple sap produced within the United States, at the place and with the machinery and by the methods described in the application; but said license shall not extend beyond one year from the date thereof." The requirement that the sugar producer, intending to claim the bounty, shall file with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, "prior to July first of each year," a notice. of the place of production, with a general description of the machinery and methods to be employed by him, with an estimate of the amount of sugar proposed to be produced, including the number of maple trees to be tapped, was to enable the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to make all necessary arrangements and preparations for the protection of the Treasury against fraudulent claims for bounty, and I think it was intended by Congress that he should have that information each year well in advance of the times when the several species of sugar mentioned in the act are manufac-. tured or produced. To say, then, that Congress intended that the statements of sugar producers should be received and considered and the necessary arrangements and preparations based on them, for the administration of the act and the prevention of Bounties on Sugar under the Tariff Act of 1890. frauds by unscrupulous sugar producers, should all be made and the licenses applied for granted after April 1, 1891, and in time for the production of sugar between that date and the 1st of July next ensuing, is, to my mind, unreasonable and incompatible with the manifest purpose of Congress to give the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ample time to make every needed preparation for an intelligent and effective execution of this important law. I can not believe that Congress intended to require that these novel and untried provisions of law should be set in operation in this precipitate way and under such circumstances of disadvantage to the Government. It seems to me that the contention that the producers of maple sugar are entitled to bounty on sugar produced prior to July 1, 1891, is erroneous in giving too literal a construction to the language of T. I., 231-that is, in supposing that the language of that paragraph was intended to limit the time for the payment of the bounty instead of the time of the production of the sugar. The meaning of the paragraph seems to me to be the same as it would be if the provision were that "there shall be paid to the producer of the various classes of sugar on and after July 1, 1891." In other words, if the language of the paragraph were so transposed as to read as follows: "To the producer of sugar testing," etc., "on and after July 1, 1891, and until July 1, 1905, there shall be paid," etc. This construction seems to be strongly reinforced by the consideration that any other construction would make this law give a bounty upon maple sugar for fifteen years, whereas upon other sugars it would be given for only fourteen years, since it appears from the papers submitted that no sugar, except maple, is produced between April and July. It is not credible that it was the purpose of Congress to thus discriminate between maple and other sugars, or to fix any particular day for the payment of bounty. The time when the payments were to be made was not of great significance, and was left to be regulated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under T. I., 231, but it was the evident purpose of Congress to limit the period during which the bounty might be earned. Taking all of the different paragraphs together, Separate entry for packages contained in one importation. it seems clear that it was not intended that bounties should be demandable on sugars produced prior to the first day of July next. Very respectfully, yours, W. H. H. MILLER. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. SEPARATE ENTRY FOR PACKAGES CONTAINED IN ONE IMPOR TATION. The act of May 1, 1876, chapter 89, providing for the separate entry of packages contained in one importation was not repealed by section 29 the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890. The repeal of section 2841, Revised Statutes by that act has no effect upon the act of 1876, because the latter forms no part of section 2841. The act of 1876 is of a limited and special character and it is not to be presumed that Congress had it in contemplation when the statute of June 10, 1890, was passed. The form of oath prescribed by the act of 1876, referring to section 2841, Revised Statutes, is not affected by the subsequent legislation modifying and afterwards repealing that section and substituting a declaration by the importer, consignee, or agent in the place of the former oath. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: Your communication of January 3 instant asks an opinion upon the question "whether the act of May 1, 1876, entitled an act to provide for the separate entry of packages contained in one importation' (19 Stat., p. 49), is or is not repealed by section 29 of the act of June 10, 1890 (the so-called customs administrative act), which section, among other things, repeals section 2841 of the Revised Statutes of the United States." The act of May 1, 1876 (supra), provides as follows: "That a separate entry may be made of one or more packages contained in an importation of packed packages con signed to one importer or consignee, and concerning which packed packages, no invoice, or statement of contents or values, has been received." Every such entry shall contain a declaration of the whole number of parcels contained in such original packed package, and shall embrace all the goods, wares, and merchan. |