The two sections of the Revised Statutes upon which the United States base their right of recovery in the case are sections 2839 and 2864. Section 2839 was originally enacted as a part of section 66 of the act of March 2, 1799, c. 22, (1 St. 677,) and reads as follows: 'Sec. 2839. If any merchandise of which entry has been made in the office of a collector is not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, with design to evade payment of duty, all such merchandise, or the value thereof, to be recovered of the person making entry, shall be forfeited.' Section 2864 was originally enacted as a part of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1863, c. 76, (12 St. 738,) and reads as follows: 'Section 2864. If any owner, consignee, or agent of any merchandise shall knowingly make, or attempt to make, an entry thereof by means of any false invoice, or false certificate of a consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, or of any invoice which does not contain a true statement of all the particulars hereinbefore required, or by means of any other false or fraudulent document or paper, or of any other false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, such merchandise, or the value thereof, shall be forfeited.'
The bill of exceptions contains the following statement as to the proceedings after the above ruling of the court: The plaintiffs asked leave to prove successively that items contained in the invoices mentioned in the complaint and bill of particulars were undervalued, within the meaning of the last clause of after the above ruling of the court: which reads as follows: 'Anything contained in any act which provides for the forfeiture or confiscation of an entire invoice in consequence of any item or items contained in the same being undervalued, be, and the same is hereby, repealed;' that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entries thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of invoices which did not contain a true statement of the particulars required in that part of the act of March 3, 1863, preceding the provision of the act which was re-enacted as section 2864 of the Revised Statutes; that the defendants, being agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of invoices which did not contain a true statement of the particulars required in that part of the act of March 3, 1863, preceding the provision of the act which was re-enacted as section 2864 of the Revised Statutes; that the defendants, being the consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false and fraudulent documents and papers; and that the defendants, being the agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false and fraudulent documents and papers. These requests being successively denied, the plaintiffs excepted to each refusal. The jury, under direction of the court, found a verdict for the defendants, to which direction the plaintiffs excepted. After a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs took the case to the circuit court by a writ of error, where the judgment was affirmed, and they have brought the case to this court by a writ of error.
The main contentions on the part of the defendants are that section 2839 relates only to purchased goods, and not to consigned goods, and that section 2864 is superseded by section 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, (18 St. 188.) These contentions were sustained by the district court in its opinion.