Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Safe to Smuggling >> Smuggling


merchandise, ed and united

SMUGGLING. The fraudulent taking a country, or out of it, merchandise. which is lawfully prohibited. (Quoted and approved by Brewer, J., in Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S 185, 15 Sup. Ct. 325, 39 L. Ed. 390.) "Smuggling consists in the bringing on shore, or carrying from the shore, goods and merchandise, for which the duty has not been paid, or of goods of which the importation or exportation is prohibited." 6 Bac. Abr. 258; so, in almost precisely the same words 1 Hawk. P1. Cr. 661; 1 Russ. Cr. 172.

In the Act of June 22, 1874, it was provid ed: "That for •the purpose of this act, smug gling shall be construed to mean the act, with. intent to defraud, of bringing into the United States, or with like intent, attempting to bring into the United States, dutiable articles without passing the same, or the packages containing the same, through the custom house, or submitting them to the officers of the revenue, for examination." 18 U. S. Statutes at Large, ch. 391, p. 186.

"Smuggling" and to clandestinely introduce into the country mean the same thing. Mere acts' of concealment of merchandise on enter ing the waters of the United States do not of themselves constitute smuggling ; Keck U. S., 172 U. S. 434, 19 Sup. Ct. 254, 43 L.

Ed. 505. Where one having dutiable goods secreted on his person knowingly passed the customs office at the dock and ignored three distinct calls of the customs officer before his further progress was arrested and the goods disclosed, when he stated for the first time that he expected to enter the goods at the main custom house some distance away, in stead of at the dock, he was held to have committed the offense of smuggling ; Rogers v. U. S., 180 Fed. 54, 103 C. C. A. 408, 31 L. R. A. (N. S,) 264.

In proceedings to forfeit imported goods, the burden of proof to show that the impor tation was lawful rests on the claimant; U. S. v. One Bag of Crushed Wheat, 166 Fed. 562.

SO. The terms "hence" and "therefore" are sometimes the equivalent of "so," and the latter word is thus understood whenever what follows is an illustration of or conclu sion from what has gone before. Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 431.