SIXTY-FIVE TEEBA COTTA VASES. 881 �were dutiable; and in June, 1879, this determination was sustained in an opinion of the attorney general, 16 Opinions Atty. Gen. 354. Thereupon the goods were withdrawn for exportation to Canada by Fenardent, the agent of the owner, to whom they had been consigned, and upon this exportation the agent swore that they were not de- signed for any place within the United States. At Montreal the owner, Mr. De Morgan, took charge of the collection. Not long afterwards they were again imported into the United States, through his brokers, by way of Kouse's Point, and entered as "not for sale." On arrivai at New York they were exhibited as the De Morgan col- lection, ticketed "not for sale." Some of the articles, nevertheless, were sold to the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, in Philadelphia, and sent there after being again sent to and imported from Montreal. The rest of the articles, being discovered to be the same that had formerly been assessed for duties, were seized in this proceeding for an alleged fraudulent attempt to evade the legal duties. �Upon the close of the evidence, and the admission by the govern- ment that the articles constituted a "collection of antiquities, " a ver- dict was directed for Mr. De Morgan, the claimant, upon the grounds stated in the following opinion of the court. �William C. Wallace, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. �Covdert Brothers, for claimant. �Bbown, D. J. During the recess I have given the questions in this case such examination as the short time has allowed, and feel com- pelled to direct a verdict for the claimant, for reasons which I wUl briefly state. The articles claimed to be forfeited confessedly corne within the description of a "collection of antiquities." They were exhumed by or under the direction of the claimant. De Morgan, were imported here by him from France, and designed for sale ; but, owing to a controversy with the custom-house, they were re-exported to Canada, and afterwards again imported by way of Rouse's Point, and exhibited as the De Morgan collection, "not for sale." Notwith- standing this, it is proved that a number of the articles were sold by De Morgan 's agent, and I shall assume, for the purpose of this de- cision, that the collection was in fact designed to be sold if purchas- ers could be found. Section 2505 of the Revised Statutes enumer- ates the articles of "the free list" which it declares shall be exempt from duty. Upon this list I find two distinct clauses relating to arti- cles of this character — the first, "cabinets of coins, medals, and all other collections of antiquities." In a subsequent portion of the free v.lO,no.9— 56 ��� �
