From the Charleston Courier ,f Sept. 24.
{"character_count": 2362, "word_count": 424, "ccnet_language_score": [0.982699990272522], "ccnet_perplexity": [1711.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
To gratify the wishes of the public, we applied for and were politely favored with the luminous opinion of Judge LEE, pronounced Tn the late case of the Custom House Bonds, and which we pre- sent to our readers this morning.

 The Court was so crowded during the whole pe- rod of the trial, that many who et the deepest in- terest in the proceedings, were prevented from wit messing them. It may be proper therefore, that the decision should be accompanied with brief refer ence to the course of the argument.

 We are indebted to legal frierd for the following Report:

 fhe suits were brought on two Bonds, each for $68 92 cents. given to the United States by Messrs HOLMES, MAzYcK and GADsDEN for the duties on goods imported by them from Liverpool, in Novem. Der last. The importation was made for the single purpose of trying the Consttutionality of the Tariff Act of 1928.

 On the opening of the Court, MT GiLcHRIsT. the District Attorney, moved for Judgement, under the 65th section ofthe Revenue Act Of 1799, the De. fendants had failed to bring themselves within the provisions of that section by alleging that there had been an error in the assessment of the dutes oi which the Collector had had previous notice. The motion was met by another, submitted by Mir J. C. HOLMES, the Attorney for defendants, that the de fendants have leave to plead. The argument was then opened on the state of the case.

 MrGILcHRIsT contended thathe course proposed by him was not only supported by the plain mean ing of the Act, but by the uniform practice under it in this Court, since 1902 That he authority to call in the revenues of the Government, was a branch o the taxing power and that the Pactice of every ci vzed country would justily their collection in the most summary manner. That with regard to direct taxes, the power was not only exercised in every State but almost in every City of the Union. Thai even with respect to duties under the Duty Act o this State in I7s5, the imporerswere allowed credit, on giving their notes for the amount liable to be col lected as they became payable, by summary execu ton. These propositions were ably sustained by the decisions not only of the U S. Courts, but the Courts of this State. It was clearly shewn that the credit system adopted by the United States, wa, more favorable to the importer, than that which ob