Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1898.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXII, Issue 140, 22 June 1898, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1898.

That protection, if not in itself immoral, ia the canse of commercial immorality in others has been proved from the earliest ages— from the day when a nation first strove to prevent another from entering into trade competition within its own territories. Whether heavy or prohibitive customs dnties be levied for the protection of a country's industries or trade, or whether they be mere taxation for the revenue of a Government or. a monarch, they patnrally offer inducements to the importer to endeavour to evade them. The profits, from such evasion are so large and certain, the risk taken is relatively so small, and the gaius to be made are so likely to compensate for probable punishment on detection, thai the art of cheating the Customs is practised in every country where heavy import or excise duties are > imposed. In England smuggling flourished in spita of coasiguards and rigorous ponal laws till there was no longer any reason to smuggle or profit in smuggling; in other words, till free trade became legal. As in England in the past, so in heavily-«custonied countries in the present, there is among many a " sneaking sympathy" with the smuggler. It a person succeed in evading the tax, he is tacitly congratulated by his frionds. If at the worst he be discovered and convicted, it is only in the most flagrant oases that much commercial discredit or ostracism follows. The | average customers or correspondents of a proved smuggler in alarge way of business may as a rule reprobate his methods; but those methods will hardly induce them to refuse him credit or to cease dealings with him. The traveller, also, generally has, a very elastic conscience m regard to the oustom laws of a country. He —and often Bhe— will strain the interpretation of those laws to their utmost by trick and quibble ; while many who would never rob a pin and whose honour is otherwise unimpeachable make no scruple of smuggling with their luggage lace, tobacco, jewellery, scents, and similar dutiable articles.

These observations are induced by the culmination in heavy sentences of some ingenious and sen* sational Customs frauds in Melbourne. It will be remembered that a few weeks ago the cable announced thnt an importer and manufacturer earned Weenan had been sentenced to a year's imprisonx raent and a fine of £500 for a series of elaborate evasions of and actual robbery from the Viotorian Customs. Assooiated with Weenan were Beveral of his employed, and some of the servants of tho Customs Department connived at the offences, or actually helped to perpetrate them, One Nelan, a Customs supervisor, and Hindmarsh, another Customs officer, who were convicted with Weenan, pleaded negligence, and said they had been hoodwinked ; but their evidenoo cleary shows that they were accessories, either for personal gain or because they were to some extent in Weenan's power, A description of Weenan's modus opcrandi should prove of interest, especially as tho frauds had been going on for over a year before detection, and as they were proved only after a Oustonib officer had spent eome time in Weenan's service ostensibly as a cutter. Weenan's firm made and deals in cloth caps, slop suits, and similar goods. As Victoria encourages manufacture of all kinds, the Customa very paternally remits the duty of 30 per cent on matei ial imported for mnking caps • but requires that such material shall be duly cut up in bond, or so cut as to be rendered useless for suitins or sale by the piece, The Customs also allows a drawback on all suits manufactured from imported material on which duty has been paid on proof of export. Weenan would import the serge or woollens, and apply for the services of a drawback officer to be present while the cutting up for oapß was done. Some low-salaried official would do the inspecting and giv the necessary certificate entitling to the remission of duty, i-uch officers evidently fell under Weenan's sway, and thereafter tho Bwindle was comparatively easy. The material was not cut up except nominally, and it went inio Weenan's faciory duty free to bo made up into suits. Isut the mere evasion of the 30 per cent duty was not all Weenan wanted. Wh«n he had made up his suits with the material with which be had already defrauded the customs, ho exported the Buits "(or the cloth in piece) to another colony and claimed .and obtained drawbaclcs as if the material had paid duty. Thus Weenan aotually robbed the Customs of money he had never paid, and his profits during fifteen months from this source alone must have been a great deal more than the fine of £500. Moreover, invoices were ingeniously "cooked," and Weenan olaimed and obtained drawbacks on donble the suits and cloth, exported. In one transaction the man obtained a drawback of £377 on an export valued at £1100, and the goodu were bi ought back from Sydney us cnp-cutlmg material valued at £170 ! Of course such a series of frauds could not bo perpetrsited without the connivance of officials, so Ween nan and hia creatures obtained influence over certain drawback officers who have been convicted with him, and made them his j nior partners and servants, tie had merely to choose his time to find them on duly, and by abstaining from passing his goods at other periods he evaded detection for over twelvo months. He was also aided by negligence and inoompetency —by the " Govern* ment stroke " in fact—and a departmental inquiry into the whole matter is referred to in the telegrams to»day.. The officials iti Weenan's pay were all low-sala-ried hands, and they fell an easy prey to his bribes. Once in his power, he could do what he liked with them, No high-salaried official ia implicated, except in regard to neglect of duty, and when exposure was approaching a bribe of £200 offered to a Customs detective was i efused. It is not argued from this remarkable case that, because nnder Protection frauds on ihe revenue may be practised, Protection is itself fraudulent. But it must be admitted that if there had not been such prohibitive duties and such marked differentiation for the special purpose of spoon-feeding manufacture, the Weonnn disclosures would have been impossible, because it would not have been worth any one's while to attempt the frauds. I