# United States v. 3,599 Bags of Liquor

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · July 12, 1926 · 13 F.2d 548

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6833042

## Case

- **Full name:** THE SQUANTO. UNITED STATES v. 3,599 BAGS OF LIQUOR, etc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** July 12, 1926
- **Citations:** 13 F.2d 548; 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3608
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hand
- **Judges:** Hand, Hough, Manton
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6833042

## Opinion text

HAND, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I agree that the cargo should be forfeited, and that the ninth and tenth causes of forfeiture are made out against the Squanto, resulting in a fine of $500. I dissent as to the first cause of forfeiture under section 586 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 5841h5). It does not seem to me that the proof warranted the conclusion that the missing liquor was unladen within four leagues of the coast. It is quite true that it may have been put off on the tug which escaped, or on the launch from which the supposed pilot was taken on; but either conclusion, it seems to me, is a mere guess. Section 615 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 5841h35), assuming this to be a case “relating to the collection of duties,” does not supply any defect of proof, as would a presumption; all it does is to put the burden of proof on the claimant, which is quite another matter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6833042. Public record. Not legal advice.