Burdens imposed upon commerce in addition to those imposed by statute would be 'inconsistent with law,' and unauthorized. See Balfour v. Sullivan, 8 Sawy. 649, 17 F. 231, and cases cited; Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 695-700; Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466, 1 S.Ct. 423. The court of claims in Mosby v. U.S. took this view, when it held that the consul was entitled to recover a considerable amount paid into the treasury under protest, for fees collected for such certificates, appended to invoices and statements of free goods, on the ground that these services performed, although in form official, were not official in fact, or in law; and the United States had no concern with them,-- that it was a matter entirely between the owner of the goods, who voluntarily, without requirement of law, obtained, and paid for the services, and the consul, who in his own individual private character, voluntarily, performed the service for the compensation received of the owner, so
The secretary of the treasury was not authorized to make any such exception. Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466; S.C. 1 S.Ct. 423; Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 702; Balfour v. Sullivan, 8 Sawy. 648; S.C. 17 F. 231. Under the provision of the act cited the bags in question were entitled to re-enter the United States 'free of duty,' and the duties on that ground were illegally demanded and collected.
If the regulations are inconsistent with the statute and impose restrictions not authorized by law they should be held invalid. (See Campbell v. United States (1883) 107 U.S. 407, 410 [27 L.Ed. 592, 594, 2 S.Ct. 759]; and Balfour v. Sullivan (D.Cal. 1883) 17 F. 231, 233.) Defendant assumes that "imported contrary to law" only refers to contraband.