It was now decided that the proof of payment of duties in America was no evidence of a _bonâ fide_ importation into that country,[324] because payment of duties did not mean that the duties had been actually paid in money, but that they had been secured by bonds; and from the peculiar system of revenue laws established in the United States, the merchant who re-exported goods previously imported, gained a profit by his transactions with the custom-house, instead of suffering any loss or deduction from his gains. The importer, when the duties were ascertained, gave bonds for the amount; but if the next day he should enter the goods for exportation again, he became entitled to debentures from the custom-house, payable on the same day with the bonds, and made out for the same sums, with a deduction of only three and a half per cent., which was retained for the government. The bonds given originally by the merchant remained unissued in the custody of the revenue officers; while the debentures became an assignable and transferable security for money, capable of being recovered by a summary process; and if the importer failed, enjoyed a priority before all private demands. The result of the whole operation, therefore, was that the government lent to the private credit of the merchant the character of a public security, in lieu of his bonds deposited at the custom-house, and received three and a half per cent. on the amount of these bonds in return for the accommodation it afforded. Now, however admirable this system may be in reference to the trade of the United States, it utterly broke down when adduced as evidence of a _bonâ fide_ importation, or as a proof that the duties had been paid or secured in the United States according to law; as, in point of fact, the merchant gained by repeating the transaction. [Sidenote: Effect in America.] [Sidenote: Instructions to commissioners.]