Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

wide, and contained generally the name of the person and of the article advertised, with some picture or ornament thereon-for example as follows:

BREWERY ESTABLISHED.

ROBERT SMITH'S

A. D. 1875.

Head of
Lion.

IN BOTTLE.

INDIA PALE ALE & BROWN STOUT,
PHILADELPHIA.

ON DRAUGHT.
U. S. A.

LITH. MAX CREMITZ, PARIS.

FORBES CO., BOSTON, SOLE AGENTS.

“These cards were prepared in different colors on plates of sheet iron. It is agreed, if relevant to the issue, that the value of the iron plates before the printing was put upon them was about two or three cents each, and that the other material of the card as material was of like trifling value, while that of the completed card or sign was about twenty to twenty-five cents.

“These cards or signs were lithographed (that is to say, printed) from lithographic stones on hand presses in the same way that lithographing is done on paper or on card-board. Samples of said cards are filed herewith, marked “Exhibit B,' and may be referred to at the hearing.

6. The case is submitted by the parties on the above as an agreed statement of facts.

“If upon the foregoing facts the merchandise should have been assessed at 25 per cent. judgment is to be rendered for the plaintiffs for $1,081.42 and costs; otherwise for defendant for costs."

Copy of the protest was attached to the statement, and samples of the cards accompanied it as exhibits.

The court found for the defendant and entered judgment accordingly, and a writ of error was sued out from this court upon exceptions to the findings and rulings. The opinion is reported in 25 Fed. Rep., 899. ,

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court:

We concur with the District Judge in his conclusion that these iron show-cards were properly assessed as manufactures of iron, not specially enumerated or provided for in the act of March 3, 1883, and as such liable to duty under the last paragraph of schedule C of section 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by that act, which reads :

“ Manufactures, articles or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem." (22 Stat., 501.)

This is conceded by plaintiff in error unless the articles were dutiable as "printed matter," under the first paragraph of schedule M of that section, (22 Stat., 510), which is quoted in the statement of facts, and given hereafter.

[ocr errors]

The diligence of counsel has furnished us with definitions, from many dictionaries and encyclopedias, of the words “print,”? “ printing, and “printed matter, from which it is argued that the essential feature of printing is not the substance on which the printing is done, but the mode of making the impression. But the question here is not whether these iron show-cards, being lithographed or printed, could be styled "printed matter within the meaning of these words as given by lexicographers, but whether they were printed matter” as those words are used in schedule M of the act of March 3, 1883.

There was no evidence that signs of this kind were known commercially, or by printers, bookbinders, dealers in books, pamphlets or periodicals, or others, as "printed matter."

In Arthur v. Moller, 97 U. S. 365, certain chromo-lithographs printed from oil stones upon paper were held subject to the duty levied upon printed paper; and Mr. Justice Hunt, in delivering the opinion of the court, says that “the term 'print' or 'printing' includes the most of the forms of figures or characters or representations, colored or uncolored, that may be impressed on a yielding surface;" and that "the pictures in question were printed from lithographic stones, by successive impressions, each impression giving a different portion of the view and of a different color. Like other pictures, they are made and used for the purpose of ornament. Equally with engravings, copper plates, and lithographs, they are printed, and properly fall within the statutory designation of printed matter. If further argument were needed it would be found in the principle noscitur a sociis. · Printed matter' is named in the list with engravings, maps, charts, illustrated papers. With these printed pictures are naturally associated."

Undoubtedly the words "printed matter" are popularly considered as applying to paper or some similar substance commonly used to receive the impression of letters, characters or figures by type and ink, and reference to the legislation of Congress demonstrates that the phrase was used in the schedule in question in this sense.

By section 18 of the act of March 2, 1861, fixing duties on imports, etc., a duty of fifteen per centum ad valorem was levied on all books, periodicals and pamphlets, and all printed matter and illustrated books and papers.” (12 Stat., 187.)

In section 94 of the act of June 30, 1864, appears this paragraph:

"On all printed books, magazines, pamphlets, reviews and all other similar printed publications, except newspapers, a duty of five per centum ad valorem.” (13 Stat., 267.)

By "Schedule M, Sundries," of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, it is provided :

“Books, periodicals, pamphlets, blank books, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, engravings, bound or unbound, illnstrated books and papers, and maps and charts: twenty-five per centum ad valorem.” (R. S. 2d ed. 474.)

In section 2502, of Title XXXIII, of the Revised Statutes as enacted by the act of March 3, 1883, the first paragraph of the schedule headed "Schedule M, Books, Papers, etc.,'' reads:

"Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound or unbound, etchings, illustrated books, maps, and charts, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.” (22 Stat., 510.)

And then follow nine paragraphs, making ten in all in this schedule, relating to blank books, bound or unbound, and blank books for press

a

copying ; paper, sized or glued, suitable only for printing paper ; printing paper, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively; manufactures of papers not specially enumerated; sheathing paper; paper boxes, and all other fancy boxes; paper envelopes; paper hangings and paper for screens or fire-boards, paper antiquarian, demy, drawing, elephant, foolscap, imperial, letter, note, and all other paper not specially enumerated or provided for in the act; pulp, dried, for papermakers' use.

It is very clear that these iron signs were not dutiable under a schedule headed "books, papers, etc.,” and confined throughout to the subjectmatter thus indicated.

If a duty had been imposed on iron show-cards eo nomine, the latter would not have been dutiable as “manufactures of iron," any more than “braces and suspenders," though made of rubber, were dutiable as "manufactures of rubber,'' (Arthur v. Davis, 96, U. S. 135, ) or artificial flowers," though made of cotton, were dutiable as “manufactures of cotton." (Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143.) The specific designation would prevail over the general words which otherwise embraced the article. In Arthur v. Jacoby, 103 U. S. 677, decorated porcelain ware being subject to one rate of duty and pictures to another, it was held that where it appeared that certain pictures had been painted by hand on porcelain, which, it was proved, did not in itself constitute an article of chinaware, being manufactured simply as a ground for the painting, and not for any use independent of the paintings,” they were taxable

as pictures and not as decorated porcelain ware. The question decided, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite at the close of the opinion, was that "the goods were not chinaware, but paintings."

But here the articles were clearly manufactures of iron, and were not "printed matter,"». within the meaning of the clause relied on by the plaintiff, because those words, as there used, applied only to articles ejusdem generis with books and pamphlets, which iron show-cards were not.

We find no difficulty in concluding that the case was properly decided, and the judgment is affirmed.

[ocr errors]

(9813.)

Cigarettes, overweight, must be stamped with internal-revenue cigar stamps.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 20, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, relative to certain cigarettes, imported by Mr. Charles B. Perkins, in packages containing 10 cigarettes each.

It appears that said cigarettes weigh more than three pounds per thousand, and that they are therefore liable to internal-revenue tax at the same rate as cigars ; that inasmuch as no special stamps are provided for such overweight cigarettes, the same can only be stamped with internal-revenue stamps provided for cigars, and that, as a conse

quence, the cigarettes constituting the above importation must be repacked into packages containing either 100 or 50 cigarettes each, these being the only legal cigarette packages coinciding with legal cigar packages.

You state that the cigarettes in question are in tin boxes containing 50 packs of paper boxes of 10 cigarettes each, or 500 cigarettes to each tin box, and that the importer desires that the packets be left as imported, with the label pasted around them, so as to keep them closed and sealed, instead of cutting the label on each package, as directed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in his instructions of the 8th instant to collector F. E. Orcutt, of the third district, in regard to this case, and you suggest that the customs stamps might properly be affixed to each of the packages of 10 contained in the tin box, which would bear an internal-revenue stamp, and that the opening of each small package might be dispensed with.

In reply, you are informed that, as indicated above, overweight cigarettes can be put into packages containing 100 or 50 cigarettes each, and not 500; and that the stamping with customs stamps of sealed packages said to contain 10 cigarettes each is inadmissible.

The customs stamp and the internal-revenue stamp should be attached to the same package in this case either 100 or 50 cigarettes), and the inside paper box must be open, or else dispensed with altogether. Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR, (3874f.)

Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.

(9814.)

Non-dutiable coveringsBoxes containing frozen fish.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th interest, reporting on the complaint of George Hill, manager for E. K. Roberts, fish importer, as to the exaction of duties on boxes containing fish, imported at Neche in your district.

It appears that the practice has been to import frozen fish in bulk, but that recently they have been placed in common rough boxes, which boxes are of such a character as to preclude the idea of their being intended for any other use than the transportation of the fish to destination.

You express the opinion that the practice of assessing duty on such boxes is erroneous, and state that you have instructed your deputy in Neche that the same are free, as "the usual and necessary coverings."

The Department concurs in your views on the subject and the practice may be adjusted accordingly. Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR, (3814f.)

Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, St. Paul, Minn.

(9815.)

I. T. entries-Sundays and holidays should be included in counting the ten

days allowed for.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1890. SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 10th instant, transmitting a letter from R. F. Downing & Co., custom-house brokers at your port, requesting a ruling by the Department as to whether the ten days mentioned in section 9, act June 10, 1880 (I. T. act), would be considered as “ten running days or ten working days," or, in other words, whether Sundays and holidays are to be included in counting said ten days.

In reply thereto I have to state that the question was submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion, and a copy of his reply, dated the 17th instant, is herewith inclosed, from which you will see that he is of the opinion that there is no legal sanction for excluding intervening Sundays or holidays from the period of limitation prescribed by the statute.

In this view the Department concurs, and you will be governed accordingly, and so adjust the practice, which, it is understood, has been different heretofore at your port. Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR, (3843 f.)

Assistant Secretary. To COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »