106 U.S. 466 (1883), Morrill v. Jones
|Citation:||106 U.S. 466, 1 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed. 267|
|Party Name:||MORRILL, Collector, etc., v. JONES.|
|Case Date:||January 08, 1883|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine.
[1 S.Ct. 424] Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. P. Mattocks, for defendant in error.
WAITE, C. J.
Section 2505 of the Revised Statutes provides, among other things, that 'animals, alive, specially imported for breeding purposes from beyond the seas, shall be admitted free [of duty] upon proof thereof satisfactory to the secretary of the treasury, and under such regulations as he may prescribe.' Article 383 of the treasury customs regulations provides that before a collector admits such animals free he must, among other things, 'be satisfied that the animals are of superior stock, adapted to improving the breed in the United States.' Jones, the defendant in error, imported certain animals, which were entered at the port of Portland, Maine, and claimed that they should be admitted free, as they were 'specially imported for breeding purposes.' The collector, though the importation was for breeding purposes, demanded the duties because he was not satisfied the animals were of 'superior stock.' The duties were accordingly paid under protest and this suit was brought to recover back the amount so paid. On the trial the court instructed the jury 'that, under the statute, animals, whether of superior or inferior stock, if in fact imported specially for breeding purposes, are entitled to be admitted free of duty,' and 'that the law does not give to the secretary of the treasury power to prescribe in the regulations what classes of animals imported for breeding purposes shall be admitted free of duty.' To this instruction an exception was taken. The jury returned a verdict against the collector, upon which judgment was rendered. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought. The only error assigned on the exceptions actually taken at the trial relates to the instruction as to the effect of the treasury regulation.
The secretary of the treasury cannot be his regulations alter or amend a revenue law. All he can do is to regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what congress has enacted. In the present case we are entirely satisfied the regulation acted upon by the collector...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP