In re Chase

Decision Date11 January 1892
Citation48 F. 630
PartiesIn re CHASE et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

At Law. Petition by L. C. Chase & Co. for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers as to the classification of common goat hair. Reversed.

CUSTOMS DUTIES-- CLASSIFICATION-- COMMON GOAT HAIR.

Tariff Act 1890, Schedule K, par. 377, class 2, imposes a duty of 12 cents per pound or 'Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire down combing wools, Canada long wools, or other like combing wools of English blood; * * * and also hair of the camel goat, alpaca, and other like animals.' Held that, in view of the fact that in former acts this group has been construed to embrace only combing wools, common goat hair is not included in it, but belongs in paragraph 604 of the free-list, which covers 'hair of horses, cattle, and other animals * * * not specially provided for in this act.'

Josiah P. Tucker, for petitioners.

Henry A. Wyman, Asst. U.S. Atty.

COLT J.

The subject of importation in this case was common goat hair upon which the collector assessed a duty of 12 cents per pound, under paragraph 377, Schedule K, of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, which is as follows:

'Class two, that is to say Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, down combing wools, Canada long wools, or other like combing wools of English blood, and usually known by the terms herein used, and also, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals.'

The petitioners duly protested against this assessment, and claimed that the merchandise in question came under paragraph 604 of the free-list, which provides as follows:

'Hair of horses, cattle, and other animals * * * not specially provided for in this act.'

The board of general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector, and the petitioners now ask the court to review this question, as provided by section 15 of the act of October 1, 1890. The grounds upon which the board based their decision are set forth in the prior case of Central Vt. R. Co. v. Collector of Burlington, (G.A. 280,) where the same question arose.

It must be admitted that the question here presented is not free from difficulty. Paragraph 377 of Schedule K of the tariff act of 1890, under which this importation was classified by the collector, relates to what is known as the 'combing-wool' class, embracing those kinds of wool which are fit for combing; the closing part of the paragraph however, has reference to hair, and specifies the 'hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals. ' Now, it is admitted that the hair of the camel and alpaca are fit for combing; and, further, that the hair of certain kinds of goat, like the Cashmere and Angora, are adapted for combing purposes. Shall the words, then, 'hair of the * * *goat," be taken literally as if they formed a distinct paragraph, and so held to cover all kinds of goat hair, or shall they be construed in connection with the paragraph in which they are found, and in the light of the whole context and surroundings, and so limited to combing goat hair? It can scarcely be seriously contended that congress intended by this language to include common goat hair unfit for combing purposes, and so to assess a prohibitive duty of 12 cents a pound upon such kinds of goat hair. In dealing with such a difficult, intricate, and complex subject as the tariff, embracing, as it does, the enumeration and proper classification of hundreds of different articles of commerce, it is hardly possible that congress could succeed in every instance in expressing, in exact and unambiguous language, precisely what was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. Hopewell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 15, 1892
    ...and adaptability to use to the hair of horses and cattle.' The circuit court, for the reason stated in the opinion of COLT, J., printed in 48 F. 630, adjudged that the decision of board of general appraisers be reversed, and that the sums paid by the petitioners for duties be refunded. With......
  • In re Chase
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 12, 1892
    ...of common goat hair. The board's decision was reversed, and the importers held entitled to a return of the excess of duties paid. 48 F. 630. The question now is as to liability of the United States for interest and costs. The two opinions by the attorney general, referred to in the opinion ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT