Arthur v. Cumming Et Al

Decision Date01 October 1875
Citation91 U.S. 362,23 L.Ed. 328
PartiesARTHUR v. CUMMING ET AL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. George S. Sedgwick and Mr. Stephen G. Clarke, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants in error were the plaintiffs in the court below. They claim that they were the importers of certain burlaps, upon which the duty chargeable by law was thirty per cent ad valorem; that the collector insisted the goods were 'oil-cloth foundations,' upon which the duty is forty per cent ad valorem, and compelled them to pay accordingly. They paid under protest, and brought this suit to recover back the alleged excess of ten per cent. Under the instructions of the court, a verdict and judgment were given in their favor. The collector thereupon sued out this writ of error.

The case arises under the fourth section of the act of June 6, 1872 (17 Stat. 232), and turns upon the construction to be given to that section with respect to the particulars here in controversy.

That section declares, that after the 1st of August, 1872, in lieu of the duties theretofore levied upon the articles mentioned in the section, there should be paid upon those articles imported from foreign countries the following duties; to wit:——

'On all burlaps and like manufactures of flax, jute, or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp shall be the component material of chief value, except such as may be suitable for bagging for cotton, thirty per centum ad valorem. On all oil-cloth foundations or floor-cloth canvas, made of flax, hemp, or jute, or of which flax, hemp, or jute shall be the component material of chief value, forty per centum ad valorem. On all bags, cotton-bags, and bagging, and all other like manufactures not herein provided for, except bagging for cotton, composed wholly or in part of flax, hemp, jute, gunny-cloth, gunny-bags, or other material, forty per centum ad valorem.'

All the testimony produced upon the trial is embodied in the bill of exceptions. It was introduced by the plaintiffs. The United States adduced none.

The rule to be followed in the construction of revenue statutes in cases like this is well settled in this court. It is, that the descriptive terms applied to articles of commerce shall be understood according to the acceptation given to them by commercial men in our own ports at the time of the passage of the act in which they are found. United States v. Two Hundred Chests of Tea, 9 Wheat. 230; Elliot v. Swartout, 10 Pet. 151; Curtis v. Martin, 3 How. 106.

The statute here in question declares that 'on all burlaps and like manufactures of flax, jute, or hemp, . . . except such as may be suitable for bagging for cotton, a duty of thirty per centum ad valorem shall be paid.'

The mercantile testimony in the record shows that the articles in question were 'burlaps,' that they were a 'manufacture of jute,' and that they were not suitable for bagging for cotton. The exception may, therefore, be laid out of view. The language of the statute is clear and explicit. It is, 'all burlaps' made of jute, &c. The mercantile proof brings the case exactly within this category. The fact that the burlaps were suitable, and could be and were used for oil-cloth foundations, or for any other purpose except bagging for cotton, is entirely immaterial. The maxim, Expressio unius, exclusio alterius, applies with cogent effect.

This view is conclusive, unless it is overcome by something else found in the statute.

The counsel for the United States insists that it is answered by the next category defined in the section; which is, that 'on all oil-cloth foundations or floor-cloth canvas made...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Anderson v. Gladden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • October 13, 1960
    ...under the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 31 U.S. 691, 8 L.Ed. 547; Arthur v. Cumming, 91 U.S. 362, 23 L.Ed. 328; Paso Robles Mercantile Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d 653, certiorari denied Paso Robles Mercantile Co. v. Lucas,......
  • Dernberger v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • July 31, 1916
    ... ... 780).' ... This ... proposition is affirmed in Anderson v. Beal, 113 ... U.S. 227, 241, 5 Sup.Ct. 433, 28 L.Ed. 966, and Arthur v ... Cumming, 91 U.S. 362, 365, 23 L.Ed. 438; In ... Delaware, etc., R.R. Co. v. Converse, ... [234 F. 407] ... 139 U.S.at page 472, 11 ... ...
  • City & Cnty. of Denver v. Expedia, Inc.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 24, 2017
    ...overlap with one, or both, serving to further define or clarify the sense in which the other is being used. See Arthur v. Cumming, 91 U.S. 362, 364, 23 L.Ed. 328 (1875) (noting "many instances in which two phrases with the like conjunction between them have been used to designate the same t......
  • Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate, 00-14
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • August 18, 2000
    ... ... at 168; TVA v. Hill, 437 ... U.S. 153, 188 (1978); City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla ... Water Co., 172 U.S. 1, 22 (1898); Arthur v ... Cumming, 91 U.S. 362, 363 (1875); Sturges v ... Collector, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 19, 27 (1870) ... The ... expressio unius ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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