Hadden v. the Collector

• Decision Date: 01 December 1866
• Citation: 72 U.S. 107,18 L.Ed. 518,5 Wall. 107
• Parties: HADDEN v. THE COLLECTOR
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

72 U.S. 107

18 L.Ed. 518

5 Wall. 107

HADDEN v. THE COLLECTOR.

December Term, 1866

On the 14th of July, 1862, Congress passed 'an act increasing temporarily the duties on imports and for other purposes.' The 14th section was as follows:

'And be it further enacted, That from and after the day and year aforesaid [August 1st, 1862], there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem, and in addition to the duties imposed on any such articles when imported directly from the place or places of their growth or production.'

With this act in force the plaintiffs imported into New York from Liverpool several packages of raw silk, the growth or produce of Persia and China, upon which the ten per cent. duty was exacted. This duty was paid under protest, and a case being agreed on, the present action was brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York against the collector to recover back the amount.

The matter was the proper interpretation of the above section of the act of Congress, previously to the date of which it is admitted that the goods described were free of duty.

The following section of the act of 3d of March, 1863, was introduced into the argument as throwing light, perhaps, on the former:

'SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That section fourteen of an act entitled 'An act increasing temporarily the duties on imports, and for other purposes,' approved July fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, be, and the same hereby is modified, so as to allow cotton, and raw silk as reeled from the cocoon, of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, to be exempt from any additional duty when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, for two years from and after the passage of this act.'¹

The questions were:

1. Whether the 14th section of the act of July, 1862, was applicable to goods hitherto free of duty; and

2. Whether this statute is reconcilable with the Constitution of the United States, which requires that 'all duties imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'

The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs thereupon brought the case here on error.

Messrs. Slosson and Hutchins, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A. G., contra.

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

This case arises upon the fourteenth section of the act of Congress of July 14th, 1862, entitled 'An act increasing temporarily the duties on imports, and for other purposes.' That section provides that after the first day of August, 1862, 'there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem, and in addition to the duties imposed on any such articles when imported directly from the place or places of their growth or production.'²

Soon after the passage of this act the plaintiffs made several importations into the port of New York from Liverpool, England, of packages of raw silk, the product of Persia and China, upon which the ten per cent. duty was exacted. This duty was paid under protest, and the present action was brought against the collector to recover back the amount.

At the time the act was passed raw silk was not subject to any duty, and it was contended by the plaintiffs in the court below, and is contended by them here, that the fourteenth section only applied to such articles, the growth and product of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, as were then liable to duty, and did not embrace articles upon which no duty was imposed.

In support of this construction reference is made to the language of other sections of the act, where a duty is laid upon articles previously exempt; to the title of the act; and to the supposed policy of the government.

It is true that some of the other sections, when providing for a duty upon articles previously exempt, express the intention of the legislature in this respect in language free from doubt. This fact, however, does not necessarily control the construction of a distinct and independent section. The fourteenth section relates to articles different from those covered by the other sections, and necessarily differs from them in its language, as it makes a discrimination, which they do not, in the duty imposed, according to the place from which the articles are exported.

The title of an act furnishes little aid in the construction of its provisions. Originally in the English courts the title was held to be no part of the act;—'no more,' says Lord Holt, 'than the title of a book is part of the book.'³ It was generally framed by the clerk of the House of Parliament, where the act originated, and was intended only as a means of convenient reference. At the present day the title constitutes a part of the act, but it is still considered as only a formal part; it cannot be used to extend or to restrain any positive provisions contained in the body of the act. It is only when the meaning of these is doubtful that resort may be had to the title, and even then it has little weight. It is seldom the subject of special consideration by the legislature.

These observations apply with special force to acts of Congress. Every one who has had occasion to examine them has found the most incongruous provisions, having no reference to the matter specified in the title. Thus the law regulating appeals in Mexican land cases to the District Courts of the...