Hamilton v. United States

• Citation: 167 F. 796
• Decision Date: 12 January 1909
• Docket Number: 126 (5,108).
• Parties: HAMILTON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

167 F. 796

HAMILTON et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 126 (5,108).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 12, 1909

William B. Dungan (Everit Brown, of counsel), for appellants.

J Osgood Nichols, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The relevant paragraphs are:

'402. Paper hangings and paper for screens or fireboards, and all other paper not specially provided for in this act twenty-five per centum ad valorem.

'403. Books of all kinds, including blank books and pamphlets, and engravings bound or unbound, photographs, etchings, maps, charts, music in books or sheets, and printed matter, all the foregoing not specially provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.'

'407. Manufactures of paper, or of which paper is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem.'

The importations are apparently the same as those before the Circuit Court in United States v. Hensel, 152 F. 578, a decision which was not appealed. As shown by the samples, the articles are paper. All of them have been stamped from plain paper, by a single operation, at one and the same time, into shape with lace-like effects. They are used for placing on the tops of boxes or baskets of candy, raisins, fruit, or the like, to improve their appearance, or for putting under finger bowls; and hence they are called 'tops' or 'doilies.' The plain paper might just as well be used for the same purpose, only it would not be so attractive. Except for the pleasing effect, it has been in no wise changed. It is still paper. It has not been made into an article having another use, as it would if manufactured into an envelope, a bag, or a box. In De Jonge v. Magone, 159 U.S. 562, 16 Sup.Ct. 119, 40 L.Ed. 260,

paragraph 392 of the tariff act of 1883 (Act March 3, 1883, c. 121, Sec. 6, Schedule M, 22 Stat. 510) was under consideration. It provided, as does paragraph 402, supra, for 'paper hangings and paper for screens and fireboards, * * * and all other paper, not specially provided for. ' The court held that it covered paper that had been coated, colored, and embossed to imitate leather, and also paper which had been coated with flock to imitate velvet, saying:

'While, directly speaking, the products in question might be termed manufactures of the particular variety of paper stock employed as their basis, yet the resultant product of such manufacture was a higher and better grade of paper.'

The same principle has found expression in numerous other cases where the original material has been improved without interfering with its distinguishing characteristics. Murphy v. United States (C.C.A.) 162 F. 871; United States v. Pierce, 147 F. 199, 77 C.C.A. 425; United States v. Knipscher and M.S.D. Company (C.C.) 152 F. 590; Brauss & Co. v. United States (C.C.) 120 F. 1017; Tilge v. United States (C.C.) 115 F. 254. There is no reason to suppose that Congress used the words 'all other paper' in paragraph 402, supra in...