In re Ballin

• Decision Date: 27 January 1891
• Parties: In Re BALLIN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

45 F. 170

In Re BALLIN et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

January 27, 1891

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Construction of the act of May 9, 1890, entitled 'An act providing for the classification of worsted cloths as woolens.' Under this act the secretary of the treasury must finally classify the merchandise therein named, and that power is vested in no other officer.

The firm of Ballin, Joseph & Co. imported by the City of Richmond. July 21, 1890, into the port of New York certain worsted cloths, composed entirely of worsted, which were returned by the appraisers on the invoice as 'woolen cloths, under 80 cents, and duty was thereupon assessed on said merchandise by the collector at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per centum ad valorem, under the provisions of the tariff act of March 3. 1883, (Tariff Ind. par. 362,) and the act of May 9, 1890, entitled 'An act providing for the classification of worsted clothes as woolens. ' The importers duly appealed from this assessment of duty to the board of United States general appraisers, in pursuance of section 14 of the act of June 10, 1890, entitled 'An act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues. ' The board of United States general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector. The importers thereupon, and under the provisions of section 15 of the said act of June 10, 1890, took the necessary proceedings for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers by the United States circuit court upon their return and the record. The importers, in their protest, alleged: (1) That the said act of May 9, 1890, was never passed according to law, because no quorum was present in the house of representatives. (2) Said act was never passed according to law, and never became a law; because, when passed, a majority of the members of the house of representatives were not present, and it was certified to have been passed when it had not been passed, in violation of section 5, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States. (3) Because a quorum of the house of representatives did not vote upon said act. (4) Because said act confers no power or authority upon the collector to assess and take duties upon the said importations at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent. ad valorem. (5) Because, as a matter of fact the secretary of the treasury had not seen the goods, and had never in fact classified them for duty. (6) Because said act does not repeal any act imposing a pre-existing rate of duty upon said importations. (7) Because said act does not and cannot operate to change the duty upon manufactures 'wholly or in part of worsted,' and not 'in part of wool,' as provided for in the act of March 3, 1883. (8) Because whether the secretary of the treasury has classified said goods as woolen clothes or not does not alter the fact that they are manufacturers of worsted, and dutiable accordingly. The importers thus attacked the validity of the act of congress approved May 9, 1890, and known as the 'Dingley Bill,' entitled 'An act providing for the classification of worsted clothes as woolens. ' This act reads as follows:

'That the secretary of the treasury be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to classify as woolen clothes all imports of worsted cloth, whether known under the name of 'worsted cloth' or under the name of 'worsteds' or 'diagonals,' or otherwise.'

Stephen G. Clarke and Edwin B. Smith, for importers.

Edward Mitchell, U.S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U.S. Atty., for collector and government.

The latter argued that while the contention of the importer is that the secretary of the treasury is directed by the act of May 9, 1890, personally to classify worsted cloths as woolens, the language of the act is susceptible of a different construction. Section 248 of the United States Revised Statutes provides that 'the secretary of the treasury shall from time to time digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of the public credit; shall superintend the collection of the revenue, * * * and generally shall perform all such services relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform. ' Section 249 provides that 'the secretary of the treasury shall direct the superintendence of the collection of the duties on imports and tonnage as he shall judge best. ' Section 251 provides that 'the secretary of the treasury shall make and issue from time to time such instructions and regulations to the several collectors. * * * He shall prescribe forms of entries, oaths bonds, and other papers, and rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, to be used under and in the execution and enforcement of the various provisions of the internal revenue laws, or in carrying out the provisions of laws relating to raising revenue from imports, or to duties on imports, or to warehousing. He shall give such directions to collectors, and prescribe such rules and forms to be observed by them, as may be necessary for the proper execution of the law,' etc. Section 252 provides that 'the secretary of the treasury, under the direction of the president, shall from time to time establish such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as the president shall think proper, to secure a just, faithful, and impartial appraisal of all goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, ' etc. Section 2652 provides that 'it shall be the duty of all officers of the customs to execute and carry into effect all instructions of the secretary of the treasury relative to the execution of the revenue laws; and, in case any difficulty shall arise as to the true construction or meaning of any part of the revenue laws, the decision of the secretary of the treasury shall be conclusive and binding upon all officers of the customs. ' Section 2949 provides that 'the secretary of the treasury from time to time shall establish such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, to secure a just, faithful, and impartial appraisal of all merchandise imported into the United States,' etc.

The secretary of the treasury is the chief officer and head of that department, and all revenue and customs officials are, in contemplation of law, his subordinates, assistants, or employes, and subject to his general direction and control in revenue matters. Article 556 of the treasury regulations reads as follows: 'Collectors will make immediate report of the classification given at their respective ports to all imported goods not enumerated in the tariff. When any portion of the law affecting the classification of enumerated articles may be of doubtful meaning, collectors will in like manner report the classification adopted in such cases. Appraisers are required to report to the collector their opinion as to the proper classification of imported articles submitted to their examination, but in case of disagreement the decision of the question rests with the secretary of the treasury.'

Interpreting the act of May 9, 1890, in the light of existing statutes, congress never intended that the secretary of the treasury should personally classify 'worsted clothes,' or any other merchandise, for duty, but that such classification was to be made, under his general direction, by the officers, his subordinates, agents, and employes, whose particular duty it was, under the law and in the usual course of business, to classify such goods. It would be absurd and impracticable for the secretary of the treasury personally to engage in the duties of an appraiser or collector by himself, inspecting goods at every port in this country, and passing judgment upon them, and formally announcing such judgment. The act itself operated to place worsted cloths in the same category with woolen clothes as to classification and rates of duty.

On May 13, 1890, the secretary issued a circular calling the attention of the collectors of customs to this law. Treas. Dec. No. 10,020. This was a promulgation of the law, for the guidance of such officers. It is a rule that in the interpretation of statutes courts should not defeat legislative intent by adhering too rigidly to the letter, nor follow the mere language to consequences which are clearly absurd. Oates v. Bank, 100 U.S. 239. The meaning of the legislature in a statute may be extended beyond the precise words used in the law, from the reason or motive which the legislature proceeds, from the end in...