Nicholas Benziger v. United States
Decision Date | 04 January 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 54,54 |
Citation | 192 U.S. 38,24 S.Ct. 189,48 L.Ed. 331 |
Parties | NICHOLAS C. BENZIGER et al., Petitioners , v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Certain figures representing various saints, and also two figures of adoring angels, as specified in the collector's letter to the board of general appraisers, were, in March, 1899, spe- cially imported into the port of New York in good faith, for the use and by the order of societies incorporated or established solely for religious purposes. The importers claimed the figures were entitled to free entry under paragraph 649 of the tariff act of 1897. (30 Stat. at L. 151, 201, chap. 11, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1626, 1687.) The appraiser returned them as 'church statues, composed of plaster of Paris, decorated,' or as 'articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not specially provided for,' and the collector assessed upon them a duty of 45 and 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraphs 97 and 450 of the same act (pages 156, 193).1 If dutiable, no question is made as to the correctness of the decision of the collector in assessing the duties as he did. The contention is that these figures were 'specially provided for' in this act under the paragraph above mentioned, 649.
The importers protested against the decision of the collector, and the case went to the board of general appraisers. Testimony was taken by the board and it found as a fact the manner in which the figures were made, which was as follows:
The protest was overruled by the board, and a petition for a review was duly filed by the importers (petitioners) and the case heard in the circuit court, southern district of New York, and that court affirmed the decision of the board. 107 Fed. 257. An appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals, where the decision of the circuit court was affirmed on the opinion of the court below. Upon petition of the importers a writ of certiorari was issued from this court, and the case brought here for review.
Messrs. W. Wickham Smith and Charles Curie for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 40-42 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for respondent.
Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:
Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court:
The petitioners claim that the figures in question here are entitled to free entry under the provision of paragraph 649 of the tariff act of 1897 (30 Stat. at L. 151, 201, chap. 11, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1626, 1687), as being 'casts of sculpture, where specially imported, in good faith, for the use and by order of any society incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, or literary purposes,' etc. The board of appraisers thought that on July 24, 1897, the day of the passage of the tariff act, and for many years prior thereto, those figures belonged to a class which was known in commerce, in art, and to the classifying officers of customs of the United States as 'statuary,' and specifically as 'church statuary.' In the opinion of the board it was stated:
The board was of opinion that these figures were what is known in commerce, in art, and in common speech as 'statuary,' and were not 'specimens or casts of sculpture,' and were therefore assessed, as stated.
If these figures were to be entered as statuary, they would come in free under paragraph 649 of the act of 1897, but for the limitation contained in paragraph 454, which limits the term 'statuary,' as used in the act, so as to 'include only such statuary as is cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from a solid block or mass of marble, stone, or alabaster or from metal, and as is the professional production of a statuary or sculptor only.' The circuit court did not regard it necessary in the disposition of the case to determine whether these particular figures would come in free as casts of sculpture under paragraph 649, if imported in the crude state, but held that as the figures had been painted and gilded, they were not thereafter casts of sculpture within the meaning of the act.
Upon the argument of this case at bar frequent reference was made by counsel to the provisions in former tariff acts upon this subject, as bearing upon the proper construction of the one under consideration. For convenience these provisions are reproduced in the margin as they existed in the act of 1861 (12 Stat. at L. 178, 193, chap. 68); the Rev. Stat. (§ 2505, pp. 482, 487, 488); the act of 1883 (22 Stat. at L. 488, 514, 520, chap. 121); the act of 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 567, 608, 609, chap. 1244); the act of 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 509, 543, 544, chap. 349); and in the present act of 1897 (30 Stat. at L. 151, 201, chap. 11, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1626, 1687).
An examination of the provisions of the various statutes shows a somewhat uniform purpose on the part of Congress to provide free entry to casts of marble, bronze, alabaster, or plaster of Paris, and also statuary and specimens of sculpture, when specially imported, in good faith, for the societies enumerated in the acts. It is also seen that under the language used in these different paragraphs, which may be described as the 'philosophical and scientific,' and the 'regalia and gems' paragraphs, some article might be admitted under either paragraph. There is no doubt that under the tariff acts prior to that of 1897, these figures could have been admitted free of duty, as 'casts of plaster of Paris.' Indeed, the Treasury Department had so decidedin a case hereafter cited. Those words, 'casts of marble, bronze, alabaster, or plaster of Paris,' which appear in all the statutes cited prior to 1897, in the philosophical apparatus paragraphs, are left out in the act of 1897, paragraph 638, and it is therefore urged that the figures are not entitled to free entry, as they are not casts of sculpture, provided for in paragraph 649. The question is, therefore, whether the omission of those words in paragraph 638 prevents the free entry of these figures, or are they properly described as casts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Officemax, Inc. v. U.S.
...words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer."); Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S.Ct. 189, 48 L.Ed. 331 (1904); American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S.Ct. 55, 35 L.Ed. 821 (1891); Leavell v. Blad......
-
Israels v. State
... ... 92; Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S ... 151, 62 L.Ed. 211, 213; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 ... Story, 369, F. Cas. No. 16, 690; American ... 468, 474, 35 L.Ed ... 821, 824, 12 S.Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, ... 192 U.S. 38, 55, 48 L.Ed. 331, 338; U. S. v ... ...
-
Associated Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. United States
...16,690. 2 Story, 369; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S.Ct. 55, 35 L.Ed. 821; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55 , 24 S.Ct. 189, 48 L.Ed. 331." See also Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 1887, 121 U.S. 609, 616, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012; United States v. Merri......
-
Estate of Renick v. United States
...American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474, 35 L.Ed. 821, 824, 12 Sup.Ct.Rep. 55 57; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55, 48 L.Ed. 331, 338, 24 Sup.Ct.Rep. 189 195. 245 U.S. at 153, 38 S.Ct. at 53, 62 L.Ed. at The argument that the court should interpret a tax statute......