United States v. Barnes

Citation222 U.S. 513,56 L.Ed. 291,32 S.Ct. 117
Decision Date09 January 1912
Docket NumberNo. 565,565
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. B. H. BARNES and F. D. Barnes
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Harr for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-515 intentionally omitted] Mr. Henry M. Johnson for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 515 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

The sole question presented for decision by this writ of error is whether Rev. Stat. § 3177, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2069, is applicable to the col- lection or enforcement of the specific tax imposed on oleomargarin by the act of August 2, 1886, chap. 840, 24 Stat. at L. 209, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2228. In the district court a negative answer to the question was given, and an indictment drawn and returned upon the contrary view was held bad upon demurrer. To a right appreciation of the question it is essential that a brief outline be given of the internal revenue laws, of which § 3177 is a part, and of the later oleomargarin act.

Title 35 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2038) is a codification and consolidation, according to an orderly arrangement, of all the then-existing laws relating to internal revenue. It is subdivided into chapters, each embracing cognate sections bearing upon a particular branch of the general subject. The first two chapters, one dealing with the officers of internal revenue and the other with assessments and collections, are, with minor exceptions, general in their terms and application. The third chapter deals with 'special taxes' exacted of those who engage in designated classes of business, such as rectifying or selling distilled spirits and manufacturing or selling cigars; other chapters deal separately with specific taxes imposed upon particular articles or objects, such as distilled spirits and cigars, and the final chapter comprises provisions common to several objects of taxation. Section 3177 is a part of the second chapter, dealing with assessments and collections, and reads:

'Any collector, deputy collector, or inspector may enter, in the daytime, any building or place where any articles or objects subject to tax are made, produced, or kept, within his district, so far as it may be necessary, for the purpose of examining said articles or objects. And any owner of such building or place, or person having the agency or superintendence of the same, who refuses to admit such officer, or to suffer him to examine such article or articles, shall, for every such refusal, forfeit five hundred dollars. And when such premises are open at night, such officers may enter them while so open, in the performance of their official duties. And if any person shall forcibly obstruct or hinder any collector, deputy collector, or inspector, in the execution of any power and authority vested in him by law, or shall forcibly rescue or cause to be rescued any property, articles, or objects after the same shall have been seized by him, or shall attempt or endeavor so to do, the person so offending, excepting in cases otherwise provided for, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars, or double the value of the property so rescued, or be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, at the discretion of the court.'

It will be perceived that the section is comprehensive in its terms and evidently designed to promote the enforcement of the revenue laws as to 'any articles or objects subject to tax.'

The act of August 2, 1886, is a revenue law of the same class as those embodied in title 35 of the Revised Statutes. It imposes a specific tax on oleomargarin and 'special taxes' on those who engage in its manufacture or sale, and contains several administrative and penal provisions. But it does not purport to be independent of other legislation or complete in itself. On the contrary, it plainly contemplates the existence of an established system of revenue laws to which resort shall be had in carrying it into effect. Section 3, which imposes the special taxes, declares that §§ 3232 to 3241, and 3243, of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 2091 to 2094, and 2095), 'are, so far as applicable, made to extend to . . . the special taxes imposed by this section and to the persons upon whom they are imposed.'

It is the express extension of those sections to the special taxes imposed by the oleomargarin act which gives rise to the question before stated. The position taken by the defendants in error, and sustained by the district court, is, that that extension of particular sections is an implied exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

We are unable to assent to that position. The maxim invoked expresses a rule of construction, not of substantive law, and serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when that is not otherwise manifest. In such instances it is of deciding importance; in others, not. In the instance now before us too much is claimed for it. The sections named in § 3 of the oleomargarin act are a part of chapter 3 of title 35 of the Revised Statutes. They relate exclusively to special taxes, and are so restricted in their terms that it is at least doubtful that they could be applied to any special taxes not imposed by that chapter, unless expressly extended to them. To illustrate, § 3232, which precedes the others and is more or less a key to their meaning, declares: 'No person shall be engaged in or carry on any trade or business hereinafter mentioned until he has paid a special tax therefor in the manner hereinafter provided.'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Olden v. LaFarge Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 7 Septiembre 2004
    ...or series,'...."); Neuberger v. Comm'r of I.R.S., 311 U.S. 83, 88, 61 S.Ct. 97, 85 L.Ed. 58 (1940), citing United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 32 S.Ct. 117, 56 L.Ed. 291 (1912). We have no doubt that Rule 23 fits in naturally with the other rules listed in § 1367(b). All the rules listed......
  • Continental Ill. Nat. B. & T. Co. of Chicago v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1968
    ...Cf. S. E. C. v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 350-351, 64 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed. 88 (1943); United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 518-520, 32 S.Ct. 117, 56 L.Ed. 291 (1912); Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co., 196 U.S. 1, 14-17, 25 S.Ct. 158, 49 L.Ed. 363 (1904); Church of the Holy Trin......
  • State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. Hostetter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 1935
    ...alone if there are subjects dealt with in the old act which are not covered by the new one. Many cases have so held. United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 56 L. Ed. 291; State ex rel. Heimburge v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601, 109 S.W. 758; Sturgeon v. Bishop, 195 Mo. App. 30, 189 S.W. 593; State ex......
  • Petition of Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 30 Septiembre 1921
    ... 278 F. 180 Petition of CANADIAN PAC. RY. CO. THE PRINCESS SOPHIA. No. 4553. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division. September 30, 1921 ... [278 F. 181] ... clear the rule of construction, 'expressio unius est ... exclusio alterius.' U.S. v. Barnes, 222 U.S ... 513, 32 Sup.Ct. 117, 56 L.Ed. 291. The expression 'no ... vessel of 100 tons or ... ...
  • 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