1. Opium, the product of Persia, imported to the United States
from a country west of the Cape of Good Hope, is subject to the
additional duty of ten percent
ad valorem imposed by the
third section of the Act of June 6, 1872. 17 Stat. 232; Rev.Stat.,
sec. 2601.
2. That act is not in conflict with the treaty between the
United States and Persia. 11 Stat. 709.
This suit was brought by Powers & Weightman, of
Philadelphia, against the collector of that port to recover the
additional duty of ten percent
ad valorem, exacted by him
under the third
Page 101 U. S. 790
section of the Act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 232; Rev.Stat.,
sec. 2501, upon certain opium imported by them in 1874 from
Liverpool, it having previously been exported from Persia to
England by way of the Isthmus of Suez and the Mediterranean. That
section is as follows:
"That on and after the first day of October next there shall be
collected and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the
growth or produce of countries east of the Cape of Good Hope
(except wool, raw cotton, and raw silk as reeled from the cocoon,
or not further advanced than tram, thrown, or organzine), when
imported from places west of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of ten
percent
ad valorem in addition to the duties imposed on
any such article when imported directly from the place or places of
their growth or production."
Judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs sued out
this writ.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is substantially disposed of by
Hadden v.
The Collector, 5 Wall. 107, and
Sturges v.
The Collector, 12 Wall. 19. Sec. 3 of the Act of
June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 232, is in all material respects like the
statutes under consideration in those cases where we held that
countries "beyond the Cape of Good Hope" and countries "east of the
Cape of Good Hope" meant countries with which, at that time, the
United States ordinarily carried on commercial intercourse by
passing around that cape. Although the act of 1872 was passed after
the Suez Canal was in operation, we see no indication of an
intention by Congress to give a new meaning to the language
employed which had already received a judicial construction. The
words used are words of description, and indicate to the popular
mind the same countries now that they did before the course of
trade was to some extent changed by cutting through the Isthmus of
Suez. The object of Congress was to encourage a direct trade with
these Eastern countries. For this purpose,
Page 101 U. S. 791
in legal effect, a bounty was offered to those who imported the
products of that region directly from the countries themselves
instead of from places west of the Cape.
We see nothing in the act of Congress which is in conflict with
the treaty with Persia. 11 Stat. 709. If the subjects of Persia
export their products directly to the United States, they are
required to pay no more duties here than the "merchants and
subjects of the most favored nation." It is only when their
products are first exported to some place west of the Cape, and
from there exported to the United States, that the additional duty
is imposed. Under such circumstances, the importation into the
United States is not, commercially speaking, from Persia, but from
the last place of exportation.
Judgment affirmed.