Webbing made of India rubber, wool, and cotton, and known as
"wool elastic webbing," is not dutiable as webbing made of wool, or
of which wool is a component material at fifty cents per pound and
in addition thereto fifty percent
ad valorem, but as
webbing composed wholly or in part of India rubber at thirty-five
percent
ad valorem.
Page 120 U. S. 261
This was an action at law to recover back duties alleged to have
been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiff, to review which
defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the
opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The single question in this case is as to the duty payable in
the latter part of 1878 and the early part of 1879 on "webbing made
of India rubber, wool, and cotton," and known as "wool elastic
webbing," as distinguished from "union elastic webbing," made of
rubber, silk, and cotton, and "cotton elastic webbing," made of
rubber and cotton. It is used for gores and gussets in the
manufacture of Congress boots, and, without the rubber, would not
be adapted to that use. In its manufacture, it is not wrought by
hand or braided by machinery, but is woven in a loom.
In the court below, three clauses of § 2504 of the Revised
Statutes were brought under consideration, to-wit:
First. Schedule L, "Wool and Woolen Goods," Rev.Stat.
472:
"Webbings, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, fringes, gimps,
cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, head nets, buttons, or
barrel buttons, or buttons of other forms for tassels or ornaments,
wrought by hand or braided by machinery, made of wool, worsted, or
mohair, or of which wool, worsted, or mohair is a component
material, fifty cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, fifty
percent
ad valorem."
Second. Schedule M, "Sundries," Rev.Stat. 477:
"India rubber, articles composed of -- braces, suspenders,
webbing, or other fabrics, composed wholly or in part of India
rubber, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five percent
ad
valorem."
Third. Schedule L, "Wool and Woolen Goods," Rev.Stat.
471:
"Woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of
every description, made wholly or in part of wool,
Page 120 U. S. 262
not herein otherwise provided for, fifty cents per pound, and,
in addition thereto, thirty-five percent
ad valorem."
In this Court, however, it was conceded by the Solicitor
General, in his argument for the collector, that, as the third
clause does not specifically provide for webbing, and both the
others do, that clause would not be relied on here. The precise
question to be determined is therefore whether these goods are
dutiable as "webbing, . . . composed wholly or in part of Indian
rubber," at thirty-five percent
ad valorem, or as "webbing
. . . made of wool . . . or of which wool . . . is a component
material," at fifty cents per pound, and, in addition thereto,
fifty percent
ad valorem. The collector exacted the larger
duty, and this suit was brought to recover back the difference
between that and the smaller one. The court below gave judgment
against the collector, and to reverse that judgment this writ of
error was sued out.
In the Tariff Act of August 30, 1842, c. 270, § 5, subdivision
Tenth, 5 Stat. 555, was this provision:
"On India-rubber oil-cloth, webbing, shoes, braces, or
suspenders, or other fabrics of manufactured articles composed
wholly or in part of India rubber, thirty percent
ad
valorem."
In the Act of July 30, 1846, c. 74, § 11, Schedule C, 9 Stat.
44, this was the language: "Braces, suspenders, webbing, or other
fabrics, composed wholly or in part of India rubber, not otherwise
provided for." The same provision was made in the Act of March 2,
1861, c. 68, § 22, 12 Stat. 191, and in the Act of July 14, 1862,
c. 163, § 13, 12 Stat. 556, which increased the duties on these
articles five percent
ad valorem. In the last of these
acts, § 8, p. 552, was the following provision: "On manufactures of
India rubber and silk, or of India rubber and silk and other
materials, fifty percent
ad valorem." These provisions of
the acts of 1861 and 1862 were reenacted in substantially the same
language as part of the Revised Statutes. That in relation to
manufactures of India rubber and silk, and India rubber and silk
and other materials, is found in § 2504, immediately preceding the
second of the clauses above referred to.
In 1873, while the acts of 1861 and 1862 were in force, and
before the enactment of the Revised Statutes, Davies & Co.
Page 120 U. S. 263
imported into New York "suspenders or braces, manufactured of
rubber, cotton, and silk," and the collector exacted a duty of
fifty percent
ad valorem as upon a manufacture of India
rubber and silk and other materials; but this Court held in
Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135, that
they were only dutiable at the rate of thirty-five percent
ad
valorem, as suspenders or braces composed wholly or in part of
India rubber, and that they were not "otherwise provided for," as
manufactures of India rubber and silk and other materials, because
for thirty years before the importation in that case, "and in four
different statutes, braces and suspenders, composed wholly or in
part of India rubber, had been a subject of duty
eo
nomine." During the same year Faxon, Elms & Co. imported
into Boston from Liverpool webbing which was a manufacture of India
rubber, silk, and cotton, known as "Union Gussett," "Union Web," or
"Union Elastic Web," and used in the manufacture of the gores or
gussets of Congress boots. In this case, also, the collector
exacted a duty of fifty percent
ad valorem, under § 8 of
the act of 1862, as on manufactures of India rubber and silk and
other materials, but this Court held at its October term, 1878, in
Faxon v. Russell (not reported), on the authority of
Arthur v. Davies, that the goods were only dutiable as
webbing composed wholly or in part of India rubber.
These cases, with which we are entirely satisfied, are
conclusive upon the questions here involved. Ever since 1842,
"webbing," composed wholly or in part of India rubber, has been a
subject of duty
eo nomine, and it is no more otherwise
provided for, as webbing composed wholly or in part of wool than it
would be as a manufacture of India rubber and silk, or of India
rubber and silk and other materials, if silk had been one of its
component parts.
The judgment is affirmed.