Hosiery, composed of wool and cotton, was imported in 1873. The
collector assessed the duties at 35 percent
ad valorem,
and 50 cents a pound, less ten percent, under § 2 of the Act of
March 2d, 1867, c.
Page 127 U. S. 573
197, 14 Stat. 561, as manufactures made in part of wool "not
herein otherwise provided for." The importer claimed that the goods
were dutiable under § 22 of the Act of March 2, 1861, c. 68, 12
Stat. 191, and § 13 of the Act of July 14, 1862, c. 163, 12 Stat.
556, as stockings made on frames, worn by men, women, and children
at 35 percent
ad valorem, less ten percent. In a suit to
recover back the excess of duties, the court directed a verdict for
the importer.
Held that this was error because the hosiery
was not otherwise provided for in the act of 1867, and was a
manufacture made in part of wool.
The case of
Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U.
S. 498, commented on and explained and
distinguished.
This action was commenced by the defendants in error as
plaintiffs in the court below to recover an excess of duties
alleged to have been paid under protest on an importation of
hosiery into the port of New York. Trial and verdict for the
plaintiffs under direction of the court, and judgment on the
verdict. The defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is
stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action at law commenced in the Superior Court of the
City of New York by Frederick Vietor, George F. Vietor, Carl
Vietor, Thomas Vietor, Jr., and Fritz Achelis against Chester A.
Arthur, collector of the port of New York, to recover an alleged
excess of duties paid under protest on goods entered at the
customhouse in New York from April, 1873, to November, 1873, prior
to the enactment of the Revised Statutes.
The goods were hosiery. The appraiser returned the hosiery in
some cases as "knit goods, wool hosiery, over 80, 50, 35, less ten
percent," in other cases as "worsted knit goods," etc. The
collector liquidated the duties on the hosiery at the rate of 35
percent
ad valorem and 50 cents a pound, less a deduction
of ten percent. The plaintiffs protested in writing against the
liquidation
"because said merchandise, being merino hosiery, and similar
articles made on frames, not
Page 127 U. S. 574
otherwise provided for, is only liable to duty under the 22d
section of the Tariff Act of March 2, 1861, and the 13th section of
the Tariff Act of July 16, 1862, at the rate of 35 percentum
ad
valorem, less ten percent under the second section of the Act
of June 6, 1872, as manufactures wholly or in part of wool or hair
of the alpaca, goat, or other like animal."
All of the goods involved contained from 10 to 20 percent of
either wool or worsted, the other component material being cotton.
The wool or worsted formed an appreciable portion of the value of
the goods. There is nothing in the case to show the value of or the
amount of duties assessed on the wool and cotton goods, as
distinguished from the worsted and cotton goods.
The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that the
articles imported by them, similar to samples introduced by them in
evidence, were stockings, were worn by men, women, and children,
and were made on frames. The plaintiffs claimed that the goods were
dutiable under § 22 of the Act of March 2, 1861, c. 68, 12 Stat.
191, under a provision imposing a duty of 30 percent on
"caps, gloves, leggins, mitts, socks, stockings, wove shirts and
drawers, and all similar articles made on frames, of whatever
material composed, worn by men, women, or children, and not
otherwise provided for,"
and § 13 of the Act of July 14, 1862, c. 163, 12 Stat. 556,
which imposed, from and after the 1st of August, 1862, an
additional duty of 5 percent
ad valorem on
"caps, gloves, leggins, mits, socks, stockings, wove shirts and
drawers, and all similar articles made on frames, of whatever
material composed, worn by men, women, and children, and not
otherwise provided for,"
and the provision of § 2 of the Act of June 6, 1872, c. 315, 17
Stat. 231, which enacts that after the 1st of August, 1872, in lieu
of the duties imposed by law upon the articles enumerated in that
section, there should be paid 90 percent of the several rates of
duty then imposed by law upon such articles severally,
"it being the intent of this section to reduce existing duties
on said articles ten percentum of such duties -- that is to say on
all wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other animals, and all
manufactures wholly
Page 127 U. S. 575
or in part of wool or hair of the alpaca, and other like animals
except as hereinafter provided."
The duties levied by the collector and claimed by the defendant
at the trial to have been the proper rate of duty were assessed
under § 2 of the Act of March 2, 1867, c. 197, 14 Stat. 561, which
imposed the following duties:
"On woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool
of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not herein
otherwise provided for, fifty cents per pound, and, in addition
thereto, thirty-five percentum
ad valorem. On flannels,
blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, balmorals, woolen and worsted
yarns, and all manufactures of every description, composed wholly
or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like
animals, except such as are composed in part of wool, not otherwise
provided for, valued at not exceeding forty cents per pound, twenty
cents per pound; valued at above forty cents per pound, and not
exceeding sixty cents per pound, thirty cents per pound; valued at
above sixty cents per pound, and not exceeding eighty cents per
pound, forty cents per pound; valued at above eighty cents per
pound, fifty cents per pound; and, in addition thereto, upon all
the above-named articles, thirty-five percentum
ad
valorem."
At the trial, after the plaintiffs had rested, the defendant
offered evidence tending to show that knit goods are textile
fabrics composed of a single thread united in a series of loops,
corresponding to the old-fashioned hand-knitting process, and that
the plaintiffs' importations were so made, and further that all
fabrics made on frames are knit goods. The defendant then rested.
The plaintiffs then offered evidence tending to show that the term
"knit goods" used in trade and commerce no different or other
meaning than its meaning among men in general; that there are knit
goods known to trade and commerce which were not made on frames,
but which were made by hand, and that there are other goods, as
caps, gloves, leggins, mitts, socks, stockings, and drawers, made
in whole or in part of worsted, worn by men, women, and children,
which are made on a frame and knit, and which are also knit by
hand; that while the result of knitting by hand and
Page 127 U. S. 576
of the manufacture on a frame of a fabric consisting of a single
thread is the production of a textile fabric composed of a series
of connecting loops which are alike in each case, yet the processes
by which they are produced are dissimilar; that the result of the
process of manufacturing upon frames and knitting by hand is the
same, although the two processes are dissimilar; also that there
are no textile fabrics made on frames which are known in trade and
commerce except fabrics composed of cotton, wool or worsted, silk,
linen, or a mixture of these materials. Both parties then
rested.
The plaintiffs then moved the court to direct the jury to find a
verdict in their favor, which motion was granted. To such ruling
the defendant excepted. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiffs. The amount was, by agreement of the parties, adjusted
at the customhouse and a judgment was entered for the plaintiffs,
including costs, for $1,897.96, to review which the defendant has
brought a writ of error.
We think that it was error in the court to have directed a
verdict for the plaintiffs. The act of 1867 is entitled "An act to
provide increased revenue from imported wool and for other
purposes." Section 1 of the act relates to duties on
"unmanufactured wool, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like
animals, imported from foreign countries." Section 2 provides for
the following duty:
"On woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool
of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not herein
otherwise provided for, fifty cents per pound, and, in addition
thereto, thirty-five percentum
ad valorem."
This clause clearly covers stockings, such as some of those in
the present case, composed of wool and cotton because they were
made in part of wool.
The next question is whether they were "herein otherwise
provided for" -- that is, otherwise provided for in that act of
1867. We have recently held, in the case of
Arthur v.
Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70,
125 U. S. 76,
that the words "not otherwise herein provided for" in an act
providing for customs duties mean not otherwise provided for in the
act of which they are a part. The words in the present case are
"not herein otherwise provided for," which are identical in
meaning. Section 2 of the
Page 127 U. S. 577
act of 1867 goes on to provide for duties on many manufactured
articles made wholly or in part of wool, namely
"women's and children's dress goods and real or imitation
Italian cloths, composed wholly or in part of wool; . . . clothing
ready made, and wearing apparel of every description, and balmoral
skirts and skirting, and goods of similar description or used for
like purposes, composed wholly or in part of wool; . . . webbings,
beltings,"
etc., made of wool, or of which wool is a component material,
and carpets of various kinds and carpetings of wool.
The clause of § 2 of the act of 1867, above quoted, which covers
"knit goods," expressly excepts "such as are composed in part of
wool," and the clause relating to duties on "wearing apparel of
every description, . . . composed wholly or in part of wool," made
up or manufactured wholly or in part by the manufacturer, expressly
excepts "knit goods." It is stated in the bill of exceptions that
the stockings in question were made on frames, and that all fabrics
made on frames are knit goods.
According to the bill of exceptions, some of the goods in
question here were properly assessed by the collector under the act
of 1867 at the rate of 50 cents a pound and 35 percent
ad
valorem, less ten percent, and it was improper to direct a
verdict for the plaintiffs as to those goods. After the verdict was
rendered, on the 10th of December, 1883, and before judgment, the
defendant made a motion for a new trial, the decision on which is
reported in 19 F. 250. The motion was denied on the ground that the
articles in question, as stockings made on frames, were
specifically made dutiable by that name in the acts of 1861 and
1862, and had been dutiable
eo nomine, by different
enactments, since 1842, and that the general language of the act of
1867 did not affect the specific description in the acts of 1861
and 1862. Particular reference was made in the decision to the
opinion of this Court in
Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U.
S. 498. The goods in that case were imported after the
enactment of the Revised Statutes, on the 22d of June, 1874, and
were stockings, some of them wholly of worsted and others of
cotton
Page 127 U. S. 578
and worsted, cotton being the material of chief value, and they
were intended to be worn by men, women, and children, and were made
on frames, and were also knit goods. The collector had exacted upon
them a duty at the rate of 90 percent of 50 cents a pound and 35
percent
ad valorem, as knit goods, under Schedule L of §
2504 of the Revised Statutes. The importer claimed that they were
dutiable as stockings made on frames, worn by men, women, or
children, under Schedule M of the same section. Judgment having
been entered for the defendant, this Court reversed it on the
ground that as between the descriptions in the two schedules in the
same section of the Revised Statutes, the goods must be considered
as having been provided for under the designation of stockings made
on frames, worn by men, women, or children, in Schedule M, and as
not being liable to the higher duty prescribed by Schedule L
because, although Schedule L was broad enough to comprehend them,
yet, as Schedule M covered them by a specific designation and they
had been dutiable as stockings made on frames
eo nomine
since 1842 and by four different enactments, they fell within
Schedule M. That decision does not apply to the present case, for
here the only question is whether the stockings, so far as they
have wool in them, being manufactures made in part of wool, and
dutiable as such by the act of 1867, were otherwise provided for in
that act. It is clear that they were not.
Inasmuch as the verdict directed covered the stockings which
contained wool and cotton, and the judgment is a unit, and the
direction of a verdict was wrong as to those goods,
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the
circuit court with a direction to grant a new trial.