Cloths popularly known as "diagonals," and known in the trade as
"worsteds," and composed mainly of worsted, but with a small
proportion of shoddy and of cotton, are subject to duty as a
manufacture of worsted, and not as a manufacture of wool, under the
Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121.
This was an action of assumpsit against a collector of customs
to recover back duties paid under protest. Plea,
non
assumpsit. A jury was waived and the case submitted to the
court, which made the following finding of facts:
"The plaintiffs imported an invoice of cloths popularly known as
'diagonals,' which were classed by the collector as woolens, and a
duty of 35 cents per pound and 35 percent
ad valorem
assessed upon them under paragraph 363, new tariff index, and the
duty assessed at 24 cents per pound and 35 percent
ad
valorem. The duties were paid under protest, appeal taken,
and
Page 137 U. S. 96
suit brought, all in apt time. The goods in question are used
mainly for the manufacture of men's wearing apparel, and are
denominated or known to the trade as 'worsteds,' and are composed
mainly of worsted, but the worsted fiber is mixed with at least 10
percent of shoddy, this shoddy being made from wool, and some
cotton. Worsted is made by combing the long-fibered wools so that
the fibers shall lie or be arranged alongside of each other, while
wool is worked by carding, so as to interlock the fibers with each
other. Shoddy is a separate manufacture of wool, and is added to
the worsteds in question for the purpose of giving weight and body
to the fabric."
Upon these facts, the court gave judgment for the plaintiffs. 30
F. 425. The defendant sued out this writ of error.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, under "Schedule K, Wool and
Woolens," 22 Stat. 508, 509, imposes duties as follows:
"Woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of
every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially
enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding
eighty cents per pound, thirty-five cents per pound, and
thirty-five percentum
ad valorem; valued at above eighty
cents per pound, thirty-five cents per pound, and in addition
thereto forty percentum
ad valorem."
"Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods
made on knitting frames, 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 animals (except
such as are composed in part of wool) not specially enumerated or
provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding thirty cents per
pound, ten cents per pound; valued at above thirty cents per pound,
and not exceeding forty cents per pound, twelve cents per pound;
valued at above forty cents per pound, and not exceeding sixty
cents per pound, eighteen cents per pound; valued at above sixty
cents per pound, and not exceeding eight cents per pound,
twenty-four cents per pound; and in addition thereto, upon all the
above-named articles, thirty-five percentum
ad valorem;
valued at above eighty cents per pound, thirty-five cents per
pound, and in addition thereto forty percentum
ad
valorem."
In the interpretation of the customs acts, nothing is better
settled than that words are to receive their commercial meaning,
and that when goods of a particular kind, which would otherwise be
comprehended in a class, are subjected to a distinct rate of duty
from that imposed upon the class generally, they are taken out of
that class for the purpose of the assessment of duties.
Of the two successive paragraphs in the customs act of 1883,
upon which the parties respectively rely, the first imposes a
certain scale of duties on "all manufactures of wool of every
description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially
enumerated or provided for in this act," and the second imposes a
lower scale of duties on "all manufactures of every description,
composed wholly or in part of worsted." It is hardly necessary to
observe that the subsequent words enclosed in a parenthesis,
"(except such as are composed in part of wool)," evidently qualify
only the intervening clause "the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other
animals," and have no bearing upon this case.
Though worsted is doubtless a product of wool, and might in some
aspects be considered a manufacture of wool, yet manufactures of
worsted being subjected by the second paragraph to different duties
from those imposed by the first paragraph on manufactures of wool,
it necessarily follows that a manufacture of worsted cannot be
considered as a manufacture of wool within the meaning of this
statute.
That shoddy, though a product, and in some sense a manufacture,
of wool, is not to be considered as itself wool or a manufacture of
wool within the meaning of the statute is clearly shown by the
paragraph next preceding the two above quoted, which makes the duty
on "woolen rags, shoddy, mongo, waste, and flocks, ten cents per
pound."
Lennig v. Maxwell, 3 Blatchford 125.
It being distinctly found as matter of fact that the goods in
question are called or known in the trade as "worsteds" and are
composed mainly of worsted, but mixed with a small proportion of
shoddy and of cotton, the circuit court rightly held that they were
subject to duty as manufactures of worsted, and not as manufactures
of wool.
The cases of
Elliott v.
Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, and
Riggs v.
Frick, Taney 100, are directly in point, and our conclusion is
supported by many decisions of this Court in analogous cases.
Homer v
Collector, 1 Wall. 486;
Reiche v.
Smythe, 13 Wall. 162;
Movius v. Arthur,
95 U. S. 144;
Arthur v. Morrison, 96 U. S. 108;
Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112;
Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125;
Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135;
Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143;
Swan v. Arthur, 103 U. S. 597;
Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498;
Robertson v. Glendenning, 132 U.
S. 158.
Judgment affirmed.