When certiorari is granted on the basis that the decision below
involved principles of far-reaching effect and overthrew settled
administrative construction, and it appeals on the argument that
the decision does not deal with such principles or have such
effect, and that the action of the court below was not, either as
to its character or importance, within the scope of the grant of
power given by the Judiciary Act of 1891 to review by certiorari,
the writ will be dismissed.
The facts, which involve t he jurisdiction of this Copurt in
regard to the scope of the grant of power under the Judiciary Act
of 1891 to review judgments of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, are
stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, after making the foregoing statement,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petition presented by the United States in this case for the
allowance of a writ of certiorari, which was not opposed, proceeded
upon the basis that the decision below involved a principle
concerning the collection of internal revenue taxes of far-reaching
importance, and which, if thereafter applied in accordance with
what it was urged was the rule established by the lower court,
would overthrow
Page 220 U. S. 548
practices prevailing as to the collection of internal revenue
taxes for a long period of time, founded upon a well settled
administrative construction, and thus produce at least great
confusion.
As the record at least
prima facie tended to sustain
these contentions of the government, the writ of certiorari was
granted. With candor, in the argument at bar, while perspicuously
discussing the legal propositions which it was deemed were involved
when the certiorari was petitioned for, the government conceded
that a closer scrutiny of the record made it exceedingly doubtful
whether the action of the court below, when accurately tested,
dealt with the principle which it was deemed rendered the granting
of the writ necessary. Coming to consider the record, we conclude
that it establishes that the doubt suggested by the government is
well founded, and therefore, if we were to consider and decide the
case, we would but review the action of the court below in regard
to a question as to which, under the Judiciary Act of 1891, the
action of the court was final, and which, neither from its
character nor importance, was within the scope of the grant of
power to review by certiorari.
After giving the matter most careful consideration because of
the precedent as to future cases which must arise from the action
we take in this, we have concluded that, under the conditions which
we have stated, our duty is not to pass upon the merits of the
case, but to dismiss the writ of certiorari. Our order will
therefore be
Writ of certiorari dismissed.
