Congress, in framing a tariff law, will be presumed to use word
of a former tariff law a having the same meaning which this Court
has already given to them.
This court, having held that "unmanufactured tobacco," as used
in the Tariff Act of 1883, included sweepings of factories and
warehouses used after importation in manufacturing cigarettes and
stogies, the same meaning will be given to the same words as used
in the Tariff Act of 1897. Seeberg v. Castro, 153 U. S.
"Waste," as used in a tariff acts generally refers to remnants
and byproducts of small value that have not the quality or utility
either of the finished product or of the raw material. "Scrap" does
retain the name and quality. Patton v. United States,
159 U. S.
5 P.R.F. 138 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the classification of tobacco scraps
under the Tariff Act of 1897, are stated in the opinion.
Page 223 U. S. 503
MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the process of manufacturing and handling tobacco, small
pieces are broken from the brittle leaves and fall to the floor of
the warehouse or factory. These scraps are not treated as
worthless, but are swept up, and, when cleaned, are used in the
manufacture of a cheap grade of cigarettes and stogies.
The appellant shipped to Porto Rico a quantity of these
sweepings, and the question arose as to whether the shipment was
dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem
as "waste not specially
provided for in this act," under § 463 of the Tariff Act of 1897,
or at 55 cents a pound, as "tobacco, manufactured or
unmanufactured," under § 215 of the same statute. 30 Stat. 194,
169. The customs officer classed it as "unmanufactured tobacco,"
and required the payment of a duty of 55 cents a pound. The
importer protested, and a case was made to test the question. On
appeal, the General Board sustained the collector. It was affirmed
by the District Court of Porto Rico, and to reverse that judgment,
the importer has brought the case here.
There has been some difference of opinion as to the proper
classification of scrap tobacco under the various tariff acts. In
United States v. Schroeder,
93 F. 448, a higher grade of
scrap was held to be "waste" within the meaning of the Tariff Act
of 1890. In Seeberger v. Castro, 153 U. S.
, it was decided that the clippings from the ends of
cigars were dutiable as unmanufactured tobacco under the Tariff Act
Page 223 U. S. 504
The plaintiff claims that this decision has no application here,
because it related to clippings which were of a higher grade than
scrap, and for the further reason that, as the importer there made
no claim that it should be taxed as waste, the court did not pass
on that question. But it did definitely decide that such material,
by whatever name called, was "unmanufactured tobacco."
The words, having received such a construction under the Act of
1883, must be given the same meaning when used in the Tariff Act of
1897 on the theory that, in using the phrase in the later statute,
Congress adopted the construction already given it by this Court.
United States v. Baruch,
this day decided, ante,
p. 223 U. S. 191
That such was the intention of Congress appears further from the
fact that the duty of "10 percent ad valorem
on waste" is
found in "Schedule N -- Sundries." The word as thus used generally
refers to remnants and byproducts of small value that have not the
quality or utility either of the finished product or of the raw
material. Patton v. United States, 159
U. S. 503
. But the scrap here involved retains the name
and quality of tobacco. It is tobacco, and as such it is used for
making cigarettes and stogies. It was therefore taxable under
Schedule F, which fixes the duty on tobacco in all its forms --
manufactured or unmanufactured. The judgment is therefore