In 1872, A. imported certain goods manufactured of cattle hair
and cotton, the latter not being the component part of chief value.
that, under the last paragraph of the sixth section
of the Act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 209, they were subject to a
duty of thirty-five percent ad valorem.
In the year 1872, Herman & Co., the plaintiffs, imported
from England certain cheap goods, the warp of which was made of
cotton and the filling or woof of cattle hair. These were the only
component parts of the goods.
The collector imposed a duty of thirty-five percent on the goods
under the Act of June 30, 1864. The importers protested against
this charge as excessive, insisting that, under the second section
of the Act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 231, but ninety percent of
thirty-five percent could be legally exacted as the duty. Judgment
was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendant brought
the case here.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The last paragraph of sec. 6 of the Act of 1864 is as follows,
"On cotton braids, insertings, lace trimming, or bobbinet, and
all other manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for,
thirty-five percent ad valorem.
The goods in question were manufactured from two materials, of
which cotton was one, and may, therefore, in general terms,
Page 96 U. S. 142
be said to be manufactured of cotton, and they are not provided
for by any specific enumeration in the Act of 1864. They fall under
the general clause of this act, just quoted.
Impliedly admitting the application of this provision to their
goods, the importers, by their protest, insist
"that the merchandise aforesaid is only liable under existing
laws to a duty of ninety percent of thirty-five percent ad
under the second section of the Act of June 6, 1872,
as being merchandise composed of animal hair and cotton."
On turning to the Act of 1872, we find that the ninety percent
provision is made applicable to "all manufactures of cotton, of
which cotton is the component part of chief value." The article in
question is dutiable as a manufacture of cotton, that material
being one of its components. But the record expressly states that
cotton is not the component part of chief value. It is plain that
this case does not fall within the terms of the clause.
The argument of the importers, if we appreciate it, is this: the
similitude clause of the Act of Aug. 30, 1842, 5 Stat. 565, sec.
20, provides that
"there shall be collected on every nonenumerated article, . . .
manufactured from two or more materials, the highest duty
assessable upon any of its component parts."
The article in question is manufactured from cow hair and
cotton; of these the cotton is assessed at a higher rate of duty
than the hair, and therefore the article is assessed as a
manufacture of cotton, and hence it is insisted, under the Act of
1872, as a manufacture of cotton it is entitled to the deduction
The defect in this argument is apparent. The article in question
does not fall within the terms of either part of the clause of the
Act of 1872, "all manufactures of cotton, of which cotton is the
component part of chief value." The first part gives the deduction
to manufactures of cotton, which might be understood to mean those
which are wholly of cotton. If it also includes a manufacture of
which cotton is one of the components only, the cotton must be the
component of chief value. It certainly was not intended to embrace
a composite article of which cotton was the chief component, and a
composite article of which it was not the chief
Page 96 U. S. 143
component. In any aspect, it does not embrace the goods in
We think the judge erred in ruling in favor of the importer, and
that there must be a new trial.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.