Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

or

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

under the conditions hereinafter speci- The judgment of the court below is fied, of Chinese laborers to the United affirmed. States, shall be absolutely prohibited;" but this "shall not apply to the return Mr. Justice Clarke dissents. to the United States of any registered Chinese laborer who has a lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States, or

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pe. property therein of the value of one

titioner, thousand dollars, debts of like amount due him and pending settle

ÆTNA EXPLOSIVES COMPANY. ment.” Exclusion of all Chinese laborers,

with certain definite, carefully (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 402-405.) guarded exceptions, was the manifest end in view, and for a long time the Duties - nitric and sulphuric acids same design has characterized legisla- mixture. tion by Congress. "In the opinion of

Nitric acid to which approximately the government of the United States the 20 per cent by weight and 5 per cent accoming of Chinese laborers to this coun- cording to value of sulphuric acid has been

added for the sole purpose of preventing try endangers the good order of certain corrosion of steel tank cars essential for localities within the territory thereof." transportation of the former acid in large See Act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. at L. quantities comes within paragraph 387 of 58, chap. 126, Comp. Stat. § 4290, 2 Fed. the free list in the Tariff Act of October 3, Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 67; Act of July 5, 1913, which grants free entry to both nitric 1884, 23 Stat. at L. 115, chap. 220, Comp. and sulphuric acids, rather than paragraph Stat. § 4290, 2 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 5, which imposes a duty of 15 per cent ad 67; Act of September 13, 1888, 25 Stat. valorem upon “alkalies, alkaloids, and all at L. 476, 477, chap. 1015, 2 Fed. Stat. arations, mixtures and salts, and combina

chemical and medicinal compounds, prepAnno. 2d ed. p. 82; Act of May 5, 1892, tions thereof," not specially provided for 27 Stat. at L. 25, chap. 60, Comp. Stat. in this section. § 4315, 2 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 92; (For other cases, see Duties, V. d. 3. in Digest

Sup. Ct. 1908.) Act of November 3, 1893, 28 Stat. at L. 7, chap. 14, Comp. Stat. § 4320.

[No. 296.) The special object of the Treaty of 1894 was to secure assent of China to Argued April 27 and 28, 1921. Decided May the limitation or suspension by the

16, 1921. United States of immigration or residence of Chinese laborers. Prior to that ONS WRIT of Certiorari to the United

States Court dertaken to limit such immigration and review a judgment which reversed a deresidence. These statutes were "re-en- cision of the Board of General Appraisacted, extended, and continued, without ers, imposing a duty on nitric acid to modification, limitation, or condition" which sulphuric acid had been added by Act of April 29, 1902 (chav. 641, 32 solely to protect the tank car in which Stat. at L. 176), as amended by Act of shipment was to be made. Affirmed. April 27, 1904 (chap. 1630, § 5, 33 Stat. The facts are stated in the opinion. at L. 428, Comp. Stat. § 4337, 2 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 109), and are now

Assistant Attorney General Hanson in force notwithstanding the Treaty of argued the cause and filed a brief for

petitioner: 1894 expired in 1904. Hong Wing v.

It is undisputed that the imported United States, 73 C. C. A. 346, 142 Fed.

merchandise was a chemical mixture 128. This (402) well-defined purpose of within the meaning of the provision for Congress would be impeded rather than all chemical mixtures in 1 5, Tariff Act facilitated by permitting entry of the of 1913. wives and minor children of Chinamen

Strohmeyer & Arpe v. United States, who first came after the ratification of 2 Ct. Cust. App. 285. the treaty, as members of an exempt

The dutiable classification of articles class, and later assumed the status of imported must be ascertained by an exlaborers. We think our statutes exclude amination of the imported article itself, all Chinese persons belonging to the in the condition in which it is imported. class defined as laborers except those Dwight v. Merritt, 140 U. S. 213, 219, specifically and definitely exempted, and 35 L. ed. 450, 452, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; there is no such exemption of a resident United States v. Citroen, 223 U. S. 407, laborer's wife and minor children. 414, 415, 56 L. ed. 186, 188, 489, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; United States v. States v. Walter, 4 Ct. Cust. App. 95; Schoverling, 146 U. S. 76, 82, 36 L. ed. Stiner v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. App. 893, 895, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Worthing- 347; Revillon Freres v. United States, ton v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 337, 341, 35 2 Ct. Cust. App. 209; Chew Hing Lung L. ed. 181, 182, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581. v. Wise, 176 U. S. 156, 44 L. ed. 412, 20

The motives which actuate the manu- Sup. Ct. Rep. 320. facture and importation of merchandise Though the words of a statute may be do not affect its dutiable classification. broad enough to include a certain thing

Dwight v. Merritt, 140 U. S. 213, 219, or a certain act, yet, if absurd results 35 L. ed. 450, 452, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; | will follow from giving such a broad Magone v. Luckemeyer, 139 U. S. 612, meaning to the words, the thing or the 35 L. ed. 298, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 651; act will be held not to be within the Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 701, spirit of the statute, and, therefore, not 704, 26 L. ed. 896, 897, 899; Seeberger within the statute. v. Farwell, 139 U. S. 608, 35 L. ed. 297, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650; United States v. States, 143 U. S. 457, 459, 36 L. ed. 227, Citroen, 223 U. S. 407, 415, 56 L. ed. 228, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; United States 486, 488, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; United v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486, 19 L. ed. 278, States v. Levitt, Fed. Cas. No. 15,594; 280; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 United States v. Schoverling, 146 U. S. U. S. 47, 59, 36 L. ed. 340, 344, 12 Sup. 76, 81, 36 L. ed. 893, 895, 13 Sup. Ct. Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Jacobson v. MasRep. 24.

sachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 39, 49 L. ed. This is not a case for the application 643, 655, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 3 Ann. of the rule that a thing may be within Cas. 765; Heide v. United States, 2 Ct. the letter of the statute and yet not Cust. App. 399, 403; Hensel v. United within the statute.

States, 3 Ct. Cust. App. 117; Maltus & Henry E. Frankenberg Co. v. United Ware v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. App. States, 206 U. S. 224, 225, 51 L. ed. 525. 1034, 1035, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 628; Mer- In cases of doubt, tariff acts must be ritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 701, 703, interpreted in favor of the importer, as 26 L. ed. 896, 898, 899.

tax acts are interpreted in favor of the The decision below fixes no definite taxpayer. standard by which collectors of customs United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 can determine the dutiable classification Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Powof mixed acid.

ers v. Barney, 5 Blatchf. 202, Fed. Cas. Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 702, No. 11,361; Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 26 L, ed. 896, 898.

U. S. 609, 616, 30 L. ed. 1012, 1015, 7 The decision below is in conflict with Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240; American Net & a rule which has long had both legisla- Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. tive and judicial approval.

468, 474, 35 L. ed. 821, 824, 12 Sup. Ct. Boericke & Runyon Co.'s Case, T. D. Rep. 55; United States v. Ullman, 4 23,354; Boericke & R. Co. v. United Ben. 547, Fed. Cas. No. 16,593; WoolStates, 126 Fed. 1019; Otis Clapp & worth v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. App. Son's Case, T. D. 20,516; United States 120; Maltus & Ware v. United States, v. Stone & D. Co. 171 Fed. 293, 99 C. 6 Ct. Cust. App. 525; Hartranft v. OlivC. A. 49, 175 Fed. 33.

er, 125 U. S. 525, 529, 31 L. ed. 813, 814, In no event is the merchandise free 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 958; Goat & Sheepskin of duty under 387, Tariff Act of 1913. Import Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust.

Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United App. 178. States, 2 Ct. Cust. App. 159.

To classify the merchandise here inMr. Addison S. Pratt argued the cause

volved as a chemical mixture produces and filed a brief for respondent:

unjust and absurd results, and resolves The merchandise here involved was in all doubts against the importer. fact nitric acid, or nitric acid with sul

Arnold v. United States, 147 U. S. phuric acid as a container or a protector 494, 37 L. ed. 253, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. for the instrument of transportation. 406; United States v. Garramone, 2 ct. Although, for the want of a better desig- Cust. App. 30; Hensel v. United States, nation, it may be called a mixed acid, it 3 Ct. Cust. App. 117; Heide v. United was not a chemical mixture within the States, 2 Ct. Cust. App. 399; United meaning of the Tariff Act.

States v. John Duncan's Sons, 2 Ct. Cust. Stromeyer & Arpe v. United States, 2 App. 380; United States v. Embossing Ct. Cust. App. 285; United States v. Co. 3 Ct. Cust. App. 220; United States Kraemer, 4 Ct. Cust. App. 133; United I v. Holland-American Trading Co. 4 Ct.

on

Cust. App. 336; Protest of Wakem & have been demanded, and, among other
McLaughlin, T. D. 28,832, G. A. 6736; things, said:
Protest of Gabriel & Schall, T. D. 19,628, [401] "The word 'preparations' [in
G. A. 4210, affirmed in 99 Fed. 716; Re I 5] implies, of course, that they
Boston Book Co. 50 Fed. 914.

are something prepared and adapted The rule that the dutiable classifica- to particular uses or services. It is tion of an article must be determined no stretch to say that the word “mixby an examination of its condition at the tures,' as here employed, was used in time of importation, and is not affected a similar sense to import mixtures by the motive which actuated its manu- susceptible of commercial use as they facture or importation,' was not infringed exist, or are at least such as are purby the decision below.

posely started their way

toward Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. adaptation to such use. While not rest337, 341, 35 L. ed. 181, 182, 11 Sup. Ct. ing this case solely upon this view, it Rep. 581.

certainly would appeal with great force There is no difficulty in applying the were it the only consideration involved.” rule or standard laid down by the court "The testimony fairly tends to show of customs appeals.

that, as a commercial proposition, there Buehne Steel Wool Co. v. United

is only one practical means of transportStates, 86 C. C. A. 297, 159 Fed. 109.

ing strong nitric acid such as that in

volved in the present importation in Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the quantities sufficient to meet the current opinion of the court:

demand, and that is to mix it with a A writ of certiorari to the court of sufficient amount of sulphuric acid, and customs appeals was granted under the ship it in tank cars or drums." "It is Act of August 22, 1914 (chap. 267, 38 evident that the importer sought to inStat. at L. 703, Comp. Stat. § 1186, 5 troduce nitric acid, and had no desire to Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 689). 9 Ct. import sulphuric acid, or nitric and sulCust. App. 298.

phuric acid as a usable mixture. This The question presented is whether the small percentage of sulphuric acid,

which was relatively insignificant in its imports came within 1 387 of the free list, Tariff Act of 1913 (chap. 16, 38 money value, was employed solely for Stat. at L. 114, Comp. Stat. § 5291, 2 ship the nitric acid into this country in

the purpose of making it possible to Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 724), which usable quantities. The result was not a provides: “Acids: Acetic or pyroligen- mixture merchantable as such for use eous, arsenic or arsenious, carbolic, chro- in the United States.

The mermic, fluoric, hydrofluoric, hydrochloric chandise had not reached the state of a or muriatic, nitric, phosphoric, phthalic,

commercial mixture contemplated by the prussic, silicic, sulphuric or oil of vitriol,

statute. and valerianic;" or was dutiable under other than as nitric acid, which must,

It was susceptible of no use $ 5:

before use, be again treated. The mix“Alkalies, alkaloids, and all chemical ing of this minimum amount of suland medicinal compounds, preparations, phuric acid should be treated as a means mixtures and salts, and combinations of and part of the shipment, and as an thereof not specially provided for in act as essential in the importation of this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.” nitric acid as would have been the prop

The imported merchandise was nitric er packing of glassware or other goods acid, to which approximately 20 per designed for shipment by rail.” “In the cent by weight, and 5 per cent, accord- present case we are convinced that there ing to value, of sulphuric acid, had been was neither an advantage to the imadded for the sole purpose of prevent- porter in adding the requisite amount ing corrosion of steel tank car: essential of sulphuric acid to admit of safe shipfor transportation of the former acid in ment of the nitric acid, nor was there large quantities. That the addition of any possible loss of revenue to the sulphuric acid prevents nitric acid from [405] government. The sole purpose attacking steel is a well-known fact con- for which this addition was made was to cerning which there is no very satisfac- admit of shipment. It would be sticking tory explanation. The court below in the bark to say that this was such a found the sulphuric acid was added sole- mixture as the statute in question conly for transportation purposes, and that templates. It is not yet prepared. It has the result was not a mixture merchant- not been advanced as a preparation for able as such for use in the United States. actual use except to the extent that a It accordingly held that no duty should I small portion of the requisite amount of

[ocr errors]

a

sulphuric acid, which, when added in the cover from the consignee of an interstate

a matter of law, under the proper quantity, would result in making shipment, as a mixture which was usable, is found in Interstate Commerce Acts, the difference this tank instead of some other. The lected and the larger amount due under

between the freight rates charged and colquantity is relatively insignificant." the applicable published rates, is a ques“We think that the true rule is that the tion which the Federal Supreme Court can introduction of a quantity of sulphuric review by certiorari to a state court; not acid solely for the purpose of rendering by writ of error. the transportation of nitric acid safe, Carriers discrimination illegal and which does not result in a usable freight rate liability of consignee

for true rate. mixture, is more in the nature of an act of shipment than an admixture, and

2. A commission merchant, the con. does not produce a substance which is signee of an interstate shipment, is, as a

matter of law, liable to the carrier for the dutiable under ( 5."

difference between the freight charges erroWe find no reason for disapproving neously claimed by the carrier and paid by the conclusion reached by the court of the consignee upon receipt of the goods, and customs appeals. The applicable tariff the larger amount due under the applicable act granted free entry to both nitric published tariffs, although the standard and sulphuric acids, and, viewed prac- "straight” bills of lading, under which the tically, the commodity in question was goods were shipped, did not come into the nothing more than nitric acid, rendered consignee's possession, and it had no knowlnoninjurious to steel tanks by adding though the consignee accepted the shipment

edge of their issuance or terms, and alsulphuric acid of small value. The two upon the understanding that the charges acids do not interact, and the result was were as reported, and did not agree to pay

mere mechanical mixture, not in- more. tended or adapted as such for commer- [For other cases, see Carriers, II. b, 5, in Di.

gest Sup. Ct. 1908.) cial use, and not a chemical mixture within the true intent of I 5.

[Nos. 280 and 281.] The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Argued April 22, 1921. Decided May 16,

1921.
Mr. Justice Day took no part in the
consideration or decision of this case.

CRO
"ROSS WRITS of Error and Certio-

rari to the Superior Court of the Mr. Justice Clarke dissents.

State of Massachusetts to review a judgment entered pursuant to the direction

of the Supreme Judicial Court of that (406) NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUD state, granting a part only of the relief SON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

sought by a carrier in a suit to recover Plff. in Err. and Petitioner,

from a consignee the difference between YORK & WHITNEY COMPANY. (No.

the freight rate charged and collected

and the true rate. Writs of error dis280.)

missed. Judgment reversed in No. 280,

and cause remanded for further proYORK & WHITNEY COMPANY, Piff. in ceedings. Judgment in No. 281 affirmed. Err. and Petitioner,

See same case below, 230 Mass. 206,

119 N. E. 855. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON

The facts are stated in the opinion. RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY. (No. 281.)

Mr. William L. Parsons argued the (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 406-408.)

cause and filed a brief for the New York

Central & Hudson River Railroad ComAppellate jurisdiction over state courts

pany: - error or certiorari.

Whether the railroad is entitled to re1. Whether a carrier is entitled to re

cover the undercharges on the first carNote.-On certiorari to state courts- load of cantaloupes, as a matter of law, see notes to Bruce v. Tobin, 62 L. ed. U. under the acts of Congress relating to S. 123, and Andrews v. Virginian R. Co. interstate commerce and the bill of lad63 L. ed. U. S. 236.

ing issued under the Carmack AmendOn right of a carrier to recover the ment, is a Federal question. difference between the rate charged Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. shipper and the proper ratesee note to Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. ed. 1151, 40 Central R. Co. v. Mauser, 49 L.R.A. Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Cincinnati, N. O. & (N.S.) 92.

T. P. R. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319,

V.

V.

326, 327, 60 L. ed. 1022, 1025, 1026,, A. 182, 202 Fed. 720; New York, N. H.
L.R.A.1917A, 265, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 355; & H. R. Co. v. York & W. Co. 215 Mass.
Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Texas Pack- 36, 102 N. E. 366; Pennsylvania R. Co.
ing Co. 244 U. S. 31, 34, 61 L. ed. 970, v. Titus, 216 N. Y. 17, L.R.A.1916E,
971, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; Georgia, F. 1127, 109 N. E. 857, Ann. Cas. 1917C,
& A. R. Co. v. Blish Mill. Co. 241 U. S. 862; Emerson v. Central of Georgia R.
190, 195, 60 L. ed. 948, 951, 36 Sup. Ct. Co. 196 Ala. 280, L.R.A.1916F, 120, 72
Rep. 541; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. So. 120; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mugg, 202
v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592, 61 L. ed. U. S. 242, 50 L. ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct.
917, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462; Southern P. Rep. 628; Louisiana R. & Nav. Co. v.
Co. v. Industrial Acci. Commission, 251 Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Jackson
U. S. 259, 64 L. ed. 258, 10 A.L.R. 1181, v. Piowaty & Sons, 205 Ill. App. 329.
40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130.

Complete failure to post tariffs will
The full tariff rates are the only rates not affect their validity nor excuse pay-
which the carrier may lawfully receive ment of charges accruing thereunder.
or the person liable properly pay. The The schedules become operative upon
public is charged with knowledge of the filing with the Interstate Commerce Com-.
lawful rates. Misstatement of the rates, mission.
whether intentional or accidental, will

Berwind-White Coal Min. Co, v. Chi-
not bind the carrier; they have the force cago & E. R. Co. 235 U. S. 371, 375, 59
of statute; they cannot be varied under L. ed. 275, 277, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191 ;
any pretext.

Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204
Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. U. S. 449, 451, 51 L. ed. 562, 563, 27

Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. ed. 1151, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358; Louisiana R. & Nav.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Louisville & N. R. Co. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882.

v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 59 L. ed. 853, The consignee, whatever may have

L.R.A.1915E, 665, P.U.R.1915C, 300, 35 been its actual opportunity to examine

Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Texas & P. R. Co. schedules, or its actual knowledge of

v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. ed. 1011, their contents, was conclusively pre-

26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 628; Dayton Coal & I. sumed to know the lawful rates.

Co. v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl,

239 U. S. 446, 60 L. ed. 375, 36 Sup. 227 U. S. 639, 653, 57 L. ed. 683, 688, 33

Ct. Rep. 137; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; Louisville & N. R. Co.

Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 55 L. ed. 297, 34 v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 59 L. ed. 853,

L.R.A.N.S.) 671, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; L.R.A.1915E, 665, P.U.R.1915C, 300, 35

Kansas Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Pittsburgh, C. Č. &

S. 639, 653, 57 L. ed. 683, 688, 33 Sup. St. L. R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63

Ct. Rep. 391; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. L. ed. 1151, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27.

v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. ed. 910, 15 It is immaterial that the tariffs were

Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Pennsylvania R. Co. difficult to understand.

v. International Coal Min. Co. 230 U. S. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.

184, 57 L. ed. 1446, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 893, S. 155, 56 L. ed. 1033, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep.

Ann. Cas. 1915A, 315.

648, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501.

A consignee of an interstate shipment Special agreements to pay less than

who accepts the property and pays the the tariff rates are absolutely forbidden,

charges thereon demanded by the car- and repeatedly have been held invalid.

rier at the time of delivery is liable for Dayton Coal & I. Co. v. Cincinnati, N.

any balance of charges subsequently 0. & T. P. R. Co. 239 U. S. 446, 60 L.

found to be due under the tariff. This ed. 375, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; Atchison,

liability is imposed on the consignee, al- T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S.

though not a party to the original con- 173, 58 L. ed. 301, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556;

tract of shipment, because the consignee Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S.

accepts the property transported, know- 155, 56 L. ed. 1033, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep.

ing that it is subject to a lien for the 648, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501.

charges arising from the transportation, The railroad company had a lien on
knowing or charged with knowledge of the shipment for the full lawful charges.
the lawful tariff rates thereon, and Regardless of any notice of agency, the
knowing or charged with knowledge that consignee could not discharge the lien,
the carrier may not properly ask or re- and was not entitled to require the de-
ceive less than the full tariff charges. livery of the goods to it without pay-

Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. ment of the entire charges.

Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. ed. 1151, 40 Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Union P. R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 582, 63 L. ed. 1151,

American Smelting & Ref. Co. 121 C. C. 1153, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27.

« ForrigeFortsett »