"To this the plaintiff in error replied: "The judgment brought here by writ of error for review is the judgment of the supreme court of the state of South Carolina, holding that a certain act of the general assembly of the state of South Carolina, entitled, "An Act [338]to Authorize the City Council of Charleston to Fill up Low Lots and Grounds in the Submitted December 2, 1898. Decided Janu City of Charleston in Certain Cases and for Other Purposes," approved on the 18th of

[239] *Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opin-acterize and embrace natural gas, and they ion of the court:

The defendant gas company, doing business at Buffalo, in the state of New York, imports natural gas from the Dominion of Canada, for the purpose of supplying its customers with that article. The gas is brought in pipes under the Niagara river, and is used for consumption as fuel and for illuminating

purposes.

In 1893 the gas imported by the company was assessed for duty by the collector of the port of Buffalo as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article at ten per cent, under section 4 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. 26 Stat. at L. 567, at page 613.

are in the free list, and are known as para-
graphs 496 and 651. *The language used in[341]
each, when taken in its popular and common-
ly received sense, or according to the sense
in which it is used commercially, would
cover and include the substance generally
spoken of and loosely described as natural
gas. The fact that it is not thus named in
the act compelled the collector to assess it
as a raw or unmanufactured article not enu-
merated, a description which does not fit
nearly so well as that which is contained in
each of the paragraphs mentioned above. We
think the evidence shows that natural gas
is included in the language of one or both
those paragraphs.

The rule is familiar that in the interpreta-
tion of laws relating to the revenues the
words are to be taken in their commonly re-
ceived and popular sense, or according to
their commercial designation, if that differs
from the ordinary understanding of the
word. Two Hundred Chests of Tea, Smith,
Claimant, 9 Wheat. 430 [6: 128].

The importers claimed that the gas was entitled to free entry under section 2 of the above act, providing for a free list, either under paragraph 496 (page 604), as crude bitumen, or under paragraph 651 (page 607), as a crude mineral, not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by any other process of manufacture, not specially [840]provided for in the act. The importers made proper protest, and obtained a review of the Mr. Justice Story, in that case, in deliv decision of the collector by the board of gen-ering the opinion of the court, said: "The eral appraisers. That board, on a second hearing, after testimony had been given as to the character of the gas, decided that natural gas was a crude mineral, and the board on that ground sustained the claim that it was exempt from duty under paragraph 651 of the tariff act of 1890.

object of the duty laws is to raise revenue, and for this purpose to class substances according to the general usage and known denominations of trade. Whether a particular article were designated by one name or another in the country of its origin, or whether it were a simple or mixed substance, was of The circuit court affirmed that decision, no importance in the view of the legislature. and upon a review by the circuit court of ap-It did not suppose our merchants to be natpeals for the second circuit (45 U. S. App. uralists, or geologists, or botanists. It ap345), the decision was again affirmed. The plied its attention to the description of arlatter court, by Circuit Judge Lacombe, said: |ticles as they derived their appellations in "We do not undertake in this case to decide our own markets, in our domestic as well as whether or not natural gas is a 'crude bitu- our foreign traffic." See also Lutz v. Mamen.' If it be such, the provisions of para- gone, 153 U. S. 105 [38: 651], and cases graph 496 would control its classification, there cited. being more specific than those of paragraph 651. Both paragraphs are in the free list, and since natural gas comes fairly within the general provision for crude minerals, and is therefore free, it is unnecessary now to inquire whether it is also within the more specific description 'crude bitumen,' which is also free. The board of general appraisers properly reversed the collector's assessment of the article for duty; it is not a 'raw or unmanufactured article not enumerated.'" Circuit Judge Wallace, while concurring in the affirmance of the decision of the circuit court, was of the opinion that the importation in controversy ought to be classified under paragraph 496 as crude bitumen, and exempt from duty on that ground.

The decision having been duly entered, this court upon the petition or the government is sued a writ of certiorari, and the case has been brought here for review.

We are, of opinion that the circuit court of appeals was right in its disposition of the case. The substance that is taken from the bosom of the earth and which burns brightly without any further labor put upon it, is popularly designated as natural gas. This name is not contained in the tariff act, but there are two paragraphs thereof which it is claimed do properly and sufficiently char

Prior to 1890 natural gas had not been imported, although its existence in this country and in foreign countries was well known. After the passage of the tariff act of 1890, this corporation commenced its importation from Canada as stated. It appeared in the evidence that an analysis of the gas thus imported had been made by competent chemists, and it was found to contain methane, or marsh gas, to the extent of 95.6 per cent, the balance being made up principally of hydrocarbons other than methane.

In the opinion of some of the witnesses the natural gas thus examined was a crude bitu-[342] men. It was stated "that bitumens are mixtures of hydrocarbons of various kinds, mixed with other materials in varying proportions; a crude bitumen as found in nature is mixed with other materials." It was also testified that this natural gas contains 97.2 per cent of natural hydrocarbon, and the balance of 2.8 per cent is composed of substances usually found with the hydrocarbons in crude bitumen; that the term "bitumen" does not refer to any substance of definite chemical composition, but is distinctively a generic term applied to a large number of natural substances which consist largely or chiefly of hydrocarbons. These substances may be gaseous, as natural gas or marsh gas; fluid,

1898.

as petroleum or naphtha; viscous, as the semifluid asphaltum; elastic, as elaeterite, found in Utah, and elsewhere; solid, as some forms of asphaltum, bituminous or anthracite coal; that the common compositions of crude bitumen are naturally classified as above stated. The deposits of bitumen occur in various portions of the earth's crust; they differ naturally in appearance, in consistency, in various physical and chemical properties; but they are everywhere found to consist essentially of hydrocarbons, and they are correctly designated as crude bitumens. That natural gas should be designated as a crude bitumen was the opinion of some of the witnesses.

HENRY W. SCOTT, Plff. in Err.,

v.

UNITED STATES.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 343–351.)

Testimony in criminal action—decoy letter.

1.

2.

Testimony of the persons named by the accused as his enemies, that they have no ill will against him, is not collateral to the main issue, or a contradiction of what the prosecution has brought out, where the accused on his direct examination said that enemies had placed in his pocket stolen money that was found there, and their names were brought out on cross-examination.

The fact that a letter stolen from the mails was a decoy addressed to a fictitious person is not a defense to an indictment under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5467, when the letter had been delivered into the jurisdiction of the postoffice department by dropping it into a letter box.

[No. 80.]

uary 3, 1899.

Evidence on the part of the government was given by witnesses who were connected with the Government Geological Survey, and their evidence would tend to show that the word "minerals" in the mineralogical sense of the word almost invariably refers to solids; that in the mineralogical definition gases would not be included, but that there was a wider definition, which, according to some authorities, includes all the constituents Submitted December 5, 1898. Decided Janof the earth's crust, and that would include gases. It was also stated that if a scientific man wants to be precise he confines his use of the term "mineral" to a certain homogeneous substance, a chemical entity, having a definite composition, just as the mineralogist does. But nevertheless minerals are both solids and liquid, according to most definitions, and that some authorities include gases among minerals and others exclude them.

IN

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District
of New York to review a judgment of that
court convicting Henry W. Scott of stealing
a letter and its contents from the mail, under
U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5467. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. T. C. Campbell for plaintiff in er-

ror.

Mr. James E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney

[343] *One witness for the government said if you General, for defendant in error.

exclude from the mineral kingdom the gases included in the atmosphere, you must set up some fourth class of substances; the division being, generally, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom, and the mineral kingdom; but no such fourth division is ordinarily designated, and the constituents of the atmosphere are not vegetable and they are not animal, and ordinarily they are included in the mineral kingdom.

*Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opin-[344] ion of the court:

Henry W. Scott, the plaintiff in error, was indicted under section 5467, Revised Statutes, for stealing a letter and its contents from the mail, and the indictment alleged that he unlawfully and wilfully secreted and embezzled a certain letter intended to be conWe think the evidence in this case shows veyed by mail and directed to Miss Mary that, within the language of paragraph 651 Campbell, Cottonwood, Yavapai county, of the act of Congress, interpreting that lan- Arizona, he being a letter carrier in the city guage in accordance with the rule above of New York and the letter having been intrusted to him and having come into his posmentioned, natural gas would fairly come under the head of a crude mineral, if there session in his capacity as such carrier. The were no more limited classification in the letter contained $3.50 in two silver certifiact; but that the classification as crude bi- cates of the United States, each of the detumen is more limited, and we are of opinion nomination of one dollar, and a United that, upon the evidence, natural gas is prop-States Treasury note of the denomination of one dollar, and a fifty-cent piece of the silver The evidence erly thus described. If it be within the more specific classification, it would be controlled coinage of the United States. thereby. It is not important in this case to showed that the letter was what is termed a conclusively decide which classification cov- decoy letter; that the money was placed As therein by one of the inspectors of the Postwas sealed, ers it, because both are on the free list. the gas is described in one or both of the office Department; that it paragraphs, it cannot come under section 4 stamped, and addressed as above mentioned, of the act, which provides for the levy, col- and deposited about 2:30 o'clock P. M. in lection, and payment on the importation of one of the street letter boxes in the city of all raw or unmanufactured articles, not New York, in the district from which the deenumerated or provided for in the act, a duty fendant collected such letters. Within a few moments after it was deposited in the letter of ten per centum ad valorem. box by the inspector, he saw the defendant come to the box, unlock *it, take out its con-[345] tents, put them in his bag and continue on

The judgment of the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
New York was right, and should be affirmed.

471

asked him: "Have you any enemies among the employees at that station?" and the defendant answered that he had one by the name of Augustus Weisner and another named John D. Silsbee, his former superintendent; that he was an enemy of his and so was Weisner, and that those two were all that he regarded as enemies in that office, both being employed in the same branch office as the defendant, and he said that for a month before he was arrested he was not on speaking terms with Weisner.

his route. The carrier returned to the
branch postoffice, station E, where he was
employed, a little after three o'clock, turned
the contents of his bag upon the proper table
for distribution, and hung the bag and also
his coat on a peg, and left the room and was
gone about half an hour. One of the clerks
of the department had been told before the
defendant's arrival with his letter bag to
look out for a letter addressed as above de-
scribed, and withdraw it from the mail, and
in obedience to such instructions and during
the defendant's absence he looked through
the letters thus taken from his bag, and the
letter was not to be found. Upon the de-
fendant's return to the distributing room,
he took his coat and bag and started on his
route for another collection of letters, and
while on the street he was met by the officers
of the government about five minutes after
four o'clock P. M., and was then arrested and
brought to the station. He was charged with
having the letter, and was asked to show
what he had in his pockets. The letter was
not found, but the defendant took from his
right-hand trousers pocket, among other
things, the three bills which had been placed
in the letter. The fifty-cent piece was found When the defendant rested the government
loose among other coins in another pocket. called as witnesses John D. Silsbee and Au-
The officers identified the bills by marksgustus Weisner, the two men named by the
which had been placed on them, and also by
reason of the numbers of the bills, a mem-
orandum of which had been taken. The coin
had been marked and was identified by the
officers.

In relation to the letter, it appears that it was prepared by the inspector of the department, who addressed the same to Miss Mary Campbell. The inspector wrote the body of the original letter. He did not know Mary Campbell, and never saw her; it was addressed to her at Cottonwood, Arizona, at which place there is a postoffice, but there was no one of the name of Miss Mary Campbell residing at Cottonwood, Arizona, to his knowledge. The address on the letter was to a fictitious person; the money placed in the letter was the money of Mr. Morris, one of the inspectors.

The court asked the defendant: "What is the trick that you mean to suggest to the jury that was played upon you?" and the defendant answered: "The only solution that I can give of it is that that two dollars had been abstracted from my pocket and these marked three dollars put in the place of it. Three dollars and a half placed there; fifty cents in with this change." The witness had just previously stated that he left two onedollar bills belonging to himself in his coat pocket at the time he hung his coat upon the peg in the sorting room and left it there to go down stairs, and from which room he was absent about twenty-five minutes.

defendant as his enemies, both of whom tes-
tified under the objection and exception of[347]
defendant's counsel, that they had no ill-will
whatever towards the defendant, and that
they had never had any quarrels with him,
and Weisner said, on the contrary, that he
had liked the man. The counsel for the de-
fendant objected to this testimony on the
ground that the evidence of defendant upon
this subject was collateral, brought out by
the government on his cross-examination,
and that the government was bound by his
answers.

After the evidence was all in the counsel
for the defendant requested the court to
charge, "that a letter intended to be con-
veyed by mail, under the statute, must be
addressed to an existing person, at an exist-
ing place, or to a real and genuine address."
The court refused so to charge, and the de-
fendant excepted.

Upon the trial the defendant was sworn in his own behalf, and upon his direct exam[346]ination testified that when he was arrested The defendant's counsel further requested and the money found upon him, he said to the court to charge, "that a letter with an the inspectors, "Somebody has done me a impossible address, which can never be dedirty trick;" to which one of the inspectors livered and which the sender, acting conreplied. "Do you think I am concerned in jointly with postoffice officials, deterthat?" The defendant says that he answered mined should be intercepted in the mail, is him, "I did not think or did not know not such a letter as was, in the meaning of whether he was; but if he was not, some the statute, 'intended to be conveyed by enemy of mine in that office was." He de- mail.'" This was also refused, and an exnied on the witness stand, that he ab-ception to such refusal taken by defendant's stracted, or took from the collection table, counsel. or at all, any letter such as is described in the indictment, or any money belonging to any other person in the world.

Upon cross-examination the district attorney endeavored to obtain a fuller statement from the defendant as to what he meant when he said on his direct examination that somebody had done him a dirty trick, and that some enemy of his in the office was concerned in it, and to that end the district attorney

The jury having convicted the defendant, he has brought the case here by writ of er

ror.

Regarding the objections taken by the defendant to the evidence of Silsbee and Weisner, above alluded to, we think they were properly overruled. The evidence objected to was not irrelevant, and the government was not bound by the answers of the defendant as to Silsbee and Weisner being his en