UNITE)) 'STATES V. LONG.
has listlluch stamps have not been placed and cancelled. power to say the tax shall be paid in a particular way,-that is, by· stamps,-as it has to impose any tax, and all its requirements in that behalf must be complied with. Considerations of value and purpose, and payment of the tax, might be addressed to the prosecuting officers, but this provision of the statute is quite too plain and imperative for the court to limit its obvious meaning. The instructions of the court were correct, there must be judgment on the verdict·.
UNITED STATES 'V. LONG.
(Oarcuit Court, E. D. Gef»'gia. December, 1881.)
EMBEzZLEMENT BY POSTAL EMPJ,OYE-VERBAL OurSSIONSIN STATUTE.
Section 279 of the act approved June 8, 1872, itself a revision, has been transcribed verbatim into section 5467 of the Revised Statutes, until the latter and concluding part of the section is reached, when the words" every such person shall, on conviction thereof, for every such offence," have been omitted, and no penalty is prescribed for any offence under that section save for stealing the valuable contents of a letter. The section does not cover the offence of embezzling a letter with valuable contents.
Indictment for Letters by a Person in the Postal Servo ice. On motion to quash. E. Dunnell, Dist. Atty., fat the United States. J ..Lyons, for defence. PARDEE, C. J. In the revision of the laws to make up what are now known as the Revised Statutes, an error has been undoubtedly made in regard to the crime of embezzling letters by persons employed in the postal service. Section 5467, Rev. St. Section 279 of the act approved June 8, 1872,-which act was a revision,-has been transcribed verbatim until the latter and concluding part of the section is reached. The words "every such per" son shall, on conviction thereof, for every such offence," have been omitted; and as the section now reads no penalty is prescribed for any offence under that section, save for stealing the valuable tents of a letter by an employe in the postal service. By n:ogrammatical construction, nor by any reasonable intend. ment,oEm the section bamade to cover the offence of <embezding So l.etter withivaIuable contents, stich as is charged inetheindictmeJit
now under consideration. I have no doubt in the matter; but if the question were doubtful, I should feel constrained to give the doubt in favor of the prisoner. An entry will be made sustaining the motion to quash.
l::)IXTy.FIVE TERRA COTTA VASES,
(District Oourt, S. D. New York. February 20, 1882.)
DUTIES ON IMPORTS-FREE LIST-COLLECTIONS OF ANTIQUJTIE;\.
The item in the" free list" of section 250C, Rev. St., making free "cabinets of coins, medals, and alt-other collections of antiquities," embraces all "collections of antiquities," within the ordinary meaning of those words. It is not limited to "collections of antiquities" ejusdem generis with coins and medals. This item of the free list, dating back to the tariff of 1846, has ever since continued without change, and must be held to have the same meaning now that .it had then. 2. SAME-ExTENSION OF FREE LIST-ACT OF 1870 CONSTRUED. The addition to the free list, in the act of 1870, of the item" collections of antiquity, specially imported, and not 'for sale," (16 St. at Large, p. 265. § 22,) is by that act declared to be designed to extend the free list. It cannot, therefore, by implication, be suffered to change the meaning of the other item, which still remains in the free list, respecting" collections of antiqUities," nor make them dutiable now, when not dutiable before. 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUC'l'ION-PnOVISIONS NOT HEPUGNANT. Though this construction leaves this itcm of the act of 1870 superfluous, the practice and the policy of the government, for at least 24 years previous, admitting " collections of antiquities" free, should not be reversed except upon some new provision repugnant to the old; and this item in the act of 1870 is not repugnant. 4. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES. The articles in question being held to be exempt from duty, no legal injury from the claimant's acts resulted to the United States, and a verdict was directed for the claimant.
This was an information filed for a condemnation of a "collection of antiquities" seized by the customs officer for alleged fraudulent importation with the intent to evade payment of legal duties. was admitted upon the trial that the articles in question consti. tuted a "collection of antiquities." They were imported from FranCE in October, 1878, designed for sale. Being supposed to be free oj duties they were entered as free and warehoused. A question being raised as to their being dutiable, the case was referred to the treasury department, which, after considerable controversy, ruled that they