rics have been- tom 'in pieces by a deviling machine, as I understand ehoddy to be m'aae, I apprehend that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a microscopist to distinguish between the wool and worsted of which it was composed. In fact, the product of the process upon old woolens and worsteds would seem to be a separate manufacture of wool, IlS much, perhaps, as worsted, as shoddy is subject to a specific duty of 10 cents per pound when imported. (See paragraph 361, New Tariff' lridex.) I am therefore of opinion that these goods, being composed principally of worsted,-the worsted giving character to the fabric,-wereentitled to be classed as a manufacture ofworsted, although there was a portion of shoddy, which may have all been made from wool ,mixed with the worsted fiber for the purpose of giving weight and body to the fabric. Good merchantable or commercial wool, if mixed or combined with worsted, would undoubtedly increase the cost; that is, make a more expensive manufacture than the same weight of shoddy, and hence shoddy is used solely as an adulterant to save so much weight ofworsted. . Proof was introduced on the part of the plaintiffs showing that, these goods arecommercil;l.lly known to the trade as "worsteds," but I think the test as to their classification for the purpose of assessing duties is whether they are made wholly or in part of what is commercially known as wool or worsted, or whether they are made ofa mixture of worsted and the article known as "shoddy." If they composed of worsted and wool mixed, although the worsted might be the component of chiefvalue, I should be inclined to think them dutiable as woolens. But these goods are composed of worsted and the worsted-being the component of chief value,and shoddy, although it may be a product of wool, is not wool within the meaning of paragraph 362 above quoted. Hence I think them dutiable as worsted goods not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for under paragraph 363. The issue is found for the plaintiffs.
CROSS v. SEEBERGER, Collector, etc.
(Olrc'Uit Uo'Urt, N. D. Illinois. March 14, 1887.)CusTOMIl DuTIES-FROZEN FISH-IMMEDIATE UIlE.
Fresh fish. that is, unsalted or uncured fish. imported in bulk, or otherwise than in barrels or half barrels. in a frozen condition. to be put upon the market and sold for immediate use, are to be admitted free of duty, upon the importer furn,ishing to the collector of the port of entry reasonable or proper proof or assuraIl,ces of an honest intention to put them on the market for lID' mediate use. Clause 699. New Tariff Index.
At Law. Action to recover duties paid under protest. P. L. Bhuman,for plaintiff. W. G. Ewing, U. S. Atty., for defendant.
Plaintiff imported from Winnipeg, Canada, into the a quantity offrozen fish, which were assessed by the colport of lector, with duty of 60 cents per hundred pounds under clause 280 of the New Tariff Index. Plaintiff claimed that they should have been admitted free of duty, under clause 699 of the New Tariff Index, as "fresh fish for immediate consumption.". The duties so as!!essed were paid under protest, an appeal taken to the, secretary of the treasury,who affirmed the action of t11e yollector, and this suit brought in apt time to recover the dutiesso exacted. The proof shows that the fish in question were naturally fr()zenj that is, they were caught in th'e winter from holes cut through the ice and frozen as fast. as caught, and in this frozen condition brotlght in bulk to this market., .' Cla?se 280, under which this duty was reads as follows: "foreIgn-caught fish, imported otherwise than in barrels or half barrels, not specially ennmer, whether fresh, smoked, dried, salted,. or ated or provided for in act, fifty: cenw per hu.ndred, pounds." While seetion 2503 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1883, that" t1\e followingarti,cles, when imported, shall be exempt from among. the articles specifically enumerated in this seetion are fodn;l,mediate use,. free.", . The two paragraphs in conflict each other, as paragraph 280 by its teI;Ills includes.freShflsh when imported otherwise than in barrels, or halfbarrelsj but one oqhe most universally accepted canven, when ons for the, construction of. statutes is that effect must be W words of a statute. U. S. v. Warner, possible, to eyery part and all 4, McLean, 463; U. S. v. Bassett, 2 Story, 389. Also that "every part of astatut;e must be considered lor the purpose ofdiijcovering the mind of the Pennington V" Ooxe, 2 Cl'anch, 33. , Appl)'ing this rule to the tarig 141 revised by the act ofMarch 3, 1883, we must, if possible, give effect to tha,t portion, of section 2503 which provides that fresh fish for immediate ,use shall be admitted free of duty, although it would seem on first reading to be repugnant to paragraph 280, which imposes a duty of 50 cents per hundred pounds on such importation when made in bulk; and it seems to me the test as to whether fresh fish are to be admitted duty free depends upon the fact whether they are imported for immediate u.se. Tpis is a question of fact which the importer is bound to establish by proof to the satisfaction of the collector iS,good ground for doubt as to the use to of the port of entry. .If which the importation is to be applied, the collector may perhaps require a bond that they shall be sold only for immediate consumption while fresh; but certainly thete should be no difficulty in making the proof as t9 the use or purpose for which an importation is to be applied. The words "fresh fish," as used in paragraph 699, undoubtedly mean fish which have not been salted, or subjected to l\.ny of' the known processes for curing them, such as pickling, smoking, or drying; but these have been frozen either naturallv. or words do not e:l\:clude, fish.. artificially, as an persons living in the cold latitudes know as a oJ common knowledge that meats and fish are kept fresh by freezing,
and so long as they are kept frozen they retain substantially their natural juices and flavors, without the aid of antiseptics or desiccation, and are in condition for imm.ediate \1se. I am therefore of opinion that fresh fish, that is, unsalted or uncured fish, imported in bulk, or otherwise than in barrels or half barrels, in a frozen condition, to be put upon thf. market and sold for immediate use, are entitled to admission to the ports of this country free of duty; and that the' importer is only obliged to furnish the collector at the port of importation with proper or .reasonable proof or assurances of his purpose in ,good faith to put them upon the market for immediate use, to be them ao, passE;d. . .entitled to The is.8u,,e ,is_.found foi the plaintiff.
. UNION, NAT.
BA.NK OF CHICAGO
SEEBERGER, Collector" etc. ,
(Oilrcuit Oowrt, N. D. Illinoia. :March 14, 1887.)
Starch made from potatoes, and pulverized or ground so as to take the,form of a, ti,ne fionr or invoiced as "sifted farina," is not wi$in. the meiming of the term "farina" as used in paragraph 694 of the Index to the New Tariff, and consequently free of duty, but is to be classified as "potato starch, " and subject to a duty of two cents per pound, under paragraph 269 Qf the act of March 8, 1888. ,'
.A;t Law. Action to reCover excess of duties paid under protest. , P. 1;." Shuman, for plaintiff. , W. G. Ewing, U. S. Dist. Atty., for
BLODGETT, J. Plaintiff,imported a quantity of starch made froUl. potatoes, and pulverized or ground 80 as to be in the form of a fine flour or powder,. which was' invoiced by the name of" sifted farina.» The' collector' it as "potato atarch" under paragraph 269 of theta-riff act of March 3, 1883, as iIidexed by the treasury department) and assessed a duty upon it of two cents per pound. Plaintiff claimed' that it shoul,d be admitted: free of duty as "farina," under paragraph 694 of the New Tariff as indexed, or charged only with a duty of 20 per cent. ad valbrem under section 2513 as amended by the act ofMarch 3, 1883, as a manufactured article not enumerated or provided for., The dutiesexacte'd were, paid under protest, an appeal taken to the secretary ofthetreasury I where the action of the collector was affirmed; and this suit is broug?t, to recover the whole of the duties so paid, if the court shall hold, that the goods should have been admitted free, or the excess above 20 per cent. ad valO'f'ent,' if the court shall hold that they were properly chargeable under section, 2513. , His. but justice to in this case to say that its interest in the matter is merely nominal, the real party to the controversy being