self,'CI meaidhe act of 1883,) which, in section expressly provided that, "if two or more l!ates oXdutyshoulQ be applicable to any impottedartiple, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates." . In:view of the rule of interpretation imposed u,pon the court, I fool constrained to hold thattbese articles, being covered by the descriptiOn in both paragraphs, (384 and 336,} should pay the higher rateofdpty,viz.,40 per centum. ",verdict directed for defendant.
al.e. ,MAGONE, Collector.
S.,D,}::1ew York.. December·4,1889.)
Rattan, from which' the ouooi' Mtk' or enamel ("chair -Cane") bas been out by II ftrst process t'romithe materllU, ,leaving a prO<'luct know\lin tra<le and commerce in the United Stl,\oosat.the time of the passage of the tarilr act of S, 1888, U "round reeds," are duty free; under that act.' .. Free-List," (Tariff Index, new, 770,) ..Rattans aud reeds, unmQnUfaQtured. " . .. S.UIE. , . "'. ,.'. " . ' .. ,' The artioles bOWD in trade ll-n([ oouiineroe at the samedateaa"square reeds," "oval re¢s, "and l'fiat reeds, obiained by a further process ot ;cutting froJIl, the '"ar" duty under the provision of act, (la. 482,) So edule Nj "Suil riElS, , j .. Rattans and reeds, manufaotured. but not made up into compleooa articles, teil per. centum ad va£orem. " ,;
L CVBTOMB DtlT1lII....CW-IlSIPlc;lATION-R.T'J'AN REEDS. .
At Law. , Action,to 'recover:back customs·duties. The articles involved in the suit were imported by the plaintiffs from Germany into the port of New York in 1887 and 1888, and were as$essed for duty oy.the'collector at ;10 per centum ad valorem, under act of March 3, 1883, Schedule N, "Sundries," (Tariff Index, new, 482,) as Urattans and reeds, manufactpred, .but not made up into com:pleted plaintiffs protested, claiming that the goods were -duty free under the same act, ".Free List," (Id. 770,) and brought this 1!-ction to· recover the amount .Rattan: ')Vl!#' shown to :be the stem of a.plant grown in the East ]:Jldi!;ls,9f solidt.tough, fiber, and of various lengths. It was trialtbat the raw rattan waS submitted toa meoba-nicEU! proqess by \,Vhich the outer bark or enamel was cut off in strips. This, bark orjenamel, thus proeduced, was called in the'trade"chairca.ne." The inner core or pith of the rattan,which remained in ..acylindrical form of cutting, was iJ!!uerally known in the trade, at and for .some time prior to the 'passage of ,the act of 1883, as "round reed," It was the crudest :furmin which such "reeds'? w('re known to the trade.dealingin them. 'Defundant'switneases: proved that the.articla known. as, reed" ·might be 'obtained by a first procesS of from. thera,w rattan, or ,might be made ,by squaring the "rc:mnd reedl by a process of -cutting with knives operated by, macbhlery;,tha,t the"ova1, reed" was .always prodnced '. from a. process of manu· . facture or (luttingl' and that the. "tlat reed" thepr09uct
or a second :pr.ocess of cutting, either from the "square, reed " or from the reed." The samples offered in evidence, and: the testimony, proved th11t the p1aintiff8' importations 'were such l'round," "square," "oval," and "flat reeds." All these varieties· of I' reeds" were used in certain manufact1,lres in' the United States without any further process being applied to them than cutting into proper lengths. In other man-, ufactures the" reeds" were bleached and trimmed before being made into completed articles. Defendant's counsel m<lved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant on the That the articles in question were "rattans manufactured," and not "reeds," according to the meaning of that word in the English language, viz., natural aquatic grasses, with hollow, jointed stems. Second. That if they were known in the trade as "reeds," still the evidence showed· that they were manufactured, and not a naturalproduot or raw material, and in either case 'were dutiable at 10 per ceiltumad andcited.Stockwell'V' U. S., 3 Cliff. 284; King.v. Smuh, 4 Chi. Leg.N. 281; U. S. v.FdurCasesoj(Jutlery, 1 Hunt,Mer. Mag. 167; AUen,'7 How. 793. Plaintiffs' counsel moved the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs: relying chiefly upon Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240, and cases therein cited. Hartley & Cbleman, for plaintiffs. Edward MUcheU, U. S. Atty., and James 'P. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for'defendant.
LACOMBE, J., (oraUy.) The two provisions ofthe tariff with which we are concerned in this case are paragraphs 482 and 770. The first of these is as follows:" Rattans and reeds, manufactured, but not madeupinto completed articles, ten per centum,ad valorem." The second provides that "rattans and reeds, unmanufactured," shall be exempt from duty. What the rattan is, we know by the testimony of the witnesses, and by the Exhibit S, "Rattans," introduced in this case. In its natural condition, it comes here free. When manufactured, it pays a duty of 10 per centum. It appears that when this rattan is taken and cut with certain knives, used, apparently, by means of a machine, the hard outer rind or enamel is cut through and stripped off. In the condition to which the rattan is thus reduced, both what is stripped off the outside and what is left after the stripping is completed would be "rattans, manufactured."· If the statute provided, therefore, only for "rattans, unmanufactured," free,and "rattans, manufactured," 10 per cent. duty, the importations here would pay a duty. It appears, however, that the core or central parlof the rattan, which is left after the stripping, is known in trade and ,commerce, and was for many years prior to the passage of the act of 1883 well known in trade and commerce, as a "reed." Upon that point there is no dispute on the testimony. It appears, then, that when the rattan' has gone through this first transformation there is left theexternal'rind, cut into narrow strips, and the inner core, which is cominerdallya "reed," arid which, therefore, must be taken to be a reed,
within the meaning of the tariff act. With it as a reed, then, we are concerned. If it is 8 reed, unmanufactured, it comes in free; if a reed, manufactured, it should pay 10 per cent. duty. Now, the central core, or round reed, (8 sample of which has been marked "S-Round,") is in the same condition in which nature produced it, except that the outer covering or enamel, which made it a rattan, has been stripped off. Nothing other or different has been done to it than that. In other words, it is one of the products of the first process of manufacture to which the rattan is 'slibjected; and when that first process is completed, and this product, the reed, is produced,it is a reed, pure and simple, and in the first condition in which a reed, as such, is known to the tariff. I cannot see, therefore, that the round reeds can fairly be held to be "reeds, manufactured," With regard to the oval reeds, it appears, moreover, that they are produced from the round reeds by a second step in the. process, in which new machinery is introduced, and by which these oval slabs or strips are cut off. In like manner the flat reed is produced, by a second step or process, (and perhaps, in certain instances, even by a third step or process,) from the round reed j' in some instances being cut directly from the round reed, and in others the round reed being first reduced to a square reed, and the flat strips then cut off from the square reed. Those two varieties of reeds seem, therefore, to be "reeds, manufactured." The plaintiffs contend that the decision of the supreme court in the Hartrarift Ca8e, 121 U. S. 609, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240, should control this court in the case at bar, and that it requires that all the varieties of reed which are introduced here should be classed as unmanufactured. No doubt the Hartranft Case does lay down the rule that, to constitute a "manufacture," there must be a transformation; that mere labor bestowed upon an article; even if that labor is applied through machinery, will not make ita manufacture, unless it has progressed so far that a transformation ensues, and the article becomes commercially known as another and different article from that as which it began its existence. However valuable the Hartranft Case may be as a rule of general application, it does not apply to. the case at bar, for the reason that .congress has provided, in paragraph 482, that "rattans manufactured, but not made up into completed articles," shall pay 10 per centum ad valorem. Congress, therefore, contemplated that when thistranslormation was made, when the manufacture had progressed so far that what the supreme court contemplated in the Hartranft Case had really happened, that then the article should disappear from this paragraph entirely, and be; found elsewhere in some other paragraph. It seems plainly to have contemplated that paragraph 482 should cover rattans and reeds in the various steps of the progressive processes of improvement to which they might be put subsequent to their appearance as a raw material. There remains,;then, for consideration only the square reed. The testimony is to the effect that it can be produced in either of two ways,-one, by cutting it out of the original rattan; and the other, by cutting it from the round reed, which has been itself produced from the original rattan.
The first method is a single process; the second, a double process. If produced under the first method, it might be fairly classed with the round reeds, as being an unmanufactured article; if by the second process, it should more properly be classed with the flat and oval reeds, as being the prod uct of a double process, and therefore a" reed, manufactured." There is no testimony showing how these particular imported reeds were manufactured; but all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the collector's action; and the burden of satisfying the court and jury as to how they are produced undoubtedly rested upon the plaintiffs. In the absence of any affirmative evidence,therefore, I feel constrained to hold that they are produced in the way in which it must be assumed the col- . lector held" they were, to-wit, by a double process. Verdict directed in favor of the plaintiffs for the round reeds only.
BLYDENBURGH .". MAGONE,
(Circuit Court, S. D. Nt;W York. December 5, 11l89.)
CuSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFJOATION-eHlNESB RUSH.
".straw unmanufactured. "
this cOuntry, and therefore free of duty, under the tariff act of March 3,1888, as
Unmapufactured rush, imported from China, cured, but not split or dyed, held to be "straw, " within the common acceptation and definition of that word as used in
At LaW. Action to recover back customs duties. On motion for directionof verdict. This was an action to .recover moneys exacted as duties upon certain unmanufactured rush imported by the plaintiff, Jesse L. Blydenburgh, from Qhina,in the year 1887. The merchandise in suit consisted of small rushes cut from a tall grass or plant which grows in the neighborhood of Canton, on soil along thtl river. There is a regular delta there, and all through that region there are miles of 1jerritory where this grass grow'S wild. It is cut by the natives. In its original state it is a three-cornered grass. The sample of the merchandise in suit representing the impo.rtation showed that it had been cut and cured, but nut split or dyed. When cured, split, and dyed, it is used in China for the manufacture of matting, but it is not so used without being cured and split. It does not bear any grain. It is not f\dible. The defendant, collector of the port of New York, exacted a duty of 10 per cent. on the entry of this merchandise under section 2513, Rev. St. U. S., as a "raw or unmanufactured article not therein enumerated or provided for." The pla!otiff duly protested and appealed against said exaction of duty thereon, claiming the merchandise to be free of duty, under section of March 3,1883,) under paragraph 796, (Tariff Inrlex t 2503, ld., oew,) as "straw unmanufactured," or, under the same section, par. 636 p