QDlllRA.l'.i REPQRTER,
vol. 41.
DE.1ONGE
f1.
MAGO;NE, Collector.
(C1reuA.t Cowrt, 8. D. New York. February 17, 1890.) CUSTOMS DUTJIls-CLA.SSIFIOATJON-FANO'i' PAPIlRS.
Certain fa.ney p'apers know·n as "velvet pBper"and "embossed paper, "used tn the .. ID.aill11'ircture of· boxes, to covel'trunks, and for similar usell, held to be dutiable, nndar Schedule:M: of thetarlff BOt of March 8,1883, (Tariff Index,892,)aa "!Ill other papilr not spetlially enumerated or provided for, " at twenty-five per centum ad 1,lalorein, !lnd not dutiable as II manufBOturea of paper, " at 15 per centum, under the (!d. 888;)
The plaintiffs in May, 1888, imported certain merchandise into the p.ort ofNew York, consistingof:fancy papers, known as "velvet paper" and "embossed paper," uponw,hich,the defendant, collector of the port, assessed a duty of 25 per centum ad valorem, .under Schedule M of the tariff act of 1883, (Tariff Index, 392,) which reads as follows: and papf;lrfor,spreens or fire-boards, paper antiquarian, demy, imperial, letter, note, and all other paper not,specially,enliniera,te4or. pro.yided for. inthls act, twenty-five per centum
ad valorem.'"
.' . . "
The' claiming that s,uch merchandise, was dutiable ollly cent. ad under the same schedule of the same act, (Id.3.8S;)which:provides, for "paper, manufactures of, or of which paper is a p0J:l;l,PQnent material,uotspecially enumerated or provided for in ·this.act" Jifteen.per.cent. ad ,valorem." 'fhis suit was brought to recover the a'leged excessive duty. The merchandise in suit had gone through several Pl'9ceSses of manufacture beyond those known in the art of or(.Hnary paPtlr-xnaking, and upon machipes not used in ordinary paperThe,embossep paper is an imitation of morocco or leather, and Jts use is for coyering trunks, boxes, etc. The velvet paper is manufactured' from <;>rdinary white printing paper, by putting on sizing, and throwing thereon wool.or nock, which adheres thereto, .and which gives ,it an similar to ,velvet. This ,latter paper is sometimes used qpoll walls, and sometimes in the manufacture of paper boxes, albums, 'etc. "tIl trade and commerQe these. articles are known as belonging to ;theclass ,of I' fancy papers,".arid are placed under that' designation in tra4e cfl,talogues.. , :" . . ,(Jom,stock ,&BroWn, for plaintiff. " Jf,d,wo,rd )1itchelJ" U. S. Atty., and Hen:ry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty·· t.
J., (oraJ1y question which will come to Joq.. an .eJ(tremely brief one. These. articles, before the plaintiff, or ,person from whom he obtained them,bestowed his labor and care :'Upop were respectively either manilla paper, or machine finished book paper;-a variety of the kind of paperwhich is known as "printing paper." To that manilla or printing paper there has been applied a considerable amount of labor and material, and considerable expense bas been incurred for work done upon it. The plaintiff claims that this
DEJONGE ". MAGON"
labor has been continued to such an extent as to entitle us to regard the result as a "manufacture of paper." The supreme court has laid down the convenient rule that, in order to constitute an article a manufacture of another, the labor bestowed upon it must be carried to such an extent as to transform it into an article which has a different character, name, or use from the article that it was in the first place. Hatiranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240. From the evidence here, there is in my mind little doubt-and I so charge you-that the article, which has been produced by the application of this labor, is of such a different character or use that it may fairly be considered as a manufacture of the manilla paper or of the printing paper which was the stock out of which it was made; and so, too, if it were a question as to wallpaper, what we have heard with regard to the labor bestowed upon that is sufficient to show that in use and character it is so changed that it also 'should fairly be regarded as a manufacture of paper. This particular article imported here would therefore be dutiable, as the plaintiff claims, underthe 388th paragraph of the tariff act, as a manufacture of paper, unless it is elsewhere covered by some other expression in that act. You a.re, of course, aware that in preparing these tariff acts congress frequently legislates with regard to varying or similar rates of duty upon different varieties of the same general class of articlesj and then,at the close of the provisions for those special varieties, quite frequently uses of 'comprehensive words to cover those various subclasses and the article which have not been specifically provided for. So, here, in the schedule beginning with "Books, papers," etc., congress has enumerated "paper suitable for printing paper, sized or glued;" and also, "printing paper, unsizedj" and it has also provided for "sheathing paper." It -has then provided, in paragraph 391, for "paper hangings, and paper for screens or fire-boards; paper, antiqnarian, deiny, drawing, elephant, foolscap, imperial, letter, note, and all other paper not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, "-a certain rate of duty. The defendant claims that this particular article imported here is included within the terminology of that paragraph, because it provides in general terms for "all other paper not specially enumerated" in the tariff act; and that is the question, upon the evidence, which you are to determine. Was this article, in the trade and commerce of this country, when congress legislated in 1883, a variety of paper? In other words, if the committee of congress that framed this act and reported it to congress had turned to the trade and commerce of this country in 1883, and had asked that trade for a comprehensive list of all kinds of paper known to them, and dealt in commercially as such, would paper like this have been included in such list? If the commerce of the country had furnished to the committee of congress; in answer to such a request, a list of all the kinds of papers known to that trade, would such list have enumerated articles like these? . If so, then they are covered by the phrase, "all other 'paper," in' paragraph 392j the collector was right, and the defendant is entitled to a verdict. If, on the other hand, an article such as this then the plaintiff, would not have been included in that list at that v.41F.no.7-28
proof .entitled Itb<1oUi' verdict. '' " ," "'I::i j;: :.' r
'.'. I! ;)
aremanwacturelsof paper; is .' " "'. '
·The jurY' retnrned a verdict for the defendant. :'
, SHIVE
"
et al.
'D.
STAiNDARDWATCH. CO.l ,
(Cir'cUU Oourt, E. D; · ' · j',
February <. '." \ _(-.. _ , : ', ;' ., "
r. r
"p!
:.
'1:
'COJIIMUllgohn arm pivoted:tQ t-b4ilbridgeill wUhan i/ldex pivQted to OBP!'ble of an and a screw to the;regtilBtor more exactly after'Brough setting by hand; where 'the screw and " 'lIp.tlnllw$'e placed 01) index, is.ijlfrillged by a device , that t Q IIQrtj'T,! d spring w\lre, plp,ce9- on thIl, bridge ', , the arm; " , ,,' " , , , " 2. SAMB4S8tlBOJi':LBTTBl'IIi,:",SPBOuJOATIONs'-SunWIENCY. ,':, " " , method of of 'regulator to ,the not- shown or . deilcHbed; but where t-herim mU'st :necessl\rily be cut so lUI to 'be "snapp'ed" over 'the't:ftbjection, of the bridge, and where lJU'ch attachments are commonlyI If not uDi. W'lIl11d be to,an ordinar7 w;"a,an" CleD :'" " ,"J set
1.'
,
,all,
',;.
'On 'Bill" Answer,and' " , Bill! in equity by David ,Shive' alid !Benjamin F. DuBois agairistthe Keystone l;'tandard Watch Gompanyfor infringement <?fpatent. , Fmeat Ballou, for , , ; John, McIJiYnilld; for respondent{'! i', . ;:;. .' ":, "; ,
,1
j
, infri6giri« patent' fo'r"imptovementiri "Watch1:regtrlatoi'S," No.
dated Au-
gust
810ne is deiiie<:l. 'Iris only necessary;' therefore, to as:. certain 'Wn9£the patent cbvers,'and what the respoilderit has done. The specifications say:" ,,"" . "', ' , : Ii ·
is
, The charge
,"" My i n consists: ot'the .:egulator, connll'Cited to pivotal arm. aiid capableJof motion ',iildepenilent' of said arm, wMrebyprovision is made 1ol'delieate or fine adjustment or'feglllatiQn of awatcb,.Referring to the the' bridge of a watch, which:is generally of the and con,st,l'llotion, ,a114 , B represents the: ,\,egulatingarJ;Il, if;! t(l said formed with a pi which is c,onnected tM index, C; it being notlce9- that the said index ,'Ilas. a, motion in7 dependent of'the' arm, B.Frorl1 tlie' end of the D, ,the index' isflttell;and passing through orieof'thelugs is a setScrew. point of which is' adapted to press agatnsttbeindex:.' :F reprasehtisaspring.,Which is secured to the arm. B, and .bears againsMhe index on screw, sp that, while the index may, \>e in one direction by ,tlllli ,screw, its retlfrr;t ,()r opposite motion may be effected by, the spring when the,'screw'is released." ' , , .. :! I :,: .- '; :;:., '.' ').l' \ -. - , ! - -, -:'
a
" 1
d.'jjerkeley'
itf'the Phhadelphia bar. "