casebody">

BUTTFIELD v. BIDWELL.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

April 28, 1899.)

Customs Laws — Exclusion of Inferior Teas — Constitutional Law.

The present tariff law vests in the administrative officers oí the government the power to fix the standard of quality of teas that may he imported, which does not necessarily depend on their purity and wholesomeness, and to determine finally the question whether an importation meets the requirements of the standard so fixed; and such provisions are a constitutional exercise of legislative power.

This is a suit by William J. Buttfield against George R. Bidwell, collector of the port of New York, to restrain his action in respect to the importation of certain teas. Heard on motion for preliminary injunction.

James L. Bishop, for the motion.

Edward B. Whitney, Special Asst. U. S. Atty., and Arthur M. King, Asst. U. S. Atty., opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Having reached a conclusion in this cause, it seems best to announce it promptly, instead of withholding it in order to prepare an elaborate opinion, because from an order *127now made an appeal may be taken and perfected so as to be heard at the session of circuit court of appeals on May 24th (the last sessiou before vacation), when the circuit justice is expected to sit.

In brief, it may be said that this court is still of the opinion expressed in the earlier cause of Cruikshank v. Bidwell, 80 Fed. 7, that, by the insertion of the word “quality” in the statute, congress intended to cover more than mere purity and wholesomeness. So interpreted, the statute is in entire harmony with the drift of recent legislation, which, to a continually increasing extent, relegates to governmental determination and control matters which have always heretofore, in this country, at least, been left to the disposition of the individual citizen, or to the operation oí'natural laws. The questions as to the power of congress to pass such an act, and to provide that the standard of quality should be fixed each year under the supervision of the secretary of the treasury, were passed on in the Cruikshank Case. Motion denied.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress