United States Reports (Volume 102); Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1154417778
ISBN13: 9781154417777
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 300
Weight: 1.19
Height: 0.63 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781154417777
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 300
Weight: 1.19
Height: 0.63 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1881. Excerpt: ... change the duty upon goods of which silk was the component material of chief value. The attempt is now made to strain the statute of 1864, relating to silk goods, to cover manufactures composed of mixed materials, into which silk may so enter as to form the more costly part. After enumerating some thirty silk manufactures, the section ends in the words we have first quoted. The class of goods known in trade and commerce as goods made of mixed materials, which are specifically named in the other statutes, and upon which the duty was in 1861, thirty per cent, and in 1862 thirty-five per cent, is nowhere alluded to in this statute of 1864. Sect. 22 expressly provides that the duties upon all goods, wares, and merchandise imported from foreign countries not provided for in this act shall be and remain as they were, according to existing laws prior to the 29th of April 1864 (13 id. 216), and that all acts and parts of acts repugnant to the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Thus we find running through the statutes these two classes of manufactures: those into which silk must enter; and the mixed manufactures, into which silk might or might not enter. It is an admitted fact that the goods in question are generally known in trade and commerce as goods made of mixed materials; but inasmuch as silk was a component material of chief value, it is argued by the learned Assistant AttorneyGeneral that these mixed goods must pay a duty of fifty per cent, under the act of 1864, which relates to a totally different kind of goods. Surely no such construction can fairly be given to the acts, and such ruling would be quite out of harmony with numerous decisions of this court. Arthur v. Zimmerman, 96 U. S. 124; Arthur v. Unkhart, id. 118; Arthur v. Lahey, id. 1...
