Mosle v. Bidwell

Citations

• 130 F. 334
• 65 C.C.A. 533
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4167

Syllabus

<p>1. Construction — Legislative Intent — Method of Ascertainment.</p> <p>Though, in construing a law, a court may not, in order to reach a conclusion as to legislative intent, inquire what individual members of Congress supposed a bill to mean, or what they intended to accomplish by their votes, it may consult the history of the act and the reports of committees having it in charge.</p> <p>2. Same — Statutes in Pari Materia — Subsequent Legislation.</p> <p>On appeal from a decision construing section 20, ¡Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890 (chapter 407, 26 Stat. 140 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950]), it appeared that Congress, in consequence of the apprehended results of said decision, had, in the act of December 15, 1902, e. 1, 32 Stat. 753 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 255], enacted an amendment, which, as reported to the House of Representatives by the committee having the bill in charge, was intended to “confine the language of the section [20] to the primary meaning and intent of the law.” Held, that the latter statute should in this case be taken as declaratory of the meaning of the earlier one, and that said section should be construed to have had the effect given by the amendment.</p> <p>3. Customs Duties — Merchandise Withdrawn feom Warehouse — Rate of Duty Applicable.</p> <p>The provision in section 20, Customs Administrative Act June TO, 1890, (chapter 407, 23 Stat. 140 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950]), that merchandise in bonded warehouses may be withdrawn for consumption “on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law at the time of said withdrawal,” means such payment as the merchandise would be subject to if imported at the time of withdrawal.</p> <p>T1. See Statutes, vol. 44, Cent. Dig. §§ 292, 293, 299.</p>