United States v. Morrison
Citations
- 179 U.S. 456
- 21 S. Ct. 195
- 45 L. Ed. 275
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1886
Syllabus
<p>These cases are concerned with the classification of certain articles imported by the respondents under the tariff act of 1890. Those imported by E. A. Morrison & Son were variously colored in imitation of “ cat’s eyes ” or “ tiger’s eyes,” and were strung. Others were colored in resemblance to the garnet, aqua marine, moonstone and topaz. Those imported by Wolff & Go. were in imitation of pearls, it is claimed, and were also strung. The contention is as to how they shall be classified or made dutiable — whether under paragraph 108 or under paragraph 454 of the act of 1890.</p> <p>Held, that if the act of 1890 did not as specifically provide for beads as prior acts, glass beads as such were in the legislative mind and their várious conditions contemplated. It was impossible to have in contemplation glass beads, loose, unthreaded and unstrung (445), and not have the exact opposite in contemplation — beads not loose, beads threaded and strung, and made provision for them. What provision ? Were they to be dutiable at the same or at a higher rate than beads unthreaded or unstrung ? If at the same rate — if all beads were to be dutiable at the same rate, why have qualified any of them ? Were some to be dutiable at one rate and some at another rate ? If made of plain glass, were they to be dutiable at sixty per centum under paragraph 108; if tinted or made to the color of some precious stone, were they to be dutiable at ten per centum under paragraph 454 ? No reason is assigned for such discrimination, and we are not disposed to infer it. It is a more reasonable inference that beads threaded of all kinds were intended to be dutiable at a higher rate than beads unthreaded, and if there can be a choice of provisions that intention must determine. Indeed, admitting- that either provision (paragraph 108 or paragraph 454) equally applied, the statute prescribed the rule to be that “ if two or more rates of duty shall be applicable to any imported article, it shall pay duty
Judges: McKenna, Peckham
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Brennan v. United StatesFirst Circuit· 1905-04-12· cited 17×
- United States v. May Department Stores Co.Customs and Patent Appeals· 1927-04-16· cited 11×
- Lorsch & Co. v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1914-01-22· cited 5×
- United States v. Andrews Co.Customs and Patent Appeals· 1928-01-30· cited 5×
- Target Sportswear, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of International Trade· 1995-07-25· cited 2×
- United States v. BattiloroCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1919-04-18· cited 2×
- United States v. WeinbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1905-06-01· cited 1×
- United States v. Jules Raunheim Inc.Customs and Patent Appeals· 1930-02-06
- Brier Mfg. Co. v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1938-10-31
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.