Sivut kuvina

ACT OF MARCH 2, 1895.

An Act to amend forty-nine hundred and sixty-five (chapter

three) title sixty, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to Copyrights,

The act amends Section 4965 of the Revised Statutes, supra, which see, as amended.

ACT OF MARCH 2, 1895.


[ocr errors]

An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture

for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six.

Inspection of Cattle and Meats for Exportation. SEC. I.

Provided That Section two of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the inspection of live cattle, hogs, and the carcasses and products thereof which are the subject of interstate commerce, and for other purposes," approved March third, eighteen hundred and

, ninety-one, be amended to read as follows:

SEC 2. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall also cause to be made a careful inspection of all live cattle, the meat of which, fresh, salted, canned, corned, packed, cured, or otherwise prepared, is intended for exportation to any foreign country, at such times and places, and in such manner as he may think proper, with a view to ascertain whether said cattle are free from disease, and their meat sound and wholesome, and may appoint inspectors who shall be authorized to give an official certificate clearly stating the condition in which such cattle and meat are found, and no clearance shall be given to any vessel having on board any fresh, salted, canned, corned, or packed beef being the meat of cattle killed after the passage of this Act for exportation to and sale in a foreign country from any port in the United States until the owner or shipper shall obtain from an inspector appointed under the provisions of this Act a certificate that said cattle were free from disease and that their meat is sound and wholesome. (Sce Section 1, Act August 30, 1890, and Act March 3, 1891, supra)

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small]


CLASSIFICATION UNDER SEC. 3, ACT AUGUST 28, 1894. Rule 1.–Text of Section 3......

311 2.-What constitutes a manufacture....

312 3.–Examples of manufactured and unmanufactured.... 314

CLASSIFICATION UNDER SEC. 4, ACT AUGUST 28, 1894. 4.- Text of Section 4...

315 5-Classification by similitude.....

315 6.-Classification by “component material of chief value"......

316 7.—Priority of provisions of Section 4..



GENERAL RULES FOR CLASSIFICATION. 8.-Interpretation of revenue statutes.

319 9.—Department decisions.....

321 10.-Board of General Appraisers' decisions.

321 11.-Acts in pari materia...

321 12.-Rule of noscitur a sociis....

321 13.-Conflicting provisions in statutes...

321 14.—The Collector to classify the merchandise

321 15.-Classification determined as of date of the Act.. 322 16.–Classification by commercial designation...

322 17.–Classification by predominant use......

324 18.-Classification of entireties-segregation of.... 324 19.–Classification of goods intentionally made to conform to lower duty.......

325 20.-Specific designation prevails over general terms 326 21.—The phrase "not otherwise provided for”.

327 22.—The phrase “ of similar description"

327 23.–The word “articles".



Olassification under Sec. 3, Act Aug. 28, 1894. (1) Text of Section 3.

"That there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the importation of all raw or unmanufactured articles, not enumerated or provided for in this Act, a duty of ten per centum ad valorem; and on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for in this Act, a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem."

(2) What constitutes a manufacture. To constitute a manufacture there must be a transformation; mere labor bestowed upon an article, either by hand or by mechanism, does not make the article necessarily a manufactured article, within the meaning of that term as used in the tariff laws, unless it has progressed so far that a transforniation ensues, and the article becomes commercially known as another and a different article from that in which it began its existence, and having a distinctive name, character or use, capable of being used, and designed to be used in ordinary life. (Hartranft vs. Wiegman, 121 U. S., 609, cited in G. A. 63; Seeberger vs. Castro. 153 U. S., 34, cited in T. D. 14913, applied in Ehrhardt vs. Hahn, C. C. A., 55 Fed. Rep., 273; G. A. 63, 446, 1447. 1518, 2343, 2427, 2461, 2509, 2523, 2528, 2590, 2785, 2788, 2793, 2802.)

In the case of Seeberger vs. Castro, supra (decided April 16, 1894), the court collated leading cases defining “manufactures,' and announced the following rules as

a test whether an article is a manufacture: A manufacture may be defined as the process of making anything by art or of reducing materials into a form fit for use by the hand or by machinery; and it seems to imply a proceeding wherein the object or intention of the process is to porduce the article in question. The residuum or refuse of various kinds of manufactories is more or less valuable for certain purposes, and may be. and often is, the subject of sale; but it is not expected that the skill and attention of the manufacturer are to be devoted to the quality of the refuse materials. This is 110t the object of the process, and its quality is wholly subordinated and disregarded when attention to it would interfere with the most profitable mode or material to be used in the process which is the main object of the manufacture.'

These " testswere applied in the case last cited to certain tobacco scraps, the clippings from the ends of cigars, and pieces broken from the tobacco in process of manufacturing cigars, and not fit for any use in the condition imported, but intended to be converted into cigarettes and smoking tobacco, and the article was held to be an unmanufactured article, and that to speak of it as “partly manufactured” and deduce a contention therefrom, was simply to assume the question at issue. (Seeberger vs. Castro, supra.)

In the case of Sheldon vs. U. S. (55 Fed. Rep., 818, decided February 11, 1893) the Circuit Court of Appeals



held that certain tobacco scraps similar in description and the use to which they were applied, to those passed upon in Seeberger vs. Castro, supra, were classed as “ tobacco manufactured” under paragraph 244 of the Act of October 1, 1890, for “Tobacco manufactured, of all descriptions."

In the case of The Standard Varnish Works vs. U. S. (59 Fed. Rep., 456, decided January 12, 1894, cited in G. A. 2590) the Circuit Court of Appeals passed upon certain candle tar, a residuum or by-product in the manufacture of candles, which was held to be a manufactured article. The Court said: "The article is commercially known by various names

and is used in the arts. It is not in itself a raw material; it is not found in nature; and although something left over in the manufacture of candles it is no longer either the tallow, or the animal greases or the palm oil which were subjected to a manufacturing process in order to obtain the stearine for candles. It has been transformed by that very process. It has become something different from what it was before, in character, in substance, in name, and use. It is chemically a new body, a new creation, entirely distinct from what existed before, and as it has become such by a process of manufacture, it is a manufactured article. The process of distillation

is apparently not undertaken with the intention thereby to obtain this new article. The process has thus resulted in these new products neither of which existed.”

The Board of General Appraisers have followed the rule enunciated in The Standard Varnish Works vs. U. S., supra, in the following cases:

Certain Hydrated oxide of iron, a by-product used for the purpose of purifying gas, was held a manufactured article (G. A. 2590).

Certain Bitumen, a residuum from the distillation of petroleum, held a manufactured article (G. A. 2788).

Certain Ammoniacal gas liquor, one of the resulting products produced in the destructive distillation of coal in the manufacture of illuminating gas. The liquor being afterwards subjected to a process of purification and concentration, held to be a manufactured article. In this case the Board said: “If we were to hold this liquor to be a nonenumerated unmanufactured article, there would be no logical escape from the conclusion that the fractional distillates of coal tar, of which there are many, are also nonenumerated unmanufactured articles; while this liquor is not the principal object of the distillation of coal, in this case it is a valuable product. *

It is immaterial whether the article is a by-product of the main product sought after in the distillation of coal. It is an article


entirely distinct from coal, and has become such by a process of manufacture, the same as candle tar.(G. A. 2893.)

In the case of Murphy vs. Arnson (96 U. S., 134) it was said, “that, 'Manufactures of metals' obviously refers to manufactured articles in which metals form a component part. When we speak of manufactures of wood, of leather, or of iron, we refer to articles that have those substances especially for their component parts, and to articles in which they have lost their form entirely, and have become the chemical ingredients of new forms. The fact that the identity of the original article or articles is lost, and that a new form or a new character is assumed, is not material in determining whether, within the popular idea, as embodied in the customs acts, the article in question is a manufacture from its original elements."

(3) Examples of manufactured and unmanufactured articles.

Manufactured: So-called condensed “weiss bier” (T. D. 8876); So-called carbon blocks or plates for electric batteries (T. D. 8777); Plumbago stove polish (T. D. 6403); Stearine or candle tar (G. A. 2431); So-called starch waste used as sizing or glue (T. D. 6949); Roasted coru (T. D. 7071); Quillpens (T. D. 10394); Antimony ore, ground (G. A. 1910); Azo benzole, dye color (T. D. 5593); Bass, manufactured (G A. 1510); Bean sticks (G. A. 2376); Feather beds (G. A. 1169); Biscuits, cakes, and crackers (T. D. 14469, G. A. 2989); Bran and mill feed (T. D. 4235); Buckwheat flour (T. D. 6156); Cherries in brandy (G. A. 2864); Chesnut flour (G. A. 722); Cotton seed meal (G. A. 2977); Extract of juniper berries (G. A. 2453); Imitation of Farina (T. D. 4443); Fish wax (T. D. 6263); Fruit juice, non-alcoholic (G. A. 2078. 2453); Grass and flowers. dyed (G. A. 977, 2109. 2562); Maple syrup (G A. 828); Plum pudding (T. D. 8533); Horn pith sizing (G. A. 349); Rosin, in blocks, prepared for violins (G. A. April 30, 1895); Quill tooth picks (G. A. 384); Talc, ground (G. A. 1196); Wafers or crackers, edible (G. A. 2989); Yam flour (G. A. 2700).

Raw or unmanufactured: Ant eggs baked to destroy life to make bird food (T. D. 4157); Elastican, a vegetable exudation, concentrated (T. D. 4807); Deer carcasses (T. D. 2325); Raspberry vinegar (G. A. 1616); Ammoniacal gas liquor (G. A. 2893); Species of quartz, cut, ground and polished (G. A. 2939); Oxygen gas (T. D. 10159); Fresh fish (T. D. 15479); Frogs, not alive. (T. D. 10270); Veal (T. D. 13409); Venison (T. D. 2325, 7202); Saw dust (T. D. 4889); Tiger's claws (T. D. 9635).

« EdellinenJatka »