, 1862-09-18

-
WASHINGTON, Sept. II, 1862,
THE TAx on MASuFAcTuR1sG GOODS.
The following correspondence is Of great in
terest and importance to manufacturers:
TREASURER DEPT, OFFICE OF Is7EANAI.l
RETEEuE, WASHINGTON, D. c., Aug. Z, 1861
To.the Hon S. P. Chase, sec'y ofthe Treasury:
SlR: lam daily in receipt Of letters contain
Ing inquiries relative to The construction OF
the Eeventy-tifth section of the act entitled
An act to provide internal revenue to sup
port the government, and to pay. interest on
terest involved in these Inquiries ia such that
I desire the opinion of the solicitor OF the
TREASURY, OF other appropriate legal adviser Of
the department. The questions On which I
ak advice are:
First: VIII manufacturer, who, previous
to September l, shall have removed goods or
wares, otherwise liable to taxation, from the
place or premises where manufactured, to an
other plaee, or to Other premises In the same
city or town, be therefore exempted from as-
seesment on goods SO removed?
Second: Will manufacturer, who previous
to September !, shall have removed goods or
warss otherwise liable to taxation, from the
town or city where the manufactory is situa-
ted to an other town or city, be thereby ex-
empted from taxation on goods SO removed?
Thtee questions assume that the manufacture
er is the owner Of the goods on the 1st Of Sep
tember. Should the opinion be that the man
u1acturer in the cases Stated is exempt from
taxation, I then desire to know whether a
manufacturer of the articles mentioned in
schedule C will, under the circumstances, be
likewise exempt from taxation.
Your obediebt servant,
GEORGE s. boutwell,,
Commissioner of internal Revenue.
The solicitor Of the treasury, to when this
letter vas referred, returned the olloning an
swer:
TREASURY DEPT, SoL1c1Ton's orF1cE,f
September 6, 1862.
SIR: have the nonor herewith to return
the letter Of the commissioners Of internal
revenue, dated August 3, 1862, asking the
opinion Of the solicitor of the treasury upon
certain questions which is stated BY the COM
missioner. By an inspection Of the first para
graph Of the section referred to, it will be per-
ceired that there are several classes Of mer-
chandise which are made subject to duties !:
Fret, such as are produced and sold after the
1st day Of September, 1862. Second, such as
are manufactured or made and sold after that
date. Third, such as are removed for con-
sumption; and fourth, such as are removed
for delivery to others than agents Of the mann
facturer or producer within the United States
Territories thereof. inter the same date.
1t will also be perceived that, giving to the
language employed in the description Of the
last two classes its widest Specification, those
classes would embrace goods removed for con
sumption in the one case, or for delivery In
the other, Whenever-"1t whatever time''-
they might have been manufactured, or,
*trom Whatever place the removal might be
mtde." The object Of the last proyiso Of the
section Vas to limit the effect OF the laugh 1ge
thus employed. This limitation has been
made By providing that the duty shall apply
only, first, to such articles as are manutac-
tured on or after the day specified, in which
case it is imnaterisl from what place the re-
moEal occurs; aud, second, to such Us are
manufactured and "not removed from the
place Of Manufacture" prior to that date; thus,
in the hitter case, rendering the place Of man
ufacture the Onlr ore a removal from which
will subject the goods to duty.
The remaining points which 1t will be neces-
sar5 to consider IN order to supply answers to
the htst two Inquiries of the commissi oner are,
first: What is to be deemed the place Of m1n-
utactu1e2 and, second: What will amount to
rtmoyal from it? Upon the first point I au1
Of opinion that By the expression, "thc pl1ce
OF manufacture" Congress intended to desig-
na'e the premises where the manufacture is
carried on, together with the Etorerooms
herewith connected, and not the town or city
in which the manufacture is prosecuted. I do
not conceive it to be essential that the place
Q! storage be on the came lot, or even adjoin-
ing the lot on which the goods are actually
pIoduccd; but it must be place connected
With the mandatory, and used, US to the
goods in question, as place Of storage,
The other poiut, so far as it Involves more
than the mere fact Of physical remoya1s-if,
irot ed, It be ny!hing more than modilca-
1ion of the QUESTION just considered-is one,
narily, the place Of manufacture would be uu-
deTs.Cod to lie either the premises where the
actual production occurs, or those. common
y Used for the storage Of the goods produced.
But suppose manufacturer to send goods to
temporary place OF deposit in the same town
1f.,rfr t.ttf
only, aud perhaps for the mere purpose OF
aroioing the duty imposed By the act; or
suppose manufacturer, who, besides dispos-
ibE Of his Wares at wholesale, has in the same
Town Or city with Lis mandatory an estab-
lishmcnt where he sells them at retail, to
send some OF his goods to such retail estab-
lslments for sale; would tue removal in the
orc case or the other thus supposed be such
one as is contemplated in the proviso refer
red to9
think that in the last case stated 1t would
be SO. and that III the tormsr it would not.
But again, suppose manufacturer never to
make ea1e If hik wares to bis manu!cctory, but
TO have connected Herewith in some distant
tt'sn Or city place Of storage and sale to
h'Sn he has Eept T. eG
fer storage or to avoid the payment OF duty, q
portion Of lis goods-would The removal in
tithtr OF both Of these cases be such Us, if oc.
curing before the 1st of September, to ex-
GWfL Lee E0Cas from G0ty as naye stated,
consider this question not without dill.
Guilty, but incline 10 tho opinion that in both
cases The removal must. under ordinary cir.
cpustaIces, bu held TO be complete.
I an Of opinion that it would be too wide e
latitude of construction to consider a store.
hcn.c in diftalt town or city a6, under ordi'
| nary circumstances, embraced within the des
eription Of the ''place of manufa:ture' y
What have written Till indicate my views a:
Clearly as am prepared to state them upor
the first two Lquillcs propounded.
As to tho Last inquiry, have to say that
besides the seeming lnipropriety OF adopting
construction which would impose dut5
upon one Gloss Of goods, while another chs.
| equally bound in natural justice to pay duty
| should be exempted, conceive that the pro
| Siso under consideration applies as well to ar
| ticlcs enumt rated in schedule G, as to thos,
| mentioned in Eevensy-fve; the proviso il
glnera,, and applies to all articles upon which
q duty is imposed By this act The BURDEN
imposed upon the articles mentioned II
schedule G are not the less 'tdutics'' that the,
are imposed hy way OF requiring the article
| to be ''saampcd." am, therefore, Of opin
ion that the halne rule must apply to the arti
cles epumerated in schedule c as applies t,
those mentioned in section scventy-tiyc,
With high respect,
EDWARD JORDAN, Solicitor.