The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-20
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT AT NIsI PRIUs-Chief Justice
Woodward.-The Chief Justice this morning de-
llvered the following important opinton:-
Waterman Il Beaver vs.. Tue Philadelphia and
Reading Railroad Company. AT Nisi Prius. Case
stated. The opinion of the Court was delivered
by Woodward, G. j. The consttutionality of
80, 1864, commonly called the "Excise law"
beng conceded. or rather not questioned, am
of opinion that the contract of the parties,
though made before the law was passed, Is within
the purview OF the 97th section, and that the
iron manufactured under that contract Is subject
to the excise duties imposed by the act.
By the act of July l, 1862, railroad iron was
subject 10 a duty of one dollar and half ton,
and pig iron, when used by the manufacturer in
making rails, was l suppose, exempted from
assessment by virtue OF the 73d section Of that
act.
But by the act of 1864 pig-iron is subject to a
duty, two dollars per ton, and the tax on rail-
road iron is raised to three dollars the ton, and
one OF the provisos of the Oath section (Which IS
the section that imposes these taXes) reads as
follows:-"Provided that castings OF iron aud
iron OF all descriptions advanced beyond pig
iron, blooms, slabs, or loops, upon which no
duty has been assessed or paid, IN the form of
pig-lron blooms, slabs or loops, shall be assessed
and pay in addition 10 the foregoing rates ot
iron SO advanced, duty OF three dollars per tom"
The meaning of this legislation is that pig iron
should pay a duty of two dollars the ton, and
that railroad iron manufactured out of pig iron
that has paid that duty shall itself be assessed
with three dollars the ton, but that railroad IRON
made OF pig IRON that has not been assessed
shall pay six dollars the ton ...
AS there was a large amount OF pig iron on
hand when the act OF 1864 was passed, which
was not likely to be returned for assessment, the
Legislature probably meant by the proviso TO
tax it in the form of rails and as an inducement
to manufacturers OF rails to return their pig
iron Tor assessment, the provso makes the tax
on rails something higher than it would De II
duty were paid on the pigs.
1t takes one ton and seven twenty-iourths oil
ton of pig iron to make ton OF rails. AT
two dollars per ton the pig iron that enters into
ton OF rails would pay about S2'65
Add the duty on the rails 300
And we have =. . S5'65
But il the S265 be not paid on the
zig iron, the rails shall pay per ton 600
Add difference of tax per ton of '35
The plaintiffs are manufacturers both OF PIE
iron and railroad IRON They contracted with
the defendants in February 1864 to manufac
I652'l5-80 were by the terms of the contract to
be delivered, and were actually delivered, after
the lst of July, 1864, the date Of the act of Con
gress in question. These rails were manufac
featured out OF pig iron, which the plaintiffs also
manufacture, but whether before or after the
date of the law is not ascertained in tle case
stated.
II is admitted, however, that no duty had
been paid on the pig IRON that entered into these
rails, and it is earnestly argued that no duty
was assessable under the Act of 1864, because
used by the manufacturers. Pig iron Is un
doubtedly article OF commerce, and it il
equally certain that it was not sold as pig iron
in this instance But under the gath section o.
the act il was taxable il FUSED by the manufAc
turer thereof"
These are the very words of the enactin!
clause. And can it be doubted that manutac
turer uses the pig iron when he converts, or, II
use statutory word, 0dodnces it into railroad
iron and then sells the rails? Pig'iron is neve
used without conversion or advancement int
some other form of iron. Such conversion is
indeed, the only use OF which 1t is susceptible
and 1 hold that the plaintiffs "asedn their p
IRON within the meaning OF the statute whel
they made rails of 1t.
This conclusion, sutiic emily supported bytth
words OF the oath section, is strongly corrobc
rated by the SD and seth sections of the sam
act.
Then II should have been returned for asses
ment and sheuld have paid the prescribed dut
of two dollars the ton, but a. no duty wa
assessed or paid upon 1t. the rails manufacture
out OF 1t are within the terms OF the proyso
the 94th section, and liable TO ''pay in additio
to the foregoing rates OF iron so advanced dut
of three dollars per ton." Ihat 49, the rails al
subject 10 a duty OF six dollars per ton.
It was suggested that If the plaintiff, throug
neglect of public duty. had subjected the d.
fendauts TO higher rate OF taxation than wa
necessary, the plaintiff should pear TINS los
However equitable this might be, l have u
power, under the case stated, 70 adln
the equity. | am only empowered to ent'
Judgment for one OF several fixed sums Of mone
according to the view may take OF the mea