The national Republican., 1867-01-15

inches Ia thickness, and four feet long. and are
made into shovel handles By being tarnsd in .
lathe. The only process Of manufacture through
which .hsy parsed vas that Of being split into the
The defense set up is that the property Is made
free Of duty BY article three Of the Reciprocity
Treaty, and the acts Of Congress giving Il eject,
that treaty exsmpts from duty "the growth and
product OF the British colonies, and, among other
srtices specifically mentioned, nfaetured 'tim.
Der and lumber Of all kinds, round, hswsd and
sawed, unmanufactured In whols or In part" Ths
splitting OF the timber imported, Il 10 argued was
no part OF the manufacture Of the shovel handles,
but was mode adopted TO reduce the siss and
weight Of the timber for convenience In removing
II from the place Of lis growth. The splitting Il
done BY hand, while tho manufaoturs Of the shovel
handles 10 sxclusivsly BY machinery. They are
thersfore claimed TO be the raw material Of the
shovel handle. Upon the trial below, In the Cir.
cult Court for the Eastern District Of Mchigsn,
there was division Of opinion, and the following
questions were certified to this Court for dstsrmi.
nation
Whether the timber described In the declaration
and proof was liable to duty or whsthsr the same
was free Of duty BY the Reciprocity Treaty, and
the laws and acts Of Congress relative thereto
Whether they are importsbls free Of duty under
The treaty Of September 9th, 1884, with Great
whether, under the said treaty and the acts Of
Congress passed to carry the same into effect, any
timber other than such as Is sound, hewed or
sawed. Is made free Of dutyl
The Government contends that the timber ID not
free Of duty, because u was In part Manufactured
BY being split into the form and shape Of the
shovel handle In the one case and into the form
and shape Of the stave In the other. That any
process that put the timber into that shape re-
quired for the manufaoture Of any article, 90 that
II could not be sold a. mere lumber, capable Of
being used for any purpose whatever, but only for
the particular purpose for which II was intended,
was such an application Of the handlwork Of man
a. made the timber more than mere lumber, be-
cause II became manufactured 10 such an extent
that II was rendered unfit for any other use than
therefore, Is Of necessity manufacture. This tim.
ber Is not comprehended by the treaty unless Il
appears, hrst, that Il Is timber or lumber; second
that IL Is either round, hewed or sawed third,
that II has not been subjected TO manufacture.
Tho second and third conditions are evidently not
fulfilled. The articles are not round, hewed or
sawed, but split timber and they arc also manu-.
actured articles, because shaped into the form 70.
quired for certain uses, by design and purpose.
The defendants submit that, however much, or In
whatever form, or by whatever process labor has
been expended upon the crude material, II II has
not, through such labor, commenced 10 take the
form Of some particular article, n distinguished
from all other articles into which, as crude mate.
rial II Is capable Of being Manufactured II cannot
DO said to be manufactured In part. Whilst this
timber is formed In q certain manner, by splitting
II Is still timber, capable Of being Manufactured
into general use. ..... II. 49,.
But the words ."rOund, hswed and sawed" As
used, must be taken to be an enumeration Of
tain Of the particulars intended to be included In
the preceding general words climber and lumber
Of all kinds, and not as limiting and restricting
those general words ...
Henry stanbery, Attorney General, and J. Hublsy
Ashton, Assistant Attorney General for Govern.
ment
John s. Newberry for defendants.