The national Republican., 1867-01-23
The Courts,

o,, TuEsDAT, January % 1857.
and Edwin Q. Larned, Esq,., Of the State Of hi.
nois were admitted attorneys and oounsellors Of
this court Al :
No. ITO. Samuel Harlan OF al, appellants, vs..
The United States. This cause was argued by Mr..
Williams, Of counsel for the appellants, and sub.
mitted on printed argument By Mr. Attorney
General stanbery Of counsel for the sppelless.
No. Ill. The United States, appellants, W. The
Steamer Pearl and cargo. This cause was sub.
mitted to the consideration Of the court on the
record and printed arguments by Mr.. Attorney
denerh Stanbery, Of counsel for the appellants,
and BY Mr.. Eaton, Of counsel for the appsllsss.
No. liz. The schooner Flying Scud, DO, appel.
lants, vs. United States This appeal was dismissed
pursuant To 10th rule Of court
No, lls: William BrObst, plaintiff vs.. John
Brobst. This cause was dismissed for the want Of
Jurisdiction -
No ia Edward Kelly, ct al, plaintltfs in error,
". Lemuel Crawford. The argument Of this cause
was commenced by Mr.. Ira J. Niohoies, Of counsel
for the plaintif In error, continued BY Mr.. Msr.
concluded BY Mr.. Nichoss for the plaintiff In error
Adjourned until tomorrow At ii o'clock.
Duties on the Prodnas Of Conntriss beyond the
Caps Of Good -ConarNefion Of tie act Of
July IA, 1se2.-Wiihdm A. Hadden 1t al, plain.
ti6' in error vs. Hiram Barney Co1sefor.-This
case comes up on writ Of to the Circuit Court
for the southern district Of New York, issued on
judgment Of that court, deciding that raw silk was
dutiable under the act Of July IL, 1852. The
action was brought to recover back from the de-
fendant something over hys thousand dollars, with
Interest, from October, 1852, which sum was then
psid By plaintiff to him ps collector Of the port Of
New York, under protest, as duties on certain
articles Of raw silk, the produce OF Persia and
China, In Asia, which had been imported BY the
plaintiff from Liverpool
The parties waived o Jury and agreed on q state.
mont OF facts aud tho oontroversy is confined to
the question Of the proper Interpretation Of the
following section Of the act Of Congress above 70.
fsrred to, previously to ths date Of which, It Is ad.
mitted, such goods we're free Of duty:
Sec. IL. Aud b IL further enacted, That from
and htsr the day and year Aforesaid, [Aug. ],
1892 there shall be levied and collected and paid
on all goods, wares and merchandise Of the growth
or produce Of countries beyond the Cape Of Good
Hopei when imported from plmoes this side Of the
Cape Of Good Hope, duty Of ten per cent. ad va.
loren, and In addition 10 the duties imposed on any
such articles whom imported directly from tho
places Of their growth or production.
This section was modified by the act Of March 8,
Se3 $50 as to allow cotton and raw silk, as reeled
from the cocoon q the growth or produce of cOun-
from any additional duty when imported from
places this side Of the Cape Of Good Hope, for two
years from and after the passage Of this act"
The questions therefore are briefly stated-lst,
Hhether the l4th section Of the act Of July, 1862,
Just quoted aboyp was applicable to goods hitherto
oilable With the Constitution of tho United States
In laying duty at the port Of New York on goads
described as "ths produce Of countries beyond the
Cape Of Good Hope, such countries not being "be.
yond the Cape Of Good Hope" to all the different
ports In the United States, Ito wit: the Pacific
ports,) thereby working q preference Of the ports
Of one State, over those Of another, against uni.
fbrmity Of imposts.
The theory Of the plaintiffs In error that the
statute Of July 1859, under which their goods we're
ii IL. 1-1 - i
all on such products were before Its passage free
Of duty. The object Of the act was simply to i'm
pose duty Of ten per cent additional as declared
therein, TO any duty before laid. II there was no
duty before, therefore, on raw silk-and there was
none-there could be no additional duty imposed
The words 'fn addition" and "such In the fol-
lowing from the aot "in addition to the duties i'm.
posed on any such aEtices" /" furnish simple expo.
sition Of its intent and purpose. Ali goods that
were before the act liable to duty were by It sub.
jected to ten per cent. additional duty. All goods
that prior to the passage Of the act were free Of
Nor can II be said that the amendatory act Of
1858 shows that the Legislature Intended to impose
duty raw silk by act Of 1862; for II has always
been the policy Of the Government not to subject 1t
to duty and the legislation Of Congress since that
date has made II altogether clear that no duty Is
to be imposed on IT. and under such circumstances,
constituting all the acts together the court must de-
termine that no such duty was intended II the ordi
nary rules Of construction be applied to the entire
legislation on tho subject.
Besides, to allow such an Interpretation of the
amendatory act would work great Injustice to the
plaintiffs, who made all their importations In the
fall Of 1852 long before the passage Of the act of
1858. Courts never disregard this consideration
In the construction OF Statutes especially in doubt
full cases. and this court will hesitate before II
gives what Is In effect rerdetivs operation to the
act Of 1862 to the prejudice Of those who acted
der the previous statute, which, without the legis
lative Interpretation Of the subsequent aot would
not have imposed upon them the duty complained
Of. il Is also argued that tho act 10 In conflict
with the Constitution In respect to uniformity of
duties, impogts, 10, as above stated. The Gov.
ernment contends that the act intended to apply to
both dutiable and free goods. The FIRST clause Of
the section reads "all goods, wares" 10, and the
words, "in addition" used in the act, are to show
that such goods as were before dutiabie arc TO be
subjected to further duty-to prevent the oonstruo.
tion that only goods before free were to be liable to
the ten per cent. duty, and goods before paying
duty were not affected by the act.
Tho words beyond the Cape Of Good Hope"
and "this side the Cape Of Good Hope" are not
pregnant, but descriptive words They designate
countries In their absolute and not their relative
situation on the globe, and are consequently to be
treated as equivalent to an enumeration Of known
places, and not as indicating discrimination Of
duties according to relative situation Of ports The
construction Of tho word "beyond'' TO- east Of the
Cape Of Good Hope and Of "this side, " tceJt. The
position Of the speaker, or the body invoking the
law, has only to DO formed In such case to deter.
mine the meaning Of the language clearly. When
this Is DONE the language used is not doubtful but
plain and unmistAkabe.
John Glosson and Waldo Hutchins for plaintiff
Henry stanbery and Hublsy Ashton for United
States.
Re'IdeneeJ Of hs JMdgsJ Of tie Supreme Court Of
tie United States.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase, + street north, corne
Of Sixth street west.
Mr.. Justice Wayne, No. 2 Franklin Place, I
street.
Mr.. Justice Nelson National Hotel
Mr.. Justice Grier, No. 8 north A street, Capitol
Hill
Mr.. Justice Clifford, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Swayne, WilArd's Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Miller National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Davis, National Hotel
Mr.. Justice Field, Wizards Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
D. W. Middleton, clerk, No. sos New Jersey
avenue.
David S. GOOding, U. s. Marshal, 4sl E street.
ORPHANS CoURT-Judge Purcell presiding.
Yesterday morning letters Of administration with
the will annexed wero issued to John D. McPher-
son, on the estate Of the late Timothy Winni bond