New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-04-26
THE COURTS.
COMPLICATED REVENUE CASE.
AID vALoREM DUTIES ON SILK RIBBONS.

AID vALOREM DUTIES ON SILK RIBBONS.
The revenue case of ChapOn agt. Smythe, in
the United states Circuit Court, before Judge Bmaey
has been than u week trial II was brought to
recover money alleged TO have been wronguy exacted
by the defendant while Collector Of this certain
mportatons Of velvet ribbons manufactured in Saint
Etenne France by hessrs ron Freres and entered at
the Customhouse by tie plaintiff in 1867 under
the Tariff act Of June 30, lfci. 1t admitted
by both parties that the ribbons were dutiabe
under the eighth section Of that law. but there was
dispute TO the particular clause. The importer claimed
that the ribbons in question not pure silk vel
ribbons. but were Of silk and cotton, with tho value
of latter component material almost much as that
the former they ought only DO charged with duty
OF per cent under the OF the eighth section as
manufactures OF which silk Is the component material
OF chief value not otherwise provided for The defend
ant tho other hand said that tho ribbons In contro-
yersy provided for ana enumerated I'm preceding
clause OF the section. which reads On all dress and
piece silks, ribbons, silk vevets, yelvets OF which
silk the component material Of chief value 60 per cent
ad valorem." Tho Tariff act Of 1854 being now in
final decision OF this question will govern the
rate TO be paid future importaton under this law
of SILK and cotton velvet ribbons. The case involved
questions OF statute Interpretation and OF trade Names
Judge smaleys ruling left 1t to the jury to the
evidence by what appearion the fabric was known In
the Wholesale trade Of the markets OF this country
twenty OF tnrty representatives OF tue larRtbI
ribbon and trimming houses were called as witnessed,
as well as French manufacturer of velvet
ribbons, and @ German manufacturer OF veyets
In the piece. 1t was In evidence that, prior TO
1855 1857, all velvet ribbons were wholly OF SIX,
but about those dates another quality made with
the back all cotton and only the plush OF silk, and the
ribbons in dispute Of the latter class which for
most purposes have superseded tho former In this mar
ket Mr. Morrison, dealer in Broadway, testified. how
hat fa hnuaa aolh uara af
back but that not more than five or SIX houses
city sold the former that the latter was the ribbon
of the Million and that II customer came to his store
and asked for velvet ribbon II would depend much on
the appearance OF the whether coton-back or
skback would be shown on the other hand there were
back velvet ribbon SILK velvet iDD0n ana never KEPT
the pure silkback article The preponderance OF al
the testimony that the pure silk article was known
in trade all silk velvet ribbon, ana the othe, as
velvet ribbon" understood TO be largely cotton Mr..
Baure manufacturer OF velvet ribbons at Saint Euenne,
France testified that the chain ana ming OF tue opons
htee oi the chain which was OF fix and made the nap
plush that when the velvet ribbon was woven Dotn
faces were cotton, put se rpna sae NJ PeItaar
maker OF silk veyets testified that velYes were woven
differently from ribbons since there was no sP, os'
which, when drawn out cut the six and made Tue pusn'
The Judge TED dns as to have been e
gay exacted by the defendant as Collector OF THIS f9
various imporaons Oh rbDons aae ~ iag naid
o duty OF GO per centum or 80 per centum "a VaUe ~;
The defendant claims that the law imposed Tue guy Vi
GO per centum, which he levied The plalntln claims
that the law imposed only 80 per centuin' Inc
most important question in the case ls one purely
OF law There Is only question OF fact
for the jury pass upon 1t is claimed by the DEFEND,
ant that the word ribbons as used In the stn ecton
ofthe Tariff act OF June 3d. 1864, all ribbons no
matter OF what material manufactured whether OF sk
or OF silk and cotton. or entirely OF cotton.
decide, therefore, for the purposes OF TINS ia Inas
it was the intention OF Congress that only SIX rDDoh
should pay duty OF GO per centnm, ana that SIN anu
cotton ribbons with silk Of chief value should only pay
a duty Of 90 centum, and that cotton rDOons snquu
nav a duty of IS per centum Such construction har-
monies all the Of the act OF 1885, While the con
tructon contended for by the defendant would not pc
cause IL the word ribbons includes every description
OF ribbons 1t would necessarily embrace cotton roDons
Therefore the only question for tho jury is TINS HOW
were these ribbons in commerce IN 1864 and when
they were imported, which was IN 1867 were tney
known in the trade as silk goods sik and cotton
poods II they were known in the trade as SILK rlDoOns
although they not in point or fact nade wnOly vi
silk, they liable to duty OF 60 per centIn or
matters law the cause was elaOoratey presenter
the jury and on reassemDine OF the oourt y9se qua,
upon substantial repetition OF the proposlons o law
previously laid down WITH the ada1 ,r t6s conrt
they responsible for proper appncaton oi .n
rather than retail dealers Interpretation Of the
terms used in tar acts aud that since oth sdes c9u
coded the fabrics were ribbons the sole question LOT
Them was whether the articles In controversy were
known and bought and sold In trade at the e OF tue
Enactment OF the law OF 1884, aud the time OF the I'm
poratop of the merchandise controversy IN 1901 as
The Jury retired and after two hours OF deiberaton
returned 10 ask the Court specific Instructions upon
the following question submitted IN writing: are inc
Jury to Judge Of the phrase known to the trade ~
which they are known 10 be composed, or as hmPio
maine 10 distinguish them from otber goodsp 10 ths
tue Court replied mat he % w t"r tbe
de PENDANT but II IL known TO the trade as SIN anu
cotton goods, they would nd veraet loe e pepped
The Jury having again retired Tor delDetaIOh ietunou
with IA verdict Tor the plalDtln In $S,'l9 -