Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-03-07

WASHINGTON, March 6.-Decisions were
rendered by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States to-day in forty two cases, asd the
opinions handed down covered in the aggre-
gate six or eight hundred pages of closely
written legal cap. The case first in order and
importance, is the 60 called "sugar case'' of
e. A. Merritt, Collector, VS.. Samuel Welsh
ct al, which was brought to this court upon
writ of error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern district of
New York. 1t was instituted originally by
Welsh ct al, who are prominent sugar i'm
porters, to recover an alleged excess of du-
ties exacted by the plant If IN error, as
Collector OF the port of New York, on
five cargoes Of sugar imported from
Cuba in 1879. Welsh ct al. maintain tha
these sugars were all below No. Dutch
standard IN color, and were therefore
chargeable under section 1854 of the Re
vised Statutes only with duty of 1sIc. per
pound and the 25 per cent. provided for by
the act of 1875. The Collector, however,
acting under instructions from the Trea-
sury Department, rated these sugars at a
higher grade, aid charged a duty OF &C.
upon some of them and 2L per cent. upon
Others, In addition to the Is per cent. above
referred to.
This action of the department and ofsthe
Collector was taken upon the assumtion
that the sugars In question had been col
ored by artificial means so as to reduce
them In appearance below the grade of the
Dutch or color standard, to which they
properly belonged according to the amount
OF crYstalized sugar which they contained,
as shown in the chemical tests by the DO
lariscope. The principal question in the
controversy in the case was the right Of the
Treasury Department to use the pOlari-
scope or to make any chemical test what
ever for the purpose of rating or grading
imgOrted sugars. This court decides the
question in a long and carefully prepared
ooinion by Mr.. Justice Bradley, which is in
substance as follows:
'It will be perceived that the real ques-
tiOn in the case Is whether the dutiable
quality of sugars is'to be decided by their
actual color, graded by the Dutch standard,
or by their saccharine strength as ascertain
ed by chemical tests. The defendant in
error maintains the former, the plaintiff IN
error the latter. The test prescribed
by the statute is the Dutch standard of
color. II Congress desired the application
OF chemical test, why did not Congress
say so7 The color was the standard which
Congress, with the light which it had, saw
fit to adopt. II 1t was found by experience
that that standard is a fallacioas one, can
the Executive Department supply the de-
fects of leglslation? Congress alone has
authority to levy duties. It's will alone
is to be sought. 1t appears very
clear from the evidence that the Dutch
standard is color standard OulY. As ap-
piled to sugars of the island Of Java brought
to the mother country it was, undoubtedly,
a. H. .
With the new process Of manufacture, how
ever, and with the present perfection of the
refining process, co'or has become matter
Of little consequence, provided the sugars
contain an abundance of saccharine matter.
"The color standard has come to be very
precarious one, still, IL the gOyernment
chooses to adhere to 1t, 1t is bound by it.
IT Congress, Jas it had done, adopt the
color stanuard It is not for the customs de
partment to adopt a different one. When
Congress chooses to do this 1t will be time
enough for the custom house to follow.
Great stress Is laid on the charge that sugars
are manufactured in dark cOlOrs on purpose
to eVade our duties. Suppose this is true
Has not the manufacturer
right to make his goods SIS he pleases. l.
they are less marketable it is his loss If
they are not marketable, who has the right
to complain Ii the duties are sffected
there is plain remedy. Congress can
always adop5 such laws and regulations as
1t may deem expedient for projecting the
interest of the government. 1t is argued
that the intent of the law was to prescribe
a quality standard. This reasoning would
be very good If the law prescribing the
standard were not explicit in its terms. II
the words used are clear, we need go no
further, and in this case they are clear
''Two tests for fixing a duiable grade of
sugars were open to legislative choice-that
of color and that of constitution or chemi
cal quality. Congress chose the former, aud
10 making It's selection it did not leave any
room for doubt as to its meaning. II the
test adopted fails to effect the desired
object, the Inconvenience or loss to
the Treasury need be only tenn
pOrary. 1t can be changed at any
moment, and 1t is bettsr to submit
to temporary inconvenience than to set laws
sf )at by laying down canon OF eonstruc
tt6n, which leaves the plain words and seeks
TO spell out or guess at supposed intent of
legislature contrary to supplementary to
that which is clearly embodied in the words
it has used. II experience shows that Con-
gress acted under mistaken impression, that
does not authorize the Treasury Depart
ment or the courts to take the part of egis-
ative guardians, and by construction to
make new laws which they imagine Con-
gress would have made had It been properly
Informed, but which Congress itself. on
beiDg properly Informed, LAS not as
yet seen fit to make. 1t may be
that our tariff of duties is evaded
by superinducing upon sugars In process Of
manufacture low grades of color Ii this
be so, 1t is no more than what every manu-
facturer does, viz: So to manufacture his
goods as to avoid the burden of high duties,
provided he can do 1t without iriuring their
maTketaoil1ty, or injuring. II less
than the duties involved So
long as 20 deception Is practiced.
so long as the goods o. sie truly invoiced and
lre+..TI and honestly exposed to the oGficers
of customs tor their examination, no fraud
is committed, and no penalty is incurred.
All that has to be done is to change the law
so as TO reach the goods In their new form,
If it is thought possible to do so.
"The decision of the court below was
right, and its Judgment Is affirmed"
Justices Matthews and Harlem dissent
from the opinion Of the msioritY OF the
court on the ground that the color impaired
to sugar artificislly, either during the pro-
cess of manufacture or after its completion,
a color which It would not contract by
means of any Of the processes necessary
merely to the production of sugar, is not its
natural color and not the real and true color
of the Dutch standard.
TAX ON SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
Another important decision handed down
by the Supreme Court was in the case of the
German Savings Bank in New York, plain
TIT in error, VS.. Joseph Archibald, Collector,
etc, in error, to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of
New York. The controversy in this case re-
lates to the meaning of the concluding
clause of section 340S of the re-
vised statutes, exempting deposits
of money in the savings bank, not exceed
ing 81 600, from the tax imposed by the
previous clause of the same section upon
deposits generally. The savings bank con-
strued the clause in question to mean that
the deposits of individuals not amounting
to 81, 900 were exempt from taxation alto
gether, and that If the deposits exceeded
$1,000, only the amount of excess was
liable to taxation. The Collector on the
other hand construed the clause to mean that,
If the amount standing to the credit of a de-
positor on the books of the bank did not
exceed 1900 it was exempt, but If it
reached 81 00l that the whole amount, and
not simply the one dollar of excess, became
at once liable to taxation. The bank made
return in good faith of its
individual deposits in excess of the
$4,000 limit, and paid ths taxes there
on, but the Collector held the return
to be false and fraudulent. added s.. .23B to
the taxes already paid and imposed pen
atty of 100 per cent. for fraud, besides an
additional per cent. for failure to pay
the tax within the time prescribed by Law.
The bank brings the present suit to rC-
cover the excess OF taxes paid under pro-
test and the amount of the penalties. This
court holds that the savings bank was right
and the tax collector wrong Ia the eonsJruc
Al IL. Il A..