New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-01-07
THE COURTS.
IN FAVOR OF THE IMPORTERS.
A DECISION WHICH WILL RETURN SIX MILLI

DECISION WHICH WILL RETURN SIX MILLION
DOLLARS TO THEM.
Washington Jan. 6.-The supreme Court OF the
United States to-day rendered opinion in the i'm
portant customs case Of William IL. Robertson, Col
lector OF the Port Of NewYOrk, plaintiff in error.
agt Charles A. Edelhof and Emil Rinke, brought here
on appeal from the decision of the United states Cir
cult Court for the Southern District of New-lork In
favor of the importers. The question involved Is
whether ribbons composed Of six and cotton, In which
silk Is the component material of chief value, the
articles being used exclusively for hat trimmings, are
dutiable at 80 per ad valorem as goods not es
peciay enumerated OF which silk is the component
material Of chief value, at 30 per cent under the
lam provision fr hit tr innings. The Collect
assessed duty at 80 per cent, the importer claiming
20 per cent was the proper rate Of duty.
The court in an opinion by Justice Elatchford, says
that the only question is to whether silk hat trim
mings are embraced in the provisions OIL ncheduie
Of the tariff act which reads hats, materials USED
for making ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods
composed Of straw, chip grass. palm ieai' Winom
hair, whaebone or any other substance or material
not specially enumerated or provided Tor III thls ac.
20 PEI ad valOrem" The Circuit Court held tnat
they did not come under that provision ana TINS
court afrms that judgment. The court says that IT.
seems perfectly clear that the words composed OF
relate q the eight articles specifically named and not
to hats and bOnnet> and II cannot agree to the con
tention that the word " like should be inserted III
material" These words. ii holds, include silk and
all other materials for hat trimmings
Under this decision importers. principally In Phila-
dephia New York and Boston, will be entitled 10 re-
ceivc back about S6OOO,OOO in duties which the Gov
eminent has Illegally e1acted
The decision will involve the payment by the
Government Of an exceedingly large sum of money
10 silk importers in New York and the other big cities
Of the Union. At the United states District At
torncy'S Office. however, well as at the house OF
Edchon ~ Rinkc. it thought that six millions
~ dnII,rs y,s far TOO biz an estimate Of the TO
be refunded and that its actual amount will be about
two and a half or three millions.
H. G. Platt If the United states rctAttorney
Office aid Yesterdays 80 This was tried here be
fore Judge COKE and jury in April, 1776. The
Judge directed verdict for the plaintiffs for S9l 50
The case was by the Department ordered TO he taken
to the United states Supreme Court on writ Of
error and II was The case there recently
argued by Joseph H. Choatc for the plaintiffs. ana by
>oicitorGcnc Chapman for the Collector. Inc
same issue wa, decided by the United states supreme
Court in the case Of IIartranft versus hngfeld on
March 10. l---. General Ilartrant was then tue
Collector Of the Port. Philadelphia. The court sub
,antiaIlv held that wher, the predominant Use OF te
merchandise is for trimmings FOR Dats, al'lonsH ~
may De made of silk. il Is dutlable AT the ld'e vi
20 per cent ad valOrcm a> trimmings, ai'nou.l ~
NAV be occasionally used for some Oller putp'''''
predominant use wa, the test made IN the Lang
field case and i'm the EdclhOn case the court Hts
simply followed this decision ,,-s
There are many suits which are practcalN ue'"cu
tv mi, cas-, unless the Government raises some new
MINI Question a. whether any Of the DINER
iif, shall le tried rests with the Treasury omclals
aud the Attorney General.