The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-03
THE HAT TRIMMINGS CASE.
A Decision Thnt VIII BE of Great
Benefit to the Government.
"PhiladelDhia Telegranh

4 tIAA
Millions of dollars. it is confidently as
serted by the officers of the Department
of Justice at Washington, will be saved to
the government by the charge made TO the
jury by Judge Dallas in the celebrated hat
trimmings test case, which was decided in
favor of the government a few days ago by
a jury in this city.
Not only will the effect he to prevent re-
funds in hat trimmings claims now pend
ing and amounting to about $60.O00.0o0, but
the government will be justified in refusing
refunds In other cases where the use OF the
article is in question in connection with its
valuation for dutiable purposes. The De-
partment of Justice has been e-ndeavoring
for some time to secure a legal definition
of the term chief use employed especi-
ally in the tariff bin of 1888 to guide coll
lectors in assessing duty on an article, and
since that time to some extent in other
tariff measures. Judge Dallas has given
that definition in his charge, otlcialS OF the
department say, and it's publication will be
of interest to all importers. IT reads:
millinery nnrnoses is y i lin : s .
otherwise it is not. The chief use in this
is a vague and uncertain term, and conse-
quentiy still another question confrontS us.
how is chief use to be ascertained? To
this final question l make the reply which
the several deliverances of the Supreme
Court on the subject, when considered to-
gether and applied to this case. seem to me
TO require. And that is that chief use Is
that which is commonly, practically and
generally done and is not to be overthrown
by occasional or exceptional use, but no
use, though common practical or general.
can IlSIIiN DC regarded as the CnleI one II
in fact there was not any other use which
was not occasional or exceptional, but was
common, practical and general. If there
we're an ordinary use and also an extraor-
binary use the former, and not the latter.
is the chief use"
The hat-trimmings case was won by AS
sistant Attorney General Whitney. Speak
ing OF the effect of the judges charge,
Mr.. Whitney says: The charge of the
court, if sustained, will defeat all claims
for refund in the case of any article which
has common, prs ctical and general use for
any other purpose than trimming hats, all
though it Inight be used more for trim
ming hats than for all other purposes. 1t
is believed that the ruling, therefore, de-
feats nearly ali of the hat-trimming claims,
and that the refund which the govern
ment will have to make will be COM
paratively small. The rule laid down by
Judge Dallas is also of interest because
it applies to all of a large number of
cases in tariff laws which depend on the
question of chief use For instance, there
are $500 articles which are dutiable as
medicinal preparations when their chief
use is for medicine. 1t has been claimed
by the importers for many years in the
h~at-trimmings cases that they had a right
to refund whenever they could prove that
the article in question was used more for
trimming hats than for any other single
purpose, and it is on this theory that a
large number of claims were presented
against the government