The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1910-01-31

this month by the highest court of the
nation. 1t will be noticed that the
court was guided to some extent by the
classification of the liquor in the tariff
bill of 1909, which was the same as
the executive construction on which
the appeal was taken
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
No. 220-October Term, 1909.
Komada & Co., Petitioner, VS.. The
United States
On writ of certiarari to the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the ..inth Circuit.
(January 8, 1907
This case is before us on a writ of
certiorari to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Tine
question is the proper classification,
under the tariff act of July "a, 1897,
go Stat. 1919 of a Japanese beverage
known as sake Sake is not named
in that act, but section Z, (p 2O5) fire.
quently spoken of as the similitude
section" reads as follows:
THAT each and every imported ar
ticle, not enumerated in this act,
which is similar, either in material,
quality, texture, or the use to which
it may be applied, to any article emu
merated in this act as chargeable with
duty, shall pay the same rate of duty
which is levied ON the enumerated
article which it most resembles in any
of the particulars before mentioned;
/ and if any non-enumerated articles on
which different rates of duty are
chargeable, there shall be levied on
such non-enumerated article the same,
rate of duty as is chargeable on the
article which it resembles, paying the
highest rate of duty"
In November, 1904, petitioner import
ed some sake at the port OF San Fran
cisco, and, following prior rulings, the
held it similar to still wine containing
more than fourteen per cent Of abso-
Lutte alcohol, and dutiable accordingly
at fifty cents per gallon, under para
graph 296, o. 174). The petitioner
protested and claimed that it was
either a non-enumerated manufactured
article, ,dutiable at twenty per cent ad
valorem, under section 6, Up. 205) or,
by reason of similiture to ale porter
or beer, at twenty cents per gallon
under paragraph 297, Up. 174) Both
the board of general appraisers and
the Circuit Court sustained the protest
feeling themselves constrained by the
decision of the Circuit Court for the
Southern District of New York (Nishi'
miya v. United States, 131 Fed. Rep.
65O); and that of the Circuit Court OF
Appeals for the Second Circuit, Omit
ed States V. Niishimiya 1877 Fed Rep.
! 50; c. c. A. $751; On appeal, the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed the de-
cision of the Circuit Court and sus-
tanned the classification made by the
collector.S
Mr.. Justice Brewer delivered the
opinion of the court.
Something can be said on both sides
of the question of similarity, and il
the case turned simply upon that ques-
ton it might be difficult to reach a
satisfactory conclusion. In such a
case the construction given by the de-
partment charged with the execution
of the tariff acts is entitled to great
weight. AS said by Mr.. Justice Nc
Kenna, delivering the opinion of the
court in United States V. Hermanos y
Compania, 2O9 U. S. 397, 939.
1--WE have said that when the mean
ing of a statute is doubtful great
weight should be given to the con
struction placed upon it by the depart
ment charged with its execution. no
bertson V. Downing l27 U. ). U. -
6O7;. United States V. Healey, 100 U. S
1876. And we have decided that the re-
enactment by Congress, without
change, of a statute which had pre-
viously received long continued exc
cutive construction is an adoption by
Congress of such construction. Unit
ed States v. Fall, 2O4 U. S. 143, l52"
In the decision of this case Mr.
Justice White and Mr.. Justice Peck
ham concurred solely because of the
prior administrative construction.
Prior to 1894 sake was classified
by similitude to distilled liquor and
subjected to duty of 50 so per proof
gallon under paragraph 329, act 1890
: (26 Stat. SCI, $500 and 50 under para
,