Court Opinion

ID: 9416942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:58:50.493058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.200022
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
dissenting:
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. The act of March 3d, 1865, exempted vessels .which paid tonnage duty from paying the 2-| per cent, on gross receipts imposed by the one hundred and third section of the Internal Revenue Act of 1864. The act of 1866 amended this section by exacting the 2J per cent, on receipts from'passengers and mails only, and not on receipts from freight. -A few other minor alterations were made. Such an amendment as this, in-my judgment, cannot have the effect of repealing the exemption granted to vessels paying tonnage duty. It is contended that the mode of making the amendment makes a difference, namely, by striking out all after the enacting clause of the one hundred and third section and re-enacting it with the modification alluded to. It seems to me'that the substance rather than the form should govern the construction. The several laws on the subject .of internal revenue *493constitute one system, all in pari materia; and if modifications of certain sections by amendment are to have the effect of making those sections absolute law, discharged from all qualifications and exemptions created by other parts of the system, the result will be to derange the harmony of the system as a whole. If farm products generally are taxed one per cent.., but by a special law cotton is taxed ten dollars a bale, and by another special law wheat is taxed twenty cents a bushel, can it be that an alteration of the section taxing farm products generally, from one per cent, to two per cent., will abrogate the special tax on cotton and wheat? It is a rule that special laws are not abrogated by general ones, unless the intent to do it be very clear. ' It seems to me that this rule, is lost' sight of in the judgment of the court.