Case: The Swift Courtney & Beecher Company v. The United States
Abbreviation: Swift Courtney & Beecher Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1878-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 14 Ct. Cl. 481
Volume: 14
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The Swift Courtney & Beecher Company v. The United States.
Judges: Drare, Ch. J., was absent when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.
Pages: 481–483

Head Matter:
The Swift Courtney & Beecher Company v. The United States.
On the defendants Demurrer.
An act of Congress allowing a commission of 10 per cent, on stamps to persons furnishing their own elks. The Treasury Depiarlnient malees this commission payable in stamps. Accordingly, instead of selling §100 in stamps for $90 cash, the department sells §110 in stamps for §100 cash. Thepractice is continued for a great length .of time, and is acguiescedin by Congress and by purchasers generally. During thp time the claimants, manufacturers of friction-matches, purchase such stamps. They now claim that the commission allowed by statute should hare been circulated in cash and not in slumps, and sue io recocer the difference.
Where the Secretary of the Treasury lias construed a, statute which iirovides that manufacturers furnishing their own dies for stamps shall he allowed a commission of 10 per cent, to mean that the commission shall he payable in stamps and not in cash, and a great amount of money lias hoen collected under this construction, and purchasers generally have acquiesced in it, and Congress, while revising and re-enacting the statute, have made • no change in the Treasury practice, the court will not reverse the practice hy a new construction of the statute.
The Reporters statement of the ease:
The single question involved in this case is clearly stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Geo. H. Williams for the claimant.
Mr. John 8. Blair (with whom was the Assihtant Attorney-General) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Bichard sow, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant corporation in this case was a manufacturer and proprietor of friction-matches from May, 1870, to the time of bringing its action, and during that time purchased of the defendants a large amount of proprietary stamps for which it furnished its own dies and designs, each purchase being in amount greater than $500. By the provisions of the Act July 14,1870, ch. 255, § 4 (16 Stat.L., 257), and Bevised Statutes, § 3425, the claimant became entitled to a commission of 10 per cent, on the whole amount purchased.
The controversy between the parties which gives rise to this action relates wholly to the- manner of calculating the commission.
The Act July 4,1862, ch, 119, § 102 (12 Stat. L., 477), which first established taxation by stamps as part of the internal-revenue system for raising money to carry on the war for the suppression of the rebellion, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to sell stamps, and to allow and deduct from the aggregate amount the sum of not exceeding 5 per cent, as commission to collectors, postmasters, stationers, or other purchasers, provided that the proprieter of any proprietary articles, among which were friction-matches, should be allowed a disco.unt on amounts purchased at one time of not less than $50 nor more than $500,5 per cent., and on amounts over $500, 10 per cent.
The first official circular issued by the Commissioner of Internal Be venue promulgating regulations in regard to revenue stamps was on the 12th of January, 1863, and contained this provision:
The following commission, payable in stamps, will be allowed:
On purchases of $50 or more, 2 per centum.
On purchases of $100 or more, 3 per centum.
On purchases of $500 or more, 4 per centum.
On purchases of $1,000 or more, 5 per centum;
and the words payable in stamps were in italics. (BoutwelFs Direct and Excise Tax System of the United States, A. D. 1863, p. 391.)
Stamps were not only used for the payment of commissions, but they were paid at their full value, without discount or commission thereon. They were put up in packages. A package for which the purchaser paid $50 contained stamps to the face value of $51; a $100 contained $102 in stamps, and so on. This regulation applied in terms only to sucli stamps as tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury was authorized to sell at such discount as be might allow, not exceeding tbe limit fixed by statute, and as to them it was clearly legal, since it reduced tbe commission in each case slightly below tbe maximum; that is, to tbe extent of tbe discount on those stamps which were- paid as commission.
But the Treasury Department applied the same rule in the sale of proprietary stamps for which purchasers furnished them own dies and designs, and allowed and paid in stamps at their face value the 10 per cent, commission allowed by statute, which the Secretary had no authority to reduce, instead of allowing the commission on the whole amount received, as now claimed. The difference is equal to 10 per cent, in money on the stamps delivered at their face value as commissions.
This rule thus applied has been uniformly acted upon from the passage of the first stamp act, in 1802, to the present time, and has been acquiesced in by dealers in proprietary articles until the present action was instituted, in May, 1879. More than forty millions of dollars have been collected of other parties for stamps sold in accordance therewith. Congress has several times revised and re-enacted the statute on which it is founded, and, with a full knowledge, we may presume, of the construction adopted by the Treasury Department, has made no enactment to change it.
Under 'these circumstances, whatever may be our opinion of the application of the rule in the first instance to the sale of proprietary stamps for which the proprietors furnished dies and designs, we do not feel authorized to reverse it at this late day. In reaching this' conclusion we follow the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Alexander's Case. (12 Wall., 177, and 7 C. Cls. R., 265), and in Pugh's Case (99 U., S, 265), and by this court in Hahn's Case (ante, 306).
The demurrer is sustained, and judgment must be entered thereon dismissing the claimants' petition.
Drare, Ch. J., was absent when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.