ARTHUR
v.
RHEIMS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this tariff case, the Supreme Court determined whether artificial flowers imported from abroad qualified for a ten percent duty reduction under the Tariff Act of 1872. The Court held that although artificial flowers could technically be classified as cotton manufactures entitled to the reduction, they were not eligible because they were specifically enumerated as "artificial flowers" under the 1864 tariff law, and specific statutory designations are not displaced by general language in the same or subsequent statutes. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment and established that specific tariff classifications take precedence over general classifications that might otherwise apply.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the-opinion of-the court.
The question for decision in this case is, whether the defend ant in error is entitled to the deduction of ten per cent allowed by the act of June 6, 1872.
Under the act of 1864, the duty of fifty per cent was imposed on “ artificial and ornamental feathers and flowers, or part's thereof, of whatever material composed, not otherwise provided for, beads and bead ornaments.” 13 Stat. 213. As no other provision was made, the goods were presumably subject to this duty.
The act of June-6, 18Í2 (17 id. 231), provides, in its second section, as follows: —
“ That on and after the 1st of August, 1872, in lieu' of the duties imposed by law on the articles in this section enumerated, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the goods, wares, and merchandise in this section enumerated and provided for, imported from foreign countries, ninety per cent of the several duties and rates of duties now imposed by law on said articles severally, it being the intent of this section to reduce existing duties on such articles ten per cent of such duties; thaf is to say, on all manufactures of cotton of which cotton is the component part of chief value; ... on all iron and steel, and all manufactures of iron and steel of which such metals, or either of them, shall be the component part of chief-value, excepting cotton machinery.”
Many other articles are named.
The general words of the act of 1872, no doubt, are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the ease before us. Artificial flowers are a manufacture of which cotton is the chief component, and, were that all, would be entitled to the deduction asked for. But it is true, also, that they are dutiable under the law of' 1864, not as a manufacture of cotton, but specifically, ep nomine, as artificial flowers. It has been held in many cases, — as that of “ almonds and dried fruits,” the “ canary birds,” and at the present term, in the case of “ thread laces ” and of “ chocolate,” —that, when an article is intended to1 be made dutiable by its specific designation, i't will not be affected by 'the general words of the same or another statute, which would otherwise embrace it.
This' rule' applies both to statutes reducing and to statutes increasing duties. Giving it-such application here, we must •hold that “artificial flowers” are-not entitled to be classed as a manufacture-of cotton which is entitled to the' reduction provided for by act of 1872.
The ruling in this respect was erroneous, and the judgment must be reversed; and it is iSo ordered
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seeberger v. Cahn, 137 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1890)…Homer v. The Collector, 1 Wall. 486; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144; Arthur v. Morrison, 96 U. S. 108; Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112; Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125; Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135; Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143; Swan v. Arthur, 103 U. S. 597; Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498; Robertson v. Glendenning, 132 U. S. 158. Judgment affirmed.…
-
Ferguson v. Arthur, 117 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1886)…t 50 cents a pound, and by the act of 1812 a duty of 5 cents a pound was laid on f‘ chocolate.”. It was held that ah article which was simply chocolate was dutiable as “chocolate” and not as “confectionery.” A like case is that of Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143, where [*490] “ artificial flowers,” an article made of cotton, being dutiable by that name in the act of 1864, it was held that they were not dutiable at a less rate, by the imposition of a less duty on manufactures of cotton, in the act of 1872.…
-
Arthur v. Moller, 97 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1878)…[*367] Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion of the court. We think that the decision of the court below was correct. In Arthur v. Rheims (96 U. S. 143), it was held that the fact that artificial flowers were a manufacture of cotton did not determine that they were dutiable as components of cotton, but' that they were properly taxable under the specific designation of “ artificial flowers.” The sa…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence