Plaintiff imported into the United States a quantity of iron
advertising or show cards of various sizes. They were sold here for
advertising purposes,
Page 132 U. S. 656
to hang on walls or in windows in public places, and contained
generally the name of the person or of the article advertised and
some picture or ornament, which were printed from lithographic
stones upon the plates of sheet iron in the same way that
lithographing is done upon paper or cardboard. The principal part
of the value of the completed card was in the printing done upon
the material, and not in the material itself.
Held that
they were subject to a duty of 45 percent
ad valorem as
manufactures, etc., not specially enumerated or provided for,
composed wholly or in part of iron, under the last paragraph of
Schedule C, Rev.Stat. § 2502, as enacted March 3, 1883, 22 Stat.
501, c. 121, and not as printed matter not specially enumerated or
provided for, under the first paragraph of Schedule M in the same
amending act.
This cause was heard by the district judge for the District of
New Hampshire, holding the circuit court, upon the following agreed
statement of facts:
"This was an action in which the writ was dated April 18, 1884,
brought by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, a
corporation located at Boston, in said district, to recover back
$1,081.42, the amount of duties alleged by them to have been
illegally exacted by the defendant, Worthington, as collector of
the port of Boston, on certain merchandise described in the invoice
and entries as 'iron show-cards' imported by them. The pleadings
may be referred to. The plaintiffs imported these cards into the
port of Boston from Paris, in France, by different steamers from
Liverpool, the importations being made in ten separate lots, and
extending from December 19, 1883, to April 2, 1884."
"On each importation, as received, the plaintiffs paid the
assessed duties under protest, and duly filed such protest with the
collector, and their appeal with the Secretary of the Treasury. A
copy of one of the protests, which may stand for all, is hereto
annexed and marked 'A,' and this action was seasonably
brought."
"The collector exacted a duty of forty-five percentum
ad
valorem (amounting in the aggregate to $2,432.62) under the
clause in Schedule C (last section) of the Tariff Law of March 3,
1883, which is as follows:"
" Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated or
provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, . . .
or any other metal, and
Page 132 U. S. 657
whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five percentum
ad valorem,"
"while the said importers claimed that the goods were dutiable
at twenty-five percentum
ad valorem only (the aggregate
amounting to $1,351.20) under the clause in Schedule M (first
section) which is as follows:"
" Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter,
not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings,
bound or unbound, etchings, illustrated books, maps, and charts,
twenty-five percentum
ad valorem."
"The difference between the amount of said duties at forty-five
percent and at twenty-five percent, is $1,081.42, which is the
amount that the plaintiffs claim in this case."
"All the goods charged with the duties were iron show-cards or
advertising cards or signs."
"They were manufactured in Paris on orders given by the said
importers to fill orders from parties here, who used them for
advertising purposes (to hang on the walls or in windows or in
public places, to give to customers, etc.). The importers imported
and sold them to the consumers here for such advertising purposes
only. The cards were of different sizes, being on the average about
a foot long by six inches wide, and contained, generally, the name
of the person and of the article advertised, with some picture or
ornament thereon-- for example, as follows:"
image:a
"These cards were prepared in different colors, on plates of
sheet iron. It is agreed, if relevant to the issue, that the
value
Page 132 U. S. 658
of the iron plates before the printing was put upon them was
about two or three cents each, and that the other material of the
card, as material, was of like trifling value, while that of the
completed card or sign was about twenty to twenty-five cents."
"These cards or signs were lithographed (that is to say,
printed) from lithographic stones on hand presses in the same way
that lithographing is done on paper or on cardboard. Samples of
said cards are filed herewith, marked 'Exhibit B,' and may be
referred to at the hearing."
"The case is submitted by the parties on the above, as an agreed
statement of facts."
"If upon the foregoing facts the merchandise should have been
assessed at 25 percent, judgment is to be rendered for the
plaintiffs for $1,081.42 and costs; otherwise, for defendant for
costs."
Copy of the protest was attached to the statement, and samples
of the cards accompanied it as exhibits.
"The court found for the defendant, and entered judgment
accordingly, and a writ of error was sued out from this Court upon
exceptions to the findings and rulings. The opinion is reported in
25 F. 899."
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the facts as above,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We concur with the district judge in his conclusion that these
iron show-cards were properly assessed as manufactures of iron, not
specially enumerated or provided for in the Act of March 3, 1883,
and as such liable to duty under the last paragraph of Schedule C
of section 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by that act,
which reads:
"Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated
Page 132 U. S. 659
or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron,
steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver,
platinum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly
manufactured, forty-five percentum
ad valorem."
22 Stat. 501.
This is conceded by plaintiff in error unless the articles were
dutiable as "printed matter" under the first paragraph of Schedule
M of that section, 22 Stat. 510, c. 121, which is quoted in the
statement of facts and given hereafter.
The diligence of counsel has furnished us with definitions from
many dictionaries and encyclopedias of the words "print,"
"printing," and "printed matter," from which it is argued that the
essential feature of printing is not the substance on which the
printing is done, but the mode of making the impression. But the
question here is not whether these iron show-cards, being
lithographed or printed, could be styled "printed matter" within
the meaning of these words as given by lexicographers, but whether
they were "printed matter" as those words are used in Schedule M of
the Act of March 3, 1883.
There was no evidence that signs of this kind were known
commercially, or by printers, bookbinders, dealers in books,
pamphlets, or periodicals, or others, as "printed matter."
In
Arthur v. Moller, 97 U. S. 365,
certain chromo-lithographs printed from oil stones upon paper were
held subject to the duty levied upon printed paper, and Mr. Justice
Hunt, in delivering the opinion of the Court, says that
"the term 'print' or 'printing' includes the most of the forms
of figures or characters or representations, colored or uncolored,
that may be impressed on a yielding surface,"
and that
"the pictures in question were printed from lithographic stones
by successive impressions, each impression giving a different
portion of the view and of a different color. Like other pictures,
they are made and used for the purpose of ornament. Equally with
engravings, copper plates, and lithographs, they are printed and
properly fall within the statutory designation of 'printed matter.'
If further argument were needed, it would be found in the principle
noscitur a sociis. 'Printed matter' is
Page 132 U. S. 660
named in the list with engravings, maps, charts illustrated
papers. With these printed pictures are naturally associated."
Undoubtedly the words "printed matter" are popularly considered
as applying to paper or some similar substance commonly used to
receive the impression of letters, characters, or figures by type
and ink, and reference to the legislation of Congress demonstrates
that the phrase was used in the schedule in question in this
sense.
By section 18 of the Act of March 2, 1861, fixing duties on
imports, etc., a duty of fifteen percentum
ad valorem was
levied "on all books, periodicals, and pamphlets, and all printed
matter and illustrated books and papers." 12 Stat. 187.
In section 94 of the Act of June 30, 1864, appears this
paragraph: "On all printed books, magazines, pamphlets, reviews,
and all other similar printed publications, except newspapers, a
duty of five percentum
ad valorem." 13 Stat. 267.
By "Schedule M, Sundries," of section 2504 of the Revised
Statutes, it is provided:
"Books, periodicals, pamphlets, blank books, bound or unbound,
and all printed matter, engravings, bound or unbound, illustrated
books and papers, and maps and charts, twenty-five percentum
ad
valorem."
Rev.Stat. 2d ed. 474.
In section 2502 of Title 33 of the Revised Statutes as enacted
by the Act of March 3, 1883, the first paragraph of the schedule
headed "Schedule M, Books, Papers, Etc.," reads:
"Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter not
specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound
or unbound, etchings, illustrated books, maps, and charts,
twenty-five percentum
ad valorem."
22 Stat. 510.
And then follow nine paragraphs, making ten in all in this
schedule, relating to blank books, bound or unbound, and blank
books for press copying; paper, sized or glued, suitable only for
printing paper; printing paper, unsized, used for books and
newspapers exclusively; manufactures of papers not specially
enumerated; sheathing paper; paper boxes, and
Page 132 U. S. 661
all other fancy boxes; paper envelopes, paper hangings, and
paper for screens or fire-boards, paper antiquarian, demy, drawing,
elephant, foolscap, imperial, letter, note, and all other paper not
specially enumerated or provided for in the act; pulp, dried, for
papermakers' use.
It is very clear that these iron signs were not dutiable under a
schedule headed "Books, Papers, etc.," and confined throughout to
the subject matter thus indicated.
If a duty had been imposed on iron show-cards
eo
nomine, the latter would not have been dutiable as
"manufactures of iron," any more than "braces and suspenders,"
though made of rubber, were dutiable as "manufactures of rubber,"
Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135, or
"artificial flowers," though made of cotton, were dutiable as
"manufactures of cotton,"
Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S.
143. The specific designation would prevail over the
general words, which otherwise embraced the article. In
Arthur
v. Jacoby, 103 U. S. 677,
decorated porcelain ware being subject to one rate of duty and
pictures to another, it was held that where it appeared that
certain pictures had been painted by hand on porcelain, which, it
was proved,
"did not, in itself, constitute an article of chinaware, being
manufactured simply as a ground for the painting, and not for any
use independent of the paintings,"
they were taxable as pictures, and not as decorated porcelain
ware. The question decided, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite at
the close of the opinion, was that "the goods were not chinaware,
but paintings." But here the articles were clearly manufactures of
iron, and were not "printed matter," within the meaning of the
clause relied on by the plaintiff, because those words, as there
used, applied only to articles
ejusdem generis with books
and pamphlets, which iron show-cards were not.
We find no difficulty in concluding that the case was properly
decided, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
