Opinion of the Court. Mr. W. Wickham Smith, (with whom were Mr. Charles Curie and Mr. D. Ives Mackie on the brief,) for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parker for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Had there been any question in this case necessary for the consideration and decision of a jury, the plaintiff would have no just ground of exception to the admission of the testimony of an habitual cigarette smoker, accustomed to roll his own cigarettes, that other cigarette paper, sold in similar packages but without covers, could be used by smokers in that condition, and that the pieces of paper now in question could be so used without being pasted together or into a cover; or to the instructions under which the case was submitted to the jury. But the several exceptions taken become immaterial, because upon the plaintiff's own case the jury might well have been instructed, as matter of law, that the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The facts which were either admitted by both parties, or which the evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff tended to prove, were in substance as follows: The importation of cigarette paper consisted of packages of separate pieces of a paper made of a peculiar material and by a special process, suitable to be used as wrappers for cigarettes, cut into the proper size, and separated into divisions of about 250 pieces by the interposition of pieces of paper of the same size and of different color. The other importation consisted of pasteboard covers of corresponding size, to be used with the paper in making cigarette books, by brushing one edge of each subdivision of the paper with paste or other adhesive substance, and then cementing the paper into the covers, from which the leaves are torn by the smoker as desired, and then the cover (which is useful only to protect the papers) is thrown away. Opinion of the Court. The plaintiff, by arrangement with the foreign manufacturers of this paper, was the sole importer thereof into the United States; his intention and motive in importing it were to make it up into cigarette books; and that was the only form in which such paper had been sold at retail. A large part of this importation was so made up into books by the plaintiff, at an expense of about $400 for the hire of workmen; but a part of it, as imported, was sold directly to manufacturers of cigarettes. The question is, whether upon these facts the cigarette paper and the pasteboard covers for it were "manufactures of paper," within schedule M, or were "smokers' articles," within schedule N, of the Tariff Act of 1883. Each of the two clauses containing the words "not specially enumerated or provided for in this act," and the clause concerning smokers' articles being the more specific and definite, this clause must of course prevail over the other in the case of a subject falling within both descriptions. It is manifestly not requisite, in order to bring an article under this clause, that it should, of and by itself, be capable of being used for smoking; for the clause includes not only "pipes," which are ready to be filled and smoked, but "pipe bowls," which cannot be smoked without putting stems to them, "and all smokers' articles whatever." In the case at bar, the cigarette papers, as well as the covers to hold them, were made, adapted and intended to be used by smokers in rolling and smoking cigarettes. The plaintiff himself imported both the papers and the covers, and entered and paid the duties upon the two simultaneously; and his intention at the time of importing them, as well as his motive in importing them in the form that he did, was to combine them into cigarette books for the use of smokers. The leaves of paper were fit for nothing else but to be made into cigarettes, and smoked with the tobacco wrapped in them; and they were used in the same way, whether never put into a cover at all, or first pasted into a cover and afterwards torn out one by one. The covers were fit for nothing, except to hold and protect the papers until made by the smoker into cigarettes. The mere pasting together of Syllabus. the papers and the covers was in no proper sense a process of manufacture, and did not change the use or the character of the articles. To decide that these cigarette papers and their covers, or either of the two, are not "smokers' articles," would contravene the plain language, as well as the manifest intent and purpose of the Tariff Act. The cases of Robertson v. Gerdan, 132 U. S. 454, and United States v. Schoverling, 146 U. S. 76, cited for the plaintiff, went no further than to hold other provisions of the Tariff Act, describing a complete instrument, to be inapplicable to the importer of a part thereof only. In Robertson v. Gerdan, the point decided was that ivory keys, sold to manufacturers of pianos and organs, to be scraped and glued to the wood, were not themselves musical instruments. In United States v. Schoverling, the point decided was that gunstocks, although intended to be put with barrels to form complete guns, yet no question of the importation of gun barrels being involved, were not guns; and there was no intimation that if the stocks and barrels had both been imported by the same person and entered at the same time, with the intention of himself putting them together as guns, they would not have been dutiable as such; or that gunstocks should not be considered as gunners' or sportsmen's articles. Judgment affirmed. UNITED STATES v. ISAACS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 391. Argued March 15, 1893. - Decided April 10, 1893. Cigarette paper, made of a quality, and cut into a size, fit for wrapping cigarettes, and which, in the condition and form in which it is imported, can be used by smokers in making their own cigarettes, is subject to the duty of seventy per cent ad valorem, imposed on "smokers' articles" Statement of the Case. by schedule N of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, and not to the duty of fifteen per cent ad valorem, imposed on "manufactures of paper" by schedule M of the same act. THIS was an action brought June 15, 1886, by the United States against Isaacs, to recover additional duties upon sixteen cases of cigarette paper, which he had imported and entered for consumption at the port of New Orleans in June, 1885, and had paid a duty of fifteen per cent ad valorem upon, as "manufactures of paper," under schedule M, and which the collector, in liquidating the entry, held to be dutiable at seventy per cent ad valorem as "smokers' articles," under schedule N of the Tariff Act of 1883. At the trial before a jury, the only controversy was under which description the merchandise was dutiable, upon the following facts agreed by the parties: "The goods in question consisted of paper of a quality suitable for wrapping cigarettes filled with tobacco, and was cut into sizes fit for that use, and could have been used for that purpose, or in manufacturing cigarettes, but is not usually and in the ordinary course of trade put on the market for sale to smokers in the condition and form in which it was imported; but such paper is fitted for market and sale to smokers by being separated into lots or parcels of from one hundred to two hundred and fifty leaves of paper, after which one edge of the parcel of leaves is connected together with paste, glue or some other adhesive cement, and afterwards cemented to a protective cover, making, when the manipulation is complete, what is known in commerce as cigarette books, and from which the leaves are torn, one at a time, for the manufacture of cigarettes by smokers or manufacturers. It was, however, possible for any smoker to have taken the separate leaves of paper in form as imported, and used the same in making cigarettes, without having been first made up in books as above described. In fact, a part of this shipment and importation was sold directly to manufacturers of cigarettes in bulk for use in cigarette factories. And if the classification or rate of duty to be imposed is or can be in any Opinion of the Court. manner affected by the intention of the importer as to future use after importation, the defendant admits that at the time of importation and entry it was his intention to use said paper in the manufacture of cigarette books; and that, in fact, a large portion of said paper was so used by him after importation, and was by him sold in that form in the United States." The United States requested the court to instruct the jury that upon the facts agreed the paper in question was a smoker's article, and liable to a duty of seventy per cent ad valorem, and that they should find a verdict for the United States. But the court declined so to instruct the jury; and ruled that upon the facts agreed the goods should be classified as a manufacture of paper, and that the defendant, having paid a duty upon it as such, was entitled to a verdict, which was returned accordingly. The United States alleged exceptions, and on February 11, 1890, sued out this writ of error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parker for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. Wickham Smith, (with whom were Mr. Charles Curie and Mr. D. Ives Mackie on the brief,) for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. It having been admitted by the parties, at the trial, that the paper in question in this case was made of a quality, and cut into a size, fit for wrapping cigarettes, and could, in the condition and form in which it was imported, be used by smokers to make their own cigarettes-although it is not, in the usual and ordinary course of trade, put on the market for sale to smokers in that condition and form, but is usually prepared for sale to smokers by being made up into cigarette books, or else sold to manufacturers of cigarettes to be used in their factories—it must, under the opinion just delivered in Isaacs v. Jonas, ante, 648, be held, to come within the clause of the Tariff Act, which imposes a duty of seventy per cent ad |