Opinion of the Court.

materials for:" and "Silk and silk goods," have been before quoted. The changes made in that act from the Revised Statutes of 1874, in regard to "Bonnets, hats and hoods," were these: Those articles were qualified with the words "not specially enumerated or provided for in this act," and the duty was reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. The changes made in regard to "Hats, and so forth, materials for:" were these: The words, "willow, or any other vegetable substance, or of hair, whalebone or other material not otherwise provided for," were changed to the words, "willow, hair, whalebone or any other substance or material, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act," and the rate of duty was reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. Changes were also made in the schedule in regard to "Silks and silk goods." The duty of 60 per cent on silk ribbons eo nomine was omitted, and also the like duty on silk trimmings, or of which silk was the component material of chief value; and the duty of 50 per cent on "Manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise provided for," was changed to a like duty on " All goods, wares and merchandise, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made of silk or of which silk is the component material of chief value.”

Section 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, provides that, on and after the 1st of July, 1883, "the following sections," being twenty-three sections, one of which is section 2502, with Schedules A to N, "shall constitute and be a substitute for Title thirty-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States,” thus abolishing all enactments found in the original Title 33, in regard to duties on imports.

It is thus seen that, by the act of 1883, no duty is imposed upon silk ribbons by name. Under the Revised Statutes of 1874 silk ribbons, being charged by name with a duty of 60 per cent, were not charged with a duty of 50 per cent as "manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise provided for," because they were otherwise provided for; and they could not have been liable to a duty of 30 per cent as "trimmings . . used ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods," and not

for

.

Opinion of the Court

otherwise provided for, because they were otherwise provided for, in Schedule H, as silk ribbons, by name, at 60 per cent. But when we come to the act of 1883, silk ribbons are not therein specifically named, in Schedule L or elsewhere, and are not dutiable at 50 per cent, as silk goods not specially enumerated or provided for in the act of 1883, because in the clause in regard to "Hats, and so forth, materials for:" they are specially enumerated and provided for in that act, as trimmings used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods, and composed of some other substance or material than the seven substances specially named, and are not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for in that act, and are therefore dutiable at 20 per cent.

The question, however, is not only clear on principle, on a review of the statutory provisions, but it is disposed of by decisions of this court.

In Arthur v. Zimmerman, 96 U. S. 124, the articles imported were composed of cotton, and were known commercially as "hat braids." The collector imposed duty upon them under that clause of section 6 of the act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 209, which provided for a duty of 35 per cent on "cotton braids, insertings, lace trimmings or bobbinets, and all other manufactures of cotton." The importers claimed that they were dutiable at only 30 per cent. It appeared that the articles were used exclusively for making and trimming hats and bonnets, and the Circuit Court and this court held them to be dutiable at only 30 per cent, under that clause of section 8 of the act of July 14, 1862, c. 163, 12 Stat. 557, and of Schedule M of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, (2d ed. p. 476,) which imposed that rate of duty on trimmings used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods, and composed of other material than the substances specifically named, and not otherwise provided for.

But the question in regard to goods substantially identical with those in question in the present case was presented to this court and decided by it in the case of Hartranft v. Langfeld, 125 U. S. 128. The goods in that case were imported into Philadelphia, and entered at the custom house there in

Opinion of the Court.

September and October, 1883. The suit was begun on the 28th of February, 1884. It was tried on April 6th, 1886. The writ of error was sued out August 5th, 1886, while the writ of error in the present case was brought September 29th, 1886. The two transcripts of record were filed in this court the same day, October 13, 1886, but the Langfeld case was advanced, on motion, and heard February 15, 1888, while the present case has stood on the docket until reached in its regular order.

The articles in the Langfeld case were velvet ribbons made of silk and cotton, in which silk was the material of chief value. The collector assessed upon them a duty of 50 per cent, under that clause of Schedule L of section 2502 of Title 33 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 510, before quoted, which reads as follows: "All goods, wares and merchandise, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, fifty per centum ad valorem." The plaintiffs in the suit claimed, and the jury found, under the instructions of the court, that the duty ought to have been assessed under the paragraph in Schedule N of section 2502 of the same title, providing for "Hats, and so forth, materials for:" above quoted, and that the duty should have been only 20 per cent. The goods in question there were trimmings," and were used "for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods." There was no evidence that they were used exclusively for that purpose. The testimony on the part of the plaintiffs tended to show that they were used chiefly for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods, but that they might also be, and sometimes were, used for trimming dresses. The testimony on the part of the defendant tended to show that they were dress trimmings equally with hat trimmings, and were commonly used as much for the one purpose as the other. The Circuit Court charged the jury that the use to which the articles were chiefly adapted, and for which they were used, determined their character within the meaning of the statute; and that, if the articles were hat trimmings, chiefly used for making and ornamenting hats, the jury should find a verdict for the plaintiffs, the suit having

Opinion of the Court.

been brought by the importers against the collector, to recover the difference between 20 per cent and 50 per cent. The defendant had requested the court to charge the jury that, if the articles were not specially enumerated or provided for, and silk was their component material of chief value, they were dutiable at 50 per cent, under the clause before quoted, and the verdict should be for the defendant; also, that if the jury should find that silk was the component material of chief value in them, and they were not exclusively or specially used. for hat trimmings, they were not subject to the 20 per cent duty; also, that if the jury should find that the articles could properly be classified, under the above rules, as liable to 20 per cent duty, and also as liable to 50 per cent duty, they were dutiable at the higher rate, and the verdict should be for the defendant; and also that, unless the jury shall find that the articles were not specially provided for, and were fitted only for use for making or ornamenting hats, their verdict should be for the defendant. The Circuit Court declined to give those instructions, and the defendant excepted.

It appears by the opinion of this court that it was contended here, on the part of the defendant, that the true construction of the statute was not only that the use of the material must be for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods, but that the material itself must be in some one of the forms named in the clause regarding "Hats, and so forth, materials for." This court, however, held that, under the charge of the court as given, the objection was not well taken that the charge would have authorized a recovery if the goods in question were materials used for making or ornamenting hats, although not coming within the enumeration of the articles so specified. This court further said that the Circuit Court instructed the jury that they must find the goods in question to be "trimmings," chiefly used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets and hoods, composed of a material not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for. This court also said that velvet ribbons were not specially mentioned as subject to a duty by that name or description; that they were manifestly trimmings, according to the natural meaning of

VOL. CXXXII-40

Opinion of the Court.

that word, and because they were used to trim either hats or dresses; and that the real controversy was as to the purpose for which, as "trimmings," they were principally used. As to the request of the defendant to charge the jury that, if they should find that the articles could be classified properly as subject to 20 per cent duty and also as subject to 50 per cent duty, they were liable to duty at the higher rate, under the provision of section 2499 of the Revised Statutes, this court said that the principle of that section was not applicable to the case, because the ribbons were found by the jury to be trimmings chiefly used for making or ornamenting hats; that this brought them within the provision of Schedule N, which fixed the duty at 20 per cent; and that, being thus specially provided for, they were excluded from the operation of all other provisions. On these views, this court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Therefore, in addition to the conclusion which results from considering the history of the legislation on the points involved, we are of opinion that the decision in the case of Hartranft v. Langfeld controls this case, and that it was proper for the Circuit Court to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs. Such practice has been often sanctioned by this court. There was no question of fact for the jury, and the defendant did not ask to go to the jury. Bevans v. United States, 13 Wall. 56; Walbrun v. Babbitt, 16 Wall. 577; Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143; Arthur v. Zimmerman, 96 U. S. 124; Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495; Anderson County v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227, 242; Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U. S. 419; North Pennsylvania Railroad v. Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 733.

Judgment affirmed.