Merritt v. Welsh

104 U.S. 694, 26 L. Ed. 896, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2066
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 18, 1882
Docket1066
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 104 U.S. 694 (Merritt v. Welsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694, 26 L. Ed. 896, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2066 (1882).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought-by S. & W. Welsh, the plaintiffs below, to recover back duties alleged by them to have been illegally exacted by Merritt, the defendant below, as collector of the .port of New York, on certain sugars imported by them. The importations were made in 1879, and were subject to the duties imposed by schedule G, sect. 2504, of the Revised Statutes, and by the third section of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 127, which are in the following words: —

“ Sect. 2504: Schedule G:
“ Sugar not above number seven, Dutch Standard in color : one and three-quarter cents per pound.
“ Sugar above number seven, and not above number ten, Dutch standard in color : two cents per pound.
“ Sugar above number ten, and not above number thirteen, Dutch standard in color: two and one-quarter cents per pound.
“ Sugar above number thirteen, and not above number sixteen, Dutch standard in color: two and three-quax-ter cents per pound.
“ Sugar above number sixteen, and not above number twenty, Dxiteh stand ax’d in color: three and one-quarter cents per pound.”

- The following sections of the Revised Statutes were appended as provisos to the original acts fx’om which the above • articles were taken : —

[695]*695“ Sect. 2914. The standard by which the color and grades of sugar are to be regulated shall be selected and furnished to the collectors of such ports of entry as may be necessary, by the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, and in such manner as. he. may deem expedient.
“ Sect. 2915. The Secretary* of the Treasury shall, by. regula-, tion, prescribe and require that samples from packages of sugar shall be taken by the proper officers, in such manner as to ascertain the true quality of such sugar; and the weights of sugar imported in casks or boxes shall be marked distinctly by the custom-house weigher, by scoring the figures indelibly on each package.”

To the foregoing duties twenty-five per cent was added-by the third section of the act-of March 3, 1875.

The plaintiffs claimed that the sugars imported were all below number 7, Dutch standard in color-, and were, therefore, chargeable, under schedule <3,- with only a duty of one and three-quarter cents per pound, with the addition of twenty-ffv.e per cent, under the act of 1875. The defendant, under general instructions from the Treasury Department, rated them at a higher grade, arid charged a duty of two cents upon some of them, and two and one-quarter cents upon others, with the addition of the twenty-five per cent, under the act of 1875. His action was based on the position that the sugars in question had been colored by artificial means, so as to reduce them, in appearance, below the grade of the Dutch standard to which they properly belonged according to the amount of crystallized sugar which they contained, as shown by chemical test by the polariscope.

The treasury instructions under which the test was applied were issued on the 19th of July and the 2d of September, 1879. After premising that it had been decided by the courts that the term “ Dutch standard in color,” as used in the statutes, means the color of the sugar obtained by the ordinary processes of manufacture as practised at the time of the enactment of the law, and that any means used to-degrade the color of sugars during or after the process of manufacture is a fraud upon the revenite, the instruction, of July 19, 1879, declares that —

“ All sugars containing ninety per cent, and not more than-[696]*696ninety-four per cent, of crystallizable sugar, the apparent color of which is not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified as above No. 7 and not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color.
“ All sugars containing more than ninety-four per cent of crystallizable sugar, thesapparent color of which is not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified as above No. 10 and not above No. 18, Dutch standard in color.”

As the.presence of water in the sugars was found to interfere . with uniform results, the instruction was changed in September, as follows: —

“ All sugars the apparent color of which, as imported, is not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, and which contain over ninety-three per cent, and pot over ninety-seven per cent, of crystallizable sugar in one hundred parts of the' dry substance, shall be classified as No. 7 and not above No. 10, Dutch standard.
“ All sugars the apparent color of which, as imported, is not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color, and which contain over ninety-seven per cent of crystallizable sugar-in one hundred parts of the dry substance, shall be classified as above No. 10 and not above No. 13, Dutch standard.”

It was shown beyond dispute, on the trial, that, so far as their color was concerned, the sugars were below No. 7 of the Dutch standard, — a grade" chargeable, by the statute, with only one and three-quarters cents per pound; but the court allowed the defendant to prove, if he could, that the color of .the sugars was an artificial color, imparted after the process of manufacturé, or after they became the sugars of commerce. As no proof was offered to show that they were artificially colored after the process of manufacture was completed,. the -court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the difference of duty.

The defendant offered to prove that color was imparted to the sugars in the course of manufacture, by the use of an extra quantity of lime (some quantity of which is ahvajos used to neutralize acids) or by the- introduction of molasses, and increasing the temperature of the vacuum-pan or boiler; but this evidence the court held to be incompetent. To narrow [697]*697the point of difference, he offered to show that coloring matter, namely, molasses, was introduced into the vacuum-pan or boiler after the mass had been brought to the state of sugar, but before its final passage through the coolers and the centrifugal tubs, — the last process through which it goes ; but this evidence was also decided to be incompetent.

The position and argument of the defendant may be more fully shown by the instructions which his counsel asked the court to give the jury, and which were severally refused. They were as follows: —-

“ 1. That if the jury shall find from the evidence that the true color of the sugar in suit, as ascertained by comparing them in every respect with the standard selected by the Secretary of the Treasury, and actually used in ascertaining and determining their dutiable character, was not sugar ‘not above number seven Dutch standard in color,’ they shall find a verdict for the defendant.
“ 2. That if they shall find from the evidence that on December 22, 1870, and prior thereto, the sugars of commerce were comprised substantially of crystallized sugar and molasses, and that the color of the different grades of such sugar was produced by molasses, the highest grades being No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ford Motor Co. v. United States
254 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (Court of International Trade, 2017)
Philip Garay v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States
74 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
Edmond v. Department of Corrections
321 N.W.2d 817 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Burns v. Alcala
420 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. Peacock Sales Co.
61 Cust. Ct. 586 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Park Avenue Imports v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 750 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Peacock Sales Co. v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 757 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Wiley v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 331 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
Rifkin Textiles Corp. v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 341 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Robert G. Lynch Co. v. United States
49 C.C.P.A. 74 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 177 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
Mercantile Stores Co. v. United States
36 Cust. Ct. 354 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Flick's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
166 F.2d 733 (Fifth Circuit, 1948)
Varsity Watch Co. v. United States
34 C.C.P.A. 155 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1947)
United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board
34 C.C.P.A. 118 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1946)
Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v. United States
32 C.C.P.A. 175 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 U.S. 694, 26 L. Ed. 896, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-welsh-scotus-1882.