United States v. Giese

Second Circuit

United States v. Giese

83 F. 692, 28 C.C.A. 380, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1897

DocketNo. 44

StatusPublished

This text of 83 F. 692 (United States v. Giese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Giese, 83 F. 692, 28 C.C.A. 380, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126 (2d Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The paragraph on which the importers rely reads as follows:

“595. Potash, crude, carbonate of, or black salts. Caustic potash, or hydrate of, including refined in sticks or rolls. Nitrate of potash, or saltpeter, crude. Sulphate of potash, crude or refined. Chlorate of potash. Muriate of potash.”

It will be noticed that the first sentence of this paragraph employs three descriptive phrases, viz.: Potash, crude; potash, carbonate of; [693]*693black salts. The use of the word “or” might leave it uncertain whether or not they were mere alternative designations for the same article; but the board of general appraisers has found that “there are potash salts known, respectively, as black salts, crude potash, carbonate of potash, and caustic potash”; and there is abundant evidence to sustain this finding. Under these circumstances, we see no reason why the court should be astute to find some excuse for holding that congress did not intend to say what it has said in positive and unambiguous language. When an importation is within the description which congress has used in this paragraph as “carbonate of potash,” it should be classified accordingly, whether it be crude or refined. There is no force in the suggestion that it is not to be assumed that congress would admit refined carbonate of potash free, in view of the fact that, in this very paragraph, refined sulphate of potash and refined caustic potash are expressly given free entry. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The paragraph on which the importers rely reads as follows:

“595. Potash, crude, carbonate of, or black salts. Caustic potash, or hydrate of, including refined in sticks or rolls. Nitrate of potash, or saltpeter, crude. Sulphate of potash, crude or refined. Chlorate of potash. Muriate of potash.”

It will be noticed that the first sentence of this paragraph employs three descriptive phrases, viz.: Potash, crude; potash, carbonate of; [693]*693black salts. The use of the word “or” might leave it uncertain whether or not they were mere alternative designations for the same article; but the board of general appraisers has found that “there are potash salts known, respectively, as black salts, crude potash, carbonate of potash, and caustic potash”; and there is abundant evidence to sustain this finding. Under these circumstances, we see no reason why the court should be astute to find some excuse for holding that congress did not intend to say what it has said in positive and unambiguous language. When an importation is within the description which congress has used in this paragraph as “carbonate of potash,” it should be classified accordingly, whether it be crude or refined. There is no force in the suggestion that it is not to be assumed that congress would admit refined carbonate of potash free, in view of the fact that, in this very paragraph, refined sulphate of potash and refined caustic potash are expressly given free entry. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F. 692, 28 C.C.A. 380, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-giese-ca2-1897.