Magone v. Luckemeyer/Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice GRAY and myself are unable to concur in the opinion of the court in this case. The facts are substantially as follows: By the tariff act of 1883 woolen dress goods were taxed as follows: If composed in part of wool, worsted, etc., and valued at not exceeding 20 cents per square yard, 5 cents per yard, and 35 per cent. ad valorem. If composed wholly of wool, worsted, etc., or of a mixture of them, 9 cents per yard, and 40 per cent. ad valorem. But all such goods (1) with selvedges made wholly or in part of other materials, or (2e with threads of other materials introduced duced for the purpose of changing the classification, shall be dutiable at the higher rate of all-wool goods.

It was conceded that in appearance, texture, quality, and use the goods in question were indistinguishable from women's dress goods composed wholly of wool, that the cotton in the goods could be discovered only by chemical analysis, and that the original purpose of introducing cotton in the warp was to change the classification. It is conceded that, if threads entirely of cotton had been introduced into the goods for the purpose of changing the classification, they would be dutiable as all-woolen goods; but in this case threads had been introduced composed partly of cotton and partly of wool, and the opinion of the court finds that these are not threads of 'other materials,' althought the amount of cotton in the fabric is less than if these threads were entirely composed of cotton, and hence that they are dutiable as mixed goods. It would seem to follow from this that if they are not threads of 'other materials' they must be threads of wool, which certainly would make them all-woolen goods.

Assuming, however, that these introduced threads are half cotton and half wool, and that the amount of wool in the entire fabric is 96 per cent., the consequences are these: If the goods contain 92 per cent. of wool, a thread wholly of cotton being introduced to change the classification, they are dutiable as all-wool goods; but if the fabric contains 96 per cent. of wool, by reason of the introduced thread being composed partly of wool and partly of cotton, they are dutiable as mixed goods. It seems to us that no such conclusion should be possible, but that the intention of congress was that no one should be permitted to evade the classification of all-wool goods by the introduction of an inappreciable amount of other material, which should not as a matter of fact change its character as an all-wool fabric.

We think that the thread composed partly of wool and partly of cotton is a thread of 'other materials' within the meaning of the act. Congress having enacted that duties on all-wool goods should not be evaded by the introduction of a cotton thread, we can hardly conceive it possible that they intended to permit an evasion by the introduction of a thread partly of wool and partly of cotton, making the fabric nearer an all-wool fabric than if the thread had been composed wholly of cotton.