Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/892

 880 FEDEBAIi BBPOKTEB. �now under consideration. I have no doubt in the matter; but if the question were doubtful, I should feel constrained to give the doubt in favor of the prisoner. An entry will be made sustaining the motion to quash. ���BixTT-FivE Terba Cotta Vases, etc. {District Court, S. D. New York. February 20, 1882.) �1. DuTiES ON Imports — Pheb List — Collections of Antiquitjes. �The item in the " free list " of section 2505, Rev. St., making free "cabinets of coins, raedals, and all other collections of antiquities," embraces all "collec- tions of antiquities," within the ordinary meanlng of those woids. It is not limited to "collections of antiquities " ejusdem generis with coins and medals. This item of the free list, dating back to the tarifl of 1846, lias ever since con- tinued without change, and must be held to have the same meaning now that it had theu. �2. Same— ExTEKsiON op Feee List — Act op 1870 Cokstrued. �The addition to the free list, in the act of 1870, of the item "collections of antiquity, specially imported, and not' for sale," (16 St. at Large, p. 266, } 22,) is by that act declared to be designed to extend the free list. it cannot, there- fore, by implication, be suffered to change the meaning of the other item, which still remains in the free list, respecting "collections of antiquities," nor make them dutiable now, when not dutiable before. �3. Statutoey Construction— Provisions not Repugnant. �Though this construction leaves this item of the act of 1870 superfluous, the practioe and the pollcy of the government, for at least 24 years previous, ad- mitting "collections of antiquities" free, should not be reversed except upon some new provision repugnant to the old ; and this item in the act of 1870 is not repugnant. �4. Articles Exempt prom Cdstoms Dutibs. �The articles in question being held to be exempt from duty, no legai injury from the claimant's acts resulted to the United States, and a verdict was di- rected for the claimant. �This was an information filed for a condemnation of a "collection of antiquities" seized by the customs officer for alleged fraudaient importation with the intent to evade payment of legal duties. �It was admitted upon the trial that the articles in question consti- tuted a "collection of antiquities." They were imported from France in October, 1878, designed for sale. Being supposed to be free oi duties they were entered as free and warehoused. A question being raised as to their being dutiable, the case was referred to the treasury department, which, after considerable controversy, ruled that they ��� �