Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/895

 SrXTY-FIVE TEREA COTTA VASES. 883 �free entry under the clause "all other collections of antiquities." The designation and description of the articles in question by this phrase is perfect. There is nothing that I find in the prior acts which would indicate any contrary interpretation, and the restricted construction now suggested could not possibly have been maintained prior to 1870. It is alleged, and not disputed, that never, until recently, have such collections been attempted to be made dutiable, and that the established practice was to admit them free, even after the act of 1870. The same practice was followed notably in the case of the Castellani collection, first brought over and exhibited at the centennial exposition at Philadelphia, in 1876, and afterwards exhib- ited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The articles are such as are not usually dealt in in commerce, and such as have no fixed or ascer- tainable commercial value. The provisions of the tariff laws for the appraisement and assessment of duties are of necessity almost impos- sible to be practically applied to them. They could not by possibility be any important source of revenue, and they are articles which, in other provisions of the tariff law, the government bas shown a desire to encourage the importation of, free of duty, in the interests of edu- cation and the fine arts. �Such being the law, the practice, and the policy of the government for at least 24 years before the act of 1870, under the provision above quoted from the act of 1846, making free "all other collections of antiquities," some more definite indication of a purpose to make such collections dutiable must be found than is contained in the act of 1870, which is expressly declared to be designed to extend, and not to restrict, the free list before they can be held dutiable. If it be said that this would leave the clause in question in the act of 1870 of no practical effect, it may be replied that this is not the first or only instance of superflaity, or unnecessary reiteration, in the items of the tariff legislation. It is enough that this act does not profess and was not designed to make anything dutiable which was not dutiable before. It is in no degree incompatible with the former provision. Though narrower in its scope and in reality superfluous, it is not repugnant to the former provision, and henoe cannot be deemed a repeal of it, contrary to the expressed general design of the act, nor a ground for now placing any new or more restricted construction upon it than that which before properly belonged to it. Wood v. U. S. 16 Pet. 342, 363; Davies v. Fairburn, 3 How. (U. S.) 636, 646; U. S. V, Tynen, 11 Wall. 92. I hold, therefore, that the articles in question were not dutiable, and were entitled to free entry. ��� �