Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/485

 DBTBIC3K V. BALFOUB. 471 �IB, jncidental and purely accidentai. And when parties contraet with reference to changes of du^ies, in all prob£),bility they would onlj con- teniplate the intentipnal^ changes in the duties usually depending on changes of rate, and, not those rare, unlqoked-for instances wherei the amount of the duties is accidentally affected as incidental to legislation or officiai action designed to effeot other ohjects. If parties contemplated protecting themselves against remote, acciden- tai efifects, they ,w(|uld be very apt to use language to olearly caani- fest such a purpo,^e>, ; The plaintiff's eounssl insist that the parties could not hai^e contemplated a cha.nge in the "rate" of duties; that if they had tHey wpuld haye inserted the word "rate" in their con- tract, and aa they hsiv.e not used the word it cannot be interpolated. It may just as well ]be argned that they did not mean the "amount" of duties; if they had, the word "amount" would have been used, and we are ;ojC) more authorized to interpolate the word "anjount" than"rate." �A plain, common-sense view of the question must be taken. The change in the ainoant of the duties in this instance resulted from a change in the yalue of tlje, rupee, or the money of the country whence the goods were iniportqd. . Section 2838, Rev, St.,.requires the invoice to be made "in the currency of the,pla,ce oi; country f^ora whence the importation shall bemade, and shall contain a tra«,Btate- ment of the actual cost of such'merchandise in such foreign currency." ^etc. And cection 2906, Eev. St., requires the collector to adopt the actual market value, at the period of eicportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country whence the goods are im- ported, and the period of exportation is the day of sailing from the foreign port. Samson v. Peaslee, .20 How,,.571. And duties ipust be paid in morieyof the Tjnited' Sta^tes. Eev. St. § 3473. The value of all foreign coins must be estimated in money of the United States by the director oi the mint, and proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury on the orst of January of each year. Eev. St. § 3564. The object seems'to be to get at the realj, actual value of the foreign coin in the money of the United States. Collector v. Richards, 23 Wall. 246. By obtaining the actual value of the foreign coin in our own money, we obtain the actual value of the goods estimated in foreign coins in tiie nioney of the United States. In this case there was a «hange in the value of the rupee, bet\7een the time of the contract and the time of the importation, by which the value. of the rupee was tessened, conseqiiently the value pf the goods was diminished.. , There "was a diminution of the dutiabie value of the good3,p—s. change, a ��� �