Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/34

 KENNEDY V. HAETBANPT. 19 �This was an action at law biought by Logan P. Kennedy, a citizen of Ken- tucky, against John F. Hartranft, collector of customs of the district of Phil- adelphie, to recover an excess of duty claimed to have been exaeted on about 9,000 bundles of cotton lies imported byplaintifC into the portof Philadelphie in August, 1880. The articles imported were bands of iron, each 11 feet long, palnted and accompanied by a buckle. They were put up in bundles of 30 bands, with 30 buckles strung on one band. The collector claimed that they were hoop iron, and collected the duty of one and a half cents per pound imposed on that article by section 2504, Eev. St. Plaintifl claimed that they were manufactures of iron, and as such subject only to the duty of 35 per cent, ad ■oalorem imposed by the same section ou all manufactures of iron not otherwise provided for. �The case was tried October 18, 1881, before McKennan, C. J., and Butter, B. J. The testimony of plaintifl's witnesses was to the effect that prior to and since the passage of the act of June 30, 1864, (13 St. 202,) on which the portions of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes in controversy were founded, "hoop iron," as it waa understood in the trade, meant long strips of iron, from 30 to 60 feet In length, as it came f rom the rolls, fltted for no special pur- pose, but suitable to be manufactured and used for a variety of purposes ; that a cotton tie consisted of a band of iron 11 feet long, painted to prevent rust, and fitted with a buckle, either riveted to it or detached from it ; that whether the buckle was riveted or detached, the tie was ready for immediate use for bal- ing cotton, the band being passed around the baie, the ends bent into loops, and the loops slipped into the buckle, where they were tightened and securely held by the expansion of the baie; that cotton ties were a distinct article of commerce not dealt in by dealers in hoop iron ; that their short length and the paint upon them rendered them unflt for the general purposes of hoop iron, and that they could not be used for such purposes without burning o£E the paint and cutting them to new lengths, at a pecuniary loss. �The testimony of defendant'» witnesses was to the effect that the term " hoop iron" had no restricted trade meaning, but prior to and since the act of 1864 it was used in the trade in its general significance, compreheuding all kinds and lengths of hoop iron, irrespective of the purpose for which it was intended to be used ; that a cotton tie was simply a piece of hoop iron, painted, and in the opinion of the witnesses was not a separate manuf-acture ; th,it it was made by the manufacturers of hoop iron, who inchuled it under the des- ignation of hoop iron, and considered it as simply one of the varions forms in which such iron was furnished ; and that after cotton ties had been used to baie cotton they were sold and used for vaiious purposes to which hoop iron was applied, although at a greatly reduced price. �Frank P. Prichard and George Tucker Bispham, for plaintifif, cited to the court In re 200 Chests of Tea, 9 Wheat. 430 ; Barlow v. U. S. 7 Pet. 404; Curtis v, Martin, 3 How. 106; Laicrence v. Allen, 7 How. 785 ; U. S. v. Hathaway, 4 Wall. 404; U. S. v. Quimlry, 4 Wall. 408; Arthur v. Cumming, 91 U. S. 362; Arthur v. Morrison, 96 U. S. 108; Graham v. Colkctor, U. S. C. C. at New Orleans,, Julj, 1868, ��� �