Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/37

 22 FEDERAL REPORTER, �would seem to exdude the inference that even one kind of iron, which is generically described as hoop iron according to the testimony of the witnesses, was not intended to be confined to it. There can be no doubt at all that iron eut into lengths of 12 feet or 15 feet or 20 feet or 11 feet is a species of hoop iron until it is so changed as to transform it into something else than hoop iron. So that I have no doubt that, tinder a proper construction of this act, the article im- ported here fell within the designation of the act as hoop iron, and, without anything more, was subject to the duty which was charged upon it by the collecter, and I so instruct you that you are to regard this, as far as the commercial description of this article is concerned, as embraced within the terms of the act of 1864, �Now, bas it been taken out of this classification and placed in some other ? This is the material question. If it was proper to so classify it, then the duty was properly imposed upon it. If it has been changed, and was not hoop iron in the sense in which this term was osed by congress, and was placed in some other category, then the duty was illegally exacted, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover. �Now, it is claimed here that it is a manufacture of iron — that is to say, that it is a fabric made out of hoop iron; not that it is not iron by being changed in form, but that it is something which is made out of iron, and therefore is a manufacture of iron. �Now, is this a manufacture of iron? You have had the case before you, and it is important that you should look at it earefully in order to determine the question which I have just stated. It was imported in bundles made of pieces of this length, [exhibiting a strap,] with the ends turned over as these are, or 30 pieces with 30 buckles attached, or I should say 30 buckles attached to one of the pieces, but evidently intended that one buckle should be used for each band. It is, therefore, alleged to be a cotton tie. Now, in order to take it out of the category first referred to, and to place it in the list of man- ufactures, it is necessary that something should be done to it ; that it should have been subjected to such manipulation as would com- pletely fit it for some special purpose, and that would, to that extent, unfit it for the general purposes to which hoop iron is adapted. Now, has it been subjected to such treatment? According to the testimony of all the witnesses, while it is in this form it is a cotton tie. Now, what was necessary, gentlemen ? What f urther mechanical treatment than such as it received was necessary to make this a complete cotton tie ? That is a f act for you to determine on the evidence. ��� �