The Collector v. Richards/Opinion of the Court

The court below decided that the case was to be governed by the act of 1846, and that the act of 1873 did not cover or embrace it. The correctness of this decision is now before us for review.

Of course the act last in date must prevail if it covers the case. Its language is, therefore, to be carefully examined. The important words of the first section are as follows:

'The value of foreign coin, as expressed in the money of account of the United States, shall be that of the pure metal of such coin of standard value.'

The plain meaning of this language is, that the value of foreign coins, in United States money, shall be mea ured by the amount of pure metal contained therein when of standard value; that is, when of the weight and fineness required by the laws and regulations of the country where they are produced. This value having been duly ascertained and published by the superintendent of the mint and the Secretary of the Treasury, becomes the rule in the cases and for the purposes to which, according to the fair meaning of the act, it is to be applied. In what cases and to what purposes it is to be applied is not expressed by the statute, but is to be gathered from its general terms, from the context, and from an examination of other statutes passed in pari materi a. The government contends that it is to be applied in all cases where the estimation of the value of foreign moneys of account is required by law; and that its principal and perhaps most important purpose is the very one in question, namely, the estimation of the invoice values of imported goods chargeable with ad valorem duties.

This would seem to be, prim a facie, the correct construction of the act. The second section proceeds, at once, without any inquiry of the Director of the Mint, or any further investigation of the subject, to adopt this very method of computing the value of the sovereign or pound sterling, the most important foreign coin with which the financial operations of this country are concerned, and to direct that such computation shall be applied to the valuation of invoices of imported goods, and to other specified cases in which the value of the pound sterling is necessary to be ascertained. The value of the sovereign or pound sterling, fixed by this section is four dollars, eighty-six cents, six and a half mills. This is precisely its standard value computed in reference to the amount of pure metal contained in it when of standard value according to the mint regulations of England, and estimating that metal according to the amount contained in the United States dollar. Although the sovereign, or pound sterling, as a coin has only existed since the year 1817, the amount of pure gold contained in the pound sterling (estimating the guinea at twenty-one shillings) has been 113.001 grains ever since the year 1717; and as the United States dollar contains 23.22 grains of pure metal, it only requires a process of simple division to show that the value of the sovereign is precisely what the second section of the act determines it to be. This intrinsic value of the pound sterling, as represented by the gold coins of England, was a matter of such public notoriety as to need no extraneous inquiry on the subject. It was the public law of the British empire during the period of our own colonial history, of which all our courts were required to take judicial notice; and its continuance to the present time is a public fact as well established as any other act of the British government. In addition to this, the Finance Committee of the Senate, in reporting the act of 1873, stated the value of the pound sterling, computed in the manner referred to, as an ascertained fact. There were also other reasons, if any were needed, having respect to the fictitious par of exchange so long persisted in by the bankers of both countries, which made it expedient for Congress itself to fix the value of the pound sterling. But the material fact in this inquiry is, that it fixed that value on precisely the same principle which it is claimed by the government is laid down in the first section for ascertaining the value of all other foreign coins, and specified the purposes to which such valuation should be applied, amongst which is that of computing the value of invoices of imported goods. And it seems to us clear that the two sections have, in this regard, substantially the same objects in view; that it was the object of the first section to establish a method of computing the value of other foreign coins, similar to that employed in the second section in computing the value of the sovereign, and to apply such computation in the same cases and for he same purposes. Otherwise there would exist two differing metholds of computing the values of foreign coins, and two differing rules for estimating the values of goods imported from different countries, giving a different value to goods imported from one country from that given to goods of the same cost imported from another country.

And it seems to us (although that is a matter of legislative cognizance) that the statute adopts the true method of computing the value of foreign money. The basis of our dollar of account (when not affected by the exceptional condition of legal-tender notes) is the standard gold dollar of 25.8 grains, containing one-tenth alloy. The actual coinage in circulation may be slightly diminished in value by abrasion, and this may have some effect on the dollar of account. But the same thing is true in other countries as the assays at the mint have shown; and the true method of comparing their money of account with ours, when both are based on actual coin, is to compare the standard coins of the two countries in a perfect state, and to ascertain the actual amount of pure metal in each. This is the result at which Congress seems to have arrived, and, as we think, wisely.

In making the comparison of the moneys of different countries their gold coins, if they have such, are employed for the purpose; gold having become the general medium of international exchange, whilst silver is regarded more as a domestic coin, and is usually made a legal tender for only limited amounts. This practice, together with the rejection of the alloy from the estimate, is in accordance with the rules laid down on the subject by the most enlightened economists.

Computed in the manner required by the law, the value of the franc is ascertained to be nineteen cents and three mills, as contended for by the government. This is the result of the examination and estimate made by the Director of the Mint and announced by the Secretary of the Treasury.

But the defendants in error insist that an examination of prior statutes on the subject of coins and their valuation, demonstrates that the act of 1873 was not intended to fix the value of the franc or of other foreign coins for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of invoices of imported goods, but for the purpose of giving general information on the subject, or of estimating the value of contracts in legal proceedings, or for some other purpose.

We have carefully examined the statutes for the purpose of ascertaining the soundness of this suggestion, but have failed to see anything in the legislation on the subject requiring us to adopt it. It is true that some of the laws have had for object simply the valuation of foreign coins for the use of the custom-house in computing the amount of invoices; others have fixed the value of such coins when receivable in payment of public dues, or when used as legal tenders in the payment of debts; and others have had still other purposes and objects. But how this general fact can affect the express mandatory terms of the act of 1873, we fail to perceive. Those terms are that the value of foreign coin, as expressed in the money of account of the United States, shall be that of the pure metal of such coin of standard value. This simple and sensible rule abrogates previous regulations on the subject. It is inconsistent with them, and the third section of the act expressly repeals all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. No resort to a repeal by implication is necessary.

Of course the act of 1873 does not make foreign coins receivable in cases where they were not receivable before; but where they are receivable, or where their value is material to be known, the rule for ascertaining that value is clearly laid down and determined by the law. It is true it does not itself fix the values of foreign coins except in a single instance where special reasons require it; and it is doubtful whether the attempt to do so would have been as judicious as the method adopted. Those values a e now to be carefully ascertained and publicly announced by the proper officers of the government. This method will insure the greatest accuracy, and will be attended with many public benefits. It is just, both to the government and the importer, because it is founded on truth; and it will be a great convenience to all persons who have any transactions in which the value of foreign money is in any way involved.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the record remitted, with directions to the Circuit Court to award

A VENIRE DE NOVO.