| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | Jan 29, 1890
{orally.') The rugs in suit are of like character or description to Wilton or Tournay velvet carpets. The provisions for these and other carpets or carpetings, and also for rugs, contained in Schedule K of the tariff act-of March 3, 1883, and similar provisions contained in various other tariff acts, from 1861 to March 3, 1883, — Act March 2, 1861, c. 68, §13, (12 (J.'s. St. 178;) Act July 14, 1862, c. 163, § 9. (Id. 543;) Act Juno 80, 1864, c. 171, § 5, (13 U. S. St. 202;) Act March 2, 1867, c. 197, § 1, (14 U. S. St. 559;) Schedule L, § 2504, Rev. St.,- — leave little doubt as to the question raised here. It appears that congress, after providing for a great many different kinds of carpets or carpetings by specific names, or by descriptive terms indicative of the materials of which they are composed, has further provided that all rugs of like character or description to any of these enumerated carpets or carpetings shall bo subject to the rate of duty imposed on such carpet or carpetings. Having made provision for such rugs, it has then provided that all other rugs, not included in that provision, shall be subject to duty at the rate of 40 per cent, ad valorem. There is no reason to suppose, as contended by the plaintiff in support of his claim, that congress intended that rugs of like character or description to some one of the various enumerated carpets or carpetings, when they are, or are made from, portions thereof, should pay the same rate of duty as is imposed on such carpet or carpetings, hut, when not so made, should pay a less rate of duty. On the contrary, there is strong reason to conclude that congress considered the character or description of rags, if like the character or description of any one of such carpets or carpetings, a more important element in fixing their classification than their mode of manufacture. I therefore direct a verdict for the defendant.