J'EDEBAL 'REPORTER;
vol. 41.
whetherbr' not there was an :undervaluation; In this pattieular,oase there was no declared value which they undel.'tookto revise. (The importer was either; Unable or' unwilling to state the value. By Di$:'dWli he'presenteduo invoice, and by not doing so, as was: for defenaAnt,: he saved three:'or four times. the amount oharges by 'not having to pay consular fees in London, Liverpob11l'Glasgow, orwherevet the ,goods came from. He had thus volunta'tily 'l>'Ilt 'himself insl1ch 8' position that it became necessary for hirn;ubder: the law; to 'ask the a$sistanceof the general governmeutto enable" 1ihn to make his own/declaration as to the value of' his goods; I seeM reason WbYI for of:that kind, requested.by him from; the general governmeul,and which he:need not have requested if he had takellthe to providehiniself with lln invoice on the other side, he should, not himself pay. ' Fol" tbat, reason I, shall direct a, verdiet for the d13feildant. ' ' ,
g6ods,
-'I'
, BAuMaARTEli V.:MAGONE, "." ,",'" '
.
'"I
L
OtrS'1'OMS
St1JlJllO'1' orO DuTY....ANTIQUilrIlfs.,' , " mthe free,list otthe tariif act of March 8, 1888. for "cabinets of QO!ns) &ind aU,'other collectIons of, antiquities, .. 'does not cover;antiquities whicn'do ll6tfbrm;acollectIon., '" "': ,', ' A,ND
, ,of lace, product andseVl":lteenth cbuturies, and 'rugs, the,,fltoduct ot,',the s,lXteenth ceiltury, Iml?or,ted Btdiif,erent times as articles of ."..e from 'duty by, Vlrtue of the 'provision ill the free-list , tor" collectJon of antiquities," but are, properly dutiable. ilnder tile provisions in the Btlhedules forlaoesand rugs., "" '" " ' ' 1. ..... \;
S.
RUGS-.OUSSIPIOA'l'ION.
,
,:
At Law. .Action to recover , :In September.. '1887 ,plaintiff imported two curta.ins five coverlets and one rug. :Evidence was given upon the trial tending to show that the' rug bad beei1''Jriaa$ 'in the sixteenth century, and that the ourtains llnd made of pieces oflaoe ,which had beenpl'oducedin the' sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These articles were assessed fOr duty th6'{jol1ettbt ofthep?rt under the futhe schedules for rug8andla:ces.-: The importer 'claimed them to be free of duty under the provision in the free-list of the act of ,March 3, 1883,fol, "cabinets of coins, medals, and all other collections of antiquities." , Stephen for plaihtiff.' ',,' ',. , "Edward MitaheU;: U;S.Atty.;,-:andW. Wickhn.m'Smith. Asst. U. S.' Atty;) for. defendant. ' , :j
, :'LACOMBE;:J'i" THe paragraph' cjf the free-list upon 'which plaintiff' relied ,is :669(: ["Cabinets ofcoins; medals, and 'aU other collections of antiquitiesl" ,Ii know of no principle of law which will warrant the court in wiping :Out'any"word in/that description which seems to have been:
· t1NIT1l:D STATES fl. TERRY. ;
designed tbtanexpress·purpose. The phrase 'c dabinets or' coins" imports a distinct idea; so does the phrase "collections of The latter impGrtsa of articles where both the antiqueness of the individual articles andthecircl.lffistance that theyiue assembled together intQa oollectionunite to ma.ke'them attractive or or valuable or otherwise desirable. We can [easily understa.nd why congress might re. strict the free-list to such cabinets and to suchc611eetioils. There is ho partiorill!-l'! reason why a wealthy individual here who wishesta buy a single pair: of. lace curtains,()f remote antiquity, to hang in his front Parlor; should be allowed to irilport them free; but there might be very good rells6nswhy any one who imported articles that had been brought together to illustrate an art,oran era, or anything ,else, the assemblage of which into a collection made them of value educationally or otherwise, might be allowed'to import them free, even though he imported A colleotion of that kind, if judiciously made', might be more readily salable as a collection than the individual components out of which His made. At any rate, whatever may have operated on the mind'of congress, onvhatever may have been their intention, they do in faot use the words "collection of antiquities." I do hot see thatl can hold that that phraseoorrectly describes two rugs, or that it covers, as is claimed in this other case,half a dozen bed-spreads and two lace curtains. Neither of these importations is a collection: gotten together for any partioularpurpose.' The articles in each entry are grouped together by the mere accident of enumeration upon the same invoice.. I am aware that'in reaching this conclusion 1 am not in accord with J udga BLODGE'l"r, of the circuit court of the northern district of Illinois, who seems to bye held that a>single picture painted by Raphael, or said'to have been painted by Raphael,was entitled to pasg free, as "an antiq. uity."u. S. v. One Oil Painting, 31 Fed. Rep. 881. The point raised here;however, does not seem to have been brought to his uttention. I fail see how a single antique article, or a mere chance aggregation ·of two or more antique articles, can fairly be held to be a "collection of antiquities," and for these reasons direct a verdict for the defendant.
UNITED STATES tI. TERRY.
(Dtstrf.ct Oourt, N. D. Oatifornia. March 24, 1890.) OBSTRUCTIl'l'G .JUSTICE-ExECUTION 011' ORAL ORDER.
Under Rev. St. U. s. S which makes it a criminal offense to resist the tion of "any mesne process or warrant orll.ny rule or order of any court of the United States " r.esisting a marshal in:his. execution of an oral Order.ofthecourt to i'e.mov.e .. fro:m h court-room a persoll who has disturbed the proceedlngs of the court is Ine dictable.
AtIAw. JQhn T. (Jareg, U.S. Atty., and Davi8 LouderbacTc j Special Asst. U. S. Atty. ::