United States v. Perry
146 U.S. 71, 13 S. Ct. 26, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2176 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a tariff statute contains both a general classification and a more specific classification that describes an imported item, the specific classification controls. An item's common trade name and its dual ornamental and utilitarian purpose can be used to determine the controlling specific classification intended by Congress.
Facts:
- A religious society imported stained and painted glass windows for installation in its church.
- The windows were executed by artists of superior merit and were considered to be works of art.
- The domestic stained glass industry had previously protested to Congress that classifying such windows as 'paintings' was harming their business, leading to changes in tariff law.
- Prior to the Tariff Act of 1890, the Treasury Department and courts had consistently classified similar items as 'paintings,' which were often exempt from duty when imported for religious institutions.
- The imported items serve a useful purpose as windows in addition to their ornamental purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- The Collector of Customs classified imported painted glass windows under the Tariff Act of 1890 and assessed a 45% duty.
- The importing religious society (the importers) paid the duty under protest and sued the Collector in the U.S. Circuit Court for a refund, arguing the windows should be classified as 'paintings' and exempt from duty.
- The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the importers.
- The Collector of Customs (the government) appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Tariff Act of 1890, are painted glass windows, imported for a religious society and possessing high artistic merit, dutiable as 'stained or painted glass windows' or are they exempt from duty as 'paintings'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No, the windows are dutiable as 'stained or painted glass windows' and are not exempt as 'paintings.' The Tariff Act of 1890 demonstrates a clear congressional intent to distinguish between purely ornamental works of art and articles that, while artistic, also serve a useful function. Paragraph 122 of the Act explicitly imposes a 45% duty on 'stained or painted glass windows' by name. More decisively, Paragraph 757, while creating an exemption for 'pictorial paintings on glass' imported for religious societies, carves out a specific exception for 'stained or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows.' This specific exception for the items in question must prevail over the more general classification of 'paintings' found elsewhere in the statute. The change in statutory language from prior acts, combined with the common trade usage of the term 'stained glass windows,' confirms Congress's intent to subject these specific items to the duty, partly to encourage the domestic industry.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the statutory interpretation canon that the specific governs the general. It demonstrates that courts will look to legislative history, including the influence of domestic industries, and changes in statutory language to discern congressional intent in tariff classifications. The ruling establishes that an article's utilitarian function can remove it from a more favorable 'fine arts' category, even if it possesses significant artistic merit. This precedent impacts future tariff disputes by prioritizing specific, eo nomine (by name) provisions and commercial realities over broader, more abstract classifications like 'works of art.'
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Perry