conn v. summa. 19
allowing them to be warehoused, satisfies me that it was the intention
of congress to place importers at the interior ports upon the same
footing, and give them the same time for the payment of their duties,
as is allowed to importers at exterior ports; and that, as to goods
which have been transported from an exterior port of first arrival to
an interior port of destination, the words "date of original importa-
tion," as used in this section, mean the date of the arrival of the goods A
at the interior port of destination. It therefore seems to me that,
inasmuch as the importer in this case offered to pay the duties and
charges upon the goods in question within one year from the time the
goods arrived at Chicago and were warehoused there, the additional
10 per cent. was improperly and illegally imposed upon them.
The issue is found for the plaintiff.
Conn and others v. Sunnrnu.
(Circuit Court, M D. Illinois. May 26, 1885.)
Cusrous Dumas-Ususnusscrunnn Tosscoo. ‘
Certain tobacco, known to the trade as " scrap tobacco," composed of frag-
ments or pieces broken or out off in the manufacture of cigars, had to be du-
tiable as unmanufactured tobacco.
At Law.
Percy L. Shuman and Jo. H. Dqrees, Jr., for plaintiff.
Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
Bnonomr, J., (orally.) The plaintiff in this case imported a lot of
tobacco and entered it as "nnmanufactured or scrap tobacco." It
was classed by the appraisers as manufactured tobacco, and assessed
at a duty of -10 cents per pound. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 15, cl. 249. The
only question in the case is whether this is manufactured or unmann-
factured tobacco. The proof in the case shows that it is known to
the trade as "scrap tobacco," being composed of fragments or pieces
broken or cut off in the manufacture of cigars, and scraps from the
tables of the cigar rollers, and that it has yet to undergo some pro- -
cess by which it can be put into form for consumption. The proof
in the case shows that it is used either as filling for cheap cigars, or
worked into some kind of smoking tobacco, or into cigarettes; and
therefore it should be treated, for the purposes of duty, as "unmanu·
factured tobacco." It was contended at the trial that this tobacco
came within the provisions of clause 249 as "stemmed tobacco," but
I am of opinion that this designation is used to describe leaf tobacco
from which the stems had been removed, and not these sweepings of
a cigar factory.
The issue is therefore found for the plaintiff.