34 ' FEDERAL nnronmn', vol. 38.
ing definition of the word which I Hnd in any of the dictionaries. It}
indicates that a thread is produced by some process or other which gives
. to its constituent parts a twist; and even the alternative word which is
used,—-"I1lament,"—whichi perhaps we would ordinarily, in common
speech, not consider as necessarily importing a twist,-—even the word,'
used as its alternative by Worcester,—is defined as "a substance like a
thread; a long thread-like process;" thus indicating some measure of I
twisting. Of course, the thread that we speak of in our every-day speech
is not only twisted, but it istwisted to such a degree that.it has an in-
creased sustaining power; Thus this little piece, of string which lies on
the edge of the desk will notonly hold itself together, but will also bear
a weight of greater or less amount which may be affixed to it.' There is .
not, however, in the definition given above anything to indicate that a
measure of self-sustaining strength is necessarily imported in the strict
_ idea of athread; and, when using the word in its general meaning, (that
is, in_ the broad meaning in which we are entitled to take it when we ’
find it in an_ act of congress,,except for a qualification, to which I will
call your attention later, on,) welneed not assume that the twisting, or`
other operation which produces the twist, and which seems essential,
according to the definition, should be continued so far, or to such an'.
extent, as to make a filament of any particular resisting power. Beg,
yond the dennition thus given (and I feel that it is perhaps far from sat-I
isfactory) I am unable to deriveany light from the dictionaries in leav-
ing to you the deterinination ofthe question whether these fabrics con—,
I tain "threads" of other materials, I I T
_There isqanotherbranchfof the case, however, which is entitled to
consideration at your hands. ` `Words are assumed to beused by con-
gress in the tariff laws in theirordinary meaning, unless some other?
meaning is attached to them. Usually that proposition is discussed as
a question whether or not a particular trade meaning——a meaning differ-T
ent from its ordinary, every—day n1eaning—has been given to a word;
and thus we often receive the testimony of tradesmen as to the meaning
of _words in the acts of congress. But there is no question here of any
such particular trade use of the term. Under the decisions of the su-'
_ premecourt, in the Square Yard _Cases,‘ I do not think that the word is'
here to be taken as used with anyspeoific trade meaning; and I should
haveexcluded any evidence of specific trade meaning if it had been of-
fered.` But I may say to you that in applying to the facts of this case'
the general definitions which I have given you, you are entitled to take
into consideration the fact that congress, when it fused this general word_
in this schedule of the tariif act, was dealing with textile fabrics. To
that extent I think that you are entitled to consider the evidence which
" has been introducedhere as to _the_i methods of production of what the
witnesses here `spoke of as_" thread`." ` _ _ · I
The two questions, and the only questions, for you to decide are;
(1) Have there been introduced intothese goods threads of material
*Schmieder:v. Barney, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624, and cases there cited. i ‘ ·