16 



The Florists^ Review 



FOBBOABT 8, 1916. 



John Johnstone spoke for the Nassau 

 County Horticultural Society and said 

 that among other things which the so- 

 ciety was proud of was that one of its 

 members. John W. EVeritt, has had the 

 honor or being president of the Na- 

 tional Association of Gardeners. 



The toast, "The Trade Press," was 

 eloquently taken care of by W. Stewart, 

 while J. Austin Shaw in his own 

 inimitable manner fairly outdid him- 

 self in the response he made to "The 

 Ladies." The seed trade was spoken 

 for by J. A. Deamund, George Burnett, 

 Wm. J. Collins and W. A. Sperling. 



William Duckham responded for the 



Morris County Horticultural Society, 

 and in the course of his remarks urged 

 the support of our members at the in- 

 ternational Flower Show, to be held in 

 New York. Thomas Lee spoke for the 

 Tarrytown Horticultural Society, and 

 James Duthie for the Oyster Bay Horti- 

 cultural Society. Other speakers were 

 Charles McCarthy, Frank Browne, 

 Lester Ortiz and John Davis. A pleas- 

 ant feature of the evening was the pres- 

 entation of a pair of gold cuflf but- 

 tons to Ernest Westlake, in apprecia- 

 tion of his efficient services as presi- 

 dent of the society during the last year. 

 James McCarthy, Cor. Sec'y. 



IP 



.^•^<»^'»^<»^<<^'»^'»^<<^<»^-^r»>-fer»>'^f»>-fer»>'fe;»»-'yr»>'fer»!)-fe»>'fe* 



TULIP CASE 



DECIDED 



k<»??.<»^. 



■■<»^<#-=^<»^<»^.<»^v'fer»>'yr»!)'^r»>'^^'^r»>'^r»>'^r»>'fef»!>' 



J 



I 



DUTY OUT IN HALF, flr^^ jj 



Court Acts on Importer's Appeal. 



For the future, or until an act of 

 Congress makes a change, the duty on 

 tulip bulbs will be 50 cents per thour 

 sand. The court of last resort has so 

 decided. 



The United States Court of Customs 

 Appeals has rendered its decision in the 

 case of the appeal of Maltus & Ware, 

 of New York, from a decision of the 

 Board of United States General Ap- 

 praisers upholding the assessment of the 

 collector of customs, who held certain 

 tulip bulbs to be dutiable at the rate of 

 $1 per thousand under the second clause 

 of paragraph 210 of the Tariff Act of 

 October 3, 1913. The importers claimed 

 that the sixth clause thereof, known 

 as the catch-all provision, providing a 

 duty of 50 cents per thousand, was ap- 

 plicable to the importation. 



Text of the Decision. 



In a decision handed down by Judge 

 Barber, the Court of Customs Appeals 

 states: 



"The determination of the issue re- 

 quires not only an examination of para- 

 graph 210 but its predecessor, paragraph 

 263 of the Act of 1909, as well, and we 

 here insert them: 



210. Orchids, palms, Azalea Indlca, and cut 

 flowers, preserved or fresh, 25 per centum ad 

 valorem; Illy of the valley pips, tulips, nar- 

 cissus, begonia, and gloxinia bulbs. $1 per thou- 

 sand; hyacinth bulbs, astllbe, dlelytra, and Illy 

 of the valley clumps, |2.50 per thousand; Illy 

 bulbs and calla bulbs or corms, $5 per thousand; 

 herbaceous peony. Iris Kaempferl or Germanlca, 

 canna, dahlia and amaryllls bulbs. $10 per thou- 

 sand: all other bulbs, roots, root stocks, corms, 

 and tubers, which are cultivated for their flowers 

 or foliage, 50 cents per thousand: Provided, That 

 all mature mother flowering bulbs Imported ex- 

 clusively for propagating purposes shall be ad- 

 mitted free of duty. 



263. Orchids, palms, azaleas, and all other 

 decorative or greenhouse plants and cut flowers, 

 preserved or fresh, twenty-five per centum ad 

 valorem; Illy of the valley pips, tulip, narcissus, 

 begonia, and gloxinia bulbs, $1 per thousand; 

 hyacinth, astllbe. dlelytra, and lily of the valley 

 clumps, $2.50 per thousand; lily bulbs and calla 

 bulbs. $5 per thousand: peony. Iris Kaempferi 

 or Germanlca, canna, dahlia, and amaryllls bulbs 

 $10 per thousand; all other bulbs, bulbous roots 

 or corms which are cultivated for their flowers 

 or foliage, 60 cents per thousand. 



"At once it appears that there are 

 in each of these two paragraphs six 

 separate clauses providing for different 

 rates of duty, while in the correspond- 



ing clauses the rates are the same. We 

 are here interested mainly in a com- 

 parison of the second clauses respec- 

 tively, because, if these tulip bulbs are 

 not dutiable under that clause of para- 

 graph 210, it seems to be conceded that 

 the sixth clause thereof is applicable. 



Grammatical Construction. 



"In the earlier paragraph the second 

 clause provided for 'lily of the valley 

 pips, tulip, narcissus, begonia, and glox- 

 inia bulbs,' while that clause of the 

 paragraph now in force reads 'lily of 

 the valley pips, tulips, narcissus, be- 

 gonia, and gloxinia bulbs.' In the 

 earlier statute the word tulip is gram- 

 matically an adjective modifier of bulbs, 

 while in the latter paragraph the word 

 tulips is not grammatically an adjec- 

 tive modifier, but is a noun, and the im- 

 porter's claim here is founded wholly 

 upon this change in the language of the 

 two clauses. 



"It is unnecessary to cite authorities 

 to the proposition that the fact that 

 the language of a statute is changed or- 

 dinarily presumes a legislative intent to 

 correspondingly change preexisting law, 

 and, further, that unless a statute is 

 ambiguous there is no occasion to in- 

 voke rules of construction. It must be 



understood and applied according to 

 the natural import of the language em- 

 ployed. Accompanying this latter rule 

 is another well recognized that^ if con- 

 strued in its ordinary meaning and 

 grammatical construction, the applica- 

 tion of the statute leads to manifest 

 contradiction of the apparent purpose 

 of the enactment or to absurdity, hard- 

 ship, or injustice, not intended, the 

 cgurts will, if the same is possible, in- 

 terpret the language employed to avoid 

 these consequences. Endlich On Inter- 

 pretation of Statutes, section 295; 

 United States v. Kirby, 74 U. S. 482; 

 Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 

 143 U. S. 457; Lau Ow Bew v. United 

 States, 144 U. S. 47, 59; United States 

 V. Eiggs, 203 U. S. 136; Reide v. United 

 States, 2 Ct. Oust. Appls. (T. D. 32166). 



History of the Paragraph. 



' ' The government here in effect urges 

 that although grammatically construed 

 the statute may warrant the importer's 

 contention, nevertheless, in view of the 

 history of the paragraph, its context 

 and spirit, it should not be given that 

 effect and suggests that the addition of 

 the letter 's' to the word 'tulip' in the 

 earlier clause was the result of a typo- 

 graphical error. 



"It appears that when the tariff bill 

 was first introduced in the House the 

 paragraph of the act of 1913 under con- 

 sideration was identical with paragraph 

 263 of the act of 1909 except that the 

 letter 's' was added to tulip. Compar- 

 ing the paragraph as introduced with 

 the same as finally enacted, we find nu- 

 merous changes have been made there- 

 in; words have been stricken out, others 

 have been inserted or added, a proviso 

 attached, and with respect to the duty 

 rates, synonymous forms "of expression 

 have been employed. The only change 

 made in the second clause, it is true, is 

 the use of equivalent language for de- 

 claring the same rate of duty, but, in 

 view of the fact that the entire para- 

 graph was the subject of such careful 

 consideration and close inspection, we 

 cannot believe that the change from 

 tulip to tulips was overlooked. When 

 it is also considered that the paragraph, 

 as a part of the bill, underwent various 

 reprints in its legislative journey, the 

 conclusion seems irresistible that the 

 letter 's' was purposely introduced and 

 deliberately retained. 



"Neither are we at all clear that it 

 can be said that the results consequent 

 upon enforcing this clause according to 



Dinner of the Nassau County Horticultural Society, Glen Cove, L. Lt'January 23. 



