56 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. L. No. 1281 



curiosities and experimental instrunients and 

 become everyday tools of trades and pro- 

 fessions. 



That it was the intention of the legislators 

 to accomplish this very end is evident from 

 the wording of the act granting the privilege. 

 In enumerating the list of free goods it in- 

 cludes : (A) " Books, maps, music, engravings 

 . . . publications (not including advertise- 

 ments) for gratuitous circulation." (B) 

 " Publications, not more than two in any one 

 invoice in good faith for the use of any society 

 or institution, incorporated solely for reli- 

 gious, philosophical, educational, scientific or 

 literary purposes." (C) " Philosophical and 

 scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments and 

 preparations including boxes and bottles con- 

 taining the same in good faith for the use 

 and by the order of any society or institu- 

 tion " as above described " and not for sale." 



These three provisions are incorporated in 

 the same act and referred to in the same para- 

 graph in 1918 annotated edition of Federal 

 Laws. Does it not appear reasonable that if 

 the original framers of these laws could have 

 looked far enough into the future to see the 

 enormous number of identical instruments 

 now imported by single institutions for use in 

 student laboratories, and thus virtually sold to 

 the students in their payment of tuition and 

 rents, even though the institution may retain 

 its title to them till they are worn out, that 

 they might have added the same provision in 

 regard to instruments that was set down con- 

 cerning books of learning, viz : " not more 

 than two in any one invoice " ? 



It is of interest too to note the trend of 

 opinion as to what was intended to be granted 

 by this provision and what constitutes " phi- 

 losophical instruments " by noting the inter- 

 pretations that have been put on the question 

 by the courts. 



In 1890, one Oelschlaeger imported a con- 

 signment of mixed goods, all of which he 

 claimed were to be classified as " philosophical 

 instruments " and entitled to the special pro- 

 visions and exemption due to goods so classi- 

 fied. Robertson, an official whose duty in- 

 volved the appraising of goods and classifying 

 them for rates of duty, declined to accept this 



classification and demanded the duty on them 

 when classified as " mechanical instruments." 

 Oelschlaeger brought suit for the recovery of 

 duty so paid. The court foimd for the de- 

 fendant in a portion of the goods and for the 

 plaintiff in another portion. In handing down 

 the decision, the following language was used : 



The most that can be done, therefore, is to dis- 

 tinguish between those implements that are used 

 more especially in making observations, experi- 

 ments and discoveries and those which are more 

 especially used in the arts and professions. For 

 example; an Astronomical Telescope, a Compound 

 Microscope, a Ruhmkorf coil, would be readily 

 classified as philosophical instruments or appa- 

 ratus. While the instruments commonly used by 

 surgeons, physicians and navigators for the pur- 

 pose of carrying on their several professions and 

 calling would be classified amongst mechanical 

 implements, or instruments for practical use in the 

 arts and professions. . . . 



Continuing the quotation : 



It is somewhat difficult [said the Court] in prac- 

 tise to draw a line of distinction between the two 

 classes in as much as many instruments originally 

 used for the purpose of observation and experi- 

 ment have since come to be used partially or 

 wholly as implements in the arts. 



Among the goods included in this partic- 

 ular consignment were a high-grade com- 

 pound microscope, a small and simpler micro- 

 scope for the examination of textiles and an 

 ophthalmoscope. The former of these three 

 instruments were held to be philosophical in- 

 struments, while the two latter were not 

 deemed entitled to this classification. 



In a similar case in 1885 in Manassee vs. 

 Spalding, it was held that anemometers, hy- 

 grometers, Ruhmkorf coils, galvanometers, 

 Geissler tubes, Granet batteries and radio- 

 meters were " philosophical apparatus," but 

 that surveyors' compasses could not be so 

 classified. 



We fail to find any recent court decision 

 in regard to the separation of instruments into 

 philosophical apparatus and the implements 

 required for pursuing a given trade or pro- 

 fession, but viewed in the light of the ease 

 just cited it seems to us not improbable that if 

 the court were called on now to render a 



