Aldridge et al. v. Williams.

no just rule of construction, be held to repeal pre-existing ones, nor to require any new legislation upon the subject, unless it should turn out that those already in force were insufficient for the purpose.

But it has been urged that this clause, taken in connection with the new rule of home valuation, then for the first time established, and to which they refer, shows that new regulations were contemplated, inasmuch as the existing legislation upon that subject had been directed altogether to the value at the place of export. This argument would undoubtedly be entitled to great weight, if the subsisting rules and regulations could not be applied to this new mode of assessing the duties. But if the regulations already in force were applicable to this new state of things, there is no reason for concluding that there was any intention to repeal them, even although it should appear that they had been framed with a view to the foreign value, and should be found more difficult of execution, and less satisfactory in the result, when applied to the value at the port of entry.

The most important regulations in relation to this part of the case are contained in the 7th, 8th and 9th sections of the act of July 14th, 1832. It is true, that these regulations point to the value of the goods at the place of export; and many of the powers particularly conferred on the appraisers would not assist them in ascertaining the value at the place of import, and could not be used for that purpose. But the substantial and manifest object of these regulations is to enable the proper officers to determine the amount, upon which the rate of impost fixed by law is chargeable; and if the place, with reference to which the valuation is to be made, is changed, it does not by any means follow, that the powers before given to the officers, and the duties imposed upon them, are not still to be exercised and performed so far as they are applicable to the new state of things. The object and intention of the valuation is still the same. It is to execute the law, and to assess and collect the duty prescribed. Thus, for example, the 7th section of the act of 1832 declares, among other things, that it shall be the duty of the appraisers, and of every person acting as such, by all reasonable ways or means in his power, to ascertain, estimate, and appraise the true and actual value of the goods, at the time purchased and the place from which they were imported. The place of valuation is afterwards changed by the act of 1833, and the duty imposed according to the valu at the home port. It would be a most unreasonable interpretation f the law, to say, that the appraisers must still go through the ceremony of estimating the value at the foreign port; or, that the mere change of place repealed the authority to value at all. In both cases the only object of the appraisement is to ascertain the sum upon which the duty is to be calculated; and the value of the goods at the foreign port, or at the home port, is of no importance to the public except in

Aldridge et al. v. Williams.

so far as it fixes the sum upon which the collector is to levy the rate of duty directed by law.

The 9th section makes it the duty of the secretary of the Treasury, under the direction of the President, from time to time to establish such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, as the President shall think proper, to secure a just, faithful, and impartial appraisal of all goods, wares, and merchandises, as aforesaid imported into the United States, and just and. proper entries of such actual value thereof, and of the square yards, parcels, or other quantities, as the case may require, and of such actual value of every of them; and it is made the duty of the secretary of the Treasury to report all such rules and regulations, with the reasons therefor, to the next session of Congress. It is very clear that any regulations within the authority thus given, are regulations prescribed by law. And although this section, as well as the others before mentioned, undoubtedly contemplated the value at the foreign port, yet when the valuation is transferred to a home port, it was still the duty of the secretary of the Treasury to frame rules and regulations to ascertain the value upon which the law directed that the duty should be assessed. For this is the only object of the appraisement, an the only purpose for which rules and regulations are to be framed.

Indeed, when it is evident that under the act of 1833 certain duties, as therein modified, were continued after the 30th of June, 1842, it would scarcely consist with judicial duty, to give an overtechnical construction to doubtful words, which would make the legislature inconsistent with itself, by imposing a duty on goods imported, and at the same time repealing all laws by which that duty could be collected. For it cannot be supposed that Congress, in one and the same law, could so have intended; and such an intention ought not to be implied, unless it was apparent from unequivocal language. We think that there are no words in the act of 1833, from which such a design can fairly be inferred.

It appears from the case stated, that the goods in question were subject to a duty of twenty per cent. under the 1st section of the last mentioned act; and that the duties in this case were assessed accordingly upon the value of the goods at the port at which they entered, as ascertained and appraised under the rules and regulations established by the secretary of the Treasury under the direction of the President. In the opinion of the court, they were lawfully assessed and collected, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmea.

We forbear to express an opinion upon the construction of the act of 1839, which was argued in this case, because it is understood that other cases are standing for argument, in which that question alone is involved; and it is proper to give the parties an opportunity of being heard before the point is decided.

Aldridge et al. v. Williams.

Mr. Justice McLEAN.

The decision of this case turns upon the construction of the act of 1833, and as I differ from the opinion of a majority of the judges, I will state, in a few words, my views upon the subject.

The 1st section of the act provides, that ten per cent. on the existing duties shall be deducted annually, until the duties shall be reduced to twenty per cent.

The 3d section declares, "that until the 30th day of June, 1842, the duties imposed by existing laws, as modified by this act, shall remain and continue to be collected. And from and after the day last aforesaid, all duties upon imports shall be collected in ready money; and all credits now allowed by law, in the payment of duties, shall be, and are hereby abolished; and such duties shall be laid, for the purpose of raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administration of the government; and from and after the day last aforesaid, the duties required to be paid by law on goods, wares, and merchandise, shall be assessed upon the value thereof, at the port where the same shall be entered, under such regulations as may be provided by law."

The above sections can scarcely be misapprehended by any one. The 1st section reduces existing duties, in a time and manner stated, to twenty per cent. And the 3d section provides, "that until the 30th of June, 1842, the duties imposed by existing laws, as modified by that act, shall remain and continue to be collected. Now the inference is irresistible, that after the above date, the duties shall not be collected under those laws. And this is shown conclusively by the 5th section, which provides, that all imports on which the 1st section of the act may operate, and all articles then admitted to entry free from duty, or paying a less rate of duty than twenty per centum, ad valorem, before the said 30th day of June, 1842, from and after that day, may be admitted to entry subject to such duty, not exceeding twenty per centum, ad valorem, as shall be provided by law."

Now, these are not terms of compromise, but of enactment. After the day specified, the law declares, that the duties shall not exceed twenty per cent. This, like all other laws, was liable to be repealed, expressly or by implication. But it is law, until so repealed. The duties are not to exceed twenty per cent., but that does not establish them at twenty per cent.

The 6th section of the act repeals all laws inconsistent with it. The twenty per cent. duties, by this act, were to be continued only to the 30th of July, 1842. After that, by the same act, the duties were not to exceed twenty per cent. Here is no repugnancy in the law, because the one provision is to cease at the same time that the other begins to operate. It is impossible that both enactments can be in force at the same time. They are inconsistent with each other. The one provision fixes a definite amount of duties, the other an indefinite amount. Not to exceed twenty per cent., is not twenty

Aldridge et al. v. Williams.

per cent. To give effect to this provision, future legislation was necessary. But, is it the less binding on that account? Can it be disregarded on the ground that it was a mere matter of compromise? It has the form and solemnity of law, and it shows, that the act imposing duties expired on the 30th of July, 1842.

That this was the view of Congress, is manifest from the fact, that in due time they passed an act regulating the duties, to take effect from the above date, which did not receive the signature of the executive. But this is no reason why we, by construction, should continue in force a law which Congress had repealed. After the above date, such duties were to be imposed "as shall be provided by law." Now, this language cannot be mistaken; and it is inconsistent with the idea, that the law imposing duties prior to that date, should, after it, continue in force. Such a construction is unwarranted by the 3d section and the whole tenour of the act.

>

It is not for this court to determine, whether Congress, in this respect, acted wisely or unwisely; whether their motive was to compromise great and conflicting interests or not; but what have they declared to be law? It would be a restriction on the legislative power, hitherto unknown, to say, that Congress cannot repeal a law, unless they substitute another law in its place.

If the duty law in force prior to the 30th of July, 1842, be inconsistent with the provisions of the act under consideration, then the prior law is repealed. And it is no answer to this to say, that the prior law, in its modified form, is in force by virtue of the act of 1833. The plain and unequivocal enactments of that act repudiate such an inference. In its modified form, the prior law, by that act, expired in 1842. And after that, a new enactment, in my judgment, was essential, not only to continue duties upon foreign merchandise, but also to give effect to all the important provisions of the act of 1833.

The 3d section, after July, 1842, abolishes all credits for duties, and requires them "to be paid in ready money;" and it further provides, "that duties shall be laid for the raising of such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administration of the government;" and that the duties "required to be paid by law," "shall be assessed upon the value of the goods at the port where the same shall be entered, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law."

Now, every one of these provisions was adopted with reference to its taking effect from, and after the 30th of July, 1842. They all belong to the same class. The credit for duties was to be then abolished, and prompt payment required. From and after that day, duties were to be laid to meet the expenditure of an economical administration of the government. And after that day, "the duties required to be paid by law," were to be assessed on the value of the goods at the port of entry; and this assessment is required to be made, "under such regulations as may be prescribed by law."

Barry v. Gamble.

These provisions cannot, by any known rule of construction, be made to refer to laws or regulations existing at the time of their enactment. They all refer to the future: to future laws, and regalations prescribed by those laws.

The existing laws made no provision to carry into effect the changes in the system, introduced by the act of 1833. Appraisers were appointed under former acts, but there was no law or regulation as to the home valuation. This was a most important matter, under the new system, And it is perceived, from the explicit provision of the act of 1833, that Congress did not intend to leave an arrangement of so much importance to the discretion of the secretary of the Treasury or of the President. They declare, that the duties shall be assessed, "under such regulations as may be prescribed by law." This is not to be met by argument. It is matter of law.

No one can doubt, that laws in relation to duties, not inconsistent with the act of 1833, may be considered in giving a construction to that act. But I am yet to learn, that such laws, by any construction, can suspend or modify the positive enactments of the act of 1833. Such a power belongs not to the executive nor the judiciary, but to Congress.

JAMES BARRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. HAMILTON R. GAMBLE. Under the act of 1815, a New Madrid certificate could be located upon lands before they were offered at public sale under a proclamation of the President, or even surveyed by the public surveyor.

The act of 1822 recognised locations of this kind, although they disregarded the sectional lines by which the surveys were afterwards made. Under the acts of 1805, 1806, and 1807, it was necessary to file the evidences of an incomplete claim under French or Spanish authority, which bore date anterior to the 1st of October, 1800, as well as those which were dated subsequent to that day; and in case of neglect, the bar provided in the acts applied to both classes.

A title resting on a permit to settle and warrant of survey, dated before the 1st of October, 1800, without any settlement or survey having been made, was an incomplete title and within these acts.

And although the acts of 1824 and 1828 removed the bar as it respected the United States, yet, having excepted such lands as had been sold or otherwise dis posed of by the United States, and saved the rights or title of adverse claimants, these acts protected a New Madrid claim which had been located whilst the bar continued.

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Missouri, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1789.

It was an ejectment brought by Gamble, the defendant in error, against Barry, to recover possession of a tract of land in St. Louis county, Missouri.