Opinion of the Court.

United States v. Southmayd, 9 IIow. 637, imported merchandise is that which arrives in this country, and it is upon that duties are to be paid. Those cases passed on imports of sugars which had lost weight by drainage on the voyages. The controversy was whether duties should be levied upon the wet of the sugars when shipped, or upon their weight when they arrived, which was less on account of drainage and waste to the extent of five per cent, than when they were shipped. The court sustained the latter view, saying: "The general principle applicable to such a case would seem to be, that revenue should be collected only from the quantity or weight which arrives here. That is what is imported-for nothing is imported until it comes within the limits of the port." The evidence in those cases also showed that the quality of the sugars was less on account of the drainage. "Nor is his sugar improved in quality," the court said, "by the drainage, so as to raise any equity against him (the importer) by it.”

The evidence in the case at bar is that the sugars had improved in quality-becoming a higher grade of sugar, and necessarily under the principle of the cited cases it was that grade which was imported. Why then should they not have paid duty according to that grade? It was that grade, to use the language of Marriott v. Brune, which went "into the consumption of the country "-it was that grade which went "into competition with our domestic manufactures."

But, it is contended, that was not their condition when shipped. In one sense it was not, nor did the importers seek to pay duty on the sugars in the condition in which they were shipped. An element of that condition escaped, and it was calculated that it would escape, and the price to the importer was to be adjusted by it. With no decrease in the value of its sugars, petitioner claims a decrease of duties which the law fixes by value. The petitioner wants the benefit of the weight of the old condition and the benefit of the quality of the new.

goods, wares and merchandise included in any invoice, and be relieved from the payment of the duties of the portion so abandoned, provided the portion so abandoned amounts to ten per centum or over of the total value or quantity of the invoice."

Opinion of the Court.

To dwell upon the relative conditions of the sugars is misleading. They are really not the same articles, and it is upon the imported article the duty must be laid. This is the purpose of the statute. It is "such merchandise" which is imported and which is subject to an ad valorem duty according to its market value from whence it has come. And the practical justness of the rule is illustrated by this case. It is true that a witness testifying generally as to drainage from sugar cargoes said "it (the drainage) might be worth more and it might not be worth much." But what it was worth in the present case was not testified to. Whatever it was worth, it was petitioner's property, and whether it was worth reclamation was for petitioner to judge. Besides the ultimate valuation of the appraisers is not contested. Their authority is to make it. As the Court of Appeals said, "the legality of the appraisement is questioned, not its accuracy or its equity." We have no doubt about its legality, and the

Judgments are affirmed.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

DECISIONS ANNOUNCED WITHOUT OPINIONS DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOLUME.

No. 413. GREGORY v. PIKE. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 8, 1901. Decided April 15, 1901. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Thomas H. Talbot for the motions. Mr. F. A. Brooks opposing.

No. 272. TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA UPON THE RELATION OF RIDINGS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, v. NEVILLE ET AL., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma. Submitted April 24, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167; Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283, 288. Mr. John W. Shartel and Mr. J. R. Keaton for the appellant. Mr. Horace Speed for the appellees.

No. 311. MANCHESTER v. CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH AND SOCIETY OF TIVERTON. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 29, 1901. Decided May 13, 1901. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. William P. Sheffield, Jr., for the motions. No one opposing.

No. 388. NORDSTROM (BY HIS NEXT FRIEND Denning) v. Van DE VANTER, SHERIFF, ETC. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 29, 1901. Decided May 13, 1901.

Per Curiam. Order affirmed with costs on the author

Decisions announced without Opinions.

ity of Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398; Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, and see State v. Nordstrom, 21 Wash. 403; Nordstrom v. Moyer, Sheriff, 170 U. S. 703; Nordstrom v. Washington, 164 U. S. 705; Craemer v. Washington, 168 U. S. 124; State v. Nordstrom, 7 Wash. 506. Mr. Walter S. Fulton and Mr. Frank B. Crosthwaite for the motions. Mr. James Hamilton Lewis opposing.

No. 469. GRAND ISLAND AND WYOMING CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY V. SWEENEY. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted May 13, 1901. Decided May 20, 1901. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Charles W. Brown for the motions. Mr. Charles F. Maderson and Mr. N. K. Griggs opposing.

No. 389. NORDSTROM V. STATE OF WASHINGTON. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted May 27, 1901. Decided May 28, 1901. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398; Nordstrom v. Van de Vanter, 181 U. S. 616, and cases cited. Mr. Walter S. Fulton and Mr. Frank B. Crosthwaite for the motions. Mr. James Hamilton Lewis opposing.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

No. 606. BOARD OF LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY DEBT OF NEW ORLEANS v. UNITED STATES ex rel. WARNER. Fifth Circuit. Denied April 8, 1901. (Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham took no part in the consideration and disposition of this application.) Mr. Branch K. Miller for the petitioner. Mr. Richard DeGray, Mr. J. D. Rouse, Mr. Wm. Grant and Mr. H. M. Jordan opposing.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

No. 607. BOARD OF LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY DEBT OF NEW ORLEANS v. UNITED STATES ex rel. FISHER. Fifth Circuit. Denied April 8, 1901. (Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham took no part in the consideration and disposition of this application.) Mr. Branch K. Miller for the petitioner. Mr. Charles Louque and Mr. E. Howard Mc Caleb opposing.

No. 594. PASSAIC PRINT WORKS v. ELY AND WALKER DRY GOODS COMPANY. Eighth Circuit. Denied April 15, 1901.Mr. Frederick V. Van Vorst for the petitioner. Mr. William B. Thompson opposing.

No. 605. PARKER V. SQUIRES. Sixth Circuit. Denied April 15, 1901. Mr. William J. Gray for the petitioner. Mr. Ronald Kelly opposing.

No. 623. KELLY v. JUTTE AND FOLEY COMPANY. Third Circuit. Denied April 15, 1901. Mr. E. Spencer Miller for the petitioner. Mr. Richard P. White opposing.

No. 624. RIEGER 2. UNITED STATES. Eighth Circuit. Denied April 15, 1901. Mr. Frark Hagerman and Mr. Willard P. Hall for the petitioner. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Wm. H. Wallace opposing.

No. 625. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY V. WILSON. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Granted April 15, 1901. Mr. Alexander Wolf and Mr. Samuel B. Paul for the petitioner. Mr. Henry P. Blair opposing.

No. 610. BURT v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Fifth Circuit. Granted April 22, 1901. Mr. A. W. Terrell for the petitioners.