Statement of the Case. 1883, 22 Stat. 488, c. 121, were so-called shell opera glasses dutiable: By paragraph 143, (page 497,) "Porcelain and Bohemian glass, chemical glassware, painted glassware, stained glass, and all other manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act," were dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem. By paragraph 216, (page 501,) "Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured," were subject to 45 per cent ad valorem. By paragraph 486, (page 514,) "Shells, whole or parts of, manufactured, of every description, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act," were dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem. As these opera glasses were made of a combination of three materials, namely, glass, metal, and shell, they were also claimed to be subject to Rev. Stat. § 2499, as amended by the said act of March 3, 1883, (page 491,) viz.: "On all articles manufactured from two or more materials the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which the component material of chief value may be chargeable. If two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates." Upon the trial, certain depositions were offered in evidence tending to show the relative value of the component parts of which the opera glasses were made up, to the reading of which counsel for the defendant objected "upon the ground that the said depositions did not give in detail the values of the metal, shell, and glass, component parts of the pearl opera glasses in this suit, in the condition in which the opera glass manufacturer received them." The depositions were admitted and counsel excepted. In this connection the court charged the jury that “in determining which of the materials (manufacture of metal, Opinion of the Court. manufacture of shell, or manufacture of glass) composing the opera glasses in question was the component material of chief value, they must ascertain what were their values at the time they were in such condition that nothing remained to be done upon them except putting them together to make the perfected glasses." Defendant excepted to this instruction, and asked the court to charge "that in arriving at what was the component material of chief value in the said opera glasses, they should look and look only at the respective values of the metal, shell, and glass in the raw and unmanufactured state in which the opera glass manufacturer received them, and before their respective values had been enhanced by the manufacturer by means of any work, labor, or time expended, thereon." This was refused. In each case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff importer, upon which judgment was entered, and the collector sued out this writ of error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. Wickham Smith for defendants in error. Mr. Percy L. Shuman was with him on the brief. MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. These cases turn upon the question whether, in estimating the value of the component materials of which a certain manufactured article is made, the value of the materials shall be taken in the raw and unmanufactured condition in which the manufacturer receives them, and before their respective values have been enhanced by work expended upon them, or in the condition that nothing remains to be done upon them by the manufacturer except putting them together to make the completed glass. It appeared the manufacturer bought the metal in the shape of ingots, the shell in the natural form of mother-ofpearl, and the glasses in the rough state in which they leave Opinion of the Court. the cast. In neither case did the defendant introduce any testimony. Nothing, therefore, appears in the record as to the value of the materials when purchased appropriate to each opera glass. It is evident that the question involved is one of considerable importance, as in some articles, the raw material is the main cost, and in others, the labor. We think the theory of the importer was the correct one, and that the value of the materials should be taken at the time they are put together to form the completed glass. There are grave difficulties in making the estimation at any other time. Whether, for instance, the shell shall be taken in its rough and uncleansed state as it comes from the animal, or after it has been cleaned and polished. Shall the glass be taken in its polished or unpolished state? Shall the value of the metal be taken immediately after it is smelted or in a more advanced state of manufacture? The position of the government seems to be that the value of the component materials should be taken as they go into the hands of the manufacturer. But one manufacturer may buy them in their rough state, another in their polished state, and another in their final state, ready to be put together in the form of a glass. The value of the raw material, as is shown in this case with respect to the shell and copper, may be subject to violent fluctuations. One manufacturer may have bought them at a high price, another at a low price, both being held a considerable time in stock. What price shall govern? Thus, in appraising the value of a piece of furniture made of wood and silk plush, it would be obviously inequitable to take the value of the lumber as it comes from the tree, and the silk from the worm or the spinner. The true rule would seem to be to take each of them as they go into the furniture. While it may be true that to a certain extent the government may be at the mercy of the importers' witnesses in estimating the value of the labor put upon the raw material as it goes into the completed article, this difficulty cannot be allowed to defeat the plain object of the enactment. Such difficulties were doubtless foreseen, as they did not appear Statement of the Case. to be of such magnitude as to prevent Congress, in the act of 1890, from providing particularly that "the value of each component material shall be determined by the ascertained value of such material in its condition as found in the article," and thus putting the question at rest. We regard this as merely declaratory of the law. There is another point raised in this case, namely, that the opera glasses should be regarded as falling within the description of paragraph 216, as a manufacture composed wholly or in part of metal, and, therefore, dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem. As this question is not raised by the record, and no instruction was asked of the court based upon this interpretation, we do not find it necessary to express an opinion. upon the subject. The judgment of the court below in each case, is therefore, Affirmed. MCALEER v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 108. Argued November 23, 1893.- Decided December 4, 1893. An employé in the Treasury Department, having obtained letters patent for an invention which proved to be of use in the department, executed an indenture to the department in which he said: "For the sum of one dollar and other valuable consideration to me paid by the said department, I do hereby grant and license the said United States Treasury Department and its bureaus the right to make and use machines containing the improvements claimed in said letters patent to the full end of the term for which said letters patent are granted." Held, that this instrument constituted a contract fully executed on both sides, which gave the right to the Treasury Department, without liability for remuner ation thereafter, to make and use the machines containing the patented improvements to the end of the term for which the letters were granted; which contract could not be defeated, contradicted, or varied, by proof of a collateral parol agreement inconsistent with its terms. THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, rendered March 31, 1890, dismissing the petition of one Philip Statement of the Case. McAleer, whose administratrix was substituted in this court. The petition was filed November 27, 1888, "to recover from the United States compensation for the use by the United States of certain inventions made by the petitioner and protected by letters patent of the United States issued to him, such use being under licenses to the United States executed by petitioner." The several inventions and improvements for which letters patent were issued to petitioner were set out, and it was averred that "knowing that the said inventions and improvements so as aforesaid secured to the petitioner by letters patent were mainly and almost exclusively useful to the United States in the said Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the petitioner, at the request and by the advice of George B. McCartee, Esq., then superintendent of said bureau, for the United States executed and delivered to the said McCartee a license to the United States to use the petitioner's inventions aforesaid mentioned in letters patent No. 170,183, which was accepted by said McCartee for the United States, and under said license the United States continued thereafter to use said inventions." The license was then set out, and similar licenses were alleged to have been executed and delivered for the use by the United States of other inventions and improvements. The petition also averred that the United States advanced about the sum of two hundred dollars to be expended in procuring the issue of letters patent, "the officers of said bureau having urged the petitioner to have his aforesaid inventions and improvements protected by letters patent, with the view of securing to the United States, in the said Bureau of Engraving and Printing, by licenses as aforesaid, the exclusive use of the said inventions and improvements;" that at the time of the issue of the letters patent and of the execution of the licenses it was agreed between petitioner and the superintendent of the bureau in behalf of the United States that petitioner should be retained and employed in the bureau as machinist as long as the bureau continued to use said inventions or improvements, or any of them under the licenses; and that he was subsequently discharged. The petition further stated: "That under the aforesaid licenses there was an |