Argument for Appellant.

207 U.S.

the responsible owner and custodian, to produce the documentary evidence mentioned therein, without the necessity of calling upon bookkeepers, managers or other servants who may, or may not, in fact, have custody or control thereof at the time notice to produce is given, and to place upon the corporation the responsibility of seeing that such evidence called for, if in its control, is produced. There is ample justification for the classification made by the statute.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont is

Affirmed.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASSOCIATION v. THE UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 60. Argued December 9, 1907.-Decided January 6, 1908.

To entitle a manufacturer to drawbacks under § 25 of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 567, 617, on imported raw material used in the manufacture or production of articles in the United States, there must be some transformation, so that a new and different article emerges having a distinctive name, character and use. The mere subjection of imported articles, such as corks, to a cleansing and coating process to adapt them to a special use does not amount to manufacturing them within the meaning of the statute, and the exporter is not entitled to drawback thereon. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United States, 181 U. S. 584. Semble: an exportation of bottled beer is an exportation of the beer and not of the corks in the bottles, and therefore such corks are not exported articles within the meaning of § 25 of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890.

41 C. Cl. 389, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. L. T. Michener, with whom Mr. W. W. Dudley was on the brief, for appellant:

This court has sanctioned the use of dictionary definitions

207 U. S.

Argument for Appellant.

in determining the meaning of words in tariff laws. Marvel v. Merritt, 116 U. S. 11, 12; Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304.

The definitions of the word "manufacture" found in various standard dictionaries plainly bring the processes to which these corks were subjected within the meaning of the word as ordinarily used. Brande's Ency., tit. "Manufacture;" Evening Journal Assn. v. State Board of Assessors, 47 N. J. Law (18 Vroom), 36, 38. "Manufacture" is defined by Worcester to be "the process of making anything by art, or of reducing materials into forms fit for use by hand or by machinery, as an establishment for the manufacture of cloth; anything made or manufactured by hand, or manual dexterity, or by machinery." As a verb it is defined to mean, to form by manufacture or workmanship by hand or by machinery; to make by art or labor. Approved and applied in Attorney General v. Lorman, 59 Michigan, 157; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Fulghan, 91 Alabama, 555; Beggs v. Edison Elec. Ill. Co., 96 Alabama, 295; Lamborn v. Bell, 18 Colorado, 346. See also Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U. S. 131, 134; Carlin v. Western Assurance Co., 57 Maryland, 515, 526; S. C., 40 Am. Rep. 440; Norris v. Commonwealth, 27 Pa. St. (3 Casey) 494, 496; Landgraf v. Kuh, 188 Illinois, 484.

A "manufacturer" is defined to be one who is engaged in the business of working raw materials into wares suitable for use; who gives new shapes, new qualities, new combinations, to matter which has already gone through some artificial process. A manufacturer prepares the original substance for use in different forms.

He makes to sell, and stands between the original producer and the dealer and first consumer, depending for his profit on the labor which he bestows on the raw materials. State v. Dupre, 42 La. Ann. 561; City of New Orleans v. La Blanc, 34 La. Ann. 596, 597; City of New Orleans v. Ernst, 35 La. Ann. 746, 747; State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 108 Louisiana, 603.

The things done to, by and with the corks were a manu

facture of corks within the acts of Congress; the corks were imported materials used in the manufacture of articles in the United States, on which duties had been paid, and then were exported to foreign countries; and the appellant is a manufacturer and exporter within those acts of Congress and is entitled to a refund of the duties so paid. Schriefer v. Wood, 21 Fed. Cas. 737; Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co., 157 Pa. St. 507; Burke v. Mead, 64 N. E. Rep. 880, 883; S. C., 159 Indiana, 252; People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 543; People v. Morgan, 63 N. Y. Supp. 76, 79; Nassau Gas Co. v. Brooklyn, 89 N. Y. 409; Attorney General v. Lorman, 59 Michigan, 157; S. C., 60 Am. Rep. 287; Southern Chem. Co v. Board of Assessors, 48 La. Ann. 1475; Louisville & N. Railrcad Co. v. Fulgham, 91 Alabama, 555; Engle v. Sohn, 41 Ohio St. 691. Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, and Schlitz Brewing Co. v, United States, discussed and distinguished.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel for appellee:

The corks in question were not a part or ingredient of the beer exported, and were not, therefore, in contemplation of law, exported at all. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United States, 181 U. S. 584.

The process of cleansing and preparation adopted and applied by the appellant to the corks in question did not constitute a manufacture of corks within the purview of the statute providing for a rebate or drawback on exported manufactured articles. Frazee v. Moffitt, 20 Blatchf. 267; United States v. Potts, 5 Cranch, 284; Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 210.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for $27,000 for drawbacks on corks imported from Spain and used by claimant in bottling its beer, and entered for the benefit of drawback upon exportation under $25 of the act of Congress, entitled "An act to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports and for other purposes,'

approved October 1, 1890. 26 Stat. 567, 617. The section reads as follows:

"That where imported materials on which duties have been paid, are used in the manufacture of articles manufactured or produced in the United States, there shall be allowed on the exportation of such articles a drawback equal in amount to the duties paid on the materials used, less one per centum of such duties. Provided, That when the articles exported are made in part from domestic materials, the imported materials, or the parts of the articles made from such materials shall so appear in the completed articles that the quantity or measure thereof may be ascertained. And provided further, That the drawback on any article allowed under existing law shall be continued at the rate herein provided. That the imported materials used in the manufacture or production of articles entitled to drawback of custom duties when exported shall in all cases where drawback of duties paid on such material is claimed, be identified, the quantity of such materials used and the amount of duties paid thereon shall be ascertained, the facts of the manufacture or production of such articles in the United States and their exportation therefrom shall be determined, and the drawback due thereon shall be paid to the manufacturer, producer; or exporter, to the agent of either or to the person to whom such manufacturer, producer, exporter or agent shall in writing order such drawback paid, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe."

The corks in question were, after their importation, subjected to a special treatment, which, it is contended, caused them to be articles manufactured in the United States of "imported materials" within the meaning of § 25. The Court of Claims decided against the contention and dismissed the petition. 41 C. Cl. 389.

The treatment to which the corks were subjected is detailed in finding III, inserted in the margin.1

1 III. That while said acts of October 1, 1890, August 28, 1894, and July 24, 1897, were in force and operation the claimant herein, being en

In opposition to the judgment of the Court of Claims counsel have submitted many definitions of "manufacture," both

gaged in the regular, ordinary and usual course of its business aforesaid, exported from the United States a large quantity of beer brewed and manufactured by it, which exportation thereof was in bottles duly corked by it with corks so as to preserve the beer; that such corks so used by it in the bottles in which such beer was exported were imported from Spain, a foreign country (and on which corks duty had been paid to the United States, according to law, at the rate of 15 cents per pound, under the provisions of paragraph 416 of the act of Congress approved July 24, 1897), they being corks over three-fourths of an inch in diameter, measured at the larger end. The corks so imported from Spain were subjected to treatment by claimant.

The corks so used by the claimant in the making and shipment of its export beer were corks imported into this country from Spain, where they were cut by hand, without steaming. After these corks were received by claimant in its brewery in St. Louis, and while in the same state in which they were imported from Spain, they were carefully examined and all that were not fit for use in the export trade were rejected. The good ones were then selected and assorted according to sizes, and were branded with the date, the name of the brewer, and the name of the beer, and a special private mark to show what firm the cork came from. All this was done by unskilled labor.

The selected corks were put into a machine, or air fan, the unpatented invention of a man in the employ of the claimant, and all dust, meal, bugs, and worms were removed therefrom. They were then thoroughly cleansed by washing and steaming, removing the tannin and germs and making the cork soft and elastic, and they were next exposed to blasts of air in a machine, the unpatented invention of the same employé, until they were absolutely dry.

Following this, they were put for a few seconds into a bath of glycerine and alcohol, the proportions of which are a trade secret which the claimant has the right to use, and then they were dried by a special system. This bath closed up all the seams, holes and crevices, and gave the corks a coating which prevented the beer from acquiring a cork taste. The corks were then dried by absorption of the chemicals that had covered them. If the corks had been used without the application of this chemical bath, the beer would have acquired a taste of cork which would have injured the market for it.

The whole process took from one day to three days, the longest part of it being the drying after the chemical bath.

The bath made it easier to put the cork into the bottle and take it out. The pores and apertures of the cork were thoroughly closed by the bath, and thus the escape of the gases contained in the beer was prevented.

The steaming of the corks, or pasteurizing them, destroyed all the germs