Legal Opinion · Dissent

Vandegrift v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 19, 1927No. 2841Published

1Dissent

*171DISSENTING OPINION

Barber, Judge:

I can not see my way clear to concur in the views of my associates in this case. Beads have been provided for eo nomine in practically every tariff act, including and since the act of 1832. In none of these has Congress limited or restricted such eo nomine provisions to beads that were ornamental or suitable for •decorative purposes. No such restrictive language is found in paragraph 1403 and in my opinion it is wiser to leave such a limitation to the legislative body, especially as no judicial tribunal or executive department, so far as has been ascertained,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  2. Benziger v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1887

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API