
    WILCOX’S CASE.
    Irving F. Wilcox v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      Under the Act 20th July, 1838, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue designates at different ports of entry bonded warehouses for the storage of manufactured tobacco intended for exportation. Manufactured tobacco is' removed in 1869, 1870, and 1Ó7Í, from the factories pn a district in Virginia and sent to bonded warehouses in other districts without the payment of the tax thereon. It is subsequently withdrawn from the bonded warehouses and the tax thereon paid to the collectors of those districts. The collector of the district where it was manufactured now claims, under the Acts 13th July, 1866, and 2d March, 1867, to share in the commission on the tax collected.
    
    I. In the construction of several statutes on the same general subject, passed at different times by successive legislatures, all parts of each retain their force and effect, except where it is clear that by a later act substantial changes were intended. Incidental changes will not be imputed unless clearly considered by the legislators an:l within the scope of the particular matters considered by them.
    II. The Act. 20th July, 1868, (15 Stat. L.,-167, 73, 74,) which substituted export bonded warehouses at different ports of entry for internal-revenue bonded warehouses in different districts, and does not relate to the compensation of collectors and assessors, will not be construed to repeal the provisions of the Acts V3th July, 1866, and 2d March, 1867, (14 Stat. L., 105, § 9; id., 473, § 9,) which allow to collectors and assessors of districts whence articles subject to an internal-revenue tax “ are shipped in bond to be sold in another district ” one-half of the tax collected in the latter district as a portion of the fund on which tlieir commissions are based. The tax so collected at the export bonded warehouse on manufactured tobacco withdrawn for sale is to be divided and credited equally to the collectors of the two districts.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The court found the following facts:
    I. Under the provisions of the Aet July 20,1868, (15 Stat. L., 157, § 73,) the Commissioner of Internal Revenue designated and established at different ports of entry bonded warehouses for the storage of manufactured tobacco and snuff in bond intended for exportation, under the control of the collector of internal revenue in charge of exports at the port and in the district where located.
    II. The Commissioner promulgated the following instructions and regulations applicable to the withdrawal of tobacco from said warehouses for consumption, so far as material in this case:
    “ The law makes no provision for the removal of tobacco in bond without payment of tax, except such tobacco and snuff as are intended for export. * * *
    “Section 73 [of the act of 1868, chapter 186] provides * * that said goods may be withdrawn from warehouses either for immediate export to a foreign country, or after the tax has been paid thereon. * *
    “The following rules and regulations are prescribed for the deposit in, and withdrawal from, any export bonded warehouse of * * manufactured tobacco and snuff. * * *
    “IV. WITHDRAWAL AETER PAYMENT OE TAX.
    “The party desiring to withdraw manufactured tobacco or snuff from an export bonded warehouse, after the tax has been paid thereon, will file with the collector an entry for withdrawal in the following form, describing the goods as they were entered for warehousing, viz:
    “ENTRY EOR WITHDRAWAL.
    “Entry of merchandise intended to be withdrawn from the export bonded warehouse of-:-, at- — , in the -district of the State of-, by-, for consumption, on payment of the taxes, the same having been stored in said warehouse by — -, on the-day of-, 18 — , and which were described as follows, viz:
    “The taxes having been fully paid and the stamps affixed and canceled, the collector will issue a permit for the delivery of the goods, which permit must be presented to the assessor of the district for his certificate that the same has been presented to him, and that the amount of taxes paid thereon has been entered in his bonded account of the district.”
    
      And the collector was required to certify that the full amount of tax due and owing thereon had been paid to him.
    111. The claimant was collector of internal revenue for the fifth collection district of Yirginia from April, 1869, to March, 1871, as alleged in his petition.
    IY. During the time the claimant was collector as aforesaid there were removed from manufactories in his district without the payment of tax thereon and transported directly to export warehouses in other districts, under the provisions of section 74 of said act (15 Stat. L., 157) and the regulations of the Commissioner, a large quantity of manufactured tobacco, to each package of which was affixed, by said collector, an engraved stamp as required by said section.
    Y. Of the tobacco so removed from manufactories in the district of the claimant, and shipped to export bonded warehouses in other districts, there was withdrawn by the owners from said warehouses, to be sold in districts other than that of the claimant and not for export, in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner mentioned in the second finding, a large quantity of tobacco, and the tax thereon was paid to the collectors in the districts where said warehouses were situated.
    YI. Adding one-half the amount of the tax received on the quantity of tobacco shipped from the claimant’s district, as set forth in the fourth finding, and withdrawn from the warehouses in other districts to be sold, as stated in the fifth finding, to the amount of taxes collected by the claimant on which his commissions were calculated, if he was entitled to have such addition made under the provisions of the Act June 30,1864, (13 Stat. L., 231, § 25,) as amended by the Act July 13, 1866, (14 Stat. L., 106, § 9,) and the Act March 2,1867, (14 Stat. L., 171, chap. 169, § 9,)'the claimant would be entitled to additional commissions amounting to the sum of $1,020, which has not been paid to him.
    
      Mr. 1. G. Kimball for the claimant:
    If possible, laws must be construed so that they may have some effect. At this time only tobacco could be shipped in bond to another district without prepayment of tax, and as Congress retained this proviso in force, and by section 73, Act July 20, 3868, allowed tobacco thus shipped in bond to be taken out of bond by payment of the tax, it is obvious that it was retained for the purpose of giving to the shipping collector his commissions on one-half the amount of tax thus paid. Any other construction would be a grievous wrong to the shipping collector, (the claimant,) who was put to great labor, expense, and responsibility on account of the tobacco thus shipped, and would not be paid any compensation therefor.
    The allowance of this claim does not affect the United States, because if commissions on one-half the amount is allowed to the claimant, then the receiving collector can only receive commissions on the other half. In other words, the only question is whether the United States shall pay to the receiving-collector the whole commission or pay one-half.to him and the other to the claimant.
    
      Mr. Joseph K. MoOammon (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants:
    The Act July 20,1868, (15 Stat. L., 157, § 74,) repealed the provision allowing goods to be shipped in bond from the district of production to another district for sale, and thereby did away with the whole system of credit for taxes on goods until they were sold. It provided that tobacco might be shipped in bond, but only to export bonded warehouses, and only “ for export,” with an “ engraved stamp ” affixed to each package by the collector of the district of manufacture, and before being removed from the manufactory, “ indicative of such intention.” The only modification of this is the provision in section 73 of the act of 1868, which allows tobacco to be taken out of an export bonded warehouse ‘‘after the tax has been paid thereon,” and which was intended to meet any commercial necessity which might arise to change the purpose to export. The partial damage by fire or water of tobacco awaiting exportation in a bonded warehouse would change the intention of the consignees to export, and necessitate the sale of the tobacco in this country, and consequently the tax would be paid. This, or some such possibility, was contemplated by the act providing for the payment of a tax'on tobacco shipped from the district of manufacture in bond for exportation. By affixing the stamp showing the goods were for export, the collector practically certified that he had no claim whatever for commissions on them. The only title the officers in the shipping districts ever had to commissions on goods shipped was on such goods as were shipped in bond, for the purpose of being sold in another district, and when it became unlawful to ship for sale that title expired. All goods shipped after the Act July 20,1868, were shipped for export alone, and could be shipped for no other purpose. The title to commissions came originally, not because the goods were shipped, but because they were shipped to be sold in another district, and as the goods in question were shipped for export, and it was so declared at the time of shipment, no commissions could accrue to parties in the shipping district, though they were ultimately sold. The fact that this tobacco, which was shipped for export, was subsequently sold, added nothing to the duties or responsibilities or rights of the shipping collector. (Gregg^s Case, 4 C. Ols. R., 103.) The payment of 25 cents to the collector for providing and affixing a stamp to each package of tobacco intended for exportation, as provided by secton 74, Act July 20,1868, proves that no additional pay on account of the same package of tobacco was contemplated by that act.
   Richardson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question of law arising upon the findings in this case is, which of two collectors of internal revenue is entitled to commissions on one-half the tax collected on manufactured tobacco removed and transported without the payment of tax from the manufactories in one district to export bonded warehouses in another district, and withdrawn for consumption or sale upon payment of the taxes thereon to the collector of the latter district, as the law stood after the Act July 20,1868, and before the passage of the Act June 6,1872; there being no controversy as to who was entitled to commissions on the other half, which were allowed to the collector in the warehouse district.

By the Act June 30, 1864, (13 Stat. L., 245, 263, §§ 61, 90, chap. 173,) manufactured tobacco and other articles might be transferred without payment of duty directly from the place of manufacture to a bonded warehouse established in conformity with law and Treasury regulations, under such rules and regulations and upon the execution of such transportation bonds as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, * * * and withdrawn therefrom for consumption on payment of the duty, or removed for export to a foreign country without payment of duty.” * * *

Under this act the Commissioner made regulations, among others, for the withdrawal of tobacco, as well as spirits and other articles to which the same act applied, from the bonded warehouses for consumption, requiring the taxes due thereon to be paid to the. collector of the district in which the warehouses are situated.

The same act, in section 25, (13 Stat. L., 231,) allowed to collectors of internal revenue a salary and certain commissions on the amount of money collected, paid over, and accounted for by them, respectively, as taxes.

This gave to collectors in the districts where bonde’d warehouses were established all the commissions on taxes collected on manufactured tobacco, as well as spirits and other articles withdrawn from said warehouses for consumption, and nothing to the collectors of the districts in which the tobacco had been manufactured and from which it had been shipped.

Subsequently, by the Act July 13, 1866, (14 Stat. L,, 105, 106, § 9, ch.'184,) as amended by the Act March 2,1867, (14 Stat. L., 473, § 9, ch. 169,) the following proviso was enacted:

“Provided,.that in calculating the commissions of assessors and collectors of internal revenue in districts whence cotton or distilled spirits or other articles are. shipped in bond to be sold in another district, one-half of the amount of tax received on the quantity’of cotton or spirits, or other articles so shipped, shall be added to the amount on which the commissions of such assessors and collectors are calculated.”

Under this provision the commissions on spirits, tobacco, and other articles manufactured in one collection district and shipped in bond for consumption or to he sold in another district and the tax paid there, were divided equally between the collectors of the two districts, or, more strictly speaking, one-half of the amount of taxes received in such cases was added to the respective accounts of.such collectors, for the purpose of calculating their commissions, which might be of different percentage, according to the full amount of all their collections.

. The Act July 20,1868, (15 Stat. L., 157, §§ 73, 74, ch. 186,) made new provisions in,relation to the removal of manufactured tobacco and snuff from the manufactories, directing the Commissioner to designate and establish at different ports of entry-bonded warehouses for the storage of manufactured tobacco and snuff in bond intended for exportation, and requiring all such articles intended for export, and removed to another district for that purpose, to be transported to such export bonded warehouses, and also prohibiting the removal of the same from such warehouses except for export or after the tax has been paid thereon.”

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue construed these provisions as superseding those of previous acts, and as prescribing the only method by which manufactured tobacco could be taken from the manufactory without the payment of tax and transported to bonded warehouses in other districts, but as still giving the owner the right to remove it from those warehouses for consumption upon paying the tax thereon to the collector in the district where it was stored, substantially in the same manner as it could have been removed under the former acts; and he made his regulations and instructions accordingly.

The only practical changes made by the law of 1868 in relation to the removal of manufactured tobacco from the district where manufactured to other districts where there were bonded warehouses, and the seruoval therefrom for sale or consumption, were these: It substituted export bonded warehouses for internal-revenue bonded warehouses, and required the manufacturer to affix to each package before leaving the manufactory a stamp indicating that the tobacco was intended for export. The method of transfer, giving bond, removal for sale or consumption, and payment of tax upon such removal, were substantially the same under both laws.

For the defendants, in behalf of the collectors in the warehouse districts, it is contended that as the proviso in the act of 1866 which we have cited, as amended, specified only “articles shipped in bond to be sold in another district” therefore, after the passage of the act of 1868 superseding the then existing provisions for the shipment of tobacco in bond to be sold in another district, and substituting’ therefor provisions for the shipment only upon the declared intention of the owner that it was for export, as evidenced by a stamp thereon, there could be nothing for the proviso to operate upon, and that the taxes ■collected by a collector in the district where export bonded warehouses were situated upon tobacco shipped thereto from manufactories in other districts, with stamps on the packages indicating that it was intended for export, and withdrawn for sale or consumption, were not taxes “on articles shipped to be sold in another district.”

In our opinion this would be a too restricted application of the proviso, or a too extensive application of the effect of the act of 1868, beyond the intention of Congress, and outside of the matters designed to be covered or affected by that act.

In the construction of several statutes on the same general subject, passed at different dates and by successive legislatures, without express repeal of former provisions, all parts of each must retain their force and effect except where it is apparent that by the later acts substantial changes were intended, without relying upon artistic adaptation of the language of all parts to the substantial alterations, or raising incidental changes-through imperfect or incomplete connections between the different statutes, clearly not contemplated by the legislators, and not within the scope of the particular matters considered by them. What is to be determined is the will of the legislature, and that will as expressed in the latest act is paramount. But-on all matters in which the will of the latest legislature has not been clearly manifested .that of all former legislatures must stand.

When the proviso which we have cited was passed, in 1866, and amended in 1867, so as to include other articles as well as cotton and distilled spirits, the Thirty-ninth Congress had before it and directly considered and acted upon the question of compensation of assessors and collectors of internal revenue, and in explicit language declared its policy and will as to which of' two collectors should have the commission upon taxes collected on distilled spirits and other articles manufactured in one ■ district and sent in bond to another district, there stored in bonded warehouses, and withdrawn therefrom on the payment of the taxes to the collector of the latter district.

That Congress provided that the commission should practically be divided between the collectors, allowing one-half the tax paid to be added to the collection account of each for the purpose of calculating their commission.„ The language of the. proviso as to articles the tax paid on which was thus to be-divided in the collectors’ accounts, in specifying them as “ articles shipped in bond to be sold in another' district,” was sufficiently definite and appropriate in the then state of the law in relation to tobacco manufactured in one district and transported into another district, and there withdrawn upon payment of.' tax for sale or consumption.

In 1868 the Fortieth Congress passed the Act July 20, (ch.. 186,) a long act of 109 sections, in no part of which was the subject of the compensation of assessors of internal revenue dealt with or referred to. It did establish a change of policy as-to* the transfer in bond of tobacco and snuff from the manu-factory to bonded warehouses within or without the same district, but that change had no practical effect upon the right or the method of withdrawal of the tobacco from the bonded warehouses upon p^ment of-the tax to the collectors of the districts where such warehouses were situated, nor upon the respective labors, responsibilities, and duties of the several collectors in the different districts, and the regulations of the Commissioner in relation to the withdrawal and payment of taxes on tobacco in such cases were practically the'same under this as under the pre-existing acts.

The only real changes effected were, as we have before shown, the substitution of export bonded warehouses for internal bonded warehouses, and requiring the owners of tobacco shipped from the manufactory to the warehouses to affix to each package an engraved stamp, for which he paid to the Government through the collector of the shipping district -25 cents, and which was to be indicative of the owner’s intention to export the package. But, notwithstanding that stamp, the owner was not bound to export the tobacco, but was permitted to Withdraw it from bond for consumption on payment of the taxes due thereon precisely as before.

And it is upon this narrow construction that the defense in this case rests; that because under the act of 1868 tobacco could be shipped in bond from the manufactory only with a stamp thereon indicative of the intention of the owner to export it, while the language of the proviso of 1866 referred to articles “shipped in bond to be sold in another district,” therefore the commissions of collectors were to be calculated on a different basis, in the two cases, upon taxes collected in like manner upon tobacco shipped in bond from the manufactory and withdrawn for consumption from the bonded warehouse alike under both acts.

In. our opinion the Fortieth Congress, in passing the act of 1868, (chap. 186,) had no such intention and expressed no •such will; and to adopt the construction contended for by the defendants would be to defeat the clearly-established policy of Congress in this particular, by giving substantial force to language not material to the subject-matter legislated upon, and by establishing an incidental and accidental change of the law beyond the contemplation of the legislators.

We are confirmed in this opinion by the fact that, in revising the Statutes in 1873, the same construction we now give was adopted by Congress, and in incorporating the substance of the proviso of 1866 and 1867. into the revision, the words “ to he sold in another district,” upon which alone the Jefense in this case finds any support, were omitted. (Rev. Stat., § 3145.) The Fortieth Congress, in 1868, no more intended, apparently, to change the law as to the force, application, and effect of that proviso, than did the Forty-third Congress in 1873, and it would seem to. have been the will of each that the policy of the Thirty-ninth Congress, as declared in the proviso in relation to the compensation of collectors and assessors of internal revenue, should continue.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant have and recover the sum of $1,020.

Loeing and Peck, J. J., were absent when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.  