
    ROBERT DUNLAP v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [33 C. Cls. R., 135; 173 U. S. R., 65.]
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    The act August 28, 1894 (28 Stat. L., p. 509, § 61), provides that “any manufacturer finding it necessary to use alcohol in the arts or any medicinal or other like compound, may use the same under regulations to he prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury," and that any tax paid on alcohol so used shall he refunded. A manufacturer of hats used a large quantity, on part of which a tax of 90 cents and on part $1.10 per gallon has heen paid. He tenders to the collector of the district evidence to show the use of the alcohol and that the tax has been paid. The collector, under instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, declines to receive the evidence, owing to the failure of the Secretary to prepare and prescribe regulations. The Secretary, in his annual report, 1894, states that owing to defects in the legislation, the Department is unable to frame suitable regulations.
    The court below decides:
    1. In construing a statute it is proper for the court to consider the circumstances under which and the history of the times when it was passed.
    2. In the passage of the act August 28, 1894 (28 Stat. L., p. 509), Congress had two purposes — first, to raise revenue from distilled spirits; second, to allow manufacturers a rebate on alcohol used in business. The principal purpose was to raise revenue.
    3. The power to make laws can not be delegated to an Executive Department. The enforcement of the law may be made to depend upon a condition to be ascertained by an executive officer, but such an exception to the uniform operation of the laws is not a grant of legislative power.
    4. Equality is the fundamental theory of taxation, and exemptions by statutes are to be construed strictly,
    5. The grant in the act August 28,-1894, is the right to a rebate on alcohol used “under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.” There is no vested right unless the alcohol be used under such regulations. The failure of the Secretary to prescribe regulations will not supply the essential element.
    
      6. The fact that the Secretary reported to Congress his failure to prescribe regulations and that Congress repealed section 61 of the act may he regarded as legislative construction.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 20, 1899.  