Supreme Court of United States.
*790 Mr. Henry Flanders for the plaintiffs in error.
The Solicitor-General, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is substantially disposed of by Hadden v. The Collector (5 Wall. 107) and Sturges v. The Collector, 12 id. 19. Sect. 3 of the act of June 6, 1872 (17 Stat. 232), is in all material respects like the statutes under consideration in those cases where we held that countries "beyond the Cape of Good Hope" and countries "east of the Cape of Good Hope" meant countries with which, at that time, the United States ordinarily carried on commercial intercourse by passing around that cape. Although the act of 1872 was passed after the Suez Canal was in operation, we see no indication of an intention by Congress to give a new meaning to the language employed which had already received a judicial construction. The words used are words of description, and indicate to the popular mind the same countries now that they did before the course of trade was to some extent changed by cutting through the Isthmus of Suez. The object of Congress was to encourage a direct trade with these Eastern countries. For this purpose, *791 in legal effect, a bounty was offered to those who imported the products of that region directly from the countries themselves, instead of from places west of the Cape.
We see nothing in the act of Congress which is in conflict with the treaty with Persia. 11 Stat. 709. If the subjects of Persia export their products directly to the United States, they are required to pay no more duties here than the "merchants and subjects of the most favored nation." It is only when their products are first exported to some place west of the Cape, and from there exported to the United States, that the additional duty is imposed. Under such circumstances, the importation into the United States is not, commercially speaking, from Persia, but from the last place of exportation.
Judgment affirmed.
