Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morrill v. Jones, 140 (1883)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: 140 Visitors: 4
Judges: Waite, After Stating the Case
Filed: Jan. 18, 1883
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 106 U.S. 466 (_) MORRILL v. JONES. Supreme Court of United States. *467 Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Maury for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles P. Mattocks for the defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The Secretary of the Treasury cannot by his regulations alter or amend a revenue law. All he can do is to regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what Congress has enacted. In the present case we are entirely sati
More
106 U.S. 466 (____)

MORRILL
v.
JONES.

Supreme Court of United States.

*467 Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Maury for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles P. Mattocks for the defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The Secretary of the Treasury cannot by his regulations alter or amend a revenue law. All he can do is to regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what Congress has enacted. In the present case we are entirely satisfied the regulation acted upon by the collector was in excess of the power of the Secretary. The statute clearly includes animals of all classes. The regulation seeks to confine its operation to animals of "superior stock." This is manifestly an attempt to put into the body of the statute a limitation which Congress did not think it necessary to prescribe. Congress was willing to admit duty free all animals specially imported for breeding purposes; the Secretary thought this privilege should be confined to such animals as were adapted to the improvement of breeds already in the United States. In our opinion, the object of the Secretary could only be accomplished by an amendment of the law. That is not the office of a treasury regulation.

It has been argued here, that as it appears from the testimony, which has been incorporated into the bill of exceptions, that the importation in this case was from Prince Edward Island, it was not from "beyond the seas," and therefore that the judgment below was right. It is a sufficient answer to this objection that no such point was made below. The court was not asked to rule on any such question. Our examination is confined to such exceptions as were taken to the rulings actually made on the trial and incorporated in some form into the record, "an authenticated transcript" of which is returned with our writ of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer