brought within the benefits of section 12 of the act of 1884, by force of the word "nationalization," used in the Porto Rican Organic act, especially in view of section 14 and the general scope of that law, which certainly treats Porto Rico as a country belonging to the United States, and one whose people would hardly be expected, when in foreign ports, to be discriminated against in such a matter as the care and assistance of American consular officers. And if there is no distinction made as to the performance of the services to these and other vessels, neither is there any distinction made as to the compensation of consuls for performing such services. Your second question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. Respectfully, JOHN W. GRIGGS. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. CUSTOMS DUTIES-BONDED WAREHOUSES-FOREIGN WAR VESSELS. Section 15 of the act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat., 207), does not permit the withdrawal, free from internal-revenue duty and the requirements relating to revenue stamps, of liquors from bonded manufacturing warehouses, for consumption aboard of war vessels of foreign nations. The withdrawal of goods from such a warehouse for consumption on war vessels of foreign nations, would not be an exportation of such goods within the meaning of the act of 1897. The privilege granted to foreign vessels of war in our ports, under seetion 2932, Rev. Stat., of purchasing supplies from the public warehouses, duty free, when that privilege is reciprocated in the ports of such foreign nation to our own national vessels, is limited to the purchasing in the bonded warehouses of supplies deposited therein pending withdrawal for consumption. The duty referred to, from which supplies so purchased shall be free, is the import duty. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, March 9, 1901. SIR: Your letter of December 4, 1900, presents for my consideration a question of law which arises upon an application to you by the Crown Distilleries Company. This application seeks permission to withdraw from a manufacturing warehouse merchandise manufactured therein, for the purpose of sale and delivery to foreign vessels of war for use on board such vessels, and alleges that such withdrawals and deliveries should be deemed an exportation which shall be exempt from internal duty and from requirements relating to revenue stamps, under section 15 of the act of July 24, 1897. The question of law arising upon this application is thus framed by you, namely: Whether articles can be withdrawn as supplies from bonded manufacturing warehouses under existing law for consumption aboard war vessels of foreign nations. You do not present to me a statement of facts, in accordance with the established rule upon request for opinion (19) Opin., 396; 20 Opin., 270; 21 Opin., 220; 22 Opin., 342), but I waive that objection in this instance, since the crucial facts are clearly and necessarily implied, and merely remark that, obviously, it must be assumed that the foreign war vessels affected are lying in ports of the United States, and that the merchandise here involved is distilled spirits which have been conveyed as raw materials, in due conformity to law, into manufacturing warehouses and there have been legally manufactured into some other form of spirituous liquor, such as cordials, bitters, etc. Section 2982, Revised Statutes, grants to foreign vessels of war in our ports the privilege of purchasing supplies from the public warehouses, duty free, when that privilege is reciprocated in the ports of the foreign nation to our own national vessels. The "public warehouses" thus referred to are the bonded warehouses in which imported merchandise is deposited in bond pending withdrawal for consumption, and the duty referred to, from which supplies so purchased shall be free, is the import tariff. The Treasury Department has construed section 2982 as limited to the withdrawal of supplies from such customs bonded warehouses, and has held that bonded manufacturing warehouses are not bonded warehouses within the meaning of the provisions of law relating to the bond and warehouse system of which section 2982 is a part. (T. D. 13250, 13536, 18868.) Section 15 of the Dingley tariff act of 1897 permits, with certain restrictions, articles manufactured of materials sub ject to internal-revenue tax and intended for exportation, without charge or stamp for internal duty, to be manufactured in manufacturing warehouses and to be exported duty free under Treasury regulations. Section 3433, Revised Statutes, providing for similar manufacture for export, is incorporated in section 15 of the act of 1897 so far as applicable to the warehouses and conditions therein contemplated. It thus appears that the only question presented is whether goods withdrawn from these manufacturing warehouses for consumption on war vessels of foreign nations would be "exported" within the meaning of these provisions of the act of 1897. My opinion is that the words "exported" and "exportation" may not include deliveries of supplies to foreign war vessels in our ports without doing violence to language. It is true that the fundamental idea in exportation is the severance of goods from the mass of things belonging to this country (17 Opin., 579; 21 Opin., 501), and the purpose of the law, in many particulars referring to exportation, is to reach the assurance that the goods shall not be consumed here. But the notion of uniting the goods to the mass of things belonging to some foreign country is also involved, and that is hardly satisfied by consumption in our ports or on the high seas simply because the vessel belongs to a foreign nation. While "exportation" is a term the extent of which can not be rigidly defined for every case, and under the existing law and regulations sometimes requires proof of landing abroad, and under other circumstances is satisfied by proof of clearance of the vessel for a foreign port and proof of landing abroad is waived, yet there is nothing in the law under consideration to indicate that less than intention to ship abroad and actual shipment to a foreign port to reach there the general foreign market, which is the object of all such provisions in our statutes, will satisfy the law. I notice that it has been repeatedly held by your Department that articles manufactured from imported materials, as well as imported goods unchanged in condition, if consumed on board of vessels, would not be exported within the meaning of the drawback laws (T. D. 9733, 13536, 18668, 19434). The word "exportation" in section 30 of the Ding ley Act, allowing a drawback on the exportation of articles in the manufacture of which imported materials are used, doubtless should be defined by reference to sections 30433047, Revised Statutes, relating to drawback and requiring proof of landing abroad. By analogy, it is pertinent to suggest that section 15 of the Dingley Act must be read in conjunction with section 3433, Revised Statutes, which is expressly incorporated in section 15, and in connection with other provisions of the law relating to exportations free of duty or tax (sections 2979, 3043-3047, 3330, Revised Statutes; articles 1045-1065, Customs Regulations, 1899), which contemplate a shipment with intent to land abroad as a necessary element in the meaning of "exportation" when used in these laws. But without dwelling on the more technical considerations involved, and conceding that the principle of assured removal from consumption in this country free of tax or duty, in order to increase the market for our goods, and with a view to international comity, embraces the case of supplies which are manufactured in this country and are delivered to foreign war vessels quite as clearly as such supplies which are imported; nevertheless the law has carried this principle into effect in the latter case, and has not done so in the former case. It is a well-established rule, having few exceptions (Union Ins. Co. v. United States, 6 Wall., 759; McKee v. United States, 164 U. S., 287), that it is not permissible to add to, change, or subtract from the words of a law under the guise of construction: "No mere omission, no mere failure to provide for contingencies which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute." (United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U. S., 95, 103). In the same line with this principle is the weight of the rulings of your Department, which are entitled to much consideration, and hold generally, as I have stated, that exportation requires shipment abroad with intent to land on foreign soil, and demand often that proof of landing as well shall be made. I do not understand that you are informed that the privilege desired by these applicants is reciprocated toward vessels of war of the United States in any foreign ports; and such mutuality appears to be the basis of any like privilege in our own laws and in the laws of other nations. I may also remark that if Congress had desired and intended to grant the privilege in question, it might have been granted by language free from doubt, such as that used in section 14 of the Dingley Act, by which section 16 of the act of June 26, 1884, relating to supplies for American vessels, was amended. That section of the act of 1884, as amended, closes with the following words: "But no such articles shall be landed at any port of the United States." This clause is all that is necessary where mere assurance against consumption in this country, and not of exportation to a foreign country, is required. Accordingly, I hold that articles may not be withdrawn from bonded manufacturing warehouses, under existing law, as supplies for war vessels of foreign nations. Very respectfully, JOHN K. RICHARDS, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ARMOR PLATE-ROYALTY-HARVEY PROCESS. The Navy Department may rightfully withhold its approval of the voucher providing for the payment to the Carnegie Steel Company of the sum of $8,024.45, claimed as royalty for the use of the Harvey process in the manufacture of armor plate for naval vessels under the contract of 1898, until the right of the Harvey Steel Company to demand and collect from the Government a royalty for the use of the same process is determined in the suit pending in the Court of Claims. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: In your communication of the 8th instant you inclose for my information a letter, dated the 14th ultimo, from the attorney for the Carnegie Steel Company, requesting payment to that company of the sum of $8,024.45, as royalty for the use of the Harvey process in the manufacture of armor plate for naval vessels, under the contract of June 3, 1898, the bill for this amount having first been presented to the Navy Department by the Carnegie Steel Company on April 1, 1899. Attached to this letter is a report (second indorsement, dated February 26) of the Bureau of Ordnance, setting forth the reasons why, in its |
