due process of law, then the words can have no definite meaning as used in the Constitution.

One or two errors assigned, and not mentioned in the earlier part of this opinion, deserve a word or two.

It is said that the plaintiff's property had previously been assessed for the same purpose, and the assessment paid. If this be meant to deny the right of the State to tax or assess property twice for the same purpose, we know of no provision in the Federal Constitution which forbids this, or which forbids unequal taxation by the States. If the act under which the former assessment was made is relied on as a contract against further assessments for the same purpose, we concur with the Supreme Court of Louisiana in being unable to discover such a contract.

It is also said that part of the property of plaintiff which was assessed is not benefited by the improvement. This is a matter of detail with which this court cannot interfere, if it were clearly so; but it is hard to fix a limit within these two parishes where property would not be benefited by the removal of the swamps and marshes which are within their bounds.

And lastly, and most strongly, it is urged that the court rendered a personal judgment against the owner for the amount of the tax, while it also made it a charge upon the land. It is urged with force, and some highly respectable authorities are cited to support the proposition, that while for such improvements as this a part, or even the whole, of a man's property connected with the improvement may be taken, no personal liability can be imposed on him in regard to it. If this were a proposition coming before us sitting in a State court, or, perhaps, in a circuit court of the United States, we might be called upon to decide it; but we are unable to see that any of the provisions of the Federal Constitution authorizes us to reverse the judgment of a State court on that question. It is not one which is involved in the phrase "due process of law," and none other is called to our attention in the present

case.

As there is no error in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, of which this court has cognizance, it is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY. In the conclusion and general tenor of the opinion just read, I concur. But I think it narrows the scope of inquiry as to what is due process of law more than it should do.

It seems to me that private property may be taken by a State without due process of law in other ways than by mere direct enactment, or the want of a judicial proceeding. If a State, by its laws, should authorize private property to be taken for public use without compensation (except to prevent its falling into the hands of an enemy, or to prevent the spread of a conflagration, or, în virtue of some other imminent necessity, where the property itself is the cause of the public detriment), I think it would be depriving a man of his property without due process of law. The exceptions noted imply that the nature and cause of the taking are proper to be considered. The distress-warrant issued in the case of Murray's Lessee et al. v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. (18 How. 272) was sustained, because it was in consonance with the usage of the English government and our State governments in collecting balances due from public accountants, and hence was "due process of law." But the court in that case expressly holds that "it is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative, as well as on the executive and judicial, power of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process due process of law' by its mere will." p. 276. I think, therefore, we are entitled, under the fourteenth amendment, not only to see that there is some process of law, but "due process of law," provided by the State law when a citizen is deprived of his property; and that, in judging what is "due process of law," respect must be had to the cause and object of the taking, whether under the taxing power, the power of eminent domain, or the power of assessment for local improvements, or none of these and if found to be suitable or admissible in the special case, it will be adjudged to be "due process of law;" but if found to be arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, it may be declared to be not "due process of law." Such an examination may be made without interfering with that large discretion

which every legislative power has of making wide modifications. in the forms of procedure in each case, according as the laws, habits, customs, and preferences of the people of the particular State may require.

ARTHUR v. MORRISON.

1. Veils manufactured of silk, and commercially known as "crape veils," and not otherwise, do not fall within the enumerating clause of the eighth section of the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 210), whereby "silk veils" are dutiable at sixty per cent ad valorem, but are within its concluding clause touching manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise provided for, and are, therefore, subject to a duty of fifty per cent ad valorem.

2. The designation of an article of commerce by merchants and importers, when it is clearly established, determines the construction of the tariff law when that article is mentioned.

3. The intent of Congress to impose, under the act of 1864, duties upon imported articles according to their commercial designation, and to recognize this rule of construing statutes, is manifest from the first section of the act of Feb. 8, 1875 (18 Stat. 307), which subjects to a duty of sixty per cent "all goods, wares, and merchandise not herein otherwise provided for, made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, irrespective of the classification thereof for duty by or under previous laws, or of their commercial designation."

4. A well-known rule of statutory construction remains in force until it shall be abolished by Congress.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Morrison and others brought this suit to recover the sum exacted from them by Arthur, the collector of the port of New York, in excess of what they protested was the lawful duty upon certain imported veils.

The portion of the eighth section of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 171, 13 Stat. 210, applicable to the case, is as follows:

"That on and after the day and year aforesaid, in lieu of the duties heretofore imposed by law on the articles hereinafter mentioned, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, on the goods, wares, and merchandise enumerated and provided for in this section, imported from foreign countries, the following duties and rates of duties; that is to say, . . . on silk vestings, pongees, shawls, scarfs,

mantillas, pelerines, handkerchiefs, veils, laces, shirts, drawers, bonnets, hats, caps, turbans, chemisettes, hose, mitts, aprons, stockings, gloves, suspenders, watch-chains, webbing, braids, fringes, galloons, tassels, cords, and trimmings, sixty per cent ad valorem. On all manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise provided for, fifty per cent ad valorem."

The collector pleaded that the moneys sued for were a part of the lawful duty of sixty per cent ad valorem for “silk veils’ imported by the plaintiffs. They replied, that the veils were not "silk veils," but a manufacture of silk, and were "crape veils;" that at the time of the passage of the act of June 30, 1864, they were commercially known among importers and dealers, and were bought and sold, as "crape veils," and never otherwise, and were liable to a duty of fifty per cent ad valorem as a manufacture of silk. The defendant demurred to the replication. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs. The defendant sued out this writ of

error.

Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Edward Hartley, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

It was undisputed upon the pleadings that the veils in question were commercially known among importers and dealers, and were bought and sold, as "crape veils," and never otherwise.

The question of law thus presented is, whether veils, which are not commonly called "silk veils," but are veils manufactured of silk, and are known commercially as "crape veils," and not otherwise, are liable to a duty of sixty per cent.

The argument of the government is, that the statute in question is a comprehensive one, intended to include all articles made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, specifically enumerating in its first branch a variety of subjects on which should be imposed a duty of sixty per cent, and further providing, that on all manufactures from that material not otherwise provided for a duty of fifty per cent should be levied and collected. Silk veils, it is said, are specifically enumerated as being liable to a duty of sixty per

cent, and the articles in question being veils of which the material is silk, are within the enumerating clause of the

statute.

If this were all, the argument would be a strong one. But the fact that the veils in question are universally known and recognized among merchants and importers as crape veils, and not otherwise, and are never called or known as silk veils, is to be taken into the account. Although crape is shown to be a material of silk, to which a certain resinous substance has been applied, neither the merchant nor the ordinary buyer understands them to be identical. Neither the merchant who should order a case of crapes and receive one of silk goods, or who should order silk and receive crape, nor the individual purchaser who should order a dress of silk and receive one of crape, or should order crape for mourning and receive silk, would deem that the order had been properly filed. Thè general understanding concurs in this respect with that of the trader and importer, and must determine the construction to be given to the language of the statute. Especially should this view prevail as to laws made for the government of the importer. His business is regulated by them; and it is but reasonable that, like the language of marine policies and the terms of the law-merchant, supposed to be especially applicable to this class, these laws should be construed as universally understood by the importer and trader. Obsolete words, or those whose meaning is differently understood by the writer and the reader, produce disorder and confusion. Importations from foreign countries are necessarily made with reference to the duties to be paid upon their entry into the ports of this country. If these are not reasonably uniform, and cannot be ascertained, the transaction of business will be impossible. No man can determine whether his venture will enrich him, or make him a bankrupt. In Lattimer v. Smythe, it is said, "Where general terms are used, the terms are to be taken in their ordinary and comprehensive meaning, unless it is shown that they have, in their commercial use, acquired a special and restricted meaning." 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 12. In that case, and in Jaffray v. Murphy (19 id. 143), which is to the same effect, the question arose under the silk section of the act of 1864.