Edward Douglass White, United States v. Allen (163 U.S. 499…
“ It is altogether improbable that congress couched an intention to continue a drawback on coal in the ambiguous language employed in the proviso which is relied on.An added circumstance, weighing against the construction that the proviso was intended to continue the drawback in question, is the fact that the rule laid down in the proviso for determining the amount of drawback evidently had relation to articles manufactured from 'materials,' and not to a raw material like coal, in the production of which no materials are used which enter into and form a part of the product. ”
