Summary

Samuel Blatchford Robertson v. Edelhoff — Opinion of the Court

The question, and the only question, therefore, is whether they come under the clause, 'Hats, and so forth, materials for' as being 'trimmings,' 'used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods,' composed of any of the seven substances specifically named, 'or any other substance or material, not specifically enumerated or provided for in this act,' and were thus liable to a duty of only 20 per cent. ad valorem.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Robertson v. Edelhoff — Opinion of the Court

It is to be especially noted that the act of 1883 does not, in Schedule L, in regard to silk and silk goods, or elsewhere, impose any duty upon silk ribbons by that name, or upon ribbons made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, otherwise than as they may be covered by the clause above quoted in regard to 50 per cent. duty. We think it perfectly clear that the words 'composed of,' in the 20 per cent.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature