Summary

Ward Hunt Arthur v. Moller — Opinion of the Court

No one would contend that a picture by an eminent artist painted on canvas would be subject to duties as a manufacture of flax, or that a line engraving of a high order or merit would come under the head of a manufacture of paper, or that a lithograph taken by a single impression does not fall under that branch of the statute which imposes duties on prints or printed matter.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Arthur v. Moller — Opinion of the Court

Prints, like painting, embrace every variety of subject, but differ very widely in the manner in which they are engraved.'
McCulloch's 'Dictionary of Commerce' uses the same language.
The pictures in question were printed from lithographic stones, by successive impressions, each impression giving a different protion of the view and of a different color. Like other pictures, they are made and used for the purpose of ornament. Equally with engravings, copper-plates, and lithographs, they are printed, and properly fall within the statutory designation of printed matter.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Arthur v. Moller — Opinion of the Court

We do not perceive that the fact that the result is produced by several impressions, and of a different color at each time, can make a difference in the conclusion. In country places, we see posted the advertisements of circuses and shows and of political meetings upon sheets of paper of large size, printed in large type of various colors, red, black, and blue, and requiring that the paper should pass more than once through the press.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature