President, Hon. JOHN BIGELOW. First Vice-President, Rt. Rev. HENRY C. POTTER, D. D. Second Vice-President, JOHN S. KENNEDY, Esq. Secretary, GEORGE L. RIVES, Esq., 32 Nassau Street. Treasurer, EDWARD KING, Esq., Union Trust Company, 80 Broadway. THE REGULATIONS HE Astor Building, 40 Lafayette Place, and the Lenox Building, Fifth Avenue and 70th Street, are open daily, Sundays and legal holidays excepted, from 9 A. M. until 6 P. M. The Reading rooms and the Exhibition rooms are free to all persons; but children under the age of fifteen years must be accompanied by an adult. In the Reading room of each Library Building certain shelves are set apart for books of reference, which readers are allowed to take down and examine at their pleasure. For all other books an application must be made by filling out and signing one of the blanks provided for the purpose. Published monthly by The New York Public Library, No. 40 Lafayette Place, New York City Subscription One Dollar a year, single numbers Ten Cents Entered as second-class matter at the New York, N. Y., Post Office, January 30, 1897 VOL. II. BULLETIN OF THE 'NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY ASTOR LENOX AND TILDEN FOUNDATIONS JUNE, 1898. No. 6. REPORT FOR MAY, 1898. During the month of May there were received at the Library by purchase 3,554 books and 578 pamphlets, and by gift 1,446 books and 5,261 pamphlets. There were catalogued 4,827 books and 5,397 pamphlets, for which purpose 24,349 cards and 1,425 slips for the printer were written. The following table shows the number of readers and the number of volumes consulted in both the Astor and Lenox branches of the Library during the month: Among the important gifts received this month were 21 volumes and 18 pamphlets from S. P. Avery; J. Abrahams, 1 old volume; Kansas State Library, 63 volumes; United States Superintendent of Documents, 1,000 pamphlets; Robert P. Porter, 294 volumes and 124 pamphlets; Secretary of State of Nevada, 27 volumes; Massachusetts State Library, 45 volumes; Library of Congress, 51 volumes and pamphlet; National Library at Rio de Janeiro, 18 volumes and 23 pamphlets, together with a large number of documents from British Colonies, the chief of which are, from different departments of the Queensland Government, 15 volumes and 30 pamphlets; the Cape of Good Hope, 18 volumes and 61 pamphlets; the South Australia Observatory at Adelaide, 11 volumes; and from St. Lucia, 2 volumes and 87 pamphlets. The works relating to music have been transferred from the Astor building to the Lenox building, and together with the Drexel Musical Library have been arranged in the north reading room. RECORDS OF THE CONFEDERATE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL. (From the original manuscript volume in the New York Public Library.*) MONTGOMERY 1st April 1861. SIR, I understand your letter of 30th ulto to propound for opinion the question whether under the act of congress to exempt from duty certain commodities, lemons, oranges, and walnuts are free. The clause of the act which must control the decision of this question, exempts from duty certain enumerated articles, including "wheat and flour of wheat and flour of all other grains: Indian corn and meal, barley and barley flour: rye, and rye flour: oats, and oatmeal: living animals of all kinds: also all agricultural products in their natural state." I confess to some embarrassment in arriving at a conclusion in all respects satisfactory. The language of the statute is so broad as to suggest doubts whether congress could have meant it to be as extensive in its application as its terms import; but it contains no words of limitation or distinction. It was doubtless passed in great haste in the urgent pressure of public business. This is shewn by the fact that it exempts from duty "living animals of all kinds" as though they had been previously chargeable, whereas they are expressly included in the free list of the tariff of 1857, already adopted by the congress. What is the meaning of the clause "also all agricultural products in their natural state"? Certain agricultural products had been previously specified, to wit, barley, corn, oats, rye and wheat, all of which were subject to duty prior to the passage of the act. The Legislator was plainly impressed with the conviction, that certain. agricultural products had been omitted in the list or specifications. He desired to include them. The necessity for so doing is apparent, as many articles are to be found included in the tariff of 1857 which clearly belong to the same class of products as those specified. For instance, both rice and flax seed are omitted in the list, and it is presumed that no one can doubt these to be "agricultural products in their natural state." An "agricultural product" is something produced by cultivating the earth. Etymology and the common meaning of the words as used both in the popular and commercial sense justify this definition, and I cannot perceive by what principle of construction this plain interpretation is to be escaped, simply because the result will injuriously affect the revenue to an extent greater than Congress is supposed to have intended. The earth is cultivated for the production not only of grains, but of vegetables and fruits. Those articles that are produced spontaneously, without the labor of * For an account of the volume see the Bulletin, vol. 1, p. 341 (November, 1897). man, independently of his cultivation, are not agricultural products, but are usually denominated in the language of Commerce "products of the forest." They are products of the earth, but not products of the cultivation of the earth. And amongst the articles to which your question refers, I should conclude without hesitation that walnuts are not agricultural products. It is true that a walnut tree may be planted and cultivated, and in such case its fruit would be an agricultural product, but this is the rare exception. The tree is of spontaneous forest growth, and the walnuts of commerce are obtained not by cultivation but by gathering the natural product of the forest. The question in relation to the "lemons and the oranges " seems to me to stand on a different footing. These fruits are obtained almost solely by cultivation. The farmer divides his industry into different branches in all countries. In ours, he has generally, not only his grain fields, but his vegetable gardens and his orchard, all sown or planted by his hands and cultivated by his labor: some annual, some perennial. Where is the distinction to be drawn, if any, in relation to the products of these different portions of the farm? I presume that no man would hesitate to say, that cabbages, turnips, potatoes, and pumpkins are "agricultural products," yet the tariff act of 1857 taxes pumpkins by name, and taxes all vegetables not otherwise provided for. I should not hesitate a moment in saying that such articles are exempt under the clause now under consideration. But the farmer who raises grain and vegetables, also draws from the soil, by cultivation, strawberries, raspberries, apples, pears, &c. How can we say that these are not agricultural products, that is things produced out of the earth by cultivation? I confess an inability to draw a distinction-nor can I draw one between the product of the labor of the western farmer and that of the Sicilian peasant. The lemons and oranges of the one, as well as the apples and pears of the other are the fruits of his labor in the cultivation of the soil, and are in their natural state. Both in my opinion are exempt under the law. Your question however seems to imply that the doubt which has arisen in your mind results from the fact that the tariff of 1857 specifies fruit as subject to duty, whereas the act of our congress does not specify it in the list of free articles. I think this doubt will disappear if it be considered, that under all known rules of construction, effect must be given to all the clauses of a law when it is possible to do so. Now the law in question exempts "all agricultural products in their natural state" after specifying a certain number of products by name. It is plain that these words would be wholly inoperative if it should be held that the exemption only took effect in favor of articles specially enumerated. I know that the construction I give to the law reaches much farther than is at first apparent. It would seem for instance to include unmanufactured tobacco. Its effect on the revenue, however, will be very short-lived, in view of the near approach of the session of the congress, and I have no power to make law by raising subtle distinctions based on my conjectures of their intention, when they have failed to express such intention in language. My plain duty is to construe what they have said, not what I may suppose they would have said, if their attention had been called to this special question. I conclude that in my opinion the lemons and oranges are not subject to duty under the law, but that the walnuts are. In the case of the money captured from the Exchange Bank, at Weston, Va., I find that the facts are imperfectly given. In the letter of Lieut. Branham, who made the capture, it is stated that the money was "public funds." I am at loss to understand whether he meant, by this expression, that the funds were those of the Bank, as a corporation, distinguishing them from the funds of the depositors; or whether they were the funds of the pseudo Government of West Virginia, or some other hostile public authority. I rather infer from the letter, that they were the funds of the corporation; and as this is stated to be the fact in the letter of the Auditor of Virginia, I shall assume it to be true. The Exchange Bank is a corporation duly created by the laws of the State of Virginia, and the Bank at Weston is one of the branches, or agencies, of the corporation. I am of the opinion that the money taken, if it was the property of the Bank, was not liable to capture, as enemy's property. It is a well settled principle of public law that if a citizen, or a neutral, be domiciled in the enemy's country, or maintain a commercial establishment there, he will be considered a hostile character, and his property will be liable to capture, as enemy's property. 1 Kent. Com. 84. 85, and authorities there cited. principle is equally applicable to a corporation. And the But the town of Weston is not in the enemy's country. It is a part of the Territory of the State of Virginia. It is true that a portion of her citizens have attempted to separate themselves from her jurisdiction, and have set up a pretended Government over a part of her territory which includes that town. But this act has been repudiated both by Virginia, and by the Confederate States; and the faith of the Confederate States has twice been solemnly pledged to Virginia, "to vindicate the integrity of her ancient boundaries," and "to maintain her jurisdiction and sovereignty to the utmost limits" of those boundaries. See Resolutions of Congress of 27th February, 1862, and 4th June, 1864. It is also true that this portion of the territory has for a long time been in the occupation of the enemy. But this will not justify the application of the principle. above stated. If there are any facts which make a difference between these funds and the property of every loyal citizen, within the enemy's lines, they are not stated in the papers. GEO. DAVIS, Atty G1. |