Opinion of the Court.

those things which had become vested in other persons; and that, among other things, "he was restored to the control of so much of his property and estate as had not become vested either in the government or in any other person; especially that part or quality of his estate which had never been forfeited, namely, the naked residuary ownership of the property, subject to the usufruct of the purchaser under the confiscation proceedings."

In the confiscation proceedings, under which the property in controversy was condemned and sold, the decree of the United States District Court adjudged, from the proof presented, that Thomas J. Jenkins, the party whose property was proceeded against, was, at the date of its seizure, the owner of the property, which consisted of certain real estate described, and had been since July 17, 1862, and was in the service of the rebels, in arms against the United States, and that his life estate in the said real estate was justly and legally forfeited, and it ordered that such life estate be condemned and sold, and that the necessary process be issued to the marshal to make such sale and bring the proceeds into court. Upon this decree a sale and conveyance were made by the marshal of the life estate of said Jenkins to one Edward Bepler. The only sale and conveyance executed under the decree as thus seen, were of the life estate of Thomas J. Jenkins in the real property in controversy. No condemnation was had or sale made of any other estate in the premises.

In some of the cases, as, for instance, Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, a condemnation and sale had been made of the property in fee, and it was held to be valid as a condemnation. and sale of the life estate of the offending owner; but the reverse is not true. When the lesser estate the life estateis sold, the sale cannot be held to pass the larger estate—the fee.

Of the reversion or remainder of the estate of the offending party no disposition was ever made by the government. It must, therefore, be construed to have remained in him, but, under the ruling in Wallach v. Van Riswick, without any power in him to alienate it during his life. That disability

Opinion of the Court.

was in force when he executed, with his wife, the deed of the premises, August 26, 1865. The proclamation of pardon and amnesty was not made by the President until December 25, 1868. This deed, however, was accompanied with a covenant of seizin on his part, and that he would warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Admitting that he had no present estate in the premises, and none in expectancy, he was at liberty to add to his deed the ordinary covenants of seizin and warranty, and the same legal operation upon future acquired interests must be given to them as when accompanying conveyances of parties whose property has never been subject to confiscation proceedings. That warranty estopped him and all persons claiming under him from asserting title to the premises against the grantee and his heirs and assigns, or conveying it to any other parties. When, subsequently, the general amnesty and pardon proclamation was issued, the disability, if any, that had previously rested upon him against disposing of the remaining estate, which had not been confiscated, was removed, and he stood, with reference to that estate, precisely as though no confiscation proceedings had ever been had. The amnesty and pardon in removing the disability, if any, resting upon him, respecting that estate, enlarged his estate, the benefit of which enured equally to his grantee. The removal of his disabilities did not affect the purchaser's right under the decree of confiscation. The latter remained in the full enjoyment of the property during the life of the offending party, but he had no claim upon the future estate, nor did the heirs of the offending party have any such claim upon it as to preclude the operation of any previous warranties by him respecting it. Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617. As the general pardon and amnesty to all persons implicated in the rebellion are not pleaded by the defendant, to relieve the offending party, whose life estate in the premises in controversy was confiscated, from his disabilities respecting the reversionary interest, or naked fee in the premises, it is claimed that no benefit can be derived from them. But this, result does not follow from the omission in pleading, for the pardon and amnesty were

Statement of the Case.

made by a public proclamation of the President, which has the force of public law, and of which all courts and officers must take notice, whether especially called to their attention or not. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 212, 215.

Judgment affirmed.

ROSSMAN v. HEDDEN.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 332. Argued April 25, 1892. — Decided May 16, 1892.

Plain glazed and plain enamelled tiles, imported in February, May and June, 1886, were subject to a duty of fifty-five per cent as other earthen ware not specially enumerated.

The classification of a dutiable article is to be determined as of the date when the law imposing the duty was passed.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This was an action brought in the. Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York to recover duties alleged to have been paid under protest upon three importations of tiles by the steamships Canada, Furnessia and Rhaetia, entered at the port of New York in 1886. The case was tried by the Circuit Court (Lacombe, J.) and a jury in October, 1888.

From the bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiff introduced testimony showing the importation of the tiles described in the bill of particulars, and that the defendant, as collector of customs, levied and collected duty at 55 per cent ad valorem thereon; and that the plaintiff in due season protested and appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury, and brought suit within the time prescribed by law.

The ground of the objection stated in the protests was, as to the Furnessia, that the tiles "were dutiable at 35 % ad valorem, under section 2499, Rev. Stat., by similitude to

VOL. CXLV-36

Statement of the Case.

encaustic tiles ;" and as to the Canada and Rhaetia, that the tiles "were dutiable at 20 % ad valorem, under Tariff Schedule B, as paving tile, directly or by virtue of section 2499, Rev. Stat. If not so dutiable, then they should pay 35 %, by similitude to encaustic tiles, under said section and schedule."

Testimony was given showing "that upon the entry ex Canada, Feb'y 24, '86, a portion of the duty was paid on the 26th day of February, 1886, and the remainder on the 10th day of May, 1886. The only goods in this suit upon said entry were two packages of tiles, marked D. F. & T., 25,306, 25,307, on which duty was taken on entry at 35 % ad valorem, the same being entered as encaustic tiles; both of said packages were delivered to the plaintiff on or before March 18, 1886; duties on said entry to the amount of $126.10 were paid February 26, 1886 (the date of said entry); and an increased duty of $14.30 (total, $140.40) was paid May 10th, 1886. The bill of particulars claimed, as an excess of duty on this entry, $12.20.

Testimony was further given that all the tiles in dispute were called in trade plain glazed and plain enamelled tiles.

Those having the color in the glaze are termed enamelled, and those having the color in the body are termed plain glazed.

The goods were described in the plaintiff's entries as follows: 1. By the Canada, February 26, 1886: Two packages encaustic tiles. 2. By the Furnessia, May 25, 1886: Eight casks plain white tiles. 3. By the Rhaetia, June 4, 1886: Eight hogsheads, one case, earthenware tiles. "The invoice by the Furnessia described the goods as glazed earthenware tiles."

Witnesses after testifying to the use of tiles on March 3, 1883, and prior thereto, were asked as to their use since, and for what purposes they were used or intended to be used now, or for what purposes imported; but the court sustained objections to the questions and plaintiff excepted.

Testimony was adduced on plaintiff's behalf "by dealers in tiles of long experience, that on March 3, 1883, and immediately prior thereto, the tiles in suit were used in this country

Statement of the Case.

to lay down in cement in vestibules, on hearths, bath-room floors and walls, on kitchen floors under sinks, interspersed with unglazed tiles on floors in church chancels, conservatories, hospital floors and walls, and generally in places where either a non-absorbent cleanly tile was required or where there was little wear and tear and a particularly ornamental effect was desired;" and also "by importers and large dealers in tiles of many years' experience that at the date of the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, the term paving tile had no meaning in the trade and commerce of this country different from its ordinary meaning, and meant tiles used for paving, and gave evidence tending to show that plaintiff's importations per Canada and Rhaetia were such tiles;" and also "by architects of long experience in this country that plaintiff's tiles were used for paving purposes; that tiles used for hearths were considered paving tiles; that the hearth, architecturally, was a part and an extension of the floor, and that a paving tile was a tile made to be laid horizontally and flat and intended so to be used.

"It appeared, however, that the principal use of the tile imported per Furnessia, represented at the trial by sample Exhibit No. 5, was for walls, though sometimes used for hearths, bath-room floors, and under kitchen sinks and other places, at the date of the passage, of the act of March 3, 1883; that it was used for the same general purposes as glazed encaustic tiles.

"That encaustic tiles consist of two varieties, glazed and unglazed; the unglazed being generally used for floors and hearths and the glazed being generally used on walls, though sometimes for hearths and other places.

"Testimony was also given on the part of the plaintiff, by large dealers in earthenware of long experience, that the term 'earthenware' as used in the trade and commerce of this country, does not, and did not at the date of the passage of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, include tiles of any kind, but referred principally to tableware and pottery.

"It further appeared that all the tiles in suit and all paving and encaustic tiles described in Tariff Schedule B, are made