470 FiEJPEBAIj aECjOBIBJl.; �The plaintiff's couusel makesravery ingenjouf and plausible argu- ment to show that the words "change in duties," in the clause in question, meang not a change ia the rate oi- duties made by law, but a change in the amount of dutics from whftteyer cause the amount of duties to be paid may be affected. But, after a careful considera- tion of the subject, I find myself unable to adopt that view. The word "duties," as used in thia clause, doubtless, meaiip the tax, charge, customs,. toll, or ta-riff levied by act of congress upon the goods; — in this case,, bags — inaported. �Congress, in its action upon the subject, regulates the duties, prop- erly so called, gonerally, if not always, expressly and directly by prescribing some uniform rate of duties, either specifie or ad valorem. And generally, doubtless, unless there is something in the surround- ing circumstances tp indicate a different sense, men, aiso, in their business transaction?;, and in ordinary conversation in speaking of the duties on imports, use the term with reference to the charge so directly and expressly imposed according to the rate and rule pre- scribed. They are spoken of and considered in their immediate, direct, and not in their remote or incidental relations. �We all know, as a matter of general, national, political, as well as legislative and statutory history of the country, that daring the late civil war the demands for large revenues induced frequent and con- tinuai changes in our revenue laws. The rates of duties, as well ap the subjects upon which they were imposed, were eonstantly changed, as necessity and experience suggested modifications, and these changes continued after the close of the civil war, as the demands for large revenues diminished, while we were getting l3ack to a peace basis again. These frequent changes in the laws imposing duties presented a new element of uncertainty for the mercbant to take into consideration in making con tracts to be fulfilled in the future, and, doubtless, the introduction of the clause in question had its origin in such a condition of things. The direct and usual, if not the only, mode of changing dufcies, wlien that is the purpose to be accomr plished, is to change the ra e, whether the duties are specifie or ad valorem, and the language adopted in the contracts, "change of duties." to provide agaiust these contingencies, is well adapted to the purposetiand was doubtlesu adopted with reference to such inten^ tional, direct, and express changes of duties. When the purpose of congress is to change the duties it manifeats that purpose bylegislat- ing directly upon the subject. If, in other legislation, it in some in- stances afiects the araounts of duties required to be paid, that effect ��� �
