under investigation. No more should it be denied the testimony of experts called to court and submitted to cross-examination. Other witnesses described the method of growth and characteristics of the merchandise in question. Many of them stated they sold it under the name of "endive." Numerous illustrative exhibits were introduced in evidence. We call attention particularly to illustrative Exhibit G, a bulletin published by the New York Agricultural Experiment Station, entitled "Culture and Forcing of Witloof Chicory"; and illustrative Exhibit I, a bulletin published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, entitled "Chicory and Endive", by H. H. Zimmerley, senior olericulturist, Division of Horticultural Crops and Diseases. Exhibit G states:

Witloof chicory is a salad plant little grown in America but of wide and extended use throughout Europe. It is an improved variety of the common chicory, Cichorium intybus Linn., a native of Europe but now found naturalized in many parts of this country and often a pernicious weed.

The chicories are often confused with the endives, Cichorium endivia Linn. They are closely related species but are distinct, the first being perennial, the latter generally annual, though sometimes biennial.

On plate 2 of Exhibit G will be found a photographic reproduction of the food stock and head of Witloof chicory about in the condition of Exhibit B in the instant case, while on plate 3 are found numerous heads which illustrate the imported commodity. We reproduce said plates 2 and 3 opposite this page as part of this decision. In illustrative Exhibit H the summary states:

Witloof chicory, known on the market as "French endive", is a high-priced salad plant, large quantities of which are imported from Belgium and France. On page 443 of this document it is stated:

Confusion is often caused by the fact that Witloof chicory is known on the market almost exclusively by the term French endive, and many seed catalogs are likewise listing Witloof chicory by the incorrect term French endive.

Illustrative Exhibit I, the bulletin of the United States Department of Agriculture, contains this introductory paragraph:

Chicory (Cichorium intybus) and endive (Cichorium endivia) are closely related botanically and belong to the same family as lettuce. The terms "chicory" and "endive" are frequently interchanged because the forced product of Witloof chicory has been erroneously named "French endive".

The author of this article has this to say of chicory:

Chicory, also known as succory, is a native of Europe where it has been used as a salad and pot herb for many centuries. In the United States it is grown principally as a salad crop and for its roots, which when dried and ground serve as an adulterant for coffee.

There are several distinct varieties adapted to specific uses. The tender green leaves of the wild variety are used extensively in Europe as a pot herb, and the roots are forced in darkness to furnish clusters of blanched leaves called "barbe

1

1, Heads from roots shown in Plate I: Left, too large; center, ideal: right, too small. 2, Compound head. 3, Forced roots, with crowns and heads.

de capucin." The thick-rooted varieties as Magdeburg, Brunswick, and Zealand are grown principally as a coffee substitute, and the Witloof, or Brussels Witloof variety is used as a forcing crop for the production of compact, crisp white heads called Witloof or French endive.

It is clearly established that the merchandise in question is the head or compact leaf body of a plant known as "Witloof chicory" whose scientific name is Cichorium intybus. It further appears that from a botanical standpoint it is incorrectly called endive, although it is commonly so termed. It is also established that it is used as a salad plant. It likewise appears from the definition found in standard works that the root of chicory is also known as chicory and that when dried and pulverized it is used as a coffee substitute. We refer to the following definitions:

Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language,

1933:

2. The root, which is roasted for mixing with coffee. Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary:

Chicory-A perennial herb of Europe, naturalized in the United States, with heads of large bright-blue flowers and dandelion-like root; succory. The roasted and pulverized root is used in adulterating coffee or as a substitute for it.

We are called upon to decide in the instant case whether a commodity as above described and defined is more specifically provided for under paragraph 776 as chicory, crude, or under paragraph 774 as a vegetable in its natural state. It will be observed that paragraph 776 encompasses articles known and used as coffee substitutes and adulterants, while paragraph 774 embraces vegetables, that is, plants that are eaten as vegetables-in other words, vegetables in the tariff sense. Clearly, the commodity under consideration is not used as a coffee substitute or as an adulterant, nor in the making of a coffee essence. On the other hand, the root of the plant, Cichorium intybus, is not only used in some localities as a vegetable but is used extensively, when dried and pulverized, as a coffee adulterant. If this commodity is to be classified for tariff purposes as crude chicory, considering its use, it is indeed in strange company if it be provided for in paragraph 776, because every other article therein enumerated is used as an adulterant for coffee, according to the Summary of Tariff Information, 1929, page 1461.

Both parties have invoked a consideration of the legislative history of this paragraph. In this connection we cite the case of the American Net & Twine Co. v. Roland Worthington, 35 L. ed. 821, 824, 141 U. S. 468, wherein the proper classification of flax or linen thread was involved. The tariff provisions provided for a duty of 40 per centum ad valorem for flax and linen thread. The law then carried a provision for 25 per centum ad valorem upon "seines and seine and

gilling twine." The question there was to which category the twine imported should be assigned. The court said amongst other things:

While the statements made and the opinions advanced by the promoters of the Act in the legislative body are inadmissible as bearing upon its construction, yet reference to the proceedings of such body may properly be made to inform the court of the exigencies of the fishing interests and the reasons for fixing the duty at this amount. Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 459 [25: 240, 243]; Blake v. National Banks of New York, 90 U. S. 23 Wall. 307, 317 [23: 119, 120]; The Collector v. Richards, 90 U. S. 23 Wall. 246, 258 [23: 95, 96]; Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586, 590 [30: 734, 736]; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 79 [23: 224, 228]. It seems that the duty upon seines was originally fixed at six and one-half cents per pound; when, upon representations of the fishermen upon the Lakes, who use seines and gill-nets which are only made of Scotch and Irish flax, and always from imported twine, that they were suffering from the competition of Canadian fishermen, who imported their twine free of duty and found a ready sale for their fish in American ports, also free of duty, an effort was made to put seines and seine and gilling twine on the free list; but the matter was finally compromised by fixing the duty at 25 percent ad valorem. Unless this be held to include the thread of which these gill-nets are actually made, the intention of Congress will evidently be defeated.

While in the absence of a more specific designation this article might properly be classed as linen thread, it is a familiar rule in revenue cases that, where Congress has designated an article by a specific name and imposed a duty upon it, general terms in the same Act, though sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it; in other words, the article will be classified by its specific designation, rather than under a general description. Homer v. The Collector, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 486 [17: 688]; Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112 [24: 766]; Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125 [24: 771]; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144 [24: 420]. We think the intention of Congress that these goods should be classified as "gilling twine", is plain; but were the question one of doubt, we should still feel obliged to resolve that doubt in favor of the importer, since the intention of Congress to impose a higher duty should be expressed in clear and unambiguous language. United States v. Isham, 84 U. S. 17 Wall. 496 [21: 728]; Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609 [30: 1012]; Gurr v. Scudds, 11 Exch. 190.

Here we have the complete rule. It gives authority for recourse to legislative history and also points out that when Congress has designated an article by its specific name and imposed duty upon it, general terms in the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. In other words, the article will be classified by its specific designation rather than under a general description.

In the instant case Congress has provided for chicory, crude. That term is certainly more specific and definite than vegetables in their natural state. It is observed that Mr. Justice Brown, in the American Net & Twine Co. case, supra, determined that the intent of Congress was that the merchandise there involved should be classified as gilling twine. Can we say in the instant case that because Congress specifically provided for chicory, crude, Congress intended that this commodity should be taxed at the rate provided therefor, rather than at the rate provided for vegetables in their natural state?