220

Opinion of the Court.

the evidence complained of." The case is here on certiorari. 273 U. S. 685.

In support of the rulings below, the United States cites Commonwealth v. Ervine, 8 Dana (Ky.) 30; People v. Jacobs, 165 App. Div. 721; State v. Carta, 90 Conn. 79; People v. Boyd, 67 Cal. App. 292, 302; and People v. Steinmetz, 240 N. Y. 411. The arguments for admissibility to be gleaned from these cases are that the introduction of the withdrawn plea shows conduct inconsistent with the claim of innocence at the trial; that the plea is a statement of guilt having the same effect as if made out of court; that it is received on the principle which permits a confession of the accused in a lower court to be shown against him at his trial in the higher court; that it is not received as conclusive, and, like an extra-judicial confession, it is not sufficient without other evidence of the corpus delicti. It is sometimes likened to prior testimony of the defendant making in favor of the prosecution.

Other decisions support the petitioner's contention that a plea of guilty withdrawn by leave of court is not admissible on the trial of the issue arising on the substituted plea of not guilty. Heim v. United States, 47 App. D. C. 485; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107, 119; People v. Ryan, 82 Cal. 617; Heath v. State, 214 Pac. (Okla.) 1091. And see White v. State, 51 Ga. 286, 290; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 478. We think that contention is sound. A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extra-judicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence. Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences. When one so pleads

Opinion of the Court.

274 U.S.

he may be held bound. United States v. Bayaud, 23 Fed. 721. But, on timely application, the court will vacate a plea of guilty shown to have been unfairly obtained or given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence. Such an application does not involve any question of guilt or innocence. Commonwealth v. Crapo, 212 Mass. 209. The court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just. Swang v. State, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 212; State v. Maresca, 85 Conn. 509; State v. Nicholas, 46 Mont. 470, 472; State v. Stephens, 71 Mo. 535; People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458, 461; State v. Coston, 113 La. 717, 720; Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, § 747.

The effect of the court's order permitting the withdrawal was to adjudge that the plea of guilty be held for naught. Its subsequent use as evidence against petitioner was in direct conflict with that determination. When the plea was annulled it ceased to be evidence. By permitting it to be given weight the court reinstated it pro tanto. Heim v. United States, supra, 493. The conflict was not avoided by the court's charge. Giving to the withdrawn plea any weight is in principle quite as inconsistent with the prior order as it would be to hold the plea conclusive. Under the charge, if the plea was found not improperly obtained, the jury was required to give it weight unless petitioner was shown to be innocent. And if admissible at all, such plea inevitably must be so considered. As a practical matter, it could not be received as evidence without putting petitioner in a dilemma utterly inconsistent with the determination of the court awarding him a trial. Its introduction may have turned the scale against him. "The withdrawal of a plea of guilty is a poor privilege, if, notwithstanding its withdrawal, it may be used in evidence under the plea of not guilty." White v. State, supra, 290. It is beside the

mark to say, as observed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, that petitioner knew better than any one whether or not he was guilty and that under the evidence a plea of guilty was a reasonable thing. These suggestions might bear upon the weight of admissible evidence but they have no relation to the admissibility of a withdrawn plea.

Courts frequently permit pleas of guilty to be withdrawn and pleas of not guilty to be substituted. We have cited all the decisions, state and federal, which have come to our attention, that pass on the question here presented. The small number indicates that in this country it has not been customary to use withdrawn pleas as evidence of guilt. Counsel have cited no case, and we have found none, in which the question has been considered in English courts.

We think the weight of reason is against the introduction in evidence of a plea of guilty withdrawn on order of court granting leave and permitting the substitution of a plea of not guilty.

Judgment reversed.

MR. JUSTICE STONE concurs in the result.

UNITED STATES v. STONE & DOWNER COMPANY

ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS

APPEALS.

No. 150. Argued February 24, 1927. Decided May 16, 1927.

1. A judgment of the Court of Customs Appeals deciding the classification of goods and the duty upon their importation is not res judicata, estopping the Government, upon another importation of the same kind of goods by the same importer. P. 230. 2. This rule was established by the Court of Customs Appeals during the years succeeding its creation when its jurisdiction over such customs cases was exclusive and final, and for that reason and

Counsel for the United States.

274 U.S.

because of the wisdom of the rule as applied to the peculiar subject matter, this Court upholds it. P. 235.

3. In par. 18 of the Emergency Tariff Act of May 27, 1921, imposing duties on "wool, commonly known as clothing wool," the term

clothing wool" is to be interpreted in its natural and usual meaning of wool used in making clothing and not in its commercial or trade meaning of wool used in the carding process, as distinguished from that used in the combing process, in the making of yarn. P. 237.

4. The rule giving controlling weight to commercial or trade meanings of words designating particular kinds of goods in tariff acts, is but an aid in ascertaining the intent of Congress and must yield where the words used and the history and manifest object of the provision show clearly that other meanings were intended. Pp. 239, 247. 5. In this instance, the words "commonly known as," evince an intention to adopt the common meaning of "clothing wool," in accord with the purpose of Congress to protect the wool market in this country and increase the revenue, while acceptance of the trade meaning of "clothing wool" would permit combing wool, constituting one-half of the wool of which clothing is made, to be imported free of duty, in defeat of that purpose. P. 248.

6. Testimony of expert witnesses is admissible to prove the ordinary meaning of the terms "clothing wool," and "carpet wool," used in a tariff classification. P. 245.

12 Cust. Appls. 557, reversed.

CERTIORARI (269 U. S. 542) to a judgment of the Court of Customs Appeals which affirmed the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 8842, 46 T. D. 142, in classifying certain importations of wool in the fleece and in yarn and in cloth as entitled to free entry, under the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, and as not subject to duty as "clothing wool" and manufactures thereof, under paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Act of May 27, 1921. The judgment of the Board sustained protests of the importers against assessments made by the collector under the latter enactment.

The importations in this case were nine in number. In a previous case, not reviewed here, there were thirteen. See 12 Cust. Appls. 557; G. A. 8613; T. D. 141. The

225

Argument for Respondents.

issue was exactly the same in both cases, except that the thirteenth importation in the first case was conceded by all parties to come within pars. 18 and 19. By error, the opinion originally filed treated the second case as involving the same number of importations. A petition for rehearing was submitted and denied, but the error as to the number of importations was corrected by order of Court, October 10, 1927.

Mr. William W. Hoppin, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Lawrence were on the brief, for the United States.

Mr. Edward P. Sharretts for respondents.

Congress in prior tariff acts has recognized the classification of wool into clothing wool, combing wool and carpet wool. Tariff Act of 1867, c. 197, 14 Stat. 559; Tariff Act of 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488; Tariff Act of 1909, 38 Stat. 11. If it has been its purpose to designate wool used in the manufacture of wearing apparel, it is obvious that the term "clothing wool" would have been the last term adopted, knowing as it must be presumed Congress did know, its legislative history and the fact that this particular term was in general common use among those to whom the law was directed, and who would necessarily have to conduct their business under it.

The mere fact that the term is widely used, discussed and defined in official publications of the federal government, would in itself leave no doubt as to what Congress understood to be its scope and meaning. As late as May 26, 1924, the Treasury Department in a regulation required importers to classify clothing wool and combing wool separately on their customs entries. Cf. T. D. 40217 (45 Treas. Dec. 670); United States v. Buffalo Nat. Gas Fuel Co., 78 Fed. 110; aff'd 172 U. S. 339; Merck v.