Opinion of the Court. order to follow it. A contract that is A contract that is open to such grave objection is clearly against public policy. But if neither of these evils ensue, and if the contract is founded on a valid consideration and a reasonable ground of benefit to the other party, it is free from objection, and may be enforced." Innumerable cases, however, might be cited to sustain the proposition that combinations among those engaged in business impressed with a public or quasi public character, which are manifestly prejudicial to the public interest, cannot be upheld. The law "cannot recognize as valid any undertaking to do what fundamental doctrine or legal rule directly forbids. Nor can it give effect to any agreement the making whereof was an act violating law. So that, in short, all stipulations to overturn-or in evasion of - what the law has established; all promises interfering with the workings of the machinery of the government in any of its departments, or obstructing its officers in their official acts, or corrupting them; all detrimental to the public order and public good, in such manner and degree as the decisions of the courts have defined; all made to promote what a statute has declared to be wrong, are void." Bishop on Contracts, 8549; Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co., 129 U. S. 643, decided at this term, opinion by Mr. Justice Field; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499; Arnot v. Pittston &c. Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558; Central Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666; Woodruff v. Berry, 40 Ark. 251, 261; H. & N. II. Railroad v. N. Y. & N. H. Railroad, 3 Robert. (N. Y.) 411; Craft v. McConoughy, 79 Ill. 346; Hooker v. Vandewater, 4 Denio, 349; Stanton v. Allen, 5 Denio, 434; Central Railroad v. Collins, 40 Georgia, 582; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Penn. St. 173. It is also too well settled to admit of doubt that a corporation cannot disable itself by contract from performing the public duties which it has undertaken, and by agreement compel itself to make public accommodation or convenience subservient to its private interests. "Where," says Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71, 83, "a corporation, like a railroad company, has granted to it by char Opinion of the Court. ter a franchise intended in large measure to be exercised for the public good, the due performance of those functions being the consideration of the public grant, any contract which disables the corporation from performing those functions, which undertakes without the consent of the State to transfer to others the rights and powers conferred by the charter, and to relieve the grantees of the burden which it imposes, is a violation of the contract with the State and is void as against public policy." These gas companies entered the streets of Baltimore, under their charters, in the exercise of the equivalent of the power of eminent domain, and are to be held as having assumed an obligation to fulfil the public purposes to subserve which they were incorporated. At common law corporations formed merely for the pecuniary benefit of their shareholders could, by a vote of the majority thereof, part with their property and wind up their business, but corporations to which privileges are granted in order to enable them to accommodate the public, and in the proper discharge of whose duties the public are interested, do not come within the rule. But we are not concerned here with the question when, if ever, a corporation can cease to operate without forfeiture of its franchises, upon the excuse that it cannot go forward because of expense and want of remuneration. There is no evidence in this record of any such state of case, and, on the contrary, it appears that the cost of the manufacture of gas was largely below the price to be charged named in the stipulation between the parties. There is nothing upon which to rest the suggestion that the companies were unable to serve the consumers, while the record shows, on the other hand, that they simply desired to make larger profits on whatever gas they might furnish." Nor are we called upon to pass upon the validity generally of pooling agreements. Here the contract was directly in the teeth of the statute, which expressly forbade the Equitable Gas-Light Company from entering into it. That prohibition declared the policy of the State as well as restrained the particular corpo ration. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibi Statement of the Case. tum has long since been exploded, and as "there can be no civil right where there can be no legal remedy, and there can be no legal remedy for that which is itself illegal,” Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539, it is clear that contracts in direct violation of statutes expressly forbidding their execution, cannot be enforced. The question is not one involving want of authority to contract on account of irregularity of organization or lack of affirmative grant of power in the charter of a corporation, but a question of the absolute want of power to do that which is inhibited by statute, and, if attempted, is in positive terms declared "utterly null and void." "The rule of law," said Parker, C. J., in Russell v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 35, 39, "is of universal operation, that none shall, by the aid of a court of justice, obtain the fruits of an unlawful bargain." We cannot assist the plaintiff to get payment for efforts to accomplish what the law declared should not be done, and the judgment must be Affirmed. ROBERTSON v. SALOMON. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 446. Argued January 16, 1889.- Decided April 15, 1889. In settling the meaning and application of tariff laws, the commercial designation of an article is the first and most important thing to be ascertained. When the commercial designation of an article fails to give it its proper place in the classification of a tariff law, then resort must be had to its common designation. In an action to recover back duties paid on an importation of white beans, which were classified at the Custom House as "vegetables," in the general category of "articles of food," it was error in the court to exclude evidence offered by the collector to prove the common designation of "beans" as "an article of food." THE case is stated in the opinion. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph H. Choate for defendants in error. Mr. Henry Edwin Tremain and Mr. Mason W. Tyler were with Mr. Choate on his brief. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action brought by the defendants in error against the collector of New York, to recover an alleged excess of duties on goods imported. The goods referred to were white beans, upon which the collector levied a duty of twenty per cent ad valorem, as garden seeds. This charge was paid under protest; the plaintiffs insisting that the article was exempt from duty under the free list, as seeds "not otherwise provided for," or, if not free, they were only dutiable at ten per cent, as "vegetables." The Treasury Department finally conceded that the beans did not properly come under the denomination of "garden seeds," and directed ten per cent to be refunded; but still insisted that they are liable to a duty of ten per cent as "vegetables," in the general category of "articles of food." The plaintiffs adhere to their first position that beans are free of duty, as seeds "not otherwise provided for;" and that is the only question here presented. The clauses of the law which are to be construed in determining the controversy are to be found in the last, customs duties act, passed March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, c. 121, as a substitute for Title XXXIII of the Revised Statutes. Among the various schedules attached to this act, classifying the articles subject to, or free from, import duties, is one entitled "Provisions," in which are enumerated, amongst other things, beef and pork, cheese, butter, lard, wheat, rye, barley, indian corn, oats, meal, flour, potato or corn starch, rice, hay, different kinds of fish, pickles, potatoes; vegetables in their natural state, or in salt or brine, not specifically enumerated or provided for in this act, vegetables prepared or preserved, currants, dates, fruits of various kinds, almonds, walnuts, peanuts, etc. Beans are not mentioned specifically in this list. If they are properly Opinion of the Court. classed under the term "vegetables in their natural state," they are subject to a duty of ten per cent, as contended for by the government. Under the head of "Free List-Sundries," we find amongst a great number of other miscellaneous articles, the following: "Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds not otherwise provided for, and seeds of all kinds, except medicinal seeds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." If the white beans imported by the plaintiffs are properly to be classified as "seeds," then they are free from all duty, as claimed by the plaintiffs. Schedule N, entitled "Sundries," contains a list of miscel laneous articles, (many of them articles of manufacture), subject to various rates of duty. The following is one of the items of this schedule: "Garden seeds, except seed of the sugar beet, 20 per cent ad valorem." If white beans are to be classed as "garden seeds" then the original decision of the collector was right. This decision, however, has been abandoned, and we think very properly. Although beans are often planted in gardens as seed, yet, as a product, and a commodity in the market, they are not generally denominated as "garden seeds," any more than potatoes, which are also sometimes planted as seed in gardens. The same consideration also ap plies in regard to the use of the more general term "seeds." We do not see why they should be classified as seeds any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term "vegetables." As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary, or can be produced. But on the trial, the parties deemed it important to introduce a great deal of testimony. The court, however, did not allow the defendant to prove the common |